Paradigm Feb 12 PF

PARADIGM
PUBLIC FORUM
Research
Position Paper
2011-2012
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP SHOULD BE ABOLISHED IN THE UNITED STATES.
FEBRUARY
The Paradigm Research Public Forum Position Paper February 2012 by David Cram Helwich
Copyright 2012 by Paradigm Research, Inc. All rights reserved.
First Edition Printed In The United States Of America
For information on Paradigm Debate Products:
PARADIGM RESEARCH
P.O. Box 2095 Denton, Texas 76202 Toll-Free 800-837-9973 Fax 940-380-1129 Web /www.oneparadigm.com/ E-mail service@oneparadigm.com
All rights are reserved. This book, or parts thereof, may not be reproduced by any means - graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping, or information storage and retrieval systems - without the written permission of the publisher. Making copies of this book, or any portion, is a violation of United States and international copyright laws.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER
1
FEBRUARY 2012
INDEX
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 AFFIRMATIVE POSITIONS BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP UNDESIRABLE: TOPSHELF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 CONGRESS CAN/SHOULD ACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 CONSENT PRINCIPLE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 DUAL CITIZENSHIP/ALLEGIANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 IMMIGRATION LAW ENFORCEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 IMMIGRATION MAGNET -- GENERAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 IMMIGRATION MAGNET -- BIRTH TOURISM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 IMMIGRATION MAGNET -- CHAIN MIGRATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 IMMIGRATION MAGNET -- ECONOMIC EFFECTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 IMMIGRATION MAGNET -- PARENTS/HARDSHIP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 IMMIGRATION MAGNET -- SOCIAL SERVICES/BUDGET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 INTERNATIONAL COMPARISONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 MULTIWARRANT/GENERAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 NUMBER OF BIRTHS/PERSONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 POLITICAL POWER/VALUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 PUBLIC OPINION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 RULE OF LAW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 ANSWERS TO: "ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 "CHILD PUNISHMENT UNTENABLE" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 "CHILD WELFARE/STATELESSNESS" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 "FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT JUSTIFIES" -- GENERAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 "FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT JUSTIFIES" -- JURISDICTION CLAUSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 "FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT JUSTIFIES" -- LEGISLATIVE RECORD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 "SECOND CLASS STATUS" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 "UNDOCUMENTED POPULATION/SOCIAL COHESION" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 NEGATIVE POSITIONS BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP DESIRABLE: TOPSHELF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AMERICAN PRINCIPLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHILD PUNISHMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHILD WELFARE/STATELESSNESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ECONOMIC COMPETITIVENESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EQUITY/SECOND CLASS STATUS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GENDER CONCERNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MULTIWARRANT/GENERAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RACE CONCERNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . REFORM FOCUS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SOCIAL COHESION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UNDOCUMENTED POPULATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
55 59 62 65 67 68 69 73 75 78 82 83 85
PARADIGM RESEARCH
2
FEBRUARY 2012
NEGATIVE POSITIONS cont'd ANSWERS TO: "AMENDMENT UNNECESSARY" -- GENERAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 "AMENDMENT UNNECESSARY" -- JURISDICTION CLAUSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 "AMENDMENT UNNECESSARY" -- LEGISLATIVE INTENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 "CONSENT PRINCIPLE" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 "DUAL CITIZENSHIP/ALLEGIANCE PROBLEMS" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 "IMMIGRATION MAGNET" -- GENERAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 "IMMIGRATION MAGNET" -- BIRTH TOURISM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 "IMMIGRATION MAGNET" -- CHAIN MIGRATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 "IMMIGRATION MAGNET" -- ECONOMIC EFFECTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 "IMMIGRATION MAGNET" -- PARENTS/HARDSHIP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 "IMMIGRATION MAGNET" -- SOCIAL SERVICES/BUDGET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 "INTERNATIONAL COMPARISONS" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 "RULE OF LAW" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
PARADIGM RESEARCH
3
FEBRUARY 2012
INTRODUCTION
Resolved: Birthright citizenship should be abolished in the United States. Virtually every interested commentator and analyst from across the political spectrum agree that our nation's immigration system is in need of serious reform. The large number of undocumented persons (up to 13 million), arcane immigration procedures, and gaps in border security are frequently voiced concerns. Where policy analysts and government officials differ is over how the nation should reform its immigration policies, and many of the most heated disputes center on how the government should respond to the realities of undocumented immigration. A recurring theme among "immigration restrictionists" has been proposals to decrease incentives for undocumented immigration, and favorite proposals continue to be changes to the procedures under which a person becomes eligible for citizenship. The February Public Forum debate topic addresses one such proposal, calling upon the pro team to defend an end to so-called "birthright citizenship," wherein all persons current born on American soil automatically are granted status as a U.S. citizen. This essay will discuss a few key aspects of the resolution and outline some of the strongest pro and con arguments. First, however, we will discuss the legal origins of birthright citizenship (BRC) and its implications for this month's resolution. The original text of the U.S. Constitution is notably lacking in a definition of what constitutes an American citizen, and legal scholarship exploring the evolution of citizenship in the first half of our country's history reveals an intricate and evolving political and legal landscape surrounding popular and legal notions of what it means to "be an American." Citizenship has generally been conferred through three channels: naturalization (where a person with citizenship in on country undergoes formally outlined process of acquiring citizenship in another country), by 'right of blood,' (where a person is born with the citizenship of their parents), and by 'right of soil' (where a person acquires the citizenship of the country in which they are born. Naturalization procedures are determined by federal statute, and are largely outside the scope of this month's controversy. A recent law review details important aspects of 'right of blood' and 'right of soil' citizenship: 1. Jus Sanguinis Jus Sanguinis: n. [Latin "right of blood"] The rule that a child's citizenship is determined by the parents' citizenship. . Most nations follow this rule. Cf. JUS SOLI. The principle of jus sanguinis applies to persons with a blood relationship to a citizen parent. Jus sanguinis, the older of the two rules used to determine citizenship at birth, comes to us through both Roman and early Germanic law. According to this rule, parentage determines citizenship. The United States follows birth citizenship by jus sanguinis to a limited extent, particularly where children are born to United States citizens abroad. 2. Jus Soli Jus Soli: n. [Latin "right of the soil"] The rule that a child's citizenship is determined by place of birth. . This is the U.S. rule, as affirmed by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. Cf. JUS SANGUINIS. English common law followed the doctrine of jus soli, the principle that a person acquires citizenship in a nation by virtue of his birth in that nation or its territorial possessions. Thus, persons born within the King's dominion owed allegiance to and were subjects of the King of England, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. A feudal concept, jus soli developed from the idea that territorial sovereignty created a relationship between the individual and the land to which he was attached. Generally, the rule is universal, with two common exceptions: (1) children born to diplomats abroad, who are citizens of the nation whom their parents represent, and (2) children born to parents of an occupying force, who are considered subjects of the invading sovereign. Although it seemed that U.S. courts and legislatures adopted the jus soli doctrine, confusion persisted as to whether those native-born to alien parents were United States citizens. [William M. Stevens, "Jurisdiction, Allegiance, and Consent: Revisiting the Forgotten Prong of the Fourteenth Amendment's Birthright Citizenship Clause in Light of Terrorism, Unprecedented Modern Population Migrations, Globalization, and Conflict Cultures," TEXAS WESLEYAN LAW REVIEW v. 14, Spring 2008] Although some Americans acquire citizenship via Jus Sanguinis (notably the children of U.S. diplomats and service members posted abroad), the vast majority of Americans are citizens on the basis of Jus Soli. Although citizenship by birthplace was a legal norm during the first century of American history, the infamous Dred Scott (1857) decision, which held that black persons could be denied the privileges and immunitied of citizenship, created legal impetus for codifying this pathway to citizenship in the U.S. Constitution, since the Scott court ruled that slaves born in the United States could be excluded from citizenship. According to most legal scholars (and supported by Supreme Court jurisprudence), citizenship was guaranteed to all persons born in the United States by the Fourteenth Amendment.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
4
FEBRUARY 2012
1.The Constitutional Basis of Birthright Citizenship. Birthright citizenship is based on the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which guarantees that "[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." The Supreme Court has interpreted this right to mean that "[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization." The Fourteenth Amendment is consistent with common law principles of jus soli, namely that one's nationality is determined by his or her place of birth. The alternative system, jus sanguinis, is employed by most European countries and grants citizenship by descent or blood, according to the citizenship of one's parents. [Sara Catherine Barnhart, "Second Class Delivery: The Elimination of Birthright Citizenship as a Repeal of 'The Pursuit of Happiness'," GEORGIA LAW REVIEW v. 42, Winter 2008, p.546] The Fourteenth Amendment formalized the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which granted citizenship to freed slaves and has been subsequently interpreted to grant citizenship to all persons born the U.S., including the children of immigrants. This interpretation of the amendment is subject to some controversy, as will be discussed below, but it still remains the law of the land to this day, having been upheld in two Supreme Court decisions, Elk v. Wilkins (1884) and United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). Not only does this resolution raise interesting questions about our understanding of citizenship and role of legal status in undocumented immigration, but it also provides a pretty clear and relatively balanced division of ground between the pro and con sides. "Birthright citizenship" is generally considered to reference citizenship granted to a person based upon the circumstances of their birth. In the United States, it refers to the Fourteenth Amendment provision (and common law) that grants citizenship to all persons born within the territory of the United States. "United States" refers to the "United States of America," although you should be prepared for squirrely pro teams that trot out definitions of "United States" that refer to Brazil, the Netherlands, etc. "To abolish" generally means "to do away with" or "to annul," and thus requires the pro team to defend the elimination of BRC. The con team is thus left with ground defending at least some form of birthright citizenship for some persons in the United States. However, the resolution is silent on two questions that will likely come up in most of your debates. First, the resolution does not specify an "agent of action" for the abolishment of birthright citizenship. There is a robust debate in the literature about whether BRC can (and should) be eliminated via a ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States, an act of Congress, or through an amendment to the United States Constitution. Although the resolution does not require the pro team to defend a particular agent, the con side could well leverage arguments about the undesirability of particular means of abolishing birthright citizenship. This means that you should prepare to either argue that the pro team does not have the burden of defending a particular mechanism of abolishing BRC, or to defend a method of eliminating the citizenship standard. Second, the resolution does specify a particular alternative to determining citizenship in place of birthright. Again, con teams can (and should) advance arguments that alternative means of determining citizenship (generally 'birth by blood') are inferior to birthright citizenship, meaning the pro side should be prepared to defend an alternative means of determining a person's citizenship. Arguments in support of the resolution generally fall into two categories. First, many legal commentators, particularly law professors Peter H. Schuck and Rogers M. Smith, argue that birthright citizenship is derived from outdated and dangerous feudal notions of citizenship, wherein a person is assumed to owe their allegiance to the sovereign (source of authority) that controls a particular territory. They claim that this understanding of citizenship was appropriate to a legal and political system that tied persons to the land on which they lived and worked and invested sovereignty in a lord who offered physical protection in exchange for their subject's allegiance. However, sovereignty is now held by both the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution as being invested in the people themselves, and most people view the Constitution and our nation's laws as a social contract governing the relationship between citizens as equals.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
5
FEBRUARY 2012
From this perspective, the Constitution mediates the relationship between persons and a government whose actions are subservient to the interests of the sovereign people. Accordingly, we should view citizenship as an "opt in" system where people choose to pledge their allegiance to the United States of America, and not impose said allegiance solely on the basis of the circumstances of a person's birth. One could readily build a case around this argument, and if you are interest in doing so, we strongly suggest that you read Schuck and Smith's Citizenship Without Consent: Illegal Aliens in the American Policy (Yale University Press, 1985). Second, the pro side can argue that birthright citizenship creates serious problems in our nation's immigration system. Many critics of BRC argue that it serves as a powerful incentive for undocumented immigration, encouraging people to immigrate to the United States in the hopes that their children will automatically obtain the numerous benefits of American citizenship. Critics also contend that birthright citizenship fuels "chain migration," where children born in the United States are eventually able to obtain permanent resident status for their previously undocumented parents and family members via the U.S.'s family preference immigration system. These critics maintain that undocumented immigration poses a number of challenges, including depressing economic activity and draining the public coffers through the provision of social services to undocumented persons. The con side has a similar set of powerful arguments operating along the same two axes. First, defenders of birthright citizenship argue that the legal norm is vital to preserving formal equality, claiming that its abolishment would risk the creation of a permanent underclass of persons who live in the United States who are disadvantaged because they do not enjoy the same privileges and legal protections as full citizens. Commentators point the numerous problems faced by non-citizen immigrant populations in Western Europe, particularly Germany and France, as evidence that birthright citizenship both facilitates the blending of immigrants and their cultural understandings and practices the tapestry of American culture and helps preserve social cohesion by promoting a common and shared sense of American identity. There is some excellent evidence arguing that attempts to eliminate birthright citizenship are rooted in a dangerous xenophobia that not only carries disturbingly racist overtones, but also risks an unraveling of the nation's social fabric. Second, BRC advocates can point to a number of problems posed by the elimination of birthright citizenship, including serious legal, health, and economic consequences for the children of undocumented persons born in the United States and their families. There are also a number of useful defensive arguments against the pro side's "immigration magnet" claims. This seems to be a very good topic, and we hope that you enjoy debating it.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
6
FEBRUARY 2012
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP UNDESIRABLE: TOPSHELF

1. BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP IS AN IMMIGRATION MAGNET, IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH COMMON LAW -- RUNS CONTRARY TO OUR PRINCIPLES OF CITIZENSHIP AND ALLEGIANCE Edward J. Erler, Professor, Political Science, CSU-San Bernadino, "Birthright Citizenship and Dual Citizenship: Harbingers of Administrative Tyranny," IMPRIMIS v. 37 . 7, 7-08, www.hillsdale.edu/hctools/ImprimisTool/archives/2008_07_Imprimis.pdf, accessed 1-7-12. Birthright citizenship -- the policy whereby the children of illegal aliens born within the geographical limits of the United States are entitled to American citizenship -- is a great magnet for illegal immigration. Many believe that this policy is an explicit command of the Constitution, consistent with the British common law system. But this is simply not true. The framers of the Constitution were, of course, well-versed in the British common law, having learned its essential principles from William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England. As such, they knew that the very concept of citizenship was unknown in British common law. Blackstone speaks only of "birthright subjectship" or "birthright allegiance," never using the terms citizen or citizenship. The idea of birthright subjectship is derived from feudal law. It is the relation of master and servant; all who are born within the protection of the king owe perpetual allegiance as a "debt of gratitude." According to Blackstone, this debt is "intrinsic" and "cannot be forfeited, cancelled, or altered." Birthright subjectship under the common law is thus the doctrine of perpetual allegiance. America's Founders rejected this doctrine. The Declaration of Independence, after all, solemnly proclaims that "the good People of these Colonies are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved." According to Blackstone, the common law regards such an act as "high treason." So the common law -- the feudal doctrine of perpetual allegiance -- could not possibly serve as the ground of American (i.e., republican) citizenship. Indeed, the idea is too preposterous to entertain! James Wilson, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and a member of the Constitutional Convention as well as a Supreme Court Justice, captured the essence of the matter when he remarked: "Under the Constitution of the United States there are citizens, but no subjects." The transformation of subjects into citizens was the work of the Declaration and the Constitution. Both are premised on the idea that citizenship is based on the consent of the governed -- not the accident of birth. 2. BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP IS PROBLEMATIC -- THREE REASONS Amanda Colvin, "Birthright Citizenship in the United States: Realities of De Facto Deportation and International Comparisons Toward Proposing a Solution," SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY LAW JOURNAL v. 53, Fall 2008, p.224-225. Opponents of birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants generally utilize three arguments in favor of abolishing the practice. First, it bestows citizenship on some whose "only tie to the society is the geographic accident of their place of birth." Second, jus soli citizenship encourages people from developing nations to enter illegally and give birth to their children, giving rise to so-called "anchor babies." Anti-immigrant groups, such as the Federation of American Immigration Reform (FAIR), argue that these children born to illegal immigrant parents "create a drain on the country's social service programs." They contend that the large numbers of births by non-U.S. citizens in American hospitals is indisputable, and "its impact is huge." Third, automatic birthright citizenship may influence states to "adopt tougher rules on family unification," namely, by deporting the illegal immigrant parents of citizen-children.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
7
FEBRUARY 2012
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP UNDESIRABLE: CONGRESS CAN/SHOULD ACT

1. CONSTITUTION DOES NOT BAR CONGRESS FROM ELIMINATING BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP Lino A. Graglia, Professor, Law, University of Texas, "Birthright Citizenship for Children of Illegal Aliens: An Irrational Public Policy," TEXAS REVIEW OF LAW & POLITICS v. 14, Fall 2009, p.11-12. The Immigration and Naturalization Service's assumption that the children of illegal aliens have birthright citizenship as a constitutional right is, therefore, clearly subject to challenge and is increasingly being challenged. For example, it was prominently challenged in a 1995 book, Citizenship without Consent by Yale law professor Peter Schuck and political science professor Roger Smith. "Birthright citizenship's historical and philosophical origins," they argued, "make it strikingly anomalous as a key constitutive element of a liberal political system." "The framers of the Citizenship Clause had no intention of establishing a universal rule of birthright citizenship." "The question of the citizenship status of the native-born children of illegal aliens never arose for the simple reason that no illegal aliens existed at that time, or indeed for some time thereafter." There simply were no restrictions on immigration until the late nineteenth century. Before that time, "birthright citizenship could plausibly be understood as one ingredient of an integrated national strategy to encourage immigration," but ""control of our borders', not encouragement of immigration, now dominates contemporary policy discussions." Schuck and Smith conclude that Congress has the power "to define the contours of birthright citizenship..." "If Congress should conclude that the prospective denial of birthright citizenship to the children of illegal aliens" is good policy, then "the Constitution should not be interpreted in a way that impedes that effort." 2. CONGRESS HAS THE POWER TO DEFINE CITIZENSHIP John C. Eastman, Professor, Law, Chapman University, "From Feudalism to Consent: Rethinking Birthright Citizenship," Legal Memorandum, Heritage Foundation, 3-30 -- 06, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2006/03/from-feudalism-to-consent-rethinking-birthright-citizenship, accessed 1-7-12. It is today routinely believed that under the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, mere birth on U.S. soil is sufficient to obtain U.S. citizenship. However strong this commonly believed interpretation might appear, it is incompatible not only with the text of the Citizenship Clause (particularly as informed by the debate surrounding its adoption), but also with the political theory of the American Founding. It is time for Congress to reassert its plenary authority and make clear, by resolution, its view that the "subject to the jurisdiction" phrase of the Citizenship Clause has meaning of fundamental importance to the naturalization policy of the nation. 3. WE SHOULD CHANGE THE LAW SO THAT IT NO LONGER PROVIDES AN INCENTIVE FOR UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRATION Christine J. Hsieh, attorney, "American Born Legal Permanent Residents? A Constitutional Amendment Proposal," GEORGETOWN IMMIGRATION LAW JOURNAL v. 12, Spring 1998, p.518. Deterrence of illegal migration and preservation of the value of United States citizenship are the key justifications for the Birthright Amendment. The illegal immigrant cost-benefit debate is beyond the scope of this Note. But even taking into account that scholars have lauded the accomplishments of illegal immigrants, arguing that they benefit the United States far more than they disservice it, whether the potential exists for an immigrant to possibly benefit the country in some way is not the touchstone for decisionmaking. Ultimately, the United States has the right to determine who enters, and who does not, and it has unambiguously decided that its borders are not open to all. Illegal aliens are, by definition, illegally present. With an estimated five million undocumented aliens and the numbers continuously rising, not only are they present in violation of United States immigration laws, but they are present en masse.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
8
FEBRUARY 2012
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP UNDESIRABLE: CONSENT PRINCIPLE

1. BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP VIOLATES THE FOUNDATIONAL PRINCIPLE OF CONSENT John C. Eastman, Professor, Law, Chapman University, "From Feudalism to Consent: Rethinking Birthright Citizenship," Legal Memorandum, Heritage Foundation, 3-30 -- 06, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2006/03/from-feudalism-to-consent-rethinking-birthright-citizenship, accessed 1-7-12. Thus, as Professor Edward Erler has noted: [T]he social contract requires reciprocal consent. Not only must the individual consent to be governed, but he must also be accepted by the community as a whole. If all persons born within the geographical limits of the United States are to be counted citizens-even those whose parents are in the United States illegally- then this would be tantamount to the conferral of citizenship without the consent of "the whole people." In other words, birthright citizenship is contrary to the principle of consent that is one of the bedrock principles of the American regime. Such a claim of birthright citizenship traces its roots not to the republicanism of the American Founding, grounded as it was in the consent of the governed, but to the feudalism of medieval England, grounded in the notion that a subject owed perpetual allegiance and fealty to his sovereign. A necessary corollary of the feudal notion of citizenship was the ban on expatriation, embraced by England and described by Blackstone as follows: Natural allegiance is such as is due from all men born within the king's dominions immediately upon their birth. For, immediately upon their birth, they are under the king's protection. Natural allegiance is therefore a debt of gratitude; which cannot be forfeited, canceled, or altered, by any change of time, place, or circumstance. For it is a principle of universal law, that the natural-born subject of one prince cannot by any act of his own, no, not by swearing allegiance to another, put off or discharge his natural allegiance to the former: for this natural allegiance was intrinsic, and primitive, and antecedent to the other, and cannot be divested without the concurrence act of that prince to whom it was first due. 2. CITIZENSHIP SHOULD BE DETERMINED VIA CONSENT Peter Schuck, Professor, law, Yale University, "Citizenship Without Consent," SOCIAL CONTRACT v. 7 n. 1, Fall 1996, http://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc0701/article_593.shtml, accessed 1-2-12. On our consensualist reading, those born "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States would be citizens at birth provisionally, in the sense that they would have the opportunity upon attaining majority to renounce that citizenship if they so desired. At no time, however, would they be vulnerable to any denial of consent to their membership on the part of the state. Native-born children of legal resident aliens would also be provisional citizens at birth and during their minority and would enjoy the same right to expatriation. Citizenship at birth would not be guaranteed to the native-born children of those persons -- illegal aliens and "nonimmigrant" aliens -- who have never received the nation's consent to their permanent residence. Even the citizenship law of the United Kingdom, for whose antecedents our common-law citizenship was originally derived, and which continues to adhere to the birthright citizenship principle, does not extend it to the native-born children of either illegal aliens or temporary resident aliens. The same is true of other Western European countries. Since the proposed doctrine would require a reinterpretation of the Citizenship Clause, the change should be made prospectively, assuring citizenship to those born in the United States while the current understanding has been in effect. Congress, which bears the ultimate responsibility for fashioning the structure of our immigration policy, would also decide the role of the birthright citizenship for the children of illegal and nonimmigrant aliens. That decision is obviously only a small piece of immigration policy. Congress must carefully weigh the moral claims of these children to membership relative to the claims of other groups, assessing the likely effects on illegal immigration of eliminating their present guarantee of citizenship, and considering how such a change should relate to the more comprehensive, systematic measures for reducing illegal immigration. We are genuinely uncertain about how such an evaluation would or should come out. It is an issue on which reasonable people can differ.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
9
FEBRUARY 2012
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP UNDESIRABLE: CONSENT PRINCIPLE cont'd

3. CONSENT WOULD DENY AUTOMATIC CITIZENSHIP TO PERSONS BORN TO UNDOCUMENTED PERSONS IN THE U.S. Peter Schuck, Professor, law, Yale University, "Citizenship Without Consent," SOCIAL CONTRACT v. 7 n. 1, Fall 1996, http://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc0701/article_593.shtml, accessed 1-2-12. In the end, the question of birthright citizenship for the children of illegal and nonimmigrant aliens should be resolved in the light of broader ideals of constitutional meaning, social morality, and political community. These ideas militate against constitutionally ascribed birthright citizenship in these circumstances. Beyond the issue of the Citizenship Clause's intent, it is morally questionable to reward lawbreaking by conferring the valued status of citizenship, and it is even more questionable to plant that guarantee in the Constitution. This is true even though some of the lawbreakers are individuals whose ambition, resourcefulness, and family values most Americans would admire. Those characteristics might lead Congress to confer citizenship broadly and easily, but as a matter of informed choice, not constitutional inadvertence. Three basic steps are required to achieve a law of citizenship at birth that is theoretically consistent, practical for addressing current policy problems, and consonant with the nation's fundamental claim that its government rests on the consent of the governed. The first step requires a reinterpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment. Its guarantee of citizenship to those born "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States should be read to embody the principle of consensual membership, and therefore to refer only to children of those legally admitted to permanent residence in the American community -- that is, citizens and legal resident aliens. 4. CITIZENSHIP SHOULD BE BASED ON CONSENT Peter Schuck, Professor, law, Yale University, "Citizenship Without Consent," SOCIAL CONTRACT v. 7 n. 1, Fall 1996, http://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc0701/article_593.shtml, accessed 1-2-12. Although appealing, this argument from life prospects is ultimately unpersuasive. Our proposal to make one's national status turn, at least provisionally, on the national status of one's parents seems more morally acceptable and less determinative of one's life prospects than many other contingent factors -- such as inherited wealth, upbringing, or genetic endowment -- that are far more likely to shape those prospects in fundamental ways. Indeed, our proposal seems less arbitrary in terms of life prospects than the fundamental concept of birthright citizenship itself, which bases national status wholly upon the accident of geographical location at birth. And even if the innocence of the child and allied concern for his life prospects are accepted as morally or legally relevant, it does not follow that citizenship, as distinguished from mere nondiscrimination, should be the prize for that innocence. Nondiscrimination does not necessarily imply the same rights and benefits that citizenship or legal residence status confers. These children and their parents, by being denied birthright citizenship, would not be treated as the Dred Scott decision treated blacks; they would not be denied the law's protection. They would instead be required to choose among continuing to live in illegal status, with more limited equal protection and due rights; seeking to obtain legal status; or returning to their home countries. Our proposed interpretation would, moreover, produce at least one benefit. The government of a more truly consensual polity could more truthfully proclaim to citizens, resident aliens, and illegal aliens alike that American citizenship stands on a firm foundation of freely willed membership. It could more credibly claim the contemporaneous allegiance and, if necessary, the personal sacrifice of its citizens than it was able to do during the Vietnam War and other corrosive national conflicts. It could more persuasively invoke what it now can only baldly assert -- a legitimacy grounded in a fresh, vital, and always revocable consent.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
10
FEBRUARY 2012
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP UNDESIRABLE: CONSENT PRINCIPLE cont'd

5. PROVISION BY BIRTHRIGHT IS SIMPLY UNFAIR Anthony C. Beilenson, U.S. Representative, "Case for Correction by Constitutional Amendment," SOCIAL CONTRACT v. 7 n. 1, Fall 1996, http://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc0701/article_584.shtml, accessed 1-2-12. The most objectionable aspect of granting citizenship to those offspring is that it is fundamentally unfair. While millions of people around the world wait patiently-in some cases for many years -- to immigrate legally to the U.S., those individuals who manage to circumvent immigration laws are rewarded for it by having their children granted automatic citizenship. It also creates an irrational and unfair system under which one set of children of illegals -- those who arrived here with their parents -- are treated differently from those who happened to be born in the U.S. This often occurs within the same family. This unfairness has a lot to do with why most European and Asian countries limit citizenship to the children of citizens or legal residents, and only use place of birth in exceptional circumstances. The United Kingdom, for example, formerly had birthright citizenship until, largely because of immigration pressures, they restricted it in 1981 to now require that one parent be a legal resident. 6. THE CHILDREN WOULD STILL HAVE STATUS IN THEIR PARENT'S HOME COUNTRY Anthony C. Beilenson, U.S. Representative, "Case for Correction by Constitutional Amendment," SOCIAL CONTRACT v. 7 n. 1, Fall 1996, http://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc0701/article_584.shtml, accessed 1-2-12. Some supporters of the current system have expressed concern that limiting birthright citizenship might unfairly penalize the children of illegal immigrants. But, because every country confers citizenship to the children of their nationals who are born overseas, those children would be treated in exactly the same manner as their older brothers and sisters who were born before their parents came to the United States. Moreover, because the Fourteenth Amendment only sets a floor below which Congress cannot limit citizenship, Congress would still be free to grant citizenship to classes of individuals in particularly unfair or exceptional circumstances. Virtually everyone agrees that we need to take stronger action to stop illegal immigration, yet we continue to encourage and reward those who immigrate illegally by automatically conferring citizenship on their U.S.-born children. This unreasonable and unfair policy needs to be changed by amending the U.S. Constitution to limit birthright citizenship to the children of U.S. citizens and legal residents.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
11
FEBRUARY 2012
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP UNDESIRABLE: DUAL CITIZENSHIP/ALLEGIANCE

1. BIRTHRIGHT FACILITATES DUAL CITIZENSHIP Edward J. Erler, Professor, Political Science, CSU-San Bernadino, "Birthright Citizenship and Dual Citizenship: Harbingers of Administrative Tyranny," IMPRIMIS v. 37 . 7, 7-08, www.hillsdale.edu/hctools/ImprimisTool/archives/2008_07_Imprimis.pdf, accessed 1-7-12. The same kind of confusion that has led us to accept birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens has led us to tolerate dual citizenship. We recall that the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment specified that those who are naturalized must owe exclusive allegiance to the U.S. to be included within its jurisdiction. And the citizenship oath taken today still requires a pledge of such allegiance. But in practice dual citizenship -- and dual allegiance -- is allowed. This is a sign of the decline of American citizenship and of America as a nation-state. It is remarkable that 85 percent of all immigrants arriving in the U.S. come from countries that allow -- and encourage -- dual citizenship. Dual citizens, of course, give the sending countries a unique political presence in the U.S., and many countries use their dual citizens to promote their own interests by exerting pressure on American policy makers. Such foreign meddling in our internal political affairs has in fact become quite routine. Thus we have created a situation where a newly naturalized citizen can swear exclusive allegiance to the U.S. while retaining allegiance to a vicious despotism or a theocratic tyranny. 2. BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP INVALID -- DUAL CITIZENSHIP Phyllis Schlafly, "Detaching the Anchor from Anchor Babies," CREATORS SYNDICATE, 1-9-11, lexis. Babies born in the U.S. to illegal aliens are clearly citizens of their mother's country, so granting U.S. citizenship creates the possibility of dual citizenship, which the United States has never recognized as valid. To become a U.S. citizen, immigrants are required by our law not only to swear allegiance to the United States but also to absolutely renounce any and all allegiance to the nation from which they came. There is no ambiguity about the solemn oath that all naturalized Americans must take. "I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen so help me God." Any naturalized U.S. citizen who claims dual citizenship with his native country betrays his solemn oath. If anchor babies have citizenship in their parents' country, they should not have U.S. citizenship.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
12
FEBRUARY 2012
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP UNDESIRABLE: IMMIGRATION LAW ENFORCEMENT

BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP COMPROMISES OUR ABILITY TO ENFORCE OUR IMMIGRATION LAWS Virgil Goode, former U.S. Representative, "End Birthright Citizenship," HUMAN EVENTS ONLINE, 7-12-10, lexis. Birthright citizenship makes it much more difficult to enforce our immigration laws. When an illegal immigrant is detained, they can use the fact that they have citizen children as extenuating circumstances that make them a "hardship case" when appealing deportation orders. This is why I have used the term "anchor baby" to describe them. The critics of this term are the same people who are trying to make the anchor drop even deeper. During his immigration speech, President Obama stated we cannot deport illegal aliens because "it would tear at the very fabric of this nation -- because immigrants who are here illegally are now intricately woven into that fabric. Many have children who are American citizens."
PARADIGM RESEARCH
13
FEBRUARY 2012
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP UNDESIRABLE: IMMIGRATION MAGNET -- GENERAL

1. BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP IS A STRONG MAGNET Al Knight, "Change U.S. Law on Anchor Babies," DENVER POST, 6-22-05, p.B7. More than a dozen years ago, Peter Schuck and Rogers Smith put it this way in their article "Consensual Citizenship," in the magazine Chronicles: "The present guarantee under American law of automatic birthright citizenship to the children of illegal aliens can operate as one more incentive to illegal migration and violation by nonimmigrant aliens already here. When this attraction is combined with the powerful lure of expanded entitlements conferred upon citizen children and their families by the modern welfare state, the total incentive effect of birthright citizenship may well become significant." That passage was written in 1992 when the number of such births was estimated at less than 150,000 per year. Since then, the number has more than doubled. 2. BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP IS A VERY STRONG MAGNET Phyllis Schlafly, "Detaching the Anchor from Anchor Babies," CREATORS SYNDICATE, 1-9-11, lexis. The advantages of birthright citizenship are immense. The babies get Medicaid (including birth costs), Temporary Assistance to Needy Families and food stamps. Obviously, the baby shares his goodies with his family. As soon as the child becomes an adult, he can legalize his parents, and bring into the U.S. a foreign-born spouse and any foreign-born siblings. They all can then bring in their own extended families, a policy called chain migration. Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, has stepped up to this challenge and already has 26 co-sponsors for his bill, H.R. 140, to define citizenship. It states that the "subject to the jurisdiction" phrase in the Fourteenth Amendment means a baby born in the United States only if one parent is a U.S. citizen, or a lawfully admitted resident alien, or an alien on active duty in the U.S. armed services.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
14
FEBRUARY 2012
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP UNDESIRABLE: IMMIGRATION MAGNET -- GENERAL cont'd

3. BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP PROVIDES AN INCENTIVE FOR UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRATION Monica Diaz Greene, "Birthright Citizenship: Should the Right Continue?" JOURNAL OF LAW & FAMILY STUDIES v. 9, 2007, p.168-169. With the high number of illegal immigrants having children within the borders of the United States, it is time that the government limits automatic citizenship and develops legislation similar to other first world countries. While it is difficult to determine how many illegal immigrants currently reside in the United States, some estimates put the number as high as 20 million. Members of Congress argue that much of the allure in coming to America illegally is the chance of having a child born within United States territory. In 2003, Imperial Valley Medical Center in El Centro, California, spent more than 2 million dollars in uncompensated medical care, including care to undocumented immigrants. Much of this money is going to give medical services to women like Juanita, interviewed in Shadow of Hope, who are coming to the United States illegally to have their children. Heath care professionals who work in emergency rooms are required by law to provide medical services to everyone, and they are prohibited from asking about the citizenship status of any person. In 2004, Congress decided to give more than one billion dollars over four years to hospitals in border states to facilitate their financial survival. Nevertheless, Representative Tom Tancredo questions why, as a nation of laws, is the United States helping those who are here illegally? If the United States were to limit citizenship as proposed in H.J. Res. 46, the Citizen Reform Act of 2005, or the RIGHT Act, immigrants would have less of an incentive to enter illegally. While limiting automatic birthright citizenship would not stop the illegal immigration problem entirely, it would be an affirmative step in letting the world know that in order to gain the rights and privileges of American citizens you must immigrate legally. Traditionally, the United States has welcomed those who want to immigrate. In fact, the inscription on the Statue of Liberty reads "give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free." However, that welcome was not made at a time when those who immigrated were crossing borders illegally. It was made at a time when thousands of people waited in line to be processed and admitted to the United States. And while the United States still should welcome the tired, poor, and those longing to be free, it should return to the tradition of only welcoming those who are willing to follow the process and gain citizenship legally, and it should do so by limiting automatic birthright citizenship. 4. BIRTHRIGHT INCENTIVIZES UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRATION INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY, "American Citizenship Is Not a Birthright," 8-10 -- 10, p.A10. The 14th Amendment was written to guarantee citizenship for freed slaves. It's been misinterpreted to give citizenship to children of illegal aliens. Now some GOP leaders want to restore its original meaning. In Texas this year, some 60,000 so-called "anchor babies" will be born to the 1.5 million illegal aliens estimated to reside there. They're called that because under the current interpretation of the 14th Amendment they're automatic citizens, encouraging more illegals to arrive and making it hard to deport those already here. "There is a problem," House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, told NBC's "Meet The Press" Sunday. "To provide an incentive for illegal immigrants to come here so that their children can be U.S. citizens does, in fact, draw more people to our country. I do think that it's time for us to secure our borders and enforce the law and allow this conversation about the 14th Amendment to continue."
PARADIGM RESEARCH
15
FEBRUARY 2012

5. BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP SIGNIFICANTLY CONTRIBUTES TO UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRATION Howard Sutherland, attorney, "Citizen Hamdi: The Case Against Birthright Citizenship," AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE, 9-27-04, http://www.theamericanconservative.com/article/2004/sep/27/00021/, accessed 1-2-12. Despite the Court's evasion, this is no small matter. The government's selective misreading grants birthright citizenship to anyone (except diplomats' children, highlighting federal inconsistency) born on American soil, no matter who his parents are. Birthright citizenship lures illegal aliens, who know a U.S.-born child is, thanks to American immigration law's family-reunification bias, an anchor baby who will be able to sponsor his relatives for residence and citizenship. They also know that anchor babies' mothers are not deported. In 1993, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors reported that two-thirds of births in L.A. County hospitals were to illegal aliens, mostly Mexicans. Conservative estimates of illegal-alien births here, assuming an illegal alien population of between 8.7 and 11 million, run from 287,000 to 363,000 per year. 6. ANCHOR BABIES ARE A SERIOUS PROBLEM IN ALL THE BORDER STATES Ron Paul, U.S. Representative, "Rethinking Birthright Citizenship," 10 -- 3-06, http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul346.html, accessed 1-2-12. A recent article in the Houston Chronicle discusses the problem of so-called anchor babies, children born in U.S. hospitals to illegal immigrant parents. These children automatically become citizens, and thus serve as an anchor for their parents to remain in the country. Our immigration authorities understandably are reluctant to break up families by deporting parents of young babies. But birthright citizenship, originating in the 14th amendment, has become a serious cultural and economic dilemma for our nation. In some Houston hospitals, administrators estimate that 70 or 80% of the babies born have parents who are in the country illegally. As an obstetrician in south Texas for several decades, I can attest to the severity of the problem. It's the same story in California, Arizona, and New Mexico. And the truth is most illegal immigrants who have babies in U.S. hospitals do not have health insurance and do not pay their hospital bills. This obviously cannot be sustained, either by the hospitals involved or the taxpayers who end up paying the bills.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
16
FEBRUARY 2012

7. BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP INCENTIVIZES UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRATION William M. Stevens, "Jurisdiction, Allegiance, and Consent: Revisiting the Forgotten Prong of the Fourteenth Amendment's Birthright Citizenship Clause in Light of Terrorism, Unprecedented Modern Population Migrations, Globalization, and Conflict Cultures," TEXAS WESLEYAN LAW REVIEW v. 14, Spring 2008, p.346. "If you subsidize something, you get more of it; if you tax something, you get less of it." Birthright citizenship provides aliens yet another incentive to enter the United States illegally, or, if already present, to violate temporary visas. Combined with the powerful lure of entitlement to citizen children and their alien parents, the incentive of birthright citizenship cannot be ignored. In 1963, President Johnson declared a war on poverty -- to date the United States has spent $ 11 trillion fighting this war, a war that our immigration policies operate against by increasing the number of immigrants with low skill levels likely to receive welfare services. Before 1960, immigrant education level was on par with non-immigrants, and immigrant income, on average, exceeded that of non-immigrants. In other words, immigrants came with education levels comparable to the existing United States population, and they earned as much or more than Americans. The 1965 Immigration Act, promoted as a minor adjustment, made drastic changes in our immigration law. After the Act, by comparison to non-immigrants, immigrant education levels plummeted such that "immigrants increasingly occupy the low end of the U.S. socio-economic spectrum." Two conditions entice poorly educated immigrants to cross the border: (1) current immigration law favors kinship above education (chain migration), and (2) "a permissive attitude toward illegal immigration that has led to lax border enforcement and non-enforcement of the laws [prohibiting] employment of illegal immigrants." Current politics of immigration make it impossible to be selective in admitting immigrants from different nations, leaving as alternatives only loss of control of the borders or restrictive policies toward immigrants in general. 8. CURRENT LAW INCENTIVIZES UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRATION Christine J. Hsieh, attorney, "American Born Legal Permanent Residents? A Constitutional Amendment Proposal," GEORGETOWN IMMIGRATION LAW JOURNAL v. 12, Spring 1998, p.512-513. The status quo creates a perverse incentive for illegal immigration whereby the reward for illegally entering the country can be an American child. The benefits attached to having an American child extend beyond those associated with social services. With an American child, an illegal immigrant can plausibly bootstrap permanent residency onto himself once he has been in the country for seven years, thus gaining an unfair advantage over law-abiding, immigrant-hopefuls on the waiting list for permanent residency. Additionally, having a child can be used to circumvent screening procedures: Although the United States generally does not grant visas to foreigners who are likely at any time to become chronically welfare-dependent, the bootstrap phenomenon allows foreigners who would normally be ineligible to receive visas to become permanent residents. The result is that a foreigner who never waited on the immigrant visa waiting list, and who would have been excluded as a public charge, may be granted permanent residency with an American child as evidence of hardship.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
17
FEBRUARY 2012

9. THE ARGUMENT ONLY GOES IN ONE DIRECTION -- BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP CAN ONLY BE AN INCENTIVE FOR UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRATION Christine J. Hsieh, attorney, "American Born Legal Permanent Residents? A Constitutional Amendment Proposal," GEORGETOWN IMMIGRATION LAW JOURNAL v. 12, Spring 1998, p.519-520. However, empirical data also demonstrate that whereas an initial trip to the United States tends to be motivated by the availability of income, the priorities of those who have come to the United States more than once clearly shift toward familial interests. Economic opportunities remain important, but become subordinate to familial interests, especially "aspirations for the future of the children," as the primary reason for immigration. There is disagreement as to the extent of the attraction to would-be illegal aliens of United States citizenship for their children. However, no authority has argued that the ability to give birth to American citizen children is a deterring factor in the decision to illegally immigrate. Automatic birthright citizenship "can only operate, at the margin, as one more incentive to illegal migration." Sociological studies have been published on the hedonic weight of parenthood, and illustrate the strength of maternal instinct with respect to the ability to take risks and make sacrifices for the child. It is not inconceivable that a loving mother would opt for an American passport over a passport from a less stable country for her newborn child. 10. BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP ADDS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF IMMIGRANTS EVERY YEAR Charles Wood, former counsel, U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Immigration, "Losing Control of America's Future -- The Census, Birthright Citizenship and Illegal Aliens," HARVARD JOURNAL OF LAW & PUBLIC POLICY v. 22, Spring 1999, p.494. On the conservative assumption that in their lifetime such children each make possible the immigration of two relatives, either directly through their own petition or indirectly through the petition of someone for whom they had earlier petitioned, each year's group of such birthright citizens could ultimately lead to the entry of more than 300,000 immigrants over time. Many of these immigrants are likely to receive their lawful permanent resident status through immigrant categories that are not limited in number -- namely, the spouses, unmarried minor children, and certain parents, of citizens -- and thus will represent real increases in total immigration. Such immigration can reasonably be viewed as contrary to the will of most Americans, because it is ultimately derived from an illegal immigration. It is also to the disadvantage of prospective immigrants abroad who would otherwise receive the visa numbers many of these relatives will use. 11. AUTOMATIC CITIZENSHIP CREATES A MAGNET EFFECT, ENCOURAGING UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRATION Charles Wood, former counsel, U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Immigration, "Losing Control of America's Future -- The Census, Birthright Citizenship and Illegal Aliens," HARVARD JOURNAL OF LAW & PUBLIC POLICY v. 22, Spring 1999, p.497. Incentive for Illegal Immigration In addition, current policy creates a significant additional incentive for illegal immigration. In one study of a sample of Hispanic women who gave birth in 1991-92 in several hospitals in San Diego County, including citizens as well as legal and illegal aliens, fifteen percent said they had come to the United States in order to have their child in this country, and of the fifteen percent, about two-thirds stated that they had come so their child would be a United States citizen. The researchers suspected that the true figure was higher than fifteen percent, but that others were afraid to admit it. Furthermore, because the sample included citizens and lawful resident aliens, the fifteen percent figure was lower than the one for illegal aliens alone. As former Rep. Anthony Beilenson of California observed, "While millions of people around the world wait patiently -- sometimes for many years -- to immigrate legally to the United States, those individuals who manage to circumvent our immigration laws are rewarded by having their children granted the greatest gift that we as a nation confer on individuals."
PARADIGM RESEARCH
18
FEBRUARY 2012
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP UNDESIRABLE: IMMIGRATION MAGNET -- BIRTH TOURISM

1. BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP ENCOURAGES BIRTH TOURISM Phyllis Schlafly, "Detaching the Anchor from Anchor Babies," CREATORS SYNDICATE, 1-9-11, lexis. It's long overdue for Congress to stop the racket of bringing pregnant women into this country to give birth, receive free medical care and then call their babies U.S. citizens entitled to all American rights and privileges plus generous handouts. Between 300,000 and 400,000 babies are born to illegal aliens in the United States every year, at least 10 percent of all births. We have tolerated an entire industry called "birth tourism," offering "birth packages" costing thousands of dollars, to import pregnant women from all over the world, Korea to Turkey (12,000 U.S.-born Turkish babies have been arranged since 2003). An electronic billboard in Mexico, advertising the services of an American doctor, proclaims, "Do you want to have your baby in the U.S.?" 2. BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP ENCOURAGES BIRTH TOURISM Hans von Spakovsky, "The Costs of Birthright Citizenship," THE FOUNDRY, Heritage Foundation, 9-9-10, http://blog.heritage.org/2010/09/09/the-costs-of-birthright-citizenship/, accessed 1-8-11. 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."
PARADIGM RESEARCH
19
FEBRUARY 2012
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP UNDESIRABLE: IMMIGRATION MAGNET -- BIRTH TOURISM cont'd

3. CURRENT SYSTEM CREATES PERVERSE INCENTIVES FOR BIRTH TOURISM Jon Feere, legal policy analyst, "Birthright Citizenship in the United States: A Global Comparison," BACKGROUNDER, Center for Immigration Studies, 8-10, http://www.cis.org/birthright-citizenship, accessed 1-2-11. Zhou believes that a cheaper education is often a motivating factor and his pitch to prospective clients includes the notion that public education in the United States is "free." One of his clients, Christina Chuo, explains that her parents "paid a huge amount of money for their education" in the United States because they were foreign students; having an American citizen child permits her child to acquire the same education at a lower tuition. She also noted that she and her husband were not interested in permanently immigrating to the United States, "except, perhaps, when they retire." As discussion about limiting birthright citizenship heats up in the United States, some foreign countries are concerned about possible changes. The Nigerian media, for example, recently published an article titled, "American Agitations Threaten a Nigerian Practice." The practice referred to is that of Nigerians traveling to the United States to have a child -- a practice that, according to the newspaper, is "spreading so fast that it is close to becoming an obsession." The U.S. State Department is not permitted to deny a woman a temporary visitor visa simply because she is pregnant and the legal document she obtains means she is not likely to be stopped at the border. Consequently, the practice of granting automatic birthright citizenship allows a seemingly temporary admission of one foreign visitor to result in a permanent increase in immigration and grants of citizenship that were not necessarily contemplated or welcomed by the American public. Add to this the fact that immigration authorities are less likely to deport a visitor who overstays their permitted time if they have a U.S. citizen child, and one ends up with an immigration policy quite different from that which was originally intended. The birth tourism industry illustrates how the executive branch's permissive birthright citizenship policies can have the effect of transferring control over the nation's immigration policy from the American people to foreigners. 4. CURRENT BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP LAW IS ABSURD -- ENCOURAGES BIRTH TOURISM Lino A. Graglia, Professor, Law, University of Texas, "Birthright Citizenship for Children of Illegal Aliens: An Irrational Public Policy," TEXAS REVIEW OF LAW & POLITICS v. 14, Fall 2009, p.12-13. Judge Richard Posner of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit is perhaps the most cited and most influential federal judge not on the Supreme Court. Arguably, he is the nation's leading public intellectual. In a concurring opinion written in 2003, he argued that "Congress should rethink awarding citizenship to everyone born in the United States (with a few very minor exceptions) (citation omitted) including the children of illegal immigrants whose sole motive in immigrating was to confer U.S. citizenship on their as yet unborn children." He quoted an article that concludes, "The situation we have today is absurd. For example, there is a huge and growing industry in Asia that arranges tourist visas for pregnant women so they can fly to the United States and give birth to an American." "We should not," Judge Posner argued, "be encouraging foreigners to come to the United States solely to enable them to confer U.S. citizenship on their future children." Citing and agreeing with Professors Schuck and Smith, he concluded "Congress would not be flouting the Constitution if it amended the Immigration and Nationality Act to put an end to the nonsense."
PARADIGM RESEARCH
20
FEBRUARY 2012
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP UNDESIRABLE: IMMIGRATION MAGNET -- CHAIN MIGRATION

1. BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP IS AN INCENTIVE, ALSO FUELS CHAIN MIGRATION Mary Lou Pickel and Eunice Moscoso, "Birthright Citizenship Under Attack," ATLANTA JOURNAL-CONSTITUTION, 9-29-05, p.1A. Moreno wanted Scarlett to be an American because with the blue American passport, "the doors of the world are open to her," she said. Mexicans have a harder time getting tourist visas to see the world, she said. Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, a national group that lobbies to reduce illegal immigration, said the lure of U.S. citizenship for children is a "huge incentive" for people to come to the United States illegally because it opens the door to many social benefits. Also, once they reach 21, the U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants can petition for their parents' residency. Family reunification often is cited as a reason for amnesty proposals. There were 6.3 million illegal immigrant families in the United States in 2004, according to a study released in June by the Pew Hispanic Center. Most of them -- 59 percent -- do not have children, the study said. But nearly one-third of families headed by illegal immigrants do have children who are U.S. citizens, the study said. 2. BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP ENCOURAGES BIRTH TOURISM Jon Feere, legal policy analyst, "Birthright Citizenship in the United States: A Global Comparison," BACKGROUNDER, Center for Immigration Studies, 8-10, http://www.cis.org/birthright-citizenship, accessed 1-2-11. Birth Tourism. The significant benefits of U.S. citizenship and the executive branch's permissive birthright citizenship policies have become a magnet for those seeking to add a U.S. passport holder to their family. An entire industry of "birth tourism" has been created and the phenomenon of pregnant women traveling (legally) to the United States specifically for the purpose of giving birth on U.S. soil has grown largely without any debate in Congress or the consent of the public. "It's easy. If you register the birth, it's automatic that your baby can get an American passport," said Kim Jeong Yeon, a Korean woman who traveled to the United States on a tourist visa while six months pregnant. Like many other women, Kim spent thousands of dollars to have a company arrange the travel. "If they could afford it, all my friends would go to the United States to have their babies," she said. According to Selin Burcuoglu, a Turkish woman who traveled to the United States to give birth last year, the process was easy: "We found a company on the Internet and decided to go to Austin for our child's birth. It was incredibly professional. They organized everything for me. I had no problem adjusting and I had an excellent birth. I don't want her to deal with visa issues -- American citizenship has so many advantages." 3. BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP ENCOURAGES CHAIN MIGRATION Jon Feere, legal policy analyst, "Birthright Citizenship in the United States: A Global Comparison," BACKGROUNDER, Center for Immigration Studies, 8-10, http://www.cis.org/birthright-citizenship, accessed 1-2-11. Chain Migration. A child born to illegal aliens in the United States can initiate a chain of immigration when he reaches the age of 18 and can sponsor an overseas spouse and unmarried children of his own. When he turns 21, he can also sponsor his parents and any brothers and sisters. Family-sponsored immigration accounts for most of the nation's growth in immigration levels. Of the 1,130,818 immigrants who were granted legal permanent residency in 2009, a total of 747,413 (or, 66.1 percent) were family-sponsored immigrants. A change to U.S. immigration laws in the late 1950s -- one that allowed for the admission of extended family members outside the nuclear family -- resulted in the average annual flow increasing from 250,000 then, to over 1 million today. This number continues to rise every year because of the ever-expanding migration chains that operate independently of any economic downturns or labor needs. Although automatic and universal birthright citizenship is not the only contributor to chain migration, ending it would prevent some of this explosive growth.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
21
FEBRUARY 2012
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP UNDESIRABLE: IMMIGRATION MAGNET -- CHAIN MIGRATION cont'd

4. BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP EVENTUALLY EXTENDS IMMIGRATION RIGHTS TO THE WHOLE FAMILY Tom Tancredo, U.S. Representative, "What is the Best Way to Reform Immigration? 'Birthright Citizenship Must End," ROLL CALL 12-5-05, lexis. Currently, the United States grants citizenship automatically to every person born in our country, except the children of foreign diplomats. That includes legal permanent residents, temporary visitors, holders of nonimmigrant visas -- and illegal immigrants. Obviously this creates a tremendous incentive to rush into the country to birth children. We've seen the millions who risk their lives and spend their savings for the chance to work in this country, let alone gain citizenship. And for those in line for American citizenship, the wait can be as long as 18 years. Once an illegal immigrant crosses our borders and gives birth to a child, her entire family gets to cut in line. This is because our immigration laws give an automatic path to citizenship to family members of citizens. Having a so-called anchor baby in the United States gives foreign families a direct shot at citizenship that they otherwise would not have. 5. BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP ENCOURAGES CHAIN MIGRATION Hans von Spakovsky, "The Costs of Birthright Citizenship," THE FOUNDRY, Heritage Foundation, 9-9-10, http://blog.heritage.org/2010/09/09/the-costs-of-birthright-citizenship/, accessed 1-8-11. 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." 6. ANCHOR BABIES FUEL CHAIN MIGRATION William M. Stevens, "Jurisdiction, Allegiance, and Consent: Revisiting the Forgotten Prong of the Fourteenth Amendment's Birthright Citizenship Clause in Light of Terrorism, Unprecedented Modern Population Migrations, Globalization, and Conflict Cultures," TEXAS WESLEYAN LAW REVIEW v. 14, Spring 2008, p.350-351. Split families, those with both alien members and members claiming citizenship, result when illegal parents arrive, often with illegal children, and give birth to a child on American soil. Illegal aliens -- both those who enter the United States illegally and those who stay beyond the term of their once-valid visas -- have anchor babies, raise split families with claims of "dual" citizenships, and "bring in their relatives in an unending process known as 'chain migration.'" Such families typically earn less money than legal families, and the cost of healthcare for the children is borne mostly by the public. Alan Wall explains how this public support continues beyond healthcare: Of course the birth of an anchor baby is only the beginning. As the child grows he or she is entitled to a multitude of other taxpayer-funded programs. Since most anchor babies are classified as "minorities," they can expect to enjoy legal preference over "non-Hispanic white males" under today's "civil rights" regime. Upon reaching adulthood, the citizen anchor baby is eligible to import relatives from the home country through America's nepotistic chain migration system, in which the principal qualification for a prospective legal immigrant is having relatives already in the U.S. When you look at the vast cornucopia of benefits, you have to conclude that the U.S.A. offers powerful incentives for illegal immigration. For those who disobey U.S. law and their children, America is certainly the land of opportunity!
PARADIGM RESEARCH
22
FEBRUARY 2012
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP UNDESIRABLE: IMMIGRATION MAGNET -- ECONOMIC EFFECTS

1. IMMIGRATION INCREASES INCOME INEQUALITY Philip Cafaro, Associate Professor, Philosophy, Colorado State University and Winthrop Staples III, wildlife biologist, "The Environmental Argument for Reducing Immigration to the United States," Center for Immigration Studies, Backgrounder, June 2009, http://www.cis.org/EnvironmentalArgument, accessed 1-4-11. While the economic effects of immigration are complex and the details are open to debate, it appears that over the past few decades high immigration levels have contributed to increased economic growth, lower wages for the poorest Americans, and an increase in economic inequality in the United States. Continued high levels of immigration will likely further these trends. Far from strengthening the case for continued mass immigration, these effects provide three additional reasons to oppose it. First, an immigration policy that benefits rich citizens (who hire immigrants) at the expense of poor citizens (who compete with them) seems prima facie unjust. If Americans want to help poor foreigners, we should not do so on the backs of our own poor citizens. (Liberal proponents of mass immigration are as loath to accept its effects on workers' wages as they are to accept its demographic and environmental effects. But this is willed ignorance. After all, trade groups representing landscapers and restaurant owners lobby for increased immigration precisely because it allows their members to hire workers for less money.) Second, accepting greater economic inequality in exchange for greater overall wealth seems a foolish trade-off for Americans today. We are already wealthy enough to provide for our real needs and reasonable desires. Further wealth when combined with greater inequality is a recipe for frustration, envy, and social tension. 2. IMMIGRATION HURTS LOW-SKILL AMERICANS -- RESULTS IN A HUGE INCOME TRANSFER Philip Cafaro, Associate Professor, Philosophy, Colorado State University and Winthrop Staples III, wildlife biologist, "The Environmental Argument for Reducing Immigration to the United States," Center for Immigration Studies, Backgrounder, June 2009, http://www.cis.org/EnvironmentalArgument, accessed 1-4-11. On the other hand, focusing on whether mass immigration is "good for the economy" ignores the fact that any immigration policy creates economic winners and losers. According to Harvard economist George Borjas, "immigration induces a substantial redistribution of wealth, away from workers who compete with immigrants and toward employers and other users of immigrant services." This is because, compared to other industrialized nations, the United States imports a much higher percentage of less-educated, lower-skilled workers. Borjas notes that "between 1980 and 1995, immigration increased the number of high school dropouts by 21 percent and the number of high school graduates by only 4 percent." During this same period, the wage disparity between these two groups increased 11 percent, with perhaps half of that disparity a result of mass immigration. Borjas calculates that between 1980 and 2000, immigration reduced the average annual earnings of high school dropouts by 7.4 percent, or $1,800 on an average salary of $25,000. For these workers, who could least afford it, real wages actually declined during this period. 3. IMMIGRATION DRIVES POVERTY -- LITERALLY 'IMPORTS' IT Robert Rector, Senior Research Fellow, Heritage Foundation, Testimony before the Senate Joint Economic Committee, CQ CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY, September 25, 2008, lexis. There is a common misconception that the low education levels of recent immigrants are part of a permanent historical pattern, and that the U.S. has always admitted immigrants who were poorly educated relative to the native born population. Historically, this was not the case. Throughout most of U.S. history, the education level of immigrants was equal to, or greater than, that of non-immigrants. The steady influx of low skill (without a high school degree) and semi-skilled (with only a high school degree) immigrants inevitably leads to increases in the number of poor persons in the U.S. Low and semi-skilled immigrants and their families now comprise almost one fifth of all poor persons in the U.S. While there is a common myth that immigrants use little welfare, in reality, immigrants are heavy users of welfare services.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
23
FEBRUARY 2012
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP UNDESIRABLE: IMMIGRATION MAGNET -- ECONOMIC EFFECTS cont'd

4. IMMIGRATION DEPRESSES WAGES, INCREASING DOMESTIC POVERTY Michael E. Telzrow, "The True Cost of "Cheap" Labor," THE NEW AMERICAN, February 19, 2007, pp.27-29. Job displacement is the handmaid of illegal immigration. According to a 1993 report of the Commission on Agricultural Workers, native peach-industry workers in Georgia, many of them African American, were displaced by Hispanic migrants. Additional reports by the commission noted that migrants replaced natives and previous immigrants in the cucumber and apple industries in Michigan. The commission documented another case in which mechanized agricultural packing houses in Michigan ceased operations after switching to manual packing in the field.The unionized native workers were eliminated almost overnight, their jobs replaced by lower-paid field hands from south of the border. The glut of illegal aliens suppressed wages, shut out American workers,and consigned newly arrived immigrants to a life of impoverishment. The same holds true on a larger scale today. Proponents of guest-worker legislation maintain that it is just and right to use labor from Mexico. They claim that U.S. consumers benefit from low-wage farm labor in the form of low supermarket prices. But the consumer price benefits are small because the labor cost is only part of the total cost. In any case, the price benefits at the supermarket are outweighed by costs associated with healthcare, law enforcement, and education. 5. THERE IS NO NEED FOR MORE UNSKILLED LABOR, UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRATION DEVASTATES LOW-SKILLED AMERICANS Stephen Steinlight, senior policy analyst, Center for Immigration Studies, "Ignoring Problems of Illegal Immigration Leads to Exploitation," JEWISH TELEGRAPHIC AGENCY, August 2008, http://www.cis.org/node/759, accessed 1-4-11. We don't have a plethora of manufacturing jobs anymore, we don't suffer from under-population and we no longer need unskilled immigrants. We have 73 million adult Americans with only a high school education, and that's more than enough unskilled labor. With cheap immigrant labor flooding the market, millions of Americans are unemployed, and many have despaired about finding work. Massive immigration has disastrous consequences for America's most vulnerable: the unemployed, partially employed, working poor, recent legal immigrants, African Americans and elderly working populations. Legalization will sanction and perpetuate this assault on struggling Americans by flooding the workforce with more cheap labor. A 1997 study by the American Academy of Sciences found that the cheap labor of illegal aliens and poor immigrants caused a 44 percent decrease in wages among the poorest Americans from 1980 to 1994. The immigration policy embraced by the Jewish community establishment is disastrous for America. It condones illegal immigration, and that doesn't improve working conditions for immigrants but has brutal consequences for struggling Americans.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
24
FEBRUARY 2012
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP UNDESIRABLE: IMMIGRATION MAGNET -- PARENTS/HARDSHIP

1. BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP ALLOWS PARENTS TO AVOID DEPORTATION ON 'HARDSHIP' GROUNDS Jon Feere, legal policy analyst, "Birthright Citizenship in the United States: A Global Comparison," BACKGROUNDER, Center for Immigration Studies, 8-10, http://www.cis.org/birthright-citizenship, accessed 1-2-11. The issue of birthright citizenship for the children of aliens who have not been admitted for permanent residence cannot be resolved in isolation from other immigration issues. For example, politicians on both sides of the aisle regularly call for an increase in temporary workers, but the economic and social impact of children born to these workers while they are in the United States is never part of the discussion. Under any large-scale guestworker program, it is likely that tens of thousands of children would be born on U.S. soil. If the guestworker does not depart when his work visa expires, he becomes an illegal alien and is subject to deportation. But immigration authorities cannot deport the guestworker's citizen child along with the overstaying guestworker. The result is that the guestworker makes the case for indefinite stay based on the principle of "keeping families together" -- an argument that is often successful at stopping an alien's deportation. Because of birthright citizenship, what started as a policy to bring in laborers on a temporary basis can become yet another channel for permanent immigration. This is one of the reasons why some have said that "there is often nothing more permanent than a temporary worker." 2. CITIZEN CHILDREN ALLOW UNDOCUMENTED PARENTS TO APPLY FOR AN EXTREME HARDSHIP EXEMPTION TO DEPORTATION Ashley E. Mendoza, "Anchors Aweigh: Redefining Birthright Citizenship in the 21st Century," JOURNAL OF LAW & FAMILY STUDIES v. 13, 2011, p.203-204. One of the most hotly debated issues today is illegal immigration. Not only are there problems securing the border from criminals and those smuggling drugs, but there is the additional problem of pregnant women entering the country illegally for the purpose of gaining American citizenship for their children. After one of these babies is born, the mother remains in the country unlawfully but now has a link to the United States and benefits from the child, who, like Saul, is born a United States citizen. Parents with citizen-children who choose to unlawfully remain in the United States are still subject to deportation. However, having a citizen-child allows the illegal parent to appeal to an immigration judge, claiming deportation would subject the citizen-child to "extreme hardship" and potentially deprive the child of the benefits associated with his/her citizenship. 3. 'ANCHOR BABIES' FACILITATE IMMIGRATION -- HARDSHIP APPEALS, FAMILY IMMIGRATION RIGHTS Lino A. Graglia, Professor, Law, University of Texas, "Birthright Citizenship for Children of Illegal Aliens: An Irrational Public Policy," TEXAS REVIEW OF LAW & POLITICS v. 14, Fall 2009, p.3. A parent 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. Nor need doing so even be entirely altruistic. Illegal alien parents with an American-citizen child remain subject to deportation, but that deportation becomes less likely. They will be able to appeal to an immigration judge, an administrative court, and ultimately a federal court to argue that deportation would subject the American-citizen child to "extreme hardship," a recognized ground for suspension of deportation, as it would potentially deprive the child of the benefits of his or her American citizenship. Perhaps even more importantly if the deported parents opt to take the American-citizen child with them, the child can return to this country for permanent residence at any time. The child can then, upon becoming an adult, serve as what is known in immigration law as an "anchor child," the basis for a claim that his or her parents be admitted and granted permanent resident status. The parents will then ordinarily be admitted without regard to quota limitations.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
25
FEBRUARY 2012
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP UNDESIRABLE: IMMIGRATION MAGNET -- PARENTS/HARDSHIP cont'd

4. CURRENT LAW ALLOWS PARENTS TO GAIN PERMANENT STATUS Christine J. Hsieh, attorney, "American Born Legal Permanent Residents? A Constitutional Amendment Proposal," GEORGETOWN IMMIGRATION LAW JOURNAL v. 12, Spring 1998, p.521. Currently, many illegal alien parents are able to "bootstrap" their children's United States citizenship status into legal resident status, and eventually even citizenship for themselves. Under the status quo, once a child reaches the age of majority, he may file a petition for legal permanent resident status on behalf of his parents. Under the proposed Amendment, this bootstrap phenomenon would be slightly different. At the age of majority, a naturalized child would have the same capacity to sponsor family members as under the current rule. But since a child would not be able to naturalize if he has a felony conviction, the criminal record would essentially preclude the parents' ability to bootstrap into the country. The child's parents would therefore have a strong incentive to ensure that their child exhibits law-abiding behavior, at least for the first eighteen years of his life. 5. AUTOMATIC CITIZENSHIP INCREASES ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION -- MAKES IT POLITICALLY MORE DIFFICULT TO DEPORT THE PARENTS Charles Wood, former counsel, U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Immigration, "Losing Control of America's Future -- The Census, Birthright Citizenship and Illegal Aliens," HARVARD JOURNAL OF LAW & PUBLIC POLICY v. 22, Spring 1999, p.497-498. Greater Difficulty Deporting the Parents The policy also results in the presence of U.S.-citizen children in the families of an increasing number of illegal alien residents of this country. This increases the political, if not the legal, difficulty of deporting the illegal alien parents and siblings. One former United States Attorney for the San Diego region was quoted recently as saying that he can recall no case in the last ten to fifteen years where the illegal alien parents of a U.S. citizen child were deported. Indeed, at least one legal scholar has argued that it is unconstitutional for the government to deport a citizen child's illegal alien parents because this amounts to a de facto deportation of the child. Although several courts have already rejected this concept, that the argument is still being made reflects the moral and emotional dilemma created by current policy. In addition, this situation makes it difficult to deny certain kinds of public assistance to illegal aliens, such as welfare and subsidized housing, for which only those legally in the country qualify, but which, if provided, benefit all family members.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
26
FEBRUARY 2012
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP UNDESIRABLE: IMMIGRATION MAGNET -- SOCIAL SERVICES/BUDGET

1. BIRTHRIGHT CHILDREN CAN ACCESS WELFARE BENEFITS -- UNDERMINES EFFORTS TO DENY SUCH BENEFITS TO UNDOCUMENTED PERSONS Jon Feere, legal policy analyst, "Birthright Citizenship in the United States: A Global Comparison," BACKGROUNDER, Center for Immigration Studies, 8-10, http://www.cis.org/birthright-citizenship, accessed 1-2-11. Benefits. 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. Only 19 percent of households headed by native-born citizens make use of a major welfare program. 2. UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRATION OVERBURDENS THE WELFARE SYSTEM William M. Stevens, "Jurisdiction, Allegiance, and Consent: Revisiting the Forgotten Prong of the Fourteenth Amendment's Birthright Citizenship Clause in Light of Terrorism, Unprecedented Modern Population Migrations, Globalization, and Conflict Cultures," TEXAS WESLEYAN LAW REVIEW v. 14, Spring 2008, p.348. The problem of illegal aliens is compounded, moreover, by a second social transformation -- the emergence of the American welfare state. This development has undoubtedly spurred illegal immigration to some extent, but it has also increased the fears and resentments that accompany the presence of illegal aliens. Their need for many social services raises concerns that governmental programs will be seriously overburdened by demand made by people whom the community has designated as outsiders. 3. BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP DRAINS THE PUBLIC COFFERS Virgil Goode, former U.S. Representative, "End Birthright Citizenship," HUMAN EVENTS ONLINE, 7-12-10, lexis. Birthright citizenship creates a massive fiscal burden on the American taxpayer. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996 specifically states that illegal aliens and even many legal immigrants are "not eligible for any federal public benefit" with a few exceptions, such as disaster relief. According to the Pew Hispanic Center, there are four million children of illegal aliens who received U.S. citizenship by the sole virtue of being born in the United States. Over one-third of these children live at or below the poverty line and are eligible for a host of welfare programs that they would not receive were it not for birthright citizenship. Additionally, Obama's healthcare legislation created a huge loophole that allows illegal aliens to use birthright citizenship to receive government subsidized health care. While there are verification loopholes, the legislation makes illegal aliens ineligible for taxpayer funded "Affordability Credits." However, the bill intentionally does not address what would happen if an illegal immigrant family had a U.S. citizen child. According to Pew, 8.8 million people live in such mixed families. The Congressional Research Service noted that under Obama's legislation, "it appears that the Health Choices commissioner would be responsible for determining how the credits would be administered in the case of mixed-status families." In other words, Obama's health czar will decide whether or not to give free healthcare to the families of illegal aliens. I wonder what side they will rule on!
PARADIGM RESEARCH
27
FEBRUARY 2012
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP UNDESIRABLE: IMMIGRATION MAGNET -- SOCIAL SERVICES/BUDGET cont'd

4. THE SYSTEM ALSO IMPOSES AN ENORMOUS BURDEN ON OUR SCHOOLS Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), "Birthright Citizenship," 8-10, www.fairus.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=16535&security=1601&news_iv_ctrl=1007, accessed 1-11-12. The nation's school system faces the economic burden of providing services to the millions of children born to illegal immigrants. In a 2004 United States General Accounting Office report, three states submitted their annual cost estimates of educating illegal children. The estimates provided ranged from 50 million dollars to 87.5 million in Pennsylvania and 932 million to 1.04 billion dollars in Texas. FAIR estimates there are about 363,000 children born to illegal aliens each year. This figure is based on the crude birth rate of the total foreign-born population (33 births per 1000) and the size of the illegal alien population (13 million in 2008) adjusted downward to account for the estimate that females are a smaller share of the illegal alien population than the foreign-born population. 5. IMMIGRANTS OVERTAX THE WELFARE SYSTEM Ron Paul, U.S. Representative, "Rethinking Birthright Citizenship," 10 -- 3-06, http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul346.html, accessed 1-2-12. Hospitals bear the costs when illegal immigrants enter the country for the express purpose of giving birth. But illegal immigrants also use emergency rooms, public roads, and public schools. In many cases they are able to obtain Medicaid, food stamps, public housing, and even unemployment benefits. Some have fraudulently collected Social Security benefits. Of course many American citizens also use or abuse the welfare system. But we cannot afford to open our pocketbooks to the rest of the world. We must end the perverse incentives that encourage immigrants to come here illegally, including the anchor baby incentive. 6. MANY SUCH PERSONS RECEIVE WELFARE Hans von Spakovsky, "The Costs of Birthright Citizenship," THE FOUNDRY, Heritage Foundation, 9-9-10, http://blog.heritage.org/2010/09/09/the-costs-of-birthright-citizenship/, accessed 1-8-11. Take federal welfare programs. Although illegal aliens normally are barred from accessing them, they can 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%). Contrast that very high rate with the fact that only 19% of households headed by a native-born citizen receive welfare benefits. CIS cites data released by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Services showing that the children of illegal aliens in the county received $50 million in welfare benefits just in February 2010. So much for federal efforts to bar illegal aliens from receiving taxpayer-funded public assistance. 7. THE PARENTS ALSO BENEFIT FROM THE WELFARE STATE Lino A. Graglia, Professor, Law, University of Texas, "Birthright Citizenship for Children of Illegal Aliens: An Irrational Public Policy," TEXAS REVIEW OF LAW & POLITICS v. 14, Fall 2009, p.3-4. Illegal immigrant parents also benefit, of course, from the welfare and other benefits to which their citizen child is entitled. One court has held, for example, that the benefits that were due under the Aid to Families with Dependent Children Act to a birthright citizen living in a family with illegal aliens had to include the needs of the illegal alien mother and siblings. Nearly half of illegal-immigrant households are couples with children, 73% of which have an American-citizen child.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
28
FEBRUARY 2012
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP UNDESIRABLE: IMMIGRATION MAGNET -- SOCIAL SERVICES/BUDGET cont'd

8. INCREASES SOCIAL SERVICE COSTS Charles Wood, former counsel, U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Immigration, "Losing Control of America's Future -- The Census, Birthright Citizenship and Illegal Aliens," HARVARD JOURNAL OF LAW & PUBLIC POLICY v. 22, Spring 1999, p.498. Higher Welfare Costs Finally, the policy results in major welfare costs to the taxpayer. All the new "citizen children" instantly qualify for all of the benefits citizenship provides, including welfare and other social services. According to one study, forty-one percent of the "citizen children" born in 1992 in San Diego County immediately began receiving welfare. In fiscal year 1995, over 200,000 children of illegal aliens received Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) or Food Stamps in California, at an estimated cost of $ 720 million. This would be questionable enough if all of the welfare money had been spent on the children themselves, but because the benefits are generally sent directly to the illegal alien parents, this is unlikely to have been the case.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
29
FEBRUARY 2012
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP UNDESIRABLE: INTERNATIONAL COMPARISONS

1. MOST COUNTRIES DO NOT GRANT BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP Hans von Spakovsky, "The Costs of Birthright Citizenship," THE FOUNDRY, Heritage Foundation, 9-9-10, http://blog.heritage.org/2010/09/09/the-costs-of-birthright-citizenship/, accessed 1-8-11. There have been numerous debates about "birthright" citizenship in recent weeks. As the Heritage Foundation has pointed out, the claim that the 14th Amendment confers citizenship on the children of visitors or illegal aliens is mistaken. Neither the text nor the legislative history supports such an interpretation. Perspective is needed. How many other countries have birthright citizenship? How many such children are there in the United States, and how much is this costing us? The Center for Immigration Studies has just released a study by Jon Feere that gives some answers. The report didn't get the attention it should have -- perhaps because it has some very inconvenient truths. 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. 2. OTHER, SIMILAR NATIONS DO NOT GRANT BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP Ron Paul, U.S. Representative, "Rethinking Birthright Citizenship," 10 -- 3-06, http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul346.html, accessed 1-2-12. No other wealthy, western nations grant automatic citizenship to those who simply happen to be born within their borders to non-citizens. These nations recognize that citizenship involves more than the physical location of one's birth; it also involves some measure of cultural connection and allegiance. In most cases this means the parents must be citizens of a nation in order for their newborn children to receive automatic citizenship. 3. MOST COUNTRIES DO NOT OFFER AUTOMATIC BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP Jon Feere, legal policy analyst, "Birthright Citizenship in the United States: A Global Comparison," BACKGROUNDER, Center for Immigration Studies, 8-10, http://www.cis.org/birthright-citizenship, accessed 1-2-11. 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. The overwhelming majority of the world's countries do not offer automatic citizenship to everyone born within their borders. Over the past few decades, many countries that once did so -- including Australia, Ireland, India, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, Malta, and the Dominican Republic -- have repealed those policies. Other countries are considering changes.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
30
FEBRUARY 2012
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP UNDESIRABLE: INTERNATIONAL COMPARISONS cont'd

