Tennesseans should reject legislation that bars naturalized and dual citizens from federal office

On the same day that Tennessee state Rep. Johnny Garrett, a Goodlettsville Republican, introduced a bill that would bar naturalized and dual citizens from seeking federal office, I was reading about a 20th-century agricultural scientist who proved that diversity, combined with public service, can save the world. 

In 1973, Chinese agronomist Yuan Longping developed the first high-yield hybrid rice, an invention that helped alleviate hunger in China and across the globe. Longping’s hybrid rice boosted crop production by 30% over conventional varieties and fed an additional 70-100 million people annually in China alone, all while empowering farmers across Asia and Africa to grow a tougher rice crop in habitats previously inhospitable to the plant. 

The invention could have made Longping China’s first billionaire, but the humble scientist chose to share his hybrid rice technology with the world rather than patent it for personal gain. 

Across the Pacific Ocean, the United States doesn’t have its own Yuan Longping, but it does have something China doesn’t. Just as Longping combined the best traits of different rice plants to address hunger, America draws on its vast diversity of ideas and backgrounds to elect representatives tasked with solving our nation’s greatest challenges.

Tennessee Republicans like Garrett and state Sen. Brent Taylor of Memphis would have you believe the best way to solve our country’s problems is to only let certain kinds of Americans work on them.

Taking the anti-immigrant playbook to a new level of obscenity

Introduced in January, House Bill 2036 would prohibit Americans from seeking election to federal positions in the U.S. State House and Senate if they hold dual citizenship or are not natural-born citizens. 

Tennessee’s Republican legislators have used the current session to put forth a new round of bills aimed at immigrants, but according to the Lookout’s Sam Stockard, this is the first bill that targets U.S. citizens.

“Tennesseans should have full confidence that those serving at the highest levels of government put America first,” Garrett said when discussing the bill. “If you want to represent our state in Washington, being born in the United States should be a basic qualification. This legislation ensures Tennessee is represented by leaders with an unquestioned allegiance to our nation.”

Not-so-hidden in Garrett’s statement is this idea that the only way to guarantee American allegiance is to be born here. Timothy McVeigh, who bombed a federal building in Oklahoma; Ted Kaczynski, known as the Unabomber; and the entire Confederate Army would likely disagree with that logic.

Whether Garrett cares or not, the U.S. Constitution is already very clear about the requirements for holding federal office: seven years of citizenship to serve in the U.S. House, nine years for the Senate. Furthermore, numerous Supreme Court rulings have upheld the constitutional requirements for federal office, insisting that while states retain the right to manage federal elections, they cannot change the rules governing who is eligible to seek public office.

Garrett’s bill suggests some Americans are more worthy of constitutional rights than others

No story of a country granting rights to some citizens while withholding them from others ever ended well. In nation after nation, humans have inevitably opted for equality over superiority, fairness over caste, and parity over preferentialism. Even 239 years ago, when the world was far less civilized than it is today, the framers of the Constitution understood the importance of planting the seed of equality.

Tennessee Republican bill would limit federal office to natural-born citizens

Garrett and Taylor’s bill is insulting to the millions of people who crossed fire and ice to become Americans, individuals who overcame monumental challenges to secure their right to be here. As French-American and Gallatin City Council member Pascal Jouvence said in a February 5 op-ed, “The rhetoric behind this bill suggests that Rep. Garrett thinks people like me — Americans by choice — are inherently suspect. That we cannot be trusted. That our loyalty is conditional. That our birthplace matters more than our contributions. This is not only wrong; it is insulting. And it rings especially hollow coming from someone who, years ago, had no hesitation shaking my hand and asking me for a campaign donation. I was apparently American enough for my checkbook, but not American enough for full political rights.”

To stifle public discourse is to admit one’s ideas are incapable of withstanding scrutiny

“There will never be an Ilhan Omar representing the Volunteer State,” Garrett said at the conclusion of his remarks on the bill, referring to the Minnesota congresswoman. 

It should be seen as a red flag when a politician loudly states that he will not allow the voters to elect someone he doesn’t like, and that he will go so far as to impose restrictions on who can and can’t run for office, just to ensure certain voices never make their way into the halls of power. 

But it’s not just that Garrett and other Republicans who support the bill “don’t like” Omar. There’s something far more sinister taking root here. To impose these restrictions is to admit one’s ideas are weak and unpopular. Garrett and his allies know their agenda can’t win when debated publicly and in good faith, so they’re resorting to not just moving the goal posts, but in fact hand-picking who they will and won’t be competing against. 

Tennesseans should not stand for such cowardice.