Gurrola 1

Joann Gurrola
English 113A
Professor Lawson
Progression 3 Essay Final Draft
10 December 2014
Word Count:1,648
The Birthright Citizenship Should Not Be Eliminated
The fourteenth amendment also known as the amendment that gives birthright citizenship
has been in the United States constitution since 1868 and should continue to stay there because
people fought hard for it. In 2012, Republican lawmakers in Arizona had an idea to create a law
to refuse citizenship to the children of undocumented immigrants. Ever since, the United States
has been debating to eliminate the birthright citizenship as a way to reform immigration. This
right should not be eliminated as a way to reform immigration. If this right is eliminated the only
children who will be considered American are the children that are American by bloodline.
Furthermore, these would be the children who have parents that were also born in the United
States and are American citizens. People come to the United States for many reasons to work and
have a better future for themselves and their children. After all, the United States is the land of
opportunity. Since the birthright citizenship has been giving children and their families better
opportunities and a better future for years, it should not be eliminated in any way. Eliminating
the birthright citizenship would not decrease illegal immigration, it would only prove to be costly
to all American people and is un-American.
Will Wilkinson, a researcher at the Cato Institute says eliminating this right would make
America more, rather than less, welcoming to newcomers. In other words, Wilkinson means

Gurrola 2
that eliminating the birthright citizenship will be a less aggressive way to reform immigration
because then border patrol would not have to be using force to keep immigrants out of the United
States. The way I see it, Wilkinson wants to eliminate the birthright citizenship to get rid of
illegal immigrant not welcome them. However, eliminating this right is not the best way to
reform immigration. According to the executive director of the National Foundation for
American Policy, Stuart Anderson, Such a change would not reduce illegal immigration, since
there is little evidence the primary motivation of illegal immigrants coming here is to give birth
on U.S. soil, as opposed to jobs. If we get rid of this right it wont guarantee a decrease for
illegal immigration because we do not know how many people come here from foreign countries
to have their children here or come looking for jobs. He also mentions,Countries that do not
guarantee birthright citizenship have not eliminated illegal immigration. This proves, that even
if eliminating this right can prevent women coming to the United States to work here it will not
stop people coming here to look for work. Therefore, the United States would need a better
reason to eliminate the birthright citizenship if they wanted to use it as a way to reform
immigration.
As of now, the birthright citizenship has made it easy to prove your citizenship by simply
having a birth certificate to show you were born in the United States. Proving citizenship by
showing a birth certificate is not costly at all. Linda Chavez, chair of the Center for Equal
Opportunity explains,Perhaps the most important reason conservative voters should be highly
skeptical of denying birthright citizenship is what it would do to all American citizens who give
birth in the United States. Chaves warns Americans that they need to really look at the some of
the consequences that would occur if we repeal this right. Americans need to ask themselves if
they want to make their lives more complicated. Margret Stock, a retired military officer and an

Gurrola 3
attorney who teaches political science at the University of Alaska, notes that; Americans now
pay $600 to the federal government to verify citizenship in certain cases, and legal fees can range
another $600 to $1,000. If every baby needed an affirmative defense of its citizenship status, then
these types of costs would be borne by new parents in America. I dont believe, Americans
should not be paying money to prove their citizenship if its expensive for one person, just
imagine how expensive it would be to try and prove citizenship of your whole family. Anderson
states that the cost would go even further without the birthright citizenship. Stock concludes,
The proposed change will impose burdensome bureaucratic costs on all newborns and their
parents at a time when many Americans favor less government, not more. Furthermore, This
proposal threatens to become the latest in a long line of expensive verification systems that fail a
basic cost-benefit analysis and threaten to drown Americans in bureaucracy at every stage of
their lives. Therefore, Americans should think about this costly consequence before deciding to
eliminate it.
When the birthright citizenship was enacted in 1868 it made a huge impact in peoples
lives and eliminating it will also make a huge impact in their lives. Will Wilkinson states that,
Ending full right citizenship leaves open many intermediate possibilities, such as granting
citizenship to children born to foreign citizens who have legally resided in the country for a
predetermined number of years. Wilkinson is only stating something that already exist if people
now legally reside in the United States they can still be able to become a citizen after a certain
number of years. Which means that eliminating this right wont do anything because it already
exists. Even if there is intermediate possibilities, according to Anderson, Several categories of
children could become largely stateless, including those with parents who can claim dual
citizenship, are in a temporary visa status or without legal status. Getting rid of this right will

