Skip to main content

tv   The Civil War Race Citizenship the 14th Amendment  CSPAN  June 16, 2018 5:59pm-7:38pm EDT

5:59 pm
is the head of state and head of government. in the u.k., visitors go to ing stet to meet the head of government and buckingham palace to meet the head of state. in the u.s., they go to the white house for both. it is a beautiful building. it can be a welcoming building depending on the occupants. fundamentally it is a powerful building. it represents and reflects the american people. thank you. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2018] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit] week series, 1960 eight, american turmoil is available as a podcast. you can find it on our website. this is american history tv, only on c-span 3.
6:00 pm
all persons born or naturalized in the united states are citizens of the united intes and of the state where , they reside. how the 14th amendment has applied to african-americans, chinese-americans, and native americans. over 90 minutes. takingame is paul, i am symposium director. ofm currently the president the college in the greater
6:01 pm
philadelphia area. some of you know me as a practicing academic and in january, i became the full-time president. role in thed session because i am both the moderator and the introducer and i'm also the first panelist. i get to tell myself when i am running out of time. you should never let than the an epidemic to do that. -- an academic to do that. this session is going to talk about the problem of citizenship. the 14th amendment begins with all persons born or naturalized in the united states and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the united states
6:02 pm
and of the state in which they reside. ways, this is a -- the second most important and fundamental change brought about by the civil war. the first was obviously come at the end of slavery, the second, citizenship and i want to begin with the notion of what citizenship was at the time the war and leading into the 14th amendment. that, gabriel who teaches at the law school at the university of california davis where he holds the martin luther king professorship, and is the director of clinical, will speak about citizenship involving asian immigrants, particularly, chinese immigrants. check has taught at a number of places. he received his ba from
6:03 pm
wesleyan. ill -- yalet to the law school and practiced in new york. then, went on to a very distinguished academic career. following jack b elisa. she is a journalist and graduate student and holds a number of interesting jobs. coincidentally, alisa is a graduate student at my college. she preceded me to the college. she started her phd program before i became president. there is no collusion here. just a remarkable and fascinated coincidence. in addition to being a graduate
6:04 pm
assistanthe is also to the president of the navajo nation. , some people talk about being bicoastal, she is by state. state. the president of the navajo nation. she is also a distinguished journalist. she is the most published person in the room here with many thousands of newspaper stories to her credit. if you google her, it will go on and on and on. she will be telling about the problem of native american citizenship under the 14th as thent now, taking off introduction person, i now put on my scholar and say something
6:05 pm
about the 14th amendment and black citizenship. at the time the constitution was written, blacks could vote in at could votetates they in new york, pennsylvania, insachusetts, new jersey, hampshire, and north carolina they were pretty and not slaves. it always comes as a shock to in carolina tole the revolution seriously. later, they could build intimacy because tennessee is really a spinoff of north carolina and the tennessee constitution replicated the north carolina constitution. during the. between the adoption of the constitution in the 1830's, a number of states that tracked on voting rights. blacks lost the right to vote in pennsylvania, new jersey, north carolina, and in tennessee.
6:06 pm
however, they would later gain the right to vote in maine, vermont, and eventually, rhode island. in addition to that, in certain elections, blacks would be allowed to vote in michigan and ohio under certain circumstances. what is this important for citizenship? the u.s.em with constitution before the 14th amendment is that there is no definition of citizenship under the u.s. constitution the word citizen scattered all over the constitution. what a does it tell us citizen is. in order to determine u.s. citizenship at the time of ratification, we have to figure it out by looking at with the rights are the people have. if you have enough rights, we say you might be a citizen. for example, it is quite clear that free blacks in north
6:07 pm
carolina are not citizens of south carolina at the time to constitution is ratified. they barely had any rights at all. when chief justice said dred scott that blacks have no rights that the white man need respect, he certainly could have been talking about south carolina. on the other hand, ireland, there is evidence that east, some blacks may have voted at the time of the ratification. when i say that they can vote in at least 60 because there is evidence that some blogs were allowed to vote in both maryland and connecticut. now, is voting a measure of citizenship? not entirely because we know that to the state, there are citizens that cannot vote. notle who are under 18 are citizens because they do not have the right to vote. women before the 1920's cannot vote in every state but clearly women were citizens of the united states in the sense that
6:08 pm
thatcould get a passport the united states government was obligated to protect them when they went overseas. they had various other citizenship rights. we know that you can lose your right to vote in some places by being convicted of a felony. does that mean you are not a citizen. it does mean that you no longer have the right to vote for it by itself is not the measure of citizenship. just a purpose and proper perspective, there are many times in the united states where people who clearly were not citizens could also vote. so that in the late 18th century, a number of state said that if you are an alien and had indicated that you plan to become a citizen, then, you can start putting before you are a citizen. when people debate the
6:09 pm
question of who could vote in this country, it is at least, with noting that many time in the united states, people who clearly were not citizens, were left to vote. in some places, putting was restricted to places to people who own property in the theory that only those who pay taxes should be voting. there wasn't sales tax, the was no income tax, there was only in fact, property taxes. in some places, voting is restricted to property owners and that leads to the weirdness in virginia at the time of the revolution. if you have property in three counties, you could vote in three counties. the theory was that you should be voting for all of the people that are going to be taxing you. confusions leads to
6:10 pm
about who should be citizen. i've talked about the dread scott decision but the issue entrance got is ultimately, whether dred scott can soon john stanford by jets got claiming that he is a citizen of the state of missouri. it's god's argument is that i am a free person and i live in misery and therefore, i must be a citizen of missouri and i can soon john stanford who claims for aot as a slave but variety of reasons, he has become a citizen of new york. a, how can always you own a slave if you are a citizen of new york '\ -- new york? that i always tell them they can go to denver and buy a substance and use it legally in denver and still live in some other state where it is illegal
