Shaikha Almawlani
Staff Writer
Exploring the question of who has the right to be an American citizen, the Office of Diversity and Inclusivity hosted a screening of “14: Dred Scott, Wong Kim Ark and Vanessa Lopez” followed by a panel discussion Tuesday in the Campus Center Ballroom.
The documentary film is the project of filmmaker Roland Wu, who started working on it in 2013 during his senior year at Reed College. His acquaintance Anne Galisky directed the film which was completed fall 2014.
Wu said his inspiration came from the realization that he has always taken his citizenship for granted, and that there are people still facing problems even though they fall under the Kim Ark decision of granting first born citizenship.
“I did not understand the history of our citizenship laws in this country and I realized how fragile and precarious it could be and how it is intertwined with race,” Wu said. “It felt important to me to explore that and I think documentary filmmaking is interesting, since you do not have to know everything and it is based on going and asking questions.”
The film is a response to the first sentence of the 14th amendment: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” It explores the question behind what makes an individual more American than another, and who has the right to be an American citizen.
The documentary follows three families, Dred and Harriet Scott, Wong Kim Ark and Rosario and Vanessa Lopez, who have challenged the Supreme Court to change the laws and American history in regards to immigrants and first generation children.
The screening was followed by a panel discussion that revolved around the rights of those born in the United States with disregard to their parents’ immigration status, and the concern for illegal immigrants in current times.
Michael O’Connor, professor of law at the La Verne College of Law and a criminal defense lawyer, took turns answering questions about the current situation of the United States in regards to undocumented immigrants. He also addressed the current problems facing first born citizenship holders alongside assistant professor of law John Acevedo.
“Our rights are based on the English rights,” Acevedo said. “But those are rights for English men, they are very tied to national identity, but come to the U.S. and it is already this diverse compilation of people and those rights lose some nationalism tied to race.”
Brianna Cammarano, senior education studies major, joined the discussion to ask about the probable defenses for anchor babies based on the 14th Amendment and whether we can defend the 14th Amendment just by its words.
“Anchor babies are born here,” Cammarano said. “It just confuses me to think about since it seems like a complete contradiction to me.”
Acevedo and Wu elaborated on the legal process that takes place during court when defending anchor baby rights.
“This is also about political power,” O’Connor said. “There are a lot of people who support this idea of anchor babies not having citizenship who are afraid of demographics.”
O’Connor emphasized the power of the people, and the impact individuals have on the Supreme Court in addition to changing and creating new laws and bills to help ensure justice for anchor babies and targeted undocumented immigrants.
“You have power,” O’Connor said. “Dred Scott and Harriet Scott were slaves and they changed the course of history of this country. Kim Ark was a poor Chinese first generation person who was subject to exclusion acts in this country.”
Wu referenced incidences in which children born in the U.S. were refused birth certificates which creates more undocumented immigrants.
“People aren’t arguing that they aren’t citizens, but they are limiting their rights and they are in many instances creating undocumented babies even though they are born here,” Wu said. “In terms of why and what is the rationale, I think it has to do with xenophobia and racism. It is also interesting how these definitions of race and whiteness have changed over time.”
Wu ended his response with a quote from Benjamin Franklin during the 1750s that he had heard from one of his professors. He said it represents the idea of who belongs and who does not belong and sets the foundation for change.
“Few of their (immigrants’) children in the country learn English. The signs in our streets have inscriptions in both languages. Unless the stream of importation could be turned they will soon so outnumber us that all the advantages we have will not be able to preserve our language, and even our government will become precarious,” Wu said.
Acevedo encouraged individuals to take part in the conversation and help those affected by the current immigration issues.
“Agitate, agitate, agitate, even forcing people to defend wild assertions would help,” Acevedo said.
“If you are upset by this stuff, you can actually do something,” O’Connor said. “People can change the outcome of these events and I hope people do take that out of the film.”
Shaikha Almawlani can be reached at shaikha.almawlani@laverne.edu.
Shaikha Almawlani
