Home / Opinion / Commentary / Are you sure we should reinterpret the 14th Amendment?

Are you sure we should reinterpret the 14th Amendment?

If you’ve studied the 14th Amendment and determined that it’s been misinterpreted, then you have plenty of company among those who believe only children of native-born or naturalized citizens should be granted citizenship.

But let’s examine where that leaves you.

There is the U.S. Constitution, as interpreted by the federal courts, which does not agree with you. Neither the Arizona Legislature nor a simple majority in Congress can amend the U.S. Constitution. To amend the Constitution you need a two-thirds vote of Congress and the backing of three-fourths of the states.

I know it’s frustrating when the process does not readily give you the answers you wish, but there never was any intention that the Constitution could be easily amended.

Or you can figure out a way to get a case before a federal judge, with the hope that he or she might reverse long-standing precedents. And if you have ever spoken out against activism in the judicial system, you may want to re-consider this option because, in view of the precedents, your best hope is for an activist judge to agree with your viewpoint.

By the way, does your position mean that one or both parents have to be citizens? The answer to the question has consequences.

So let’s assume your effort is successful. Of course it does not necessarily negate the citizenship of the 312 million people in this country, but they are all going to have to prove they are citizens under the new requirements.

For instance, you have a birth certificate, but that does not prove you are a citizen under your new system. Your parents have birth certificates, but that does not prove they are citizens. Are you beginning to see the problem?

You would need to go back to when your ancestors entered the country, under what conditions and laws they entered, look at their subsequent claims to citizenship and have the source documents to prove it.

You would not be able to vote or hold office, until you were able to prove you were a citizen qualified under the new laws. You could not receive any other benefits of citizenship until you had proven your qualifications.

Can you imagine the difficulty of the task, the cost and the size of the bureaucracy and judicial system to deal with this? It would collapse under a weight of paper. The enormity of the task, in relationship to the benefits gained, boggles the mind.

So, of course, if your new policy works its way through the courts or in a constitutional amendment and you are no longer a citizen by place of birth, but by right of parentage, guess what? There will have to be some sort of general amnesty (the new scarlet letter “A” word of American politics) to avert the chaos that would ensue from your new policy.

Some sort of line dividing those who qualify from those who don’t or some sort of timeline will be required. Some sort of forgiveness or acknowledgement will be needed stating that those already claiming citizenship were in fact citizens. Given the broad use of the word in today’s jargon — this would amount to “amnesty.”

The mechanics of such a policy could be quite arbitrary and could violate other sections of equal protection and due process of the Constitution. And what will we have accomplished for border security, other than taking our eye off the ball?

The answer suggests itself: We would have been down a path of tremendous diverted energy and resources with little to show for it.

So here we are at the beginning. After much review and study, do you believe the 14th Amendment to the Constitution has been misinterpreted?

— Joseph Sigg is director of government relations for the Arizona Farm Bureau.


  1. Slow clap.

    Incredibly well done.

  2. No, your right of course. Don’t do anything…….it’s too hard. The country is going down the crapper, right on schedule, just as the socialist faction of this Nation want, and work so hard for.

  3. Why can’t it be clarified now that from here on forward only children born from a parent who is a citizen who has a birth certificate by whatever means obtained. the children who have been born prior to the ratification of the amendment would be grandfathered in.

  4. I’ve written about birthright citizenship as well, and held this same argument in one of my articles in the Tucson Sentinel. It’s a long slippery slope and it always goes back to the same fear: a changing demographic in this country and the loss of a white majority. Until people are willing to face this honestly we’ll only have responses like CAV44 to hold up as a prime example of the nativist attitudes in this country.

  5. I just read in the Arizona Republic this weekend (10-10-2010) that Gilbert was settled by Mormons who moved here from Mexico in 1915. I wonder what that fact does to their “Abolish the 14th” argument? I imagine that quite a few Gilbert residents wouldn’t be citizens by that measure.

  6. Nativist attitude? No country in the world has a more “nativist attitude” than the country of Mexico, yet we are expected to “suck it up” and accept and deal with, a huge illegal influx of people from their country who are looking for jobs, running from the law and in many cases, crossing our borders for no other reason than to obtain American citizenship for their numerious offspring, who apparently, we are then obligated to house, educate and care for. I have no problem with orderly, legal immigration from any country, but Damn, enough is enough. We are already viewed by Mexico and most of the rest of the world as,convenient Fools. It has already reached the point where placard carrying illegal protesters all but riot on the lawns of our state and Nation’s capitol buildings with no fear of retribution. I’ve had enough, and if that makes me a “Nativist”, which by the way, is not an obscene word,….then, so be it!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *




Check Also


Tax exemption for digital goods will leave 9-figure budget hole (access required)

But this week, the Legislature proposes to take away at least another $183 million of tax revenue per year without any potential for future economic benefit. Unlike other tax reductions approved by the Legislature in recent years, eliminating the transaction privilege tax, or TPT, on digital goods doesn’t help the state attract one new job or encourage one business to relocate.