According to the United States (U.S.) Constitution, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States…” This opening statement of the fourteenth amendment is a general introduction to a major controversial issue in our nation. Immigrants and emigrants constantly flow in and out of U.S. borders, and some of these individuals are intentionally having children on American soil in order to become eligible for citizenship by jus soli. Is the current naturalization law acceptable, or are non-Americans taking advantage of the system? Because this question exists, the fourteenth amendment must be added to, revoked, or rewritten; the United States cannot be responsible for illegal …show more content…
The idea that “a simple reform scheme” such as “[ending] the practice of ‘birthright citizenship’” is the only thing “required [to] correct the misinterpretation of that amendment’s first sentence” (Sheehan). Individuals sometimes misunderstand the purpose of this amendment. American citizens often think nothing of “‘birthright citizenship’”, and upon the birth of their child, accept a new, American baby into the family (Sheehan). However, immigrants, whether intentionally or accident, have children in the United States as well, thus, their children earn the status of an American citizen. These immigrant births contribute to the ongoing problem of immigrants coming to the United States solely for the purpose of having a child and cheating the law. Despite the belief that immigrants should be allowed to have children here, the “citizenship clause is derived: ‘All persons born in the United States, and not subject at any foreign power… are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States’” (Sheehan). This emphasis of “subjects at any foreign power” explains the intentions of our forefathers upon writing the law; they did not intend for other country’s citizens to come to our land (often times, illegally) in order to have children and receive the reward of American citizenship (Sheehan). Had the people that ratified the fourteenth …show more content…
Just as Australia, France, Germany, Ireland, New Zealand, South Africa, and the United Kingdom have done, the U.S. government needs to amend the fourteenth amendment and require that at least one parent of a child born on U.S. territory be a citizen or permanent resident of the country. With this change, individuals cannot take advantage of American naturalization, and the government will have proof of residency/intention of residency within the U.S. to back up the families giving birth to future citizens. No longer will pregnant, alien women smuggle in babies, but rather, have their children in their own home and country. To live and be an American is sacrificial; one is volunteering oneself to drafting, voting, taxes, and other financial responsibilities to the country. If one is not dedicated enough to give their time and money to the nation, they do not understand what it means to be an American. Going through the process to become a citizen proves that one is dedicated and determined enough to become a citizen. The fourteenth amendment has brought the U.S. to consistent immigration problems; unborn babies are smuggled in past immigration officials. More often than not, the immigrants that immigrate to the U.S. leave after having their child and receiving documentation of citizenship. How is this situation at all beneficial to the U.S? Speaking to officials over immigration issues, paying
In this essay I will be writing about the effectiveness of the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America and considering whether they achieved the purpose of making life better for African Americans. I’m going to start this essay by talking about the Amendments and what they were designed to achieve.
Throughout history, segregation has always been a part of United States history. This is showed through the relationships between the blacks and whites, the whites had a master-slave relationship and the blacks had a slave-master relationship. And this is also true after the civil war, when the blacks attained rights! Even though they had obtained rights the whites were always one step above them and lead superiority over them continuously. This is true in the Supreme court case “Plessy v. Ferguson”. The Court case ruled that blacks and whites had to have separate facilities and it was only constitutional if the facilities were equal. this means that they also constituted that this was not a violation of the 13th and 14th amendment because they weren 't considered slaves and had “equal” facilities even though they were separate. Even if the Supreme court case “Plessy v. Ferguson” set the precedent that separate but equal was correct, I would disagree with that precedent, because they interpreted
Abraham Lincoln became the United States ' 16th President in 1861, delivering the Emancipation Proclamation that declared forever free those slaves within the Confederacy in 1863. If there is a part of the United States History that best characterizes it, is the interminable fight for the Civil Rights. This he stated most movingly in dedicating the military cemetery at Gettysburg: "that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain--that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom--and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. "The Declaration of Independence states “All men are created equal”.
The Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868 and stated that “all persons born…in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.” The Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark first recognized the doctrine of birthright citizenship. In this case, the defendant argued that because he was a citizen of the U.S. because he was born in California and had lived there for twenty-one years. The U.S. District Attorney argued that while Wong Kim Ark may have been born into the U.S., he was not subject to its jurisdiction since Worn Kim Ark, through his Chinese parents, were subject to the emperor of China. Not persuaded by this argument, the U.S. Supreme Court held that children born in the U.S. to resident aliens are U.S. citizens, which created the concept of automatic birthright citizenship. This concept has been debated within the U.S. Supreme Court and in different levels of the judiciary system, but to this date there is no comprehensive approach on solving the ambiguity of what constitutes a ‘natural-born’
The Tenth Amendment was ratified along with the rest of the Bill of Rights on December 17th, 1791, as well, unlike most other amendments, it gave rights not only to the people, but also to the state governments. The Tenth Amendment was passed in order to delegate powers to the state governments and the people that the national government does not have, this amendment states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”
This amendment was created during the reconstruction phase attempting to reunite this country after the brutal battles of the Civil War. Henretta and Brody emphasize how the Republicans were progressing in a direction to sanctify the civil rights of the black community. These authors contend the vital organ of the document was the wording in the first section. It said “all persons born or naturalized in the United States were citizens.” No state could abridge “the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”; deprive “any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”; or deny anyone “the equal protection of the laws.”2 Imagine the problems that could arise in the country if repeal were to come to a realization. Henretta and Brody point out how the wording in section 1 of the document was written in a way that could be construed as inexplicit. The reason for this was for the judicial system and Congress could set an example for balance in due process here in the
The U.S Constitution is recognized as a document that secures basic rights for citizens and structures the American national government. Before the Constitution, the states had all the power and the national government was very weak. Therefore, the creation of the Constitution was necessary to grant the national government power. Even though, the Constitution was signed in 1787, there was still debate in that the Constitution gave the national government too much power. Some of the individuals whom opposed the Constitution where Patrick Henry and George Mason. Patrick Henry became the leader of the opponents, because of his strong legal and rhetoric skills. On the other hand, George Mason was a patriot during the American Revolution, whom believed in the inalienable rights of the people. These two man were important figures that argued the dangers ratifying the Constitution would bring and that the Constitution would give too much power to the national government.
