Pros And Cons Of Second Class Citizenship In The United States

This has been a controversy subject for years. Some are arguing that this path would need to be created simply for the reason that it is the most civilized method in handling with the population, it is financially sound, and it would stop the tragic displacing of many people's lives (Plant, 2003). People are making the point that making a way for illegal immigrants that are coming into the U.S. as children would be the most right and nice thing to do and it would even be very civilized on their part. This would also lift the heavy burden of being "illegal" off of so many shoulders of adults and parents (Alderson, 2006). Some would argue that it would make them feel as though they are at home and would probably give them some sense of pride in who they are.

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.

Over a century ago, the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution was implemented to grant citizenship to individuals born within the country. This was the first time that it was defined what it means to be a citizen in the U.S. While the amendment was created to address the citizenship of slaves, it is currently under speculation in regards to granting U.S. citizenship to children born to undocumented immigrants (Gans, 2012). While there have been many arguments to place restrictions or eradicate granting children of undocumented immigrants U.S. citizenship, the constitutional right remains the same: if you are born on U.S. land, you are a citizen (Angelo, 2013). This paper argues that the birthright citizenship of U.S. born children of undocumented immigrants should continue to be granted based on the underlying principles of the 14th Amendment and the possible implications of ending birthright citizenship. First, this paper describes birthright citizenship and the 14th Amendment, as well as its use in several Supreme Court cases that are significant to this issue. Then, various implications of eradicating birthright citizenship are discussed. Before discussing the possible consequences of eradicating birthright citizenship, it is imperative to discuss the history and principles underlying it.

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

The presupposition that undocumented immigrants should receive the same rights as American citizens are a categorical truth. Although some advocates against undocumented immigration would argue that they have overpopulated our nation, these romantic critics are too dogmatic in their provincial ideology. Everyone has the human rights and have the authority to enter to the country without being deported. People should know the reasons why immigrants come to America before deporting them. More than 11 million immigrants are undocumented in America and about 800,000 immigrants come to America each year. These immigrants come to America because they want to escape persecution and seek new opportunities.

The Second Amendment to the U.S Constitution is fiercely debated and interpreted differently among American citizens and argued with between the Legislative and Judicial branches of our government. “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed,” (Brooks). Because of the Second Amendment, citizens have the right to possess firearms and use them for protection. When researching the origin of the Second Amendment, its modern applications, and its relevance in today’s society, one can determine the Second Amendment’s current implications on today’s society.

Diversity contributes to cultural enrichment. Many people support the law that children born to illegal immigrants should have citizenship. The children are citizens by law according to the 14th amendment. This states all citizens born in the U.S. have citizenship. The children born to illegal immigrants should have a right to have a good life free from poverty and a good education. They are U.S. citizens according to the law. In many aspects it is okay for that child to receive government assistance. I think the laws are unfair to these children. The child should have a right to pursue his life as an American citizen. Many people want us to believe that by punishing children, our nation's immigration problems will somehow magically disappear. Unfortunately, absolutely no evidence exists that supports these claims. Families must choose between splitting up, resulting in more single parent households and psychological and financial hardship, or forcing their U.S. citizen children into deportation with them. These American children may have to start over

The Second Amendment states that people have the right to bear arms, but this is one of the most controversial and most-debated amendments. This is due to the fact that guns are dangerous, and are not always only used for self-defense. Guns have been used to kill children and faculty in schools, to violently make a political statement, and to threaten and scare citizens. Yet, the Second Amendment still stands. In a recent case, the Supreme Court interpreted the Second Amendment.

In his address to the country on immigration, President Obama said that “being an American is not a matter of blood or birth.” (2015, Klukowski), Would you agree? When you think of America and its constitutional rights afforded to all, it’s very likely that birthright citizenship (under the 14th amendment) is one of the rights that comes to mind- “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 United States and Canada are the only developed nations that grant automatic citizenship so expansively to children born within their borders. Anyone born in the United

I am against the Second Amendment which is the right to bare arms for several reasons. Growing up from the city of Chicago which is one of the most violent city's in the world I have seen a lot of violence. I have heard of a lot of relatives and people I knew or my friends knew where either killed or was shot. There was a lot of violence even before they had the conceal to carry law, so being all for the second amendment would go against I believed in.  Growing up I never wanted to bare arms because I felt it should have been in the hands of the law to take care of criminals etc. and not kids or people themselves. Since moving to Las Vegas things are 100% different from where I come from. You still hear about people you

The 2nd amendment of the U.S. Constitutions protects the rights of people to bear arms, such as assault rifles. Are guns to blame? Gun control isn’t the answer. It’s whoever is behind the trigger. I do believe that the United States needs better mental health reforms to help those in need that way no more mass shootings happen. Have you heard or seen the phrase “guns don’t kill people, people do”? As Americans our rights are established on the constitution and the amendments. The 2nd amendment has been a debate since Obama’s administration. After so many mass shootings, it still comes down to, whos fault is it?

The Second Amendment states: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Even though this amendment has been around for hundreds of years, people still argue over what it means and if it should still apply today. The two extreme sides of this argument as stated in Henry Winkler’s book are the Gun Nuts and the Gun Grabbers (Winkler 15,45). One side argues that there should not be any guns at all, and the other side argues that everyone should have a gun. This discussion has been around for decades, and I believe that it is not going away anytime soon. There are a few arguments as to why I believe that the government shall not and cannot remove guns from American citizens. First, I believe that I have a constitutional right to own firearms due to the second amendment. Secondly, everyone should not be punished for the actions of a few lawless individuals. Thirdly, the removal of firearms would be costly, hard to enforce and unlikely to succeed, and finally, gun control laws are racially motivated. Through the use of what I believe combined with historical examples, my goal is to persuade a “Gun Grabber” on why the government cannot take away my guns.

In his article “The Second Amendment’s Second Class Citizens”, David Graham makes the argument that black citizens in the United States are prevented from fully exercising their right to carry arms, based on two of the most recent cases of police brutality attacks: the killings of Alton Sterling and Philando Castile. After reading the book Negroes with Guns, I agree with the argument that although the second amendment is supposed to benefit all American citizens, throughout history and especially in present day society, law enforcement and government officials have acted under double standards, biased against the black community, especially with those who exercise their right to bear arms.

Become a citizen of one of the best nations in the world is a privilege that not many people have. I’m talking about the United States of America. If you are an U.S natural born citizen you have rights and responsibilities that protect you based on the Declaration of Independence and the U.S Constitution. People who are in the position to become U.S. citizens gain the same rights, privileges, and responsibilities of citizenship as natural born American with the only restriction that they can’t be eligible for President of the United States.

Citizens who were born here automatically have access to free education. On the other hand, immigrants do not have easy access to free education and work. Immigrants come to work and study so they can receive money to send back to their families. These qualities in an immigrant deserve to be a citizen of the country. Others that commit crimes and are a threat to others should not be a citizen, but people that work and give back to this country should be a citizen. These immigrants are the ones who deserve to be in this country legally even though they were not born in the United