february 2012 debate- source wc public forum

8/2/2019 February 2012 Debate- Source WC Public Forum

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/february-2012-debate-source-wc-public-forum 1/22

WC Public Forum Feb 2012

Birthright Citizenship

Topic Analysis (1/2) ................................................................................................................................... 2

Topical Analysis (2/2) ................................................................................................................................ 3

Topic Definitions ....................................................................................................................................... 4

Pro:Decreased Costs ................................................................................................................................. 5

Pro:Not Constitutionally Protected .......................................................................................................... 6

Pro:International Support ......................................................................................................................... 7

Pro: Not Constitutionality Protected ........................................................................................................ 8

Pro: Decreased Costs ................................................................................................................................ 9

Pro: Decreased Illegal Immigration ......................................................................................................... 10Pro: Decreased Costs .............................................................................................................................. 11

Pro: National Security ............................................................................................................................. 12

Pro: National Security ............................................................................................................................. 13

Con: Increased Legal Costs ...................................................................................................................... 14

Con: Increased Federal Regulation ......................................................................................................... 15

Con:Birthright Citizenship Constitutional ............................................................................................... 16

Con: Birthright Citizenship Constitutional .............................................................................................. 17

Con: Statistics Are Untrue ....................................................................................................................... 18

Con:Doesn’t Decrease Illegal Immigration ............................................................................................. 19

Con:Doesn’t Decrease Illegal Immigration ............................................................................................. 20

Con:Increased Costs ................................................................................................................................ 21

Con: Doesn’t Decrease Illegal Immigration............................................................................................. 22



Topic Analysis (1/2)

The Public Forum topic is “Resolved: Birthright Citizenship should be abolished in the United

States.” The Pro side of this resolution will argue that the increasing economic burden on social service

programs in the US would be alleviated by changing the legal recognition that all individuals that areborn on US soil are automatically considered US citizens, and that in doing the US will also address a

glaring national security concern. The Con side will argue that there is a Constitutional protection

through the 14th Amendment that guarantees this right and that by abolishing birthright citizenship the

problems of illegal immigration will be made worse. This month’s Public Forum Briefs are intended to

give you a set of evidence to prepare and debate these questions.

TOPIC OVERVIEW

Few topics generate as much immediate controversy than those concerning the topic of

immigration. Political pundits and legislators have long rallied the masses on the heated topic of illegal

immigration and its perceived negative effects on American society, particularly the economy. In recent

years the immigration debate has shifted to a topic that many had thought had been settled since the

passage of the 14th Amendment during Reconstruction.

The first clause of the first section of the 14th Amendment, the so-called “Citizenship Clause”

provides: “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.” This section was originally passed

as a response to the Supreme Court’s infamous decision in Dread Scott. The Citizenship Clause has taken

on new meaning in the immigration context as the justification for birthright citizenship, wherein

anyone who is born on US soil is considered a US citizen even if the child’s parents are not American

citizens.

These children have been pejoratively dubbed by certain conservative legislators as “anchor

babies.” The concern is that parents are deliberatively choosing to enter into the country in order to give

birth in a US hospital so that their child will be an American citizen. While the parent does not receiveany immediate direct immigration benefit from the child’s birth, there is a process whereby the parent

may be able to take advantage of the child’s status to gain legal immigrant status, although it could

decades in most cases.

Advocates of the resolution are quick to point out the hundreds of billions of dollars that the

children of immigrants impose on the social service programs in states throughout the country. While

these statistics do not distinguish between the amount that birthright citizens cost these programs

compared to other immigrants, there is enough of a perceived connection between the two that it is the

rallying point for the abolishment of birthright citizenship. The second major argument in favor of the

resolution is the fear that terrorist organizations would take advantage of this loophole in order to gain

US citizenship for future operatives.

The major justification for maintaining birthright citizenship is that it is protected under the

Constitution and that abolishing it would have a major impact on the way that the Court would

subsequently interpret the 14th Amendment, which is a source of a host of individual liberties. In

addition by eliminating the category of birthright citizenship the government would create a question

about the legitimacy of all birth’s in the US. This would make it difficult to ascertain the citizenship

status of all people within the country and greatly increase the transaction and legal costs for people in

the US.



Topical Analysis (2/2)

DEBATING THE PRO SIDE

The Pro side of the resolution should begin with an investigation into the purpose of the 14thAmendment in order to make a series of arguments about how the original Congressional intent was not

to provide citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants. From there the Pro will want to pain the

bleak picture of the current economic state and the effect that the economic downturn has had on

social service programs. From there, the Pro will argue that limiting the ability of these individuals from

receiving the benefits under the social welfare programs could save hundreds of billions of dollars

annually. To aid in this the Pro will want to point out the millions of persons who have achieved

citizenship through this mechanism and the growing trend to show the compounding problem that

social services will face in the future.

The Pro finally should turn to the second major justification for abolishing birthright citizenship,

the national security concerns. The Pro will want to utilize the examples of prominent terrorist members

who have used their citizenship in the US as an asset in their ability to perpetuate terrorist attacks.

While this argument is the more radical of the two major Pro arguments, there are good anecdotal

examples of terrorist organizations attempting to gain US citizenship for its members through a variety

of immigration measures.

DEBATING THE CON SIDE

The Con side of the resolution will want to begin by attempting to minimize the overall risk

posed by birthright citizens, by distinguishing between media propaganda and reality. A prime example

is that while the Pro will likely argue the threat posed by illegal immigrants, the Con will respond that by

abolishing the category of birthright citizenship, it will have the de facto effect of radically increasing the

number of individuals who are currently residing in the nation who are not citizens. The Pro will be

correct that those people will not be eligible for certain social service programs due to this change,however those same individuals will also inevitably have a more difficult time finding employment and

thereby pay less taxes back into the system. In addition, the government will have to spend a great deal

of money initially on challenges to the citizenship to millions of individuals throughout the country once

the change has occurred which will more than offset the economic harm caused by this group of

individuals.

The second area the Con will want to argue is the legal justification for birthright citizenship.

Abolishing birthright citizenship would be the first time since slavery that the 14th Amendment was to

be interpreted in a negative rather than an expansive manner. Even if the Pro is right that the original

justification for the 14th Amendment did not concern the same situation, subsequent legal precedent

makes clear that birthright citizenship is protected under the 14th Amendment.



