Yes: Change the Constitution to match today’s needs
Being born in the United States of America means more than just getting a citizenship. It means its array of rights and privileges the ancestors have fought for throughout the history of the country. A simple accident of birth in the United States is not sufficient to justify getting a citizenship of the nation. More importantly, that is not a right way to understand the true meaning of the 14th Amendment. The core of the problem resides in different interpretations of the Constitution, where all the debates start.
So-called “birthright citizenship” is based on the interpretation of the 14th Amendment to the United States of America. Section one of the 14th Amendment states, “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.” What does it mean by “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States? Here is the definition of “subject to” from the dictionary: “In a situation where you have to obey a rule or a law.” Regarding the meaning of “subject to,” it seems to be hard to say that anyone who owes allegiance is included in it, especially the ones who entered the country illegally.
The tragedy began when the U.S. Supreme Court misinterpreted the clause a century ago. Since then, millions of illegal immigrants’ offspring have become American citizens, and the number is gradually increasing. According to the Pew Hispanic Center, as an estimated four million citizen children born to illegal immigrant parents lived in the U.S. as of 2008, up about 1.3 million from 2003. Since then, the right of the U.S. citizens has been ideologically threatened by those who are not supposed to be citizens. Moreover, the misinterpretation also generates physical problems such as “birth tourism,” which is getting more commercialized day by day, in addition to nonstop influx of illegal immigrants who want their baby to become an American citizen. But the question is, “Has it been misinterpreted?” “I’m not sure exactly what the drafters of the (14th) amendment had in mind, but I doubt it was that somebody could fly in from Brazil and have a child and fly back home with that child, and that child is forever an American citizen,” Jeff Sessions, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee of Alabama, said.
As the history of the United States of America tells us, apparently, the U.S. has been found, developed, and served by immigrants from around the world. Their contribution to the country should be honored and passed on to next generations. However, to serve their honor well and to pass on what we have received from our ancestors to future generations, some serious research and follow-ups over the controversial interpretation should be proceeded and corrected if an error is found. Maybe “subject to the jurisdiction” means just simply “born in the U.S.” as the current Supreme Court insists. At this point, however, something does not seem to be right.
No: Protect the Constitution from the populist frenzy
The 14th amendment was adopted in 1868 so that the former Confederacy would have no choice but to recognize the citizenship of African-Americans. This amendment is also the basis for giving citizenship to anyone born in the United States, even if that person is born to parents here illegally.
Arizona’s SB 1070 has started a wave of anti-immigrant fervor, and the Tea Party crowd wants to take away the citizenship granted to children born to parents here illegally by repealing the 14th amendment. House Minority John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) have called for congress to look into doing just that.
But repealing the 14th amendment for that reason really goes against the whole reason this country has a Constitution in the first place. The document was created to fend against the tyranny of the majority, especially when that majority has been whipped up into a populist frenzy. Yes, the founding fathers designed the Constitution so that it could be changed, but it is not supposed to be changed on a populist whim. The last time that happened was Prohibition (the populist whim was the temperance movement), and we can all see how that is regarded historically.
Immigration in the United States is not a quagmire, but it is close. However, repealing the 14th amendment is not the “comprehensive immigration reform” we need. Repealing the 14th amendment would do nothing to deter drug smugglers, human traffickers, or terrorists from entering this country illegally. Granted, it would discourage some people from trying to enter the country illegally. It would deter poor people from countries like Mexico or Cuba who risk everything to try to get to this country so that their unborn children might one day enjoy a better life than they have. But are those the people we really need to be worried about? No.
In terms of an approach to immigration reform, repealing the 14th amendment is the exact opposite of what would be humane and effective.
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs summed all this nonsense well last week when he said, “Those who have with steadfast fidelity talked about not tampering with our Constitution have now swerved to pick the 14th Amendment as the best place to address comprehensive immigration reform. It’s rich in its irony. It’s wrong in its approach.”
