Birthright Naturalization Essay

     Those opposed to ending the clause in the Birthright Citizenship Amendment will argue that… “The framers' intent was to create an objective basis for establishing citizenship—birth—not a subjective standard left to the whim of a majority. The United States has, for that reason, never struggled like other nations to integrate those born here” (Fitz, 2010). The thought process here is that those born natural citizens of the US from alien parents will always carry the stigma of having been the children of aliens. This could cause more undue injustice towards these people than the founding fathers wanted. After all, they were all alien to this soil.

persons or things to be seized."), which was already provided for federal cases. The fourteenth amendment (Section 1. "All persons born or naturalized in the United

The Naturalization Act of 1790 was an article of legislation that gave certain individuals the opportunity to apply for citizenship if they were being of good character, have lived in the United States for at least two years, or a free white person. When they receive approval by the courts and take on an oath of allegiance which was recorded. The individual 's citizenship also gets extended to their children under the age of 21, regardless of where there born. This Act acknowledged and granted citizenship to

To be able to understand the controversy surrounding the natural born citizen clause in the constitution, it is important to know why it was added to the constitution in the first place. The original purpose of this clause was to prevent the British rule from coming to America and taking charge (Hulse). The National Constitution Center staff quoted the natural born citizen clause in the constitution saying that “no person except a natural born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution shall be eligible to the office of president” (“Natural Born”). This clause also allows children that are offspring of United States citizens that are born internationally to obtain citizenship (“Natural Born”). At the time when the

Constitutional guidelines. The Constitution lists two specific references to immigration and naturalization that the Government May intervein. The government Can protect us from ourselves, and themselves. First, Article I, Section 8 references that creating the authority of Congress, by establishing a uniform Rule of Naturalization or immigration. Secondly, the 14th Amendment states that, all persons born or naturalized in the U.S. are citizens in the State they reside. In the long run, the intent of the founding fathers was whether born a citizen or naturalized

Pongskon Bupphasawan Professor Sharifian Government 2305-75427 June 30, 2017 The Fourteenth Amendment Introduces a Passive Citizenship The 14th Amendment authorizes all the people who is born on the U.S. soil automatically get an U.S. citizenship. Therefore, the 14th Amendment brings thousands of foreigners who desire American residency to give their children birth in the U.S. There are no laws to reject pregnant women to come to the U.S. Foreigners believe they would get a better healthcare and many of them believe to seek American Dream. 1 According to the “Born In The USA: Why Chinese ‘Birth Tourism’ Is Booming In California”, “Chinese women are flocking to the United States — California, in particular — to have children who will grow up as American citizens,” and it reports that “Chinese births in the U.S, but estimates by industry publications projected a total of 60,000 for 2014” (Sheehan). The 14th Amendment should require more process to give a U.S. citizen from birth tourism by requiring the tourists parents enroll in a program that teach about U.S. government, and they will know the duty of American is a must for Americans.

“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. No state shall make or enforce any law, which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,

Fourteen years later we see the Supreme Court uphold the promise of the 14th amendment in the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark. The court concluded that the government could not deny citizenship to anyone born in the United States, which established a highly important precedent in the Citizenship Clause of the 14th amendment. This set a path to how the 14th should be interpreted and gave more clarity as to what constituted a citizen of the United States. More so, this decision also helped define the right to citizenship for Chinese children as the Chinese Exclusion Act had been signed into law in the year 1882. Way on down the road we again see the court get it right, this time with a unanimous decision. In the 1967 case of Loving v. Virginia,

It was in 1898 (in United States v. Wong Kim Ark) that the Supreme Court expanded the constitutional mandate, holding that the children of legal, permanent residents were automatically citizens. While the decision could be (and is often) read more broadly, the court has never held that the clause confers automatic citizenship on the children of temporary visitors, much less of illegal residents.

The natural born Citizen clause in Article 2, Section 1 of the United States Constitution has caused much controversy and its meaning has been deeply argued. It may be in our best interest if the clause were to be reworded to make the meaning of the clause clear so there can be no discrepancies, ending

This article is a letter to the editor about the controversy about the 14th amendment and whether letting illegal immigrant children becoming citizens follows that amendment. According to the 14th amendment, a person must pass two requirements in order to become an automatic citizen; they must be born in the U.S and be “ subject to its jurisdiction and with no other allegiance to another country”. Senator Jacob Howard explained that the 14th amendment excluded the Native Americans and “persons born in the U.S who are foreigners, aliens, [or] who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers. Said differently, the amendment didn’t refer to what are called “ partial’’ jurisdiction, as “sojourners” and the amendment absolutely did

Today the Society is split into three separately minded groups. In no specific ordering, the first is determined to believe that any one person born in the United States is a citizen and which means their parents should become citizens along with them. These are the ones whom obtain “birthright citizenship” (Raul). The second are firm believers in the only ones that should be citizens are the ones who go through the proper process of becoming a citizen and according to the article in “USA today,” it states that illegal immigrants are “having babies as a way to obtain citizenship,” which too many Americans “cheapens the whole idea of being American”. The last group is the “other” the ones whom are completely neutral or believe in the

The modern conventional wisdom of the phrase “natural born citizen” in the presidential eligibility clause referred to anyone who was a U.S. citizen at birth either by a U.S. statute or via the Constitution. The Constitution has no “definition” section, and subsequently the Supreme Court has stated that when the Constitution is silent the law “must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution.” My argument is simple, it is reasonable to assume that the framers, most of whom were well-trained lawyers, purposely did not define the term ‘natural born citizen’ believing that the controlling common law principle was Jus Soli, and that Congress would pass corresponding statutes to accommodate any exceptions to this principle similar to the practice that occurred in England with Parliament.

In addition, the United States is created by a diversity of immigrant cultures. Currently, “approximately 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the United States” [Debate pg. 592]. Changing or repealing the fourteenth amendment, will leave many U.S citizens, children of immigrants stateless without an origin of birth. For example, Chinese came to the United States to work as

“Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” is a well-known phrase that embodies the typical American dream. Since the very beginning, people from all over the world have fled to the states in order to create a bigger, more prosperous future for their generations to come. Somewhere along the lines, this process to become an American living the dream has become foggy and unlawful. Desperate times for people in many countries has led them to participate in an act known as birth tourism. Birth tourism, in its simplest form, is when a non-citizen mother travels to America for the purpose of giving birth within the country borders, granting her newborn child full American citizenship.