Topic Definitions

Birthright citizenship confers citizenship based on the circumstances of birth

US Legal Definitions Online 2011 http://definitions.uslegal.com/b/birthright-citizenship/Birthright citizenship refers to the citizenship granted to a person by virtue of the circumstances of

his/her birth. Accordingly, any person born within the territory of the U.S. is granted citizenship by birth.

A child born overseas to U.S. citizens also acquires a U.S. citizenship. A Birthright citizenship can be

acquired through: 1. jus soli-is a right by which nationality or citizenship can be recognized to any

individual born in the territory of the related state. 2. jus sangunis- is a social policy by which nationality

or citizenship is not determined by place of birth, but by having an ancestor who is a national or citizen

of the state. Citizenship of a person is a matter of federal law and is governed by the U.S. Constitution

which 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”.

Birthright citizenship is distinct from other forms of citizenship aquisitionWikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthright_citizenship_in_the_United_States

Birthright citizenship in the United States refers to a person's acquisition of United States citizenship by

virtue of the circumstances of his or her birth. It contrasts with citizenship acquired in other ways, for

example by naturalization later in life. Birthright citizenship may be conferred by jus soli or jus sanguinis.

Under United States law, any person born within the United States (including the territories of Puerto

Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands)[1] and subject to its jurisdiction is

automatically granted U.S. citizenship,[2] as are many (though not all) children born to American citizens

overseas.

Abolished is to end the observance of

Merriam Websters Dictionary 2011 http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abolished“to end the observance or effect of ”

Abolished is to do away with, destroy completely

Free Dictionary http://www.thefreedictionary.com/abolished

Abolish

1. To do away with; annul.

2. To destroy completely.

Ought is an obligation to actMerriam Websters Dictionary 2011, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ought

—used to express obligation <ought to pay our debts>, advisability <ought to take care of yourself>,

natural expectation <ought to be here by now>, or logical consequence <the result ought to be infinity

http://definitions.uslegal.com/b/birthright-citizenship/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthright_citizenship_in_the_United_States


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abolished

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/abolished

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ought

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ought

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/abolished

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abolished


http://definitions.uslegal.com/b/birthright-citizenship/



Pro:Decreased Costs

It would save taxpayer money

Daniel Gonzalez, March 20, 2011, “Birthright citizenship change would have wide effects”

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/03/20/20110320birthright-citizenship-illegal-immigration.html

Denying citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants could save taxpayers some money. According to

the Pew Hispanic Center, the children of undocumented immigrants are more likely to live in poverty

and lack health insurance than children of U.S. citizens. As citizens, many of those children qualify for

public benefits. By denying them citizenship, those children would not be eligible for most public-

assistance programs, so some of the costs to taxpayers would be less, Van Hook said.

Decrease welfare costs

Jon Feere, August 2010, Legal Policy Analyst Center for Immigration Studies,

http://www.cis.org/birthright-citizenship

Most benefits Americans would regard as “welfare” are not accessible to illegal immigrants. However,

illegal immigrants can obtain welfare benefits such as Medicaid and food stamps on behalf of their U.S.-

born children. Many of the welfare costs associated with illegal immigration, therefore, are due to the

current birthright citizenship policy. Put another way, greater efforts at barring illegal aliens from federal

welfare programs will not significantly reduce costs because their citizen children can continue to access

the benefits. Nationwide, 40 percent of illegal alien-headed households receive some type of welfare. In

some states, the rate is higher: in New York, 49 percent receive welfare; in California, the rate is 48

percent; in Texas, it is 44 percent; and in Georgia, 42 percent of illegal alien-headed households receive

welfare.5 Only 19 percent of households headed by native-born citizens make use of a major welfare

program.

Increases poverty levels

Jon Feere, August 2010, Legal Policy Analyst Center for Immigration Studies,http://www.cis.org/birthright-citizenship

Despite taxpayers’ assistance, approximately 59 percent of illegal aliens and their U.S.-born children live

in or near poverty. In total, 21.5 million immigrants (legal and illegal) and their young children live in or

near poverty. In California, Arizona, Texas, and Colorado illegal aliens and their U.S.-born children

account for roughly a fifth of the those in poverty.7 Ultimately, treating the U.S.-born children of illegal

aliens as citizens has the statistical effect of increasing the percentage of U.S. citizens living in poverty.














Pro:Not Constitutionally Protected

Birthright citizenship is not protected by the 14th amendment


http://www.cis.org/birthright-citizenship Eminent legal scholars and jurists, including Professor Peter Schuck of Yale Law School and U.S. Court of

Appeals Judge Richard Posner, have questioned whether the 14th Amendment should be read to

mandate such a permissive citizenship policy. Nevertheless, the practice has become the de facto law of

the land without any input from Congress or the American public. Advocates of maintaining this

citizenship policy argue that the plain language of the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment

protects automatic birthright citizenship for all children born to illegal and temporary aliens. However,

several legal scholars and political scientists who have delved into the history of the 14th Amendment

have concluded that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” has no plain meaning and that the executive

branch’s current, broad application of the Citizenship Clause may not be warranted.

It’s not protected by any law of the US



Is automatic birthright citizenship for children of all legal and illegal aliens expressly required by the U.S.

Constitution? On its face, the answer is “no.” No language in the Constitution specifically addresses how

the children of foreigners must be dealt with in regards to citizenship. The 14th Amendment confers

citizenship through “naturalization” or by birth to persons “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United

States, but provides no guidance on when an alien is to be regarded as subject to U.S. jurisdiction. The

next question, then, is whether any statute enacted by Congress specifically directs the granting of

citizenship to children born in the United States to illegal aliens. Again, the answer is “no.” The executive

branch’s birthright citizenship policy is not based on any federal regulation. One might say that the

practice has become policy without becoming law.

No change to the Constitution is necessary



Advocates of maintaining automatic birthright citizenship for illegal aliens argue that a constitutional

amendment is necessary to change the current policy. However, the ambiguities surrounding the phrase

“subject to the jurisdiction thereof” and the scope of Congress’s plenary power to regulate immigration

have caused historians and legal scholars to conclude that Congress itself has the power to interpret the

phrase and to impose reasonable limits on its application.