The Naturalization Act of 1790 was the first piece of United States federal legislation regarding immigration and it provided a national and uniformed rule for the process of naturalization. Under provisions of Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution, it granted citizenship to “all free white persons” after two years residence and provided that the children of citizens born outside the borders of the United States would be “considered as natural born citizens” (Naturalization Acts, United States, 1790-1795). This was an important piece of legislation that encouraged immigration necessary for the continued growth and prosperity of the republic. The individuals that it was intended to attract and protect were European whites, specifically men who would bring skills and participate in the emerging manufacturing and mining labor
The Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia met between May and September of 1787 to address the problems of the weak central government that existed under the Articles of Confederation. The Antifederalists were extremely concerned that the national government would trample their rights. Rhode Island and North Carolina refused to ratify until the framers added the Bill of Rights. These first ten amendments outlined things that the government could not do to its people. They are as such:
The extents of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution has been long discussed since its adoption in mid-late 1800s. Deciding cases like Brown v. Board of Education and Roe v. Wade has been possible due to mentioned amendment. These past cases not only show the progression of American society, but also highlights the degree of versatility that is contained within the amendment. Now, in 2015, the concerns are not of racial segregation or abortion, the extent of the amendment was brought to a new field: same-sex marriage. In Obergefell v Hodges, we can see the epitome of the Equal Protection Clause.
Taking U.S citizens rights away or is it just an opportunity to illegal aliens? This is one of the many arguments people have been stating about the dream act. This program was passed to help illegal immigrants grow in education. It was not to acquire U.S citizen’s rights, in fact it was passed because many immigrants want to give back to the country that has offered them many things. This program also known as DACA was proposed by the president Barack Obama and has been applied to many illegal immigrants since 2010. It is an aid for immigrant students that want to go top college and stay in school. Being part of the Dream Act is not giving illegal aliens U.S citizen’s rights, it is allowing young immigrants to have the opportunity to get an education and succeed in life.
Based on "The Bill of Rights", foreigners do not have the right to enter the United States, but once here, immigrants are entitled to certain broad constitutional protections. In due process, immigrants have the right to be treated fairly, whether in a deportation hearing or a criminal court proceeding applies to every person within The United States borders. And Equal Protection prohibits discrimination based on race or national origin. An alien's rights to free speech and religious freedom are protected under the First Amendment. The Refugee Act of 1980 gives certain aliens the right to political asylum in the U.S. New immigrants to our country are not a scourge as some politicians claim. In fact, they can help solve many of our economic and social problems. Therefore when a child is born of illegal parents, the child should not be refused welfare. In other words, the child should not be treated as a second class citizen. In fact since it was born in the United States, he or she is to be considered a United States citizen because that is exactly what he or she is.
but base on the constitution this is the land of the free, so I feel like no matter where someone is from they should have an operation to start a new life in the U.S.A. As the Barack Obama administration is burdened with many pressing problems, the plight of undocumented immigrants ranks high among them. Luckily, some of the most xenophobic voices on the national scene have been temporarily stunned by Obama’s victory. In this new political context, where Hope has vanquished Fear, we might hope that America can return to the task of constructing a reasonable and humane response to the needs of its illegal people. U.S. immigration policy has been a touchstone of political debate for decades as policymakers consider U.S. labor demands and border security concerns. Comprehensive immigration reform has eluded Congress for years, moving decisions into the executive and judicial branches of government and pushing the debate into the halls of state and municipal governments. Meanwhile, the fates of the estimated eleven million undocumented immigrants in the country, as well as future rules for legal migration, lie in the balance. It shows over and over time aging no matter what the U.S.A does it will not stop people from coming here to start a better life for them and their family no matter what the penalty
Birthright citizenship is the law that anybody born on American soil is automatically a natural-born citizen with rights and privileges regardless of the citizenship status of the parents. To some this is an issue known as immigrants making “anchor babies.” An anchor baby is an offspring of an illegal immigrant, who under legal interpretation becomes a United States citizen. Some republican politicians aim to change the 14th Amendment that grants citizenship to “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 interpretation of this amendment has caused many controversies but overall, birthright citizenship should remain
Will and in this essay the author challenges the citizenship status of children born to illegal immigrants. Will argues that the 14th Amendment, which grants citizenship to any person born in the United States, is being misinterpreted. He explains how this misinterpretation leads to the actual act of illegal immigration. For example, by essentially rewarding the children of illegal immigrants with an American citizenship Will demonstrates how this provides an incentive for illegal immigration. The author makes clear the idea that when the 14th Amendment was written in 1866 it could not have included illegal immigrants since that concept did not exist at that time. He continues by using Indians as an example of people not included in the 14th Amendment since Indians and their children owed allegiance to their tribes. Finally, the author uses a decision by the Supreme Court in 1884 that declared both person and country must consent to the citizenship; therefore, if the source is illegal then the child should not be considered a