4. MOST OTHER COUNTRIES DO NOT GRANT BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP Jon Feere, legal policy analyst, "Birthright Citizenship in the United States: A Global Comparison," BACKGROUNDER, Center for Immigration Studies, 8-10, http://www.cis.org/birthright-citizenship, accessed 1-2-11. The United States is one of the few countries on the globe to recognize universal and automatic citizenship for children born to illegal and temporary immigrants. The overwhelming majority of the world's countries do not have such a birthright policy. Out of the world's 194 countries, the Center for Immigration Studies can confirm that only 30 countries grant automatic birthright citizenship. This research has been the result of direct communication with foreign government officials and analysis of relevant foreign law including statutory and constitutional law. 5. THE INTERNATIONAL TREND IS AWAY FROM BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP Jon Feere, legal policy analyst, "Birthright Citizenship in the United States: A Global Comparison," BACKGROUNDER, Center for Immigration Studies, 8-10, http://www.cis.org/birthright-citizenship, accessed 1-2-11. 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 national referendum 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. If the United States were to stop granting automatic citizenship to children of illegal immigrants, it would be following an international trend. 6. OTHER IMMIGRANT-HEAVY NATIONS HAVE ALREADY ABOLISHED DE FACTO BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP Amanda Colvin, "Birthright Citizenship in the United States: Realities of De Facto Deportation and International Comparisons Toward Proposing a Solution," SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY LAW JOURNAL v. 53, Fall 2008, p.244. The previous discussion of the treatment of jus soli citizenship in Canada, Australia, and Ireland contains a general theme: when faced with an exponential influx of immigrants and subsequent "anchor baby" births, these nations have responded by abolishing unconditional jus soli from the nations' laws. Although Canada has yet to officially reject jus soli, the arguments in favor of abolishing it seem to remain. Apparently, the solution in Canada, Australia, and Ireland to an increasing number of "anchor babies" is to disallow children of illegal immigrants to obtain citizenship automatically at birth.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
31
FEBRUARY 2012
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP UNDESIRABLE: MULTIWARRANT/GENERAL

1. SUPPORT FOR UNDOCUMENTED PERSONS INCREASES TAXES AND ERODES SUPPORT FOR THE RULE OF LAW Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), "Birthright Citizenship," 8-10, www.fairus.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=16535&security=1601&news_iv_ctrl=1007, accessed 1-11-12. Higher Taxes: The federal government has control over immigration law for the United States. By not correcting this mis-application of the 14th Amendment, the funds that state and local governments must provide to anchor babies amounts to a virtual tax on U.S. citizens to subsidize illegal aliens. Disrespect for the rule of law: Congress, by failing to act on legislation aimed at correcting the interpretation of citizenship by birth, in effect rewards law-breakers and punishes those who have chosen to follow the rules and immigrate legally. The original intent of the 14th Amendment was clearly not to facilitate illegal aliens defying U.S. law and obtaining citizenship for their offspring, nor obtaining benefits at taxpayer expense. The United States is unusual in its offer to extend citizenship to anyone born on its soil. Other developed countries have changed their citizenship practice to eliminate the problems caused by the practice of birthright citizenship. The anchor baby problem has grown to such large proportions that the United States can no longer afford to ignore it. The logical first step for correcting the problem is for Congress to adopt legislation clarifying the meaning of the 14th amendment. 2. THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP, SUFFERS FROM SERIOUS DRAWBACKS Jon Feere, legal policy analyst, "Birthright Citizenship in the United States: A Global Comparison," BACKGROUNDER, Center for Immigration Studies, 8-10, http://www.cis.org/birthright-citizenship, accessed 1-2-11. Extending 14th Amendment birthright citizenship to any class of persons is a momentous matter because it confers very valuable benefits and imposes very serious obligations on children who have no say in the matter and it also has long-lasting and important effects on the size and composition of the U.S. population. The executive branch's current practice of extending birthright citizenship to nonresident aliens has never been authorized by any statute or any court decision. The legislative record left by drafters of the 14th Amendment shows that they were primarily concerned about conferring citizenship on freed slaves. While the Supreme Court has settled the matter as it applies to permanent resident aliens, it has yet to decide the matter as it applies to aliens whose presence in the United States is temporary or unlawful. As a result, Americans are justifiably upset with a policy that has become standard practice without their approval.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
32
FEBRUARY 2012
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP UNDESIRABLE: MULTIWARRANT/GENERAL cont'd

3. CURRENT POLICY DEBASES THE VALUE OF AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP Howard Sutherland, attorney, "Citizen Hamdi: The Case Aainst Birthright Citizenship," AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE, 9-27-04, http://www.theamericanconservative.com/article/2004/sep/27/00021/, accessed 1-2-12. Not only Latin Americans have figured out Uncle Sam's birthright bonanza. South Koreans have created a birth tourism industry. As the Los Angeles Times reported in 2002, Korean tour operators fly Korean mothers into Los Angeles and other American cities, there to give birth -- in Korean-owned clinics with Korean staff -- to an "American." Websites like www.birthinusa.com advertise "from birth to citizenship." Korean chaperones help get the babies California birth certificates and U.S. passports to take home. Junior can then dodge Korea's draft -and sponsor his family in America if they feel like moving. Pledging allegiance to the Stars and Stripes has nothing to do with it. Federal laxity creates what Zall calls "drive-by citizenship," debasing American citizenship by giving it to legions of aliens like Hamdi, who bear no allegiance to this country or connection other than the accident of birth here. Among other evils, this dilutes the citizenship of unquestionable Americans -- children of American citizens -- and encourages dual citizenship with attendant divided loyalties. Is this what those who ratified the Citizenship Clause intended? The Citizenship Clause was drafted to prevent freed slaves from being denied citizenship because they were not citizens at birth. It overturned the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision, which held that even U.S.-born freedmen were not automatically citizens. Nevertheless, the jurisdiction requirement was written into the clause to ensure that birthright citizenship would not become the law of land and that allegiance would remain a vital element of citizenship. 4. IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO JUSTIFY A LAW THAT MAKES ANCHOR BABIES POSSIBLE Peter H. Schuck, Professor, Law, Yale University, "Birthright of a Nation," NEW YORK TIMES, 8-13-10, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/14/opinion/14schuck.html, accessed 1-2-11. This question is much harder than the zealots on both sides suggest. The argument against any birthright citizenship is that these children are here as a result of an illegal act and thus have no claim to membership in a country built on the ideal of mutual consent. In the extreme case of "anchor babies" -- children born after a mother briefly crosses the border to give birth -- the notion of automatic citizenship for the child strikes most people as not only anomalous but also offensive. No other developed country except Canada, which has relatively few illegal immigrants, has rules that would allow it. 5. BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP ENSURES ACCESS TO SOCIAL SERVICES AND ENCOURAGES CHAIN MIGRATION Jon Feere, legal policy analyst, "Birthright Citizenship in the United States: A Global Comparison," BACKGROUNDER, Center for Immigration Studies, 8-10, http://www.cis.org/birthright-citizenship, accessed 1-2-11. The two citizenship benefits that have drawn the most attention in the birthright citizenship debate are, first, food assistance and other welfare benefits to which a family of illegal aliens would not otherwise have access, and second, the ability of the child when he grows up to 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. Because having a child on U.S. soil can cement an immigrant's presence in the United States, provide access to welfare benefits, and ultimately initiate chain migration of the child's extended family and in-laws, children born to illegal aliens and legal temporary visitors are sometimes referred to as "anchor babies." These benefits have contributed to the growth of a "birth tourism" industry.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
33
FEBRUARY 2012
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP UNDESIRABLE: MULTIWARRANT/GENERAL cont'd

6. BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP IS ABSURD -- GRANTS RIGHTS EVEN TO OUR SWORN ENEMIES John C. Eastman, Dean, Chapman University School of Law, "Born in the U.S.A.? Rethinking Birthright Citizenship in the Wake of 9/11," TEXAS REVIEW OF LAW & POLITICS v. 12, Fall 2007, p.177-178. Children of parents residing only temporarily in the United States on a work or student visa, such as Yaser Hamdi's parents, would also become U.S. citizens. Children of parents who had overstayed their temporary visa would also become U.S. citizens, even though born of parents who were now here illegally. And, perhaps most troubling from the "consent" rationale, children of parents who never were in the United States legally would also become citizens as the direct result of the illegal action of their parents. Finally, to return to my opening reference to the Iranian hostage crisis, this would be true even if the parents were nationals of a regime at war with the United States and even if the parents were here to commit acts of sabotage against the United States, at least as long as the sabotage did not actually involve occupying a portion of the territory of the United States. The notion that the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment, when seeking to guarantee the right of citizenship to the former slaves, also sought to guarantee citizenship to the children of enemies of the United States who were in our territory illegally, is simply too absurd to be a credible interpretation of the Citizenship Clause.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
34
FEBRUARY 2012
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP UNDESIRABLE: NUMBER OF BIRTHS/PERSONS

1. UP TO 400,000 CHILDREN ARE BORN TO UNDOCUMENTED PERSONS EVERY YEAR Jon Feere, legal policy analyst, "Birthright Citizenship in the United States: A Global Comparison," BACKGROUNDER, Center for Immigration Studies, 8-10, http://www.cis.org/birthright-citizenship, accessed 1-2-11. Every year, 300,000 to 400,000 children are born to illegal immigrants in the United States. Despite the foreign citizenship and illegal status of the parent, the executive branch of the U.S. government automatically recognizes these children as U.S. citizens upon birth. The same is true of children born to tourists and other aliens who are present in the United States in a legal but temporary status. Since large-scale tourism and mass illegal immigration are relatively recent phenomena, it is unclear for how long the U.S. government has followed this practice of automatic "birthright citizenship" without regard to the duration or legality of the mother's presence. 2. NEARLY 10% OF ALL BIRTHS EVERY YEAR ARE TO UNDOCUMENTED PERSONS Amanda Colvin, "Birthright Citizenship in the United States: Realities of De Facto Deportation and International Comparisons Toward Proposing a Solution," SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY LAW JOURNAL v. 53, Fall 2008, p.222-223. The practice of birthright citizenship in the United States has resulted in a staggering number of U.S. citizens born to illegal immigrant parents. According to the Center for Immigration Studies, approximately "383,000 children are born each year to illegal alien mothers, accounting for nearly 10 percent of all births in the United States." The Federation for American Immigration Reform claims that, of these, almost half are born to illegal immigrants who come to the United States "to give birth so their children will be American citizens." Some estimates indicate that "about 3.1 million American children have at least one parent who is an illegal immigrant." In 2007, "about two-thirds of the children of the illegal immigrants detained in immigration raids" were born in the United States, and "at least 13,000 American children have seen one or both parents deported in the past two years" after immigration raids in factories and neighborhoods. With such high numbers of American-born children with illegal immigrant parents, policymakers have struggled to decide how to deal with illegal immigrants while also respecting the citizenship status and familial needs of their citizen-children. Incidents similar to the case of Elvira Arellano represent the difficulties that lawmakers face in forming a workable approach toward illegal immigration. More recently, in October 2007, an illegal immigrant mother was detained while nursing her nine-month-old baby, who was born in the United States. Immigration and Customs Enforcement responded to subsequent outcries over her detention by issuing new written guidelines establishing how agents should treat single parents, pregnant or nursing women, and other immigrants with special child or family care responsibilities who are arrested in raids. 3. NEARLY 10% OF ALL CHILDREN BORN EVERY YEAR ARE TO UNDOCUMENTED PERSONS Jeffrey S. Passel, senior demographer and Paul Taylor, executive vice president, Pew Research Center, "Unauthorized Immigrants and Their U.S.-Born Children," Pew Research Center, 8-11-10, http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/125.pdf, accessed 1-3-11. An estimated 340,000 of the 4.3 million babies born in the United States in 2008 were the offspring of unauthorized immigrants, according to a new analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data by the Pew Hispanic Center, a project of the Pew Research Center. Unauthorized immigrants comprise slightly more than 4% of the adult population of the U.S., but because they are relatively young and have high birthrates, their children make up a much larger share of both the newborn population (8%) and the child population (7% of those younger than age 18) in this country. These figures are based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau's March 2009 Current Population Survey, augmented with the Pew Hispanic Center's analysis of the demographic characteristics of the unauthorized immigrant population using a "residual estimation methodology" it has employed for the past five years. (For a description, see Appendix B.)
PARADIGM RESEARCH
35
FEBRUARY 2012
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP UNDESIRABLE: NUMBER OF BIRTHS/PERSONS cont'd

4. HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF CHILDREN ARE BORN TO UNDOCUMENTED PEOPLE EVERY YEAR Hans von Spakovsky, "The Costs of Birthright Citizenship," THE FOUNDRY, Heritage Foundation, 9-9-10, http://blog.heritage.org/2010/09/09/the-costs-of-birthright-citizenship/, accessed 1-8-11. CIS estimates there are 300,000 to 400,000 children born to illegal immigrants in the U.S. each year. There were 2.3 million such children in 2003; there were four million in 2008-and that number doesn't include children who are older than 18 or who are married. Texas says that between 60,000 to 65,000 of the children born in Texas every year have parents who are not citizens or 16% of the total births in the state -- 542,152 from 2001 to 2009. And the hundreds of thousands of such children are no accident. Many of them are the result of a deliberate effort by illegal aliens and foreign tourists to exploit our law and use these children to keep themselves in the country. Such children provide access to welfare benefits that would otherwise be off-limit to the parents and can "ultimately initiate chain migration of the child's extended family and in-laws," the CIS study notes. 5. THERE ARE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF BIRTHS EVERY YEAR TO UNDOCUMENTED CITIZENS Tom Tancredo, U.S. Representative, "What is the Best Way to Reform Immigration? 'Birthright Citizenship Must End," ROLL CALL 12-5-05, lexis. By some estimates, there are more than 350,000 births in the United States each year to illegal aliens, and in some places such as Los Angeles County, babies born to non-citizens make up a majority of all live births. As each of those families cuts in line, they further degrade the legitimacy of our immigration system. In the face of growing public support for revoking "birthright citizenship" for children of persons not in the country lawfully, some defenders of the status quo have begun to argue that to revoke this right would be bad social policy, because it would create a large class of "second-class citizens." This group would consist of people born in the United States but not entitled to the full range of rights held by citizens. To me, this is an argument devoid of logic. It subordinates and subverts the true meaning of citizenship in order to support the open borders agenda. 6. THERE ARE CURRENTLY OVER 4 MILLION CHILDREN OF UNDOCUMENTED PERSONS WHO WERE BORN IN THE U.S. Jon Feere, legal policy analyst, "Birthright Citizenship in the United States: A Global Comparison," BACKGROUNDER, Center for Immigration Studies, 8-10, http://www.cis.org/birthright-citizenship, accessed 1-2-11. Between 300,000 and 400,000 children are born to illegal immigrants in the United States every year. Put another way, as many as one out of 10 births in the United States is to an illegal immigrant mother. All of these children are considered by the executive branch of the U.S. government to be U.S. citizens who enjoy the same rights and are entitled to the same benefits as the children of U.S. citizens. The population of U.S.-born children with illegal alien parents has expanded rapidly in recent years from 2.3 million in 2003 to 4 million in 2008; since these figures do not include children who are 18 years of age or older nor those who are married, the actual figure is somewhat larger. 7. ARE OVER 400,000 CHILDREN BORN TO UNDOCUMENTED PERSONS EVERY YEAR Monica Diaz Greene, "Birthright Citizenship: Should the Right Continue?" JOURNAL OF LAW & FAMILY STUDIES v. 9, 2007, p.163. Representative Deal estimates that 400,000 babies are born to illegal immigrants each year in the United States. Representative Deal believes that legislation against birthright citizenship should be passed in order to eliminate the "huge magnet," that is created by automatic birthright citizenship. Immigrant advocates disagree that 400,000 children are born to illegal immigrants each year and argue that limiting birthright citizenship only punishes children.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
36
FEBRUARY 2012
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP UNDESIRABLE: NUMBER OF BIRTHS/PERSONS cont'd

8. LARGE NUMBER OF BIRTHS IN SOME BORDER AREAS ARE TO NON-CITIZEN MOTHERS Lino A. Graglia, Professor, Law, University of Texas, "Birthright Citizenship for Children of Illegal Aliens: An Irrational Public Policy," TEXAS REVIEW OF LAW & POLITICS v. 14, Fall 2009, p.2-3. At the same time, there is an apparent paradox that American law, as currently understood, provides an enormous inducement to illegal immigration: namely, an automatic grant of American citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants born in this country. As a result, it has been estimated that over two-thirds of all births in Los Angeles public hospitals, more than one-half of all births in Los Angeles, and nearly 10% of all births in the nation in recent years were to illegal immigrant mothers. Many of these mothers frankly admitted that the reason they entered illegally was to give birth to an American citizen. 9. AT LEAST 165,000 CHILDREN OF UNDOCUMENTED PERSONS ARE GRANTED BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP EVERY YEAR Charles Wood, former counsel, U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Immigration, "Losing Control of America's Future -- The Census, Birthright Citizenship and Illegal Aliens," HARVARD JOURNAL OF LAW & PUBLIC POLICY v. 22, Spring 1999, p.493-494. Under current policy, all of these children became United States citizens at birth. California most likely has somewhere between forty and fifty percent of the total number of births to illegal alien mothers, given that the state has about forty percent of the total illegal alien population, and about fifty-four percent of the "citizen children" receiving Food Stamps. Therefore, the number of such new "citizen children" for the entire country every year could be well over 160,000. This is close to one estimate that the number of children born to illegal aliens in the United States each year is at least 165,000 -- which is conservatively based on the crude birth rate of the total foreign-born population, thirty-three births per 1000, and the size of the illegal alien population, 5,000,000.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
37
FEBRUARY 2012
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP UNDESIRABLE: POLITICAL POWER/VALUES

1. BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP THREATENS THE FOUNDATION OF OUR POLITICAL CULTURE William M. Stevens, "Jurisdiction, Allegiance, and Consent: Revisiting the Forgotten Prong of the Fourteenth Amendment's Birthright Citizenship Clause in Light of Terrorism, Unprecedented Modern Population Migrations, Globalization, and Conflict Cultures," TEXAS WESLEYAN LAW REVIEW v. 14, Spring 2008, p.347-348. We, as Americans, can explore the world with passion because we know who we are and where we come from, and yet, everywhere people wrestle with "the same crucial problem that seems [to be] the key to everything: who belongs and why?" What unites Americans? "E Pluribus Unum" -- out of many, one -- is our national motto. How that happens remains mysterious and shrouded in conventional, but incorrect, wisdom. What is an American? Throughout the years of our history, there has been no shortage of answers to that question. Yet at this juncture in its history, the United States stands at a particularly difficult and dangerous crossroads. An accurate answer to that question is increasingly imperative. Have we Americans forgotten whence we come? The debate on proper "size, shape, and composition of the polity" has been renewed, but never decisively resolved. Unlike past times, today's immigrants may not choose to assimilate, but instead follow the "politics of ethnic protest advocated by many minority group leaders." "The crisis of the West is of a collapsing culture and vanishing peoples. If we do not shake off our paralysis, the West comes to an end." A recent article in the Houston Chronicle discusses the problem of so-called anchor babies, children born in U.S. hospitals to illegal immigrant parents. These children automatically become citizens, and thus serve as an anchor for their parents to remain in the country. Our immigration authorities understandably are reluctant to break up families by deporting parents of young babies. But birthright citizenship, originating in the 14th amendment, has become a serious cultural and economic dilemma for our nation. 2. UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRATION IS AN ENORMOUS THREAT TO OUR POLITICAL COMMUNITY William M. Stevens, "Jurisdiction, Allegiance, and Consent: Revisiting the Forgotten Prong of the Fourteenth Amendment's Birthright Citizenship Clause in Light of Terrorism, Unprecedented Modern Population Migrations, Globalization, and Conflict Cultures," TEXAS WESLEYAN LAW REVIEW v. 14, Spring 2008, p.348. "Today, the nation is experiencing a new, convulsive violation of consensually based political community: the dramatic increase in the number of undocumented aliens, most of whom are present in contravention of the expressed consent of the political community." "The presence of large numbers of illegal aliens in the United States creates significant domestic problems." Further, the "presence and competition of aliens for jobs are a constant source of political and ethnic controversy." The massive influx of illegal aliens represents "the greatest contemporary threat to a consensually based political community." "The conditions that drive aliens to enter the country illegally often merit sympathy and sometimes even justify the offer of refuge and succor." Lacking legal protection, the aliens are often vulnerable to exploitation.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
38
FEBRUARY 2012
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP UNDESIRABLE: POLITICAL POWER/VALUES cont'd

3. BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP DENIES SOVEREIGNTY TO THE PEOPLE -- EFFECTIVELY DISENFRANCHISES NATIVE GROUPS AS UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS TAKE OVER THEIR POLITIES Charles Wood, former counsel, U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Immigration, "Losing Control of America's Future -- The Census, Birthright Citizenship and Illegal Aliens," HARVARD JOURNAL OF LAW & PUBLIC POLICY v. 22, Spring 1999, p.468. Among the many reasons why these two policies should be changed, the most important by far relates to political self-determination. It is hard to imagine current policies that are more likely to undermine the democratic nature of our political system and erode the ability of the American people to control their own future. Each of these policies threatens to take away from legitimate citizen majorities in areas throughout the country their rightful share of power over the making and enforcement of law and other operations of government. Each jeopardizes the ability of the majority of Americans today to ensure that political control will always remain with them and their descendants -- plus those persons, and only those persons, to whom they have given their consent to join the American political community. The policy of counting illegal aliens in the census makes it possible for areas with many illegal aliens to elect more federal and state representatives than areas with a higher population of citizens and lawful residents, but few illegal aliens. The policy of granting American citizenship to U.S.-born children of illegal aliens will, over time, make it possible for what would otherwise be citizen majorities in particular areas to be outvoted by new majorities consisting in significant part of persons whose membership in the political community is derived from this policy, and thus is not based on the consent of the American people. 4. BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP THREATENS THE POLITICAL POWER AND INFLUENCE OF AMERICANS Charles Wood, former counsel, U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Immigration, "Losing Control of America's Future -- The Census, Birthright Citizenship and Illegal Aliens," HARVARD JOURNAL OF LAW & PUBLIC POLICY v. 22, Spring 1999, p.521-522. The needed changes in the current census and birthright citizenship policies should be treated by Congress as matters of high priority. Such policies have several harmful outcomes, including perverse effects on incentives important to the control of illegal immigration. But the most important impact, the one that makes change so urgent, relates to political power. It relates to the question of whether legitimate citizen majorities in all areas of this country will have their rightful share of power over the making and enforcement of laws -- a key element in the determination of America's future. This Article has explained how each of the two policies can lead to a decline in such political power. If these policies are maintained, and illegal immigration continues to grow and spread to new areas, this decline will be increasingly likely to make a significant difference in legislative votes at the national and state levels, and in electoral votes for President. Ultimately, these policies threaten the ability of the majority of Americans to ensure that political control at every level of government will always remain with them and their descendants -- plus those persons, and only those persons, to whom they have given their consent to join the American political community.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
39
FEBRUARY 2012
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP UNDESIRABLE: POLITICAL POWER/VALUES cont'd

5. BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP THREATENS THE POLITICAL RIGHTS OF AMERICANS Charles Wood, former counsel, U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Immigration, "Losing Control of America's Future -- The Census, Birthright Citizenship and Illegal Aliens," HARVARD JOURNAL OF LAW & PUBLIC POLICY v. 22, Spring 1999, p.522. With respect to the current birthright citizenship policy, in every week that passes thousands more children of illegal aliens are born in this country, and each is now granted citizenship. The political impact of such individuals increases greatly when, at age eighteen, they reach voting age and when, at age twenty-one, they can petition for the legal immigration of their parents and other relatives, each of whom can naturalize and each of whom can petition for additional immigrants who may also become citizens. I ask again -- who should decide which persons may join our political community and thereby acquire a share of political power? The thesis of this Article is that the needed changes can be accomplished by statute. If, however, either change cannot be made in this way without significant delay, because the President, Congress, or even the Supreme Court believes that the Constitution precludes it, then a constitutional amendment should be pursued until ratification is achieved. If these reforms are not accomplished one way or another soon, "We the People of the United States" risk losing control of the nation's future. 6. AUTOMATIC CITIZENSHIP DILUTES THE RIGHTS OF CURRENT CITIZENS Charles Wood, former counsel, U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Immigration, "Losing Control of America's Future -- The Census, Birthright Citizenship and Illegal Aliens," HARVARD JOURNAL OF LAW & PUBLIC POLICY v. 22, Spring 1999, p.496-497. Dilution of Rights and Privileges of Current Citizens without Their Consent Current policy also results in the granting of a wide range of "zero-sum" rights and privileges based on citizenship or legal residence to additional persons without the consent of preexisting citizens, whose own such rights and privileges are thereby necessarily diluted. Examples include not only voting power and political representation, but rights to petition for immigrants, public benefits such as government employment and services, and affirmative action "entitlements." 7. BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP DENIES AMERICANS THE RIGHT TO DETERMINE THEIR OWN FUTURE Charles Wood, former counsel, U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Immigration, "Losing Control of America's Future -- The Census, Birthright Citizenship and Illegal Aliens," HARVARD JOURNAL OF LAW & PUBLIC POLICY v. 22, Spring 1999, p.494-495. The current policy is contrary to the national interest in several ways. Most importantly, automatically granting citizenship to the children of persons who are present in the United States against the will of most Americans deprives the American people of the ability to determine the future of their own nation, including its demographic and cultural characteristics. In the words of Professors Peter Schuck and Rogers Smith, Permitting a democratic community the power to shape its own destiny by granting or refusing its consent to new members is essential if the community is to be able to protect its interests, maintain harmony, and achieve a unifying sense of shared values. Professor Michael Walzer puts the issue this way: Admission and exclusion are at the core of communal independence. They suggest the deepest meaning of self-determination. Without them, there could not be historically stable, ongoing associations of men and women with some special commitment to one another and some special sense of their common life. Any nation, if it is to survive as more than a name or geographic location, must be capable of wisely selecting which aliens will be allowed to live within its territory and which will be granted full membership in its political community -- and must be capable of enforcing its selections. Granting birthright citizenship to the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens undermines the process by which the American people and their representatives have sought to design and enforce the country's immigration, naturalization, and citizenship laws. The current policy takes away a substantial part of the decision-making power concerning new membership in the American political community from its existing members, and transfers it to illegal aliens who are here against the will of the American people and in defiance of United States law and government.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
40
FEBRUARY 2012
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP UNDESIRABLE: PUBLIC OPINION

1. MAJORITY OF PUBLIC SUPPORTS ENDING BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP Virgil Goode, former U.S. Representative, "End Birthright Citizenship," HUMAN EVENTS ONLINE, 7-12-10, lexis. In his address to the country on immigration, President Obama said that "being an American is not a matter of blood or birth." Our current government policy of giving automatic U.S. citizenship to the children of illegal aliens who are born on American soil makes being American solely a matter of birth. Americans are quickly waking up to the disaster that is the arbitrary government policy of guaranteed automatic citizenship to the children of illegal aliens. A Rasmussen Poll found that 58% of Americans opposed granting citizenship to the children of illegal aliens, while only 33% supported it. 2. THERE IS STRONG PUBLIC OPPOSITION TO ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION -- POLICY RESPONSES PROVE Lino A. Graglia, Professor, Law, University of Texas, "Birthright Citizenship for Children of Illegal Aliens: An Irrational Public Policy," TEXAS REVIEW OF LAW & POLITICS v. 14, Fall 2009, p.2. One of the most serious problems the country faces today, in the opinion of most Americans, is the problem of illegal immigration. The usual estimate is that nearly twelve million illegal aliens, mostly from Mexico, are now in the United States. This problem is so serious that it has driven the nation to the extreme solution of beginning construction of a fence or wall along the 2,000 miles of our southern border at the cost of billions of dollars. Popular opposition to illegal immigration is so strong that both major-party presidential candidates in the recent election found it necessary to affirm their opposition.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
41
FEBRUARY 2012
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP UNDESIRABLE: RULE OF LAW

1. THERE IS NO REASON TO REWARD PREVIOUS LAWBREAKING Amanda Colvin, "Birthright Citizenship in the United States: Realities of De Facto Deportation and International Comparisons Toward Proposing a Solution," SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY LAW JOURNAL v. 53, Fall 2008, p.225. Opponents of birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants argue that "it is simply morally perverse to reward law-breaking by conferring the valued status of citizenship." Such a policy "makes a mockery of citizenship" and allows illegal immigrants and their children to "automatically jump ahead of millions of other foreigners patiently waiting in line abroad for the chance to come to the United States in proper, legal fashion." One commentator argues that withholding birthright citizenship from "anchor babies" "would no more be "blaming' or "punishing' innocent children than an airline would be blaming or punishing the children of hijackers by not awarding them Frequent Flier mileage for unscheduled flights to Havana." Instead of "encouraging foreigners to come to the United States solely to enable them to confer U.S. citizenship on their future children," the United States should "stop [this] abuse of hospitality by changing the rule on citizenship." American-born children should not be forced to make an "ugly choice" between either staying in the United States without their parents or facing de facto deportation to their parents' home country. 2. REWARDING LAWBREAKING IS A GREATER CONCERN THAN ANY NEGATIVE EFFECTS ON EQUALITY Christine J. Hsieh, attorney, "American Born Legal Permanent Residents? A Constitutional Amendment Proposal," GEORGETOWN IMMIGRATION LAW JOURNAL v. 12, Spring 1998, p.528. Opponents also challenge birthright amendments with arguments based on moral and humanitarian grounds, claiming that it is inherently unfair to strip a right as important as citizenship from a group of Americans. The Supreme Court has gone so far as to state that "deprivation of citizenship is a form of punishment more primitive than torture." Certain fundamental privileges clearly seem to follow from citizenship -- the rights to property, liberty of person and conscience, and access to the courts. Beyond these few privileges, citizenship rights can be unclear. As for some of our most fundamental rights like due process and freedom of expression, citizenship is not a prerequisite for these protections. In regard to the argument that denying birthright citizenship is symbolically unattractive as a rejection of the Fourteenth Amendment and the equality that it represents, one may respond, "What kind of signal [do] we send as a society to the newest Americans when we reward those who break the rules by granting citizenship to their children, while we deny the same privilege to the children of those who wait to immigrate legally?" This Amendment also sends the important message that American citizenship is both valuable, and only available, to those who follow the rules. Citizenship is "devalued when it is given away as a result of criminal activity."
PARADIGM RESEARCH
42
FEBRUARY 2012
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP UNDESIRABLE: ANSWERS TO: "ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN"

1. ANY 'ADMINISTRATIVE HASSLES' ARE SPECIOUS -- OTHER COUNTRIES DO JUST FINE WITHOUT BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP Christine J. Hsieh, attorney, "American Born Legal Permanent Residents? A Constitutional Amendment Proposal," GEORGETOWN IMMIGRATION LAW JOURNAL v. 12, Spring 1998, p.527. The current birthright citizenship rule creates little ambiguity because all American-born individuals are Americans, irrespective of parentage. There are claims that disposing of the status quo jus soli system would create an administrative nightmare. Not only would administrators have to check all women in hospitals, but they would also have a difficult time determining the resident status of fathers. Considering that jus sanguinis is not a novel idea, and jus sanguinis countries have been in existence for centuries, it seems that any administrative difficulties would only exist during the transition, and, once implemented, should pose no significant problem. The resident status of parents should present less of a burden than is argued, as the United States State Department already has a policy on determining the paternity of children born outside the United States. Pursuant to Section Two of the proposed Birthright Amendment, Congress could enact a standard for determining paternity in citizenship cases. Alternatively, Congress could adopt a rule whereby the mother's residency status alone determines her child's citizenship status when the child is born out of wedlock. 2. ADMINISTRATIVE CLAIMS ARE FALSE -- MOST COUNTRIES DON'T HAVE BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP Charles Wood, former counsel, U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Immigration, "Losing Control of America's Future -- The Census, Birthright Citizenship and Illegal Aliens," HARVARD JOURNAL OF LAW & PUBLIC POLICY v. 22, Spring 1999, p.503. The third argument against change is that it would create major practical difficulties. This, too, has little merit. Most countries do not have a birthright citizenship rule, even for the children of aliens who are lawful residents. Such countries recognize an individual as a citizen at birth only if one or both of the individual's parents is a citizen. The result is that at some point in the individual's life, if his or her citizenship status must be established -- in order, for example, to obtain a passport or to vote -- proof of the nationality of one or both parents must be provided. Yet this requirement does not seem to cause undue difficulty, and few, if any, countries have changed their citizenship rules because of it.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
43
FEBRUARY 2012
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP UNDESIRABLE: ANSWERS TO: "CHILD PUNISHMENT UNTENABLE"

1. WE SHOULD CONDITION CITIZENSHIP ON THE STATUS OF A CHILD'S PARENTS Peter H. Schuck, Professor, Law, Yale University, "Birthright of a Nation," NEW YORK TIMES, 8-13-10, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/14/opinion/14schuck.html, accessed 1-2-11. Fortunately, these strongly competing values, combined with the notion of mutual-consent citizenship, suggest a solution: condition the citizenship of such children on having what international law terms a "genuine connection" to American society. This is already a practice in some European countries, where laws requiring blood ties to existing citizens have been relaxed to give birthright citizenship to children of illegal immigrants who have lived in the country for some time -- Britain, for example, requires 10 years and no long absences from the country. Congress should do likewise, perhaps conditioning birthright citizenship on a certain number of years of education in American schools; such children could apply for citizenship at, say, age 10. The children would become citizens retroactively, regardless of their parents' status. Other aspects of the larger immigration debate would continue, of course. But such a principled yet pragmatic solution to the birthright citizenship question could point the way toward common ground on immigration reform. 2. DEPORTATION OF AMERICAN BORN CHILDREN IS NOT PUNISHMENT Christine J. Hsieh, attorney, "American Born Legal Permanent Residents? A Constitutional Amendment Proposal," GEORGETOWN IMMIGRATION LAW JOURNAL v. 12, Spring 1998, p.525-526. Regardless of a child's citizenship status, if the parents are illegally present, they are deportable. In addition, "a citizen child of non-citizen parents cannot claim de facto deportation if the undocumented parents are deported and take the citizen child with them." The ability to deport an American-born child is therefore not an ability to punish. Although an illegal alien parent of a citizen child may have deportation suspended if able to prove that deportation would result in extreme hardship, there is no guaranteed bootstrap.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
44
FEBRUARY 2012
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP UNDESIRABLE: ANSWERS TO: "CHILD WELFARE/STATELESSNESS"

1. MOST PERSONS WILL ASSUME THE CITIZENSHIP OF THEIR PARENTS William M. Stevens, "Jurisdiction, Allegiance, and Consent: Revisiting the Forgotten Prong of the Fourteenth Amendment's Birthright Citizenship Clause in Light of Terrorism, Unprecedented Modern Population Migrations, Globalization, and Conflict Cultures," TEXAS WESLEYAN LAW REVIEW v. 14, Spring 2008, p.378-379. Citizenship means more than obtaining ministerial and financial benefits. Illegal aliens do not need birthright citizenship and are less needful of it than may be supposed; they almost always possess another nationality (almost by definition this would be so), owing allegiance to a foreign state, and thus already belong to a polity. Most nations, including Mexico, regard the children born to their nationals living abroad to be citizens of their parent's country. Even if moral or humanitarian obligations exist to assist those less fortunate than we, as compelling as those obligations may be, they by no means impute a claim to United States citizenship -- and certainly not to a birthright entitlement granted unilaterally by the alien's act, without consent of the American polity. Primarily, illegal aliens are attracted to the United States for financial reasons. While their interest in gaining a better life is laudable, that is not a basis for extraordinary, or illegal, immigration measures. If a foreign national has a true fear of returning to his native land, he may apply for asylum. Even without asylum, other forms of relief are available, such as extended departure and deferred action status. 2. STATELESSNESS DOES NOT VIOLATE INTERNATIONAL LAW Christine J. Hsieh, attorney, "American Born Legal Permanent Residents? A Constitutional Amendment Proposal," GEORGETOWN IMMIGRATION LAW JOURNAL v. 12, Spring 1998, p.526-527. Statelessness is considered undesirable but is not prohibited by international law. "On account of the different political and class interests of states, which result from their different socioeconomic systems, few universal international treaties exist in this field." Although international agreements frown upon citizenship laws that leave individuals stateless, the International Court of Justice has ruled that "international law leaves it to each State to lay down the rules governing the grant of its own nationality." The United States could therefore adopt the Birthright Amendment without violating international law. 3. GOOD MOTIVES STILL DO NOT JUSTIFY ILLEGAL ACTS Christine J. Hsieh, attorney, "American Born Legal Permanent Residents? A Constitutional Amendment Proposal," GEORGETOWN IMMIGRATION LAW JOURNAL v. 12, Spring 1998, p.520-521. The debate over whether employment opportunities or opportunities for children is the more determinative factor for illegal migration is inconsequential. As honorable as parental motives might be, their good intentions do not negate the illegality of their presence. Meanwhile, there are law abiding immigrant-hopefuls waiting in line with aspirations for the future of their children. It offends a general sense of fairness to reward those who circumvent this process to the detriment of those who abide by legal immigration procedure. This citizenship shopping phenomenon is not unique to the United States; it is an occurrence that extends well into the international arena. For example, in Hong Kong "each year, scores of pregnant women cross the border from China into Hong Kong -- usually illegally -- in a bid to give their offspring the ultimate prize: a home outside the motherland. Many have Hong Kong citizenship conferred on them by birth and by their father's nationality. The mothers are patched up and dispatched back across the border." Although the Birthright Amendment would adversely affect the lives of illegal aliens, it would have a positive effect on the lives of legal aliens. Recent immigrants are often amongst the lower echelons of society, and those most adversely impacted by illegal immigrants are "those who can least afford to be hurt -- the poor, the less-educated, the disadvantaged." By diminishing the incentives and safeguards to illegal immigration, a decrease in this immigration would logically follow. Fewer illegal immigrants results in less competition for low-skilled jobs, which in turn means more opportunities available for disadvantaged workers who are already present.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
45
FEBRUARY 2012
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP UNDESIRABLE: ANSWERS TO: "CHILD WELFARE/STATELESSNESS" cont'd

