Whatever you do, keep ignoring all the illegal Canadian immigrants working here that look the same as you do ...

"Clearly, this author is an Afro-Marxist communicating the ideas of James Cone and Black Liberation Theology."

Chuck Mudede is the author?

"It threatens to weaken 140 years of civil rights tradition in this country and institutionalize a regressive and racist policy under the guise of defending America."

Are you kidding me? Racist? This is just another example of the far left throwing around this explosive term when they can't justify their position on its merits.

What moron would think that not granting someone automatic citizenship because they were born here, has anything to do with the color of their skin?

I know, there are plenty of these morons out there. Many of them read/write on SLOG. Then from the other side of their moronic mouths, they want some kind of population control because each person is yet another carbon footprint.

This idiocy cheapens real racism. The term has less & less meaning anymore. But what's the point. These people are so stupid, they can't get out of their own way.

What moron would think that not granting someone automatic citizenship because they were born here, has anything to do with the color of their skin?

Because that's a founding principle of this country and certain assholes only now want to revoke that right because they don't like the skin color of people who are currently immigrating here. But better not call those motherfuckers racist, it might hurt their feelings.

And it's very typical that you, a stalwart defender of Second Amendment rights, don't give a fuck about other Constitutional rights when they don't suit your prejudices.

Reality Check - proving again that he can post the exact same ignorant, intellectually bankrupt screeds on multiple comment threads - at the same time!

@3: Because 'birthright citizenship' originated as a way to give freed slaves US citizenship? Repealing it would be about as racist as repealing the Civil Rights Act, i.e. very fucking racist.
And seriously, who challenges the 14th amendment in this day and age? What're you going to challenge next, separation of powers? Does Marbury v. Madison rub you the wrong way? Jaysus.

Hey, this is Marc, author of the article. Here's my response to some of the comments. I'm not putting any more energy into it than this...I've learned my lesson having read SLOG Comments over the last few years.

***********************

Whether the folks who wrote the 14th Amendment intended for birthright citizenship to be extended to the children of folks who entered the country illegally or not, that is the current legal interpretation – not just my opinion. My argument is that moving to limit citizenship is a step backward, not forward, on the road to greater civic equality, and that it and other similar policies has consequences for many, even native-born Americans.

An example is all the new laws some states are putting in place around citizenship documentation to vote or gain access to social services. The stated purpose of these laws is to protect the electoral process from undocumented immigrants who cannot prove that they are citizens, and diminish stress on the social safety net. But they also have implications for native-born U.S. citizens who also lack this documentation --approximately 11 million native-born Americans, according to a September 2006 report by the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. These include the poor, rural residents, and those lacking a high school diploma, as well as segments of the African American community, particularly the elderly (many of whom were born at home as a result of being barred from hospitals under segregation, and therefore, were never issued birth certificates).

A question for people who reject my labeling this policy as racist: if the fact that policy is just about always discussed (including in this chain of comments) in reference to Mexicans (which “illegal immigrants” has become code for), and is intended to limit access to citizenship for that group isn’t racist, how do you define racism? And for those who say that the issue is “illegal immigrants”: if someone was here under a legal guestworker program and had a kid, would you be okay with that kid getting citizenship?

Another question: why is it when people mention examples of illegal immigrants, people only ever talk about Muslims or Mexicans, not folks here illegally from Ireland, or the Ukraine, or China (there are folks here illegally from countries all over the world)?

Finally, it’s interesting to me that folks attack my use of the word “racist” as some sort of lefty buzzword, and then turn around and label me an “Afro-Marxist”, “anti-white racist Communist”, and all other kinds of things. And I’ve never heard of this James Cone person. Could it be that guilt by association/stereotyping is more simpler than admitting this issue is more complicated than we want it to be?