6:11 pm
to own it. you can own things in a state even if you cannot remember in to your home state. john stanford is a citizen in new york, dred scott is a citizen of missouri. the question in the initial trial is whether or not it's got considered as a citizen of missouri. lawyers say he cannot to because he is not a citizen of missouri. the united states district judge who hears the case, a slave the judge virginia, is hearing the case and simply says, if he is free, he must be a citizen because for this judge, there are basically only four categories of people in the united states. there are aliens which, dred scott is clearly not. there are slaves, which jets cut
6:12 pm
would not be if you misread. pretty, and there are native americans. -- dred scottot must be one of these things. he is either a slave or he is a citizen. the suit goes forward. john stanford wins the suit and appeals nothing. drew scott loses the suit and appeals on the merits of the outcome of the case. drew scott should have one but does not appeal citizenship. the case then goes to the united supreme court in to the great shock of everybody, chief citizen ship the question even though he had not been regulated. the court must always regulate whether mr.'s diction. if dred scott is not a citizen,
6:13 pm
the court does not have jurisdiction to we will get to that in another minute or two. electors in each state should have the qualifications of each elector. you can run and vote for a member of congress. you can vote for a presidential elector if you are allowed to from representatives of your low house in the state legislator. that is all it says. it does not say who these people are. it is entirely up to the state. if massachusetts allows free blacks to vote for members in massachusetts legislature, which matches uses does, and there are federal electors and they could vote for members of congress. article one, section two says, no person in the house can be
6:14 pm
elected to the house unless, they have been a citizenship of the united states for seven years. what does that mean '-- what does that mean? nine years to be a senator. this raises the fascinating question of the only constitutional wanderers worry onet davis interesting about hired rebels, elected to the u.s. senate, and here's the question. could rebels have been a citizen of the united states, or nine -- jetsnder jets got scott.d -- dred it is great that you got elected by the mississippi legislator but you cannot come in because
6:15 pm
you have only been a citizen for two years. or, was the senate correct in saying, since dred scott was wrong, you have been a citizen on the long and therefore, you can come in. blanche bruce becomes a senator and the question is, had he been a senator or nine years '\ -- nine years? nobody debated at the time but it is a wonderful final exam question. that is what i use of the four professor.a law citizenship should authorized the president to do not know what a natural citizen is.
6:16 pm
a natural born citizen right? i do not know the answer. i do know that when george romney was running for president, there was a huge question of whether he was a natural for president in mexico. nobody wanted to deal with the question except professor sharon -- jim, of whether john mccain was a citizen because john panamawas born in . year or two years after he was born the congress passed a law which said, if you are the child of u.s. military personnel or people working for the animal railroad, -- animal
6:17 pm
railroad, if you are -- animal railroad, younama are a citizen. when he was only for president, ,he senate voted 99 to nothing declaring that the senate believes that he is a citizen for purposes of being president. that is clearly, not clear. slipping -- i was teaching at the university of saskatchewan when the first presidential candidate emerged, ted cruz. ted was born in calgary and his mother, who was an american citizen of the time, was listed .s a voter in alberta
6:18 pm
it is not entirely clear what the citizenship says. his father was a cuban citizen. the beginning it up. -- living in canada. it is not entirely clear whether he was a natural born citizen in the united states having been born in calgary. furthermore, when he was elected to the u.s. senate, senator cruz was still a citizen of canada because he was born in canada until he was in fact, the only canadian citizen ever elected to the u.s. senate from the great state of texas. i'm not saying this to score political points, i am sending this to show how weird it all is, after the death of franklin
6:19 pm
roosevelt, his son was touted as someone who should run for president and immediately said, i cannot because i was born in campobello in canada. he said, i am not an american citizen at the third we do not know what a citizen is or what a natural born citizen is. article three of the constitution says, the federal citizens jurisdiction of different states. statetizens of the or foreignen war citizens. nowhere does it tell us what a citizenship is.
6:20 pm
it does say that congress shall have the power to test the uniform rule of naturalization which would of course, make a foreign person a citizen. starting in the 1820's. there are questions of whether or not, the free blacks were entitled to u.s. passports. one of the attributes of citizenship is that you can get a u.s. passport in the government is obligated to protect you when you are overseas. as early as the 1820's, various officials in the state department say that blacks cannot get passports because they are not citizens. general givesney an opinion to andrew jackson saying that blacks cannot be citizens of the united states and actually uses identical language to what he will later
6:21 pm
use in dred scott. by the way, if you want discussions of all this shameless plug, i have this in my new book where i talk about the fact that almost everything he says about black citizenship, he had said the five years later -- earlier. this leads to the graphical question that many scholars say, we should not wait 20's happy diction -- his reputation on jets got. -- dred scott. was an old man at the time and therefore, we should not playing him the most recent .dition of this book came out
6:22 pm
we should not blame him because the fact is,man the views on citizenship are out there in the 1830's. on the other hand, having said that blacks cannot be citizens a get passports, we know that handful of wealthy free blacks in the united states got passports. not need a he did passport to get in and out of the united states. the passport was useful for climbing the protection of the u.s. government is trouble overseas. frederick douglass goes to england, he does not get a passport. this is all very weird. 1790's, congress passes a law called the inspection.
6:23 pm
it is an identification document when seeman are on american ships. that is so when the british stop you and try to take you off of the ship, i can say no, i am an american the siemens production law says that the collectors at portort of each foreign sending ships overseas, will issue protections to citizens of the united states free 6lack sailors up and down the coast -- black sailors up and down the coast are provided this protection. docksbeen working on the so he knows how to speak sailor.
6:24 pm
frederick douglas knew how to talk like a seeman and the conductor comes to him and says, you have your free papers? says, i never take my free papers to see but i have something better and he whips out a siemens production. -- protection. the conductor looked, took his less. -- left. he looked like a sailor, he he spokeke a sailor, very good english, he did not talk like a slave, he talk like a free person. although this leads to this huge confusion of what is a citizen of the united states?
