Guest Blogger McKay Cunningham on the Divisiveness of Birthright Citizenship

Few take the middle ground or are undecided. Websites devoted to the topic are rife with dire projections, and the comments posted by individuals after any given article are too often vitriolic.

But what does the Constitution actually say about birthright citizenship? What legal grounds support those who argue that children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants are not U.S. citizens?

The legal arguments focus, of course, on the language found in the Constitution itself. The Fourteenth Amendment (ratified in 1868) states:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States…”

Most legal scholars agree that this provision contains two prongs: (1) persons born in the U.S., and (2) persons subject to the jurisdiction thereof. It is this later phrase, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” that spurs legal disagreement.

Opponents of Birthright Citizenship

Those opposed to birthright citizenship argue that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” includes an allegiance component. If a person is born within the territorial boundaries of the U.S. and owes allegiance to the U.S., that person is a citizen. Because those who are in the U.S. unlawfully owe primary allegiance to the country of their origin, their children (by imputation) would also owe primary allegiance to that nation and therefore would not be citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Is there any legal authority for interpreting “subject to the jurisdiction” to include allegiance? What did those who drafted the phrase intend for it to mean? Opponents of birthright citizenship point to the Congressional debates that took place prior to ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in order to discern the intent of the drafters. At one point during the debates, congressmen suggested that that the phrase would not confer citizenship on children born of Native American parents because Native Americans owed primary allegiance to their respective tribes. This insertion of “allegiance” during the congressional debates bolsters the argument that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” requires allegiance to the U.S. before citizenship will be awarded.

There is little case law support, however, for this contention. A few U.S. Supreme Court decisions handed down shortly after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified imply that the Amendment narrowly applies to African Americans alone. As discussed below, this view has not prevailed.

Proponents of Birthright Citizenship

Those who support birthright citizenship argue that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means nothing more than what it says – subject to the power of the U.S. If a person is born within the territorial boundaries of the U.S. and that person is subject to the power or laws of the U.S., that person is a citizen. Because children of illegal immigrants born in the U.S. are subject to the power and/or laws of the U.S., they are citizens.

Like those who oppose birthright citizenship, proponents point to congressional debates as authoritative support. Indeed, at one point during the debates, congressmen agreed that children born to Chinese nationals within the U.S. would automatically obtain citizenship. This portion of the debate supports the idea that “subject to the jurisdiction” merely means subject to the laws of the U.S.

Several Supreme Court decisions support this interpretation. Chief among them is Wong Kim Ark, a 1898 opinion that reviewed the history of birthright citizenship in England and the U.S. The Court articulated the English common law rule “of citizenship by birth within the dominion.” No allegiance component was required. Indeed, several U.S. Supreme Court cases have reiterated this concept. Although opponents of birthright citizenship quibble that these opinions are not authoritative for a variety of hyper-technical reasons, the clear import of the case law addressing the Fourteenth Amendment supports birthright citizenship.

Constitutional Consensus

Because the language of the Fourteenth Amendment does not textually include “allegiance,” and because Supreme Court precedent has not embraced an interpretation that includes allegiance, most constitutional scholars submit that birth within the U.S. plus an obligation to obey U.S. law confers citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment. Recent efforts pushed by a handful of states to create tiered citizenship for those born in the U.S. by parents who are unlawfully present in the U.S. are most assuredly unconstitutional. But that is an altogether different topic….

Guest Blogger McKay Cunningham on Environmental Sustainability

Dominion vs. Stewardship: Do Christians lead the way or trail behind the movement toward environmental sustainability?

It wasn’t long ago that that those who strapped themselves to giant oak trees hoping to forestall development were castigated as loonies. Environmentalists, once denigrated as fringe alarmists, now enjoy popular support. National polls reflect consensus; Americans believe there should be stronger policies protecting open space, that it is everyone’s obligation to protect undeveloped lands, and that more lands should be set aside for rare or endangered species, national parks, and protection of historical landscapes. There is a growing acknowledgement that the supply of wild lands is limited and that access to natural, undeveloped lands benefits society. Eroding plant and animal diversity through land development and destruction of natural animal habitats increases popular anxiety.

