The Counterpublic Papers vol. 4 no. 8

So last week Trump suggested that he could eradicate birthright citizenship with pen stroke.

Quickly, there are jus soli states like the United States, where one is a citizen if they’re born on US soil…then there are jus sanguines states like France, where one is a citizen if one is born to French citizens. When the Civil War ends and the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments are passed we become a jus soli state. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th amendment actually flips the historical relationship between state and nation—before one was a US citizen through being recognized as a citizen of a given state. After, one is a national citizen first . A new type of citizen was basically created as a result of the Civil War—or if one takes DuBois seriously in Black Reconstruction, as a result of the Great Strike.

(For a wonderful examination of how blacks used the courts to push for birthright citizenship read Martha Jones’ work Birthright Citizens. I’ve now known Jones for a few years—she just joined Hopkins’ faculty—and am only recently becoming familiar with her work. Painstakingly meticulous. It deserves all the accolades it’ll likely receive.)

Now there are exceptions to the jus soli rule that seem like common sense on the surface, and are common sense, but also reveal gender and racial fault lines. If a US couple has a child in Canada for example, that child is a US citizen. That’s not jus soli at work because the child isn’t born on American soil, rather that’s jus sanguines at work because the child is born to American citizens. But what if the child is born to an American man and a non-American woman? What happens there? What happens if the child is born to an American woman and a foreign born man?

If the couple were married, then the condition of the child follows that of the father (if the father is a citizen then the children are citizens). If the couple weren’t married, then the condition of the child follows that of the mother (if the mother is a citizen then the children are citizens). If the father was an American citizen and the mother was not, and the child was born before the two married…then that child could become a citizen if the American father in effect claimed responsibility for the child and married the woman. To an extent this dynamic reflects the standard created in part by Virginia law, which between 1600-1700 ended up creating the bulk of the infrastructure used to distinguish citizens by race and labor status—one was a slave in large part if one’s mother was a slave. But what if the American man was married to a Chinese woman? Now usually two things would happen—first the woman would become a citizen (note the reverse wasn’t true—until the 1920s if a foreign man married an American woman that man would not become a citizen). Then if that couple had a child, then that child would be a citizen. But racial politics shaped how this ended up applying. If for example a Chinese American man married a Chinese national woman in the late 19th century, then that woman would not become an American citizen. If the two had a child out of wedlock and then the man married the woman, that child would not become a citizen. If an American man married a Samoan woman, that woman would not be a citizen.

I digress.

Anyway.

Many have written about whether Trump will be able to circumvent the 14th Amendment.

This isn’t the right question at all.

Even if there’s more wiggle room than we think, particularly given Kavanaugh’s appointment to the Supreme Court, the answer is clearly no.

The right question, is, what types of politics does Trump pushing against the 14th Amendment allow for?

In this case, and I’ve talked about this before, we take the Constitution as some hard and fast wall against revoking jus soli notions.

No.

The Constitution is amendable.

So if the Constitution is hard and fast now? Then you change the Constitution.

This is the play.

The question isn’t whether it’s constitutional or not. The question is, does Trumpism have the political capacity to change the Constitution.

And that answer is yes. Doesn’t mean it’ll happen. But Trump supporters already tend to believe their country has been stolen from them. It won’t take much nudging to convince Trump supporters in 34 states that the only non-violent solution they have is a constitutional convention.

….

Along these lines I’m going to be doing election coverage at The Real News on Tuesday from 11pm-1am. I’m going to be paying particular attention to the various proposals and amendments different states are voting on. I do think that races like the gubernatorial races in Florida and Georgia are important. But I’m really interested in the state ballot initiatives. In Michigan for example, voters are voting on two proposals—one which would legalize marijuana, and another that would basically end gerrymandering (Michigan’s state legislature has been dominated by the GOP for the last few decades in large part because the districts are drawn in a way that benefits the GOP). In Florida people are voting to end felon disenfranchisement. We don’t get people to vote in off-year elections by cajoling them or shaming them. We do it by giving people something to vote for.

….

I was at a conference on Anti-blackness in the Metropolis over the past couple of days. Convened by scholars working at the intersection of race, political economy, and geography, I saw a number of projects that I can’t wait to see in print, because I see them further bringing political economy into Black Studies.

I’ll end with one example.

This year we’re “celebrating” the 25th anniversary of Race Matters.Cornel West was already a “star” when Race Matters comes out, but it cements his status. What stands out about this picture isn’t just the fact that West had already begun adopting the uniform he comes to be known for, it’s that he’s pissed.     Why?

Because as fly as he’s dressed, he couldn’t catch a cab to get to the photoshoot—basically he was hailing a cab while black.

Now this is the type of thing we’d probably now call a micro-aggression or some such, but this was one of the most important forms of racism people examined at the time. It was largely a fight for a certain type of consumerism—against “driving while black” because we wanted the right to own nice cars. Against "hailing a cab while black" because we wanted the right to be picked up in cabs just like the rest of New Yorkers.

Fast forward 25 years. 

More than one city has tried to tax Uber/Lyft and similar services, only to fail. In part this is because Uber has done a fairly successful job of recognizing the degree to which anti-racist struggle in this moment is far more consumer based than it is labor based. People are far more interested in making sure they’re not discriminated against when they’re catching an Uber than they are in making sure Uber drivers are fairly compensated. Spike—who’s politics on this and similar issues have always been suspect—doesn’t help here.

Anyway, a presentation at the conference examining Uber's consumerist racial politics sparked me to think about Cornel West and Race Matters. I cannot emphasize how much we need this enough.

…

Voting matters. If you can, do it.

See you next week. Keep your loved ones close. Keep your enemies just close enough.