The Constitution of the United States defines Birthright citizenship as a lawful process intended to grant national citizenship to individuals based on their physical location at the time of their birth, regardless of parentage. It is usually called jus soli in Latin, which loosely translates to the law of the soil. In America, the concept is applied in the conventional law manner. However, some exceptions have been applied to restrict the right. For example, children of foreign diplomats do not acquire citizenship by birthright. The provisions of the birthright law are highlighted in the Fourteenth Amendment. If any child is born within borders of the United States, or overseas to parents with American citizenship, then they are considered to be national citizens of the United States, by virtue of birthright. The only exception that should be observed is as quoted from the Fourteenth Amendment, “A person born in the United States to a foreign diplomatic officer accredited to the United States, as a matter of international law, is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That person is not a United States citizen under the 14th Amendment” (Will 1).
In today’s world and century, some people still view birthright citizenship as an insane policy. There reasoning is that the policy undermines their sovereignty. The view most people relate with is a concept that compares birthright citizenship for a reward to the illegal immigrant parents through their children. It is unjust to say that a child should be deported to other countries. Some children have spent their entire life in the United States from the moment of birth. Labeling that child as an immigrant is absurd, since they never came here, but started their existence here in America. In cases where the parents are deceased while the child is young, how will they even tell their parentage and trace their roots to some foreign land? America is there home, and they deserve equal treatment.
Children born in the same neighborhood, raised similarly, share the same loyalty to the American values, should be considered and protected by the law. Favoritism should not be encountered as to whether their parents were citizens or not, as at the time of their births. The legal violations said to be committed by the parent should never be allowed to hinder a child from accessing the essential services they see their peers enjoy.
Consider the following scenarios. First, a child born and raised here by illegal immigrant parents and schooled here, work and pay taxes here, and therefore, belong here. Secondly, how about a child who was born overseas, and at a tender age, illegally finds root in the United States through unauthorized parents? The child grows here, has American loyalties, and speak only the American language. The two children grow up to be fully Americans in being (Robinson 1). They do not have any memory of another country but bear full allegiance to the American dream. Their contributions should never be neglected.
The policies and provisions of birthright citizenship have encountered varied responses from various nations. For example, New Zealand, Canada, Australia, among other countries, have adopted and championed for the upholding of such policies. However, Ireland, Sweden, Switzerland etcetera, have since voted to abolish the system. Some law enforcers have argued that birthright citizenship encourages illegal immigration and should be repealed soonest. Both parents can be in American territory illegally but end up getting the same treatment for their infants, as though they are native citizens. The child grows up to enjoy equal social welfare rights, medical and education rights as though they are native residents. Many people thus fear, there will be massive attempts by such individuals to bring other siblings, relatives, or even friends through the same illegal channels they used to acquire citizenship for their child. The result is a rise in the number of illegal immigrants.
Birthright citizenship presents some typical benefits. For example, it has led to the improvement of societal diversities. Many people argue that the drive for parents to give birth to children in foreign, often developed countries, is to ensure the child gets an improved life and welfare, better than that of the parents’ nations. As a result, many of such parents, mostly immigrants, look for temporary visas, or use illegal means, just to ensure they deliver their infants in the United States jurisdiction. Diversities are thus witnessed in such societies, as the majority interact with colleagues from various varied cultures, beliefs, and societal setups. In the end, they all find means to coexist as one broad community. This paper argues against the passing of the constitutional amendment to end birthright citizenship.
Regardless of our social status, financial stability, racial diversities, among other issues that support existence, it is a collective initiative that parents always seek the best for their children. As a parent, one can go the extra mile, do what some people might view as insane moves, all in the name of providing better living standards for their kids. This, at times, encounters legal issues, where the parent can be charged in the court of law. Most common in the United States is the illegal immigrants’ menace. So, why should a child be barred from accessing the basic treatment provided by the land they were born? As a matter of fact, from the onset of the child’s birth, the only land they know of is their country of birth. They grow pledging their allegiance to the flag and Constitution of America and should be allowed to stand for the birthright at all costs.
Birthright provides security to vulnerable children. For instance, parents fleeing war prone zones, or poverty-stricken regions do so for the protection of their future generations. The newborns do not have any control over their parents’ actions and should be embraced by the Constitution. If the birthright citizenship ceases to exist, the children could end up somewhere with no legal citizenship. Birthright citizenship, therefore, provides a guarantee that the children can access some level of legal citizenship they can pride in and uphold.