Pro:International Support

Only minority of countries support birthright citizenship



Advocates of maintaining automatic birthright citizenship for illegal aliens argue that a constitutionalamendment is necessary to change the current policy. However, the ambiguities surrounding the phrase

“subject to the jurisdiction thereof” and the scope of Congress’s plenary power to regulate immigration

have caused historians and legal scholars to conclude that Congress itself has the power to interpret the

phrase and to impose reasonable limits on its application.

There’s an international trend to end birthright citizenship



In recent years, the international trend has been to end universal birthright citizenship. Countries that

have ended universal birthright citizenship include the United Kingdom, which ended the practice in

1983, Australia (1986), India (1987), Malta (1989), Ireland, which ended the practice through a nationalreferendum in 2004, New Zealand (2006), and the Dominican Republic, which ended the practice in

January 2010. The reasons countries have ended automatic birthright citizenship are diverse, but have

resulted from concerns not all that different from the concerns of many in the United States. Increased

illegal immigration is the main motivating factor in most countries. Birth tourism was one of the reasons

Ireland ended automatic birthright citizenship in 2004.72 If the United States were to stop granting

automatic citizenship to children of illegal immigrants, it would be following an international trend.

Lack of international support for birthright citizenship

Hans von Spakovsky, September 9, 2010, “The Costs of Birthright Citizenship”

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/09/09/the-costs-of-birthright-citizenship/

Feere’s research found that the “overwhelmingly majority of the world’s countries do not offer

automatic citizenship to everyone born within their borders.” Only 30 countries out of 194 offer

automatic citizenship, CIS confirmed. Of the 31 counties listed on the International Monetary Fund’s list

of advanced economies, only the United States and Canada grant automatic birthright citizenship.

No country in Europe, a continent many liberals often cite for its supposedly superior views on

everything from government health care to high tax rates, grants automatic citizenship. The trend has

been toward eliminating it in the few countries that grant it. Australia, Ireland, India, New Zealand, and

the United Kingdom have all jettisoned this policy.












Pro: Not Constitutionality Protected

Legal precedent allows for the removal of birthright citizenship

James Carafano, August 5, 2010, “Rethinking Birthright Citizenship”

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/08/05/rethinking-birthright-citizenship/

Feingold is right, but he is wrong to suggest that clarifying birthright citizenship to exclude children of illegal aliens and foreign visitors can’t be part of that legislative agenda. There is a sound legal argument

to be made that the 14th Amendment was widely misinterpreted in an 1898 decision (the same era as

Plessy) and that Congress can legislate on this issue without further amending the Constitution. In fact,

Heritage first made that argument in 2005 in The Heritage Guide to the Constitution. As we have

previously argued, clarifying the citizenship issue is a necessary element of immigration reform. Going

forward, resolving this issue should be part of a responsible sequence of reforms and a real honest

strategy to fix America’s flawed immigration system and broken borders.

Birthright citizenship not mandated by Constitution


http://blog.heritage.org/2010/09/09/the-costs-of-birthright-citizenship/ Birthright citizenship is not mandated by the 14th Amendment and the Supreme Court has never held

that children born of individuals who are in the United States illegally are citizens — only that the

children of individuals who are born to legal permanent residents are citizens. Conferring citizenship on

those whose parents are here illegally is a policy that has developed almost by default by the executive

branch, with no deliberation by Congress through the normal legislative process used to decide

important public policy issues.

Constitutional argument is flawed

George Will, March 28, 2010, “An argument to be made about immigrant babies and citizenship”

Washington Post,

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2010/03/26/AR2010032603077.html

To end the practice of "birthright citizenship," all that is required is to correct the misinterpretation of

that amendment's first sentence: "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." From

these words has flowed the practice of conferring citizenship on children born here to illegal immigrants.

A parent from a poor country, writes professor Lino Graglia of the University of Texas law school, "can

hardly do more for a child than make him or her an American citizen, entitled to all the advantages of

the American welfare state." Therefore, "It is difficult to imagine a more irrational and self-defeating

legal system than one which makes unauthorized entry into this country a criminal offense and

simultaneously provides perhaps the greatest possible inducement to illegal entry." Writing in the Texas

Review of Law and Politics, Graglia says this irrationality is rooted in a misunderstanding of the phrase

"subject to the jurisdiction thereof." What was this intended or understood to mean by those who

wrote it in 1866 and ratified it in 1868? The authors and ratifiers could not have intended birthrightcitizenship for illegal immigrants because in 1868 there were and never had been any illegal immigrants

because no law ever had restricted immigration.











Pro: Decreased Costs

Would reduced social service costs dramatically



Take federal welfare programs. Although illegal aliens normally are barred from accessing them, theycan obtain benefits such as Medicaid, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, and food stamps on

behalf of their U.S.-born children. Since cash welfare benefits and food stamps are fungible within a

household, there is no question that welfare spending directed at the children of illegal immigrants will

also benefit the parents. It is also quite likely that a substantial portion of the medical costs of births to

illegal aliens are funded through the Medicaid program. CIS estimates that 40% of illegal alien

households nationwide receive some type of welfare despite federal prohibitions. That rate is even

higher in states with larger numbers of illegal aliens such as New York (49%), California (48%), and Texas

(44%).

Birthright citizenship costs billions annually

Joe Guzzardi, January 31, 2011 “California’s multi-billion dollar cost to educate anchor baby citizens”http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/opinion/columnists/article_e5c38ba0-2b45-11e0-aeb7-

001cc4c002e0.html

Referring to possible legislation that would end birthright citizenship by requiring that at least one

parent be either a citizen or a legal permanent resident, Metcalfe said: "According to the 14th

Amendment, the primary requirements for U.S. citizenship are dependent on total allegiance to

America, not mere physical geography. The purpose of this model legislation is to restore the original

intent of the 14th Amendment, which is currently being misapplied and is encouraging illegal aliens to

cross and cost American taxpayers $113 billion annually, or nearly $1,117 yearly per individual

taxpayer."

