Birthright of Citizenship

702 Words Nov 12th, 2013 3 Pages
The Birthright Citizenship Amendment is one that has caused controversy. Should a person that is born in the US, regardless of whether the parents were here temporarily, or illegally be considered an American citizen? The 14th Amendment states “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside”, ( Spalding, 2010). The interpretation of this amendment has caused the controversy. Those opposed to ending the clause in the Birthright Citizenship Amendment argue “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 …show more content…
It contrasts with citizenship acquired in other ways, for example by naturalization later in life. Birthright citizenship may be conferred by jus soli or jus sanguinis. Under United States law, any person born within the United States (including the territories of Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands)[1] and subject to its jurisdiction is automatically granted U.S. citizenship,[2] as are many (though not all) children born to American citizens overseas. (Spaulding, 2010).

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.

The opponents to this clause, they felt that “It