Skip to main content

In Defense Of The Immigration Restrictionists (Sort Of)

 Recent data gathered together by my internet friend James Heaney suggests that 15 percent of the people you might run into (or more) these days may not actually have permission to be in the United States right now. 15 percent is a lot. When I saw the numbers, I was shocked. Me personally? I don’t care. Every immigrant I’ve ever met seems awesome. But let’s say you weren’t sure at even a minimum level that a group of people were committed to a basic posture of nonviolence, or to treat women equally and justly? What if people bring a culture here that’s nothing like ours? Forget skin color or religion, per se. If people don’t commit to basic American values and attitudes, it wouldn’t take much to cause some serious friction that wouldn’t just go away. You can’t just wish all that away with some nice words about equality. That’s about as gracious as I can be toward President Trump and his purpose for being a politician. The last time we had so many outsiders as a proportion of all of us was about 1850. 

Lo and behold, right around there, we had a nasty war, because basic dignity and equality before the law wasn’t as obvious a concept to the ones who rebelled. The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to our Constitution were the direct result of that war, and the ongoing attempts to subjugate people who began to exercise the rights inherent to all human beings, and secondarily, rights recognized to belong to citizens of the United States. I say “recognized” because, even if classical liberalism sucks and is incompatible with Christianity, governments do not grant rights; a just government recognizes the rights of people, and acknowledges the limits of its own power, relative to people.

“Subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is both broad and precise, to prevent federalism from being used against legitimate citizens of the United States. Birthright citizenship at the time was a simple recognition that British common law could not be used against British subjects’ children, even if those subjects were sanctioned criminals. To deny citizenship to those born in US territory as children of slaves now liberated would have tragically created another underclass of subjugated people. But like the British Empire, the sun never sets on the United States. To paraphrase Mufasa, everything the light touches is the American land of freedom. The broadness of the 14th amendment’s language recognizes that the many cannot deny opportunities to the few, even for apparently good reasons.

To be totally fair to the dissent and partial dissents, no ordinary person is owed the privilege of citizenship, just by wanting it. Also, there is a non-trivial question of whether the executive violated the 14th amendment, or simply US federal code (much more easily changed).

I’ll be frank to say that the full dissent from Justice Thomas is borderline incomprehensible, especially for someone so purportedly devoted to the Constitution and to relevant statutes subsequent to it. I also admit that I have never yet been persuaded to re-think anything by Justice Thomas.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

We Don't Need No Magisterium: (Jason's Version) (But Actually, We Do)

Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con...

Dear Alyse

 Today, you’re 35. Or at least you would be, in this place. You probably know this, but we’re OK. Not great, but OK. We know you wouldn’t want us moping around and weeping all the time. We try not to. Actually, I guess part of the problem is that you didn’t know how much we loved you. And that you didn’t know how to love yourself. I hope you have gotten to Love by now. Not a place, but fills everything in every way. I’m not Him, but he probably said, “Dear daughter/sister, you have been terribly hard on yourself. Rest now, and be at peace.” Anyway, teaching is going well, and I tell the kids all about you. They all say you are pretty. I usually can keep the boys from saying something gross for a few seconds. Mom and I are going to the game tonight. And like 6 more times, before I go back to South Carolina. I have seen Nicky twice, but I myself haven’t seen your younger kids. Bob took pictures of the day we said goodbye, and we did a family picture at the Abbey. I literally almost a...

Who Is Out Here Having Sex And Children With People They Don’t Like?

 And look, I’m not married. I’ve never been married. I have no children. I didn’t choose that; things just worked out that way. If you must know, I haven’t had sexual intercourse either. I probably should say “coitus,” so I am not arguing with some progressive activist about what “sexual intercourse” means. But I figured out from influencer videos or something what a “dead bedroom” was. Unless a couple mutually agrees that they don’t want to have sex/coitus anymore (hopefully to pray and serve) this is usually bad. I’ve known enough couples that it’s probably an indicator of trouble, especially for couples who are still able to have children. Is it really that wild to at least hope that Mr. and Mrs. Vance love each other? That a fourth child yet born at least might indicate that they enjoy each other?  Children are definitely not responsible for their parents’ happiness. That’s absolutely true. But wouldn’t any child hope their parents were happy, when they came into being? As...