Birthright Citizenship is an American Superpower

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.

The Importance Of United States' Involvement in Latin America And The Caribbean

By: Charlotte Sparling

Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) region are crucial regional trading partners with the United States. Beyond their geographic proximity, these countries share economic interests and security concerns. Therefore, it is crucial to have strong relationships as instability concerns in LAC often impact the United States. 

As such, US Congressional members have sought to strengthen relations with LAC. However, the US is not alone in its interest in the region. China has increasingly inserted itself as a major player. 

Following the Venezuelan elections, which were widely viewed as fraudulent, President Xi Jinping of China was among the first to congratulate Nicolas Maduro on his victory. Instances like these concern the United States that China’s presence in the region is a stability concern.

Currently, the United States provides roughly 31% of LAC merchandise imports and 16% of foreign direct investments to the region. Among LAC, however, Mexico is the United States’s biggest trade partner, accounting for 71% of trade. In turn, 62% of US exports to LAC go to Mexico.

While the United States has sought to continue its regional involvement, US investors face challenges in the region. These include transportation problems, corruption, lacking property rights protection, and nontransparent regulatory and legal frameworks.

Continued efforts, including President Biden’s America’s Partnership for Economic Prosperity plan to increase competition and investment in the region to bolster supply chains, have sought to strengthen relations. However, what has been done so far is not enough. 

Over the past decade, China has surpassed the US as South America’s biggest trading partner. China has sought influence through coordinating financing, trade, and investment. From 2005 to 2020, they provided over $138 billion in loans to Latin America, and from 2000 to 2021, regional trade increased from $12 billion to $445 billion. Such programs have placed China in a valuable role as an indispensable trade partner to several LAC countries. This threatens the United States presence in the region and could disrupt trade relations with the US.

In addition to trade and economic efforts, China has invested in public messaging to boost their image as an invaluable ally through efforts that include bidding for high-profile projects.

Worryingly, since 2012, President Xi Jinping has visited the region eleven times, in contrast to President Obama, who visited the region twelve times, and President Trump, who only visited once during his first term. Undeniably, Chinese efforts have seen success. China’s Belt and Road Initiative has twenty-one Latin American countries' signatures. Brazil, Argentina, and Mexico saw China’s involvement as a net positive. However, there are growing sentiments of weariness over bad behavior by the Chinese, “including debt traps, cheap goods flooding the market, and crowding out domestic manufacturers.”

In Brazil, Chinese investments fell to an all-time low in thirteen years. In Panama, 68% said the Chinese government was “untrustworthy” in both 2018 and 2021, a rise from 48% in 2016. Similar to Chinese involvement in Africa, the Chinese government’s foreign direct investments did not live up to their initial claims. Adding to this, since their peak in the 2010s, Chinese investments have slowed down, creating a window of opportunity for the US.

The United States should prioritize meaningful engagement to address pressing and specific issues through positive messaging. Instead of combating China head on, the US should allow China to continue its existing programs which have already shown the people of LAC the long term associated costs. Instead, the United States should focus on what it can do to improve its own reputation in the region.

Already, US companies have been shown to operate with “transparency, environmental standards, and labor standards.” Unlike the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative, the US hires local workers. While benefiting the US, this involvement also helps the region as a whole.

The seeds of doubt towards China have been sowed; it is now time for the US to take advantage of this gap and revamp its efforts in the region to ensure strong US-LAC relations.

The Wage Economy Contributes To Food Insecurity Among the Inuit

By: Priya Buddhavarapu

We live in a world where one jar of nutella costs $48 for some Inuit communities. 

The Inuit people, traditionally spread across the northern regions of North America, Greenland, and Russia, are a vast and diverse indigenous group that have, for centuries, thrived in the relentless Arctic environment. By engaging in cultural practices such as seasonal subsistence hunting, gathering, and preservation methods, as well as values such as sharing, respect for elders, and extended familial units, the Inuit people are able to call the Arctic tundra their home. The term Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit (IQ) refers to the various types of Inuit traditional knowledge that encompass these values. 

In the recent past, many of these communities have been undergoing a transition from the traditional subsistence economy to a wage economy, perpetuated by the increasing costs of hunting and fishing, the effects of climate change in Arctic regions, changing interests, and loss of IQ. The average Inuit wage worker, however, faces an extreme disparity compared to the average urban citizen. From factors such as job shortages to a lack of affordable housing and healthcare, there exist several barriers to the economic wellbeing of several Inuit communities. 

One consequence of this economic transition stands out, an acute food security crisis. Food insecurity refers to when a household or community has limited or uncertain access to safe and healthy food. Due to environmental changes and the manpower of communities being diverted to the wage economy, many Inuit people are no longer able to rely on IQ and traditional practices to self-sustain. In one Inuit region, 70% of adults were found to be living in a food-insecure household.  In Nunavut, a large region in northern Canada populated by twenty-five Inuit communities, food insecurity is at crisis level. 

A solution to this, some offer, is to treat Inuit individuals like other citizens, expecting them to rely on the transport and purchase of market foods, or food shipped from southern areas. This is, in fact, what is currently being done in several communities across Canada and Alaska.

This, however, is unfeasible. 

Due to the longer distance and lack of adequate transportation across these northern regions, produce spoils quickly. If products do make it to their destination, costs are unattainably expensive. Additionally, the food that is readily available in these areas is usually highly processed and calorically dense, leading to high obesity rates among Inuit populations. This is juxtaposed with the starvation arising from inconsistent access. Furthermore, Inuit adolescents and children are at heightened risk for mental health issues such as depression and anxiety, compounding the adverse health effects of food insecurity.

Moreover, the shift to the wage economy has also driven a shift in traditional Inuit values. Most notably, this has been the destruction of the Inuit family structure and culture of sharing. Research has consistently shown that subsistence hunting is crucial to Inuit identities and economic wellbeing. Fully employed Inuit are significantly more likely to adapt to solely sharing within a nuclear family structure, whereas partially employed or sport-hunting guides are more likely to share subsistence food with extended family and distant kin. 

Values of sharing,cooperation, and the traditional Inuit familial structure are being disrupted by this economic shift. What was once collective now is becoming individualistic. 

The issues that the shift from a subsistence to a wage economy has caused  have severely contributed to the enormous food insecurity crisis present in these regions. Compounded with the effects of climate change, communities are seeing effects from health degradation to community collapse. 

In combating this issue, governments must listen to the voices of representative Inuit bodies, relying on IQ and their longstanding knowledge of their lands to address and ensure consistent access to safe and nutritious foods. While a solution to this complex issue will not come easy, it is imperative to rely on deeply relevant guidance that has survived centuries of obstacles.