The establishment of birthright citizenship reduces the mass need for social services. Immigrant children with no granted automatic citizenship create gaps and problems in the delivery of community social service programs. If the rights were not to be upheld, the newborns could be separated from their biological parents and end up in foster homes. This could be since the parents lack citizenship, and in many cases, could be deported or forced to leave. However, with the rights in place, family splits are reduced. The child with birthright citizenship is looked upon by the family as their umbrella.
Birthright citizenship is looked upon as an ultimate form of equality, thereby eliminating the common idea or norm of a caste system. Therefore, any kind of socioeconomic circumstance is abolished. As a result, societies and communities would tend to form caste systems, whereby the natural citizens would automatically assume top class. The ones in positions to purchase their citizenship would embrace the middle class. At the very bottom, immigrants would be left to languish. They can only be physically present but hindered from pursuing citizenship. The immigrants would thus struggle to receive the primary benefits offered to the citizens around them.
By maintaining the birthright, we tend to counter global political unrest. The constant states of political changes and civil unrest lead some people to become stateless. This is never a problem of their own making, but rather, they are just victims of circumstances. For example, ten million refugees lack national citizenship, according to the United Nations Commissioner for Refugees, UNCR. If birthright citizenship is abolished, there will be a growing number of children with no known nationalities too.
Birthright citizenship supports all children, regardless of race, gender, or state of birth. If the rights were to be abolished, every single parent would have to prove the legal nationality and citizenship of their children (Lasso 1). This will mean they produce all the legal documents required, for example, national identifications, birth certificates, or any other proof of citizenship. All States would have to be accountable for verifying newborn citizenship. There will be a need for the identification process, a new registry, and as a result, added cost to the economy.
Birthright citizenship creates a simple and clear standard for acquisition, which is transparent to all children. The only qualification parse is birth in the United States. There are no ethnicity, status, or culture related queries before being granted the right. This eliminates the chances of the child facing victimization or discrimination for who their parents are.
Instead of abolishing birthright citizenship, various measures should be put in place to address the problem. For example, the adoption of Merit-Based Reform should be necessary. Following in the footsteps of Canada and Australia in implementing that strategy should be considered. The process is a simple, transparent, merit-based immigration system. Pertinent rules accompany them regarding the citizenship platform. Such systems provide a rational strategy, based on points scored from various filters. Those who are likely to contribute to society get high rankings and can bring along their specific allowed number of family members forward to the immigration department. Such a strategy is swift, simple, and interactive, and reduces the struggle to acquire legal citizenship (Stone 1). Successful immigrants give their children chances of obtaining citizenship. The newborns, too, will automatically be citizens.
While borrowing from the successful nations named above, their visa issuance plans and their naturalization rules should also come in handy. For example, the government should consider improving the regulations for legal permanent residency requirements. This should incorporate all time spent on other visa types and counted together to make the five-year timeline towards the citizenship clock. Those who spent years on student visas, and advanced their studies significantly, and have green cards can stay, instead of adding them an additional five years of extra wait for citizenship. All the newborns acquired during such years should be given birthright citizenship.
The immigration departments should ensure expeditious naturalization is put in place for the individuals who have stayed in the country long enough. That should follow the merit-based visas, for example, students who have proved their true allegiance and shown efforts towards assimilation. These changes, when adequately adopted, can bring more gains to the immigration reforms.
Birthright citizenship should not casted out by a few individuals, under a signature to amendments. This can cast doubts about the authenticity of citizenship of many individuals. The effect sets a negative precedent for all, especially the conservatives. For example, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals attempted by President Obama to grant immigrants permanent residency was seen as a back door means. President Trump, on the other hand, has tried to prevent the immigrants from accruing to form a group that will, in turn, be viewed as those in need of constitutional protection. However, the above varying presidential strategies should be incorporated to achieve a better merit-based approach.
From ancient times, through empires in the eighteenth century, birthright citizenship has been the fundamental sense of democracy. Therefore, laws have been formulated to advance equality, and in case of any amendments, they should strive to strengthen the efforts and not weaken at all the pillars of our Pan-American pride. Attacks on birthright are mostly fueled by restrictive nationalism and racism, factors that should never be accepted anywhere in the world. To uphold our democracy, the unfortunate prejudices that raise questions on such rights should be dismissed. We do not choose where we are born, and as such, should not be taken as prisoners of our undoing.