Gurrola 4
only lead to more people getting stateless. Anderson states, The Migration Policy Institute
estimates another 100,000 to 300,000 children a year would live here without legal status.
Children without legal status would not be able to fully participate in the American society.
Stock says,changing our rule would cause us to contribute heavily to the current global
population of stateless people. And we as a nation have professed that people have a human right
to have a country. Eliminating this right will leave a lot of people stateless with no place to
reside which makes this an un-American thing to do.
Eliminating this right is un-American. Stock mentions, This is our unique heritage, one
that hundreds of thousands of soldierscitizens and noncitizensfought the Civil War to
enforce. Birthright citizenship has been the rule since the dawn of the Republic, and we ought to
have a pretty good reason to change it. In other words, people fought for this right and for it to
be just easily taken away as a way to reform immigration is wrong. The Civil War had many
deaths like any other war, eliminating this right will be like making the deaths of those who
fought for it meaningless. Furthermore, Stock mentions, What we are really talking about here
is punishing children for something bad that their parents didor maybe not even anything bad
but just being from the wrong country. Children should not be punished for a decision they did
not make. Since I was able to get citizenship through this birthright citizenship, I have a lot of
benefits that lead me to a better future which is great for me, as well as others and I would want
other children to be open to the same opportunities. Sandra Fitzgerald, the author of an article
commenting in response to the LA Times article, Dont End Birthright Citizenship, states that,
[that the reality of conferring citizenship] is an important affirmation that being an American
doesn't depend on bloodlines. Eliminating this right will only make people question which
ethnicity is the to be American. People should not question their ethnicity it is wrong we as

Gurrola 5
Americans should embrace everyones culture because we are here driving foreign cars, eating
foreign foods, etcetera. Furthermore, having people question their ethnicity is racist. Wilkinson
mentions that these people come here to have children so then their children can then sponsor
their family into becoming American citizens, these children are also known as anchor babies.
He says, Hence the fear of the anchor baby, a gurgling demographic land mine set to explode
into a multi-headed invasion of Telemundo fans. This is obviously a racist statement with him
saying, Telemundo fans and I will go back and state the fact that people don't only come here
to have their children. Therefore, removing this right will just lead to a lot of racism. We were all
immigrants once so we shouldnt be racist.
This right has been around for several years and to just take it away as a way to reform
immigration is wrong. This right is our history and we fought a war to get this right so it would
be un-American to change it. People also deserve a right to reside in a country, we shouldnt
have to have a large stateless population it is wrong. America is the land of opportunity and it
should stay that way. As Americans we should be able to help people that hope for a better
future. America should not be based on bloodlines because we are all equal. Eliminating this
right will make life for Americans much more complicated because people would need to waste
a lot of money trying to prove their citizenship. Furthermore, a lot of children will not have great
opportunities that they deserve for a decision they did not make. The United States needs to
continue to be the land that has many different types of ethnicities, who shouldn't be based on
bloodlines. Therefore, Americans should think of all the consequences before deciding to
eliminate the birthright citizenship. Life today is already complicated and we should not have to
complicate it even more. In conclusion, the birthright citizenship should not be removed or
changed because of all the harsh consequences that come with its elimination.

Gurrola 6
Works Cited
Anderson, Stuart. Ending Birthright Citizenship Would Be Costly for Americans. Forbes.
Gigya. 9 Oct. 2012. Web. 14 Nov. 2014.
Fitzgerald, Sandy. LA Times: Don't End Birthright Citizenship. Newsmax. Los Angeles Times,
26 Oct. 2014. Web. 11 Nov. 2014.
Preston, Julia. State Lawmakers Outline Plans to End Birthright Citizenship, Drawing Outcry.
The New York Times. 5 Jan. 2011. Web. 14 Nov. 2014
Stock, Margaret. Birthright Citizenship Should Not Be Eliminated. Illegal Immigration. Ed.
Nol Merino. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2012. Current Controversies. Rpt. from
Birthright CitizenshipThe Policy Arguments. Administrative and Regulatory Law
News 33 (Fall 2007). Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 11 Nov. 2014.
The Times Editorial Board. The 'birthright citizenship' debate. Los Angeles Times. 26
Oct.2014. Web. 14 Nov. 2014
Wilkinson, Will. Congress Should End Birthright Citizenship. Illegal Immigration. Ed. Nol
Merino. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2012. Current Controversies. Rpt. from "Arizona's
Latest Immigration Idea Makes Sense." The Week. 2010. Opposing Viewpoints in
Context. Web. 11 Nov. 2014.