In response, federal and state governments have added land and funding to national parks and other conservation efforts. Park based funding increased from nine-hundred million dollars in 2001 to over one billion dollars by 2006. Park acreage increased incrementally from seven million acres in 1930 to nineteen million acres in 2000.

Despite popular support and government-initiated efforts, forty million acres of land – larger than the state of Florida – were newly developed between 1992 and 2007. No doubt, complex and nuanced factors contribute to such rampant development. One such factor is the historic and deeply rooted pro-development policy embedded within American property law. In the county’s infancy a pro-development policy made sense. As a sparsely populated nation with more wilderness than production capacity, national leaders promoted colonization, cultivation, and development of wild lands – often giving away millions of acres on the bare promise that the grantee would develop. Over time, our law fully integrated these pro-development constructs.

While critical in the country’s infancy, encouraging land development through legal constructs is less important and arguably detrimental now. These long-standing legal constructs encourage land use and as a result discourage conservation. Our need to develop wide swaths of wild land has changed; our common law has not.

How has the Christian perspective played into this evolution?

On the one hand, scads of recent publications promote “stewardship.” (The Sojourner’s website offers several titles). Under the stewardship model, the Christian is not the owner of her property but a mere trustee. A strictly legal owner may use the property entirely for himself, excluded others from it, possess it, transfer it and destroy it. A Christian owner, however, must use it for the common good – or perhaps more accurately, for the good of those most in need. It cannot be excluded from others, destroyed or exploited for personal gain. From this perspective, the stewardship model parallels popular environmentalist sentiment. But it hasn’t always been so.

While progressive Christians may proclaim environmental sensitivity today, we certainly cannot claim the same environmentalism historically. In fact, religious dogma arguably helped create America’s pro-development policy. Nineteenth century Judeo-Christians harbored animus toward the wilderness, according to some historians. The book of Genesis confers dominion to mankind over all birds and beasts; believers are admonished to “fill the earth and subdue it.” Early settlers took these provisions to heart, viewing uncultivated wild land as dangerous and ungodly. The controversial 1967 article by historian Lynn White decried the Judeo-Christian worldview of dominion as incompatible to environmentalism.

Of course, this assertion of dominion over nature and subjugation of wild lands to the will of mankind is not the sole cause of modern America’s pro-development proclivities. In fact, it is plausible that nineteenth century Christians merely mirrored the popular sentiment of the day.

One scholar suggests that the nineteenth century American public – regardless of religion – uniformly valued development over conservation. Professor John Sprankling argues that Americans valued land exploitation and disdained uncultivated and unimproved land: “This model mirrors the historic American view that forests, wetlands, grasslands, deserts and other lands in natural condition contribute nothing to the social welfare until they are converted to economic use.” Forests, wetlands, deserts, hill country and other undeveloped land were seen as worthless until cleared, drained, cultivated or otherwise converted into economic use. Visiting from France in the early nineteenth century, Alexis de Tocqueville observed that Americans “are insensible to the wonders of inanimate nature and they may be said not to perceive the mighty forests that surround them till they fall beneath the hatchet. Their eyes are fixed upon another sight . . . the march across these wilds, draining swamps, turning the course of rivers, peopling solitudes and subduing nature.”

So where does that leave the progressive Christian?

Unfortunately, the prevailing Christian view in the nineteenth century reflected the popular view at the time. Today, the prevailing Christian view again reflects the popular view. Did we get it right this time or are we simply following the path of least resistance?

Guest Blogger Reverend Roger McClellan on the Progressive Christian Alliance

In the spring of 2008, four pastors from Alabama, Florida and Georgia began sharing some of their disillusionment with much traditional church structure and dogma. As the discussions progressed, a vision of a different type of church began to coalesce. All of us were drawn to a progressive Christian ethos, and had learned much from our associations with organizations such as The Center for Progressive Christianity and Network of Spiritual Progressives; but we felt that there was a need to transcend the typical definitions of both "denomination" and "network" and not only try to connect Progressive Christians, but also to organize ministries with similar vision even calling ministers and organizing local communities of progressive faith. As a result of these discussions and the perceived guidance of the Spirit, the Progressive Christian Alliance was born.

