Birthright Citizenship Essay

Such changes would require that a newborn must provide proof of his/her birth as well as his/her parents legal status at the time of birth. This would place a huge burden on the state government and would make the issuance of birth certificates very expensive. U.S. citizenship and immigration laws are complex and providing proof of a parent’s legal status at the time of the child’s birth can be very difficult. Every American born baby would face a bureaucratic hurdle that would result in the need of legal services. A change in the citizenship clause will cost American households $2.4 billion annually (Stock 153). It is also expected that the change would fall on minorities and the poor because the wealthy and most middle class families would have access to a lawyer, when the poor could not afford to retain

The Birthright Citizenship Amendment is one that has caused controversy. Should  a person that is  born in the US, regardless of whether the parents were here temporarily, or illegally be considered an American citizen? The 14th Amendment states “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside”, ( Spalding, 2010). The interpretation of this amendment has caused the controversy.

Over a century ago, the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution was implemented to grant citizenship to individuals born within the country. This was the first time that it was defined what it means to be a citizen in the U.S. While the amendment was created to address the citizenship of slaves, it is currently under speculation in regards to granting U.S. citizenship to children born to undocumented immigrants (Gans, 2012). While there have been many arguments to place restrictions or eradicate granting children of undocumented immigrants U.S. citizenship, the constitutional right remains the same: if you are born on U.S. land, you are a citizen (Angelo, 2013). This paper argues that the birthright citizenship of U.S. born children of undocumented immigrants should continue to be granted based on the underlying principles of the 14th Amendment and the possible implications of ending birthright citizenship. First, this paper describes birthright citizenship and the 14th Amendment, as well as its use in several Supreme Court cases that are significant to this issue. Then, various implications of eradicating birthright citizenship are discussed. Before discussing the possible consequences of eradicating birthright citizenship, it is imperative to discuss the history and principles underlying it.

After seeing that figure, I start to question that what is the significance of birthright citizenship, as an American exceptionalism. Having done some related researches, I tend to agree with Eric Foner that Birthright Citizenship, as nailed on the Fourteenth Amendment after the Civil War, symbols the triumph of mankind. We shall preserve it well because it was the history of blood and death that raised it up, uniting people with various colors and languages to form today’s prosperous country honored in the name “United States”. Had we lost that treasure of American Exceptionalism, I would question if today’s “States” could still be “United”.

Constitutional guidelines. The Constitution lists two specific references to immigration and naturalization that the Government May intervein. The government Can protect us from ourselves, and themselves. First, Article I, Section 8 references that creating the authority of Congress, by establishing a uniform Rule of Naturalization or immigration. Secondly, the 14th Amendment states that, all persons born or naturalized in the U.S. are citizens in the State they reside. In the long run, the intent of the founding fathers was whether born a citizen or naturalized

     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. 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      (http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Amend.html ).

Texas has a reputation throughout history of differing views from the federal government in laws and politics pertaining to social, fiscal, and educational issues. On the whole, Texas operates as a largely conservative state. Because of this, policy-making is often right wing. With the institution of a Democratic, liberal president, the State’s dissent from the Federal government has only increased over certain issues. One hot topic of the 2012 Presidential election was immigration. With the major increase in immigration, it is no surprise that the issue was so emphasized. Between 2000 and 2011 there was a 30 percent

Fourteen years later we see the Supreme Court uphold the promise of the 14th amendment in the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark. The court concluded that the government could not deny citizenship to anyone born in the United States, which established a highly important precedent in the Citizenship Clause of the 14th amendment. This set a path to how the 14th should be interpreted and gave more clarity as to what constituted a citizen of the United States. More so, this decision also helped define the right to citizenship for Chinese children as the Chinese Exclusion Act had been signed into law in the year 1882. Way on down the road we again see the court get it right, this time with a unanimous decision. In the 1967 case of Loving v. Virginia,

An illegal immigrant, who works for their keep in an unknown country, contributes to taxes, stays out of trouble, and just wants a better life in a foreign country, on unknown land should be recognized for their contribution to that particular society. An illegal immigrant is a person who migrates to a different country in a way that is in violation of the immigrant laws of that country. Immigration has been a divided topic for many years in America- illegal immigrants are sometimes seen as a burden to America, but others view them as an economic savior. There are over 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States and many Americans have mixed views about where there stance should be regarding citizenship. Illegal immigrants

For many years now the state of Texas has been said by many to be the land of opportunity where everyone can reach their aspirations. According to the Texas tribune, “More than 1 million undocumented immigrants live in Texas, according to the Migration Policy Institute. Because of its proximity to Mexico, Texas is second only to California in the number of undocumented immigrants who live in the state. Since the U.S. Congress in 2006 sparked national debate about illegal immigration, the state's immigration policies have become a matter of controversy in the Texas Legislature.”

Many pregnant immigrant women are illegally coming into the country just to have their babies. These women get free medical attention for themselves and the baby. This is costing the U.S. millions of dollars every year.

Another example of someone abusing the 14th amendment's birthright citizenship is in the case of Yaser Esam Hamdi. Hamdi was born a U.S. citizen in Louisiana to Arabian parents there on work visas. He scarcely lived in the U.S. before going

According to the fourteenth amendment website the fourteenth amendment “is currently misinterpreted to give citizenship to children born in the United States of illegal alien parents. These children, via their birthright citizenship, act as anchor babies and can, upon reaching the age of majority, facilitate bringing their extended family into the US in order to obtain citizenship. Although some experts believe that a Constitutional amendment would be necessary to remedy the misinterpretation, many believe that Congressional action would be sufficient and is urgently warranted.” Not until later was it seen “With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship” (Fourteen Amendment). This was basically a warning for immigrants stating they are responsible for their child and they would not become legal just because they were born in the United States and they would both be claimed by their native land. For example, if a woman from Mexico was to come to the United States illegally, at 8 months pregnant, and have her baby they would not just become legal citizens.

The modern conventional wisdom of the phrase “natural born citizen” in the presidential eligibility clause referred to anyone who was a U.S. citizen at birth either by a U.S. statute or via the Constitution. The Constitution has no “definition” section, and subsequently the Supreme Court has stated that when the Constitution is silent the law “must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution.” My argument is simple, it is reasonable to assume that the framers, most of whom were well-trained lawyers, purposely did not define the term ‘natural born citizen’ believing that the controlling common law principle was Jus Soli, and that Congress would pass corresponding statutes to accommodate any exceptions to this principle similar to the practice that occurred in England with Parliament.

In addition, the United States is created by a diversity of immigrant cultures. Currently, “approximately 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the United States” [Debate pg. 592]. Changing or repealing the fourteenth amendment, will leave many U.S citizens, children of immigrants stateless without an origin of birth. For example, Chinese came to the United States to work as