The revered 14th Amendment recalibrated the disheartening 1857 decision rendering African Americans ineligible for American citizenship. Critics argue that President Trump’s suggestion mires this historical triumph. Trump’s executive order signed recently, tethers the freedom of automatic citizenship for children born on American soil to the legal status of their parents. This audacious move sparked some reflections on similar efforts in the past.
Three decades back, a bill echoing rhymes of President Trump’s recent executive order concerning birthright citizenship was deliberated by Congress. It sought to bestow the right of citizenship conditionally, i.e., only on children whose parents were legally residents in the United States. However, history has evidenced that such bills periodically surface but seldom make a lasting mark.
The Citizenship Reform Act of 1995 grabs attention more due to the resonance it aroused, rather than its own mettle. One among the quoted critics of this bill was a sharp-minded lawyer, Walter Dellinger. Engaged with the Office of Legal Counsel, an esteemed segment of the Justice Department that provides legal advice for the executive branch, Mr. Dellinger was a scholar of the Constitution.
Dellinger went on record addressing a crucial question that he considered hardly worth the effort – the constitutionality of proposed bills like these. He stated, ‘Challenging and contentious issues of constitutional law often cross my desk. However, the constitutionality of this bill does not pose such a challenge. Its defiance of the Constitution is beyond all doubts.’
Dellinger’s statement preceded the recent one from Judge John C. Coughenour of the Federal District Court in Seattle. While presiding over the hearing before issuing a temporary restraining order against Trump’s proposal, Judge Coughenour couldn’t hold back his disbelief. He stated, ‘In my professional life that spans more than four decades, rarely have I encountered a case where the problem at hand is as crystal clear as this one. Trump’s order is an unabashed assault on the Constitution.’
As per Dellinger’s stance in 1995, any attempt to curb birthright citizenship would necessitate a constitutional amendment. This was his prologue to a more profound reflection on such changes being a disastrous compromise on the American values that emerged victorious in the Civil War.
In his articulate expression, Dellinger shared, ‘Adopting such an amendment may not be technically illegal. Nevertheless, it would unquestionably be an antithesis to our constitutional ethos and the journey we have collectively made.’ However, opposing voices would argue that this is overstatement or undue criticism of proposed changes.
These criticisms, after all, are undermining the audacity of President Trump’s intention to revisit constitutional interpretations. Trump certainly isn’t the first President to provoke such seismic shifts on constitutional questions. However, the earnestness with which he embraces this challenge, combined with his determination to secure the country’s borders, is truly unique.
It’s noteworthy that the proposed executive order resembles efforts in the past, however, its significance under Trump’s administration goes beyond surface impressions. While critics have been quick to point at alleged discrepancies with constitutional law, there’s a broader argument behind the President’s directive.
Trump’s decision is a statement on immigration reform. It is an expression of a looming necessity to curate smarter policies and overhaul an antiquated system. As such, it reflects a daring that is characteristic of Trump and has defined his tenure thus far.
Challenges against this executive order portray it in stark contrast to the 14th Amendment’s spirit of inclusivity. However, they fail to appreciate the context in which this order is proposed. They negate the uncomfortable truth about the diverse challenges that beleaguer the United States’ complex immigration issue.
Moreover, they completely underestimate the support from a sizable section of the populace who share Trump’s view on tightening immigration rules and making citizenship a more judicious process. Despite the vocal criticisms, Trump’s push towards this goal reflects a sentiment held by many who believe in stricter immigration policies.
So, when detractors deem this move as contradictory to our constitutional history, it becomes imperative to discuss the barriers that antiquated legal parameters can impose on an evolving society. Constitutional traditions are meant to be frameworks, but do we let them become shackles?
Trump’s order nudges us to discern the delineation between holding onto traditional interpretations and the need for possible adaptations in the face of sociopolitical evolution. And in this endeavor, it’s important not to read an immovable rigidity into the complex canvas of constitutional laws.
Needless to say, Trump’s proposal was preceded by similar discourses in the past. However, just like President Trump himself, it surely will not be the last such discourse. What sets it apart is an audacious quest to rethink and revisit long-held and perhaps complacent interpretations.
In essence, the discussions set afoot by Trump’s proposed executive order are certainly not to be discounted or subsumed under the banner of convention. Leveraging the opportunity, it stimulates a necessary discourse, advocating a fresh look at prevailing legal interpretations in the light of contemporary sociopolitical exigencies.