argument against repeal of birthright citizenship

8/17/2019 Argument against repeal of birthright citizenship

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/argument-against-repeal-of-birthright-citizenship 1/4

Tipitina Horowitz

11/15/2014

English 101

Viewpoints on the Repeal of Birthright Citizenship

America is inarguably in a period of turmoil. Amidst the panic of the Ebola virus hitting

U.S. soil, the ever-growing dissatisfaction with the government and police amongst citizens, and

the increasingly present threat that ISIS poses to U.S. safety, the nation’s focus is being directed

by these fears. Naturally, the main fear in most citizens is that of losing their American identity

to these foreign threats. Driven by this concern, many citizens are supporting a repeal of the 14th

Amendment, which declares that all persons born in the United States are automatically citizens.

Many of these supporters believe that by allowing for birthright citizenship, the United States is

encouraging immigrants to illegally enter the country to give birth to children who will then

become United States citizens. However, proponents of maintaining the amendment believe that

repealing birthright citizenship would fundamentally change the meaning of American

citizenship. In his article “An argument to be made about immigrant babies and citizenship,”

George Will argues for the former point, while Linda Chavez argue for the latter in her article

“The Case For Birthright Citizenship.” While both offer strongly supported views regarding the

issue, it is evident that Chavez’s assumptions regarding the impact of repealing birthright

citizenship are correct.



Will primarily affirms that the meaning of the 14th Amendment has been misinterpreted.

He supports this by referencing the phrase, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” within the

amendments, and he goes on to state that “the authors and ratifiers could not have intended

birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants because in 1868 there were and never had been any

illegal immigrants because no law ever had restricted immigration” (Will.) Will proposes the

idea that because the concept of illegal immigration wasn’t the original motivator for the

amendment, it should no longer be enforced, as it has been skewed from its original meaning.

This point is well addressed in an article by the LA Times Editorial Board, titled “The 'birthright

citizenship' debate”. Within the article, it is stated that while many nations rely on bloodlines, or

jus sanguinis to determine citizenship, the United States has always been a nation of immigrants,

and views citizenship differently, as it is stated in the article, “indeed, the decision to grant

citizenship to everyone born on U.S. soil was made in part so that members of particular

minority groups would not be required to win the favor of the majority to claim the privileges of

American citizenship” (Latimes.com.) This counters Will’s belief that the amendment has been

misinterpreted, and is evidence of the necessity of the amendment.

Chavez employs the history of Chinese immigration and how these immigrants were

affected by birthright citizenship. She specifically references the case of U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark,

in which Wong, a San francisco born citizen, travelled to China to visit and was denied re-entry

upon his return, on claims that he was not a legal citizen. The court ultimately ruled in favor of

Wong Kim Ark, stating that because he was born in the U.S., he retained his citizenship

(Chavez.) This ruling strongly supports Chavez’s claim. Chavez concludes that repealing

birthright citizenship would negatively alter the meaning of American citizenship, stating, “Our



history has been largely one of continuously expanding the community of people regarded as

Americans, from native-born whites to freed slaves to Indians to naturalized citizens of all races

and ethnicities. Since the abolition of slavery, we have never denied citizenship to any group of

children born in the U.S.—even when we denied citizenship to their parents, as we did Asian

immigrants from 1882 to 1943. This expansive view of who is an American has been critical to

our successful assimilation of millions of newcomers” (Chavez.) This belief is supported in the

Times Editorial Board article, which concludes with the statement that “birthright citizenship

provides a clear standard that sweeps away questions about whether someone has the proper

ethnicity or antecedents to be an American. There are too many examples in history of people

being victimized because of who their parents were. There is no good reason to add to them”

(latimes.com.)

Linda Chavez and George Will both argue different sides of a difficult argument in their

respective articles “The case for Birthright Citizenship,” and “An argument to be made about

immigrant babies and citizenship”. Using evidence from the Time Editorial Board’s article, “The

'birthright citizenship' debate,” Chavez’s point is clearly a more logical and sound decision in

regards to the issue of birthright citizenship.



Works Cited

Chavez, Linda. "The Case For Birthright Citizenship." The Wall Street Journal. Dow

Jones &Company, n.d. Web. 15 Nov. 2014.

"The 'birthright Citizenship' Debate." Los Angeles Times . Los Angeles Times, n.d. Web.

15 Nov. 2014.

Will, George. "An Argument to Be Made about Immigrant Babies and Citizenship."

Washington Post. The Washington Post, 28 Mar. 2010. Web. 15 Nov. 2014.

argument against repeal of birthright citizenship

Documents