6:25 pm
whose7, came in a group ancestors were imported into this country and sold as slaves become a member of the political community? as such, come entitled to all of the rights and privileges guaranteed. the question before us is whether, the class of persons, compose a portion of the people and constituent members of the sovereignty. we think that they are not. they were not intended to be included under the word citizen therefore, cannot claim any of the rights and privileges to which the instrument provides to the citizens of the united states. on the contrary, they were at that time, considered a subordinate and inferior class of beings been subjugated by the dominant race and whether --
6:26 pm
weather, emancipated or not, had no rights or privileges. those who held the power of the government might choose to print them. they were regarded as beings of an inferior order. they were so far inferior that they had no rights that the white man were bound to respect. course, is the most awful language in any constitutional decision of the supreme court. it is also historical nonsense because we know that at the ratification of the constitution, free blacks voted in at least, six states. how can you not be a constituent member of the country, if you
6:27 pm
are voting for people who are ratified a -- ratified the constitution. all of this leads, to the joint committee of reconstruction which begins to hold hearing in 1866. the purpose of the 14th --ndment is in its first first statement, and send the dred scott decision to the create of history to citizenship to all persons naturalized to the united states. mean?oes that you are subject to the laws of the united states and the only people who can be born in the united states and not subject to the jurisdiction are the
6:28 pm
children of diplomats because they are not citizens of the airport here. they are citizens of the country to which they are born. when it comes to the question of the children of undocumented aliens, the u.s. constitution is .uite clear no matter what the status of your parents are, if you're born here, your subject to the jurisdiction of the united states. this is what we call in the country, perfect citizenship. that is the great gift of the 14th amendment congress. i want to say one thing in part to answer the question that was raised and i want to turn the podium over to jack. theone thing is that in
6:29 pm
1803, when ohio becomes a state, through 1868, a very small number of the states, have lost what are known as black coats. these northern states are ohio, indiana, illinois, iowa, and oregon. there are five. there are other states which have various discrimination. in terms of an actual plot code, which discriminates on blacks moving into the states or in some other way, saying that they cannot be part of the body politics there are only these five states. but the times at the 14th amendment was written, ohio has repealed all of its black laws. so has iowa. the only places left our illinois, and- oregon, where there are virtually no.
6:30 pm
why is the 14th amendment being passed in states that have? oregon was oned, that would not pass the 14th amendment after the civil war, tennessee and of reconstruction, congress passes to civil rights acts. african-americans, equal rights and what are called public accommodations. in 1882, congress and the supreme court declares that law and constitution in a case known as civil rights cases. the northernt, states,n the western almost all individually passed
6:31 pm
accommodation laws to give their pluck citizens the civil rights that they had under the federal law of 1875. the southern states do not do it all across the north and of the west, you get one civil rights act after another to pass by with an states. --se women states, nevertheless, one state after another says, as a matter of law, they can sit at the same restaurant. they can sit on the same train. some places like iowa, do this before the 14th amendment is passed. california is another one. so it's massachusetts. that is the evolution of
6:32 pm
citizenship that leads to block citizenship. what happens after that is, is a whole different history. [applause] >> thank you paul. it is a pleasure to be here. provide -- greg i actually participated in the ratification of the 14th amendment. the students and i petitioned the ohio legislature to ratify the 1866 tot during 1868 consideration. they unravel hide the amendment and when we did the ohio legislature a chance to reconsider, they ratified the amendment almost unanimously and
6:33 pm
as a result, the 14th amendment is one of an elite group of amendments that has been ratified by every state in the union. these are the bill of rights, the 14th, 15th, and 16th, and 19th amendment unanimously ratified. i want to talk about the ways in which u.s. immigration policy undermines, a broad understanding of the 14th amendment and other reconstruction era civil rights laws. specifically, i want to propose ,o you that there is evidence that there is something less than meets the eye. declarationth the of independence which asserted that all men are created equal. the original constitution was deliberately coy about slavery. it has a number of provisions that protect the provisions.
6:34 pm
clause, the text of the constitution never mentioned the password -- s-wo rd. they made no secret about their views of the close connection between race and nation. act of 1790 was passed by the first congress, signed by president george washington, secretary of state, thomas jefferson. this is the colombian sentinel from 1790. an ordinary and popular newspaper. in those days, they publish laws in the newspaper. the 1790 naturalization act provided for the naturalization of free white persons. nonwhites cannot naturalized.
6:35 pm
reverberatedhas forward in time for a number of reasons in part because the racially missed -- restrictive policy remains in effect until 1952. dredkes independence in scott. they point to the act as reflecting the views of the framers about with the people of the united states. who was the participants in political sovereignty. chief justice tony says they are white. they alone constituted the sovereignty and the government. this idea of the importance of this act was accepted uncritically by the supreme court. well into the 20th century. that is the founding moment.
6:36 pm
what we see in the reconstruction era? i have to tip my hat to legal scholar girl whose work i am borrowing from. also john who has written about these laws and very helpful ways. the civil rights act of 1866 is understood as a predecessor of the original amendment. in its original draft, they gave a variety of protections to inhabitants of the state. congress changed the protective class of citizens in order to allow the states to discriminate against noncitizens on the basis of race with regard to the right to own real property and railways. with regard to the 14th amendment itself, there is mostly sweet and not bitter. the 14th amendment prohibits states from depriving citizens from rights and immunities.
6:37 pm
the are protected from deprivation of property. equal protection clauses that is applied to immigrants, noncitizens, not blacks, nonwhites, they apply to everybody. what about the citizenship clause? all persons born and naturalized in the united states, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the united states and of the states wherein they reside. descendents was meant to overrule dred scott with respect to african-americans but to stop by to others. it does not to say, chinese who were present in the united states at the time. congress debated the question and remain controversial. it doesin pennsylvania argued te language was too broad. is the child of the chinese immigrant, a citizen? if so, what rights have been?