4. 'STATELESSNESS' IS NOT PROBLEM -- MOST PERSONS HAVE THEIR PARENT'S CITIZENSHIP, LEGISLATION CAN FIX OTHER CASES Charles Wood, former counsel, U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Immigration, "Losing Control of America's Future -- The Census, Birthright Citizenship and Illegal Aliens," HARVARD JOURNAL OF LAW & PUBLIC POLICY v. 22, Spring 1999, p.503. Some persons have argued that if the law were changed, a certain number of the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens would be stateless -- that is, would not receive citizenship in any other country either. This is unlikely, because the vast majority of countries grant citizenship to the children of their nationals wherever born. However, the possibility that this could happen could easily be eliminated by appropriate language in the legislation that changed the law. 5. FAIRNESS CONCERNS ARE MISPLACED -- OUR PRIMARY OBLIGATION IS TO CITIZENS Charles Wood, former counsel, U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Immigration, "Losing Control of America's Future -- The Census, Birthright Citizenship and Illegal Aliens," HARVARD JOURNAL OF LAW & PUBLIC POLICY v. 22, Spring 1999, p.502. The second argument against changing the law -- that this would be unfair to the U.S.-born children who would no longer receive birthright United States citizenship -- is also flawed. The group to which United States political leaders owe their primary obligation is the American people. It is fairness to the citizens of this country that should take precedence, and accepting a process by which they lose political control against their will is not fair to them. Furthermore, the proposition that the change advocated here would be unfair to the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens because they are innocent of any wrongdoing is fundamentally inconsistent with most of this country's immigration control policies. It is not clear, for example, why such children have a moral claim to remain in the United States which is any greater than their equally innocent foreign-born siblings who may also be young and may also have been in the United States most of their lives -- yet who routinely face deportation along with their parents. It is also not clear why the presence in the United States of either of these groups of children should be viewed as giving them a greater moral claim to a life in this country than millions of equally innocent children abroad. Indeed, the moral claim of these latter children could be seen as greater because they have not had the benefit of any time in the United States -- and because their circumstances are frequently much worse than those under which the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens would live if returned to the country of the parents' nationality (a country of which, in most cases, they too are nationals).
PARADIGM RESEARCH
46
FEBRUARY 2012
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP UNDESIRABLE: ANSWERS TO: "FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT JUSTIFIES" -- GENERAL

1. THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT DOES NOT JUSTIFY BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP Virgil Goode, former U.S. Representative, "End Birthright Citizenship," HUMAN EVENTS ONLINE, 7-12-10, lexis. The costly policy of granting birthright citizenship is based upon a misinterpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment. It 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." This was clearly designed to guarantee for the purpose of ensuring that the children of freed slaves could not be denied citizenship. Granting citizenship to the children of illegal aliens is a completely arbitrary interpretation that has never been ruled on by the courts or passed by statute. 2. THEY ARE INCORRECT -- THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT DOES NOT ENSURE BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP Tom Tancredo, U.S. Representative, "What is the Best Way to Reform Immigration? 'Birthright Citizenship Must End," ROLL CALL 12-5-05, lexis. There is much the federal government should do to restore the meaning of citizenship, and the solution should include our elementary schools and citizenship classes. But one important step in the right direction is to revoke nonsensical birthright citizenship. Contrary to conventional thinking, the 14th Amendment does not mandate automatic citizenship for persons born on U.S. soil. That interpretation is the product of federal court rulings that failed to give due weight to the actual intent of the authors of that amendment, one of the "Civil War Amendments" aimed primarily at ending discrimination against former slaves. The Constitution's operative language is, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." The 14th Amendment's first requirement for citizenship, being born or naturalized in the United States, is straightforward. To determine what "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means, we need only turn to the amendment's architects, Sens. Lyman Trumbull and Jacob Howard. In passing the 14th Amendment, Trumbull argued that the United States' jurisdiction was meant to cover only persons who did not owe "allegiance to anybody else." Howard was even clearer, noting that the amendment "will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers." Being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States does not mean merely being within its borders, as Trumbull and Howard note. To construe jurisdiction in that manner would make the word redundant -- the amendment's authors could have written only "born or naturalized in the United States" and affected the same outcome. "Jurisdiction" in the 14th Amendment means that a person owes something to the state, that he is fully under the state's authority. An illegal immigrant is basically hiding from the law and trying very hard to escape and evade the full jurisdiction of the United States. He cannot be called to defend the United States in the case of war, cannot be called to jury duty and cannot legally claim the normal and customary benefits of citizens and legal residents. His very presence in the country is a denial of its jurisdiction and a refusal to be subject to its laws.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
47
FEBRUARY 2012
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP UNDESIRABLE: ANSWERS TO: "FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT JUSTIFIES" -- GENERAL cont'd
3. FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT DOES NOT REQUIRE BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP -- HAS BEEN WRONGLY INTERPRETED Hans von Spakovsky, "The Costs of Birthright Citizenship," THE FOUNDRY, Heritage Foundation, 9-9-10, http://blog.heritage.org/2010/09/09/the-costs-of-birthright-citizenship/, accessed 1-8-11. 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. "Americans are justifiably upset with a policy that has become standard practice without their approval," CIS notes. Small wonder, since not only are our laws being taken advantage of by those who are seeking to evade our normal immigration rules, but the economic costs to the country and the average citizen-taxpayer are enormous.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
48
FEBRUARY 2012
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP UNDESIRABLE: ANSWERS TO: "FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT JUSTIFIES" -- JURISDICTION CLAUSE
1. FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT IS MISREAD, DOES NOT JUSTIFY BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP -JURISDICTION CLAUSE John C. Eastman, Professor, Law, Chapman University, "From Feudalism to Consent: Rethinking Birthright Citizenship," Legal Memorandum, Heritage Foundation, 3-30 -- 06, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2006/03/from-feudalism-to-consent-rethinking-birthright-citizenship, accessed 1-7-12. The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides that "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." As manifest by the conjunctive "and," the clause mandates citizenship to those who meet both of the constitutional prerequisites: (1) birth (or naturalization) in the United States and (2) being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. The widely held, though erroneous, view today is that any person entering the territory of the United States-even for a short visit; even illegally-is considered to have subjected himself to the jurisdiction of the United States, which is to say, subjected himself to the laws of the United States. Surely one who is actually born in the United States is therefore "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States and entitled to full citizenship as a result, or so the common reasoning goes. Textually, such an interpretation is manifestly erroneous, for it renders the entire "subject to the jurisdiction" clause redundant. Anyone who is "born" in the United States is, under this interpretation, necessarily "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. Yet it is a well-established doctrine of legal interpretation that legal texts, including the Constitution, are not to be interpreted to create redundancy unless any other interpretation would lead to absurd results. 2. CONGRESS CAN ALTER CITIZENSHIP STANDARDS Edward J. Erler, Professor, Political Science, CSU-San Bernadino, "Birthright Citizenship and Dual Citizenship: Harbingers of Administrative Tyranny," IMPRIMIS v. 37 . 7, 7-08, www.hillsdale.edu/hctools/ImprimisTool/archives/2008_07_Imprimis.pdf, accessed 1-7-12. We have seen that the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment unanimously agreed that Indians were not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S. Beginning in 1870, however, Congress began to pass legislation offering citizenship to Indians on a tribe by tribe basis. Finally, in 1923, there was a universal offer to all tribes. Any Indian who consented could become an American citizen. This citizenship was based on reciprocal consent: an offer on the part of the U.S. and acceptance on the part of an individual. Thus Congress used its legislative powers under the Fourteenth Amendment to determine who was within the jurisdiction of the U.S. It could make a similar determination today, based on this legislative precedent, that children born in the U.S. to illegal aliens are not subject to American jurisdiction. A constitutional amendment is no more required now than it was in 1923.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
49
FEBRUARY 2012
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP UNDESIRABLE: ANSWERS TO: "FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT JUSTIFIES" -- JURISDICTION CLAUSE cont'd
3. FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT IS BEING WRONGLY INTERPRETED -- BIRTH SHOULD NOT AUTOMATICALLY ENTITLE A PERSON TO CITIZENSHIP John C. Eastman, Dean, Chapman University School of Law, "Born in the U.S.A.? Rethinking Birthright Citizenship in the Wake of 9/11," TEXAS REVIEW OF LAW & POLITICS v. 12, Fall 2007, p.170. Justice Scalia's significant, albeit brief and somewhat oblique, challenge to the received wisdom of the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause warrants our attention. As I argued in the brief I filed on behalf of The Claremont Institute Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence in the case, the received wisdom regarding the Citizenship Clause is incorrect, as a matter of text, historical practice, and political theory. As an original matter, mere birth on U.S. soil alone was insufficient to confer citizenship as a matter of constitutional right. Rather, birth, together with being a person subject to the complete and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States (i.e., not owing allegiance to another sovereign) was the constitutional mandate, a floor for citizenship below which Congress cannot go in the exercise of its Article I power over naturalization. While Congress remains free to offer citizenship to persons who have no constitutional entitlement to citizenship, it has not done so. Mere birth to foreign nationals who happen to be visiting the United States at the time, as with the case of Hamdi the Taliban, should not result in citizenship. Because court rulings to the contrary have rested on a flawed understanding of the Citizenship Clause, those rulings should be revisited or at least narrowly interpreted. Moreover, the statutory grant of citizenship conferred by Congress, which precisely tracks the language of the Fourteenth Amendment, should itself be re-interpreted in accord with the original understanding of the Citizenship Clause. In the wake of 9/11, now would be a good time to do so. 4. THEIR READING OF THE CITIZENSHIP CLAUSE MOOTS "SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION" -- IT DOES NOT GUARANTEE BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP John C. Eastman, Dean, Chapman University School of Law, "Born in the U.S.A.? Rethinking Birthright Citizenship in the Wake of 9/11," TEXAS REVIEW OF LAW & POLITICS v. 12, Fall 2007, p.171. However strong this interpretation is as a matter of contemporary common parlance, it simply does not comport with either the text or the history surrounding adoption of the Citizenship Clause, nor with the political theory underlying the Clause. Textually, such an interpretation would render the entire "subject to the jurisdiction" clause almost entirely redundant -- anyone who is "born" in the United States is, under this interpretation, necessarily "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States -- and it is a well-established doctrine of legal interpretation that legal texts, including the Constitution, are not to be interpreted to create redundancy unless any other interpretation would lead to absurd results.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
50
FEBRUARY 2012
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP UNDESIRABLE: ANSWERS TO: "FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT JUSTIFIES" -- LEGISLATIVE RECORD
1. FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT DOES NOT ENSURE BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP -- LEGISLATIVE RECORD PROVES INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY, "American Citizenship Is Not a Birthright," 8-10 -- 10, p.A10. A new IBD/TIPP Poll shows solid opposition to changing the Constitution to address the anchor baby issue (see chart). But does the amendment need amending or has it just been wrongly interpreted by those supporting illegal immigration? The 14th Amendment reads: "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" (italics added). Illegal aliens are still foreign nationals and are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction, except for purposes of deportation, and therefore their children born on American soil should not automatically be considered U.S. citizens. The purpose of the 14th Amendment was essentially to forever repeal the Dred Scott decision, grant full citizenship to all blacks and elevate citizenship from a state to a national determination. It was not to protect illegal aliens coming across the border. During debate on the 14th Amendment, Jacob Merritt Howard, a senator from Michigan who helped draft the amendment after the Civil War, stated quite clearly: "This will not, of course, include persons in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons." Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, regarded as the father of the 14th Amendment, said it meant "every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your constitution itself a natural-born citizen." 2. LEGISLATIVE INTENT DID NOT INCLUDE AUTOMATIC CITIZENSHIP Howard Sutherland, attorney, "Citizen Hamdi: The Case Aainst Birthright Citizenship," AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE, 9-27-04, http://www.theamericanconservative.com/article/2004/sep/27/00021/, accessed 1-2-12. In the 1866 Senate ratification debate, the Citizenship Clause's proponent, Jacob Howard of Michigan, said it was simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural and national law, a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. James Doolittle of Wisconsin queried Howard's language, but not because he favored birthright citizenship. Instead he wanted it clear that Indians were excluded because they owed allegiance to their tribes. The Citizenship Clause's drafters were careful to exclude Indians -- deep-rooted in this land -- from U.S. citizenship because they were not fully subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. It is inconceivable that they would countenance citizenship for Yaser Esam Hamdi just because he was born in Baton Rouge. Pennsylvania's Edgar Cowan discussed citizenship's limits. "If a traveler comes here from Ethiopia, from Australia, or from Great Britain, he has a right to the protection of the laws, but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptation of the word." Lyman Trumbull of Illinois, chairman of the Judiciary Committee and a key drafter of the 14th Amendment, explained the jurisdiction requirement. "The provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means." Maryland's Reverdy Johnson, the only Democrat in this Reconstruction-era debate, gave Trumbull bipartisan support. "Now all this amendment provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign Power shall be considered as citizens of the United States." Johnson emphasized that the jurisdiction requirement meant the same as the phrase "not subject to any foreign Power" in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, passed by the same Congress that ratified the 14th Amendment. The import of the jurisdiction requirement, affirmed by its drafters' expressed intent, is that after dealing with the special case of freedmen the Citizenship Clause confers birthright citizenship only on citizens' children.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
51
FEBRUARY 2012
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP UNDESIRABLE: ANSWERS TO: "FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT JUSTIFIES" -- LEGISLATIVE RECORD cont'd
3. BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP IS CONTRARY TO CONGRESSIONAL INTENT -- 1866 CIVIL RIGHTS ACT PROVES John C. Eastman, Dean, Chapman University School of Law, "Born in the U.S.A.? Rethinking Birthright Citizenship in the Wake of 9/11," TEXAS REVIEW OF LAW & POLITICS v. 12, Fall 2007, p.172. Historically, the language of the 1866 Civil Rights Act -- from which the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (like the rest of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment) was derived so as to provide a more certain constitutional foundation for the 1866 Act -- strongly suggests that Congress did not intend to provide for such a broad and absolute birthright citizenship. The 1866 Act provides that "all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States." As this formulation makes clear, any child born on U.S. soil to parents who were temporary visitors to this country and who, as a result of the foreign citizenship of the child's parents, remained a citizen or subject of the parents' home country, was not entitled to claim the birthright citizenship provided in the 1866 Act. 4. APPLICATION TO CHILDREN OF UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS IS OUTSIDE THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT Lino A. Graglia, Professor, Law, University of Texas, "Birthright Citizenship for Children of Illegal Aliens: An Irrational Public Policy," TEXAS REVIEW OF LAW & POLITICS v. 14, Fall 2009, p.5-6. How, then, should the jurisdiction requirement of the Citizenship Clause be interpreted in regard to that question? Like any writing, or at least any law, it should be interpreted to mean what it was intended or understood to mean by those who adopted it -- the ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment. They could not have considered the question of granting birthright citizenship to children of illegal aliens because, for one thing, there were no illegal aliens in 1868, when the amendment was ratified, because there were no restrictions on immigration. It is hard to believe, moreover, that if they had considered it, they would have intended to provide that violators of United States immigration law be given the award of American citizenship for their children born in the United States. 5. FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT'S PURPOSE WAS TO GRANT CITIZENSHIP TO SLAVES, NOT THE CHILDREN OF UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS Lino A. Graglia, Professor, Law, University of Texas, "Birthright Citizenship for Children of Illegal Aliens: An Irrational Public Policy," TEXAS REVIEW OF LAW & POLITICS v. 14, Fall 2009, p.6. The intended purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Citizenship Clause is not in doubt. In 1856, in the infamous case of Dred Scott v. Sanford, the Supreme Court held that blacks, even free blacks, were not citizens of the United States and that a state could not make them citizens. It also held that Congress could not prohibit the extension of slavery to the territories, thereby invalidating the Missouri Compromise. Instead of settling the slavery question, as the Court foolishly thought it was doing, this decision precipitated the Civil War. The Thirteenth Amendment, adopted in 1865, prohibited slavery and involuntary servitude and granted Congress the power to enforce the prohibition by "appropriate legislation." Following emancipation, the Southern states adopted laws, known as "black codes," that limited the basic civil rights of their black residents in many respects. Congress responded by enacting our first civil rights legislation, the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The purpose of the Act was: first, to overrule Dred Scott by defining national and state citizenship so as to include blacks and, second, to guarantee those black citizens the same basic civil rights as white citizens.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
52
FEBRUARY 2012
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP UNDESIRABLE: ANSWERS TO: "SECOND CLASS STATUS"

1. 'SECOND CLASS' STATUS IS THE FAULT OF THE PARENT, NOT THE LAW Tom Tancredo, U.S. Representative, "What is the Best Way to Reform Immigration? 'Birthright Citizenship Must End," ROLL CALL 12-5-05, lexis. If we repeal birthright citizenship and stipulate that children born of illegal immigrants are the same nationality as their parents, any "second-class citizens" are being created by the irresponsible behavior of the parents, not the U.S. Constitution. When parents are deported, both law and common sense should dictate that the children should go home with the parents. The children would not be "second-class citizens" because they would not be citizens in any sense. The open borders lobbyists need birthright citizenship to continue because while it stands, while it exists in our legal system, it devalues citizenship and makes the achievement of secure borders even more problematic, by rewarding the parents through an entitlement to eventual citizenship through the birth of their child. This argument has it exactly backwards: The lure and power of birthright citizenship is one of the principal magnets responsible for the parents' behavior in the first place. 2. MANY SUCH CHILDREN ARE BORN INTO POVERTY (INCREASING THE OVERALL RATE), DISPROPORTIONATELY AFFECTS BORDER COMMUNITIES Jon Feere, legal policy analyst, "Birthright Citizenship in the United States: A Global Comparison," BACKGROUNDER, Center for Immigration Studies, 8-10, http://www.cis.org/birthright-citizenship, accessed 1-2-11. Of course, states offer additional welfare benefits as well. Los Angeles County Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich recently released data from the Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Services indicating that children of illegal aliens in Los Angeles Country received $50 million in welfare benefits during the month of February 2010 alone. The report estimates that 23 percent of all CALWORKS and food stamp issuances in Los Angeles County are to illegal immigrant parents who collect on their U.S.-born children's behalf. The supervisor estimates that illegal immigration and birthright citizenship cost taxpayers in Los Angeles County over $1 billion annually, not including education costs. 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. 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. It is important to remember that births to illegal aliens are not spread evenly throughout the United States. Some states, particularly those closer to the southern border, carry a much larger burden. According to the Texas Health and Human Services Commission, between 60,000 to 65,000 babies are born to illegal aliens in Texas every year, representing about 16 percent of total births statewide. The report estimates that between 2001 and 2009, births to illegal immigrant women totaled 542,152 in Texas alone.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
53
FEBRUARY 2012
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP UNDESIRABLE: ANSWERS TO: "UNDOCUMENTED POPULATION/SOCIAL COHESION"

1. THEIR ARGUMENTS ABOUT ASSIMILATION AND UNDOCUMENTED PERSONS ARE MORE TRUE NOW IN A WORLD OF BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP Charles Wood, former counsel, U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Immigration, "Losing Control of America's Future -- The Census, Birthright Citizenship and Illegal Aliens," HARVARD JOURNAL OF LAW & PUBLIC POLICY v. 22, Spring 1999, p.500. A major flaw in this argument is that most of the problems which opponents allege would be caused by changing birthright citizenship rules already exist under current law. That is because the parents, and often some of the other children in the family, remain illegal after the U.S.-born citizen-child joins the family. Thus, the family does not fully integrate anyway. This inevitably affects the extent to which the citizen-child assimilates. More fundamentally, the limited level of assimilation of illegal aliens is as it should be. It is not desirable for such individuals to fully and permanently enter American society. The national interest would be better served if the entire family returned to their homeland, which would eliminate the political and other problems they may cause while in this country. This result could actually be brought about, moreover, if an adequate effort were made to enforce current laws against hiring illegal aliens and against providing most forms of welfare to them -- so that illegal aliens would be more likely to return home on their own -- and if higher penalties were imposed for immigration law violations. 2. AMNESTY OR OTHER MEASURES COULD ADDRESS THE PROBLEMS OF UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRATION -- NOT A JUSTIFICATION FOR BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP Charles Wood, former counsel, U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Immigration, "Losing Control of America's Future -- The Census, Birthright Citizenship and Illegal Aliens," HARVARD JOURNAL OF LAW & PUBLIC POLICY v. 22, Spring 1999, p.500-501. Even if Congress and the President cannot, or will not, make such an effort, the current birthright citizenship rules are not the only way to avoid the presence of a large group of persons who were born in the United States and who have resided here for many years, but remain illegal aliens. If political leaders concluded at any time that the problems caused by the unlawful status of such aliens were too great and that it was not sufficiently likely they would leave or be deported, then some form of amnesty program could be developed for a portion of the illegal population. Although not the best solution, amnesty would at least create an opportunity to screen for criminality and would grant only lawful permanent residence status, not citizenship. Voting rights would not be available until the individual had completed the naturalization process. In most cases this would mean that he or she had successfully taken tests of English language competence and knowledge of United States political institutions -- tests that should be substantially strengthened if they are to serve adequately the purpose of requiring a meaningful degree of such competence and knowledge before citizenship can be obtained. There are also various automatic mechanisms that could be adopted to insure that a permanent and hereditary class of illegal aliens did not develop. In France, for example, anyone is born a French citizen if one of his or her parents was born in that country. Under such a rule, only the first generation of U.S.-born children would be illegal. Their U.S.-born children would be United States citizens. As in the case of amnesty, however, such a rule would have the effect of taking away from Americans part of the power to determine the political future of their country, because it would result in the permanent addition to the United States population -- and to the electorate -- of a line of persons which originated in this country without the consent of the American people.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
54
FEBRUARY 2012
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP UNDESIRABLE: ANSWERS TO: "UNDOCUMENTED POPULATION/SOCIAL COHESION" cont'd

3. AUTOMATIC CITIZENSHIP UNDERMINES SOCIAL COHESION -- MULTIPLE WAYS Charles Wood, former counsel, U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Immigration, "Losing Control of America's Future -- The Census, Birthright Citizenship and Illegal Aliens," HARVARD JOURNAL OF LAW & PUBLIC POLICY v. 22, Spring 1999, p.495-496. Increased Number of Citizens without Traditional American Values Second, because the parents are illegal, and hence to some degree fearful of apprehension and deportation, their children are less likely to participate in the wider community, to learn English, and otherwise to assimilate fully. As a result, U.S.-born children of illegal aliens seem less likely to become fully Americanized than the children of citizens or legal immigrants. To the extent they are not fully Americanized before they reach voting age, their votes are less likely to be based on traditional American values and concerns, and therefore more likely to favor policies opposed by most Americans. Less rapid or complete Americanization also frequently results in greater ethnic tensions and other problems associated with the growing multiculturalism in our country.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
55
FEBRUARY 2012
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP DESIRABLE: TOPSHELF

1. REPEAL WOULD LEAVE THE CHILDREN WITHOUT ANY CITIZENSHIP STATUS AT ALL -- RISKS PERMANENT HARM, BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP IS FAR SUPERIOR Sara Catherine Barnhart, "Second Class Delivery: The Elimination of Birthright Citizenship as a Repeal of 'The Pursuit of Happiness'," GEORGIA LAW REVIEW v. 42, Winter 2008, p.560-561. If birthright citizenship were eliminated, it is unclear what status the children of undocumented immigrants would have. Neither the 2005 or 2007 Reform Acts nor the 2007 Citizenship Act addresses this complication, but most proponents of the repeal presume that the children would also be undocumented and thus deportable. There is no provision, however, in the proposed statute that provides a deportation ground for persons born as aliens in the United States because they have not entered the United States without permission and have not broken any laws. In addition, if birthright citizenship were eliminated, children born to parents whose nationality did not descend to them under foreign law would be stateless. Further, if parents themselves were stateless, then their children would be so as well. Because of its international treaty obligations, Congress would be forced to pass many additional laws in order to prevent this result. If, as many proponents desire, the children of undocumented immigrants become hereditarily undocumented at birth, then their lives will be impacted detrimentally. For example, these children will likely be subjected to abuse, exploitation or neglect by the state. However, even if birthright citizenship is eliminated, children of undocumented immigrants will still likely have a right to government education. Aside from the benefit of education, these children would endure much of the same exploitation as their parents due to the general trend of denying public benefits and services to undocumented immigrants. To Americans, this harsh result may seem palatable as applied to an adult who has entered the United States illegally who may not have contributed to society in the form of income taxes. However, denying U.S. born children access to government services while simultaneously branding them "illegal" not only condemns them to a life of poverty, but ensures these individuals will have no way out of that poverty. Although there may be some valid arguments to deny these children government benefits, labeling them "illegal" means there is little chance for them to attain economic sufficiency. Undocumented or illegal immigrants may never receive official government aid such as food stamps, but an even bigger drain on public resources is created by having a population of millions who can never legally work. An individual who cannot legally work likely will never have health insurance, a valid driver's license, or even a social security number with which to pay income taxes. In contrast, retaining birthright citizenship gives every child of an immigrant, documented or undocumented, the ultimate opportunity to attain success. They will have the opportunity to become economically self-sufficient, law-abiding, tax-paying individuals-the perfect example of good Americans. In contrast, eliminating birthright citizenship will create a class of automatic "illegals," who will never pay taxes, will have almost insurmountable obstacles to economic independence, and surely will be treated with both contempt and disfavor by American citizens.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
56
FEBRUARY 2012
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP DESIRABLE: TOPSHELF cont'd

2. ENDING BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP WOULD CREATE AN UNDERCLASS, AND BE AN ENORMOUS STEP TOWARDS RE-INSTATING SLAVERY IN ALL BUT NAME Sam Fulwood III, senior fellow and Marshall Fitz, Director, Immigration Policy, "Less Than Citizens: Abolishing Birthright Citizenship Would Create a Permanent Underclass in Our Nation," Center for American Progress, 5-11, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/05/pdf/birthright_brief.html, accessed 1-10-11. Opportunistic politics helps explain the reasoning behind this attack on the Citizenship Clause of the Constitution. A broken national immigration system overlapping with a tepid economic recovery, featuring still-slow jobs growth creates an opening for some politicians to seek short-term electoral gains by demonizing immigrants. Nonetheless, numerous conservative politicians and scholars voice grave concerns about the political and policy ramifications of this tangent. Case in point: Linda Chavez, a conservative Republican and chairman of the Center for Equal Opportunity, believes that such a political gambit is "a terrible idea." She argues that not only is it bad politics for Republicans to champion a cause that alienates Latino voters, but "more importantly, ending birthright citizenship would fundamentally change what it means to be an American." She's right, of course. Indeed, many conservative and progressive legal scholars find common ground on this issue and the implications of backing away from birthright citizenship. University of Baltimore legal scholar Professor Garrett Epps argues: The authors of the Citizenship Clause had seen Southern slavery eat away at the very idea of democratic government, until it nearly destroyed the United States. They set the 14th Amendment, and its citizenship language, in the American sky as a reminder that inequality by birth was the doorway to dishonor. Thus, there is an alarming irony in the proposition that the United States should alter its constitutional system to create a large internal population of native-born noncitizens, a hereditary subordinate caste of persons who are subjected to American law but do not belong to American society. If the children of "illegal aliens" are "illegal" themselves, then we have taken a giant step toward recreating slavery in all but name. If citizenship is the hereditary gift of the nation rather than the inheritance of its people, we are drifting back toward a discredited doctrine of Dred Scott. And if state governments arrogate to themselves the power to decide which groups within their borders "merit" citizenship, the central promise of the Amendment -- paramount national citizenship -- has been eviscerated. 3. REPEAL WOULD CREATE A LARGE UNDERCLASS, UNDERMINING ASSIMILATION AND SOCIAL COHESION Sam Fulwood III, senior fellow and Marshall Fitz, Director, Immigration Policy, "Less Than Citizens: Abolishing Birthright Citizenship Would Create a Permanent Underclass in Our Nation," Center for American Progress, 5-11, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/05/pdf/birthright_brief.html, accessed 1-10-11. The repeal of birthright citizenship would create a self-perpetuating class of undocumented noncitizens, one, two, three, or more generations going forward. As the MPI study authors Jennifer Van Hook and Michael Fix write: Under a constitutional repeal of the birthright citizenship language of the 14th Amendment or the proposed Birthright Citizenship Act of 2009, these U.S.-born descendants of unauthorized immigrants would be denied legal status in the United States, even though in all likelihood they would be thoroughly American in other respects. Their descendants, the third generation and higher, might have no claim to citizenship in the countries of their immigrant ancestors because they and their parents were not born in those countries. In short, the repeal of the 14th Amendment or enactment of the Birthright Citizenship Act would lead to the establishment of a permanent class of unauthorized persons. Do Americans want to set in motion a set of policies guaranteeing that U.S.-born descendants of undocumented immigrants, for generations ahead, face zero opportunities in their own country? This self-perpetuating cohort of noncitizens would never be allowed to apply for citizenship, and therefore would be stuck being strangers in the land of their birth. Worse, repealing birthright citizenship would punish children to a potential second-class existence for the actions of their parents or grandparents. It has the potential to create a subclass of hereditary stateless individuals, and severely hampers the ability of immigrants and their children to assimilate or aspire for upward mobility. Such a permanent underclass is inconceivable given our heritage as a nation of immigrants.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
57
FEBRUARY 2012

4. APPEALS TO END BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP ARE STRONGLY LINKED TO DANGEROUS RACIAL STEREOTYPES Nicole Newman, "Birthright Citizenship: The Fourteenth Amendment's Continuing Protection Against an American Caste System," BOSTON COLLEGE THIRD WORLD LAW JOURNAL v. 28, Spring 2008, p.469-470. When seeking to exclude others, the American community repeatedly asserts that whoever comprises the group of "others" was never intended to comprise "We the people." Each time this argument is employed, it initially receives support from American community members who simultaneously seek to justify both their own inclusion and the exclusion of the "other." Yet, the Fourteenth Amendment cannot be reconciled with this exclusive view of citizenship. If the United States were meant to be "a close white corporation," then the Citizenship Clause would have been written to ensure a jus sanguinis rule of citizenship, whereby only those whose ancestors were citizens at the formation of the Republic could inherit citizenship at birth. Therefore, when contemporary opponents to birthright citizenship argue that illegal immigrants are not a part of "We the people" and should consequently be barred as a group from ascertaining the protections of citizenship, we should be skeptical. Historically, this rationale has been plagued by racist perceptions of superiority and fears that inclusion of the "other" will "infest society," degrading the Anglo-Saxon character of the American community. This type of blatant racism is a deplorable and shameful feature of American history, and it is abhorrent that it remains a major motivation driving national policy today. Nevertheless, U.S. history has not deterred opponents of birthright citizenship from claiming that the presence of illegal immigrants and the inclusion of their children in American society dilutes "traditional American values," eroding the voting power, political representation, public benefits, and entitlements owed to current citizens. Just as the American community created the legal fiction of "partial allegiance" to exclude Native Americans, we should be reminded that the "illegality" of an immigrant is entirely a social and legal construct, which "is neither inherent nor natural, but rather legal and political." The construct serves only to categorize different groups of entrants, but illegality is not a defining characteristic of those entrants at all times.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
58
FEBRUARY 2012

5. OUR ENTIRE CONSTITUTION IS BASED ON EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW -- SHOULD NOT VIOLATE IT HARVARD LAW REVIEW, "The Birthright Citizenship Amendment: A Threat to Equality," v. 107, 3-94, p.1039-1041. Even if Congress and the states agree that the citizenship amendment undermines the equality principle, they remain free to approve it. Yet adoption of an amendment that threatens equality, in this case by classifying children on the basis of parental conduct, has troubling implications that outweigh any benefits of the amendment. A. Philosophical Consequences As the "preeminent symbol of [American] nationhood," the Constitution consists of interwoven and interdependent provisions that, as a whole, project certain core values that define the American polity and how it has chosen to live. As noted in Part I, the equality principle is one such value. In the analogous context of the recent debate over a proposed amendment to ban desecration of the American flag, some commentators argued that the proposal should be rejected, because it would undermine the power of a fundamental principle, namely free expression, that arises from the structure and text of the Constitution. By the insertion into the Constitution of an amendment that would offend the free expression principle so central to the document, the Constitution would be "morally fragmented," and ultimately, the moral and political force of the principle and of the Constitution itself would be diminished. Similarly, to permit a constitutional amendment to contradict a fundamental value as deeply embedded in the Constitution as the equality principle would create conflicting signals about this value and would weaken the moral persuasiveness of the Constitution's message of equality. No amendment to the Constitution has ever abrogated existing rights arising from the equality principle; to adopt one that does offend equality would sully the document and would cast doubt upon the resolve of the polity to safeguard this value. Such an undesirable result would be magnified by the paramount importance of the equality principle to the American identity, for a notion of equal opportunity for all is at the core of the American psyche. But to indicate through the Constitution that certain children shall be treated differently from other children solely on the basis of their parentage would shatter this inspirational value. How can society tell its immigrants, minorities, and disadvantaged that, regardless of one's origins, everyone has a fair chance at success and social acceptance, when through the Constitution, it erects these barriers against a class of innocent children? Moreover, although other nations unify around shared ethnicity or religion, one of the only bases of American national unity is adherence to a political value system, in which the principle of equality is axiomatic. Because of the heterogeneity of this "nation of immigrants," "without principles and without our ideals, we have little that is special or worthy to defend." Thus, Congress and the states should reject this amendment because it exacts too high a price: by seeking to redefine citizenship in a manner offensive to equality, it strikes at the very core of what defines the American polity. Perhaps the most dangerous consequence of the adoption of an amendment that defies the equality principle would be the message it would send to those who would place policy before principle. Opposing the proposed flag-burning amendment, Professor Walter Dellinger argued that it would undermine the "moral legitimacy" of First Amendment principles and "set a dangerous precedent for resorting to the amendment process for the curtailment of the rights of the unpopular." Until now, the equality principle has been a sturdy mast to which society could bind itself to protect against the periodic siren song of sacrificing minority rights for majoritarian purposes. Yet once the Constitution permits inequality that heretofore would not have been tolerated, the talisman of equality loses its potency as a means to rebuff previously unthinkable intrusions, such as future proposals to deny birthright citizenship to children whose parents or grandparents were immigrants, or even the creation of a hierarchy of citizenship, with broader rights and privileges for persons from well-established families. Just as a Supreme Court ruling can create the "loaded weapon" of an exception to constitutional principles "ready for the hand of any authority that can bring forward a plausible claim of urgent need," an amendment to the Constitution that undermines the equality principle can be invoked later to justify further intrusions. Thus, although Congress and the states may legally adopt the citizenship amendment, the philosophical cost is unacceptable.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
59
FEBRUARY 2012
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP DESIRABLE: ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN

1. REPEAL WOULD CREATE AN ENORMOUS REGULATORY BURDEN, INTRUDING ON THE PRIVACY OF EVERY FAMILY THAT GIVES BIRTH Sam Fulwood III, senior fellow and Marshall Fitz, Director, Immigration Policy, "Less Than Citizens: Abolishing Birthright Citizenship Would Create a Permanent Underclass in Our Nation," Center for American Progress, 5-11, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/05/pdf/birthright_brief.html, accessed 1-10-11. This nightmare scenario would begin with the Department of Homeland Security intruding in every hospital 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. Let'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. 2. REPEAL WOULD ADD BUREAUCRATIC RED TAPE TO EVERY DELIVERY ROOM USA TODAY, editorial, "Should Being Born in the USA Make You a Citizen?" 8-31-10, p.10A The opponents also tend to give short shrift to the practical difficulties of enforcement. It's not difficult to envision the joy of childbirth being encumbered by bureaucratic red tape. Is it worth inflicting citizenship tests on the parents of all 4.3 million children born in the USA each year in an effort to identify the estimated 8% born to illegal immigrants? And any sort of delivery-based enforcement mechanism would undoubtedly cause some women to avoid hospitals, endangering the health of mother and child.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
60
FEBRUARY 2012
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP DESIRABLE: ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN cont'd

3. REPEAL WILL ONLY INCREASE ADMINISTRATIVE PROBLEMS, BURDENS ON BUSINESS Katherine Pettit, J.D. Candidate, "Addressing the Call for the Elimination of Birthright Citizenship in the United States: Constitutional and Pragmatic Reasons to Keep Birthright Citizenship Intact," TULANE JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL AND COMPARATIVE LAW v. 15, Winter 2006, p.286-287. Maria Echaveste, in her keynote address at the Working Boarders Conference, commented on the negative impact on society of having different groups living together but with different rights. Not only will we not know who is who, but such practices can lead to racial profiling and have negative consequences for U.S. citizens who may be discriminated against for belonging to the ethnic groups that typically have fewer rights. For example, an employer who is concerned about hiring people with fraudulent documentation might discriminate against anybody he suspects may have fake papers, whether or not that concern is justified. Along a similar line to this argument is the fifth pragmatic concern: eliminating birthright citizenship will create vast administrative difficulties. What status, if any, will children born of undocumented parents receive? Will these children have access to hospitals for their births, and, if so, will they still be issued birth certificates? If so, will proving citizenship now require more than a birth certificate? Do we really want to involve hospital staff in the already complex world of immigration law? Will these illegal babies be reported and deported if discovered by hospital administration? If so, will pregnant undocumented women and their unborn children be put at greater health risks for the sake of immigration enforcement? If one goal of eliminating birthright citizenship is to prevent people from illegally accessing the benefits that accompany living in the modern welfare state, these extra administrative problems and costs may not save any money in the long run and in fact may endanger newborns. The enforcement measures already in place cost a great deal of money and may or may not actually deter unauthorized entry. With this new policy, there could be greater administrative costs related to the birth of every child because each would need to be properly documented. Or, would only children being born to poor Hispanic women in an attempt at racial profiling be suspect? 4. REPEAL WOULD BURDEN FAMILIES Steve Chapman, "Citizenship Should Remain a Birthright," CREATORS SYNDICATE, 6-25-10, lexis. It would be bad for common-sense reasons as well. To start with, it would call into question the status of every new baby. A report by the Immigration Policy Center pointed out that "all American parents would, going forward, have to prove the citizenship of their children through a cumbersome bureaucratic process." This obligation is not something "we" are going to impose on "them." It would be a burden on all new parents, including those whose ancestors debarked at Plymouth Rock.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
61
FEBRUARY 2012
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP DESIRABLE: ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN cont'd

