by Rebecca Kumar

Published April 16, 2012

Citizenship in the United States is often something many people take for granted. From the moment we are born on American soil, we are automatically granted a membership to an exclusive club with a slew of opportunities and benefits, regardless of how our families or our parents got here. There is a debate heating up the political arena regarding the effects of birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants on American culture. On the one side, commentators are saying that granting birthright citizenship to children of illegal immigrants is an inappropriate interpretation of the 14th amendment. In rebuttal, scholars are saying that inclusiveness and assimilation are promoting the melting pot idea that America has long been associated with.


Citizenship in the United States is based on "jus sanguinis," meaning by blood, and "jus solis," meaning by soil, and we have some of the most inclusive immigration policies in the world. Because of these open arms, there are nearly 4 million children of illegal immigrants living in the U.S., with approximately 65,000 of them graduating from our high schools each year. Ultimately, with these numbers, it is hard to imagine that the government will continue to be able to support this rapidly growing illegal population and their families. With limited government resources, especially regarding welfare and the excessive strain on taxpayers, in addition to the effect of illegal immigrant enrollment in universities, birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants should be reinterpreted because the benefits of their presence in the U.S. are being outweighed by the strains on the culture and the economy.


Those in favor of keeping the birthright citizenship interpretation reference the Supreme Court ruling of 1898, the court case regarding Wong Kim Ark's status as a citizen of the U.S. Many say that this case establishes precedent for the way the government should interpret the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." However, there is a nuance that is often forgotten that undermines this argument. Ark's parents were "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" because they were legally recognized aliens residing in the U.S., making them subject to U.S. laws. In the case of illegal immigrants — because they entered illegally — they are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction and should not receive the benefits of being subject to U.S. laws.


Another argument from the pro side discusses the cultural value of inclusiveness and assimilation and how this is a foundational element that has made America the place it is today and that removing the birthright citizenship interpretation will create an underclass of people in America. The case for cultural value, however, is quickly being shot down by the more practical, statistics-oriented enthusiasts who bring dismal statistics to the table, showing that many of the illegal immigrant population do not do well in schools and seem to have accepted that their place in American society is to remain at the bottom of the job market rather than assimilate into the competitive, climb-the-ladder perspective that many attribute to an American way of life.


With that in mind, the fear of an underclass of people in America seems to be deemed null and void because it is clear that this underclass exists with the current interpretation already. What many of the proponents of the cultural value argument seem to forget is that these cultural values of the melting pot phenomenon are only valuable if the new additions to this multiethnic country club are contributing more than they are taking from it, which is not necessarily the case. Many of the welfare benefits that illegal immigrants are looking for are benefits such as Medicaid and food stamps, both of which they can receive on behalf of their U.S. born children. Approximately 40 percent of illegal aliens nationally receive some type of welfare, and this number is growing rapidly.


To bring this around to a local level, there are approximately 1,777 illegal immigrants enrolling in New York State universities, public and private, each year. To counteract the strains on universities, the government is looking to attempt to provide tuition assistance and methods of becoming legal citizens here in the U.S. through higher-level education. The Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act is looking to provide tuition assistance to illegal immigrants, which is estimated to cost the state an extra $627,428 per year — maybe more, considering statistics on illegal immigrants are spotty — which will mean a tax adjustment. Eventually, we will all hit the job market, and we are all paying taxes as legal citizens here. As the number of illegal immigrants goes up, so does the number of people that we have to support as taxpaying citizens because universities and government programs have to accommodate for the number of people that are using their services.


Ultimately, resources are not unlimited, and it is difficult to appropriate government resources fairly and efficiently when the number of people receiving these benefits is not completely accurate and is off by a fair margin. At the end of the day, the financial argument will trump the cultural advantage argument because no one likes to pay for free riders.

One Old Vet

Helping others while hurting ourselves: immigration in the U.S. | NYU's Daily Student Newspaper