The costs are staggering to state and local economies

Joe Guzzardi, January 31, 2011 “California’s multi-billion dollar cost to educate anchor baby citizens”

http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/opinion/columnists/article_e5c38ba0-2b45-11e0-aeb7-

001cc4c002e0.html

According to the Department of Homeland Security's most recent available statistics, about 2.6 million

illegal aliens live in California. In Los Angeles County, the nation's largest county with a population of 9.8

million, about 54 percent (5.3 million) speak a language other than English. According to L.A. County

Supervisor Michael Antonovich, in 2010 the "total cost for illegal immigrants to county taxpayers" was

more than $1.6 billion including food stamps and benefits from CalWorks, a comprehensive welfare

program. Antonovich added that welfare benefits for the children of illegal immigrants (anchor babies)

cost Los Angeles County more than $600 million last year, "not including the hundreds of millions of

dollars for education." Yet education is by far the most expensive illegal alien entitlement. For

Antonovich to leave it out of his calculation is like omitting your monthly mortgage from your familyexpenses. Had Antonovich included immigrant education costs, he could have added a staggering $3

billion to the taxpayers' tab.



http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/opinion/columnists/article_e5c38ba0-2b45-11e0-aeb7-001cc4c002e0.html











Pro: Decreased Illegal Immigration

Creates legal incentive for immigration increases



As for chain migration, CIS points out that when a child becomes an adult, he can “legalize his parents,and also to bring into the United States his foreign-born spouse and any foreign-born siblings. The

sponsored spouse can, in turn, sponsor her own foreign-born parents and siblings, and the siblings can,

in turn sponsor their own foreign –born spouses, and so on, generating a virtually never-ending and

always-expanding migration chain.” This type of immigration is almost uncontrollable. It “accounts for

most of the nation’s growth in immigration levels,” and it continues to grow every year “because of the

ever-expanding migration chains that operate independently of any economic downturns or labor

needs.”

Birth tourism industry is thriving in US because of birthright citizenship


http://blog.heritage.org/2010/09/09/the-costs-of-birthright-citizenship/ According to CIS, America’s citizenship policy has also led to the growth of a “birth tourism” industry

since the State Department is “not permitted to deny a woman a temporary visitor visa simply because

she is pregnant.” This may be a relatively minor problem relative to the hundreds of thousands of

children born to illegal immigrants who reside in the country. But it illustrates how some foreigners who

don’t even live in the U.S. are taking advantage of this policy. The fact that it can exist at all even on a

limited scale is very troubling. The Tucson Medical Center in Arizona, for example, “actively recruits in

Mexico” for expectant mothers and offers them a “birth package.” Three California Chinese-owned

“baby care centers” recruit foreign mothers to give them the ability to have their babies in the United

States and “take advantage” of the law according to the owners (who started the business after coming

to the U.S. to have their own child). Turkish doctors and hotel owners (including the Marmara Hotel in

Manhattan) have set up a birth tourism business that has “reportedly arrang*ed+ the U.S. birth of 12,000

Turkish children since 2003” in order to obtain U.S. citizenship because, as one of the Turkish mothers

said, “American citizenship has so many advantages.”









Pro: Decreased Costs

Children of illegal immigrants cost hundreds of millions a year

Fox News, January 19, 2011, “Welfare Tab for Children of Illegal Immigrants Estimated at $600M in

L.A. Countyhttp://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/19/welfare-tab-children-illegal-immigrants-

estimated-m-la-county/#ixzz1j1VLvnHgWelfare benefits for the children of illegal immigrants cost America's largest county more than $600

million last year, according to a local official keeping tabs on the cost.

Los Angeles County Supervisor Michael Antonovich released new statistics this week showing social

spending for those families in his county rose to $53 million in November, putting the county

government on track to spend more than $600 million on related costs for the year -- up from $570

million in 2009.

The costs are astronomical

Fox News, January 19, 2011, “Welfare Tab for Children of Illegal Immigrants Estimated at $600M in

L.A. Countyhttp://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/19/welfare-tab-children-illegal-immigrants-

estimated-m-la-county/#ixzz1j1VLvnHgAntonovich acknowledges that the children whose benefits he's focusing on are U.S.-born. But he argues

that the money is collected by the illegal immigrant parents, putting a painful burden on taxpayers,

including those who are legal immigrants. "The problem is illegal immigration. ... Their parents evidently

immigrated here in order to get on social services," Antonovich spokesman Tony Bell said. "We can no

longer afford to be HMO to the world." He said the state should cut back on these social benefits.

According to the November statistics, that cost accounted for 22 percent of all food stamp and

CalWORKS spending in the county. Over the summer, the Federation for American Immigration Reform

also looked at these kinds of costs nationwide to get an idea of the burden to local governments at a

time when many are grappling with budget deficits. The organization reported that the cost of illegal

immigration stands at about $113 billion a year. Nearly half of that amount went toward education

costs, according to the study. Costs were naturally higher in states with large illegal immigrant

populations -- in California, the total annual cost was pegged at $21.8 billion.

The education costs alone are staggering

Lance Izumi, August 17, 2010 “Educating illegal immigrants is costly”

http://www.ajc.com/opinion/educating-illegal-immigrants-is-594092.html

In 2003, there were 4.3 million children of illegal immigrants. By 2008 that number had climbed to 5.5

million, more than the entire population of Colorado. The large number of children of illegal immigrants

greatly impacts public schools and education-funding costs. The Pew study found that in 2008, “Children

of unauthorized immigrants are 6.8 percent of students enrolled in kindergarten through grade 12,” an

increase from the 5.4 percent in 2003. The proportion was double in California, where 13.5 percent of k-

12 students in 2008 were the children of illegal immigrants. Given these percentages, cost estimates of

educating these children are staggering.





Pro: National Security

Prominent examples prove risk of birthright citizenship

W.D. Reasoner, March 2011 “Birthright Citizenship for the Children of Visitors: A National Security

Problem in the Making?” http://cis.org/birthright-citizenship-for-visitors

Real consequences can attach to birthright citizenship. By way of example, Anwar al Awlaki, the “fieryAmerican cleric in Yemen,” as he is often described by the media and pundits, is a product of our current

lax birthright birthright citizenship rules, even though he is clearly antagonistic to Western standards

generally, and to the United Sttes particularly, and has no interest in his citizenship-by-birthright, except

perhaps as a tool to be used against us. Al Awlaki was born April 22, 1971, in Las Cruces, N.M., of non-

immigrant Yemeni parents while his father was studying in the United States as a foreign student. He

left the United States to go to Yemen with his parents when they returned, but he reentered the United

States later, using his identity as an American citizen, to pursue his own studies before deciding to go

back again to Yemen.