5. BEING FORCED TO PROVE CITIZENSHIP OF THEIR CHILDREN WOULD IMPOSE AN ENORMOUS BURDEN ON FAMILIES Sam Fulwood III, senior fellow and Marshall Fitz, Director, Immigration Policy, "Less Than Citizens: Abolishing Birthright Citizenship Would Create a Permanent Underclass in Our Nation," Center for American Progress, 5-11, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/05/pdf/birthright_brief.html, accessed 1-10-11. 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 the potential 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. In addition to the fees required to submit these new citizenship forms, many families would need to hire lawyers to help them navigate the complex process, thereby driving up costs further. This is a burden that will be most severely felt by the economically disadvantaged. 6. REPEAL WOULD ALSO IMPOSE A LARGE BURDEN ON MILLIONS OF ADULTS Sam Fulwood III, senior fellow and Marshall Fitz, Director, Immigration Policy, "Less Than Citizens: Abolishing Birthright Citizenship Would Create a Permanent Underclass in Our Nation," Center for American Progress, 5-11, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/05/pdf/birthright_brief.html, accessed 1-10-11. Changing birthright citizenship would not only affect new parents, but many adults as well. According to a study by the Brennan Center at New York University, 13 million Americans cannot prove their citizenship. Those earning less than $25,000 a year are twice as likely to be unable to produce U.S. passports, naturalization papers, or birth certificates. Certain groups, including the elderly, minorities, and the poor, are less likely to have proof of citizenship than the general population, thus making the repeal of birthright citizenship especially burdensome for them. Furthermore, for many, proof of citizenship exists, but not with their current name. This is the case for 34 percent of voting-age women. 7. REPEAL WOULD FORCE THE CREATION OF AN ENORMOUS NEW BUREAUCRACY Sam Fulwood III, senior fellow and Marshall Fitz, Director, Immigration Policy, "Less Than Citizens: Abolishing Birthright Citizenship Would Create a Permanent Underclass in Our Nation," Center for American Progress, 5-11, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/05/pdf/birthright_brief.html, accessed 1-10-11. The burden of sorting out these complex, high-stakes issues and, where appropriate, correcting mistakes would inevitably fall on the federal government. Thousands of immigration litigators, bureaucrats, and skilled immigration examiners would be required to carry this sort of process out for every child born in the United States. It is truly amazing that the same people trying to eliminate funding to provide health care to low- and middle-income women in the name of "small government" are simultaneously proposing a massive, deeply intrusive new bureaucracy that will cost taxpayers billions of dollars a year. Think about it. The implications for the Social Security Administration alone are staggering if that agency were to house the new citizenship registry system. Such a system would render the existing birth certificate moot, no longer sufficient to prove citizenship. Everyone in America would need new proof about whether they are a citizen or instead a less-than-citizen.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
62
FEBRUARY 2012
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP DESIRABLE: AMERICAN PRINCIPLES

1. BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP IS KEY TO OUR DEMOCRACY -- ENSURES THAT PEOPLE ARE REPRESENTED IN GOVERNANCE Sara Catherine Barnhart, "Second Class Delivery: The Elimination of Birthright Citizenship as a Repeal of 'The Pursuit of Happiness'," GEORGIA LAW REVIEW v. 42, Winter 2008, p.566-567. One key ideal among the bedrock of American democratic principles is that governments "deriv[e] their just powers from the consent of the governed." In the United States, while this "consent" is articulated through the franchise of the vote, never have all of the governed been allowed to vote. At various times some citizens governed by U.S. authority have retained power or privilege because, through their exercise of the right to vote, they denied privileges to other persons who were also governed but could not vote. Pre-Civil War southern whites justified their denial of the vote to the children of former slaves because, however far removed those children were from their immigrant ancestors, the children were not "citizens." With time, however, the country ultimately rejected the disenfranchisement of the underclass of former slaves and returned to the ideal that those governed deserve a voice in their government. The country has moved consistently, albeit at an irregular pace, towards this ideal by increasing the extent to which the voices of those governed are heard. At each step, "the vote" encompasses more of the governed. The United States has expanded the scope of "the vote" several times, notably adding to its scope first former slaves, then women, then all persons regardless of ability to pay a "poll tax," and most recently to citizens eighteen years of age or older. Birthright citizenship is an important part of this ideal because, since those children born in the United States to undocumented parents and their descendants comprise more and more of the country's "governed," birthright citizenship is essential to guarantee that these people have the right to vote and provide their consent. Thus, however much deterrent effect might "trickle down" to would-be illegal immigrants, the withholding of citizenship status and the resulting denial of the right to vote to generations of descendants is antithetical to one of our most important ideals. Precisely because this ideal is so important, it is enshrined in our Constitution and can not be repealed without withstanding the scrutiny of the States. Such repeal would be as unwise and ineffective as it would be un-American, causing bureaucratic, social, and economic problems without providing a deterrent sufficient to overcome the economic pull of immigrant labor into the United States. Whoever your father or mother was, whatever their race, from wherever they came, if you are born here, you are simply American. We are not separated as Sunni or Shiite, Protestant or Catholic, Lord or Serf. This country's diversity is its strength, and that is something that should never be repealed.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
63
FEBRUARY 2012
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP DESIRABLE: AMERICAN PRINCIPLES cont'd

2. THERE IS NO REASON TO REPEAL BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP -- IT UPHOLDS CORE AMERICAN VALUES Sam Fulwood III, senior fellow and Marshall Fitz, Director, Immigration Policy, "Less Than Citizens: Abolishing Birthright Citizenship Would Create a Permanent Underclass in Our Nation," Center for American Progress, 5-11, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/05/pdf/birthright_brief.html, accessed 1-10-11. The debates during the Reconstruction Congress clearly reinforced the need for a bright-line citizenship rule. Those discussions about the scope and meaning of the 14th Amendment unequivocally set forth the principle that citizenship is conferred at birth, and that any child born in this country is a U.S. citizen. Supreme Court decisions have only affirmed this core premise. Little can be gained by opening the system up to competing claims. Still, some politicians press this lost cause, falsely claiming that the United States is rare among nations granting jus soli -- the right of the soil -- meaning citizenship by birth. There are 28 nations that do so, including Canada and Mexico, our closest neighbors. More importantly, since when were the values upon which this nation was founded and built contingent on how other nations treat their citizens? Indeed, the nation's commitment to the core values of equality and opportunity upon which the 14th Amendment is grounded is the root of America's exceptionalism. Comparative arguments thus fail to persuade. The misguided politicians who pursue this folly must sense short-term potential in divisive electioneering, but invoking the 14th Amendment serves neither their own best interests nor the interests of the country they desire to lead. Why? Fundamentally, their effort to alter the Citizenship Clause offends our deeply felt national values. America is not a country club. We have always welcomed and accommodated individuals, especially immigrants from foreign lands, who wish to contribute to our experiment in self-governing democracy. In their case, citizenship is often a difficult decision, but a choice nonetheless. Not so for the children born on our soil. For them, citizenship is neither earned, nor bartered. Descent does not decide their destiny in America. The appellation "Born in the U.S.A." contradicts the idea that they are less than citizens. It declares directly and forcefully that they are citizens and grants them the full set of rights, which are rooted in the highest moral and legal traditions of our nation. 3. BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP IS A FOUNDATIONAL VALUE -- THERE IS NO REASON TO ELIMINATE IT Sam Fulwood III, senior fellow and Marshall Fitz, Director, Immigration Policy, "Less Than Citizens: Abolishing Birthright Citizenship Would Create a Permanent Underclass in Our Nation," Center for American Progress, 5-11, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/05/pdf/birthright_brief.html, accessed 1-10-11. In a move contrary to the most cherished of American values, a band of ultraconservative activists are targeting the U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants -- and others -- to score political points. Their stated objective is to overturn a bedrock constitutional right: the right of citizenship by birth on American soil. Such efforts are unlikely to succeed, but they must be challenged because they strike at the core of what makes citizenship in this nation so unique, special, and coveted. Rooted in the post-Civil War reforms to reverse the infamous Dred Scott decision and establish birthright citizenship as a right of the then-recently emancipated black slaves, the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, guarantees that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside." For all practical and legal purposes, the law is clear and settled. For more than a century, our nation's courts have affirmed that the 14th Amendment means what it says -- the fundamental measure of citizenship in the United States is rooted in the soil on which an American is born. It stands in direct opposition to notions that America is some sort of country club, a place where the vagaries of politics, prejudices, or popularity may recognize some and exclude others. Birthright citizenship is a profound American value.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
64
FEBRUARY 2012
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP DESIRABLE: AMERICAN PRINCIPLES cont'd

4. BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP SHOULD BE RETAINED -- KEY TO UPHOLDING OUR IDEALS OF EQUALITY Sara Catherine Barnhart, "Second Class Delivery: The Elimination of Birthright Citizenship as a Repeal of 'The Pursuit of Happiness'," GEORGIA LAW REVIEW v. 42, Winter 2008, p.565-566. Birthright citizenship should be retained because it is part of our American tradition that values meritorious achievement and individual autonomy. The core of the Fourteenth Amendment was to ensure that slavery, a system that denied citizenship on the basis of who one's mother or father was, would never return. Slavery was based on the idea that the only way to maintain privilege was to deny it to someone else. This philosophy does not represent American values and contradicts our most prized ideals. Additionally, elimination of birthright citizenship will create numerous practical difficulties. Evidentiary problems will create serious administrative challenges and may impact detrimentally the lives of many who may be unable to prove citizenship. Old laws will need to be rewritten and new laws will need to be enacted in order to address the new immigration issues that may arise. Further, repealing birthright citizenship will have negative effects on society as a whole. It will generate a large group of individuals ineligible for both social-welfare benefits and gainful employment, thus creating a permanently disenfranchised class. Creating a caste system is not only reminiscent of what the colonists fought to avoid, it also plants the seeds of social and political turmoil. 5. REPEAL VIOLATES THE EQUALITY PRINCIPLE HARVARD LAW REVIEW, "The Birthright Citizenship Amendment: A Threat to Equality," v. 107, 3-94, p.1035-1036. As a proposed amendment, the citizenship amendment would not be subject to judicial review under equal protection analysis. However, just as a rule that denied birthright citizenship to American-born children based on race would conflict with the equality principle, this citizenship classification would offend the aspect of equality at issue in the illegitimacy cases and in Plyler. This conclusion becomes apparent upon consideration of the important factors in the illegitimacy cases as applied to the context of the citizenship amendment. At birth, American-born children of undocumented aliens are within the scope of equality. By drawing a distinction based on whether a child's mother is a citizen or permanent resident, the amendment effectively treats the children of the undocumented differently from others on the basis of their parents' illegal entry, a factor beyond their control. As the citizenship amendment has explicitly been characterized as a measure to discourage undocumented immigration, it also classifies children in order to alter behavior of the children's parents. This equality analysis remains valid even though, absent the present Fourteenth Amendment, American-born children of undocumented aliens would have no right or entitlement to citizenship. Not only did the children in Plyler lack any fundamental right to public education, but the children in illegitimacy cases were not denied rights to which they were fundamentally entitled. The conflict with equality arises because, once the government creates a right, it cannot deny that right to some children based on parental circumstances. If the government chooses to grant citizenship based on situs of birth, to deny citizenship to a child born in the United States, when the only factor that distinguishes her from the next child in the maternity ward is that her mother entered the country unlawfully, would offend the principle of equality.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
65
FEBRUARY 2012
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP DESIRABLE: CHILD PUNISHMENT

1. CHILDREN SHOULD HAVE EQUAL RIGHTS REGARDLESS OF THE ACTIONS OF THEIR PARENTS HARVARD LAW REVIEW, "The Birthright Citizenship Amendment: A Threat to Equality," v. 107, 3-94, p.1033-1035. This principle can be and has been applied to children of undocumented aliens. Such an extension is justified because children of the undocumented share important and relevant characteristics with illegitimate children: first, they are persons to whom the equality principle should apply; second, they lack control over or responsibility for their status; third, they face discrimination whose purpose is to alter the behavior of their parents, not themselves. Just as illegitimate children are persons entitled to equal protection, undocumented aliens and their children fall within the scope of the equality principle because they are within the United States. This premise is based primarily on the fact that the Equal Protection Clause is not limited to citizens or legal residents, but covers "any person within [the] jurisdiction" of a state. Although under traditional understandings of national sovereignty, aliens outside the jurisdiction of the United States generally have no claim to constitutional protections, the Supreme Court has held that equal protection applies to "all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race or color, or of nationality." Because they are subject to American laws, undocumented aliens and their children within the United States are generally encompassed by the equality principle. Just as illegitimate children cannot, by themselves, remove the label of "illegitimate," children of undocumented aliens lack the power to change their status. Legally and practically, children must reside where their parents choose to reside. In Plyler v. Doe, the Court struck down a state law that permitted exclusion of children of undocumented aliens from public schools because it discriminated against certain children "on the basis of a legal characteristic over which children can have little control." Furthermore, children of the undocumented, like illegitimate children, are "morally blameless" in their status. Quoting Weber for the proposition that the "no child is responsible for his birth," the Plyler Court noted that the children's lack of accountability for their status casts doubt on the classification's consistency with "fundamental conceptions of justice." Children of undocumented aliens also mirror illegitimate children in that they may be the victims of laws that seek to alter the behavior of their parents, not of themselves. Just as classifications based on illegitimacy frequently sought to alter parental lifestyles, laws aimed at the children of undocumented aliens may seek to deter parents' undocumented migration. Philosophically, the equality principle does not permit the government to "single out undocumented children as a way of expressing opposition to illegal activity for which they are not responsible." Practically, a government effort "to control the conduct of adults by acting against their children" constitutes a "ludicrously ineffectual attempt to stem the tide of illegal immigration." Thus, because the children of undocumented aliens, like illegitimate children, are both helpless and blameless in their status and are likely to face classifications intended to alter the conduct of their parents, the principle of equality generally does not countenance classifications that treat such children differently from others.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
66
FEBRUARY 2012
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP DESIRABLE: CHILD PUNISHMENT cont'd

2. CHILDREN SHOULD NOT BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE CRIMINAL ACTS OF THEIR PARENTS Katherine Pettit, J.D. Candidate, "Addressing the Call for the Elimination of Birthright Citizenship in the United States: Constitutional and Pragmatic Reasons to Keep Birthright Citizenship Intact," TULANE JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL AND COMPARATIVE LAW v. 15, Winter 2006, p.284. Second, in the U.S. justice system, an individual cannot be held liable or criminalized for an act of his parents. The Constitution states that "the Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood except during the Life of the Person attainted." In Plyler v. Doe, the Supreme Court refused to allow states to deny education to undocumented children based on the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court explained that arguments for denying state benefits to those who entered illegally "do not apply with the same force to classifications imposing disabilities on the minor children of such illegal entrants. The children who are plaintiffs in these cases "can affect neither their parents' conduct nor their own status.'" Similarly, here, to attempt to deter or punish the behavior of adults by stripping their children of a constitutional right and degrading them to the status of an illegal alien is neither just nor legal. Such a transition would lead the courts in a direction that few would like to see. Furthermore, such a move would not be justifiable because the children are more integrated into U.S. society than the society from which their parents came. 3. CHILDREN SHOULD NOT BE PUNISHED FOR THE CRIMES OF THEIR PARENTS HARVARD LAW REVIEW, "The Birthright Citizenship Amendment: A Threat to Equality," v. 107, 3-94, p.1030-1031. Although the equality principle mandates that persons in like situations should be treated similarly, the concept itself does not provide guidance as to which factors may permit differential treatment. One source of insight into which distinctions and circumstances offend equality is the Supreme Court's equal protection jurisprudence, which has indicated that bases of classification such as race, gender, and national origin generally contradict the equality principle. Indeed, the citizenship amendment may implicate these issues, for its requirement that a child's mother be a citizen or legal resident treats fathers inequitably, and the enforcement of its provisions may engender race and national origin discrimination. Yet at a more fundamental level, the proposal runs afoul of an important manifestation of the equality principle identified by the Court in cases involving classifications against illegitimate children: the general rule that similarly situated children should not be treated differently solely because of their parents' conduct.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
67
FEBRUARY 2012
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP DESIRABLE: CHILD WELFARE/STATELESSNESS

1. REPEAL WILL ONLY HARM THE CHILDREN INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN, "Stripping Birthright Won't Be Full Solution," 12-13-05, lexis. The costs? Children of illegal immigrants, here through no fault of their own, will suffer most immediately. Imagine growing up somewhere your whole life attending school, making friends, thinking of it as home and then being deported to a country where you've never been and where you may not even speak the language. Society will suffer too. Imagine yourself for a moment, born into a country that considered you a non-citizen, sought to deport you and your parents and otherwise made your life significantly more difficult relative to most people around you. Might you develop animosity toward that country? The longer we live with a large population of illegal immigrants in our midst, the more grave the threat we face from an unassimilated immigrant population who, understandably, lack loyalty to America. 2. REPEAL WOULD CREATE A PERMANENT UNDERCLASS, RISKS LEAVING CHILDREN STATELESS Cynthia M. Smith, policy advisor, Office of Migration Policy and Public Affairs, "Birthright Citizenship: The Real Story," ISSUE BRIEFING n. 2, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2011, http://www.rcan.org/images/humanconcerns/2011bc.pdf, accessed 1-11-12. The USCCB opposes the repeal of birthright citizenship because it would render innocent children stateless, depriving them of the ability to thrive in their communities and reach their full potential. The USCCB believes that a repeal of birthright citizenship would create a permanent underclass in U.S. society, contravening U.S. democratic tradition; undermining the human dignity of innocent children who would be punished though they did nothing wrong; and ultimately weakening the family. Because of this, the USCCB opposes the current efforts underway for its repeal.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
68
FEBRUARY 2012
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP DESIRABLE: ECONOMIC COMPETITIVENESS

REPEAL THREATENS OUR LONG-TERM ECONOMIC COMPETITIVENESS -- DENIES EDUCATIONAL BENEFITS TO MANY CHILDREN Sam Fulwood III, senior fellow and Marshall Fitz, Director, Immigration Policy, "Less Than Citizens: Abolishing Birthright Citizenship Would Create a Permanent Underclass in Our Nation," Center for American Progress, 5-11, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/05/pdf/birthright_brief.html, accessed 1-10-11. The costs of such short-sighted policy are similarly incalculable. Revoking birthright citizenship to hundreds of thousands of kids would mean denying them the ability to become prosperous members of society. These children would be barred from accessing the social and political institutions that their U.S. counterparts would be guaranteed. They would be unable to obtain legal employment, a driver's license, affordable healthcare, or federal financial aid. Indeed, these children would be denied the American Dream from the get-go. As it stands now, the United States lags far behind the rest of the developed world in producing scientists and engineers. Repealing birthright citizenship would severely reduce the ability of the children of immigrants to thrive educationally, and would make the idea of college graduation, let alone job retention in critical fields such as science or engineering, virtually impossible. An educated population is a productive population. Repealing birthright citizenship will do no favors to U.S. productivity and economic production. Consider the most telling foreign experience: Germany, a country that long withheld citizenship from the children of their guest workers turned residents, has seen the education and attainment level of second-generation students fall far behind their native peers. One study shows that second-generation students perform at a score level 93 points below that of their native counterparts, which equates to one-and-a-half proficiency levels.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
69
FEBRUARY 2012
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP DESIRABLE: EQUITY/SECOND CLASS STATUS

1. ENDING BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP THREATENS EQUALITY HARVARD LAW REVIEW, "The Birthright Citizenship Amendment: A Threat to Equality," v. 107, 3-94, p.1028. This Note argues that Congress and the states should reject the proposed citizenship amendment because it conflicts with one of the foundations upon which American society is built -- the principle of equality before the law. One facet of this constitutionally based principle, as illustrated by the Supreme Court's jurisprudence relating to illegitimate children, demands that certain children not be treated differently from other children solely on account of the actions or status of their parents. Because the equality principle encompasses the case of American-born children of undocumented aliens, the citizenship amendment would thus conflict with this ideal. Such a change would be problematic on two levels. Philosophically, the injection of such a contradiction into the Constitution would weaken its inspirational and normative message and raise doubts about the nation's adherence to a fundamental ideal that is integral to the American identity. Practically, rather than defend the United States from perceived threats to unity, the citizenship amendment's conflict with the equality principle is likely to alienate certain segments of society and thus to threaten social cohesion. 2. EQUALITY IS CENTRAL TO OUR SOCIETY AND SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT HARVARD LAW REVIEW, "The Birthright Citizenship Amendment: A Threat to Equality," v. 107, 3-94, p.1028-1030. As an important component of American society since colonial times, the principle of equality has remained central to political thought throughout the nation's history. The concept most clearly derives from the Declaration of Independence, which identified the "self-evident Truth" that "all Men are created equal." The Constitution as a whole embodies this principle, as evidenced by the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV and the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause's embodiment of equal treatment. Concerned with equality, the Founders expressly prohibited not only Congress, but also the states, from granting titles of nobility. The Constitution as originally drafted, however, could not serve as a reliable source of the equality principle because it accepted and institutionalized slavery. Necessarily, the Civil War amendments partially corrected this flaw, and subsequent amendments pertaining to voting rights have addressed other inequities. Any doubts as to the Constitution's commitment to equality are allayed by the Fourteenth Amendment, and particularly by its Equal Protection Clause, which mandates that "all persons similarly situated should be treated alike" by the government. Indeed, the fundamental principle of equality is the "the rock upon which our Constitution rests." The importance of the constitutional value of equality is echoed elsewhere in American law. The equality protections of the Civil Rights Act require that not only the government, but also private citizens, live by this principle. Equality also underlies legislation such as the Voting Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Numerous state constitutions include equality provisions, some of which have been interpreted more broadly than the federal Constitution, and many states have established anti-discrimination laws. Even outside of discrimination law, the commitment to equal treatment pervades the law. Equality, therefore, is a principle around which the American identity is formed. As President Franklin Roosevelt once noted, "We are a nation of many nationalities, many races, many religions -- bound together by a single unity, the unity of freedom and equality."
PARADIGM RESEARCH
70
FEBRUARY 2012
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP DESIRABLE: EQUITY/SECOND CLASS STATUS cont'd

3. REPEAL WOULD DRIVE UNDOCUMENTED PERSONS UNDERGROUND, THREATENS TO CREATE A PERMANENT UNDERCLASS Katherine Pettit, J.D. Candidate, "Addressing the Call for the Elimination of Birthright Citizenship in the United States: Constitutional and Pragmatic Reasons to Keep Birthright Citizenship Intact," TULANE JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL AND COMPARATIVE LAW v. 15, Winter 2006, p.284-285. The third argument is that removing birthright citizenship would "merely drive these people further underground into an "underclass' within our society." Author William Rogers Brubaker argues along similar lines that as far as ideals and aspects of membership "state-membership should be egalitarian." Many people would argue that the United States already has a subclass of people who work behind the scenes, in fields, in kitchens, on construction sites, and in hotel laundry rooms. Denying birthright citizenship would push more people into low-paying under-the-table employment, increasing the vulnerability to exploitation discussed above. The goal should be to legitimate people and allow them to fully participate in society rather than push them to the outskirts or underground. Joseph Carens argues that individuals "have a moral right to be citizens of any society of which they are members." Erring on the side of extreme examples, he might characterize what is happening with the Turks in Germany or migrant workers in the United States as similar to how slaves and freed Blacks were historically treated in the United States, the system of apartheid in South Africa, or the legal status of Jews under Nuremberg laws. While these comparisons may seem exaggerated and appalling, this is the direction that is taken when states deny rights to people who are functional members of society. The United States has a proud tradition of representative government; thus, it would seem contrary to U.S. ideals to exclude long-term residents from political participation, especially if they did not come to the United States illegally (but were born here) and have no reason to move to the nation of their parents' origin. 4. ENDING BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP WOULD CREATE HUGE NUMBERS OF SECOND-CLASS CITIZENS Jason Marczak, senior editor, "Birthright Citizenship is the Wrong Debate," AMERICAS QUARTERLY, 1-1411, http://americasquarterly.org/node/2112, accessed 1-4-12. But constitutional arguments aside, what we're really talking about when it comes to moving away from a jus soli (citizenship at birth) system is creating yet another underclass of people in the United States. In 2008, according to the Pew Hispanic Center, an estimated 340,000 of the 4.3 million U.S.-born babies (8 percent of total births) had parents who were undocumented immigrants. And in total, as of 2009, 4 million U.S.-born children had parents without status. And these children could forever remain in limbo, unable to obtain citizenship in their country of birth or possibly in the land from which their parents immigrated. The Migration Policy Institute estimates that the result could be a growth in the undocumented population from 11 million to 16 million by 2050. These estimates are likely conservative as multiple generations of undocumented children would be created -- all without the same opportunities as their neighbors to reach their full potential as workers or consumers. 5. REPEAL WOULD CREATE A PERMANENT UNDERCLASS Immigration Policy Center, "Eliminating Birthright Citizenship Would Not Solve the Problem of Unauthorized Immigration," 1-4-11, http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/eliminating-birthright-citizenship-would-not-solve-problem-unauth orized-immigration, accessed 1-11-12. Repealing birthright citizenship would create a new permanent underclass. While some children could acquire the citizenship of their parents, others would be left with no citizenship or nationality, leaving them stateless. Children may have no legal home country to turn to. They would be forced to live in the margins of the international community. Repealing birthright citizenship would create an underclass of unauthorized immigrants who, through no fault of their own, would be forced to live in the margins of U.S. society, would not have access to health care and basic services, would be vulnerable to exploitation and abuse, and would be at constant risk of deportation.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
71
FEBRUARY 2012

6. FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT WAS EXPLICITLY WRITTEN TO PREVENT THE DEVELOPMENT OF A PERMANENT UNDERCLASS Nicole Newman, "Birthright Citizenship: The Fourteenth Amendment's Continuing Protection Against an American Caste System," BOSTON COLLEGE THIRD WORLD LAW JOURNAL v. 28, Spring 2008, p.471-472. Arguments that children of illegal immigrants were not born with the requisite allegiance, refuse to assimilate because they eventually intend to return to their homeland, or degrade the American polity with their crime and drugs are not new. They are exact replicas of claims made against freed slaves, Chinese laborers, and Native Americans -- all of whom are entitled to citizenship through birth within the territory of the United States. Although these assertions arguably have a historical basis and have gained support among Americans continuously in fear of the "other," they remain inconsistent with the primary goal of the Fourteenth Amendment: to eliminate a hereditary system of racial caste in America. The Citizenship Clause was never meant to be a narrowly construed scheme designed merely to give status to freed African Americans, but rather a broadly written affirmation of ascriptive rights. It was constructed to eliminate the system that mandated a permanent subclass of peoples, who would inherit paltry legal rights and protections with each generation. The Supreme Court's interpretation of the Citizenship Clause in Wong Kim Ark was not a mistake; basing citizenship entirely on parentage necessarily leads down the path of injustice suffered by Dred Scott. Guaranteeing birthright citizenship to the population of children born to illegal immigrants in the United States today is consistent with this primary goal of the Fourteenth Amendment, preventing such fundamental injustice from occurring. Therefore, the term "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" should not be reinterpreted, and the children of illegal immigrants should not be specifically carved out of birthright citizenship though a new constitutional amendment. These proposals are reactionary, and, as we have seen in the past, only result in the subversion of the original purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment by creating a permanent class of "subordinate and inferior" beings. 7. BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP IS IMPORTANT IN PROTECTING INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS Katherine Pettit, J.D. Candidate, "Addressing the Call for the Elimination of Birthright Citizenship in the United States: Constitutional and Pragmatic Reasons to Keep Birthright Citizenship Intact," TULANE JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL AND COMPARATIVE LAW v. 15, Winter 2006, p.281-282. After examining the situation in Germany, which has a permanent population of nonresidents, there are other similarly pragmatic reasons why denying birthright citizenship to those born in the United States would be a poor policy decision. Primarily, "the jus soli model secures the rights of the individual and the immigrant against the incursions of a federal sovereignty." From a human rights perspective, it is better to have more people whose rights are protected by the cover of citizenship. While all people physically present in the United States are guaranteed some rights, the plenary power of Congress over immigration law has the potential to intrude more deeply into the rights of noncitizens. The often-repeated words of the Supreme Court in Mathews v. Diaz, state that "[in] the exercise of its broad power over naturalization and immigration, Congress regularly makes rules that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens." With the high amount of media coverage of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, U.S. citizens cannot deny that how individuals are defined legally has a great impact on their rights. Some may argue that additional congressional powers over foreigners are needed to protect the nation against terrorists. How that translates into denying foreigners due process, a right to counsel, or even freedom from torture is a murky legal question. How that would translate into denying rights to people born on U.S. soil, who are not technically "foreigners" by any traditional standard, is an even murkier question. Whatever the result, it is clear that the simplest way to avoid infringing on people's rights is to recognize the existence of those rights. The easiest way to do that here is by liberally granting citizenship.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
72
FEBRUARY 2012

8. REPEAL WOULD CREATE A GROUP OF SECOND-CLASS CITIZENS Sara Catherine Barnhart, "Second Class Delivery: The Elimination of Birthright Citizenship as a Repeal of 'The Pursuit of Happiness'," GEORGIA LAW REVIEW v. 42, Winter 2008, p.559. The benefit of jus soli is that the United States will continue to have no caste of hereditary aliens, which is consistent with the intent of the framers. By eliminating the "second generation problem" for immigrants, citizenship encourages assimilation and involvement in the political system. "[Immigrants] are thereby encouraged to embrace life here as full participants, not as half-hearted, standoffish 'guests.' " Further, if they are given citizenship rights, they will be treated equally in society rather than as second-class citizens. Assimilation and equality encourages social harmony and discourages conflict. Jus soli protects all persons born in the United States. In order to prove citizenship, one needs only to show evidence of his or her place of birth, which can be evidenced by a birth certificate. If birthright citizenship were eliminated, persons born in the United States would be required to "demonstrate the immigrant status of their parents at the time of their birth, or of their grandparents at the time of their parents' birth." This raises serious problems of proof. Hospital personnel would be required to make an immigration determination at the time of birth. Even if documents were available, someone's legal status on an exact day can be complex. In addition, the consequences of an error would be grave, especially if it ends in denying a child U.S. citizenship and all the benefits that status entails. 9. PREVENTS THE DEVELOPMENT OF A PERMANENT UNDERCLASS Sara Catherine Barnhart, "Second Class Delivery: The Elimination of Birthright Citizenship as a Repeal of 'The Pursuit of Happiness'," GEORGIA LAW REVIEW v. 42, Winter 2008, p.542. Today workers and their families who have decided to remain in the United States face much adversity. They must either prove they are of legal status and authorized to work or find another way to live. Migrant workers in the United States already face many problems "that result from the creation of an uninsured, underclass of persons. Given the history of the Mexican labor supply plus the close proximity of Mexico to the United States, however, the stream of immigrating Mexicans is unlikely to slow anytime in the near future. The grant of citizenship to all persons born in the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment acts as a limiting force on the growth of the undocumented population. Even when the parents of an American-born child are undocumented, their child will receive the full opportunities that America has to offer. As a result, the "underclass" status is not perpetuated for an entire social group. With the protection of the Citizenship Clause, the American Dream is at most one generation away.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
73
FEBRUARY 2012
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP DESIRABLE: GENDER CONCERNS

1. ENDING BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP IS JUST AN ATTACK ON LATINOS AND IMMIGRANT WOMEN Gebe Martinez, Ann Garcia, and Jessica Arons, Center for American Progress, "Birthright Citizenship Debate Is a Thinly Veiled Attack on Immigrant Mothers," STATES NEWS SERVICE, 8-18-10, lexis. This election cycle conservatives are intoxicated with immigrant bashing, particularly pregnant immigrant women and their children. Their tactic: change the U.S. Constitution to deny citizenship to babies born in this country to undocumented women. This is a cynical strategy that explicitly targets Latino communities, the fastest-growing segment of the electorate. These desperate politicians would rather get rid of these new voters than do the hard work of cultivating them. In their quest for power they will do or say anything to get elected. This is also an ugly strategy fueled by sexism and racism. It taps into a long history of population control government efforts to curb growth among disfavored populations. During slavery, the children slaveowners sired with their slaves were deemed slaves themselves who could be sold as chattel, thereby increasing the wealth of the owner rather than the size of his family. Chinese women in the 1800s were labeled prostitutes and denied visas to join their husbands who labored on our railroads. And black women, Native American women, and Latinas were routinely sterilized either without their knowledge or without their consent as recently as the 1970s. Conservatives rhetoric on this issue is particularly insulting, likening the human birthing process to that of farm animals. They come here to drop a child. Its called drop and leave, said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) during an interview on Fox News. Grahams comments were especially shocking given his past leading role as a sponsor of comprehensive immigration reform legislation aimed at uniting, not dividing families. 2. REPEAL WOULD UNFAIRLY TARGET WOMEN Priscilla Huang, Reproductive Justice Project Director, National Asian Pacific Women's Forum, "Which Babies Are Real Americans?" TOMPAINE.COM, 2-20 -- 07, www.tompaine.com/articles/2007/02/20/which_babies_are_real_americans.php, accessed 1-7-12. Today's immigration debate extends beyond the goal of limiting the rights and humanity of immigrants: It's about controlling who may be considered an American. Anti-immigrant activists contend that American citizenship is not about where you were born, but who gave birth to you. By extension, they believe -- the 14th amendment notwithstanding -- that the government must limit the reproductive capacities of immigrant women. Thus, immigrant women of childbearing age are central targets of unjust immigration reform policies. Anti-immigrant groups, such as the Federation of American Immigration Reform (FAIR), believe immigrant women of childbearing age are a significant source of the country's so-called "illegal immigration crisis" and want to limit the number of immigrant births on U.S. soil. They are calling for changes to jus soli, our birthright citizenship laws. Unfortunately, some Congressional members are listening.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
74
FEBRUARY 2012
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP DESIRABLE: GENDER CONCERNS cont'd

3. REPEAL WOULD UNFAIRLY BURDEN WOMEN AND CHILDREN BORN TO LOW-INCOME FAMILIES Sam Fulwood III, senior fellow and Marshall Fitz, Director, Immigration Policy, "Less Than Citizens: Abolishing Birthright Citizenship Would Create a Permanent Underclass in Our Nation," Center for American Progress, 5-11, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/05/pdf/birthright_brief.html, accessed 1-10-11. The denial of citizenship to babies born in this country to undocumented women, the majority of whom are women of color, is undeniably an attack on immigrant women's fertility. Accusations that immigrant women give birth to "anchor babies" in order to gain the right to citizenship for themselves and their families are based on made-up anecdotes -- myths that depict immigrant women as less than human and that underscore the racist and sexist tone of anti-immigrant sentiment. Proposals to eliminate birthright citizenship would inevitably lead to ethnic profiling of pregnant women. In fact, without statutory prompting, this has already occurred in Utah. Two state government workers sent the names of 1,300 people to law enforcement and the news media because they suspected them of being undocumented immigrants. The list included the due dates of pregnant women, practically an invitation for harassment, and most likely a violation of federal health privacy laws. The impact of repealing birthright citizenship would disproportionately impact children born to families with low incomes. Why? Because a newborn's ability to access care through Medicaid or the State Children's Health Insurance Program may depend on his or her citizenship status. Bureaucratic hurdles for demonstrating citizenship would unavoidably result in delayed care for newborns, and delays and/or restrictions on access to such essential medical services as well-baby visits or vaccinations. As Priscilla Huang, associate policy director at the Asian & Pacific Islander American Health Forum, concludes: "Immigrant women are particularly prone to ideological attacks, as well as punitive welfare and immigration policies, because of their capacity for child-bearing." Revoking birthright citizenship would create a context in which such attacks and policies will only escalate, hurting some of our nation's most vulnerable women and children. This is a path that serves neither our values nor our self-interest.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
75
FEBRUARY 2012
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP DESIRABLE: MULTIWARRANT/GENERAL

1. NO JUSTIFICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT -- BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP IS A KEY LEGAL PRINCIPLE, PROBLEMS OF IMMIGRATION ARE BEST ADDRESSED BY STATUTE DESERET MORNING NEWS, "Don't Alter Constitution," 9-10 -- 10, lexis. What is not required in these poignant debates, however, is alteration of the U.S. Constitution through amendment. The birthright citizenship provided by the 14th Amendment of the Constitution derives directly from a venerable common-law tradition that recognizes that every child born within a country's borders is a natural-born citizen. Exceptions to this approach were made for children born to foreign diplomats or detained alien enemies. Birthright citizenship is an Anglo-American tradition that importantly recognizes the rights of individuals within a territorially defined state in contrast to the continental European practice known as the "right of blood" (in Latin: jus sanguinis) the policy of defining citizenship by ancestry or ethnicity. While it is true that fewer and fewer countries are practicing the norm of granting automatic citizenship to anyone born within their borders, prudence dictates that we should avoid altering our Constitution in order to address contemporary policy concerns related to birthright citizenship. The constitutional amendment process has been most successful in addressing perceived defects in the structure of government (e.g., presidential terms or presidential succession) or expanding political participation and rights (e.g., suffrage for women). Of the 17 amendments ratified since the passage of the Bill of Rights, only two legislated public policy -- one to impose and then one to repeal prohibition. Most of the perceived public policy problems associated with birthright citizenship such as "chain migration" attached to an "anchor baby" are largely a function of congressional statutes that build upon citizenship rights, not the constitutional provision of birthright citizenship itself. Our Constitution provides the stable ground rules for how legitimate interests can peacefully hash out challenging public policy issues. Let's not confuse our enduring Constitution with ever-changing public policy. Immigration policy needs deliberation and reform. Let's not, however, change ground rules that have served us well for 142 years by tinkering with the 14th Amendment and the principles it enshrines. 2. ANY BENEFITS OF REPEAL ARE OUTWEIGHED BY THE HARMS -- WE SHOULD NOT GIVE IN TO XENOPHOBIA Katherine Pettit, J.D. Candidate, "Addressing the Call for the Elimination of Birthright Citizenship in the United States: Constitutional and Pragmatic Reasons to Keep Birthright Citizenship Intact," TULANE JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL AND COMPARATIVE LAW v. 15, Winter 2006, p.289. The United States currently has an illegally present subclass who have citizen children. Making the children of these individuals also illegal will not solve the immigration problems that exist today. The practical consequences of making such a move will only result in fewer legal protections, greater stigma, and a push deeper into the shadows for a greater number of people. The United States must find other ways to alleviate the restrictionists' fears without harming its own society, which, for better or worse, is made of up of illegal immigrants. Beyond the discussion above, there are certainly other rights that would be implicated by such a policy change. Would such a move be seen as regulating the reproductive rights (and thus the constitutionally-protected right to privacy) of a discrete population? Would denying citizenship to infants prevent a battered and undocumented mother from seeking police protection for fear of removal for both herself and her child or potentially result in the mother being removed without the child and the child being left with a citizen abuser? Ending birthright citizenship clearly has impacts beyond what has been anticipated by its proponents that need to be seriously considered. The issue of birthright citizenship should not be taken lightly, used to stir the emotions of an agitated population, or used to win a political campaign. Birthright citizenship has real and serious effects for many people. While there may be rational and legal arguments for building a nation on principles of mutual consent, these arguments are outweighed by the urgent and surpassing need to protect everyone within the territory of the United States from the whims of xenophobia. Finally, the fact that some people have abused the immigration system in the past has never been an excuse to deny protection to those who need and deserve it. Birthright citizenship should be left intact.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
76
FEBRUARY 2012
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP DESIRABLE: MULTIWARRANT/GENERAL cont'd

