Birthright Shittizenship

These three and a half men are really bad guys.

The most appalling decision the Supreme Court made yesterday was the one that came down on the correct side, the righteous side that supported the single most important principle upon which this country was founded, the one that codified basic human dignity and equality. It is the principle that sets us apart from almost all the other countries in the world, even other modern democratic societies.

The problem was not the decision itself, but the rot deep at its core. Three and a half dissenters were willing to run the U.S. Constitution through a shredder, out of obeisance to Donald Trump and the fetid nihilistic worldview he is trying to imprint on this country and beyond. That is how far we are falling. We have not thudded into the ground quite yet but we are approaching fast.

This should not be lost in the news churn: Four of the five and a half people who saved us from this were women, the only women on the court.

You know the case. It’s about Trump’s ham-fisted attempt to uproot the Fourteenth Amendment and retract the principle of birthright citizenship — and do it unilaterally, by presidential fiat, because he wanted to and thought he could get away with it. This plan’s originator, and the driving force behind it, is the thin-lipped, fanatical political eugenicist Stephen Miller. The plan was so obviously in defiance of the Constitution — and the defense of it so so paltry and so nakedly dishonest — that it was basically laughed out of every lower court that addressed it. Until it hit the Supremes. This case was so important to Donald Trump that he attended the oral arguments, sitting in the front row, glowering at his appointees like a mob boss at the trial of a suspected stool pigeon, daring them to cross him.

You can get the details of the case all over the news media today. What I want to talk about is the principle behind birthright citizenship, and the moral stance that undergirds it. It is the same stance embodied by the Statue of Liberty — a defiant stance against, literally, the rest of the world. You got your dirty, oppressed “undesirables” out there? Fine, we’ll take ‘em. They make us strong and supple and rejuvenate us, decade by decade, century by century. We are not snobs. Our national anthem, unlike, say, France’s, does not threaten to water our fields with the “impure” blood of our enemies.

We’ll take ‘em. And then take pride in what they are and what their children and their children’s children’s children become. Our children grow up with them and are broadened by the experience.

The idea is so quintessentially American. It defines American exceptionalism. It is the official rejection of heredity as a measure of worth — full stop. This country was founded in rebellion against a society where lineage determined status— there were kings and commoners, aristocrats and peasants. Birthright citizenship is anti-aristocratic. It says that genealogy does not define or determine your acceptance, and has no influence whatsoever on your belonging.

Other countries have adopted, but later rejected, birthright citizenship in waves of conservatism and xenophobia over the last half century — the same process we have seen in Trumpian times in the United States. It is a global distaste for foreigners, and it is as old, and as dirty, as dirt. It attaches to whoever the contemporary scapegoat class seems to be. It once was the Asians. Italians. Jews. Now it is Muslims and Black people and Latinos, mostly. Countries ruled by the will of the people can also be ruled by the passing prejudices of the people, riled up by demagogues who amass power by stoking fear. It’s become so common, and so subtly frightening, that we have attached a euphemism to soften these people: “Populists.” Sounds pleasant. Egalitarian. They’re popular. … aren’t they?

They are demagogues.

Other than the United States, among modern democracies only Canada and Mexico and a few countries of South America — countries similarly birthed in rebellion against aristocracies — still retain largely unrestricted birthright citizenship. In geopolitical terms, it’s called “jus soli” — right of the soil. The alternative “jus sanguinis” — right of the blood — is much more common globally and has swept across Europe. It’s understandable. But it is not attractive.

The three and a half shitheads pictured above are puppets of a demagogue. They are the three and a half most reactionary justices. That’s Samuel Alito, whose home sported a “Stop the Steal” flag supporting the January 6 rioters, and Clarence Thomas, who takes huge bribes gifts from wealthy cronies, and Neil Gorsuch, who falsified financial disclosure forms to hide a sweetheart real estate deal he made with a lawyer who comes before his court.

The half man is Brett Kavanaugh. We know about him: his tremble-chinned self-pitying tantrums during his testimony, and Squee, his high school friend and all the sordid things that entailed. Kavanaugh sided with the majority decision — not on the constitutional grounds, but on some flapdoodly procedural pretext that might save him from full Trumpian wrath. Kavanaugh seemed to agree that it is okay to flush the Constitution.

Do you want to know how intellectually dishonest this whole thing is? Right-wing Republicans are furious at this decision. Pig-biting mad. But the official documents of the Republican National Committee specifically cite the Fourteenth Amendment — the great legacy of Abraham Lincoln — as one of the party’s most glorious historical accomplishments. This is the very first line of the Fourteenth Amendment:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

—

Today’s Gene Pool Gene Poll:

Because of recent decisions handed down by the Supreme Court that appall progressives, there has been a growing drumbeat among Democrats to “pack the court.” That means using a hoped-for new Democratic congressional majority in 2028 to add three or five new seats on the court, to be appointed by the new Democratic president. Another idea is to institute term limits for the job, which now is a lifetime appointment. The arguments pro and con are formidable. Both actions would seem to be permitted under the Constitution. What do you think about these proposals?

—

Okay, good.

I’m hoping for robust discussions in The Mailbag.

—

And finally, you know the drill. It’s annoying, and it squeals and whines, but it’s important.

The drill

In short, this is how I make my living these days. If you agree with me, and have the means, please consider daring to become a paying subscriber.