In the question period after my recent slavery talk, someone asked, weren’t even Northern whites, after the Civil War, very racist?
Wow. What generosity of spirit. (You won’t find this mentioned in Howard Zinn’s rancid book, A People’s History of the United States.)
Birthright citizenship was actually not an obvious concept at the time, nor is it even today, in many countries. This was a truly radical enactment.
But there was more:
Equal protection of the laws – a concept at the very heart of the American idea. The Fifth Amendment had already applied it to the federal government, but the concern in the 14th was to protect ex-slaves, against injustices by state authorities. (And note that it extends the protection not just to citizens, but to “any person.”)
And still further, the amendment contains this little gem, in Section 2: if, in any state, the right to vote is denied to any citizens, “or in any way abridged,” its congressional representation shall be reduced proportionately!
Nevertheless, the 14th Amendment is a thing of great beauty. It burns with a crystal flame. It embodies the essence of what this wonderful country is all about. Its enactment leaves me awestruck at the broadmindedness and high moral purpose of the Americans of the time.
So you might think this amendment would be held sacrosanct – especially by people who spout talismanic reverence for the Constitution. But no. In fact, I doubt the amendment could pass today. Some Republicans, including several presidential contenders, call for repealing part of it. What a sad contrast with the Republicans of 1868. (So Trump “says what he really thinks.” Unfortunately what he thinks is disgusting.)
It’s birthright citizenship they hate. This is how far their anti-immigrant hysteria has gone. It’s not madness enough to build a wall, nor even to try to deport 11 million productive residents. Now they want to deny citizenship to people born here. Think how crazy this is. If not every child born here is automatically a citizen, then what makes your child a citizen?
But all this, like almost all talk of amending the constitution for various pet causes, is empty posturing, given the high ratification bar which, again, requires a broad national consensus.