3. REPEAL IS NOT JUSTIFIED -- SHOULD ACTUALLY OFFER DOCUMENTED STATUS TO MORE PEOPLE FROM MEXICO Rogers M. Smith, Christopher H. Browne Distinguished Professor of Political Science, University of Pennsylvania, "The Terrible Mistake of Revoking Birthright Citizenship: U.S. Owes Mexicans More, Not Less," NEW YORK DAILY NEWS, 1-6-11, http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-01-06/news/27086567_1_mexican-immigrants-birthright-citizenship-legalimmigration The states have no power to pass the first proposed law. Congress may be able to, but it is a bad idea that will not halt illegal immigration. It also has no chance to pass the Senate or override President Obama's certain veto. If it were enacted, the courts would strike it down. It is symbolic politics expressing special hostility to Mexican immigrants, who comprise almost 60% of the nation's undocumented population. This is a the opposite of how we should be making immigration policy. The U.S. owes more, not less, to Mexico and its immigrants than it does to other nations. Why? Because the U.S. has treated Mexico in ways that it has treated no other nation, creating potent incentives for Mexicans to move north. Yet our immigration policy applies the same per-country cap to Mexico that it does to countries from which few wish to leave. If the U.S. apportioned more of its overall legal immigration admissions to Mexicans, it would do far more to reduce its numbers of illegal aliens than any change in birthright citizenship would. To suggest that the U.S. privilege Mexicans over other nationals is heresy in Washington -- not to mention in Arizona. But it is common sense if one studies history. 4. ENDING BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP WOULD CREATE A HUGE NUMBER OF PROBLEMS Philippe Nassif, "The Dangers of Repealing Birthright Citizenship," Center for American Progress, 5-17-11, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/05/repealing_birthright.html, accessed 1-10-11. A CAP report released this month from CAP Senior Fellow Sam Fulwood III and Director for Immigration Policy Marshall Fitz explains the cascading effect of unforeseen, unintended, and unwanted consequences a retreat on birthright citizenship would set in motion, among them: "Big Brother" in every hospital delivery room, a profoundly costly and intrusive process of checking and verifying documents for every baby born in the United States A new underclass of less-than-citizens who are marginalized from society and detract from our future economic competitiveness Women burdened with childbearing decisions depending on citizenship parentage, endangering the newly born and their mothers in our country An America that is suddenly and deeply anti-immigrant -- contrary to our historical heritage and core national values and undermining our cherished democratic system, built by and for immigrants Nevertheless, the matter is not dead in the eyes of some politicians. On January 25, 2011, Sens. Rand Paul (R-KY) and David Vitter (R-LA) introduced legislation to amend the Constitution and restrict citizenship to those newborns who can prove that one of their parents is a U.S. citizen, a legal immigrant, or an active member of the Armed Forces at the moment of the child's birth. 5. SOME PERMUTATIONS OF REPEAL WOULD ACTUALLY FORCE SPOUSES TO STAY WITH THEIR ABUSERS Sara Catherine Barnhart, "Second Class Delivery: The Elimination of Birthright Citizenship as a Repeal of 'The Pursuit of Happiness'," GEORGIA LAW REVIEW v. 42, Winter 2008, p.562-563. 5.The Gender and Family Dimension. The 2005 Act would have limited automatic citizenship at birth to children born in wedlock to at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident, or to children born out of wedlock to a mother who is a citizen or lawful permanent resident. Congress is well aware of problems of spousal or domestic abuse in immigrant communities. In order to control their wives, citizen or lawful resident husbands may intentionally keep them undocumented. Requiring that the mother be a citizen or legal permanent resident if the child is born out of wedlock only encourages a woman to stay with her abuser. This would affect detrimentally children who were born prior to the marital union of their father and mother or whose parents never marry. The 2007 Citizenship Act and the 2007 Reform Act do not include this limiting language.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
77
FEBRUARY 2012
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP DESIRABLE: MULTIWARRANT/GENERAL cont'd

6. REPEAL WOULD THREATEN U.S. RELATIONS WITH MEXICO Katherine Pettit, J.D. Candidate, "Addressing the Call for the Elimination of Birthright Citizenship in the United States: Constitutional and Pragmatic Reasons to Keep Birthright Citizenship Intact," TULANE JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL AND COMPARATIVE LAW v. 15, Winter 2006, p.288-289. The final pragmatic concern that policy makers should consider is the effect such a policy would have on the U.S. diplomatic relationship with Mexico. The legal status of foreigners is a political question that affects a state's relations with other states. It is impossible to predict the exact outcome such a move would create, but stripping children of rights they have enjoyed since the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment and prior to that through the common law is not likely to be well received. While those in Congress may be more focused on the immediate demands of their constituents, the Executive Branch needs to pay attention to the debate and be prepared to respond to the foreign affairs consequences.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
78
FEBRUARY 2012
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP DESIRABLE: RACE CONCERNS

1. THEIR ADVOCACY WILL PRODUCE RACIALLY BIASED OUTCOMES EVEN IF THIS IS NOT THEIR INTENT Mae M. Ngai, Professor, History, Columbia University, "Ne Dimensions of Citizenship: Contribution: Birthright Citizenship and the Alien Citizen," FORDHAM LAW REVIEW v. 74, 4-07, p.2527. Opponents of birthright citizenship generally do not argue directly in terms of racial difference or racial exclusion. This may be because they are not motivated by racism or, if they are, they know it is socially unacceptable and legally dubious. But racial exclusion from citizenship has a long history in the United States, one that has involved different manipulations of territorial and descent-based citizenship. Even if racial exclusion is not the intended result of eliminating birthright citizenship, it is a certain outcome. More important than the history of the English common law is the history of American citizenship, which has always operated in both registers of soil and blood. For Anglo-and other Euro-Americans, territorial birthright citizenship has been the normative rule, not only because of the common-law tradition but in order to crisply define the citizenship of the new republic and then to encourage immigration and settlement. It was, arguably, not a legacy of feudal subjecthood but rather a progressive and optimistic view of assimilation, of building the citizenry with the children of immigrants, who would be more influenced by their experience in the new republic than by the old-country habits and allegiances of their parents. In contrast, the rule of descent historically has been used to exclude people of color from citizenship. Dred Scott specified that the social contract implicit in the Constitution was for and among white Euro-Americans and did not intend to include slaves or free black persons. Chinese and other Asians were excluded from naturalized citizenship as racial unassimilables. Filipino, Puerto Rican, and other colonial subjects were legally constructed as "noncitizen nationals," a status in-between alien and citizen. The subsequent statutory grant of citizenship to Puerto Ricans in 1917 remains subject to congressional revocation. 2. CALLS TO END BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP ARE ROOTED IN DANGEROUS XENOPHOBIA Nicole Newman, "Birthright Citizenship: The Fourteenth Amendment's Continuing Protection Against an American Caste System," BOSTON COLLEGE THIRD WORLD LAW JOURNAL v. 28, Spring 2008, p.438-441. Unsurprisingly, reports that the United States has lost control of its borders strike at the heart of the American fear of being "overrun by another and a different race." For those on the inside, this loss of control means inundation and dilution of so-called American values. While restrictions on immigration to America have existed since the late eighteenth century, systematic efforts to stem the tide of immigration began with the Chinese Exclusion Acts of the 1880s. Since then, there has been no shortage of nativist bills aimed both at excluding others from entering and at forcing assimilation upon those already within U.S. borders. In fact, American history is replete with radical proposals of how to terminate unwanted immigration, all under the well established assertion that "Congress regularly makes rules [for immigrants] that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens." Recently, in the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the demand for absolute control of U.S. borders, and consequently an end to illegal immigration, has grown fierce. Whereas Americans have historically viewed "the stranger as the enemy," the stranger has now become the terrorist. Heightened fears over national security have not only brought illegal immigration issues to the forefront, but have also provided a forum to promulgate racist and xenophobic policies. Instead of improving the failed legal processes of immigration, however, impassioned Americans stubbornly focus their fears on ways to communicate to illegal immigrants that they are unwanted -- now more than ever. Unfortunately, this effort has become centered on the most vulnerable group possible: the children of undocumented immigrants. Many frightened Americans fervently call for an elimination of the "loophole" in the Fourteenth Amendment, which currently grants automatic citizenship to children of undocumented immigrants physically present in the United States during birth. Those in favor of overturning more than a century of consistent jurisprudence cite unbearable burdens on American public services and "perverse" incentives that reward illegal immigration. These incentives, they claim, include not only granting citizenship to children, but also allowing parents who manage to circumvent immigration laws to use their children as a conduit to avoid deportation, and ultimately to obtain their own citizenship. This threat of chain migration, pejoratively called the "anchor baby" phenomenon, is the most inflammatory rhetoric that opponents of birthright citizenship employ.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
79
FEBRUARY 2012
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP DESIRABLE: RACE CONCERNS cont'd

3. REPEAL WILL ONLY JUSTIFY AND EXPAND DANGEROUS XENOPHOBIA Katherine Pettit, J.D. Candidate, "Addressing the Call for the Elimination of Birthright Citizenship in the United States: Constitutional and Pragmatic Reasons to Keep Birthright Citizenship Intact," TULANE JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL AND COMPARATIVE LAW v. 15, Winter 2006, p.285-286. Fourth, depriving birthright citizenship would fuel existing xenophobia. As mentioned earlier in this Comment, some academics and politicians are concerned that granting citizenship to people who have entered illegally deprives Americans of the ability to determine "the future of their own nation, including its demographic and cultural characteristics." Wood also argues that it increases the number of citizens without traditional U.S. values. What he does not explain is why it is a good thing for Americans to handpick favored cultural characteristics. The way this argument is articulated makes it sound like Americans are afraid that foreigners are going to push their way into the United States and transform it into a land of communists or criminals. This is similar to suggestions made as to why the Founding Fathers created the constitutional requirement that the President of the United States be born on U.S. soil. Even if outsiders arrive with different values or ideas, the U.S. system of government is firmly in place and there are other protections such as law enforcement and constitutional guarantees that will maintain the structure of society. When making this argument, there is a noticeable lack of detail about which characteristics and values are so contrary to those of the United States that they are best excluded. Assuming that undocumented immigrants have common characteristics that can be lumped together, are they being accused of collectively having negative characteristics? Some will note that it is not only Mexicans who will be affected by such a law, and thus, it is not motivated by racism or xenophobia but is instead a national policy. In addressing that argument, one must question why when Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Charles E. Schumer declared their support for a new path to citizenship, and denounced criminal penalties recently passed by the House of Representatives, they did so not at the large, predominantly Hispanic immigrant march on Washington, but at the much smaller Irish rally held there the following day. There is little discussion in the media of the illegal Irish who come, take jobs, and impose their non-American values upon the United States. This is an issue that is perhaps not solely about race, but in which the issue of race at least must not be ignored. 4. DENYING RIGHTS ONLY MAKES IT EASIER FOR PRIVATE PARTIES TO EXPLOIT IMMIGRANTS Katherine Pettit, J.D. Candidate, "Addressing the Call for the Elimination of Birthright Citizenship in the United States: Constitutional and Pragmatic Reasons to Keep Birthright Citizenship Intact," TULANE JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL AND COMPARATIVE LAW v. 15, Winter 2006, p.282. Along similar lines, denying citizenship to people working within the United States sets the stage for private exploitation. For example, people of any immigration status can sue their employers before the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) for layoffs related to union activities. In Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB, an undocumented worker was fired for union-related activities. The employer did not know at the time that the worker was not authorized to work. The Supreme Court held that Hoffman must cease and desist from further violations of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and post a notice to employees regarding this remedial order. However, the Court further held that the alien would not be entitled to receive his due backpay because that "would unduly trench upon explicit statutory prohibitions critical to federal immigration policy." While denying the alien backpay may make sense for the justifications given by the Court, the message to employers is clear: if they get caught for violating the NLRA against an undocumented person, they will simply have to stop and notify their remaining employees that they did something bad. This decision provides little deterrence to employers who may be inclined to break the law and provides no restitution to the exploited alien. Creating a new class of undocumented workers by denying birthright citizenship will only increase the pool of people available for exploitation by unscrupulous employers.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
80
FEBRUARY 2012

5. THEIR ARGUMENTS ARE ROOTED IN OLD-STYLE XENOPHOBIA, AND SHOULD BE HELD AS SUSPECT Katherine Pettit, J.D. Candidate, "Addressing the Call for the Elimination of Birthright Citizenship in the United States: Constitutional and Pragmatic Reasons to Keep Birthright Citizenship Intact," TULANE JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL AND COMPARATIVE LAW v. 15, Winter 2006, p.278. The arguments for and against birthright citizenship are not new. It is not the first time the United States has faced a situation where an undesired population appears to be putting down roots beyond the control of those who would prefer to stem the tide of immigration. The United States goes through growing pains with each wave of newcomers, each with their own reasons (or perhaps not such unique reasons) for being disliked. The Irish were criticized for taking jobs and hurting the economy. The Chinese were criticized for "endangering the good order of certain localities." These arguments are made time and again. Some may argue that they are true and that the United States is worse off for accepting these foreigners. For the most part, it seems that these groups gradually become settled and the antagonism against them subsides, only to flare up with the next wave of immigrants who come to "take American jobs" and impose foreign values. These points should cast a reasonable doubt on the assertions that children of undocumented Hispanic immigrants are somehow different and that now is the point in history when exclusion is justified. 6. 'ANCHOR BABIES' CLAIMS ARE BASED IN MYTH Nicole Newman, "Birthright Citizenship: The Fourteenth Amendment's Continuing Protection Against an American Caste System," BOSTON COLLEGE THIRD WORLD LAW JOURNAL v. 28, Spring 2008, p.476-477. Opponents of providing birthright citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants claim that undocumented parents with citizen children can use their child as a conduit to becoming an LPR, and eventually a citizen if they so choose. This assertion is flatly contradicted by INA 245, which provides for the adjustment of status from nonimmigrant to LPR. The statute demands that when a nonimmigrant applies for an adjustment of status, he or she must have been admitted, must not have engaged in unlawful employment while here, must have maintained lawful status at all times, must be eligible for immigration, must be admissible, and must merit a favorable exercise of discretion. An illegal immigrant necessarily violates at least three of those requirements, and likely violates them all. By entering the country without inspection at the border, the immigrant was not "admitted." By never having any lawful status, such as a valid nonimmigrant visa, the immigrant necessarily failed to maintain lawful status at all. And, as an illegal entrant who is unlawfully present, the immigrant is inadmissible. Clearly, at no time can undocumented parents "bootstrap permanent residency onto [themselves]" through citizen children. Basically, the only way that an undocumented mother could gain citizenship status for her child and not seriously harm her future chances of obtaining LPR status is by proving that she had her child within the territory, but stayed fewer than 180 days. This option does not resemble the bootstrapping claims of opponents to birthright citizenship. If an undocumented mother chooses to stay after giving birth to her citizen child, she simply cannot adjust her status to legal permanency while she remains within the territory. Moreover, if she leaves after staying 180 days, she will be barred from entry for three or ten years, depending on the length of her unlawful presence. If undocumented parents choose to stay, their only real hope of gaining legal status through their citizen child is a legislative change in the INA or a grant of amnesty.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
81
FEBRUARY 2012

7. EXCLUSION IS DRIVEN BY RACISM AND XENOPHOBIA Nicole Newman, "Birthright Citizenship: The Fourteenth Amendment's Continuing Protection Against an American Caste System," BOSTON COLLEGE THIRD WORLD LAW JOURNAL v. 28, Spring 2008, p.481. Although the United States may be in a constant state of fear, Americans must not revert back to entrenched fears of the "other" to justify the recreation of racial castes. The original purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was not only to grant citizenship status to freed slaves, but to uproot and destroy the entire system of hereditary, exploitable laborers. Even if, as opponents to birthright citizenship suggest, children of illegal immigrants could be carved out of their entitlement to birthright citizenship through statute, they should not be. National policies driven by nativism, racism, and xenophobia only result in the undermining of the nation's traditional, fundamental values. The current interpretation of the Citizenship Clause is not a century-old mistake; its original purpose remains legitimate and necessary today. Amending the INA or the Constitution to deny certain U.S.-born children citizenship because of their parentage would only recreate the type of society that excluded Dred Scott. 8. SUPPORT FOR ENDING BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP IS TYPICALLY GROUNDED IN FEARS OF IMMIGRATION Sara Catherine Barnhart, "Second Class Delivery: The Elimination of Birthright Citizenship as a Repeal of 'The Pursuit of Happiness'," GEORGIA LAW REVIEW v. 42, Winter 2008, p.528-530. Some who blame immigrants for the country's economic problems have proposed a solution to solve the "immigration controversy": elimination of birthright citizenship. This proposal may address the perceived threat posed by an influx of undocumented workers, but it also will have side effects on all foreigners who settle in the United States regardless of their immigration status. Over the years, a number of congressmen have proposed that the United States eliminate its doctrine of birthright citizenship and deny citizenship to children born in the United States if neither parent is a citizen or permanent resident. The primary argument proffered in support of the birthright citizenship repeal parallels the anti-immigrant rhetoric that has echoed since the time of Benjamin Franklin: immigrants result in a net economic cost to the United States. To support his 1991 proposal to limit birthright citizenship, Congressman Elton Gallegly of California asserted that although the United States is a nation of immigrants: [t]he United States is also a nation of finite resources and opportunities which must be available to and shared by all its citizens. Today, in many parts of this country our cities and towns are being overrun with immigrants, both legal and undocumented, who pose major economic and law enforcement problems for local governments and place an added burden on their already strained budgets. Essentially all proponents for a repeal of birthright citizenship make the same argument: Repealing this benefit will eliminate the strain on social programs and crimes caused by undocumented workers. The proponents hypothesize that a denial of citizenship benefits to U.S. born children of undocumented workers will result either in less incentive for parents to immigrate here in the first place or, at a minimum, less demand on our finite resources by these "outsiders."
PARADIGM RESEARCH
82
FEBRUARY 2012
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP DESIRABLE: REFORM FOCUS

1. THEY ARE FOCUSING ON THE WRONG ISSUE -- DISTRACTS FROM ADDRESSING OUR BROKEN IMMIGRATION SYSTEM Immigration Policy Center, "Eliminating Birthright Citizenship Would Not Solve the Problem of Unauthorized Immigration," 1-4-11, http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/eliminating-birthright-citizenship-would-not-solve-problem-unauth orized-immigration, accessed 1-11-12. Eliminating birthright citizenship is a distraction that moves us away from fixing the real problems with our broken immigration system. Immigrants come to the U.S. to work, to reunite with their families, or to flee persecution. Denying birthright citizenship will not discourage unauthorized immigrants from coming to the U.S., and it will not encourage those already here to leave. Are we really willing to change the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution rather than address the real problems with our broken immigration system? Rather, Congress should be addressing immigration issues head on by reforming our immigration laws in a way that fairly addresses the economic and labor needs of the country, unites American families, and ensures that immigrants have legal channels to enter and remain in the U.S. 2. CALLS TO REPEAL ARE BASED IN MYTH, DISTRACT US FROM REAL SOLUTIONS TO OUR IMMIGRATION PROBLEMS SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE, "The Wrong Way to Fix a Broken Border Policy," 8-22-10, p.E10. So what is the latest idea to move the discussion along? Dump a Civil War-era Constitutional amendment giving citizenship to anyone born here. It's ill-advised, for a batch of reasons. But it also shows how distant the country remains from the hard decisions it will take to settle a divisive issue. Immigration reform teetered close to a compromise solution in 2007. But when that plan cratered, it left the country with no direction and little consensus, as the latest suggestion shows. Out of nowhere, Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican considered a deal-making moderate, suggested scrapping the 14th Amendment. It gives citizenship to "all persons born or naturalized in the United States." It was adopted in 1868 to ensure citizenship for American-born children of freed slaves, and it's withstood court challenges since then. The pitch from Graham, who had backed the ill-fated immigration overhaul three years ago, was crudely simple. Too many illegal immigrant mothers are "swimming the river" to "drop a child" here, he said in broaching the idea last month. These citizen-infants, known to detractors as "anchor babies," could be used to shield a family from deportation, Lindsey suggested. It's straight-up pandering from a political pro looking to reconnect with immigration hard-liners. It's also disingenuous: The notion that parents of a child born here have a right to remain in the United States is pure myth. The law allows the child, at age 21, to apply for a visa for his or her parent -- and, even then, the parent's legal status is neither automatic nor unconditional.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
83
FEBRUARY 2012
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP DESIRABLE: SOCIAL COHESION

1. REPEAL WOULD INCREASE SOCIAL INEQUALITY, THREATENING SOCIETY AS A WHOLE HARVARD LAW REVIEW, "The Birthright Citizenship Amendment: A Threat to Equality," v. 107, 3-94, p.1041-1042. Contradiction of the equality principle also warrants rejection of the citizenship amendment on practical grounds, for, rather than facilitate resolution of the undocumented immigration issue, the amendment would actually exacerbate societal inequities and would thereby threaten the social fabric of the United States. Because the citizenship amendment would have little effect on migration, the amendment's principal effect would likely be to expand rather than contract the population of undocumented immigrants. This result would occur because the amendment would likely lead to the classification of the American-born children of undocumented immigrants as illegal aliens themselves. Currently, newborn children with citizenship status, who receive governmental support and the right to work in the future, have potential to become productive members of society. Yet just as the Plyler Court understood that denial of education would create "the specter of a permanent caste of undocumented resident aliens" handicapped by illiteracy, the practical result of the citizenship amendment would be to relegate the American-born children of undocumented aliens to live the same "shadow population" and thus to deny them "the ability to live within the structure of our civic institutions." If one presumes that many such children will remain in the United States indefinately, the amendment would cause the negative social effects of such a permanent underclass of residents to proliferate rather than to dissipate. Because such a class presents "most difficult problems for a Nation that prides itself on adherence to principles of equality under law," an amendment that would foster its growth should be rejected. Furthermore, the adoption of an amendment contradictory to equality would announce to certain American-born children that, as the Court declared in Dred Scott, the Constitution discriminatorily excludes certain American-born persons. As these children grow up, they may exhibit hostility and defiance toward society if it denies them equal treatment at birth. Whereas American-born children of immigrants, with automatic birthright citizenship, have generally identified with American values and sought to belong, children of guest workers in Europe, for whom citizenship is often difficult to attain, have frequently resisted assimilation. Yet social stability demands that such long term residents be included, for "[n]o state can in the long run accept that a significant part of its population remain outside the political community." 2. REPEAL WOULD ONLY EXACERBATE SOCIAL TENSIONS -- REINFORCES LINES BETWEEN DIFFERENT ETHNIC GROUPS HARVARD LAW REVIEW, "The Birthright Citizenship Amendment: A Threat to Equality," v. 107, 3-94, p.1042-1043. Finally, the amendment's inequitable exclusion of a class of children composed mainly of racial or ethnic minorities could further the detrimental use of ethnicity as a proxy for a foreignness or outsider status. In Germany, where citizenship is based almost entirely on German heritage, anti-foreigner sentiments have resulted in intensified violence against ethnic minorities. To dispel the popular assumption that minorities are foreigners, the Christian Democratic Party has sought to facilitate the granting of citizenship to non-ethnic Germans. By taking the opposite step of denying citizenship to certain minority members, the citizenship amendment may "fix[] a badge of opprobrium on citizens of the same ancestry," particularly those of Latin American or Asian descent, and fuel the resistance they frequently encounter as they seek acceptance as full-fledged Americans. Whereas the equality principle acts as the "social cement" to hold the American community together, the citizenship amendment's contradiction of equality, by exacerbating divisions within society, is likely to inflame rather than erase threats to the social cohesion of America.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
84
FEBRUARY 2012
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP DESIRABLE: SOCIAL COHESION cont'd

3. EUROPEAN EXPERIENCE PROVES THAT BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP IS SUPERIOR -- SIGNIFICANT PROBLEMS WITH IMMIGRANT POPULATIONS Mae M. Ngai, Professor, History, Columbia University, "Ne Dimensions of Citizenship: Contribution: Birthright Citizenship and the Alien Citizen," FORDHAM LAW REVIEW v. 74, 4-07, p.2529-2530. The consequences of eliminating birthright citizenship in the United States might instructively be considered in light of recent developments in Europe, where, faced with new populations arising from immigration, states have amended their citizenship laws. Thus, on the one hand, Germany, which has historically practiced citizenship by descent, revised its laws in 2000 to grant birthright citizenship to German-born children of foreigners with long-time residence -- a move prompted by the growing population of native-born noncitizens of Turkish descent. On the other hand, Great Britain eliminated territorial birthright citizenship in 1981, after trying for decades to manage the status and rights of immigrants from former colonies in the Caribbean and South Asia. In 1986, Australia, experiencing a wave of immigration from Asia and the Pacific, also restricted citizenship to children of citizens and permanent residents. In the last two years, Ireland and New Zealand have followed suit. In each case, the changes were made at least partly, if not primarily, in response to popular nativist sentiment against nonwhite immigrants. These postcolonial cases underscore the important historical relationship between immigration and birthright citizenship. Although its origins lie in the ascension of the King of Scotland to the English throne in 1603, in the modern era of global migration, birthright citizenship has been a mechanism for incorporating new immigrants, and its disavowal a mechanism for exclusion. 4. ENDING BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP RISKS VIOLENCE -- INTERNATIONAL EXAMPLES PROVE Sara Catherine Barnhart, "Second Class Delivery: The Elimination of Birthright Citizenship as a Repeal of 'The Pursuit of Happiness'," GEORGIA LAW REVIEW v. 42, Winter 2008, p.563-564. 6.Potential for Violence. Countries that have adopted the caste approach of denying birthright citizenship have encountered serious problems as a result. For example, the country of Israel does not give citizenship to Palestinians born in Israeli occupied territory. While the Israeli government may have justifiable political and religious reasons for adopting this policy, it has created a class of stateless people. Their inescapable misery has allowed religious and political extremists to take hold of their communities and has led to unbelievable violence and bloodshed against Israelis and other Palestinians. Clearly, the relationship between the United States and Mexico or other Latin American countries is not the same as that between Israel and the Palestinians. For one, Mexican-U.S. relations lack the thousands of years of religious conflict that fuel the fire between Israelis and Palestinians. The lesson, however, is that the pressure of being held under the thumb of another group has the potential to result in a violent release. Elimination of birthright citizenship would create a variety of social, political, and economic problems that proponents have failed to anticipate.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
85
FEBRUARY 2012
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP DESIRABLE: UNDOCUMENTED POPULATION

1. REPEAL WOULD ONLY INCREASE THE NUMBER OF UNDOCUMENTED PERSONS Elise Foley, "Ending Birthright Citizenship Could Increase Undocumented Population," WASHINGTON INDEPENDENT, 9-8-10, lexis. There have been plenty of arguments against this summers calls to end birthright citizenship: They were called racist, bad politics and political posturing. But ending birthright citizenship is also bad policy for those who want to decrease the population of illegal immigrants " because it has the exact opposite effect. The nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute reported today that even the most conservative changes to birthright citizen could cause the proportion of children without documents to double, from 2% of all children living in the U.S. to 4%. The report looked at the likely growth of the illegal immigrant population in the U.S. between now and 2050, not taking into account changes in the flow of immigrants based on enforcement or the economy. Under the current system, all children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrant parents are citizens, meaning illegal status is not passed down the line to future generations. The illegal immigrant population is younger, on average, than the population overall, and had about 340,000 babies in the U.S. in 2008 " about 8 percent of the total number of children born in the U.S. that year. If those children were undocumented, they would pass down illegal status to their children. The report projects that by 2050, about 4.7 million undocumented immigrants would have been born in the U.S., 1 million of them to U.S.-born parents. 2. REPEAL WOULD SIGNIFICANTLY EXPAND THE POPULATION OF UNDOCUMENTED PERSONS Sam Fulwood III, senior fellow and Marshall Fitz, Director, Immigration Policy, "Less Than Citizens: Abolishing Birthright Citizenship Would Create a Permanent Underclass in Our Nation," Center for American Progress, 5-11, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/05/pdf/birthright_brief.html, accessed 1-10-11. According to a 2010 Migration Policy Institute study, if the 2009 Birthright Citizenship Act were adopted and the U.S.-born children of two undocumented immigrants were denied citizenship, the size of the U.S. undocumented population would expand significantly, even assuming no new undocumented migration. It would rise from 11 million today to 16 million in 2050. Of these 16 million, 4.7 million would represent U.S. born noncitizens, 1 million of whom had been born to parents who had themselves been born in the United States. But the impact of the change would be even larger than MPI estimated because current proposals would deny citizenship at birth not only to the U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants, but also to U.S.-born children of many legally present noncitizens. 3. REPEAL WOULD ONLY INCREASE THE NUMBER OF UNDOCUMENTED PERSONS Immigration Policy Center, "Eliminating Birthright Citizenship Would Not Solve the Problem of Unauthorized Immigration," 1-4-11, http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/eliminating-birthright-citizenship-would-not-solve-problem-unauth orized-immigration, accessed 1-11-12. Eliminating birthright citizenship would INCREASE the undocumented population. Since children born to undocumented immigrants would presumably be undocumented, the size of the undocumented population would actually increase as a result of the new policy. Depending on the details of the changes to birthright citizenship laws, the Migration Policy Institute estimates that the number of unauthorized children living in the U.S. would increase dramatically if birthright citizenship were repealed. For example, if citizenship were denied to every child with at least one unauthorized parent, the unauthorized population in the U.S. would reach 24 million by 2050.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
86
FEBRUARY 2012
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP DESIRABLE: UNDOCUMENTED POPULATION cont'd

4. REPEAL OF BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP WILL ONLY INCREASE THE NUMBER OF UNDOCUMENTED PERSONS IN THE U.S. Katherine Pettit, J.D. Candidate, "Addressing the Call for the Elimination of Birthright Citizenship in the United States: Constitutional and Pragmatic Reasons to Keep Birthright Citizenship Intact," TULANE JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL AND COMPARATIVE LAW v. 15, Winter 2006, p.282-283. Beyond these foundational protection concerns are other pragmatic reasons for continuing to grant birthright citizenship. The following arguments will be addressed in turn, that removing birthright citizenship will: (1) intentionally add to the number of illegal immigrants present in the United States, which is the very problem it purports to solve, and would not provide the desired deterrent effect; (2) promote the rejected principle of corruption of blood; (3) expand the shadow population or subclass; (4) fuel xenophobia; (5) create an administrative nightmare; (6) debase the rule of law; and (7) damage the U.S. political relationship with Mexico. First, changing the current law on birthright citizenship to curb the number of people illegally within the United States will backfire. Assuming that this change does not encourage a significant number of people to exit the United States and that the United States cannot prevent the existing people from procreating, the people who remain will continue to give birth to children who will then also be illegally present in the United States. Our current laws have not had the desired deterrent effect on stemming the tide of immigration; they will certainly not deter children who do not make such decisions for themselves. According to a recent presentation before the United States Chamber of Commerce by Representative Flake, the restrictionists who seek to remove birthright citizenship have no plan for dealing with the estimated ten million-plus undocumented immigrants currently in the United States. Ending birthright citizenship will create many more new illegal aliens every year and add to the very problem it purports to address. 5. REPEAL ACTUALLY INCREASES THE NUMBER OF UNDOCUMENTED PERSONS Sara Catherine Barnhart, "Second Class Delivery: The Elimination of Birthright Citizenship as a Repeal of 'The Pursuit of Happiness'," GEORGIA LAW REVIEW v. 42, Winter 2008, p.565. History also has documented that nativist legislation like House Bill 1940, House Bill 133 and House Bill 698 correlates more with the current political climate and the fear of people different from the "norm" than with a true concern about the sustainability of resources. Elimination of birthright citizenship will not prevent immigration from Mexico; it will only ensure that fewer Mexicans become citizens. A repeal of birthright citizenship necessarily will leave these children as undocumented persons, which will increase the overall number of undocumented immigrants present in this country and exacerbate the drain on resources described by those favoring repeal of the doctrine.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
87
FEBRUARY 2012
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP DESIRABLE: ANSWERS TO: "AMENDMENT UNNECESSARY" -- GENERAL

1. SUPREME COURT DOCTRINE IS CLEAR -- AN AMENDMENT WOULD BE REQUIRED Steve Chapman, "Citizenship Should Remain a Birthright," CREATORS SYNDICATE, 6-25-10, lexis. But the idea fails on a couple of grounds. The first is constitutional. The policy originates with the Fourteenth Amendment, ratified after the Civil War, which says, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." Pearce and his allies say illegal immigrants can be excluded because they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. But that provision was included only to exempt children born to foreign diplomats. The Supreme Court has left little room for argument. In 1898, it ruled that birth on American soil is "declared by the Constitution to constitute a sufficient and complete right to citizenship." In 1982, it concluded that illegal immigrants are indeed "within the jurisdiction" of the state where they are present. To deny a U.S.-born child a birth certificate would almost certainly violate the right to the equal protection of the laws. 2. BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP IS THE LAW OF THE LAND -- ALL THREE BRANCHES AGREE Sara Catherine Barnhart, "Second Class Delivery: The Elimination of Birthright Citizenship as a Repeal of 'The Pursuit of Happiness'," GEORGIA LAW REVIEW v. 42, Winter 2008, p.558. Currently all three branches of government agree that the Citizenship Clause applies to children of all aliens and citizens. In the absence of a specific ruling by the Supreme Court on citizenship eligibility for children of undocumented immigrants, however, proponents of repealing birthright citizenship contend that it remains up to Congress to clarify the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. However, if the Supreme Court has an opportunity to rule on the application of the Fourteenth Amendment to illegal immigrants and affirms Wong Kim Ark and its progeny, it will be indisputable that a statute is not sufficient to eliminate birthright citizenship. Instead, proponents will need to amend the Constitution. 3. BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP CAN ONLY BE ENDED VIA CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT Katherine Pettit, J.D. Candidate, "Addressing the Call for the Elimination of Birthright Citizenship in the United States: Constitutional and Pragmatic Reasons to Keep Birthright Citizenship Intact," TULANE JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL AND COMPARATIVE LAW v. 15, Winter 2006, p.270. Some may argue that the modern welfare state has created such a radically different context from that envisioned in the late 1800s that the citizenship provision no longer holds the same meaning. A notable difference that challenges the above argument is that the equal protection cases sought to expand the protection offered by the Fourteenth Amendment in light of developing norms of equality while opponents of birthright citizenship seek to limit the rights and protections offered to people who are undeserving because their parents broke the law by entering the country. While immigration laws were different during the framing of the Fourteenth Amendment, the framers saw no problem in granting citizenship to all children, regardless of whether their parents were naturalized citizens. As much as some scholars and politicians may prefer a citizenship system based on mutual consent where Americans can decide exactly who will join the ranks of the U.S. citizenry, the Constitution of the United States is quite clear that all people born in U.S. territory are citizens of the United States. Therefore, if proponents of abolishing birthright citizenship are serious, they must turn their focus toward amending the Constitution.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
88
FEBRUARY 2012
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP DESIRABLE: ANSWERS TO: "AMENDMENT UNNECESSARY" -- GENERAL cont'd

4. THE LAW CANNOT BE CHANGED VIA STATUTE Marc Lacy, "Birthright Citizenship Looms as Next Immigration Battle," NEW YORK TIMES, 1-4-11, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/05/us/politics/05babies.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all, accessed 1-5-11. Most scholars of the Constitution consider the states' effort to restrict birth certificates patently unconstitutional. "This is political theater, not a serious effort to create a legal test," said Gabriel J. Chin, a law professor at the University of Arizona whose grandfather immigrated to the United States from China at a time when ethnic Chinese were excluded from the country. "It strikes me as unwise, un-American and unconstitutional." The 14th Amendment, adopted in 1868, was a repudiation of the Supreme Court's 1857 ruling, in Dred Scott v. Sandford, that people of African descent could never be American citizens. The amendment said citizenship applied to "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." In 1898, the Supreme Court, in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, interpreted the citizenship provision as applying to a child born in the United States to a Chinese immigrant couple. 5. THEIR READING OF THE CONSTITUTION IS WRONG -- IT WOULD HAVE TO BE AMENDED TO END BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP Emily Bazelon, "Anchors Aweigh," SLATE, 1-7-11, www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2011/01/anchors_aweigh.html, accessed 1-2-12. Legally speaking, this is all pretty confusing. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution reads, "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." The framers could have denied citizenship to all persons born in the United States whose parents had arrived 10 minutes earlier, but they didn't. Graham, at least, seemed to acknowledge this in his call for a constitutional amendment. But the latest efforts don't do the Constitution that courtesy: They pretend that it says what it does not. It's kind of a mind-bender to square this with the great swelling of conservative love for the Constitution. As Dahlia Lithwick has pointed out, the Tea Party's constitutional fetish really applies only to parts of the Constitution. And the 14th Amendment is not one of its favorites. To avoid the obvious problem here, conservatives have seized on one innocuous-sounding phrase in the amendment to explain why it doesn't actually say what the words plainly mean. 6. THE CONSTITUTION CLEARLY AWARDS BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP Emily Bazelon, "Anchors Aweigh," SLATE, 1-7-11, www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2011/01/anchors_aweigh.html, accessed 1-2-12. But Schuck is out of sync with most historians, as well as the plain text, when he says that the 14th Amendment allows for what he calls an "effective, pragmatic solution" -- cutting off anchor babies from automatic citizenship. On this point the Constitution is clear. Graham is right about one thing: If we're going to change our longstanding practice of granting citizenship to children born on American soil, we can't do it by simply passing a state or federal law. We'd have to amend part of our supposedly sacred foundational document.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
89
FEBRUARY 2012