High risk of national security violations

W.D. Reasoner, March 2011 “Birthright Citizenship for the Children of Visitors: A National SecurityProblem in the Making?” http://cis.org/birthright-citizenship-for-visitors

But it is easy to envision an entirely different and chilling scenario. Imagine a young man born in the

United States of non-immigrant parents and taken away at a very early age, reared in Waziristan,

educated in Islamist madrassas and trained in the fundamentals of terror at one of the many camps in

Southwestern Asia; someone who has flown under the radar of U.S. and foreign intelligence agencies

and is therefore unknown to them. He would be entitled to walk into any American embassy or

consulate worldwide, bearing a certified copy of his birth certificate and apply for — indeed, demand —

a U.S. passport. That passport would entitle him to enter and reside in the United States whenever and

wherever he chose, secretly harboring his hatred, an unknown sleeper agent of al Qaeda or any of the

other multitude of terrorist organizations with an anti-Western bias and a violent anti-American agenda,

waiting for the call to arms.

The threat would be global



Nor is the potential damage limited only to the American homeland. A U.S. passport is the gold standard

for would-be international terrorists, giving them ready access to virtually any country on earth where

they may elect to set up operations — say against American diplomats, corporate interests, or even

tourists. What is more, it is entirely likely that such individuals would be dual nationals and thus carry

with them two legitimate passports (in addition to any they may have acquired of a false or fraudulent

nature). Selective use of those passports in passing through different countries makes it exceedingly

difficult for U.S. and allied intelligence, military, or border security agencies to track such persons’ global

travels and thus put them on the radar, because they will go out of their way to keep the U.S. passportclean of visas or entry and exit stamps from countries which would act as a red flag and cause further

examination of the person’s travels, background or views.

http://cis.org/birthright-citizenship-for-visitors











Pro: National Security

High likelihood of national security concern



It would be easy to dismiss the threat by pointing to the likely predominant ethnic and nationalbackground of a birthright child’s parents — quite possibly Hispanic, quite possibly Mexican or Canadian

— and to assert therefore that the chance that such a child will become a terrorist is small. Doing so

would be dangerous and fundamentally inaccurate. Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and other international

terrorist organizations actively proselytize and recruit across all racial, ethnic, religious, economic, and

nationality divides. It is in their interest to do so. One need only consider the cases of John Walker Lindh

and Jose Padilla, among others, to recognize their skill in winning converts among the disaffected.

The threat is real



Whatever the number of birthright children born each year of undocumented immigrants, bordercrossers, and nonimmigrant visitors, we must ask ourselves: is it reasonable to assume that those

individuals will share our societal values or our worldview, or appreciate the accident of birth that

accords them the right to come and go through American borders and among American communities as

they choose, as “one of us”? Or is doing so an example of American hubris and naiveté of the worst sort,

one which may come back to bite us in the long run? And if so, will we then mistakenly view the terrorist

acts and attempts committed by such persons to be “homegrown” when they were absolutely

avoidable? While such extreme examples as al Awlaki may be rare, we should remember that it only

took 19 fanatics bent on mass murder to instigate two wars and to fundamentally alter American

domestic security, foreign policy — even our notion of ourselves as a society.

Abolishing birthright citizenship is key



It would be easy, but mistaken, to cast the debate about the benefits and deficits of all-inclusive

birthright citizenship, or its consequences, in partisan terms and ascribe the narrow view to

conservatives and “the right.” Harry Reid, Democratic Leader of the Senate, was one of those to

previously introduce legislation to limit citizenship. And who could have imagined a circumstance in

which the Obama presidency would be the first administration known to sign a presidential finding

authorizing the targeted killing of a U.S. citizen? In an open and honest discussion we as a society should

begin by asking ourselves, do we as Americans undervalue our own citizenship by giving it away so

freely, and is the generosity of spirit with which we have chosen to interpret the Fourteenth

Amendment truly in our national interest and security? This is a conversation that deserves to be held —

soon — without rhetoric, devoid of vitriol, and with more light than heat.












Con: Increased Legal Costs

There’d be a large-scale increase in legal costs

Margaret Stock, September 2009, “Policy Arguments in Favor of Retaining America’s

Birthright Citizenship Law”

http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/Birthright%20Citizenship%20091509.pdf If birthright citizenship were eliminated, however, those born in the United States would lose their

access to easy proof of citizenship. Instead, they would find it necessary to turn to the exceptionally

complex U.S. rules for citizenship by blood (the majority would be unable to qualify for the immigrant

visas necessary as a prerequisite for citizenship by naturalization). Yet the rules for derivative citizenship

are so complicated that it can take an experienced immigration attorney more than an hour to

determine whether someone is a U.S. citizen by derivation. The lawyer must inquire about grandparents

as well as parents, about marriage dates and the birth dates of ancestors, about the place of birth, and

about the time that one’s parents or grandparents spent in the United States prior to one’s birth.

Those costs would disproportionately hurt those in need

Margaret Stock, September 2009, “Policy Arguments in Favor of Retaining America’s Birthright Citizenship Law”

http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/Birthright%20Citizenship%20091509.pdf

The elite of American society would not be affected much by the elimination of birthright citizenship. A

change in the current system would cause little trouble for those who have the money to hire highly

trained lawyers to handle their paperwork. The burden of proving citizenship would likely fall mostly on

the less‐favored elements in society. One of the little‐ known facts of U.S. immigration law is that the

U.S. government frequently deports U.S. citizens by mistake. Any experienced immigration lawyer has

stories of U.S.‐citizen clients who have been deported. These citizens are mostly the less‐favored in our

society—the poor, the uneducated, the mentally disturbed, and minorities. This trend would accelerate

if we eliminated birthright citizenship.

Eventually all American children would have to prove their citizenshipMargaret Stock, September 2009, “Policy Arguments in Favor of Retaining America’s



Eliminating the birthright citizenship rule would affect not only the citizenship of the children of

unauthorized immigrants, but the citizenship of the children of more than three hundred million

American citizens. After the elimination of birthright citizenship, all American parents would, going

forward, have to prove the citizenship of their children through a cumbersome bureaucratic process.

The United States has no national registry of its citizens, and most Americans today rely on the birthright

citizenship rule to establish their citizenship.












Con: Increased Federal Regulation

Repeal would require a federal citizen registry to determine citizenship

Sam Fulwood, May 11, 2011 “Less than Citizens”

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/05/less_than_citizens.html

This nightmare scenario would begin with the Department of Homeland Security intruding in everyhospital in the nation. Indeed, that is where the bureaucratic morass must originate. If birthright

citizenship were repealed, some sort of federalized birth registry would have to be created and

maintained in order to ensure that citizenship status is allocated properly. Currently, documents

evidencing American citizenship are created by a decentralized system, where thousands of state-and-

local governmental entities produce these documents. Instead of the current system, the new system

would feature a process requiring every parent to produce documents establishing the parent’s

citizenship or immigration status at the moment of the child’s birth.