6:38 pm
-- they? to me, reminiscent of contemporary debates, he asked, are californians to remain complicit will they are overrun by immigrants. are they to be outrun by their home by the chinese? in our millions, are the states to lose control? is a united states determined that they will become citizens? it will connect california argued that the language of the amendment was too broad because they were making citizens of the chinese port in the united states. the chinese are in and it meant to me although, i have lived among them. economic good citizens of them. he asked, what is the difference in chinese and africans? he explained that the chinese
6:39 pm
are foreigners in the ego is a native. here, theyricans are have to be dealt with, he said the chinese, are in a different situation. for decades, the department of justice took the position that the chinese born in the united states were not u.s. citizens. unanimouscourts were in holding the opposite view. finally, that have discussed the issue to the supreme court. they argued, for the most persuasive reasons, we are pursuit -- have received citizen. we are told that the we must accept them as fellow citizens. be somertainly should honor and dignity in american citizenship that would be sacred the file and corrupted taint of the aliens. our chinese born in this country
6:40 pm
to share with our citizens? with a be eligible to the presidency of this nation? so, there has been a most degenerate departure from the dramatic ideals of our forefathers and truly, in that case, american citizenship is not what having. minority in the sense that they oppose the 14th amendment or wanted to change the language which became, the law. join but the justice in a state, the court found that the citizenship did apply to the chinese born into the united states. appear to have been suggested that children born in the united states the chinese parents, would not come into the terms of the leading sentence of
6:41 pm
the 14th amendment. nonblack, nonwhites, come up again with respect to the 15th amendment. the right of citizens in the united states should not be denied or abridged by the united states or by any state on account of race, color, or previous designation of servitude. the 15th amendment is actually a pensive jim crow legislation. how can i be? charles sumner. the amendment should base -- simply ban racial discrimination in voting. said, it is largely forgotten except, among scholars. until the 1920's, many states allow noncitizens to vote . enfranchised,rly aliens, a vince --
6:42 pm
immigrants have taken the first step declaring the first in becoming citizens. procedure.urt became aliens.- because of the naturalization act of 1790, nonwhites cannot declare their intent to become citizens. when the 15th amendment was being considered by congress, many states disenfranchised directly,directly or opponents of the franchise immigrants objected to simple race neutrality as it would result in giving chinese developed. the republican love organ said, there are people who will not or did not learn our language. they will not or did not adopt our manners.
6:43 pm
they constitute a distinct and separate nationality. they continue to be ignorant of paganism and religion. educational and religious institutions restaurants or to these people, what would be the consequence? just as chief justice concluded davis ofcott, senator kentucky, contended that the declaration of independence made clear that the united states was a white nation. he explained that i would be willing to lay a absolute embargo on asian immigration. put uponld never be the choice of america. i do not want a new government, i do not want a medical and government, i want the government of a white man. it embraced neither.
6:44 pm
neither was a party to it. neither had a hand in its organization. needless to take part of it. the truth is evidence by the acts of congress which expressly limited the naturalization of foreigners to them. declines tocongress that version of the 15th amendment which became law. it was understood in light of its framers to permit race discrimination against noncitizens. the idaho constitution, for example, disenfranchises chinese were persons of my going to send, not born in the united states. minute -- amendment says noncitizens are ok. the oregon constitution which was allocated by the 15th amendment, allow citizens to vote and also, those who have declared intentions to become citizens. bottom, just so
6:45 pm
there's no misunderstanding, noting growth, china men, or water, should have a right to suffrage. on the other hand, congress rejected a proposal to limit protections to blacks. we could have had a 15th amendment that did not apply to u.s. citizens of asian, hispanic, native american, or perhaps, white ancestry. note, thehat happier 1870 enforcement act contains significant chinese provisions. senator william stewart, the senator of nevada, who voted for both the 14th of 15th amendment, introduced a bill which became section 16 of the enforcement act. it was a lot like the civil rights act of 1866. it applies to all persons.
6:46 pm
them the same rights, in every state and territory, to make up was contracts, to sue, to give evidence, etc., it says they shall be subject to licensing, penalties, and actions of every kind. section is that the chinese. the chinese minor tax was to reserve my opportunities to whites. it was designed to validate statutes in california. the territories which prohibited the chinese from test -- testifying against whites. section 16 intentionally, to not give citizens the right to own land. put did not just noncitizens into the production of the 1876 act, it was a different thing. it was more limited and designed
6:47 pm
to allow states to discriminate in land ownership on the basis of race against noncitizens. advantage ofook this federal position -- permission. and idaho statute allows for corporations and noncitizens to own land and pursue my name provided the chinese were persons of bungling dissent, are excluded. men, not achina resident of the state, should ever hold any real estate or mining claims. those are perfectly legal with act becausehe 1870 they were designed to protect that sort of discrimination. here, senator stewart, the proponent of this, made clear.
6:48 pm
he said the provision which has been added is one of great importance. it is of more importance to the honor of the nation and to the importance of the bill. we are inviting to our shores, asiatics. we have a treaty allowing them to come. am opposed to asiatics been brought here, and would join in any legislation that would oppose anyone to invite them come out yet, we have a treaty that if i sent to our country. stewarts activity here and the idea behind it, simultaneously, reflects an admirable attachment to legal values and racism. obey thee have to treaty, we have to obey the law, we have to give people the basic rights that we promised them even though they should all be excluded because this is a white country. the treaty that senator stewart mentioned was united states and
6:49 pm
china. it promised the chinese could immigrate to the united states on the same basis as all other foreigners. ironically, the burlingame treaty was signed by the secretary of state on july 28, 1868, the same day that he signed a proclamation that the 14th amendment had become part of the constitution. the burlingame treaty, contained an exception to the general equal treatment will for naturalization chinese did not have the privilege of naturalization under the treaty because they did not have the privilege of naturalization under the naturalization act of 1790. this contradiction that the same day, we are adopting a racially discriminatory statue, indicates at the 14th amendment rested on some principle of day, we are the, that racial discrimination is wrong. congress also debated the naturalization act in 1870 by virtue of the 14th amendment,
6:50 pm
african born in this country was citizens, by virtue of the naturalization act of 1790, african emigrants conceptualize. always to be done about that? one proposal was to amend the aliens,rovide any except natives of china and japan, become citizens of the united states. charles sumner, just post to take the word white out of the naturalization laws that they appear and put the naturalization laws on completely race neutral basis. stewart, theenator very senator stewart who introduced the sections to the chinese, in the enforcement act of 1870, strongly enforced race neutrality and naturalization. to handle overe our citizenship to any proponent of us.
