They see restrictive citizenship as politically advantageous
If you thought birtherism and attacks on black citizenship were a flash in the pan for conservatives, you are wrong. An official resolution of the The National Federation of Republican Assemblies (NFRA) recently argued that Kamala Harris and other candidates “whose parents were not American citizens at the time of their birth” are not eligible to run for president. Shockingly, they base their legal arguments on the infamous Dred Scott vs. Sanford case to justify the exclusion of a black candidate.
For those unfamiliar with the case, Dred Scott and his wife Harriet sued for their freedom in the St. Louis Circuit Court in the spring of 1846. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court halted their efforts. Since “his ancestors were imported from Africa and sold as slaves, he is not a citizen of the State of Missouri” and as such “is not entitled to sue,” the justices argued. Their decision extended to “any free negro of the African race, whose ancestors were brought into this country and sold as slaves.” While some enslaved people successfully sued for their freedom, such as Elizabeth Key Grinstead in 1656 and Elizabeth Freeman in 1781, Dred Scott vs. Sandford The case was a brutal legal attack on the abolition movement and a setback that resulted in the courts no longer recognizing blacks as citizens.
Although the first Africans arrived in the Spanish colony of Florida in 1513 and in the British colony of Virginia in 1619, their status as slaves initially excluded this group from citizenship. The interpretation shared in Dred v. Stanford expanded this exclusionary interpretation of the U.S. Constitution to suggest that neither freedom nor birthplace made someone a citizen, especially when the status of their parents was involved. The mere fact that someone had enslaved African ancestors was enough to strip someone of citizenship, according to Chief Justice Roger B. Taney. In Kamala Harris’ case, some Republicans believe she was ineligible because of her parents’ status. Of course, Taney’s exclusionary citizenship ended generations ago with the passage of the 14th Amendment. This Reconstruction-era law declared that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States” are “citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside, making blacks, even those of enslaved African ancestry, full citizens.” To the chagrin of some, this legal status extends to the children of immigrants.
Dred v. Stanford is widely considered one of the worst decisions in U.S. Supreme Court history because of its implications. This case stripped Black people of their humanity and expanded federal authority to maintain the system of slavery. Their decision is a cautionary tale about the impact of originalist legal interpretations. When the country was founded, only white, landowning men were allowed to vote and serve as elected officials, and there were no official standards for citizenship. Some of the “founding fathers” — European colonists like Thomas Jefferson — enslaved Africans and displaced indigenous groups in pursuit of westward expansion. So, in the modern era, if we narrow our interpretation, we risk regressing and becoming more exclusionary, which is troubling given the diverse racial and ethnic makeup of Americans.
Debates continue over who should and should not be granted American citizenship. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, Lindsey Graham and former President Donald Trump, for example, signaled that they want to abolish citizenship by birth. Of course, we should not miss the irony that Donald Trump’s mother, Mary Anne MacLeod, was a Scottish immigrant who received citizenship just a few years before he was born. And then there is the fact that Trump’s wife, Melania, did not receive citizenship until July 28, 2006, months after the birth of their son, Barron Trump. Their standard would mean that not even Trump’s youngest son could become president—an obvious but unintended contradiction that arises from efforts to exclude some black and ethnically diverse candidates. This failure is likely due to the preferential treatment often given to white immigrants of European descent. As author and civil rights activist Charles Kamasaki noted, “from the early 20th century through the 1960s, millions of predominantly white immigrants entered the country illegally without fear of arrest or deportation.” In his article in Brookings, he called U.S. immigration policy a “classic, overlooked example of structural racism.”
While many Americans view Dred Scott v. Stanford as yesterday’s news, a terrifying case to stare at, we must wake up and see the truth in order to distance ourselves from slavery-era racist views. As their platform suggests, some see the justices’ exclusionary view of citizenship as politically advantageous, a way to keep a black candidate off the ballot. This discourse comes against the backdrop of national immigration debates, with some supporting a path to citizenship and protections for immigrants while others want to make it harder for immigrants to come here. Although all white Americans are immigrants, there are efforts to crack down on more recent immigrants, particularly from outside Europe. Before any changes are made or even officially proposed by a major political party, we should consider the value of the 14th Amendment.
This law extended citizenship to four and a half million formerly enslaved Africans, setting a new standard for citizenship for the first time in the country’s history. Most citizens today, regardless of race or ethnicity, received their status through birthright. And if that legal standard fell, the country could find itself in uncharted waters, as some would advocate for various forms of racial, ethnic, and geographic restrictions. Throughout the civil rights movement, activists and scholars argued that Blacks and other marginalized groups were entitled to constitutional protections. Without citizenship, however, the promise of equal protection could be abandoned entirely. While the restrictive citizenship movement is rooted in a xenophobic ideology that Americans should fear foreigners, this aspiration also has racist implications. Throughout history, Blacks without “birthright” status have been denied the protections of the law, as seen in Dred Scott v. Stanford. And the fact that some Republicans now see the legal arguments of the anti-slavery judges as a legitimate means of removing a black candidate from the ballot is worrying. It is a sign that some Americans have no interest in looking forward together. They prefer what they see in the rearview mirror.
This article originally appeared on Medium and is edited and republished with permission from the author. Read more of Allison Gaines’ work on Medium.