From the inception of the Progressive Christian Alliance, we have had a vision for reaching out to “the least, the lost, the left behind, and those for whom religion has become irrelevant." We see this position to be very much in line with the teachings of Jesus, teachings that have sadly fallen into neglect. The Church has often become such an institution that it spends more time and resources maintaining itself than reaching into the world beyond itself. As a result we have seen more and more people pushed to the margins and even outside the doors of the church. Progressive ideals or un-orthodox beliefs are unwelcome, as are different cultures or orientations. What remains are many different church institutions ministering to the core groups within their doors, and paying little mind to those outside the doors; those who differ from what they consider the norm.

So, when we in the PCA were trying to paint a picture of our vision; we settled on the following principles:

1. We consider ourselves Christian. We chose this particular and unusual language out of a recognition that oftentimes the institutional church attempts to set litmus tests of orthodoxy or tradition that define what Christianity is to them. In truth, however, no church institution has the ability or right to judge the soul of a person. That right and responsibility lies solely upon the shoulders of God. Therefore, we seek to avoid the traps of orthodoxy and grant grace to one another by affirming that we seek to serve God, and follow our understandings of the teachings of Jesus, to the best of our ability. We seek to judge no one, lest we be judged by the same unfair and inaccurate standards. We embrace those on the margins or outside the margins of orthodoxy.

2. The Progressive Christian Alliance maintains a focus on Social Justice. We believe that the gospel of Christ calls us to minister to the last, the lost, the least, and the left-behind of society, as well as those for whom church has become irrelevant. Jesus and the latter prophets of Judaism speak extensively about caring for the poor, the hungry and the marginalized in society, recognizing them all as God’s creation. Unfortunately much of this focus has been lost in the institutional church as it has become more and more concerned with maintaining its own identity and growth. As a result, the rights of many of God’s own children are widely ignored by those that profess to worship God. We embrace those on the margins of society, as Christ himself taught.

3. We respect theological diversity. Faith is not about concrete answers, religious absolutes, creeds, or dogma. Faith is about the search for understanding, the raising of important questions, the open honesty of having doubt, and the realization that no one has it all completely right nor does any human hold all the answers. Therefore, we recognize and affirm those whose faith systems fifer from our own; recognizing that many streams flow from the same source. Furthermore, we recognize that truth and understanding often are nurtured by the open exchange of thoughts and ideas from diverse sources. We embrace those around us; those on the margins of tradition or practice.

4. We affirm the dignity of all of God’s children and welcome all to take their rightful place at God’s table. We recognize that in Christ there is no gender, no orientation, no nation or race. We are all heirs to the kingdom. Often, the institutional church has sought to exclude those of different race, gender or orientation from participating fully in the life of the church. We find these practices anathematic to the teachings of Christ, therefore we readily and heartily welcome all to their rightful place at the table that God has prepared. While we applaud the efforts of many denominations to formulate inter-communion agreements with other denominations, we feel that these inter-communion agreements do not adequately recognize the value and beauty of diversity. The PCA, rather, practices an Open Communion, recognizing that the Table of Communion is not ours to govern, but God's.

There are also many churches who seek to fully include those of other races, genders or sexual orientations, and we applaud those efforts; but by writing this inclusivity into our organizational DNA, we hope to avoid the political and dogmatic struggles that accompany such efforts so that we can concentrate more fully on the task at hand.Many have asked, “With all of this inclusion, where then is your identity? Simply: that is our identity. Inclusion. A church for those who don’t like church and a church for those who love church but seek to lovingly correct it. We strive to embrace all and welcome all: those pushed to the margins or outside the margins. In so doing, we have our own identity, a church on the margins for those on the margins.

http://www.progressivechristianalliance.org/

Guest Blogger Brigham Fordham on Parenthood

Recently, I have been doing research on the ethical limits of artificial reproductive technologies. In reading up on this subject, I have been surprised how often legal scholars claim that parents have children primarily to suit the parents’ own interests. In a very thoughtful book (most of which I disagree with) Dena Davis writes:

The decision to have a child is never made for the sake of the child, for no
child then exists. We choose to have children for myriad reasons, but before the
child is conceived, those reasons can only be self-regarding.