This would affect every American


http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/05/less_than_citizens.htmlLet’s be clear: This burden would affect every family in America. The creation of a national birth registry

would be an extraordinarily complicated and costly feat. The nation would replace a simple system

where “birth by its inherent energy and force gives citizenship,” as Vermont Sen. Justin Smith Morrill of

the Reconstruction Congress described it. In its place, policymakers would substitute the straightforward

birthright citizenship with a complex and burdensome process for the more than 4.1 million children

born in the country each year. Over 11,300 births per day would encounter vast bureaucratic red tape.

One can imagine the result: an incredibly convoluted procedure that today only Americans born

overseas must follow.

The cost would be tremendous



The current procedures for proving one’s citizenship—absent birthright citizenship— are costly and

cumbersome. Parents of Americans born abroad are required to undergo a lengthy and expensive

individualized assessment of their child’s citizenship, with Department of State and Department of

Homeland Security charging fees of up to $600 to cover the cost of such assessments. In cases where

the parents have clear documentation proving their citizenship status, these examinations can take

weeks or months. If evidence from multiple documents is required to prove lineage, the waiting period

can stretch into years. In the meantime, that child—an American citizen by law—is barred from

receiving the benefits of citizenship, including access to healthcare and education in his or her own

country. Imagine, then, what would happen if every new parent in the United States was required to

undergo a similar process—an outcome almost guaranteed by a change in the laws. Using the costs from

the current process for overseas births, we estimate that eliminating birthright citizenship has thepotential to add a birth tax of $600 per child, to say nothing of the long periods in which children would

be stuck in legal limbo, further increasing the burden on new parents.









Con:Birthright Citizenship Constitutional

Protected by the 14th Amendment

Shikha Dalmia, March 15, 2011, The Bogus Case Against Birthright Citizenship,

http://reason.com/archives/2011/03/15/the-bogus-case-against-birthri

Smith is pushing a law in Congress to scrap this right, even though literally no one believes that it wouldpass constitutional muster. That’s because the 14th Amendment is unusually clear about extending

citizenship rights to everyone born on American soil except for children of foreign diplomats and

American Indians (who belong to sovereign tribes). Eliminating these rights for anyone else will require

three-quarters of the states to ratify another amendment.

Citizenship Clause provides protection

James Ho, September 2009, “Defining “American:”Birthright Citizenship and the Original

Understanding of the 14th Amendment”


Accordingly, the text of the Citizenship Clause plainly guarantees birthright citizenship to the U.S.‐born

children of all persons subject to U.S. sovereign authority and laws. The clause thus covers the vastmajority of lawful and unlawful aliens. Of course, the jurisdictional requirement of the Citizenship Clause

must do something – and it does. It excludes those persons who, for some reason, are immune from,

and thus not required to obey, U.S. law. Most notably, foreign diplomats and enemy soldiers – as agents

of a foreign sovereign – are not subject to U.S. law, notwithstanding their presence within U.S. territory.

Foreign diplomats enjoy diplomatic immunity, while lawful enemy combatants enjoy combatant

immunity. Accordingly, children born to them are not entitled to birthright citizenship under the

Fourteenth Amendment.

Legal precedent proves




Finally, repeal proponents point out that our nation was founded upon the doctrine of consent of the

governed, not the feudal principle of perpetual allegiance to the sovereign. But that insight explains only

why U.S. citizens enjoy the right of expatriation – that is, the right to renounce their citizenship – not

whether U.S.‐born persons are entitled to birthright citizenship. History thus confirms that the

Citizenship Clause applies to the children of aliens. To be sure, members of the 39th Congress may not

specifically have contemplated extending birthright citizenship to the children of illegal aliens, for

Congress did not generally restrict migration until well after adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. 35

But nothing in text or history suggests that the drafters intended to draw distinctions between different

categories of aliens. To the contrary, text and history confirm that the Citizenship Clause reaches all

persons who are subject to U.S. jurisdiction and laws, regardless of race or alienage.












Con: Birthright Citizenship Constitutional

All branches have conclusively found it Constitutional



http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/Birthright%20Citizenship%20091509.pdf All three branches of our government—Congress, the courts, and the executive branch— agree that the

Citizenship Clause applies to the children of aliens and citizens alike. But that may not stop Congress

from repealing birthright citizenship. Pro‐immigrant members might allow birthright citizenship

legislation to be included in a comprehensive immigration reform package—believing it will be struck

down in court—in exchange for keeping other provisions they disfavor off the bill. Alternatively,

opponents of a new temporary worker program might withdraw their opposition, if the children of

temporary workers are denied birthright citizenship. Stay tuned: Dred Scott II could be coming soon to a

federal court near you.

Revoking birthright citizenship would violate the Constitution

Elizabeth Wydra, September 2009, “Debunking Modern Arguments Against Birthright Citizenship”http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/Birthright%20Citizenship%20091509.pdf

A close study of the text of the Citizenship Clause and Reconstruction history demonstrates that the

Citizenship Clause provides birthright citizenship to all those born on U.S. soil, regardless of the

immigration status of their parents. Perhaps more important, the principles motivating the framers of

the Reconstruction Amendments, of which the Citizenship Clause is a part, suggest that we amend the

Constitution to reject automatic citizenship at the peril of our core constitutional values. The current

debate over the meaning of the Citizenship Clause also stands in stark contrast to the legislative debates

occurring at the time Congress approved it. Perhaps the most remarkable feature of the legislative

history of the Citizenship Clause is that both its proponents and opponents agreed that it recognizes and

protects birthright citizenship for the children of aliens born on U.S. soil. The Reconstruction Congress

did not debate the meaning of the Clause, but whether, based on their shared understanding of its

meaning, the Clause embodied sound public policy by protecting birthright citizenship. For the most

part, Congressional opponents of birthright citizenship argued vigorously against it because, in their

view, it would grant citizenship to persons of a certain race, ethnicity, or status that the opponents

deemed unworthy of citizenship. These views did not carry the day. Instead, Congress approved a

constitutional amendment that used an objective measure—birth on U.S. soil—to grant citizenship

automatically to all those who satisfied this condition. To revoke birthright citizenship based on the

status and national origin of a child’s ancestors goes against the purpose of the Citizenship Clause and

the text and context of the Fourteenth Amendment

It’s Constitutionally protected

Elizabeth Wydra, September 2009, “Debunking Modern Arguments Against Birthright Citizenship”

http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/Birthright%20Citizenship%20091509.pdf Not only do the arguments against birthright citizenship require utter disregard for the express

provisions of the Constitution, they encourage us to abandon the precise reasons behind those

enactments. The text, history, and principles of the Citizenship Clause make clear that we should not

tinker with the genius of this constitutional design.












