Perhaps because elections are not so far off, the biggest contenders for the office of the president of the United States have started seriously addressing a lot of critical issues. Of course, the ultimate aim of this is to sway the minds of voters in one direction and, hopefully, use that to clinch the office they’re pursuing. In line with this, one kitchen table issue that has been making headlines a lot in recent times is the matter of America’s birthright citizenship constitution.
As is to be expected, the two most notable candidates to watch in the coming presidential elections have polar opposite opinions on this affair. On the one hand, we have the current Vice President, Kamala Harris, who has gone on record to say that he remains committed to upholding birthright citizenship. On the other end of the spectrum is one-time president Donald Trump, who has all but sworn that this policy will be a thing of the past from the time that he assumes office.
For the longest time, the interpretation of the birthright citizenship constitution has been a heavily politicized matter. It is perhaps because of this that a ready and lasting consensus on this issue hasn’t been reached. So, let’s take a moment to put all political biases aside and try to evaluate this critical situation objectively. In doing so, we may be able to finally find out which of these two candidates has the right take on this issue.
Before going into anything else, perhaps, the most important thing to address is the reason behind the existence of such a policy in a nation like America, to begin with. Along these lines, it is critical to stress one thing. Contrary to former President Trump’s claim that “We're the only country in the world where a person comes in and has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States ... with all of those benefits," there are several countries in the world that have and actively uphold this policy. More specifically, there are 35 different countries across the globe that practice unrestricted birthright citizenship as of this very moment.
Getting back on track to why America, in particular, has such a policy, the answer is simple: because in its infancy, the nation understood the need for growth. As a result, it was quick to implement policies that would encourage immigrants, people who would end up proving profoundly useful, to plant their roots in the country. The idea being that if you had an assurance your child would be part of a great legacy, you’d be more inclined to commit to such a cause. And, for the most part, this approach has worked as America has been able to heavily reap the dividends of being such a socially and culturally diverse community.
However, beyond laying the foundation of what would become the great nation of America, adopting the birthright citizenship policy saved the country from a potentially dicey situation. The U.S. would not by any means be the first to open its doors to immigrants in the hopes of achieving prosperity. In the 1950s, countries like Japan and Germany experimented with this idea as well. The only difference was that these two countries opted to go in the opposite direction and deny the children of immigrants citizenship. And, where a path to citizenship was made available, it was rather challenging to tread.
The result of following that line of action soon became apparent as the children of these immigrants, even though born in these countries, couldn’t truly call it their own. The Portuguese, Turks, and Tunisians that ended up settling in Germany, for example, had a torrid time of the affair. For Japan, the Koreans who had children in the country couldn’t claim citizenship for generations. Rather, they were branded “zanichi” and largely ostracized.
These children were subjected to arguably the worst living conditions. As they lacked birthright citizenship, they were automatically denied essential amenities like government-run education and healthcare. What’s worse, these individuals were treated like the runt of the litter and were constant targets of abuse, crime, and extreme political creeds such as communism and even Islamism.
While Germany partly retraced its steps on this front in 1999, there could be no contesting the fact that, by that time, a great deal of damage had been done. For obvious reasons, this is a fate that the United States of America would do well to avoid. This is more so the case because we’ve taken such great strides in the right direction from the very beginning.
At the end of the day, even contemplating whether or not birthright citizenship should still hold is a bit ludicrous as there are antecedents that we can simply follow to make the right call here.
Previous events like United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) and Plyler v. Doe (1982) are landmark decisions that show beyond a shadow of a doubt that Kamala Harris is on the right track. Donald Trump’s position on this matter is little more than rantings that should just be ignored, at best and actively sanctioned, at worst.
Above all else, jus soli espouses and typifies America’s continued devotion and dedication to the truest ethos of liberty. It shouldn’t be attacked or tampered with under any guise or for any purpose. While the incumbent president is not without his faults, this is one issue that he’s 100% correct about.
I firmly believe in and wholly support Harris’s policy to uphold birthright citizenship. It’s the greatest proof that this country is the land of the free and the home of the brave.
