The Debate on Birthright Citizenship in the USA: Upholding the Constitution or Modifying Immigration Laws?

Birthright citizenship, an age-old tradition in the United States, has been a subject of scrutiny and debate. Advocates argue that it is a fundamental aspect of the American identity, while others propose modifications to ensure that only the offspring of US citizens and legal permanent residents can claim citizenship. This article explores the various perspectives and the legal implications of such a proposal.

The Current Status of Birthright Citizenship

According to the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution, every person born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, is a citizen.

This principle was recently reaffirmed by a public statement, which asserts that the law in the UK, introducing citizenship based on at least one parent being a citizen or a permanent resident for at least five years, is already in line with the correct interpretation of the US law. Additionally, some countries have even stricter measures, granting citizenship only to the offspring of citizens and permanent residents.

Historical and Constitutional Context

The argument against modifying birthright citizenship is rooted in the foundational principles of the Constitution. For many, birthright citizenship is a cornerstone of American democracy, rooted in the idea of equal freedom and opportunity for all individuals born in the country, regardless of their parents' status.

One activist argues that removing birthright citizenship is not just a measure but a return to a past era of discrimination. By suggesting such a change, one risks undermining the progress made in the civil rights movement, particularly the elimination of racial and ethnic discrimination in citizenship laws.

Legal and Practical Implications

The process to modify immigration laws is complex. Historically, any changes to the 14th Amendment must be ratified by three-fourths of the states. This presents a significant hurdle for any proposal to modify birthright citizenship.

Activists highlight the case of H1B visa holders, where their US citizen children may continue to experience the benefits of birthright citizenship even if their parents are still awaiting permanent residency. This scenario reflects the ongoing complexities and implications of such a legal change.

The UK, a nation with a history of restrictive immigration policies, serves as an interesting comparison. The UK’s approach, where citizenship is contingent on a parent being a citizen or permanent resident, aligns more closely with the idea of earned citizenship rather than birthright citizenship.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the debate over birthright citizenship underscores the tension between tradition and progress in American immigration law. While some advocate for modifications to ensure fairer immigration systems, others argue that any changes would be unconstitutional and a step backward in the progress of American democracy.

Bearing in mind the historical and constitutional context, any efforts to modify birthright citizenship should be approached with caution and consideration of the broader implications for the country.