6:51 pm
i do not close to surrender to them the political power of this country. sumner's proposal failed. in the end, the naturalization law extended the privilege of naturalization but privilege of the amendment to aliens and persons of african descent. d, c respect to obligations of treaties. we see respect to basic rights of individuals, even chinese, but there is also a sense that for many, the 14th amendment and other reconstruction measures, were about solving a problem. not about a rejection of race theology in general. looked at in this way, there is no contradiction, there is nothing in sync -- inconsistent
6:52 pm
in the legislator passion -- -- almost all eliminating immigration to the united states due to racial incompatibility. put those measures, the 14th and restriction of asian immigration, were efforts to solve problems. that was the principal. to paraphrase hippie, we have to do something with african-americans because they are here, but, why do we want to invite more of this kind of trouble to our country? when did this change? matter, race would be eliminated from immigration policy and naturalization policy with the immigration and naturalization acts of thy kisses you five, which i argue, was the third -- 1965, which i was as effective as the
6:53 pm
one in 1965. then ideological matter, answer is, i am not sure that things have changed. maybe we are dealing with them issue now. white nationalists, such as that the 1965 immigration act and the changes that are brought, was contrary to the vision of the framers as reflected in the naturalization act. another white nationalists, argues that the 1965 act which has changed the demographic makeup of the united states, dramatically, would never have been approved the public was allowed to vote on a referendum. matter, theyal 1790 have a point that the
6:54 pm
naturalization act as a salon about the framers of the nation and the paul from 1965 -- poll from 1965 says that two thirds of the country opposes it. there is a clear hierarchy of the kinds of people that americans want to come to the united states and those people, are white. canada, asianss and latin americans are at the bottom. although, i do want to point out that the very lowest is russians. that may have changed a little bit. i think i know how it is going to come out. i hope i know how it is going to come out but the way i understand the current debate about immigration is a it is
6:55 pm
about whether the united states actually believes not that all white people, that all people are created equal. one of the things i makes america great is that like a lot of other countries, the united states was originally founded on but that we,ples consciously, and definitively, mostly on them. -- moved beyond them. [applause] career --the pull of my of my career has been on the number of donations. at the navajosor technical university. most recently, i am working for the president of the navajo nation. the first question that people
6:56 pm
ask is, are you navajo? the second question is, are you married to the navajo? is, then, whytion do care? we are actually in a. time whereperiod of people want to know what you are. people like to put you in boxes. they like to know why you care about certain things. i'm going to talk about, the native americans aspect of citizenship. burynavajos are born, they their umbilical cord's in the earth so they always know where home is. when they introduce themselves, they introduce their name, clan, family, and where they come from. although, i am not navajo, i'm expected to the the same thing. i was born in new mexico,
6:57 pm
parents who grew up in utah. my ancestors walked across the plains in the 1800s and settled in utah. my roots are firmly rounded in the west although, i did not work with native americans until much later. this year, we are commemorating the 14th amendment that granted citizen rights to all persons born or naturalized in the united states. we celebrate this amendment because when it was passed in 1868, it extended u.s. citizensp to supposedly, everyone. those 150 years ago. on the navajo nation, we are commemorating another centennial. this is my disclaimer, i am not native. as the united states engaged in the civil war, reports of gold and silver in the west, entice more white to -- settlers. in 18 they began to get rounded up and walk them 400 miles to a concentration camp.
6:58 pm
more than 10,000 navajos made the journey, at least, 2000 died. 1868, the federal government and the navajo nation signed a treaty. the navajo was freed and allowed to walk back to their homeland but when the 14th amendment was passed as a mirror, it did not extend to the navajo did not live within u.s. borders. some of you may recognize jim thorpe. he was the first native american and when olympic gold medals for the united states in 1912. he was celebrated as a national hero but he was not a u.s. citizen. you may also recognize the code talkers who were recorded -- .etreated -- recruited although many of these men were u.s. citizens during world war ii, they were not put into the world that recognize them as such. what the citizenship mean? equal rights,s
6:59 pm
protections, access to service, education, representation, and the right of self-determination. ae rate to a voice, with means access to places, a venue in which to be heard, a power to decide in what they are, ownership of their own tribal names and identities. i want to ask, how many of you can name 10 or more tribes today? does anybody know how many federally recognized tribes there are? 567. and that does not include the state recognized tribes, or the tribal communities that don't have recognition either by state or federal government. my argument today is even now that voice is oppressed.
