Defending the Right to Birthright Citizenship
Every couple of years, there is a recurring phenomenon in which members of the reactionary wing of the Republican Party bring up an old controversy and, in the process, try to remove fundamental constitutional rights afforded to United States citizens through reforms made in the past. Instead of working towards some constructive end or goal, these leaders, whether those be members of Congress or presidential hopefuls, take uncompromising positions on issues, which divides and distracts the American people from actually solving the country’s problems.
Such is the case with the statements from Donald Trump, along with Ted Cruz, Scott Walker, and other Republican presidential candidates, addressing the removal of birthright citizenship. Initially granted in the 14th amendment of the United States Constitution in 1868 and intended to give all former slaves American citizenship, birthright citizenship gives “all persons born or naturalized in the United States” the rights of a US citizen. The 1898 Supreme Court decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark held that the amendment applied not only to former slaves but also to any person born in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” For almost 150 years, birthright citizenship has been a right enshrined in our very constitution.
An issue arises when Republicans brand and stereotype the large influx of undocumented immigrants from Latin America as criminals and welfare cases, adopt the pejorative term “anchor babies,” and try to convince the American public that the right to birthright citizenship is a right they have the authority, and reason, to take away.
First, while some may claim that birthright citizenship was “never intended even for legal immigrants,” a strict interpretation of the constitutional wording holds that anyone without diplomatic immunity qualifies for birthright citizenship. The problem lies in the phrase, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” a statement that has been left open to debate. However, subject to the jurisdiction thereof is by no means meant to be understood as foreigners or those under the allegiance of another nation. It means that a person is subject to the laws and legal jurisdiction of the country that they are in, which applies to everyone who isn’t a foreign diplomat or a member of certain Native American tribes.
So if there is no constitutional evidence or consistency to support the removal of birthright citizenship, it must be posing some incredible threat to the United States. This could be Lindsey Graham’s so called “drop and leave” theory, more commonly known as the “anchor baby” phenomenon: undocumented female immigrants from Mexico who come to the United States and give birth to a child with the sole intention of gaining citizenship rights and social services. Though the law limits citizenship to children themselves, many conservative leaders see “anchor babies” as a clever ploy to gain American citizenship for themselves. Senator Graham and his counterparts, however, seem to be confusing this with birth tourism, a phenomenon where wealthy foreigners, using legal visas, come to the United States to give birth because of our superior medical facilities and personnel.
In the case of illegal immigrants, having an “anchor baby” is not practical. The child of an undocumented immigrant can only apply for a visa for a parent after they turn 21 and after both go through a lengthy process of returning to their home country and going through interviews and background checks. Additionally, any illegal immigrant trying to gain citizenship from a child would have to wait a mandatory three year period of penalty for being in the United States illegally for 180 days, which would be extended to ten years after one year in our country. That means that the bare minimum wait for any parent wishing to gain American citizenship, and the benefits that come from that, from their “anchor baby” would be 24 years.
Any undocumented immigrant found in the United States with a child who is an American citizen due to birthright citizenship is tried exactly the same as an immigrant without a child, and is equally as likely to be deported. The proof of this is with the at least 5,000 reported children in state custody or foster care because their undocumented parents were deported.
The fact is that illegal immigrants from Mexico are not coming to the United States to have children and take our benefits, but to work. This can be seen in statistics of illegal immigration increasing and decreasing with perceived economic prosperity and downturn, and the fact that the vast majority of undocumented immigrants are men. Some women come to our country, and some of them have children, but in no way are they attempting to use their children in an exploitative manner.
People running for president in 2016 want to take away a right Americans have had for hundreds of years. In repealing the 14th amendment, we would be reverting to a type of segregation, a society divided between first-class citizens and second-class citizens. Instead of trying to repeal centuries old amendments covering a much wider array of issues besides only immigration, perhaps, we can work toward a comprehensive immigration plan that makes acquiring legal citizenship easier and safer instead of punishing undocumented people as criminals. We can increase efforts to provide quality housing and education for the children of undocumented immigrants so that they can become productive members of our society. We can educate immigrant communities about contraceptives and family planning. Even more, we can focus our energy towards other numerous and pressing challenges that are currently facing our country and come up with solutions instead of tearing each other down.
In an opinion written in 1862, President Lincoln’s Attorney General Edward Bates wrote, “You and I have no better title to the citizenship which we enjoy than the ‘accident of birth.’” There is nothing that makes us better or more worthy of our citizenship than those who seek it, and we are good enough, in some instances, to share it.
Most of the rest of the world gives citizenship on the basis of jus sanguinis, meaning “by the right of blood,” so that an entire country is made up of people of the same race and ancestry. While we may be one of the only developed nations to offer birthright citizenship, this does not make this country weak or broken. It is an intrinsic part of our identity as the Great American Melting Pot, a part of our rich and complex history, and sets us apart for our willingness to give others a chance at our American dream.
Mattie Haag (COL ’18), is a member of the Georgetown University College Democrats.
