Mere Citizenship
vs Human Rights
The 5th amendment declares that:
“No Person… shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law”
Lately a lot of people roll their eyes if you try and apply this statement to immigrants. “They’re not citizens”, they insist, as though that’s the end of the conversation. But the amendment does not say “citizen”, it says “person”.
I’m sure as I type it, many readers are reliving this conversation from one side or the other. I’m posting this to explain why it **ACTUALLY MATTERS A LOT** that it says “person” and not “citizen”, and that the philosophy which undergirds this amendment keeps all of us safer.
Do we believe in human rights or not?
Human rights are rooted in the idea that, just because you’re a human being, you have certain inalienable rights. The Declaration of Independence listed the core of these as “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”, a slight change from Locke’s “life, liberty, and property”, the list of things that actually made it into the amendment.
Being a citizen is different from being a human. Citizenship is something the Government gives you, and which the Government can (in theory) take away. Tying rights to citizenship makes them gifts from the government, and innately alienable.
So it’s no surprise seeing people who have already internalized that all rights in the Constitution only apply to citizens shrugging at them being alienated. That they’re alienable is a natural, obvious consequence of tying rights to citizenship. What’s the big deal?
The big deal is that due process exists to RESTRAIN THE GOVERNMENT and how it interacts with all people, and not as a generous gift by the Government to its citizens. Framing it as a citizenship perk erodes the fundamental right for all of us.
Where does this framing come from?
Before we proceed, I’m about to discuss fascism. I stopped here to write this, which is a reaction to people’s tendency to shut down if certain ideas are mentioned. And then I wrote this, which is about fascism itself.
It’s actually MONTHS later, I’ve written so much else, but I’m back because the new thing I’m writing depends on THIS. Let’s dust ourselves off here and try and remember where we’re going. We can do it.
Where does this framing come from? (This Time With No Distractions)
Great question! As you no-doubt read in my fascism essay, Fascism exploits Liberal Democracy’s Friend/Enemy distinction. The presence of an in-group and out-group is necessary in liberal democracy. Liberal democracy has borders. Liberal democracy has citizenship. Liberal democracy emerged from the Westphalian Nation-State model, which means it is Nationalistic, which means you are given a mythologized cultural identity that gives you an image of who is Us and who is Them.
Fascism takes those boundaries and makes them deeper. Fascism makes people fear and resent the Out-Group while also making the In-Group smaller.
So when you see someone roll their eyes and say of COURSE the 5th amendment wasn’t meant to apply to THEM, it was meant for US - That is a fascist talking point, by nature. Not that everyone who says it is fascist, but they are articulating an ephemeral line that fascism seeks to exploit. The deeper we get down the road of “this clearly-articulated law was only intended to defend US and not THEM, despite what it says” the closer we are to the fascist Dual State.
It isn’t what the text says, it isn’t how it was understood at the time, and it fundamentally changes the philosophical framework of those Rights to center the Government. It is an authoritarian ideology lurking beyond “common sense”.
Still Not Confident?
The 14th Amendment extends the 5th Amendment to also restrain State governments:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
This amendment says both citizens AND persons. The framers understood the difference. They distinguish between them here. And they reference the OG amendment verbatim with that understanding.
Okay then
I have finished making my point here. This is a short one, but the one I’m working on is really long, so, enjoy the break. You’re welcome.
If you have any complaints about this post, be patient, I am confident tomorrow’s will resolve those complaints. I’ll edit a link in here when it’s done.