7:00 pm
native americans are still very much invisible. they have a special status that nobody really understands, including our current president. we don't have to see native americans, so we don't. since the pilgrims landed at plymouth rock, the europeans have had a special relationship with the indigenous people. there were considered as savage. however indians could be seen assimilated ,and native americans could earn citizenship. to get the sense of tone from the white house, george washington renovated mount vernon. he renovated the office so it faced west. he believed native americans
7:01 pm
were destined to be displaced by white settlers. the first policies relegated native americans to special citizens.t not u.s. the founding fathers had a hard time imagining when white facilities would -- white settlers would move all the way to the west coast, and no land would exist to push them off. the end of the civil war actually accelerated decolonization and conquest of the west. the 14th amendment excluded indians not taxed. many indians at this point were not excited to gain citizenship in a nation they did not trust. toizenship was a way separate people from their land and destroyed tribal sovereignty. the civil war was fought over differing opinions about how the west would be settled, with without slavery. congress passed the moral
7:02 pm
land-grant, homestead act -- federal authorities could offer citizens a deal. if you font fo -- fought for lincoln, you could get federal land. in the 1870's, we had the largest execution in the nation's history. we had the sand creek massacre of the cheyenne. ed whena war that end survivors were loaded onto cattle cars and shipped to oklahoma. we have the surrender of a chief, who gave in after leading his people on a cross-country chase to avoid being put on a reservation. and we have the navajo, who are i incarcerats in what is known as america's concentration camp's.
7:03 pm
residents were not supposed to be permanent, and neither were the individual tribal nations. in the second half of the 19th century, the federal government began cracking down on simulation measures with land allotments. they meant to encourage indians to live like white people. president cleveland signed the general allotment act, which divvied out land to individual indians. dawes own words, explained to the civilized was to "wear civilized clothes, cultivate the land, ride in studebaker wagons, send children to school, drink whiskey and own property." to holdd for allottees
7:04 pm
land for 25 years, in which their heirs would become residents of the united states, but only if they were a part of other indians and adopted the habits of civilized life. by giving indians parcels of land, the government could open to white settlers. anybody that knows the history of the dawes act, this still affects indians today. it is the largest class-action lawsuit. reverse theg to effect of the dawes act. 1879, the flagship indian industrial school opened to carlylet-rex -- barracks. carlisle and other schools were
7:05 pm
designed to give indians basic skills. they removed them from their ancestors and introduced them to english and christianity. the belief was once they were introduced to civilized life, they would not want to return to the reservation. june 2, 1924, president coolidge signed the indian citizenship act, which finally granted full citizenship to indian americans born in the united states without preconditions. extendedry this act all the constitutional rights under the 14th amendment. even after this declaration, states still held authority to who could vote, and it took several decades before all indians could vote in all states. the act introduced dual citizenship. lawmakers at the time however believed the indians would fully integrate into american society
7:06 pm
until tribal identities were no longer relevant. some indians did not want citizenship at all. the iroquois confederacy wrote letters "respectfully denying u.s. citizenship." as you can see, the citizenship act applied to all indians born within the territorial limits of the united states. president coolidge, who did not even include this in his autobiography, signed this act as the miriam report was underway. it found half of native americans were surviving on a per capita income of $100 and $200 per year. at the time, the national average was about $1300. in the early 1950's, the government began terminating its relationships with tribes, meaning they would never offer federal supervision or support, nor recognize them as sovereign nations. in 1953, congress passed a bill
7:07 pm
declaring indians should be subject to laws as same americans. relationships of 109 tribes were terminated. we are still dealing with that as tribes trying to get re-recognized at this point. this led to the activism of the 1960's and 1970's, the standoff at wounded knee, the occupation of alcatraz and other acts of rebellion as indians pushed for the government to keep its promises. to allowith a call indian tribes to determine their own destiny. today, the federal government's official indian policy is self-determination and self-governance. today tribal nations have more control over resources and identity, and they have more
7:08 pm
input into how their children are educated and practice their religion, but they continue to have issues of dual citizenship, of being dependent but sovereign nations, of not having equal development,nomic education, or voting. as citizens with special status, indians are considered developm, education, of the respective tribes in the states they reside and of the federal government, however they are only subject to tribal and federal laws. this brings up issues of jurisdiction, as this is the only place in the country where criminal jurisdiction is based on skin color. we cannot talk about indian americans without what is going on now. i want to talk about testing or -- about pending or recently settled lawsuits showing the
7:09 pm
disparity about what was promised to indian americans and what happened in the past. this is an illustration of the voting districts in san juan county, utah, where my mother was raised. the districts have been drawn for at least 50 years so that of the three seats on the county commission, only one will be navajo. since citizens of san juan county vote along racial lines, votes were drawn along the lines. navajo nation filed suit in 2012, and then a federal court judge just this past december drew new district boundaries that gave navajo the majority in two districts. the white population, my family included, is appealing the ruling. they have actually said, even though we know we are a minority population, we deserve a majority voice. >> [laughter]
7:10 pm
>> last year, a tribe filed a civil rights lawsuit against the federal bureau of education. in the grand canyon, the>> tri's capital cities only accessible by helicopter, horseback, or by foot. if you walk, it is eight miles. they claim that the government is denying citizenship rights by denying education. there's only one school serving grades k through 8, and offers no instruction in science, history, social studies, art, o r foreign language. because there is no high school there, teens and their entire families are forced to get an education. because education is so poor in favasupai, only 20% o students graduate from high school. in 2011, urban outfitters
7:11 pm
launched a line of products branded with the navajo name. among the merchandise for sale was a liquor flask, various clothing, and the infamous navajo hipster panty. now you know why that slide was removed. >> [laughter] >> the liquidation immediately filed a lawsuit -- navajo nation immediately filed a lawsuit. the company argued that the term navajo is generic and can't be owned, not even by the navajo tribe. the tried and company -- tribe and company settled out of court. if you are familiar with the indian arts and crafts act, there is a legal meandering around who is able to sell these crafts. we have people from the philippines selling fake or fraudulent crafts and calling
