Should the 14th Amendment be modified to deny children of illegal immigrants birthright citizenship?
Ross Marine (Conservative):
Throughout American history, laws meant for one purpose have been misconstrued to serve another.
The 14th Amendment is a prime example of this fact, but while the legality of “anchor babies” remains technical at best, we should not fail to realize the benefits of immigration for American business.
The principle of “birthright citizenship”, despite the legal status of the parents, has been upheld by the Supreme Court on several occasions.
This being said, the system in place is not what was advocated by the amendment’s writers.
The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, was meant to give freed slaves citizenship and promote black voting and legislative representation while keeping ex-Confederates out of Congress; not to grant the children of undocumented immigrants U.S. Citizenship.
There are, however, a few other important thoughts to keep in mind on the issue of immigration.
Even if the 14th Amendment were to be changed (as advocated by some conservatives) it would not fix the problems associated with illegal immigration.
Eliminating the “anchor baby” would not stem the flow of drugs across the border and best-case scenario is the deportation of the entire family. This family will then likely just return back across the border.
The solution to the immigration crisis is a streamlining of the process for citizenship and accountability to promote legal immigration as well as increased effort to crack down on cross-border drug trafficking.
The fact that many of my fellow conservatives fail to acknowledge is the economic boom provided by the massive pool of low priced labor capital available via immigration.
Large scale immigration, both legal and illegal, is probably the best thing to happen to labor-dependent industries like agriculture and construction since sliced bread.
Now is an ideal time for Americans to embrace the words on the base of the Statue of Liberty, “…give me your tired, your poor… I lift my lamp beside the golden door.”
And realize that the time has come to streamline the immigration process (which will not happen with a change in the 14th Amendment) and once again allow our businesses to flourish.
Pavan Kota (Moderate):
Once again, Arizona is under the spotlight for its proposed, controversial immigration policies. It has put forth two bills to deny the right of citizenship to children born in the U.S. from illegal immigrants. However, these bills have hit one major roadblock: constitutionality.
The right to citizenship for all of those who are born in the United States is a part of the 14th Amendment.
Currently, the bills cannot be passed, noting that the Constitution usually overrules all legislation. Yet supporters of this stricter policy concerning immigration argue that the 14th Amendment should be altered.
After all, all but just 30 countries do not grant automatic citizenship to children born within borders. Instead, in most cases, at least one of the baby’s parents has to be legally in the country.
Critics of the 14th Amendment also say that “birthright citizenship” allows illegal immigrants to “anchor” themselves in the U.S. This however, isn’t exactly the whole story. In fact, even though the newborn baby becomes a citizen, the family cannot legally remain in the U.S. The child can only sponsor the parents once he or she is 21 years old, and the parents have to have a steady income to be able to apply.
“Anchor babies” clearly aren’t really adding much to the problem of illegal immigration.
If reducing immigration is the goal of these bills, this is really not the best option. There are plenty of other alternatives. Realistically, U.S. laws and restrictions on immigration aren’t the problem. There are more than enough of those. The problem lies in law enforcement.
Yet parents of such children are merely seeking a better life. Just because they cannot legally enter the U.S. for various reasons doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t try to improve the quality of life for their future generations.
Mackenzie Nelson (Liberal):
I once gave a presentation for a group of German peers about America’s status as a “cultural melting pot.” In my opinion, one of most beautiful aspects of American culture is the fact that, in reality, no one is “American” (except Native Americans — but I suppose they too ‘immigrated’ across Bering Straight and are thus of some sort of Russian-Alaskan ancestry). The American dream is about the fulfillment of personal goals, whatever they may be, despite any sort of corrosive family history or jaded past.
The ratification of the 14th Amendment formally established America as a land of opportunity with the inclusion of the birthright citizenship clause.
For years, Americans have preached principles of tolerance and opportunity for all. Not all nations offer birthright citizenship to their citizens, and to be honest, the inclusion of the clause in the 14th Amendment represents one of the few instances that America actually stands by its principles.
Personally, I find it is a bit ironic that the very senators advocating the abolition of the “birthright citizenship clause” have benefited from its inclusion ‘back in the day’ when their parents or grandparents or great-grandparents immigrated to the U.S.
Advocates of excluding so-called “anchor babies” from their 14th Amendment right to birthright citizenship argue that the children of illegal immigrants should not be entitled to the benefits of U.S. citizenship (which include programs like social security and welfare). However, it is my belief that modifying the 14th Amendment so as to deny the “anchor babies” citizenship would set a dangerous precedent for U.S.-immigration policies.
I was looking forward to going on a conservative-bashing tangent when presented with this topic; however the liberal nature of Ross Marine’s column indicates exactly how absurd the Republican leader’s preposition is. As for the 14th Amendment, I think that it is safe to say, “if it is not broken, we shouldn’t fix it.”