Claudia Melendez

Straight from the Antebellum days comes this gem from Rep. Nathan Deal (R-Ga), who wants to return to Tara and deny birthright citizenship, effectively targeting the children of undocumented immigrants.

Mind you, it's not the first time that the Gentleman from Georgia has proposed this measure. And given the balance in Congress, its chances of getting anywhere are slimmer than Angelina Jolie - but given other relevant news of the week, it's worth to place the bill in perspective.

Proponents of the Birthright Citizenship measure argue that the 14th amendment, the basis for granting citizenship to anyone who's born in this country, was never meant to be used to include undocumented immigrants. Rather, they argue, the amendment was used to give freed slaves citizenship rights. And with illegal immigration at an all-time-high, and with the persistent argument that immigrants come here for all the benefits they can reap, denying citizenship to their children is suppose to act as a deterrent.

There are a lot of holes in this argument, but I'll just poke my finger through two of them: if birthright citizenship encourages illegal immigration, how come droves of Africans still risk their lives to cross into the European Union, the jus-sanguine leader par excellence?

If it's benefits - and not work - that attract immigrants to this country, how come immigration levels have noticeably dropped since the U.S. economy went bust?

But the argument proponents of birthright citizenship use - that it was meant for blacks and not for undocumented immigrants - sounds a lot like the one the Supreme Court used to deny blacks, freed and enslaved, the right to be citizens of this country.
 
In the ghastly Dred Scott v. Sandford, the all-white court, led by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, decided that all blacks - enslaved as well as free - were not and could never become citizens of the United States. Justice Taney deduced that, where it read "all men are created equal" in the Declaration of Independence, that "the enslaved African race were not intended to be included, and formed no part of the people who framed and adopted this declaration. . . ."

In other words, just like the Declaration of Independence was not really intended for "all men," the 14th amendment is not intended for "all persons born or naturalized in the United States." Talk about déjà vu all over again.

Consider the consequences of denying citizenship by birth. The Pew Hispanic Center released today a study that reveals that more than 1.5 million children in Latino families have at least an undocumented parent. It doesn't mention how many are born of two undocumented parents, and Deal's proposal would only apply to children with two parents illegally in the United States. If his proposal were to be approved today, we would be looking at hundreds of thousands of children with no legal status in this country.

Who would be served by raising a generation of children in legal limbo? I'll tell you who: all those who benefit from cheap labor. By cutting off immigrant children from access to a future of full participation in this country, they would have no choice but to turn to low-wage jobs with little chances of advancement. Either that or join gangs, in which case, it's the prison system that benefits.

In both scenarios, it's the slave owners who win.

The good news is that, with Sonia Sotomayor in the Supreme Court, such legislation would never remain on the books. Maybe that's why she's being opposed with such virulence by the extreme right. Could it be that they prefer someone like Justice Taney in her place?