When the Supreme Court ruled that citizenship under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution was generally a birthright, there are those that immediately second guessed the Court by tagging immigrants with the “anchor baby” motivation and argue that reason as the grounds for doing the opposite. As for me, I am surprised that the Court was not unanimous in sustaining citizenship by birth.
I say this because it is more than just about the 14th Amendment. It is about the founding of our republic by British subjects that changed their loyalty and about the Constitution that assumes the legal status of citizenship long before clarification by the 14th Amendment.
It is also about something not talked, that deals with regional allegiances, such as the American South, that affects the question of citizenship. This issue conveys a history of legal uncertainty but can be seen more in the emotional and identity attachment to regions that still exist today.
It was immigrants and the children of immigrants that founded the framework of American political life. Without them we would not have the country we have today.
The American Revolution was conducted by mostly British subjects, many of whom were recently arrived or from families that moved to America because they were disenchanted with life in the old country. The thirst for the new vision they fought for was as large as the continent to which they immigrated.
The fight for independence was not some kind of abrupt decision made by a group that got together somewhere and decided that things were so bad that a radical solution was necessary. Rather, the endeavor began as an effort to deal with the issue of being forgotten and ignored by a country involved in endless wars of conquest rather than extending organic political representation across the Atlantic and promoting the model of liberty that the colonist felt was in their heritage.
The Declaration of Independence and the war that followed was a time of change from the notion of being an extension of England to becoming masters of their own land. At the same time, the question of citizenship was also an altering balance in transition.
That is, British subjects in fact were revoking their citizenship in favor of something else. Becoming an American was to be both a legal process as well as an evolving sense of national identity.
We also saw a period when citizenship and identity clashed to a breaking point as Southerners chose loyalty to their state instead of the nation. After the Civil War and Reconstruction, they regained their citizenship, but affective identity with their heritage is still a barrier to a united America.
In my family there are instances where a mother lived in Mexico but had some of her children in the United States. In her case, the idea of having “anchor babies” did not seem to be the focus of her interest, otherwise she would have had all her children in this country.
The issue of “anchor babies” is a red herring designed to vilify the immigrant community. The literature is clear on the general motivation of immigrants throughout the history of the United States as it documents work opportunity and prosperity as the main reason people come to America.
In many immigrant families, citizenship is something left to another time, to their children and to the generations that follow. Most know that citizenship is both a birthright and an identity process that creates the necessary bond that is part of the great American story.
The views expressed by David Conde are not necessarily the views of LaVozColorado. Comments and responses may be directed to News@lavozcolorado.com.
