An Odd Turn of Events

For well over a generation many conservatives have insisted on a strict interpretation of the Constitution. They have decried Roe v. Wade and the laborious stretching of the Constitution that led to it. They have protested against what they see as the abridgement of Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. In the case of gun rights, conservatives argue that the Second Amendment is unambiguous. The amendment states that the "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged." Only casuistry of the highest order has been able to find that the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" means no such thing.

Virtually every time the Court has read the Constitution broadly or interpreted it in a novel way, conservatives have howled. Yet, in a peculiar twist, some conservatives are abandoning their customary insistence on history, text, and intent in favor of an expansive, i.e. liberal approach.

A group of Republican state representatives from across the country is proposing legislation that would allow states to restrict state citizenship to legal residents and U.S. born people who meet certain criteria. One criterion proposed is as that a child born in the U.S. would need at least one parent without "allegiance to a foreign country" to be considered a citizen: a criterion with extensive ramifications for those who hold duel citizenship. They are seeking a new, broad interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment in hopes of stemming the rising flood of illegal immigrants. And they need a broad one indeed.

The Fourteenth Amendment states that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." It goes on to say that no state may abridge the rights bestowed by citizenship. There is nothing ambiguous there. All persons born in the United States are citizens of the United States. All persons born in a state are citizens of that state. The Amendment says nothing about the status of parents. It is clear that the Founders made no distinction between legal and illegal residents. When the Constitution was written there was no such thing as an illegal resident.

Despite that, a move is underway by many conservatives to stretch the Constitution and move beyond what is written the text. They are insisting that, despite what is written in the Constitution, state citizenship be granted only where people meet the state's definition of citizenship. The only wiggle room provided in the Fourteenth Amendment is the requirement that those born be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and that they reside in the state where they are born. That is not very much room at all. They might be able to snare border babies and those who are merely passing through but anyone who has stopped and pitched tent and has a child has given birth to a citizen.

Another proposal being put forward would ask states to provide birth certificates to distinguish between those born to legal immigrants from those born to illegal immigrants. The U.S. Constitution makes no such distinction. Every one born in the U.S. is a citizen of the U.S. Every person born in a state is a citizen of that state. Proposing as they are that states are allowed bestow citizenship only on those born to to immigrants in the country legally is as liberal an interpretation of the Constitution as any that has ever been made.

Text and tradition are against them. Nevertheless the movement is gaining steam. It is now conservatives that are insisting on a broad interpretation of the Constitution and ignoring the written word and original intent. They are the ones now engaging in constitutional gymnastics. It is indeed an odd turn of events.

If conservatives want to stem the tide of illegal immigration they should find another way than abusing the Constitution.

Real Progress

There is a paucity of minority candidates running for mayor in Dallas, Texas. In fact, according to the Dallas Morning News, there are no serious minority candidates for the job. Recent mayoral elections have had some. This year there are none.

Several reasons are proposed for the lack of minority candidates. One reason is the relatively poor pay that comes with the job. The mayor in Dallas earns only $60,000 a year. Political analyst Micheal Sorrel of Paul Quinn College in Dallas states that "There are few people out there ready to give up large sums of money in order to serve." Another reason given was the lack of power wielded by the mayor. Weak mayoral offices do not have the appeal that strong ones do. Real power in Dallas is held by the city manager.

If it is true that many potential minority candidates are unwilling to take a pay cut to serve in the relatively menial job of mayor it would be remarkable testimony to racial progress in Dallas.

What About The Others?

Last week, the 9/11 Health and Compensation Act was passed. The act provides $4.3 billion in additional health benefits to the first responders to the 9/11 attack. 343 firefighters lost their lives trying to put out the fires and evacuate people from the burning buildings. Many more were injured. 23 police officers and 15 EMTs also lost their lives. More than a few have, and are suffering due to health issues and psychological problems following the attacks. New York City Mayor, Michael Bloomberg hailed the passage of the act and Washington's action to "get this done for America." Not to do so, he added, would have been a "tragic failure."

The 9/11 attacks were terrible and the loss of life subsequent to those attacks was horrific. But to say the bill was passed for America is a stretch. The benefits of the bill are restricted to those injured and killed due to the attack and their families. No one else in the nation will benefit from it. Nearly 400 firefighters and rescue workers died in New York on 9/11. Across the nation, 105 other firefighters died that same year. More still were injured. Everyone one of those firefighters had people depending on them. Everyone of them had family and friends. They were all risking their lives and doing their job. Yet only those killed and injured at the World Trade Center merited federal attention.

Since 9/11 nearly 1,000 firefighters have died in the U.S. trying to put out fires and save lives. Many perished and were injured last year fighting forest fires out west. None of them or their families are in line for any federal compensation. If the act was truly passed for the benefit of America, as Bloomberg claims, it would take them into account, but it doesn't. The fact is it was passed for New York City. Bloomberg was just being modest. The New York City Health and Compensation Act might have been a harder piece of legislation to sell, but it would have been more accurate. Fire fighters and rescue workers elsewhere will have to wait until enough of them die or become ill before they get attention from Washington. But they will all have to die or become ill at once. A couple here or there won't be noticed.

It could just be that Mayor Bloomberg is one of those New Yorkers that confuse their city with the United States.