Advertisement

Supported by

Carlos Lozada

By Carlos Lozada

Opinion Columnist

Consider the idea of a birthright. Historically, it has been an exclusionary concept: a title of nobility passed on to the firstborn male, an inheritance of wealth and status, a claim to land that must remain within a family or a clan. A birthright, by definition, belongs to one person at the expense of someone else. It is not shared.

It is “mine,” not “ours.”

America’s tradition of birthright citizenship — specified in the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, passed and ratified after the Civil War — upends that understanding. The American birthright is encompassing rather than exclusionary. It is, by definition, for all. Though the United States is hardly the only country to grant citizenship to those born within its borders, the practice has become an essential trait of our national character.

The old notion of birthright reinforces class division, even class oppression. America’s birthright, in contrast, is a source of equality before the law, a starting point for the pursuit of happiness. The 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause is not just in the Constitution; it identifies the source of the document’s enduring legitimacy. If the Constitution was ordained and established by “we the people,” then it helps to know who counts among the people, who is included in that “we.”

During its first days, the Trump administration announced several orders and policies that would radically transform America’s posture toward immigration — blocking asylum seekers at the southern border, deploying the U.S. military to help seal that border, cracking down on undocumented immigrants already in the country and suspending the entry of refugees from around the world, as well as rejecting the principle of birthright citizenship. This last effort, in particular, seems unlikely to survive judicial scrutiny: More than 20 states have immediately challenged the citizenship order, and a federal judge in Seattle has temporarily blocked it, calling it “blatantly unconstitutional.”

Yet it is that very unlikelihood that renders the administration’s action especially noteworthy. In trying to unmake this American birthright, President Trump is doing much more than taking control of the border or creating a disincentive for future immigrants to the United States. He is seeking to limit and redefine that “we” that makes up America. He doesn’t have to win this battle right away (though I am sure he’d like to). By questioning birthright citizenship at all, he aims to erode its legitimacy. By tossing it into the political and judicial fray, he succeeds in having the American birthright bruised and weakened.

The text of the executive order is impressive in its sleight of hand. The title, Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship, is the precise opposite of what the document seeks to accomplish. Trump’s order does not protect the meaning of citizenship but threatens it. His order does not enhance the value of citizenship but cheapens it by making it conditional rather than universal. The order calls U.S. citizenship a “priceless and profound gift.” It is indeed priceless and profound. But describing it as a “gift” gives the game away. After all, the recipient of a gift has no prior right to it, no claim to uphold; the gift is bestowed at the whim of the giver.

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” the 14th Amendment begins, “are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.” Immigrants to this country can strive to become U.S. citizens — establishing residence, filling out forms, passing tests, swearing oaths — but their native-born children gain that status automatically. “Persons born” here need not swear an oath; their citizenship is instantly conveyed, their allegiance automatically assumed. It need not be earned or demanded, and it is not doled out selectively through the benevolence of a fickle........

© The New York Times