Ed.
note
(January
21,
2025):
In
light
of
Donald
Trump’s
recent
executive
order
revoking
birthright
citizenship,
consider
this
thorough
takedown
of
the
argument
from
2018.
When
you
attack
birthright
citizenship,
I
know
what
you
are
really
doing.
I
know
you
are
really
trying
to
lay
down
intellectual
covering
fire,
under
which
your
argument
for
white
nationalism
can
be
brought
to
the
masses.
I
know
you
are
afraid
of
the
browning
of
the
country,
I
know
you’ve
crunched
the
numbers
and
have
come
to
the
obvious
conclusion
that
you
can’t
deport
your
way
into
a
future
of
white
majorities.
I
know
you
have
two
options:
double
down
on
apartheid
rule,
or
strip
away
rights
from
non-white
people
who
you
can’t
stop
from
living
here.
The
Electoral
College
is
going
to
do
the
work
of
the
former,
so
when
you
come
for
birthright
citizenship,
I
know
you
are
fighting
for
the
latter
goal.
I
also
know
that
you
count
on
decent
people
being
too
weak
or
frightened
to
stand
up
to
you
when
you
try
to
infect
people
with
your
bigotry
and
stupidity.
You
can’t
get
an
op-ed
in
the
Washington
Post
if
you
titled
it
“America
Needs
To
Be
Ethnically
Cleansed
Of
Illegals.”
Somebody
over
there
would
notice
that
as
inappropriate.
But,
if
you
call
it:
“Citizenship
shouldn’t
be
a
birthright,”
well
the
Post
ran
that
very
piece
of
racist
drivel
yesterday.
I’m
sure
somebody
over
there
noticed
that
as
inappropriate
too…
but
somebody
else
probably
said,
“Hey,
there
are
good
people
on
both
sides.”
The
argument
against
birthright
citizenship
is
a
common
one
in
white
nationalist
circles.
But
unlike
most
of
their
stink,
this
one
comes
perfumed
with
an
air
of
Constitutional
interpretation.
That
thin
veneer
occasionally
gets
the
dumbass
argument
repeated
or
published
by
mainstream
sources,
because
otherwise
intelligent
and
upstanding
mainstream
non-lawyers
can
be
easily
intimidated
by
things
that
sound
like
they
have
some
basis
in
the
Constitution.
Essentially,
the
argument
comes
in
three
parts:
1.
The
original
Constitution
did
not
define
“citizenship.”
(Non-lawyer
mind
=
blown)
2.
Birthright
citizenship
stems
from
a
misinterpretation
of
the
Fourteenth
Amendment.
(Non-lawyer
mind
=
confused)
3.
Birthright
citizenship
encourages
illegal
immigration.
(Non-lawyer
mind
=
intrigued)
The
Post
op-ed
was
written
by
Michael
Anton,
a
former
Trump
national
security
adviser.
It
quotes
the
work
of
Edward
Ehler,
an
anti-immigration
author.
It
hits
all
of
these
classic
points.
1.
The
notion
that
simply
being
born
within
the
geographical
limits
of
the
United
States
automatically
confers
U.S.
citizenship
is
an
absurdity
—
historically,
constitutionally,
philosophically
and
practically.
2.
Constitutional
scholar
Edward
Erler
has
shown
that
the
entire
case
for
birthright
citizenship
is
based
on
a
deliberate
misreading
of
the
14th
Amendment.
3.
Practically,
birthright
citizenship
is,
as
Erler
put
it,
“a
great
magnet
for
illegal
immigration.”
This
magnet
attracts
not
just
millions
of
the
world’s
poor
but
also
increasingly
affluent
immigrants.
Usually,
these
central
premises
stand
unopposed.
Lawyers
don’t
fight
these
white
nationalists
on
the
law,
because
their
interpretation
is
so
stupid
that
it’s
barely
worth
their
time.
And
liberals
don’t
fight
on
the
law,
they
fight
on
the
policy
that
immigration
is
good
for
the
country,
a
point
on
which
there
is
overwhelming
evidence.
But,
I
have
the
time.
As
a
wise
man
once
said:
“If
the
milk
turns
out
to
be
sour,
I
ain’t
the
type
of
pussy
that’d
drink
it.”
1.
The
Constitution
didn’t
define
federal
citizenship,
because
it
was
taken
as
an
article
of
faith
that
citizenship
flowed
from
the
individual
states,
and
not
the
federal
government.
Our
entire
concept
of
“diversity
jurisdiction”
rests
on
the
concept
of
people
being
citizens
of
different
states
and
not
one
country
as
a
whole.