7:12 pm
them natives made, which is illegal. who owns a name? can you call it in the in the if it is not -- it indian made if it is not indian made? finally, are there any washington redskins fans here today? >> [laughter] >> want to talk about a lawsuit brought against this nfl team. it defines the line against free speech and hate speech and self-determination for native people. a lawsuit filed claiming the redskins name was disparaging and seeks to have the trademark canceled. the judge canceled the trademark registration, but an appeals court reversed the ruling. in 2006, a different group of natives filed a new lawsuit, again claiming that the name was disparaging. if you look it up in the
7:13 pm
dictionary, it says it is a racial slur, by the way. in 2014, the united states patent and trademark office cancel the registration, but again appeals court reversed the ruling. in a strange twist of fate, the supreme court on a separate case, one that involved an asian-american rock band called unanimously ruled in favor of the defendants, saying the disparaging words violence the first amendment's -- violates the first amendment's free speech clause .to end, i want to show a commercial put together by the congress of national american indians. this was played during the super bowl. of course, with the supreme court having ruled that disparaging words are not
7:14 pm
institutional, native americans are trying to sway public opinion with ads like this one. ♪ >> crowd. proud. forgotten. indian. ♪ navajo. sioux.ot, inuit, and survivor, spiritualist, patriot. bull, jim thorpe. mother, father, son, daughter, chief. ♪ , choctaw,eblo
7:15 pm
chippewa. ,nderserved, struggling resilient. tecumseh andcloud, crazy horse. teacher, doctor, soldier. mohawk, andneca, creek. geronimo.l rogers, , indomitable.rong americans call themselves many things. -- one thing they don't
7:16 pm
>> [applause] >> we have actually finished before the end of my time, which shocks me. so if there is time for questions, please come to the microphone. direct them whoever you want to direct them at. >> good morning. wonderful set of presentations. a chance to challenge the ways that we segregate and we segregate. 1965 elementby the . truly 20 years after fighting the nazis we were embracing immigration from germany. that was a shocking
7:17 pm
presentation. puts me back in some work i have done on 1819, when we're in the middle of espionage and sedition act. we literally used our own civil rights concepts that you brought put people tond jail for not supporting the red cross. veterested in how you wea together some of those thoughts that civil rights was captured but really never recaptured in terms of race. >> wonderful i have in response have in- one thought i response to the question is there is no doubt 1869 was in response to geopolitics. the immigration act as well as
7:18 pm
the others talks about the fact that we are at war. we were in vietnam, and certainly the cold war was going on. perhaps more in 1965 then now there is a concern about how we look to the rest of the world. that i one of the thingss that is going on there. hand,ow, on the other for whatever reason, congress was ahead of the people on it. congress sort of said, there are a lot of considerations we have to take into account here, and we can't justify bigotry in our immigration and naturalization policy anymore, because there are significant national costs t o it. there is another group of scholars who say that the 1965
7:19 pm
immigration act was designed to achieve a predominantly white immigration stream under a more politically palatable guise. he they put more emphasis ont geopolitical sick -- on the geopolitical considerations than civil rights considerations. people said this is expected to not have any change on the demographics streams. it really systematically work in obviously the civil rights act of 1964 had tremendous effects, but the immigration act worked, period. before 1965, the immigrant stream was 85 percent caucasian. and with no affirmative action.
7:20 pm
out ands go deliberately get people from the third world. with race neutral merit based selection criteria, 75% or 85% of the immigrant stream has been from africa, asia, and south america. so it worked. there are some scholars that believe this is an unintended sequence. thelieve based on ideological statements that members of congress need at the time, that they were intentionally getting rid of racism and letting the chips fall where they may. another reason i say this is because the coalitions that opposed the voting rights act and civil rights act are the same as the coalitions that opposed the immigration act. if we think that the immigration
7:21 pm
act was window dressing, then we have to think that the civil rights act and voting rights act were also windowdressing, they were designed to make people feel better without changing anything, and i don't believe that. >> i want to add one piece. excuse me -- i want to add one piece to jack's cancer, which is that the makeup of - jack's ans wer, which is the makeup of congress at the time had a number of those in the senate who are immigrants themselves or --
7:22 pm
it came from the community that is looking at what the cost of immigration loss was to his community because of the holocaust. you had significant numbers of of italian american members of congress out of new york and new jersey and other places, who were again the children of immigrants who had come as a very young children. it was a political change in congress itself. i'm sorry to have cut you off. to -- iwas addressed think the constitution, does it you can hold office no matter where you are from? uh, okay?
7:23 pm
including the highest office in the land. my question. >> what is your question? >> does the constitution not say that no matter where you are from, you can hold the highest office in the land? >> no, it says you have to be a natural born citizen to be president. >> the constitution says the president must either be a natural born citizen, which has been traditionally interpreted as someone who was born in the united states. doesn't matter where your parents are from, you have to be physically born in the united states, and therefore a citizen at birth -- >> then it says, no matter where you are from. >> no -- , i'd i could answer that
7:24 pm
say the constitutionoes say that anyone alive at the time of the constitution, no matter where born, could be president, but the number of those people today is -- >> [laughter] >> i really appreciate the professor's talk, but it was the supreme court case you did not mention. it was an anomaly then, and is now, where someone sued on behalf of a request for citizenship. the man was from india. his attorney pointed out, this is where the caucasian race again. the court pointed out, he is technically correct, but most americans want perceive him - won't perceive him as caucasian,
7:25 pm
and therefore can't be a citizen. >> right. was question got to who white. because of this restriction to those of native and african-american descent, there is this huge jurisprudence of who is white. >> to give you the idea of the perversity of this. the 1970 act says only when people can be naturalized -- white people can be naturalized citizens. that precludes people from asia. there is a gigantic number of cases trying to figure out who is white -- are armenians white? are iraqis white? are supporting jews white? i think the final disgrace of this comes after world war i,
7:26 pm
because during world war i, congress passes a law that says anyone who is honorably discharged c b a naturalized citizen if they were an alien when they came and. my grandfather became a citizen by serving in world war i. he was not a citizen. towards the end of the war, they started naturalizing you. he became a naturalized citizen while still in uniform. a man whose last name was toyota sought naturalization having served both in the coast card in the navy, and the ru supreme ruled-- the supreme court he could become a citizen. eight to one voted no, you can't become a citizen because you still have to be white. to his credit, chief justice
