The Supreme Court has finally weighed in on birthright citizenship, and to the frustration of conservatives across the nation, they got it wrong.
Simply saying that today is enough to invite endless ridicule from those who insist the Constitution plainly and unambiguously grants citizenship to anyone born on American soil. There is little interest in engaging with the intended purpose of the 14th Amendment, its historical context, or whether that interpretation serves the long-term interests of the nation. Yet the same people who demand a strictly literal reading of the 14th Amendment rarely apply that standard consistently to the rest of the Constitution.
For many Americans, this debate is about immigration policy. For me, it extends far beyond the 14th Amendment. It is about something much more fundamental: how we interpret the Constitution and the principles upon which our republic was founded.
The Left argues that the 14th Amendment must be read literally and at face value, while insisting that the 2nd Amendment requires endless nuance and reinterpretation.
Those positions are incoherent. They only make sense when viewed through the lens of political expediency.
So why isn't my position equally inconsistent? How can Republicans argue that the Second Amendment should be read literally, while saying birthright citizenship should not?
The answer is simple, if we're willing to be honest. My view begins with the Founders' understanding of the American system. The United States was founded on the principle of self-government. "We the People" determine our government and the direction of our nation's future.
The Second Amendment exists to preserve that principle. It is the safeguard against tyranny, and for that reason it should be read according to its plain meaning, without unnecessary burdens or reinterpretation.
Birthright citizenship is different. It directly conflicts with the principle of self-government. How can "We the People" determine our own future if we cannot define what it means to be a citizen?
The Declaration of Independence states: “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
If a political party can fundamentally subvert a populace by flooding the area with large-scale 3rd world immigration, financing it through existing taxpayers, and creating future voting blocs through government handouts, then the people gradually lose meaningful control over their own government. At that point, the nation is no longer, by any measure, self-governing. At what point have the definitions been so compromised that there is no way to define what the consent of the governed means?
Contrary to the opinions of online critics, you do not have to be a Supreme Court Justice to form and hold opinions on these foundational questions. I encourage every reader to do exactly that. Read the words of our Founding Fathers. Study the Constitution. Better yet, dive into the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers.
Form your own understanding, then have these conversations with your peers, your spouse, and your children. Engage in the debate. Get involved, and encourage those around you to do the same.
This is how we save our republic. We are a nation of self-government, and "We the People" ultimately determine the direction of our future.