The thesis of our case is that birthright citizenship puts unfair burden on certain people in the world to take care of less fortunate. It is ironic that both the birthright citizenship and equal protection guarantees appear in the Fourteenth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution. Arguably, birthright citizenship contradicts the notion of normative equality and arguably equal protection under the laws. Thus, birthright citizenship should be abolished.
Our first contention is that birthright citizenship causes two primary problems. First, it strains welfare programs. Second, it permits a never-ending chain of citizenship eligibility. Jon Feere, who has a B. A. from the University of California, Davis, and a J. D. from American University, and is a Policy Analyst for the Center for Immigration Studies, wrote in an article entitled, “Birthright Citizenship in the United States: A Global Comparison” in August 20101:
Debate Essay Example
The two citizenship benefits that have drawn the most attention in the birthright citizenship debate are, first, food assistance and other welfare benefits to which a family of illegal aliens would not otherwise have access, and second, the ability of the child when he grows up to legalize his parents, and also to bring into the United States his foreign-born spouse and any foreign-born siblings. The sponsored spouse can, in turn, sponsor her own foreign-born parents and siblings, and the siblings can, in turn, sponsor their own foreign-born spouses, and so on, generating a irtually never-ending and always-expanding migration chain. 2nd contention…Birthright citizenship turns efforts to employ migrant workers into policies exploding the number of US citizens. Jon Feere, B. A. from the University of California, Davis; J. D. from American University, Policy Analyst for the Center for Immigration Studies, “Birthright Citizenship in the United States: A Global Comparison” August 2010, http://www. cis. org/birthright-citizenship The issue of birthright citizenship for the children of aliens who have not been admitted for permanent residence cannot be resolved in isolation from other immigration issues.
For example, politicians on both sides of the aisle regularly call for an increase in temporary workers, but the economic and social impact of children born to these workers while they are in the United States is never part of the discussion. Under any large-scale guest worker program, it is likely that tens of thousands of children would be born on U. S. soil. If the guest worker does not depart when his work visa expires, he becomes an illegal alien and is subject to deportation. But immigration authorities cannot deport the guest worker’s citizen child along with the overstaying guest worker.
The result is that the guest worker makes the case for indefinite stay based on the principle of “keeping families together” — an argument that is often successful at stopping an alien’s deportation. Because of birthright citizenship, what started as a policy to bring in laborers on a temporary basis can become yet another channel for permanent immigration? This is one of the reasons why some have said that “there is often nothing more permanent than a temporary worker. ” Abolishing birthright citizenship would not require a constitutional amendment. Jon Feere, B. A. rom the University of California, Davis; J. D. from American University, Policy Analyst for the Center for Immigration Studies, “Birthright Citizenship in the United States: A Global Comparison” August 2010, http://www. cis. org/birthright-citizenship Extending 14th Amendment birthright citizenship to any class of persons is a momentous matter because it confers very valuable benefits and imposes very serious obligations on children who have no say in the matter and it also has long-lasting and important effects on the size and composition of the U. S. population.
The executive branch’s current practice of extending birthright citizenship to nonresident aliens has never been authorized by any statute or any court decision. The legislative record left by drafters of the 14th Amendment shows that they were primarily concerned about conferring citizenship on freed slaves. While the Supreme Court has settled the matter as it applies to permanent resident aliens, it has yet to decide the matter as it applies to aliens whose presence in the United States is temporary or unlawful. As a result, Americans are justifiably upset with a policy that has become standard practice without their approval.
Because the legislative history is not decisive and there is no Supreme Court precedent, serious legal scholars and eminent jurists have argued that Congress should uses its inherent authority to define the scope of birthright citizenship. Congress can use the hearing process to promote a calm, informed, and serious discussion on the wisdom and legality of granting automatic U. S. citizenship to the children of “birth tourists,” illegal aliens, and other categories of foreign visitors who are taking advantage of a clause in the 14th Amendment that was primarily aimed at helping an entirely different class of persons.