Gurrola 1

Joann Gurrola
English 113A
Professor Lawson
Progression 3 Essay Final Draft
26 November 2014
Word Count:1,380
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.
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
that eliminating the birthright citizenship will be a less aggressive way to reform immigration

Gurrola 2
because then border patrol would not have to be using force to keep immigrants out of the United
States. 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. Therefore, the United States would need a better reason to
eliminate the birthright citizenship.
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 on U.S soil. 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. Margret Stock, a retired military officer
and an 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. 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

Gurrola 3
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. Although this may be true, 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. Furthermore 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. Furthermore, Stock

Gurrola 4
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.
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.
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. 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. A lot of children will not have great opportunities that they deserve for a

Gurrola 5
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.