Con: Statistics Are Untrue

Statistics about birthright citizens are flawed

Shikha Dalmia, March 15, 2011, The Bogus Case Against Birthright Citizenship,

http://reason.com/archives/2011/03/15/the-bogus-case-against-birthri But Time magazine reported last year that of all the babies born in 2008 to at least one unauthorized

parent, over 80 percent were to moms who had been in the United States for over one year. Actual

instances of “birth tourism,” where moms expressly came here to deliver babies on American soil,

accounted for about two-tenths of 1 percent of all births in 2006. And most of these moms were not

poor, illegal Hispanics—Smith’s target group. They were rich Chinese moms on tourist visas. Nor is it

plausible that their intention was to use their kids to gain citizenship for themselves. Kids have to wait

until 21 to seek legal status for illegal parents and the parents must typically then wait outside the US

for at least 10 years before they can obtain their green cards.

Statistics about birthright citizenship mistake the reason people give birth here

Louis Jacobson, August 6, 2010 “Fact-checking the claims about 'anchor babies' and whether illegal

immigrants 'drop and leave'” http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/aug/06/lindsey-graham/illegal-

immigrants-anchor-babies-birthright/

So there's ample evidence that many illegal immigrants give birth in the U.S. every year. But how many

of them came to the U.S. with the motivation of giving birth and then leaving? In interviewing medical

practitioners in states on the U.S. Mexico border, we found mixed evidence. James Dickson, the

administrator and CEO of Copper Queen Community Hospital in Bisbee, Ariz., located five miles from the

Mexico border, told us that his hospital hasn't offered obstetrical services in a few years, but when it

did, he did not see anything like what Graham is describing. "We had some" people who came to have a

baby in the U.S., he said, but their goal was not citizenship. It was higher quality treatment or specific

services that were unavailable in Mexico.

Statistics are incorrectLouis Jacobson, August 6, 2010 “Fact-checking the claims about 'anchor babies' and whether illegal

immigrants 'drop and leave'” http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/aug/06/lindsey-graham/illegal-

immigrants-anchor-babies-birthright/

According to another Pew Hispanic Center report, immigration from Mexico dropped by about one-third

between 2000-2001 and 2002-2003, coinciding with the recession precipitated by the dot-com bust and

the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The numbers climbed back as the economy recovered, rising close

to their pre-decline numbers by 2005-2006. Then, the numbers fell again, starting in 2006-2007 (a bit

before the current recession began) and have continued to fall as the economy has sputtered. It should

be noted that these are numbers for all immigrants coming from Mexico, legal and illegal combined. But

Jeffrey S. Passel, a senior demographer with the Pew Hispanic Center, said that since illegal immigration

historically accounts for 80 to 85 percent of all new immigration from Mexico, the trends for all

immigrants tend to mirror those for illegal immigrants alone. "All the data suggests that people comehere to work -- especially Mexicans, and especially illegal Mexicans," said Suro. "If people came here

because they were looking for work, you would expect to see the flow fluctuate with employment

opportunities -- and that’s what the data shows. If people came here to have babies, the flows would be

pretty constant, and they are not." There's something else you don't see, Suro said. If having a baby was

a significant driving factor in illegal immigration, you would expect to see a higher percentage of women

of child-bearing age in the U.S. illegally compared to men of the same age. In fact, just the opposite is

the case.



http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/aug/06/lindsey-graham/illegal-immigrants-anchor-babies-birthright/















Con:Doesn’t Decrease Illegal Immigration

Abolishing birthright citizenship wouldn’t decrease illegal immigration



Supporters argue that illegal immigrants would be less likely to come to this country if their children

didn't automatically receive citizenship. But experts counter that it is unlikely that limiting birthright

citizenship would curb illegal immigration. Most illegal immigrants come for jobs, not to have children

that might one day, years in the future, help them win legal status in the United States, as critics of

birthright citizenship contend. Many European countries, for example, lack birthright citizenship but still

attract thousands of illegal immigrants every year.

It could make the problem worse


http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/03/20/20110320birthright-citizenship-illegal-

immigration.html

Even if limits on birthright citizenship did slow the flow of illegal immigrants into the United States, the

restrictions still would lead to a larger - not smaller - illegal-immigrant population because they would

turn the hundreds of thousands of children born to undocumented parents every year into illegal

residents themselves, demographers say.

Abolishing would increase illegal immigration



immigration.html

But limiting citizenship likely would do little to deter illegal immigration, say immigrant advocates,

because they come to the United States for jobs, not to have babies. Carlos Garcia, an organizer withPuente, a Phoenix-based group that advocates for immigrants, said illegal immigrants often remain in

the country because they want to provide a better life for their children. He believes birthright-

citizenship bills are mainly intended to increase fear among illegal immigrants in hopes of driving them

away. On the contrary, limiting birthright citizenship actually would increase the number of illegal

immigrants, demographers say. Jon Feere, the legal policy analyst at the Center for Immigration Studies,

a think tank in Washington, D.C., that favors stricter controls on immigration, said 300,000 to 400,000

children are born each year to the millions of illegal immigrants already living in the United States.

Under the birthright-citizenship proposals, those children would contribute to the nation's

undocumented population, he said. "We would see up to 400,000 illegal-immigrant children added

every year," Feere said.


















Con:Doesn’t Decrease Illegal Immigration

Abolishing birthright citizenship wouldn’t decrease illegal immigration



immigration.html An August study published by the Migration Policy Institute showed that if the 14th Amendment were

limited and births to parents were to continue at that pace, the undocumented population in the United

States would rise from 11 million today to 16 million by 2050. For purposes of the study, Jennifer Van

Hook, a demographer at Pennsylvania State University, assumed that that nation's illegal-immigrant

population grew only by births - that no immigrants crossed borders illegally or overstayed visas, which

they do by the thousands every year. Her research shows that if birthright citizenship is limited to babies

with at least one parent who is a legal resident, the number of undocumented children in the U.S. would

double from 2 percent of the total population today to 4 percent in 2050.

