The debate surrounding birthright citizenship in the United States has resurfaced, especially following the Supreme Court's decision to hear a case regarding President Trump's executive order aiming to end this practice for children of illegal immigrants. This article argues against the current interpretation of birthright citizenship, asserting that it misaligns with the founding principles of American citizenship, which should be based on consent rather than merely birth.
1. Understanding Birthright Citizenship: The core issue centers on Section One of the 14th Amendment, which states that anyone born in the U. S. and subject to its jurisdiction is a citizen. This raises questions about whether this applies to children born to illegal immigrants.
2. Proponents' Views: Supporters of birthright citizenship believe it clearly establishes citizenship based solely on birthplace, arguing that the drafters intended to link citizenship to birth without considering the legal status of the parents.
3. Historical Context:
• The article critiques the prevailing view by referencing the 1898 Supreme Court case, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which provided a precedent for birthright citizenship based on birthplace.
• Critics argue that this decision introduced a concept of citizenship that contradicts the founding ideals of the U. S.—specifically, the principle of mutual consent necessary for citizenship.
4. Feudal Obligation vs. American Ideals: The author compares the modern interpretation of citizenship to English feudal obligation, wherein individuals owed allegiance to a ruler from birth. This concept conflicts with the American understanding of citizenship, which emphasizes free consent and the rejection of hereditary obligations.
5. The Expatriation Act of 1868: This act established the inherent right to expatriation, contrasting with the doctrines of feudalism and emphasizing the consent principle. The framers of the 14th Amendment aimed to eliminate these outdated concepts from American citizenship.
6. Practical Implications of Mass Immigration: The article highlights that the situation of mass illegal immigration complicates the argument for birthright citizenship.
• The influx of over 10 million illegal immigrants under the Biden administration raises the concern that conferring citizenship to their children undermines national sovereignty and the original intent of citizenship based on consent.
7. Call for Reevaluation: The author advocates for a reevaluation of U. S. immigration and citizenship policies, suggesting a return to the earlier notion of citizenship based on mutual consent. The article emphasizes that the current approach is no longer sustainable given the changing demographics and immigration landscape.
The ongoing discussion around birthright citizenship calls for a critical examination of its roots and implications in contemporary America, particularly in light of mass immigration. To safeguard the foundational principles of citizenship based on consent, there may need to be significant changes in how birthright citizenship is understood and practiced today. The author argues for a shift back to the original ideals established by the founding fathers, distancing American citizenship from the feudal obligations that it once sought to reject.
No comments:
Post a Comment