Certainly, there is some degree of truth in this. New parents underestimate the commitment and expense of having a child. We are drawn to have a family, in part, by a desire to pour our own beliefs and practices into a new generation, to extend our cultural and social group, to feel loved and needed, and to experience the quintessential challenges and rewards of guiding a person from infancy to adulthood and beyond.

But is planning to have a family at the outset merely “self-regarding”? My faith and my experience adopting a child give me hope that there is more to it. I struggle, however, to find a place for these beliefs in responding to scholarly works like the one referenced above.

Many Christians believe that God’s commandment to Adam and Eve to “multiply and replenish the earth” remains in force today. Like all commandments, the call to have children requires sacrifice, but it can also bring blessings that far exceed the sacrifices. For couples who are unable to conceive a child, this commandment can be heart-wrenchingly difficult. We want a child, God wants us to have a child, but our bodies just won’t cooperate.

When my wife and I were first considering adoption, someone pointed out to us a famous, though often overlooked, adoption—Joseph’s adoption of Jesus as his own son. Why did Joseph decide to adopt Jesus and raise him as his own child? Surely Joseph saw an opportunity to grow close to Jesus and experience the joys of fatherhood. But I also suspect that Joseph did it because he wanted Jesus to benefit from having a father here on earth.

In modern times, adoption has often been misrepresented as a compromise between young pregnant girls who don’t want a child but don’t believe in abortion and childless parents who are desperately seeking to fill a hole in their lives. This, I think, is a sad misrepresentation of the experience.

The birth mother of our adopted daughter was a young woman who had unexpectedly gotten pregnant by a young man whom she had only known a short time. Once it became obvious she was pregnant, she was under great social and biological pressure to have the child and raise it as her own. No one wants to be seen as “giving up” a child for adoption, no matter how difficult being a young, single mother may appear. Our birth mother showed amazing maturity and clarity. She looked beyond the stigma associated with placing a child for adoption and saw through media representations downplaying the challenges of teenage motherhood. She decided that her child would have greater opportunities in life if the child were raised in a more stable and complete family. For her, and for our daughter, this was the right decision. She did not place her child for adoption to escape responsibility; quite to the contrary, she sacrificed the joys of immediate motherhood in order to guarantee her child a better future. It was one of the most selfless acts of love by a mother I have ever encountered.

In my faith, we believe that all parents are effectively adoptive parents. All humanity was spiritually conceived by God before the foundations of the earth. When parents physically conceive a child, they bring to the earth an already-existing spiritual child of God. We are but stewards of children who are progeny of Eternity.

On this view, parenthood may be partially self-regarding. But the primary reason for parenthood is spiritual: Through parenthood we grow closer to God’s children, we help them to realize their unlimited potential, and, in the process, we begin to learn to express the kind of unconditional, selfless love that God has for each of us. In my faith, we often say parenthood is practice for godhood.

Guest Blogger Lisa Pope on Women in the Church

From Esther to Ruth to Priscilla, I grew up learning of the strong, inspirational women of the Bible. And looking around my Baptist church as a child, I saw women teaching Sunday school, directing the choir, preparing communion, leading mission organizations, and even serving as deacons. But I didn’t see them in the pulpit. Women often seemed to be the backbone of the church and many times were the spiritual leaders of their families, but never were they the spiritual leaders of the congregation. The women’s movement and its concerns may have seemed light years away from the Nation’s religious institutions, particularly as a conservative Christian mindset gained prominence in the 1980s and subsequent decades, but yes, even in our churches, we’ve come a very long way.

Today, as I continue to worship in the church where I grew up, I sit in the pew on Sunday morning and look up at our new female pastor. She is our pastor not because she is a woman, not because of the need to make a statement about change, but because she was the best person for the job. Because she makes people excited to come on Sunday mornings. Because she believes our church is open to all. And because even those who had opposed the idea of a woman pastor began to change their hearts and minds once they heard her preach and came to know her as a person.

To me, the most exciting thing about the change at my church is how natural it was. No one left the church. No one voted against calling her as pastor. And no one has protested since she began her ministry. By recognizing the talents and gifts of more than half of our population and opening the doors of ministry to them, our churches can only benefit. When today’s children sit in the pews, look up, and see a female face, it will be unremarkable. More than 40 years after the women’s movement entered our national discussion, that’s the best kind of progress of all.