That
doesn’t
mean
that
the
Founders
thought
birthright
citizenship
was
“absurd.”
It
just
means
that
they
didn’t
think
it
was
their
call
to
make.
2.
The
Constitution
does
weigh
in
on
the
issue
with
the
Fourteenth
Amendment.
Everybody
agrees
that
the
whole
point
was
to
grant
citizenship
to
newly
freed
slaves,
citizenship
that
was
taken
from
them
by
the
Dred
Scott
decision.[1]
To
give
African-Americans
citizenship,
it
had
to
be
as
a
matter
of
birth.
There
was
no
other
way.
You
couldn’t
do
it
through
whether
their
parents
were
citizens,
because
Dred
Scott
said
their
parents
were
not.
You
couldn’t
do
it
as
a
one-time
grant
to
newly
freed
slaves,
because
that
would
leave
out
all
already
free
blacks.
The
only
way
to
do
the
thing
we
all
agree
they
were
trying
to
accomplish
was
to
make
citizenship
attach
upon
birth.
WHERE
IS
THE
MISINTERPRETATION?
These
white
assholes
keep
saying
that
we’re
misreading
the
Fourteenth
Amendment.
HOW?
The
writers
of
the
Fourteenth
Amendment
wanted
to
do
a
thing.
They
did
it
in
the
only
way
they
could.
THEY
WROTE
IT
DOWN.
Where’s
the
freaking
confusion?
If
you
pin
one
of
these
jerks
down,
they’ll
start
talking
about
Native
Americans.
The
Fourteenth
Amendment
didn’t
confer
citizenship
to
Native
Americans,
who
were
clearly
born
here,
and
thus,
they
argue,
citizenship
wasn’t
meant
to
be
a
birthright.
I
have
little
patience
for
people
who
use
our
racism
towards
the
First
Americans
to
justify
racism
towards
New
Americans,
but
there
you
go.
If
you
think
that
our
treatments
towards
Native
Americans
was
a
feature
instead
of
a
bug,
that’s
your
argument.
3.
Birthright
citizenship
is,
almost
exclusively,
a
“New
World”
phenomenon.
In
Europe
and
Africa,
citizenship
generally
flows
from
the
parents,
not
the
place
of
birth.
Why?
Well…
slavery.
Other
New
World
nations
had
the
same
problem
America
did
after
the
Civil
War.
Having
a
system
where
rights
flow
from
the
parents
is
UNWORKABLE
in
a
society
made
up
of
newly
freed
people.
Conversely,
European
colonists
wanted
their
kids
to
be
citizens
of
their
home
countries,
even
as
they
were
traipsing
about
the
world,
oppressing
others.
Almost
all
the
countries
in
the
Western
Hemisphere
tie
citizenship
to
the
land.
That
reality
means
we
can
test
the
white
nationalist
assumptions
that
birthright
citizenship
has
the
unintended
consequence
of
creating
a
perverse
incentive
for
illegal
immigration.
When
we
look
at
Europe
do
we
see
countries
that
are
free
from
the
challenges
presented
by
illegal
immigration?
No?
Then
I
think
these
white
nationalists
need
to
STFU
and
come
up
with
an
argument
that
is
grounded
in
REALITY.
*************************
This
stuff
isn’t
hard,
folks.
Birthright
citizenship
is
NOT
a
controversial
proposition.
Mainstream
media
is
hell-bent
on
creating
an
argument
where
there
isn’t
one,
in
their
endless
effort
to
normalize
white
supremacists.
Not
all
arguments
are
created
equal,
and
it
really
shouldn’t
be
too
much
to
ask
a
national
publication
like
the
Washington
Post
to
be
able
to
READ
THE
FIRST
SENTENCE
OF
THE
FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT
before
publishing
white
nationalists’
talking
points.
People
who
make
arguments
against
birthright
citizenship
are
racist,
dumb,
or
both.
Here
endeth
the
lesson.
[1]
As
an
aside,
it’s
an
article
of
faith
that
Dred
Scott
necessitated
the
Fourteenth
Amendment,
but
you
could
just
as
easily
argue
that
Dred
Scott
was
wrong
on
the
law
at
the
time
it
was
decided.
Maybe
if
we
weren’t
so
quick
to
excuse
racist
white
men
as
“trapped
by
their
times,”
we’d
more
easily
recognize
that.
Citizenship
shouldn’t
be
a
birthright
[Washington
Post]
Elie
Mystal
is
the
Executive
Editor
of
Above
the
Law
and
the
Legal
Editor
for
More
Perfect.
He
can
be
reached
@ElieNYC
on
Twitter,
or
at
[email protected].
He
will
resist.