Mcleod 1

McLeod 1
Con
We believe that the following resolution is false: Birthright citizenship should be abolished in the United States. The thesis of our case is that birthright citizenship is a key part of the U.S. Constitution and thus a constitutional right. Instead of jumping to abolish constitutional rights, the United States can simply tighten up its immigration policy to address problems associated with illegal immigration that is exacerbated by birthright citizenship. Our first contention is that birthright citizenship is located in the 14th amendment of the Constitution. Repealing or amending the 14th Amendment provisions would be unwise. Mendoza 2008As of recent, conservative politicians such as Jon Kyl and Lindsey Graham have suggested substantial revision or even complete repeal of the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause to deal with the "anchor baby" aspect of illegal immigration. However, the idea of repealing the entire 14th Amendment is drastic, unpopular and unwise. Hasty repeal of the 14th Amendment would create more problems than it would solve because it includes several other beneficial provisions such as the Equal Protection Clause, the Privileges and Immunities Clause, not to mention this Amendment determines how representatives to the House are selected. Further, it is highly unlikely that advocates of this action could muster the required votes to pass both houses of Congress, let alone threefourths of the states, as is required to amend the Constitution. Repealing such an important part of our Constitution would be foolish and highly unlikely. Revision of the 14th Amendment, rather than a complete repeal, is a more mild suggestion but would still require a two-thirds vote in both chambers of Congress, as well as ratification by three-fourths of the states. While this proposition has attracted media attention and the support of the some high-profile politicians such as John McCain, revision of the 14th Amendment has also been highly criticized as a radical proposal that would mark the first time in history that our
McLeod 2
Constitution has been amended to make it less egalitarian. Critics of such revision believe revising the Amendment is not worth the time and effort it would require, and the energy would be better spent reducing illegal immigration by other means. Although the ideas of constitutional repeal or revision appear unpopular and logistically unlikely, many still advocate for remedial action of birthright citizenship. Our Second Contention is that ending birthright citizenship isnt necessary. Other policy changes tightening immigration controls would solve all the problems associated with related immigration problems. Feere 2010: 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. Our third contention is that abolishing birthright citizenship would create a divided class system in the U.S. Gonzalez, Nowiki 2005. Some civil-rights advocates are concerned that ending birthright citizenship would create a two-tiered class system in the United States, with an underclass that Van Hook's research shows could be nearly twice the size of Arizona's current population in 40 years. Its a modern-day caste system with potentially millions of natural-born Americans being treated as somehow less than
McLeod 3
entitled to the equal protection of the laws that our nation has really struggled hard to guarantee," said Wade Henderson, president of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, an advocacy group based in Washington, D.C. He and other civil-rights advocates have said that denying citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants would set the United States back 143 years, to when the country denied citizenship to descendants of slaves. Our fourth and final contention is that being a nation of immigrants is an essential part to Americas identity. Newman concludes: Our perception that we are "a nation of immigrants" is as fundamental to the American identity as our deep-seated fear of the "other." 1 Throughout history, those comprising "We the people" have defined [*438] inclusion in the American community by simply excluding outsiders. 2 Frequently, those who consider themselves the "true" Americans do so at the expense of outsiders, deeming them inferior beings whose inclusion would infest and degrade society. 3 With each passing generation, the question of who really belongs in American society reopens to face a new outsider. 4 The dirtiest little trick of American community members used repeatedly and now predictably, is to declare that the "people of the United States" were never originally intended to include anyone other than the current community members themselves

Mcleod 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mcleod 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mcleod 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

McLeod 1

You might also like