Understanding The Birthright Citizenship Debate. A Lesson In Adult Reasoning.

This page about understanding the birthright citizenship debate is another example of defining the role of accountable citizens in America. The subject is a hot button issue as I write about it. As we've written before, responsible adults are duty-bound to stand on the edge of the coin to see both sides. It isn't about being wishy-washy or playing both sides of the street.

When done properly, the result is usually finding that sweet spot, the proverbial middle ground where reasonable people hear both sides, consider factual accounts of history and solve the problem for the betterment of the nation. The rub comes in with the first three words of this paragraph. "When done properly."

In this page we'll present some facts from history. We'll also present key points from both sides of this debate. Understanding the birthright citizenship debate and then moving forward to a successful resolution is the natural chain of events.

When done properly. When no steps are skipped, when we listen with intent to understand first, then to be understood, when the adults in the room speak up, rather than shaking their heads in frustration. Sometimes it's hard to be the adults in the room. Doing so requires setting emotion aside in favor of sound reasoning.

Sound reasoning requires listening to both sides of an issue and acting in the best interest of the entity, group, or in this case, our country. America has always strived to be a beacon to the world. We've stumbled often in this 250 year journey, but as a united citizenry, we've collectively gotten back up, cleared away the dust and resumed the effort.

Throughout History

The 14th amendment of the Constitution was ratified in 1868. The immediate intention was to give citizenship protection and all that goes with it, to freed slaves and their descendants. The exact wording is “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

Six words in this statement are the basis for understanding the birthright citizenship debate. Those six words are "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." There have been numerous challenges to the depth and breadth of those six little words. How far do they extend? Did the Framers intended to include more segments of society than the freed slaves and their descendants?

Understanding The Birthright Citizenship Debate

In this section, we'll summarize some of the talking points from both sides as we try to understand the birthright citizenship debate. We'll also include links so you can read a little more detail into this summarization.

We should abolish birthright citizenship because:

1) Automatic citizenship encourages illegal entry in America for the sole purposes of having a child born on United States soil so that child will be guaranteed American citizenship and then the parents can remain in the country illegally and possibly be sponsored by their child for citizenship.

2) As an extension of the above noted bullet point, the formal naturalization process is devalued because the immigrants who followed the law and are waiting out the process could be bypassed by others who went around the system.

3)"Birth tourism" is leading parents in other countries to simply travel to the United States with the express intention of having their child born in this country, thereby gaining automatic citizenship for the child when the parents had no intention of living in America.

4) The current welfare and social safety net system is already stretched very thin. Adding thousands of children along with their parents who are in this country illegally will further drain limited resources.

5) The Framers never intended to give blanket citizenship to every child born on United States soil. The original vision was to offer citizenship to freed slaves and their descendants. It was modified later to include citizenship to children born in this country to naturalized citizens and those living in this country legally.

6) Those six words, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." Just below is a quote from one of the proponents of abolishing birthright citizenship. Here is the link to the full article.

"Critics erroneously believe that anyone present in the United States has 'subjected' himself 'to the jurisdiction' of the United States, which would extend citizenship to the children of tourists, diplomats, and illegal aliens alike.

But that is not what that qualifying phrase means. Its original meaning refers to the political allegiance of an individual and the jurisdiction that a foreign government has over that individual.

The fact that a tourist or illegal alien is subject to our laws and our courts if they violate our laws does not place them within the political 'jurisdiction' of the United States as that phrase was defined by the framers of the 14th Amendment.

This amendment’s language was derived from the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which provided that '[a]ll persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power' would be considered citizens."

And now, the other side of the coin. We should not abolish birthright citizenship because:

1) The Framers intent in their citizenship clarification of the 14th Amendment went much farther than just protecting freed slaves and descendants. They sought to correct decades of injustice inflicted on free people born in America.

2) There has been well over 100 years of precedent on the side of children born in the United States being recognized as citizens, regardless of who their parents were, excluding the also well-established restrictions, among them, children of diplomats with immunity and children of military combatants, to name a couple.

3) The vast majority of people entering this country do so for a better life, for jobs, or to escape persecution, not simply to have their child born in America.

4) Regarding number three, with no citizenship at birth, the children could be "stateless" if the country of their parents won't provide a safe place for them to live.

5) There are already laws prohibiting such things as "birth tourism."

Here is part of a column written if favor of birthright citizenship. You can read the entire column in this link.

HLT: "What are the benefits of awarding citizenship in this way?"

Neuman: "First, it’s a rule of non-racial citizenship. It doesn’t matter who your parents are — being born in the United States makes you an American citizen. Importantly, it avoids the creation of a hereditary caste of people who are not citizens and whose children will not be citizens and whose children’s children will not be citizens, and are therefore vulnerable to exploitation. That is the main purpose of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

It also serves to integrate the first generation born here very quickly into American society. It helps make American society more cohesive. And there’s another benefit that isn’t much perceived, which is it makes it really easy for citizens to prove they are citizens. If you’ve got a birth certificate showing you were born in the United States, that’s how you prove your citizenship."

"We've Looked At Things From Both Sides Now"

Both sides of this argument present their particular viewpoint with passion and vigor. Every responsible adult agrees that we need secure borders and protection from violence, both "homegrown" and illegally entering our homeland. Every responsible adult agrees that we can't provide an endless spigot of free money for able-bodied people who want a free ride through life at taxpayer's expense.

But in this editorial room it appears that understanding the birthright citizenship debate requires us to point out some questionable tactics. It seems as though the drive to end birthright citizenship is more of a fringe solution looking for a problem that isn't all that prevalent.

That's another part of being an adult in the room. Consistency and credibility require us to call out fear-mongering and "creative statistics" wherever they originate.

While not explicitly spelled out to fit every conceivable scenario, the 14th Amendment including the now controversial six words, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," was written to protect various segments of society from what the Framers referred to often, known as "tyranny of the majority."

While originally composed to protect freed slaves and their descendants, the spirit certainly included protection for larger segments of potential citizens. In a nation built by immigrants, some kicked out of their natural homeland, many more who left to find a better life in America, this drive to end birthright citizenship seems dubious in nature.

It should be noted here that the Framers wouldn't have considered an illegal immigration issue as there were vast acres of land and an immense need for workers in that era. That has certainly changed and proper immigration procedures are vital. 

Proper procedures avoid targeting certain groups or segments of the population. We've made this mistake before. Repeating the same mistake when we already know the result is flawed logic at least, but more likely a veiled form of velvet glove clearing out of undesirables.

In cases like this, personal or national when blanket decrees are leveled, I wonder how we would feel if the roles were reversed and we were the ones being singled out as not worthy of citizenship?

For now, the Supreme Court has settled the matter, but it hasn't gone away. Much like our page about the Electoral College, we wonder if this birthright citizenship debate is much ado about crafting a solution to a problem that only exists when one side doesn't get their way?

Return to Leadership and Self Development

Return to Home Page

Privacy Policy