7. REPEAL CAN ONLY BE DONE VIA AMENDMENT Shikha Dalmia, senior policy analyst, "The Bogus Case Against Birthright Citizenship," REASON, 3-15-11, http://reason.com/archives/2011/03/15/the-bogus-case-against-birthri, accessed 1-9-12. The most famous representative of the conservative view is George Will, whose recent column is an odd hagiographic exercise lauding Smith -- obviously calculated to pave the ground for Smith's birthright crusade that Will has openly embraced. Smith is pushing a law in Congress to scrap this right, even though literally no one believes that it would pass 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. 8. BIRTH BY PLACE IS A PART OF OUR COMMON LAW -- THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT WAS ONLY NECESSARY TO OVERTURN THE DRED SCOTT DECISION Sara Catherine Barnhart, "Second Class Delivery: The Elimination of Birthright Citizenship as a Repeal of 'The Pursuit of Happiness'," GEORGIA LAW REVIEW v. 42, Winter 2008, p.547-548. 2.History and Purpose of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment did not further limit citizenship rights in the United States but instead restored the more expansive historical doctrine of jus soli. This tenet of American law was temporarily restricted in 1857 by the Dred Scott decision, in which the Supreme Court denied birthright citizenship to the descendants of slaves. The Constitution does not specify any criteria for U.S. citizenship, and jus soli has always been followed as part of America's common law heritage. The absence of any explicit citizenship language in the Constitution, however, made the Dred Scott decision possible. The decision limited the application of jus soli to whites only on the ground that whites did not consider Africans "appropriate partners in the political community," thus excluding anyone of African descent. In response to Dred Scott and the Civil War, Congress enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 provides that "all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States." During the debates leading up to the passage of the Act, the Chair of the House Judiciary Committee, Representative James Wilson, cited the treatise of renowned constitutional scholar William Rawle to support his contention that the Act encompassed the common law of jus soli. In his widely respected constitutional law treatise, Rawle states: "Every person born within the United States, its Territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural-born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges pertaining to that capacity." When the Fourteenth Amendment was proposed, the Civil War had just ended. The framers and supporters of the Fourteenth Amendment had "just overthrown a system founded [on the] denial of political membership in the country to a hereditary category of inhabitants." Thus, the framers of the Amendment had a strong incentive to avoid the recurrence of this situation and sought to reaffirm, on a racially neutral basis, the same principles that had always governed American citizenship. The Citizenship Clause was intended to permanently overrule the Dred Scott decision and once again make jus soli the law of the United States. The legislative history and judicial interpretation make clear that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to ensure that the right of citizenship by birth would be insulated from political pressures.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
90
FEBRUARY 2012

9. CONGRESS HAS NO AUTHORITY TO REPEAL BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP -- SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE PROVES Sara Catherine Barnhart, "Second Class Delivery: The Elimination of Birthright Citizenship as a Repeal of 'The Pursuit of Happiness'," GEORGIA LAW REVIEW v. 42, Winter 2008, p.549. The Supreme Court recognized this contextual importance in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, in which the Court noted that, shortly after passing the Civil Rights Act of 1866, Congress acted again and framed the Fourteenth Amendment, "evidently thinking it unwise, and perhaps unsafe, to leave so important a declaration of rights to depend upon an ordinary act of legislation, which might be repealed by any subsequent Congress." This historical account undermines Representative Deal's interpretation that birthright citizenship can be eliminated by statute. Further undermining Deal's position is the Supreme Court's holding that "while [the Fourteenth Amendment] leaves the power, where it was before, in [C]ongress, to regulate naturalization, [it] has conferred no authority upon [C]ongress to restrict the effect of birth, declared by the [C]onstitution to constitute a sufficient and complete right to citizenship." In more recent decisions, the Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the view that the framers' rationale for the Fourteenth Amendment was to provide special protection for citizenship rights. Thus, Congress has no authority to rescind the constitutionally protected jus soli rights by statute. 10. REPEAL BY STATUTE WOULD BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL Sara Catherine Barnhart, "Second Class Delivery: The Elimination of Birthright Citizenship as a Repeal of 'The Pursuit of Happiness'," GEORGIA LAW REVIEW v. 42, Winter 2008, p.546. The system of jus sanguinis alone could not have operated in the United States at its inception because, except for Native Americans, the inhabitants were all citizens of other countries. In addition to jus soli, the United States also has incorporated some aspects of the jus sanguinis doctrine in order to give automatic citizenship to children of U.S. citizens who are born abroad. By combining both jus soli and jus sanguinis, the United States has maintained a very expansive citizenship policy which protects both persons born inside U.S. borders and those born abroad. Although the concept of jus soli is embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment as interpreted by the Supreme Court, those who support a repeal of Birthright Citizenship do not believe a constitutional amendment is necessary to eliminate birthright citizenship. In the opinion of Congressman Nathan Deal, the Fourteenth Amendment was never designed to confer birthright citizenship to the children of undocumented immigrants and has been misinterpreted over the years. Thus, according to Deal, birthright citizenship can be repealed by federal legislation without amending the Constitution. There is good reason, however, to doubt the accuracy of this position on the constitutionality of such legislation. Walter Dellinger, former Assistant Attorney General, has stated that elimination of birthright citizenship by statute would be unconstitutional and a constitutional amendment to that effect would contradict the history and traditions of the United States.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
91
FEBRUARY 2012
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP DESIRABLE: ANSWERS TO: "AMENDMENT UNNECESSARY" -- JURISDICTION CLAUSE

1. FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT APPLIES TO UNDOCUMENTED PERSONS -- THEY ARE 'SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION' OF THE UNITED STATES Cynthia M. Smith, policy advisor, Office of Migration Policy and Public Affairs, "Birthright Citizenship: The Real Story," ISSUE BRIEFING n. 2, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2011, http://www.rcan.org/images/humanconcerns/2011bc.pdf, accessed 1-11-12. However, a reading of the plain meaning of the language makes clear that an individual who is legally required to obey U.S. law is "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States -- meaning that foreign nationals, including unauthorized immigrants, living in the United States who therefore must obey U.S. laws are covered by the Clause. Further, and significantly, judicial precedent has reaffirmed this interpretation. In 1898, the U.S. Supreme Court held in United States v. Wong Kim Ark that the U.S.-born children of immigrants were entitled to birthright citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment. In 1982, the Supreme Court unanimously held that the Fourteenth Amendment applies to the children of unauthorized immigrants in the United States. In Plyler v. Doe, the Court interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause to protect both lawful and unauthorized immigrants alike. In doing so, the Court concluded that unauthorized aliens are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States, and to the state in which they reside, and its laws. In 1985, in INS v. RiosPineda, the Supreme Court in a unanimous decision held that the children born in the United States to unauthorized immigrants are U.S. citizens. 2. THE CLAUSE THAT THEIR EVIDENCE CITES ONLY APPLIES TO THE CHILDREN OF DIPLOMATS Emily Bazelon, "Anchors Aweigh," SLATE, 1-7-11, www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2011/01/anchors_aweigh.html, accessed 1-2-12. The answer most constitutional historians give is straightforward. According to Akhil Amar, a professor at Yale Law School, Congress was making it clear that citizenship would not be automatically granted to the children of diplomats, based on the longstanding principle that embassies are foreign soil, or to the children of members of an invading army that was occupying American soil. In those cases, it's clear that the United States lacks jurisdiction over the children. And as Amar points out, these are clearly defined, limited exceptions. Congress also had in mind as an exception to automatic birthright citizenship for members of Indian tribes, since the tribes were sovereign. That's the list of exceptions historians have identified, with the first two coming straight out of centuries of British common law. In 1895, a customs official at the port of San Francisco denied entry to Wong Kim Ark, a man born of Chinese parents in the United States in 1873. Returning to the U.S. after a trip, he was stopped from re-entering the country "solely upon the pretence that he was not a citizen of the United States," the Supreme Court wrote in its ruling in the case. The theory behind denying his citizenship was that his parents were "subjects of the Emperor of China." The Supreme Court said this was wrong, based on a lengthy survey of British common law -- lots about diplomats and invaders.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
92
FEBRUARY 2012
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP DESIRABLE: ANSWERS TO: "AMENDMENT UNNECESSARY" -- LEGISLATIVE INTENT

1. HISTORIC RECORD SHOWS THAT THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT WAS INTENDED TO GRANT BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP Sam Fulwood III, senior fellow and Marshall Fitz, Director, Immigration Policy, "Less Than Citizens: Abolishing Birthright Citizenship Would Create a Permanent Underclass in Our Nation," Center for American Progress, 5-11, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/05/pdf/birthright_brief.html, accessed 1-10-11. Noted conservative constitutional scholar James Ho, a former solicitor general of Texas, examined the history of the 14th Amendment and arrived at an even more basic conclusion than Epps. He writes: But nothing in text or history suggests that the drafters [of the 14th Amendment] 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. 7 He also argues that the radical right-wing's attempt at historical revisionism: fundamentally violates three values that conservatives typically put forth: the belief in textualism, that the words of a legal document matter; originalism, that you go with the original understanding of the Constitution or of a statute and not some subsequent, evolving concept; and American exceptionalism, that there are just some things about America and in particular about American law that [are] different than from other countries, and proudly so. It seems implausible, then, that even a conservative Supreme Court would accept the revisionist arguments necessary to end birthright citizenship. What's more, the high steps needed to alter the Constitution suggest the conversations about revoking constitutional citizenship are little more than hot air. After all, constitutional changes are difficult to pass, requiring a two-thirds vote from both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate and approval by three-fourths of the state legislatures, or alternatively two-thirds of the state legislatures could propose an amendment at a constitutional convention, a procedure that has never been successful. 2. THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY PROVES THAT OUR INTERPRETATION IS CORRECT Nicole Newman, "Birthright Citizenship: The Fourteenth Amendment's Continuing Protection Against an American Caste System," BOSTON COLLEGE THIRD WORLD LAW JOURNAL v. 28, Spring 2008, p.455. Furthermore, proponents claim that the opponents' reading of the legislative history is flawed because it alters the meaning of the language by removing certain phrases from the context of the debate. For example, immediately after the text cited above, Howard explained, "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of embassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons." By omitting the italicized text, opponents have alleged that foreigners and aliens were never meant to be included. Proponents, on the other hand, emphasize the importance of the italicized text as obvious clarification of whom Howard considered to be a foreigner or alien. Finally, one of the proponents' strongest arguments gives meaning to the portion of the debates where the senators argue over whether birthright citizenship should include the children of Chinese immigrants and Gypsies. During both the debates on the Civil Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment, Pennsylvania Senator Edgar Cowan spearheaded efforts to exclude both groups, the Chinese immigrants who he believed were overrunning California, and the gangs of Gypsies he regarded as infesting his state. In both scenarios, Cowan was confronted by other senators who explicitly told him that these immigrant children would be included in the grant of citizenship. Ultimately, considering that the overarching goal of the legislation and the amendment was to abolish the racial caste of Dred Scott and the Black Codes, proponents argue that only a more inclusive, ascriptive definition of citizenship can be consistent.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
93
FEBRUARY 2012
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP DESIRABLE: ANSWERS TO: "AMENDMENT UNNECESSARY" -- LEGISLATIVE INTENT cont'd
3. CITIZENSHIP CLAUSE WAS INTENDED TO APPLY TO THE CHILDREN OF ALIENS -- LEGISLATIVE RECORD PROVES Sara Catherine Barnhart, "Second Class Delivery: The Elimination of Birthright Citizenship as a Repeal of 'The Pursuit of Happiness'," GEORGIA LAW REVIEW v. 42, Winter 2008, p.550-551. 3.Applicability of the Citizenship Clause to Aliens. Legislative history makes clear that the Citizenship Clause was meant to apply to children of aliens. The Fourteenth Amendment, in its original proposed version, did not contain the Citizenship Clause. Before its passage, Senator Jacob Howard of Michigan suggested that Congress include language in the amendment relating to citizenship rights. After a vigorous debate in the Senate, the Citizenship Clause was added to the Fourteenth Amendment. The Clause was highly contentious because many senators were concerned about extending birthright citizenship to children of aliens who were not Caucasian. In response to the Citizenship Clause, Senator Cowan asked whether it is "proposed that the people of California are to remain quiescent while they are overrun by a flood of immigration of the Mongol race [and whether] they [are] to be immigrated out of house and home by Chinese?" In response to this concern, Senator Conness from California stated, "I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights." Thus, without question, the Fourteenth Amendment was to apply to alien children. Senator Cowan, who voted against the amendment, continued: I am unwilling to give up the right of expelling a certain number of people who invade [a state's] borders; who owe to her no allegiance who pay no taxes; who never perform military service; If the mere fact of being born in the country confers that right, I think it will be mischievous. Senator Howard, in contrast, persuaded members of the Senate to support the Citizenship Clause proposal by explaining that the Amendment "is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States." This statement demonstrates that the Amendment merely confirms the common law of jus soli and does not restrict common law citizenship principles. Howard stated further: "[The amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers but will include every other class of persons."
PARADIGM RESEARCH
94
FEBRUARY 2012
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP DESIRABLE: ANSWERS TO: "CONSENT PRINCIPLE"

1. NO ONE GIVES CONSENT EXCEPT NATURALIZED CITIZENS Mae M. Ngai, Professor, History, Columbia University, "Ne Dimensions of Citizenship: Contribution: Birthright Citizenship and the Alien Citizen," FORDHAM LAW REVIEW v. 74, 4-07, p.2526. The focus on jus soli as ascriptive elides the fact that both basic rules of assigning citizenship at birth are ascriptive, whether by geography or by descent (jus sanguinus after all means the rule of blood). No person has control over the circumstances of her birth. Neither type of American birth-citizenship involves consent; moreover, there is no general "consent requirement" upon reaching the age of majority (though draft registration for males can be construed to be a kind of consent). In contrast to the native-born who hold passive citizenship, naturalized citizens and only naturalized citizens give explicit consent to citizenship and its obligations. Finally, to deny citizenship to a person based on her parents' illegal status is to punish the child for the behavior of the parent, something we have long recognized as morally and legally wrong. 2. MUTUAL CONSENT IS A FICTION -- THE STATE'S POWER TO EXCLUDE IS FAR GREATER, AND BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP SHOULD BE RETAINED Mae M. Ngai, Professor, History, Columbia University, "Ne Dimensions of Citizenship: Contribution: Birthright Citizenship and the Alien Citizen," FORDHAM LAW REVIEW v. 74, 4-07, p.2529. The advantages and disadvantages of birthright citizenship cannot be weighed solely in terms of a political theory of consent, but also must be considered in light of the historical practices of American citizenship. Those practices comprise a combination of soil and blood that have included some and excluded others along the lines of racial difference. Indeed, the racial history of citizenship reveals the principle of mutual consent to be a fiction: The individual's consent to be governed carries far less power than the state's ability to exclude. Seen from this angle, birthright citizenship is a first-line defense of individual rights before the arbitrary exercise of state authority. The tradition of birthright citizenship as a strategy for immigrant incorporation has been one that European immigrants always enjoyed, Asian immigrants fought to extend to all regardless of race and national origin, and Mexican immigrants now fight to defend. In the words of one immigrant advocate, birthright citizenship is a "tradition of really integrating immigrants into our society in order to unify us as a nation." In light of contemporary migration patterns, eliminating birthright citizenship to children of illegal aliens would create a hereditary caste of illegal aliens in our society, an extreme form of racial marginalization that would impact Mexicans more than any other single ethno-racial group.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
95
FEBRUARY 2012
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP DESIRABLE: ANSWERS TO: "CONSENT PRINCIPLE" cont'd

3. THE THEORY OF CONSENSUAL CITIZENSHIP IS TOO CLOSELY TIED TO RACISM AND XENOPHOBIA Nicole Newman, "Birthright Citizenship: The Fourteenth Amendment's Continuing Protection Against an American Caste System," BOSTON COLLEGE THIRD WORLD LAW JOURNAL v. 28, Spring 2008, p.455-457. Indeed, it is actually through this confusion that we may best understand underlying principles often missed in narrowly tailored inquiries that seek only to find references to "foreigners" or "aliens." Such inquiries overlook three major points: (1) both theories of citizenship existed among the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment, (2) the consensualist theory was plagued by racism and xenophobia, and (3) the framers' tactical decisions to reject certain language manifests overarching principles in line with abolishing the Dred Scott decision's racial caste system. First, during the debates, the senators explicitly articulated both theories of citizenship. Disagreement over these theories existed even among those who voted in favor of the language selected. This disagreement has allowed both proponents and opponents of the current interpretation of the Citizenship Clause to find legislative history conveniently replete with examples of ascriptive and consensual theories of citizenship, respectively. However, neither may be considered necessarily wrong because both theories existed among the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment. Second, although the theory of consent and exclusive allegiance is articulated throughout the legislative history, it is a mistake to ignore the theory's explicitly racist and xenophobic justifications, which are embarrassing and repugnant in today's society. Afraid of granting citizenship to the children of Gypsies and Chinese immigrants, Cowan argued against their inclusion at every turn. A number of other senators employed similar racially charged arguments throughout the debates in blatant attempts to draw the arbitrary line of allegiance in a manner that would exclude the particular group of outsiders present in his state. Although analyzing these perspectives sheds light on some of the framers' consensualist theory of citizenship, there can be no doubt that these perspectives fail to achieve the primary purpose of the Citizenship Clause: to eliminate systems of racial caste.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
96
FEBRUARY 2012
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP DESIRABLE: ANSWERS TO: "DUAL CITIZENSHIP/ALLEGIANCE PROBLEMS"

CHILDREN DO NOT OWE ALLEGIANCE TO THEIR PARENT'S NATION -- THEIR ARGUMENTS ARE SIMPLY WRONG Cynthia M. Smith, policy advisor, Office of Migration Policy and Public Affairs, "Birthright Citizenship: The Real Story," ISSUE BRIEFING n. 2, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2011, http://www.rcan.org/images/humanconcerns/2011bc.pdf, accessed 1-11-12. Some proponents of a repeal of birthright citizenship further argue that the Citizenship Clause only confers citizenship upon children who are able to give their allegiance to the United States, meaning that because foreign-born citizens still owe allegiance to another sovereign, their children born in the United States cannot owe full allegiance to the United States. But, the plain language of the Clause fails to support such an interpretation. Had the drafters of the Clause intended birthright citizenship to flow only to those children of U.S. Citizens, they arguably would have said so; or conversely, said that it was conferred on those able to give their full "allegiance" to the United States -- in lieu of being "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States, yet they did not. Further, the drafters at the time understood allegiance and citizenship to spring from a person's place of birth -- not the place of birth of their parents
PARADIGM RESEARCH
97
FEBRUARY 2012
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP DESIRABLE: ANSWERS TO: "IMMIGRATION MAGNET" -- GENERAL

1. MAGNET EFFECTS ARE GREATLY EXAGGERATED Steve Chapman, "Citizenship Should Remain a Birthright," CREATORS SYNDICATE, 6-25-10, lexis. Supporters of the change regard birthright citizenship as an irresistible magnet for foreigners to sneak in. But the effect is vastly exaggerated. One study cited in Peter Brimelow's 1996 anti-immigration screed, "Alien Nation," found that 15 percent of new Hispanic mothers whose babies were born in southern California hospitals said they came over the border to give birth, with 25 percent of that group saying they did so to gain citizenship for the child. But this evidence actually contradicts the claim. It means that 96 percent of these women were not lured by the desire to have an "anchor baby." That makes perfect sense. The value of a citizen child is too remote to compete with the other attractions that draw people to come illegally -- such as jobs and opportunity unavailable in their native countries. True, an undocumented adult can be sponsored for a resident visa by a citizen child -- but not till the kid reaches age 21. To imagine that Mexicans are risking their lives crossing the border in 2010 to gain legal status in 2031 assumes they put an excessive weight on the distant future. 2. OTHER INCENTIVES OVERWHELM ANY FROM BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN, "Stripping Birthright Won't Be Full Solution," 12-13-05, lexis. Constitutional jurisprudence, however, is beside the point: It's the practical arguments for ending birthright citizenship that are weak. Let's consider them one by one. The powerful economic incentives for illegal immigration, the fact that men immigrate illegally in significantly higher numbers than women, and the comparative difficulty of coming here illegally while pregnant all suggest that if birthright citizenship is an incentive for illegal immigration, it is insignificant compared to other incentives. 3. BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP DOES NOT INCREASE UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRATION Immigration Policy Center, "Eliminating Birthright Citizenship Would Not Solve the Problem of Unauthorized Immigration," 1-4-11, http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/eliminating-birthright-citizenship-would-not-solve-problem-unauth orized-immigration, accessed 1-11-12. There is no evidence that undocumented immigrants come to the U.S. just to give birth. Unauthorized immigrants come to the U.S. to work and to join family members. Immigrants tend to be of child-bearing age and have children while they are in the U.S. They do not come specifically to give birth. Stories about "birth tourism" point to small numbers of foreigners who come to the U.S. legally to give birth to their children. It would be ridiculous to change the U.S. Constitution and impact every single American just to punish a few individuals. "Anchor babies" are a myth. U.S.-citizen children do not protect their parents from deportation. Every year the U.S. deports thousands of parents of U.S. citizens. U.S.-born children cannot petition for legal status for their parents until they turn 21 years old. In most cases, if the petition is granted the parents would still have to leave the U.S. and then be barred from re-entering for at least 10 years. That's a total of 31 years. Undocumented immigrants do not come to the U.S. to give birth as part of a 31-year plan.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
98
FEBRUARY 2012
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP DESIRABLE: ANSWERS TO: "IMMIGRATION MAGNET" -- GENERAL cont'd

4. REPEAL WON'T END UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRATION MILWAUKEE JOURNAL SENTINEL, "Citizenship is a Birthright," 1-4-06, lexis. The Pew Hispanic Center estimates that 67 percent of children born to undocumented immigrants are, in fact, U.S. citizens. That amounts to about 3.1 million children. Those who would argue that children like these are unworthy to be U.S. citizens have simply not been paying attention to U.S. history. Children like these, reaching adulthood, have, for a while now, been holding jobs, paying taxes, serving in the military and, essentially, been the generation that ensures assimilation into the larger culture. There are plenty of reasons to reject slamming the door on people like these now that this latest immigrant wave suddenly doesn't look much like the majority population. Key among these reasons is that doing so simply won't accomplish what the anti-immigrants suppose. Illegal workers will still come to this country. Those here will not leave. Migrants generally don't come to this country to have babies. They come to work. No matter how draconian the law, they will still come as long as there is work here and not there. And if they are here, they will still fall in love and have babies. Moreover, the notion that immigrants have these babies as "anchors" _ to sponsor them for citizenship once they become adults _ holds no water. That's a long wait, not just until these children reach adulthood but the five, 10 or more years it takes to achieve legal residency for those sponsored once that process is begun. Effective immigration reform must rise above such punitive sentiments. Denying citizenship to people born here will tell the world that in the never-ending struggle between inclusion and exclusion in this country, intolerance has won. 5. BENEFITS ARE NOT LARGE ENOUGH TO ACT AS A MAGNET Steve Chapman, "Citizenship Should Remain a Birthright," CREATORS SYNDICATE, 6-25-10, lexis. Nor are the other alleged freebies very enticing. Most of the few that are available to undocumented foreigners, such as emergency room care and public education for children, don't require them to have a U.S. citizen child. Illegal immigrant parents are ineligible for welfare, Medicaid, food stamps and the like. They can be deported. Barring citizenship to their newborn babies wouldn't make these families pack up and go home. It would just put the kids into a legal jeopardy that impedes their assimilation into American society -- without appreciably diminishing the number of people going over, under, around or through the border fence. Punishing innocents without accomplishing anything useful? The opponents of birthright citizenship need an anchor in reality.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
99
FEBRUARY 2012

6. CHANGE WOULD NOT IMPACT UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRATION Jim Boren, "Denying Birthright Citizenship Won't Solve Immigration Problem," FRESNO BEE, 8-7-10, lexis. The Republicans have decided in this election year to push the hot-button issue of denying birthright citizenship, which is guaranteed in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and subsequent Supreme Court decisions. But this movement won't solve the nation's immigration problem, and the Republicans know it. This is merely a cynical election-year ploy. It is aimed at illegal immigrants from Mexico, just as past movements targeted immigrants from other countries in the early 20th century. There's no doubt we have an illegal immigration problem, so let's go after it at the source -- secure the border (we can do this if we really wanted to) and fine and jail employers who show a pattern of hiring illegal immigrants. That would have an impact, and is where the problem should be attacked. Let's stop being demagogues on birthright citizenship, and do something that would have results. And let's stop using the offensive term "anchor babies," a label that suggests that these babies who are citizens will somehow make their parents legal. But that is just plain wrong, at least for two decades. Immigration law is very clear on this point: The children could not apply to sponsor their parents for legal residency until they are 21 years old. So they would have to be "anchor adults" to do what the critics on talk shows say they are doing. Yet we have Republican Sen. Lindsay Graham telling Fox News: "We can't just have people swimming across the river having children here -- that's chaos." Sen. Graham thinks a pregnant woman, just days from giving birth, is going to swim a river to give citizenship for her baby and use that to become legal. I suggest he hold hearings with pregnant women about to give birth to test his river-swimming theory. 7. REPEAL WOULD NOT DECREASE UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRATION Cynthia M. Smith, policy advisor, Office of Migration Policy and Public Affairs, "Birthright Citizenship: The Real Story," ISSUE BRIEFING n. 2, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2011, http://www.rcan.org/images/humanconcerns/2011bc.pdf, accessed 1-11-12. Perhaps most significantly, were birthright citizenship repealed, unauthorized immigration would not be significantly deterred. Instead, the numbers of unauthorized immigrants in the United States would increase dramatically -- from the current 11 million to anywhere from 16 to 24 million or more -- and there would be thousands of U.S.-born children who would be rendered stateless -- without citizenship -- and unauthorized in the United States. These children -- who have done nothing wrong by being born in the United States to unauthorized immigrant parents -- would be punished by relegating them to second or third-class members of U.S. society. And, it would place an undue burden on all Americans, eliminating easy proof of citizenship status through birth certificates, and replacing it with an onerous process of having to trace one's family heritage and produce documentation of blood relations.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
100
FEBRUARY 2012

8. REPEAL WOULD DO LITTLE TO DECREASE UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRATION HARVARD LAW REVIEW, "The Birthright Citizenship Amendment: A Threat to Equality," v. 107, 3-94, p.1038. One goal of the amendment is to curtail the flow of undocumented migration. This objective, however, is precisely the type that the illegitimacy cases have found offensive to equality, for it indicates an attempt to alter the behavior of parents by discriminating against their innocent children. Measures that affect the rights of children are usually too indirect to justify the inherent threat to equality posed by distinctions based on parental conduct. Moreover, the citizenship amendment's ability to achieve its purpose in practice is dubious. Although many children born in American hospitals have undocumented parents, there is little evidence that the amendment would affect the overall rate of undocumented migration, for the dominant cause of such migration is the hope of obtaining employment, not government benefits and services. Even those who argue that children of the undocumented could be denied citizenship within the existing Constitution concede that, by itself, the amendment would have no significant effect on migration. 9. REPEAL WILL NOT STOP ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION -- CHILDREN DENIED CITIZENSHIP WILL STAY Sara Catherine Barnhart, "Second Class Delivery: The Elimination of Birthright Citizenship as a Repeal of 'The Pursuit of Happiness'," GEORGIA LAW REVIEW v. 42, Winter 2008, p.558-559. 1.Effect on Illegal Immigration. Repealing birthright citizenship will not eliminate the presence of children of undocumented immigrants in the United States. Regardless of the citizenship rules, these children will remain in the United States because the federal government will not make any meaningful attempt to remove them. "[T]he U.S. government will not want to expend the resources necessary to find, process and remove them and their parents." Because so many will remain in the United States, the country will benefit by conferring citizenship rights on these children. 10. REPEAL WILL DO NOTHING TO END UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRATION -- IS DRIVEN BY JOBS Sara Catherine Barnhart, "Second Class Delivery: The Elimination of Birthright Citizenship as a Repeal of 'The Pursuit of Happiness'," GEORGIA LAW REVIEW v. 42, Winter 2008, p.564-565. First, proponents of repealing birthright citizenship incorrectly assert that a change in citizenship doctrine may be accomplished by statute. Based upon the historical setting of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the legislative history of its passage, and relevant Supreme Court precedent, such a radical change in American immigration policy can likely be effected only by constitutional amendment. Second, elimination of birthright citizenship not only would exponentially increase the number of undocumented immigrants in this country, but also would fail to address the root of the problem: illegal immigration. Proponents argue that a repeal of birthright citizenship eliminates the motivation to immigrate to this country. This is likely incorrect, however, at least as applied to the greatest percentage of U.S. immigrants who are from Mexico or other Latin American nations. History demonstrates that Mexicans have been immigrating back and forth across the border for economic and labor opportunities for hundreds of years, long before the existence of any structured immigration law. Thus, so long as the economic climate is better in the United States than in Mexico, Mexicans will continue to immigrate to the United States seeking labor opportunities regardless of their future children's possible citizenship status.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
101
FEBRUARY 2012

11. UNDOCUMENTED PERSONS COME TO THE U.S. FOR JOBS, NOT BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP FOR THEIR CHILDREN Cynthia M. Smith, policy advisor, Office of Migration Policy and Public Affairs, "Birthright Citizenship: The Real Story," ISSUE BRIEFING n. 2, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2011, http://www.rcan.org/images/humanconcerns/2011bc.pdf, accessed 1-11-12. Despite over 140 years of constitutionally-enshrined birthright citizenship in the United States, opponents of lawful and unauthorized immigration push for its repeal, claiming that by doing so they will curtail unlawful immigration to the United States. They claim that unauthorized women are incentivized by the promise of birthright citizenship to enter the United States unlawfully to give birth to what will be a U.S. citizen child. And, they maintain that through these "anchor babies," thousands of unauthorized parents and family members are automatically obtaining legal status. However, the facts simply do not support these allegations. The fact is that most unauthorized immigrants come to the United States looking for jobs, not to give birth on U.S. soil. And, the argument that countless unauthorized immigrants are obtaining legal status through so-called "anchor babies" is erroneous; a U.S. Citizen cannot apply for a visa for an immediate family member -- parent or sibling -- until that U.S. Citizen is 21 years of age. And, even then, the wait for a visa is often years long. Thus, the unlawfully present parent of a U.S.-born child would have to wait 21 years to apply for lawful status through her U.S.-born child and then often many years more before it is conferred upon her. 12. UNDOCUMENTED PERSONS ARE NOT 'TEMPORARY-IMMIGRATE FOR ECONOMIC BENEFITS Nicole Newman, "Birthright Citizenship: The Fourteenth Amendment's Continuing Protection Against an American Caste System," BOSTON COLLEGE THIRD WORLD LAW JOURNAL v. 28, Spring 2008, p.471. To bolster their exclusionary policies, though, opponents of birthright citizenship assert that illegal immigrants are temporary residents, who were never intended to be included by the framers of the Citizenship Clause. However, illegal immigrants are no more temporary than the Chinese laborers who Americans deluded themselves into believing sought only to make a quick fortune and return to China. Opponents refuse to acknowledge the reality that vast numbers of children born to illegal immigrants in the United States will remain here for substantial periods of time, or forever, because the government is simply incapable of enforcing timely deportation. Instead, they hold onto nativist notions that "[t]he national interest would be better served if the entire family returned to their homeland," and that with better enforcement and fewer social benefits, illegal immigrants actually would return to their homeland voluntarily. Evidence proves otherwise -- "virtually all of the undocumented persons who come into this country seek employment opportunities," not social benefits.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
102
FEBRUARY 2012

13. REPEAL WON'T DO ANYTHING TO IMPACT THE REASONS PEOPLE IMMIGRATE NOW Katherine Pettit, J.D. Candidate, "Addressing the Call for the Elimination of Birthright Citizenship in the United States: Constitutional and Pragmatic Reasons to Keep Birthright Citizenship Intact," TULANE JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL AND COMPARATIVE LAW v. 15, Winter 2006, p.283-284. Expanding upon the issue of deterrence, lawmakers are fully aware that employment draws undocumented immigrants to the United States. Denying citizenship to those workers' children completely misses the issue. If immigrants were unable to find employment, there would probably be few people who would travel just for the sake of having a baby born in the United States. With the high price of smuggling and the current enforcement system that pushes people to cross the border in the less-guarded desert areas, the lethal risks of crossing the border are not options for many people, especially pregnant women. An aspect related to this argument is the question of whether many of these U.S.-born children would stay in the United States if the parents were caught and removed. While these children currently have the legal right as citizens to remain in the United States, that is not a factor that makes a difference in a parent's removal hearing in the absence of exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to the child. Most likely, if the government is successful in removing the parents, the child will go with them rather than enter foster care. Perhaps parents would be willing to leave their children if they had family members who are legal permanent residents or citizens. Overall, such a policy would do little to reduce the number of illegal immigrants.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
103
FEBRUARY 2012
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP DESIRABLE: ANSWERS TO: "IMMIGRATION MAGNET" -- BIRTH TOURISM

BIRTH TOURISM IS RARE Shikha Dalmia, senior policy analyst, "The Bogus Case Against Birthright Citizenship," REASON, 3-15-11, http://reason.com/archives/2011/03/15/the-bogus-case-against-birthri, accessed 1-9-12. The 14th Amendment was written, among other things, to prevent Confederate states from denying citizenship to newly freed blacks. What comparable injustice would amending this amendment prevent? Restrictionists claim that birthright citizenship encourages pregnant women to illegally sneak into the U.S. for a just-in-time delivery so that their newborns can gain citizenship and later sponsor them for citizenship. They call these kids "anchor babies." 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.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
104
FEBRUARY 2012
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP DESIRABLE: ANSWERS TO: "IMMIGRATION MAGNET" -- CHAIN MIGRATION

1. CHAIN MIGRATION CLAIMS ARE SPECIOUS USA TODAY, editorial, "Should Being Born in the USA Make You a Citizen?" 8-31-10, p.10A If babies were really the problem, perhaps it would make more sense to change the 14th Amendment. But charges that "anchor babies" begin a pernicious "chain migration" ignore the fact that a baby born a citizen here has to wait 21 years before trying to bring in most relatives. The undocumented parents of a U.S.-born baby are still illegal immigrants; they should not be allowed to plead the citizenship of their child to stave off deportation. The real ways to fight illegal immigration are the same as they've always been: Tighten the border. Make it harder for immigrants to work here illegally. Fix the E-Verify system that lets employers check whether job applicants are here legally. Set up a temporary worker system. And establish a path to legality for undocumented aliens already here who pay taxes and stay out of trouble. Repealing birthright citizenship is so divisive, and so far down the list of solutions, as to make it an unworthy addition to the national debate on immigration. 2. THE PARENTS STILL END UP GETTING DEPORTED INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN, "Stripping Birthright Won't Be Full Solution," 12-13-05, lexis. Insofar as illegal immigrants want a better life for their children, birthright citizenship does confer a reward for lawbreaking: Their improved lot in life. Yet the parents are routinely deported when caught, their American children sent with them. Upon maturation, the child innocent of any lawbreaking can return to the United States. Those who oppose birthright citizenship complain that they can then sponsor the entry of their parents. But that's an argument for ending a particular kind of family sponsorship, not birthright citizenship itself. 3. RISK THAT 'ANCHOR BABIES' ARE USED TO OBTAIN CITIZENSHIP IS VERY VERY LOW -- TOO MANY BARRIERS Katherine Pettit, J.D. Candidate, "Addressing the Call for the Elimination of Birthright Citizenship in the United States: Constitutional and Pragmatic Reasons to Keep Birthright Citizenship Intact," TULANE JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL AND COMPARATIVE LAW v. 15, Winter 2006, p.276-277. Some journalists, politicians, and academics make the "anchor baby" argument to explain why the situation today is serious enough to necessitate repealing birthright citizenship. The "anchor baby" argument holds that women intentionally come to the United States to have children in order to take advantage of the U.S. welfare system or other benefits that go along with having citizen children. Not only do they want these benefits for their children, but opponents of birthright citizenship also argue, with emotionally charged rhetoric, that they are doing this in order to obtain citizenship for themselves through their U.S.-born child. While this undoubtedly has happened, this critique sounds strikingly similar to those made against "welfare moms" who intentionally have additional children in order to get more money from the government. Moreover, many politicians who put this argument in front of their constituents often fail to mention that children may not petition for legal permanent residency for a family member until they reach the age of twenty-one. At that point, the adult child may file a petition, but even then it could take many more years before the parent could possibly obtain legal immigration status, provided they are not found to have entered the country illegally nor broken any immigration laws. That would mean that the parent would have to return to Mexico and pretend that they had been living there, that they had a visa during the brief time when the child was born in the United States, and that they did not overstay that visa. It might also be difficult to explain who took care of and supported the child until he or she grew up. The point of this hypothetical is that the myth of the "anchor baby" is simply that, a myth. Even if people attempt this scheme, it would be practically impossible for it to be successful as an anchor. Finally, even if this myth were completely accurate, it is not a new scenario that could not have happened in the past.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
105
FEBRUARY 2012
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP DESIRABLE: ANSWERS TO: "IMMIGRATION MAGNET" -- CHAIN MIGRATION cont'd
4. SO-CALLED 'ANCHOR BABIES' ARE ONLY PROOF THAT WE CANNOT CONTROL OUR BORDERS INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN, "Stripping Birthright Won't Be Full Solution," 12-13-05, lexis. Also flawed: The argument that birthright citizenship undercuts America's ability to confer citizenship, a basic element of sovereignty. Actually, any problems stemming from birthright citizenship are a symptom of compromised sovereignty, not a primary cause. If America controls its borders, pregnant illegal immigrants won't have the opportunity to give birth within our nation. Conversely, a rash of babies born to illegal immigrants signifies that we've already failed to safeguard our borders and seen our sovereignty undermined. Of course, the argument that birthright citizenship robs us of our ability to set standards for citizenship is also faulty because so long as birthright citizenship is codified into law we are choosing our citizens, counting anyone born on our soil among them. Now consider a cost-benefit analysis. Ending birthright citizenship won't appreciably decrease illegal immigration or the number of illegal immigrants living in the United States. 5. 'ANCHOR BABIES' CANNOT PREVENT THE DEPORTATION OF THEIR PARENTS UNTIL THEY TURN 21 Marc Lacy, "Birthright Citizenship Looms as Next Immigration Battle," NEW YORK TIMES, 1-4-11, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/05/us/politics/05babies.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all, accessed 1-5-11. Despite being called "anchor babies," the children of illegal immigrants born in the United States cannot actually prevent deportation of their parents. It is not until they reach the age of 21 that the children are able to file paperwork to sponsor their parents for legal immigration status. The parents remain vulnerable until that point. Maria Ledezma knows as much. Just off a bus that deported her from Phoenix to the Mexico border town of Nogales, she was sobbing as she explained the series of events that led her to be separated from her three daughters, ages 4, 7 and 9, all American citizens. "I never imagined being here," said Ms. Ledezma, 25, who was brought to Phoenix from Mexico as a toddler. "I'll bet right now that my girls are asking, 'Where's Mom?' " 6. CHAIN MIGRATION CLAIMS ARE WRONG Shikha Dalmia, senior policy analyst, "The Bogus Case Against Birthright Citizenship," REASON, 3-15-11, http://reason.com/archives/2011/03/15/the-bogus-case-against-birthri, accessed 1-9-12. 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. About 4,000 unauthorized parents with kids who are citizens can avoid deportation every year. This, then, is the grand illicit citizenship racket that Will & co. want a constitutional amendment to crack!
PARADIGM RESEARCH
106
FEBRUARY 2012
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP DESIRABLE: ANSWERS TO: "IMMIGRATION MAGNET" -- ECONOMIC EFFECTS

1. UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS BOOST THE ECONOMY -- PURCHASES, MULTIPLIER EFFECT Immigration Policy Center, "Undocumented Immigrants as Taxpayers," November 2007, http://immigration.server263.com/images/File/factcheck/Undocumented%20as%20Taxpayer%2011-29-07.pdf, accessed 1-4-11. Likewise, a 2007 report from the Iowa Policy Project concluded that "undocumented immigrants pay an estimated aggregate amount of $40 million to $62 million in state taxes each year." Moreover, "undocumented immigrants working on the books in Iowa and their employers also contribute annually an estimated $50 million to $77.8 million in federal Social Security and Medicare taxes from which they will never benefit. Rather than draining state resources, undocumented immigrants are in some cases subsidizing services that only documented residents can access." Spending Begets More Spending and a Stronger Economy The consumer purchasing power of undocumented immigrants -- what they spend on goods, services, and housing -- not only creates new jobs, but also provides federal, state, and local governments with additional revenue through sales, income, business, and property taxes. In other words, spending by undocumented immigrants has an economic "multiplier effect." For instance, a 2002 study by the Center for Urban Economic Development at the University of Chicago found that undocumented immigrants in the Chicago metropolitan area alone spent $2.89 billion in 2001. These expenditures stimulated "an additional $2.56 billion in local spending," for a total of $5.45 billion in additional spending, or 1.5% of the Gross Regional Product. This spending, in turn, sustained 31,908 jobs in the local economy. 2. UNDOCUMENTED WORKERS FILL A HUGE GAP IN OUR LABOR MARKET Daniel Griswold, Director, Center for Trade Policy Studies, Cato Institute, "Immigration Law Should Reflect our Dynamic Labor Market," DALLAS MORNING NEWS, April 27, 2008, www.freetrade.org/node/869, accessed 1-4-11. Among its many virtues, America is a nation where laws are generally reasonable, respected and impartially enforced. A glaring exception is immigration. Today an estimated 12 million people live in the U.S. without authorization, 1.6 million in Texas alone, and that number grows every year. Many Americans understandably want the rule of law restored to a system where law-breaking has become the norm. The fundamental choice before us is whether we redouble our efforts to enforce existing immigration law, whatever the cost, or whether we change the law to match the reality of a dynamic society and labor market. Low-skilled immigrants cross the Mexican border illegally or overstay their visas for a simple reason: There are jobs waiting here for them to fill, especially in Texas and other, faster growing states. Each year our economy creates hundreds of thousands of net new jobs -- in such sectors as retail, cleaning, food preparation, construction and tourism -- that require only short-term, on-the-job training. At the same time, the supply of Americans who have traditionally filled many of those jobs -- those without a high school diploma -- continues to shrink. Their numbers have declined by 4.6 million in the past decade, as the typical American worker becomes older and better educated. Yet our system offers no legal channel for anywhere near a sufficient number of peaceful, hardworking immigrants to legally enter the United States even temporarily to fill this growing gap. The predictable result is illegal immigration
PARADIGM RESEARCH
107
FEBRUARY 2012
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP DESIRABLE: ANSWERS TO: "IMMIGRATION MAGNET" -- ECONOMIC EFFECTS cont'd
3. UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS PLAY A VITAL ROLE IN THE ECONOMY, ARE REQUIRED TO PAY TAXES Francine J. Lipman, Associate Professor, Law, Chapman University, "The Taxation of Undocumented Immigrants: Separate, Unequal, and Without Representation," HARVARD LATINO LAW REVIEW v. 9, Spring 2006, p.4-5. Documented and undocumented immigrants have played a vital role in this country's economy and development since colonial times. Immigrants "voted in the United States and even held public office from the Colonial Era through the 1920s." "Neither the Constitution nor common law jurisprudence present a bar" to extending voting rights to noncitizens, and principles of democracy and equal protection actually support it. For many years, the right to vote was based upon property ownership rather than citizenship, reflecting the rationale that "property owners, including noncitizens, pay taxes and thus they too should have the right to vote." Undocumented immigrants, like all citizens and residents of the United States, are required to pay taxes. Despite the historic and strong American opposition to taxation without representation, undocumented immigrants (except in rare cases) have not enjoyed the right to vote on any local, state or federal tax or other matter for almost eighty years. Nevertheless, each year undocumented immigrants add billions of dollars in sales, excise, property, income, and payroll taxes, including Social Security, Medicare and unemployment taxes, to federal, state and local coffers. Hundreds of thousands of undocumented immigrants go out of their way to file annual federal and state income tax returns.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
108
FEBRUARY 2012
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP DESIRABLE: ANSWERS TO: "IMMIGRATION MAGNET" -- PARENTS/HARDSHIP

PARENTS ARE ONLY RARELY ABLE TO OBTAIN PERMANENT STATUS UNDER HARDSHIP REQUIREMENTS Nicole Newman, "Birthright Citizenship: The Fourteenth Amendment's Continuing Protection Against an American Caste System," BOSTON COLLEGE THIRD WORLD LAW JOURNAL v. 28, Spring 2008, p.478-480.
Second, opponents claim that undocumented parents are less likely to be deported if they have a citizen child, especially once they have been in the country for seven years. This assertion makes light of INA 240A, which allows for the cancellation of removal and adjustment of status, providing separate qualifications first for LPRs, and then for non-LPRs. If the undocumented parent of a citizen child is apprehended, and placed in removal proceedings, INA 240A(b) only applies in very narrow situations. There are five mandatory requirements for an otherwise inadmissible or deportable immigrant to be granted a cancellation of removal or adjustment of status: (1) the Attorney General must determine the case warrants favorable discretion; (2) the immigrant must have been physically present for a continuous period of at least ten years; (3) the immigrant must have been a person of good moral character while present; (4) the immigrant must not have been convicted of any offense listed in the grounds of inadmissibility or grounds of deportation; (5) the immigrant must establish that removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to the immigrant's spouse, parent, or child, who is a citizen or LPR. Opponents who make this claim rarely discuss the first four requirements, if at all, and severely downplay the difficulty in meeting the fifth requirement. In fact, each of the requirements is a real barrier to most claims, especially the last requirement. First, the provision begins with the phrase, "the Attorney General may cancel removal," meaning that even if an undocumented immigrant is able to meet all of the other requirements, his or her claim may be denied under the ultimate discretion of the Attorney General. Second, "physical presence" ends any time the immigrant has committed one of the specified crimes, or if the immigrant has departed the country "for any period in excess of 90 days or for any periods in the aggregate exceeding 180 days." Over a period of ten years, it is not unlikely that a person with family and friends abroad will take a three month trip or travel a total exceeding 180 days. Third, although a person of "good moral character" might seem to be a subjective category, the INA lists eight non-exclusive violations, one of which includes having ever been "a habitual drunkard, for example." Fourth, "conviction" of an offense listed in INA 212(a)(2) or 237(a), includes very minor crimes and does not, in fact, require a conviction. The crimes listed by the statute include any drug offense, even the most minor crimes involving marijuana. Especially ambiguous are the crimes involving "moral turpitude," which include any crime involving fraud, forgery, crimes against property, or crimes against a person. Lastly, however, is the burden on the undocumented parent to show that his or her removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his or her citizen child. This means a great deal more than merely having a citizen child who would be left behind without care if the undocumented parent were removed. Opponents' assertions otherwise conflict with years of case law, where courts have consistently refused to find exceptional and extremely unusual hardship due to the de facto deportation of the citizen child. The standard for relief is very high. Undocumented parents may not simply claim that their children will suffer hardship because of lower levels of education, health care, and economic opportunities than they would have here. Courts generally disregard the de facto deportation they order for citizen children when denying a cancellation of removal for an undocumented parent; they focus instead on the choice of the family to have the children stay behind, and the choice of the child to return as a U.S. citizen later in life. In fact, one court suggested that removal from the United States made the mother "unfit." There can be no doubt that the myth of easy chain migration has been greatly exaggerated by opponents to birthright citizenship. When undocumented parents face removal, the fact that they have a citizen child only makes the decision more tragic. It does not, however, make it more likely that they will avoid removal and become an LPR. The truth is that the "anchor baby" is just a myth, nothing more. Whether or not undocumented pregnant mothers actually are "touring the parking lot [of American hospitals] waiting for their pains to start so they can go in and deliver," they are never handed an easy route to legal status because of it. The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment merely serves as a backstop, preventing the creation of a permanent subclass of people and children who would have no other route to legalized status. Therefore, birthright citizenship, as effectively limited by the INA, should not be eliminated as opponents insist.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
109
FEBRUARY 2012
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP DESIRABLE: ANSWERS TO: "IMMIGRATION MAGNET" -- SOCIAL SERVICES/BUDGET

1. IMMIGRANTS USE WELFARE AT MUCH LOWER RATES THAN DO CITIZENS Priscilla Huang, Reproductive Justice Project Director, National Asian Pacific Women's Forum, "Which Babies Are Real Americans?" TOMPAINE.COM, 2-20 -- 07, www.tompaine.com/articles/2007/02/20/which_babies_are_real_americans.php, accessed 1-7-12. Groups like FAIR assert that immigrant women enter the U.S. to give birth to "anchor babies," who can then sponsor the immigration of other relatives upon reaching the age of 21. They further contend that "anchor babies" and their families create a drain on the country's social service programs. The irrational stance of anti-immigrant advocates echoes that of 1990's welfare reformers. Both assume that childbearing by immigrants or poor women of color creates a cycle of poverty and dependence on the government. Immigrant women and women on welfare are depicted as irresponsible mothers and fraudulent freeloaders. They're wrong. Several studies have shown that immigrants -- documented and undocumented -- access social welfare services at much lower rates than U.S.-born citizens. Furthermore, under the 1996 Welfare Reform Act, new immigrants are barred from accessing Medicaid benefits for five years, and sponsor liability rules often render many of these immigrants ineligible for services even after expiration of that restriction. And there is no evidence of intergenerational welfare dependency between immigrant parents and children. 2. REPEAL WOULD HAVE LITTLE EFFECT ON STATE EXPENDITURES HARVARD LAW REVIEW, "The Birthright Citizenship Amendment: A Threat to Equality," v. 107, 3-94, p.1038-1039. Another stated purpose of the citizenship amendment is to relieve state and local governments of financial burdens. Yet despite popular misconceptions, the only savings created by the citizenship amendment would be relief from providing benefits to the newborn children who would otherwise be entitled to them as citizens, for parents and their households do not receive additional benefits because they have a citizen child. Even if the government has a valid purpose in seeking savings by reducing the number of people eligible for assistance, it should give some rational reason to single out these native-born children over others. A desire to preserve resources in itself cannot justify singling out a discrete group of children if their selection was made entirely on the basis of parental circumstances. Thus, although the principle of equality allows for distinctions related to a permissible government purpose, the citizenship amendment's goals do not offset its contradiction of a fundamental aspect of the equality principle: classifications may not treat certain children differently purely on the basis of parental circumstances. Congress and the states should decline to disfigure the Constitution with such an affront to the equality principle. 3. IMMIGRANTS PAY MORE IN TAXES THAN THEY RECEIVE IN SERVICES Immigration Policy Center, "Undocumented Immigrants as Taxpayers," November 2007, http://immigration.server263.com/images/File/factcheck/Undocumented%20as%20Taxpayer%2011-29-07.pdf, accessed 1-4-11. Even at the State Level, Undocumented Immigrants Still Pay More in Taxes Than They Use in Services A 2006 study by the Texas State Comptroller found that "the absence of the estimated 1.4 million undocumented immigrants in Texas in fiscal 2005 would have been a loss to our gross state product of $17.7 billion. Undocumented immigrants produced $1.58 billion in state revenues, which exceeded the $1.16 billion in state services they received." Similarly, a 2007 study by the Oregon Center for Public Policy estimated that undocumented immigrants in Oregon pay state income, excise, and property taxes, as well as federal Social Security and Medicare taxes, which "total about $134 million to $187 million annually." In addition, "taxes paid by Oregon employers on behalf of undocumented workers total about $97 million to $136 million annually." As the report goes on to note, undocumented workers are ineligible for the Oregon Health Plan, food stamps, and temporary cash assistance.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
110
FEBRUARY 2012
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP DESIRABLE: ANSWERS TO: "IMMIGRATION MAGNET" -- SOCIAL SERVICES/BUDGET cont'd
4. IMMIGRANTS DO NOT TAKE MORE FROM THE 'WELFARE STATE' THAN THEY CONTRIBUTE Katherine Pettit, J.D. Candidate, "Addressing the Call for the Elimination of Birthright Citizenship in the United States: Constitutional and Pragmatic Reasons to Keep Birthright Citizenship Intact," TULANE JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL AND COMPARATIVE LAW v. 15, Winter 2006, p.277-278. A final argument for why the United States is in a different situation now is the existence of a modern welfare state that did not exist when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. Representative Paul wrote in his "Straight Talk" column that he introduced an amendment to a 2005 immigration bill to end social security payments to non-U.S. citizens (despite their having worked and paid into social security) and to prohibit illegal aliens from receiving food stamps, student loans, or other federally provided assistance. Any student who has filed their Free Application for Federal Student Aid recently knows that one cannot apply for federal aid without having proper citizenship status. Likewise, any immigrant with a decent lawyer who has applied for cancellation from removal before an immigration judge knows that having benefited from food stamps (even those issued to a U.S.-born child) puts him or her at risk of being denied cancellation and removed. While it is hard to calculate the number of people who are illegally benefiting from government aid, presenting an image to constituents that the situation is drastically worse than they think (and probably worse than it really is) is unethical. The assumption that immigrants cross the border primarily to exploit the United States is unfounded, especially in light of the vast number of low-paying and service jobs that are filled by such people. After Hurricane Katrina hit, did the immigrants who rushed to New Orleans go there to take advantage of the great social welfare benefits being distributed there? Clearly not. Even if one concedes that immigrants do benefit from the U.S. welfare state, the counterargument, which is conceded by the strongest opponents of birthright citizenship, is that many immigrants pay taxes that support the welfare state. No conclusive evidence has been published that proves immigrants take more from the system than they contribute. 5. UNDOCUMENTED PERSONS PAY FAR MORE IN TAXES THAN THEY RECEIVE IN SOCIAL SERVICES -- CONSENSUS PROVES Francine J. Lipman, Associate Professor, Law, Chapman University, "The Taxation of Undocumented Immigrants: Separate, Unequal, and Without Representation," HARVARD LATINO LAW REVIEW v. 9, Spring 2006, p.1-4. Americans believe that undocumented immigrants are exploiting the United States economy. The widespread belief is that "illegal aliens" cost more in government services than they contribute to the economy. This belief is demonstrably false. "Every empirical study of illegals' economic impact demonstrates the opposite: undocumenteds actually contribute more to public coffers in taxes than they cost in social services." Moreover, undocumented immigrants contribute to the U.S. economy by investing and consuming goods and services; filling millions of "essential worker" positions resulting in subsidiary job creation, increased productivity and lower costs of goods and services; and making unrequited contributions to Social Security, Medicare and unemployment insurance programs. Eighty-five percent of eminent economists surveyed have concluded that undocumented immigrants have had a positive (seventy-four percent) or neutral (eleven percent) impact on the U.S. economy.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
111
FEBRUARY 2012
6. IMMIGRANTS PAY FAR MORE IN TAXES THAT THEY WILL RECEIVE IN GOVERNMENT SERVICES Meredith King Ledford, MPP, IMMIGRATIONS IN THE U.S. HEALTH CARE SYSTEM: FIVE MYTHS THAT MISINFORM THE AMERICAN PUBLIC, Center for American Progress, June 7, 2007, p.8. This myth is perhaps the most ardently asserted belief regarding undocumented immigrants and the U.S. health care system. The facts illustrate that undocumented workers contribute more to the revenue stream for U.S. social benefits than they use. In Texas, for example, nearly seven percent of the state's population was comprised of undocumented immigrants in 2005. The state's health care costs for undocumented immigrants that same year were a mere $58 million. Yet state revenues collected from undocumented immigrants exceeded what the state spent on social services provided to these immigrants such as health care and education by $424.7 million. Immigrant contributions to social services are similar across the country. The National Research Council concluded that immigrants will pay on average $80,000 per capita more in taxes than they will use in government services over their lifetimes. 7. UNDOCUMENTED PERSONS PAY MORE IN TAXES THAN THEY RECEIVE IN BENEFITS Marguerite Angelari, Professor, Law, Loyola University Chicago, "Access to Health Care for Elderly Immigrants, " ANNALS OF HEALTH LAW v. 17, Summer 2008, p.282. The United States economy benefits from the contributions of undocumented immigrants who pay in more to government programs than they receive in return. A 2002 study by the National Center for Policy Analysis found that undocumented workers "paid approximately 46% as much in taxes as American-born citizens, but they received only 38% as much from the government." Additional figures demonstrate that undocumented immigrants paid $ 50 billion in federal taxes from 1996 to 2003. In particular, the Social Security Administration ("SSA") and Medicare benefit from the taxes paid by undocumented workers; annually, undocumented immigrants pay seven billion dollars in Social Security taxes and 1.5 billion dollars in Medicare taxes. According to the 2008 Annual Report on Social Security, undocumented workers pay enough taxes to reduce the Social Security program's projected long-term deficit by 15%. The Social Security contributions of these six to seven million individuals are held in the SSA's Earnings Suspense File ("ESF"), a compilation of wages earned that "cannot be credited to a specific individual's earnings record because the name and the Social Security Number do not match up." As of 2003, the ESF contained $ 345 billion a portion of which derives from undocumented workers who do not have a social security number ("SSN").
PARADIGM RESEARCH
112
FEBRUARY 2012
8. UNDOCUMENTED PERSONS PAY TAXES, PROVIDE SUPPORT TO LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICTS -'DRAIN' ARGUMENTS ARE SIMPLY FALSE Neda Mahmoudzadeh, "Love Them, Love Them Not: The Reflection of Anti-Immigrant Attitudes in Undocumented Immigrant Health Care Law," THE SCHOLAR: ST. MARY'S LAW REVIEW ON MINORITY ISSUES v. 9, Spring 2007, p.485. Contrary to popular belief, undocumented immigrants actually contribute to the United States Treasury by paying Social Security and federal income taxes withheld from their paychecks (using false Social Security Numbers). Every year, the Social Security Administration receives substantial amounts of W-2 earning reports with false or incorrect Social Security Numbers, worth billions of dollars. Since 2000, unclaimed Social Security tax revenue and Medicaid taxes paid by undocumented immigrants respectively generated about $ 7 billion and $ 1.5 billion. A substantial portion of this revenue may belong to illegal immigrants who are unable to claim their Social Security funds. Undocumented immigrants also support local school districts by paying real estate taxes through home ownership or as renters. This is the case, even while it is estimated that only three percent of immigrants receive food stamps. Experts generally admit that illegal immigration has a mixed economic impact. While "employers, middle-class consumers, and some native workers" may benefit from it, other low-income workers, "whose jobs are taken or whose wages are lowered," suffer from it. Some economic theorists, however, argue that most of the wage and job losses are "sustained by previous immigrants because immigrants compete most directly with one another."
PARADIGM RESEARCH
113
FEBRUARY 2012
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP DESIRABLE: ANSWERS TO: "INTERNATIONAL COMPARISONS"

1. BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP IS THE NORM THROUGHOUT THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE Jason Marczak, senior editor, "Birthright Citizenship is the Wrong Debate," AMERICAS QUARTERLY, 1-1411, http://americasquarterly.org/node/2112, accessed 1-4-12. We are a hemisphere of immigrants. Although many industrialized countries have moved away from a jus soli system that is not the case for the Americas. In fact, from Canada to Argentina -- and just about everywhere in between -- birthright citizenship is the norm. Twenty-nine countries across the Americas recognize birthright citizenship with the notable exceptions of a handful of Caribbean countries and Costa Rica. In Latin America, these policies came about from a desire to attract European migration. In 1869, Argentina adopted a law stipulating that all those born on its territory are Argentinean notwithstanding the nationality of their parents. Similar texts were then adopted across the hemisphere. 2. REPEAL WOULD BE A DISASTER -- EXPERIENCE IN OTHER COUNTRIES PROVES Julie M. Weise, Assistant Professor, International Studies, CSU-Long Beach, "A Heavy Price to Ending Birthright Citizenship," LOS ANGELES TIMES, 9-2-10, http://articles.latimes.com/2010/sep/02/opinion/la-oe-weise-birthright-20100902, accessed 1-9-12. We can already see the future of our nation if it renounces birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants, and it isn't pretty. Dragging economies, new forms of fraud, a disenfranchised underclass, children deported to places they have never even visited -- countries that do not have birthright citizenship have experienced these problems and more, and have been forced to reconsider their practices. Germany, Israel and Japan are just three of those countries, and their experiences have much to teach us. The current debate about the future of the Constitution's 14th Amendment, which guarantees citizenship for all born on U.S. soil, centers on the question of individual fairness: Should these children have the right to U.S. citizenship although their birth on U.S. soil was the result of their parents' unauthorized presence here? The debate is really about what citizenship and belonging mean in the United States -- profound and important issues but not ones that draw easy consensus. But if we ask what will happen to our society as a whole if we eliminate birthright citizenship, the facts become easy to see. 3. RESTRICTIONS WOULD NOT DECREASE UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRATION -- OTHER COUNTRIES PROVE Julie M. Weise, Assistant Professor, International Studies, CSU-Long Beach, "A Heavy Price to Ending Birthright Citizenship," LOS ANGELES TIMES, 9-2-10, http://articles.latimes.com/2010/sep/02/opinion/la-oe-weise-birthright-20100902, accessed 1-9-12. 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. Americans will have different opinions on what is fair to taxpayers or innocent children, to would-be immigrants waiting "in line" abroad or undocumented parents already here, to low-skilled American workers or striving newcomers seeking the American dream. What we have seen, however, is that when a country does not offer citizenship to all born on its soil, society as a whole suffers the consequences.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
114
FEBRUARY 2012
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP DESIRABLE: ANSWERS TO: "INTERNATIONAL COMPARISONS" cont'd

4. GERMANY PROVES THAT REPEAL WOULD CREATE A LEGAL NIGHTMARE Julie M. Weise, Assistant Professor, International Studies, CSU-Long Beach, "A Heavy Price to Ending Birthright Citizenship," LOS ANGELES TIMES, 9-2-10, http://articles.latimes.com/2010/sep/02/opinion/la-oe-weise-birthright-20100902, accessed 1-9-12. Since the birth of modern Germany, that country has followed the jus sanguinis, or "right of blood," principle of citizenship, in which any German descendant could claim German citizenship while the children of foreigners -even legal immigrants -- born in Germany could not. To meet labor needs while keeping Germany as German as possible, the government implemented guest-worker programs to bring in foreigners for temporary stays. But things did not work out as planned. Some guest workers remained, and as the economy grew and the workforce aged, immigrants kept coming -- both inside and outside the law. Their German-born noncitizen children began to form a vast underclass. These children had known only Germany and German in their young lives but were stuck in a no man's land as people without a country. So in 2000, Germany made its citizenship laws just a little more like ours. Children born on German soil could claim German citizenship, but only if at least one of their parents had lived in the country legally for eight years. The children born in Germany of two undocumented parents still are not German citizens at birth. The result is an underground market in fraudulent paternity, in which German men who are citizens -- derogatorily known as imbissvaeter, or fast-food fathers -- claim to be a child's father in exchange for a fee, thus enabling the child to be a German citizen. Far from promoting the rule of law, Germany's approach to citizenship has created a mess. Unless the U.S. implemented mandatory DNA testing, which many would consider an invasion of privacy, it is likely that a similar black market in paternity would emerge here if birthright citizenship were eliminated.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
115
FEBRUARY 2012
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP DESIRABLE: ANSWERS TO: "RULE OF LAW"

1. REPEAL WOULD UNDERMINE THE RULE OF LAW Katherine Pettit, J.D. Candidate, "Addressing the Call for the Elimination of Birthright Citizenship in the United States: Constitutional and Pragmatic Reasons to Keep Birthright Citizenship Intact," TULANE JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL AND COMPARATIVE LAW v. 15, Winter 2006, p.288. A sixth pragmatic reason for not changing the current birthright citizenship system is that such action would debase the rule of law. Representative Flake argues that the current system does not promote the rule of law, presumably because it grants benefits to people who break the law. The problem with this argument is that to deny citizenship to people born within U.S. territory is to add to the number of people who are living outside the law. Further, we would be treating people unequally based on the nationality of their parents when they had no choice in the matter and have little ability to change their situation until they are adults. The "law" is already broken in that the United States has an immigration system with a high demand for labor and insufficient legal means to obtain it. Employers hire undocumented workers but are only given a slap on the wrist if they are caught (or blatantly encouraged to break the law such as during the period following Hurricane Katrina). Meanwhile, politicians want to punish all future children of the workers who were lured to the United States by forever denying them the right to participate in the country in which they live and work to improve their situation. There is no rule of law in such a scenario. 2. REPEAL IS NOT NECESSARY TO PRESERVE THE RULE OF LAW Shikha Dalmia, senior policy analyst, "The Bogus Case Against Birthright Citizenship," REASON, 3-15-11, http://reason.com/archives/2011/03/15/the-bogus-case-against-birthri, accessed 1-9-12. Conservatives argue that this amendment is necessary to enforce the rule of law. But the first principle of conservatism, constantly deployed against liberal reformers, is that it is not wise to make radical changes to long-standing laws and institutions for small gains. As Aristotle warned in the Politics two-and-half millennia ago: "[W]hen the improvement is small, and since it is a bad thing to habituate people to the reckless dissolution of laws, it is evident that some errors of both legislations and of the rulers should be let go; for the city will not be benefited as much from changing them as it will be harmed through being habituated to disobey the rulers. The easy alteration of existing laws in favor of new and different ones weakens the power of law itself." Yet, here are conservatives now, disregarding their own wisdom and subverting the rule of law in the name of the rule of law to fight bogus causes. 3. UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRATION IS NOT AN INHERENTLY CRIMINAL ACT -- THE LAW ITSELF IS THE PROBLEM Daniel Griswold, Director, Center for Trade Policy Studies, Cato Institute, "Immigration Law Should Reflect our Dynamic Labor Market," DALLAS MORNING NEWS, April 27, 2008, www.freetrade.org/node/869, accessed 1-4-11. In response, we can spend billions more to beef up border patrols. We can erect hundreds of miles of ugly fence slicing through private property along the Rio Grande. We can raid more discount stores and chicken-processing plants from coast to coast. We can require all Americans to carry a national ID card and seek approval from a government computer before starting a new job. Or we can change our immigration law to more closely conform to how millions of normal people actually live. Crossing an international border to support your family and pursue dreams of a better life is not an inherently criminal act like rape or robbery. If it were, then most of us descend from criminals. As the people of Texas know well, the large majority of illegal immigrants are not bad people. They are people who value family, faith and hard work trying to live within a bad system. When large numbers of otherwise decent people routinely violate a law, the law itself is probably the problem. To argue that illegal immigration is bad merely because it is illegal avoids the threshold question of whether we should prohibit this kind of immigration in the first place.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
116
FEBRUARY 2012
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP DESIRABLE: ANSWERS TO: "RULE OF LAW" cont'd

4. LABELING UNDOCUMENTED WORKERS AS 'LAWBREAKERS' IS DISINGENUOUS SINCE U.S. ECONOMIC AND TRADE POLICIES ENCOURAGE ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION Walter Ewing, policy analyst, "Immigration Policy for the 21st Century: The Case for Legalization of Undocumented Immigrants," United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, March 2002. Available from the World Wide Web at: http://www.usccb.org/mrs/legaliza.shtml, accessed 1-4-11. Upon close examination, the arguments of legalization opponents have proven to be unsubstantiated. The notion that a legalization program would automatically open the flood gates and harm those who have "played by the rules" ignores that a gradual legalization process, undertaken as part of more comprehensive immigration reform, would likely have the opposite effect. Furthermore, the simplistic labeling of undocumented immigrants as "lawbreakers" and "job stealers" has little credibility considering the role of U.S. economic policies such as NAFTA in promoting migration; the heavy dependence of many U.S. industries on undocumented workers; and the fact that most border-crossers are fleeing poverty and unemployment. 5. UNDOCUMENTED PERSONS ARE IN AMERICA BECAUSE THE IMMIGRATION SYSTEM IS BROKEN -- OUR GOVERNMENT BEARS AT LEAST SOME OF THE BLAME Katherine Pettit, J.D. Candidate, "Addressing the Call for the Elimination of Birthright Citizenship in the United States: Constitutional and Pragmatic Reasons to Keep Birthright Citizenship Intact," TULANE JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL AND COMPARATIVE LAW v. 15, Winter 2006, p.274-275. Before answering that question, a preliminary question should be addressed: "why are the undocumented people present in the United States not here legally?" Is it because they are too lazy to follow the proper procedures or because they prefer to live in an undocumented status? This question is important because the reality is that many of the undocumented people in the United States simply cannot obtain documentation. Meanwhile, there remains a high and unmet demand for manual labor. It can take years to obtain work authorization. The process can be equally as slow for people who are seeking to obtain legal status through family members who are legal permanent residents or citizens. If the reason for keeping people out of the United States is due to overcrowding or because immigrants make bad citizens, then our focus in creating an immigration system would be quite different. The current shortage of legal workers arguably makes the United States responsible on some level for the arrival of the undocumented immigrants. The enforcement-heavy bills currently before Congress are unlikely to change this broken system. Should people who are drawn to the United States by labor recruiters and smugglers be punished with the threat that their children will not be able to become citizens of the country in which they are born and raised while there is no legal way for the parents to enter? Simply barring the entrance of more people only exacerbates the problem.
PARADIGM RESEARCH
117
FEBRUARY 2012
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP DESIRABLE: ANSWERS TO: "RULE OF LAW" cont'd

6. THE STATE IS COMPLICIT IN IRREGULAR IMMIGRATION -- PROMOTES POLICIES THAT ENCOURAGE IT Joseph H. Carens, "The Case for Amnesty," BOSTON REVIEW, May/June 2009, http://bostonreview.net/BR34.3/carens.php, accessed 1-4-11. One such consideration is the claim that states are complicit in irregular migration. Many argue that rich, liberal democratic states do not actually want to exclude irregular migrants, despite loud public pronouncements to that effect. From the state's perspective it is precisely their irregular status that makes them desirable as workers because their vulnerability makes them tractable and easy to exploit. If this is true, then it undermines the argument that irregular migrants are present without the consent of the political community and so not entitled to the same rights as legally authorized migrants. If a state covertly encourages migrants to enter, it owes them the same status and legal rights to which they would be entitled if they were recruited openly. Even if the question is not one of the state explicitly recruiting irregular migrants, but only of failing to enforce immigration laws and controls when it could do so, the state bears considerable responsibility for results of its inaction. So state complicity in irregular migration reinforces the moral case for amnesty. And this is not just a point of principle. Recognition of the state's complicity in irregular migration movements has played a role in Spain, Italy, and even the United States in the past in generating public support for legalization policies for irregular migrants.

Paradigm Feb 12 PF

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Paradigm Feb 12 PF

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

PARADIGM

Copyright 2012 by Paradigm Research, Inc. All rights reserved.

First Edition Printed In The United States Of America

For information on Paradigm Debate Products:

BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP UNDESIRABLE: TOPSHELF

BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP UNDESIRABLE: CONGRESS CAN/SHOULD ACT

BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP UNDESIRABLE: CONSENT PRINCIPLE

BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP UNDESIRABLE: CONSENT PRINCIPLE cont'd

BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP UNDESIRABLE: CONSENT PRINCIPLE cont'd

BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP UNDESIRABLE: DUAL CITIZENSHIP/ALLEGIANCE

BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP UNDESIRABLE: IMMIGRATION LAW ENFORCEMENT

BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP UNDESIRABLE: IMMIGRATION MAGNET -- GENERAL

BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP UNDESIRABLE: IMMIGRATION MAGNET -- GENERAL cont'd

BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP UNDESIRABLE: IMMIGRATION MAGNET -- GENERAL cont'd

BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP UNDESIRABLE: IMMIGRATION MAGNET -- GENERAL cont'd

BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP UNDESIRABLE: IMMIGRATION MAGNET -- GENERAL cont'd

BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP UNDESIRABLE: IMMIGRATION MAGNET -- BIRTH TOURISM

BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP UNDESIRABLE: IMMIGRATION MAGNET -- BIRTH TOURISM cont'd

BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP UNDESIRABLE: IMMIGRATION MAGNET -- CHAIN MIGRATION

BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP UNDESIRABLE: IMMIGRATION MAGNET -- CHAIN MIGRATION cont'd

BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP UNDESIRABLE: IMMIGRATION MAGNET -- ECONOMIC EFFECTS

BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP UNDESIRABLE: IMMIGRATION MAGNET -- ECONOMIC EFFECTS cont'd

BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP UNDESIRABLE: IMMIGRATION MAGNET -- PARENTS/HARDSHIP

BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP UNDESIRABLE: IMMIGRATION MAGNET -- PARENTS/HARDSHIP cont'd

BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP UNDESIRABLE: IMMIGRATION MAGNET -- SOCIAL SERVICES/BUDGET

BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP UNDESIRABLE: IMMIGRATION MAGNET -- SOCIAL SERVICES/BUDGET cont'd

BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP UNDESIRABLE: IMMIGRATION MAGNET -- SOCIAL SERVICES/BUDGET cont'd

BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP UNDESIRABLE: INTERNATIONAL COMPARISONS

BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP UNDESIRABLE: INTERNATIONAL COMPARISONS cont'd

BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP UNDESIRABLE: MULTIWARRANT/GENERAL

BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP UNDESIRABLE: MULTIWARRANT/GENERAL cont'd

BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP UNDESIRABLE: MULTIWARRANT/GENERAL cont'd

BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP UNDESIRABLE: NUMBER OF BIRTHS/PERSONS

BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP UNDESIRABLE: NUMBER OF BIRTHS/PERSONS cont'd

BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP UNDESIRABLE: NUMBER OF BIRTHS/PERSONS cont'd

BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP UNDESIRABLE: POLITICAL POWER/VALUES

BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP UNDESIRABLE: POLITICAL POWER/VALUES cont'd

BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP UNDESIRABLE: POLITICAL POWER/VALUES cont'd

BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP UNDESIRABLE: PUBLIC OPINION

BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP UNDESIRABLE: RULE OF LAW

BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP UNDESIRABLE: ANSWERS TO: "ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN"

BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP UNDESIRABLE: ANSWERS TO: "CHILD PUNISHMENT UNTENABLE"

BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP UNDESIRABLE: ANSWERS TO: "CHILD WELFARE/STATELESSNESS"

BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP UNDESIRABLE: ANSWERS TO: "CHILD WELFARE/STATELESSNESS" cont'd

BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP UNDESIRABLE: ANSWERS TO: "FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT JUSTIFIES" -- GENERAL

BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP UNDESIRABLE: ANSWERS TO: "SECOND CLASS STATUS"

BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP UNDESIRABLE: ANSWERS TO: "UNDOCUMENTED POPULATION/SOCIAL COHESION"

BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP UNDESIRABLE: ANSWERS TO: "UNDOCUMENTED POPULATION/SOCIAL COHESION" cont'd

BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP DESIRABLE: TOPSHELF

BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP DESIRABLE: TOPSHELF cont'd

BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP DESIRABLE: TOPSHELF cont'd

BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP DESIRABLE: TOPSHELF cont'd

BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP DESIRABLE: ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN

BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP DESIRABLE: ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN cont'd

BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP DESIRABLE: ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN cont'd

BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP DESIRABLE: AMERICAN PRINCIPLES

BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP DESIRABLE: AMERICAN PRINCIPLES cont'd

BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP DESIRABLE: AMERICAN PRINCIPLES cont'd

BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP DESIRABLE: CHILD PUNISHMENT

BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP DESIRABLE: CHILD PUNISHMENT cont'd

BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP DESIRABLE: CHILD WELFARE/STATELESSNESS

BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP DESIRABLE: ECONOMIC COMPETITIVENESS