By: Saira Uttamchandani
The United States has upheld birthright citizenship since ratifying the 14th Amendment in 1868, which asserts that “All persons, born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” While the Declaration of Independence famously claims that “all men are created equal,” our Constitution did not reflect this ideal - it was amendments like this one (the quoted excerpt specifically is part of the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause) that helped our nation live up to the ideas espoused in those famous words.
While the United States is not the only country that grants birthright citizenship, it has become a key feature of American society. However, Trump has expressed his desire to get rid of birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants or temporary residents, issuing an executive order to achieve this.
Birthright citizenship has helped make America the great nation it is, and to get rid of it would be a mistake. Also, it would not necessarily solve the United States’ immigration issue that Trump promised to address.
The 1898 Supreme Court case, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, established that the “Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory [...] including all children here born of resident aliens,” setting the precedent for interpreting the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” This interpretation was widely accepted and implemented until the 1985 book Citizenship Without Consent, which argued against birthright citizenship in the United States, and that “citizenship should be based on a theory of mutual consent.” Their arguments have surged in popularity with the recent immigration debate.
Lawyers for the Trump administration have argued that the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” component of the 14th Amendment does not apply to the children of illegal immigrants or visa holders. Numerous coalitions have expressed disagreement with the executive order, and several court decisions have blocked it.
An issue with this desire to abandon birthright citizenship is that there is no agreement about changing the Citizenship Clause. Would a baby’s parents both have to be citizens or green card holders? What about the kids of refugees? People have different caveats that they want to include, and there is no consensus, no clear path forward.
There is also the economic impact to consider that millions of babies born in the US (there are about a quarter of a million babies born to undocumented immigrants in the US annually) are deemed undocumented rather than being granted citizenship. The majority of illegal immigrants pay taxes and work, contributing to the US economy. Several experts argue that this contribution is a net gain for the United States. To lose this revenue would hurt the American economy.
While some of these babies might eventually be eligible to apply for naturalization (and an even smaller percentage will gain such status), most will not. Some of them will be deported, which costs taxpayers money. Some will stay here and be ineligible to contribute to Social Security, get jobs, and a myriad of other opportunities that greatly benefit the American economy. There is also the tax revenue aspect - the United States requires all US citizens to pay taxes. Excluding millions of people from becoming citizens is a big loss in potential tax revenue.
There is also the fact that illegal immigrants are taking jobs that many Americans are not interested in. An example of this is the farming industry, where undocumented immigrants make up a large percentage of the workforce. They greatly contribute to the American economy, and to lose this workforce would be devastating.
Then, there’s the goal of reducing illegal immigration. Birthright citizenship is not the biggest draw for illegal immigrants - such a migration is most commonly influenced by economic desires, which would not be reduced by getting rid of birthright citizenship.
To get rid of birthright citizenship would create a host of economic problems for the United States, while simultaneously not solving the migration issue that some politicians hoped it would. It seems clear that this is not the direction the current administration should go in.
