I. One-Page Email Version (Concise, High-Signal)
Subject: Clarifying the Original Meaning of the 14th Amendment Citizenship Clause
Dear Professor Eastman,
Shalom.
I am writing with respect for your scholarship on the original meaning of the 14th Amendment and the necessity of distinguishing constitutional text from later administrative custom.
Recent presidential remarks on the Citizenship Clause underscore a long-avoided issue: the modern practice of automatic birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens rests not on the Amendment’s text or purpose, but on post-1965 custom. The 14th Amendment was enacted as a remedial measure, directed toward a specific people—militarily liberated chattel slaves and their descendants—whose citizenship had been denied under law.
Section 2 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 expressly criminalizes deprivation of rights secured by the Act when done under “color of law” or custom. When sanctuary policies and administrative interpretations displace or dilute the political standing of the Amendment’s intended beneficiaries, they raise serious constitutional concerns.
Equally binding is the Emancipation Proclamation’s directive to every succeeding President and the military to “recognize and maintain” the freedom of the formerly enslaved and to refrain from acts that repress their efforts toward actual freedom.
Economic arguments against the continuation of this practice are valid but incomplete. The deeper issue is moral and constitutional: the Civil War dead did not perish to establish a citizenship regime detached from the Amendment’s original jurisdictional limits and remedial purpose.
I would welcome your scholarly guidance on whether restoration of the original meaning of the Citizenship Clause is not merely permissible, but obligatory.
With respect,
Ted Hayes