Leaving birthright citizenship in place will decrease illegal immigration

Daniel Gonzalez, March 20, 2011, “Birthright citizenship change would have wide effects”http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/03/20/20110320birthright-citizenship-illegal-

immigration.html

In contrast, if birthright citizenship is left as is, Van Hook projects that the share of undocumented

children in the U.S. would decrease from 2.1 percent of the population today to less than 1 percent by

2050 because the birthrate would be fueled by children born to U.S.-citizen Latinos. Even Kavanagh

concedes that most illegal immigrants come for jobs and that denying citizenship to babies with

undocumented parents would lead to an increase in the number of illegal immigrants in the United

States.

Other countries prove

Julie Weise, September 2, 2010, “A heavy price to ending birthright citizenship” LA Times,

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/sep/02/opinion/la-oe-weise-birthright-20100902

Some say birthright citizenship motivates immigration, and thus a country without it will attract fewer

immigrants. Well, not in Japan. Though Japan historically has had fewer immigrants than most

developed countries, in 2008 more immigrants than ever before — including 100,000 undocumented

immigrants — lived within its borders. It is an island nation and has never had a large guest-worker

program and does not confer birthright citizenship. But in recent decades, these policies became a drag

on the economy, creating labor shortages and making it difficult to attract high-skilled immigrants.

Change has been slow, but Japan is reexamining its approach to immigration and has given residency

status to tens of thousands of "foreigners" born on Japanese soil. In recent decades, other countries

such as Australia and Britain that once conferred automatic birthright citizenship have added limitations

for the children of undocumented immigrants. They too found that restrictions on birthright citizenship

did not slow undocumented immigration.
















Con:Increased Costs

Abolishing birthright citizenship would increase government costs



Limiting birthright citizenship could create costs and challenges for the government at various levels

while potentially saving money in other areas. At some level - local, state, federal or even at the hospital

- someone would have to determine whether a newborn's parents were legally in the United States

before the infant could be processed for a Social Security number. Regardless of how the process

worked, it would require governments to spend money creating and running an agency to verify the

citizenship of parents at a time when the public is calling for less government spending and bureaucracy,

said Margaret Stock, a retired Army Reserves lieutenant colonel and immigration attorney specializing in

military cases.

It would hurt those in the middle class most



immigration.html

Some civil-rights advocates are concerned that ending birthright citizenship would create a two-tiered

class system in the United States, with an underclass that Van Hook's research shows could be nearly

twice the size of Arizona's current population in 40 years. "It's a modern-day caste system with

potentially millions of natural-born Americans being treated as somehow less than entitled to the equal

protection of the laws that our nation has really struggled hard to guarantee," said Wade Henderson,

president of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, an advocacy group based in

Washington, D.C. He and other civil-rights advocates have said that denying citizenship to the children of

illegal immigrants would set the United States back 143 years, to when the country denied citizenship to

descendents of slaves.

Legal costs to prove citizenship would increase for the government

Margaret Stock, September 2009, “Policy Arguments in Favor of Retaining America’s



So what would it mean, as a practical matter, to eliminate birthright citizenship? Presumably, we would

have to create a national registry of citizens. All persons born in the United States— at thousands of

localities, hospitals, midwiferies—would have to have their citizenship adjudicated. An expert would

have to do the adjudication—most probably a trained government immigration attorney—unless we

allowed these complex adjudications to be made by random bureaucrats. Finding such attorneys is very

difficult today, but would likely become even more difficult, in that immigration and citizenship law is afield that a government immigration spokesperson has accurately called “a mystery and a mastery of

obfuscation.” Eliminating birthright citizenship would require the government to hire hundreds if not

thousands of immigration attorneys or similarly skilled immigration examiners
















Con: Doesn’t Decrease Illegal Immigration

Jobs and not birthright citizenship drives illegal immigration

Jennifer Rubin, January 30, 2011, Los Angeles Times, “Birthright Citizenship”

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-turn/2011/01/birthright_citizenship.html Immigration studies by the Pew Hispanic Center and Douglas Massey of the Mexican Migration Project

have demonstrated that the drivers for immigration are jobs and family reunification. In fact, roughly 80

percent of immigrant mothers in 2008-2009 had been in the U.S. since 2005, and 90-95 percent were

here over a year before having a child. Moreover, a child cannot under federal immigration law help a

parent attain citizenship until that child is 21 years old. In sum, pregnant women are not stumbling over

the Rio Grande en masse in search of the closest obstetrics wing.

Abolishing birthright citizenship would increase illegal immigration

Jennifer Rubin, January 30, 2011, Los Angeles Times, “Birthright Citizenship”

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-turn/2011/01/birthright_citizenship.html

A recent Migration Policy Institute study suggested that the consequences of declaring that children

born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants are themselves illegal would, by 2050, lead to a 44 percent increase

in the illegal immigrant population. For those keen on denying jobs to, or deporting, millions of current

illegal immigrants, this would dramatically increase our woes. And with each generation the number

grows larger and larger. Presumably, the grandchild of an "anchor" baby would be an illegal immigrant

under the senators' scheme.

Millions of illegal immigrants would be created by abolishing birthright citizenship

Elise Foley, January 27, 2011, “Vitter, Paul Target Birthright Citizenship For Children Of Illegal

Immigrants” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/27/vitter-paul-resolution-birthright-

citizenship_n_814986.html

But most legal scholars say the Court has already issued rulings on the amendment, which was adopted

in 1868 to overturn the Dred Scott ruling and affirm citizenship for freed slaves and others of Africandescent. The Court ruled in 1898 that a child born in the United States to non-citizens was a citizen

under the law. If these efforts to change the Fourteenth Amendment came to fruition, it could

significantly increase the number of immigrants considered to be in the U.S. illegally, which currently

stands at an estimated 11 million people. In 2008, about 340,000 babies, or 8 percent of the babies born

in the United States that year, were born to illegal immigrants, according to a Pew Hispanic Center study

released last year.





http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/27/vitter-paul-resolution-birthright-citizenship_n_814986.html








february 2012 debate- source wc public forum

Documents