There he goes again? Because Gentner Drummond can't really believe it, right?
For most of his time as attorney general, he's been a stand-up guy, even when it upsets his party. Too bad he's past that, claiming the Constitution unconstitutional.
Here’s what I think.
I think Gentner Drummond doesn’t care. I think, though he sent out a Monday tweet saying he did, he really doesn’t care about the birthright citizenship fight the Trump administration’s egging to have in the Supreme Court.
The text to that tweet:
“I’m proud to support President Trump’s legal fight to defend the Constitution and enforce our laws against the abuse of birthright citizenship by illegal immigrants and birth tourists. This is vital for our nation’s future and sovereignty.”
Actually, if he cares at all, I think — personally, not politically — he’s on the other side. I think it because I think the real Drummond cares about the rule of law and no matter how pesky and inconvenient a document it can be, that means agreeing with the Constitution, too.
So, why is he backing Trump’s unconstitutional play?
Because he’s running for governor and he lives in Oklahoma and he really wants to win, which is an indictment of him, you bet, but also of our beloved state.
That and even though he and 23 other state attorneys general have signed a letter supporting Trump’s executive order on the matter, I think Drummond tells himself it’s bound to hold no sway should the Supreme Court take up the issue and did I mention he really, really wants to be governor?
You might think, if Section I of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, passed in 1868, is so clear, why haven’t I spelled it out?
Here it is, word for word:
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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
To be clear, let’s hit that again.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States …
We can probably stop there.
A couple of things.
If you’re looking for a loophole in “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” go ahead and stop because everybody on U.S. soil is, making it impossible to be born here and not.
Get it?
It couldn’t be more clear.
If born here, you’re a citizen … even if your parents weren’t; even if they sneaked into the country to have you; even if, by utter happenstance, your mother’s water broke on a plane to Cuba that emergency-landed in Miami to accommodate her; even if your mother, eight months pregnant, was on a hijacked plane to Siberia that landed in Alaska instead and, so shocked by the turn of events, went into labor upon landing, having you right then and there.
It’s a beautiful thing.
Get yourself born here, you’re in the club.
It’s consistent with our nation-of-immigrants values
It’s consistent with Ronald Reagan.
It’s consistent with FDR, Kennedy and LBJ.
It’s consistent with the Statue of Liberty for crying out loud.
I’m surprised Drummond is willing to look this dumb to smart people.
He could have agreed the 14th Amendment to have been written too broadly and, sort of agreeing with Trump, say it’s something to be addressed, looked at, investigated, considered.
He could have done a lot of things, but what he’s done precisely, beyond belly-aching about it on Twitter and perhaps when speaking to fellow Republicans suffering from racism and xenophobia far more than they understand the Constitution, is embrace Trump’s very own executive order, a 763-word monstrosity that only begins like this:
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:
Section 1. Purpose. The privilege of United States citizenship is a priceless and profound gift. The Fourteenth Amendment states: “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.” That provision rightly repudiated the Supreme Court of the United States’s shameful decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), which misinterpreted the Constitution as permanently excluding people of African descent from eligibility for United States citizenship solely based on their race.
But the Fourteenth Amendment has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States. The Fourteenth Amendment has always excluded from birthright citizenship persons who were born in the United States but not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Consistent with this understanding, the Congress has further specified through legislation that “a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is a national and citizen of the United States at birth, 8 U.S.C. 1401, generally mirroring the Fourteenth Amendment’s text.
Among the categories of individuals born in the United States and not subject to the jurisdiction thereof, the privilege of United States citizenship does not automatically extend to persons born in the United States: (1) when that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth, or (2) when that person’s mother’s presence in the United States at the time of said person’s birth was lawful but temporary (such as, but not limited to, visiting the United States under the auspices of the Visa Waiver Program or visiting on a student, work, or tourist visa) and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.
What?
It’s the third and fourth paragraphs where it all falls apart and somebody as smart as Drummond certainly knows it.
But the Fourteenth Amendment has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States.
Actually, the Supreme Court affirmed it means exactly that as far back as 1898 in a decision on U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, that you can read right here.
The Fourteenth Amendment has always excluded from birthright citizenship persons who were born in the United States but not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” …
Wrong again, because you can’t be not.
I know that sentence reads weird, but it’s right.
Not to mention, to presume a child born in the United States to non-citizen parents is not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is to also presume an American tourist in Paris, Madrid or Vienna is not subject to the jurisdiction thereof of French, Spanish and Austrian law, which is patently ridiculous.
Not to mention, not only is birthright citizenship spelled out in the 14th Amendment, it’s also spelled out in federal law — 8 U.S. Code § 1401 — which, if you want, you can read about here, meaning even should the 14th Amendment be struck, birthright citizenship would continue to be enshrined in our laws.
The problem, of course, is the Supreme Court gets to do what it wants.
Well, it can’t rule the Constitution unconstitutional and take the 14th Amendment off the books, but it can reinterpret the amendment itself, find some pretense to scrap federal law and grandfather in all citizens born under a previous interpretation in a hopeful attempt to stave off gargantuan civil unrest and call it a day, those justices in the majority hating themselves for betraying the Constitution, just not enough to quit being invited on insanely expensive and exotic vacations, reaching their destinations on private jets, am I right Clarence Thomas?
And, I guess, Governor Drummond could then wash his hands of it, aware of his hypocrisy, yet still believing he played no role in the decision.
Or worse.
My premise could be all wrong and, deep in his heart, he could have been for it all along.
Say it won’t be so.
Regarding Porter Moser, I agree completely. Regarding the comments below about left-leaning views, as a right-leaning centrist I think it's important to listen to the viewpoints of all political views, especially in today's world. Sitting in a chair all day watching Fox News or MSNBC is entertaining, but not very constructive unless you believe dividing the nation is the answer.
Clay, I always enjoy reading your thoughts and comments about OU athletics, and you are always spot-on with what I see and feel in that regard. Conversely, your left-leaning political views are of no interest to me, so if your plan is to continue posting political comments, I will most likely not continue to subscribe.