Birthright citizenship, the form of citizenship used in the United States, determines a person’s citizenship status by looking at where the subject in question was born on a geographical scale. This has brought up many arguments, especially in relation to the debate on illegal immigration. Pregnant illegal immigrants often travel to the United States to have their children become US citizens. I think birthright citizenship should be repealed from the 14th Amendment because it is an outdated law, it is a motivator for illegal immigration, and it can lead to the child being separated from their family.
There are some laws that make you question why they are there. The 14th Amendment might not have been one of them in 1868 when it was ratified, but it’s always appropriate to look back at laws and analyze why they are still viable. The 14th Amendment of the Constitution states that, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.” This means, technically speaking, that anyone born in the jurisdiction of the United States of America are considered US citizens. This law was created to determine the citizenship and the rights of Africans being born in the United States due to the abolishment of slavery (Eastman). In this situation, of course the law is used appropriately. In this day and age, however, it is not. People have begun taking advantage of this law, as you will soon see. Another thing to consider when evaluating the outdatedness of birthright citizenship is the amount of other countries follow this law. Only one other developed country, Canada, uses geographical location to determine citizenship (NumbersUSA). Out of all 196 countries, developed and otherwise, only about thirty countries use birthright citizenship. If birthright citizenship were such a good thing, it seems that other countries would have caught on by now and decided to to use this form of citizenship determination. They have not, however, and you will soon see why. One of the reasons other countries probably haven’t changed to birthright citizenship is that it is a motivator for pregnant illegal immigrants to travel and have their child in that country’s territory. In the United States, many illegal immigrants from the southern border have done just that. Some women even prepare to have their children in the desert just so they will be …show more content…
Although the birthright citizens will not be deported, the case is not the same for their parents. If the government finds out that the parent is an undocumented, illegal immigrant, they will deport the parent back to their home country. This can cause a lot of psychological harm to the child including, but not limited to, “increased depression, sleeplessness, and anxiety” (Baum, Jones). Child development specialist Susan Hois has a report that details the possible short and long term effects on a child’s development from losing or being separated from a parent. These effects differ at different stages of life. Some long term effects can include dependency issues, control issues, internalization issues, and possibly even suicidal thoughts (Hois 1-4). The separation of a child from their parent really is a tragic and traumatic event for both parties. The only reason this is happening in this case is because of our birthright citizenship
There are some laws that make you question why they are there. The 14th Amendment might not have been one of them in 1868 when it was ratified, but it’s always appropriate to look back at laws and analyze why they are still viable. The 14th Amendment of the Constitution states that, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.” This means, technically speaking, that anyone born in the jurisdiction of the United States of America are considered US citizens. This law was created to determine the citizenship and the rights of Africans being born in the United States due to the abolishment of slavery (Eastman). In this situation, of course the law is used appropriately. In this day and age, however, it is not. People have begun taking advantage of this law, as you will soon see. Another thing to consider when evaluating the outdatedness of birthright citizenship is the amount of other countries follow this law. Only one other developed country, Canada, uses geographical location to determine citizenship (NumbersUSA). Out of all 196 countries, developed and otherwise, only about thirty countries use birthright citizenship. If birthright citizenship were such a good thing, it seems that other countries would have caught on by now and decided to to use this form of citizenship determination. They have not, however, and you will soon see why. One of the reasons other countries probably haven’t changed to birthright citizenship is that it is a motivator for pregnant illegal immigrants to travel and have their child in that country’s territory. In the United States, many illegal immigrants from the southern border have done just that. Some women even prepare to have their children in the desert just so they will be …show more content…
Although the birthright citizens will not be deported, the case is not the same for their parents. If the government finds out that the parent is an undocumented, illegal immigrant, they will deport the parent back to their home country. This can cause a lot of psychological harm to the child including, but not limited to, “increased depression, sleeplessness, and anxiety” (Baum, Jones). Child development specialist Susan Hois has a report that details the possible short and long term effects on a child’s development from losing or being separated from a parent. These effects differ at different stages of life. Some long term effects can include dependency issues, control issues, internalization issues, and possibly even suicidal thoughts (Hois 1-4). The separation of a child from their parent really is a tragic and traumatic event for both parties. The only reason this is happening in this case is because of our birthright citizenship