7:27 pm
william howard taft was in the dissent. >> for anyone interested, the thessic work on this is book "white by law." >> i have written two books on immigration, mostly concentrating on our immigration laws. how did they evolve? how did it go from the labor committee -- because it was really about jobs. people come here for work. we like immigrants because they are fabulous workers. it is not just about race. how are these laws evolved? how do they come from the labor committee to the justice committee? there are so many more things beyond just race. i want to make one comment, then it will ask a question. -- think of the
7:28 pm
times. kennedy has been killed, johnson won. the civil rights act passed in 1964. our 1923 immigration act was called the national origins quota act. it was totally based on discrimination on nationality. there wasn't much question that it had to be changed for civil rights. >> could you get to your question? >> i just want to make clear this is not just a racial thing. in order to passed meet requirements of the civil rights act, but it did not make immigration a civil right. now we get to the 14th amendment and jurisdiction. there were four groups in 1868 that were not subject to the
7:29 pm
jurisdiction, one of them still exists today. diplomats with full diplomatic immunity, their children who are born cannot become citizens. there were two others as you said, indians, chinese were not allowed to be naturalized. both of those cases came up, when the supreme court and one in congress were changed -- >> i do not mean to be rude, but could you please ask a question? >> i am getting to it. >> we are running out of time. >> the question is, and i'm sorry if you think i am challenging you. i think what you're saying is good, but not complete. subject to the jurisdiction, you are saying that everybody is
7:30 pm
subject, but there is an intention on citizenship. one of the challenges is people come in as tourists have a baby here with no intention of staying, but leave with citizenship. citizenshipts because they have been born in the united states. there have been attempts to challenge birthright citizenship for tourists, people coming in temporarily. their children are born in the united states. >> ma'am, if you do not ask -- >> this is the question. >> no, you have been going for four minutes. please ask a question or sit down. >> i just did. what is your feeling? the laws have not changed before -- what do you think of challenging birthright citizenship for people who come
7:31 pm
, have a child,, ahv and leave with a passport. >> thank you. you could have asked that in 30 seconds instead of four minutes. very simply the constitution says if you are born in the united states, you are a citizen of the united states, period. that is all i have to say. and thank you. theould you talk about circumstances of w hy the 1924 law passed and went into effect? >> why it went into effect? >> what were the circumstances that led to it being passed? >> one was native americans were serving in the military at a very high rate. they were granted citizenship if they were honorably discharged . we had about -- honorably discharged.
7:32 pm
we had about 10,000 indians naturalized because of this. the the argument report found out native americans were very poor, so they granted citizenship as a way to assimilate them, ultimately with the goal of removing indian citizenship and assimilating population.e larger >> this will be the last question, because we are over our time period. >> how do we justify that we have to make native americans citizens? >> [laughter] >> nobody needs to answer. ative doesn'tse n really mean native.
7:33 pm
i will give you -- the constitutional answer is this -- in 1831, chief justice john marshall ruled in a cased called cherokee nation versus georgia that the cherokee nation was not a foreign nation, and therefore cherokee nation could not sue georgia in federal court. rather, the citizens of the cherokee nation were dependent -- the cherokee nation was a dependent domestic sovereignty, which meant that it had sovereignty as an independent nation, but subject to whatever the united states government wanted to do with that sovereignty. that was a follow-up on an earlier case, johnson versus macintosh.
7:34 pm
johnson versus macintosh involved a giant portion of what is today the state of illinois and who owned it. one of the claimant's claimed they bought it from an indian tribe in the 1760's, and they were now the owners of having -- owners on the basis of having those rights. the other argument was, i own this land because the federal government gave it to me. chief marshall says the indian tribe could not sell its land to individual purchasers, because they did not own any length, that indian tribes did not have any claim to land ownership, they only had a right of occupancy, and that the u.s. government had the right to terminate that occupancy by treaty, purchase, or military force, whatever you chose.
7:35 pm
the reason you would have a treaty is because it is cheaper or becauseng a war, you did not want to fight a war, you really wanted to do it peacefully. until the united states government chose to terminate the right of occupancy, indian tribes had this right of occupancy, but that left indians in this kind of netherworld -- you are not really citizens of the united states, you don't really own the land you live on, and you only get to live on the land unless you sign a treaty, and we got to abrogate the treaty whenever we want. as a former law professor who taught for years issues of race and slavery and sometimes immigration, in my courses on history and race and law, i
7:36 pm
would teach about american indians up until johnson versus macintosh, and i would basically tell my would teach class, this goes onn the world that you have to has enormous special knowledge of, because american indian law its own special place and is enormously confusing. one of the confusions is you needed a law to make native americans native foreign citizens. >> let's talk about current events. i referenced san juan county utah, that whites are a minority, but believe they have a majority voice. that goes back to land ownership. native americans cannot own land, they can only own a land l ease. they are allowed to live on the land, work on the land, but not own it. the people of san juan county would say native americans should not get equal citizenship
7:37 pm
rights because they do not pay property tax, because they are not allowed to own property. >> thank you all. when do we reconvene? >> 1:45. >> thank you all. see oyu at 1:45. >> [applause] [chatter] on c-span3's american history tv we are taking your questions and comments, your vote i should say. the question is, which party changed the most since 1968? the vote with more than 24,000 casting their votes saying the democrats changed the most. the republicans at 44%. >> thanks to everyone who voted in our twitter post on 1968, america in turmoil. more than 200,000 votes were
7:38 pm
posted on issues ranging from the vietnam to the presidential election to women's rights and race relations. you can tweak us comments and questions -- tweet us comments and questions during live events or look back at what happened on this day in history, on twitter on to spin history. >> c-span is visiting new orleans, where we toured its historic sites. the city was founded by the french, becoming united states napoleon in 1803 when sold the land in the louisiana purchase. learn about new orleans all weekend here on history tv. >> file in new orleans, we took a driving tour of the city author, hri


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on