Cara Defilippis Prof. Rosselli English May 2016 Birthright Citizenship : Should It Stay or Should It Go?

Transcription

1 Defilippis 1 Cara Defilippis Prof. Rosselli English May 2016 Birthright Citizenship : Should It Stay or Should It Go? The subject of immigration reform has been in the forefront recently, especially as a topic of discussion between the candidates running for president of the United States. Immigration is the cornerstone of our national identity, but it also has created complex problems for the nation. The latest controversy focuses on the U.S. Constitution and whether the Fourteenth Amendment should entitle children born of immigrants, legal and illegal, to birthright citizenship with all the rights and privileges accorded a U.S. citizen. While most Americans are sympathetic to the plight of many immigrants and refugees, allowing this practice to continue is not the answer to the question of reform; therefore, Congress should put an end to the practice of birthright citizenship because it encourages illegal immigration and is unfair to other groups that have historically been denied citizenship. Birthright citizenship encourages illegal immigration. Immigrant parents and families are drawn to the U.S. because of the wealth of opportunity and the chance of a better life; birthright citizenship allows for their children to become citizens at birth; however, according to Will, this practice creates an illogical scenario: [i]t is difficult to imagine a more irrational and selfdefeating legal system (363). He is referring to laws addressing unauthorized entry into the country, which is a crime, in opposition to the law that creates the greatest possible inducement to illegal entry birthright citizenship (363). According to Hanson, a third of all foreign born individuals are in the country illegally (706).

2 Defilippis 2 The practice of birthright citizenship has encouraged this illegal influx without considering the downsides. For many immigrants, given their situation in life, the risk of deportation seems worth it; however, as Tierney points out in the case of Angel Espinosa, anyone who violates immigration laws may never be eligible for legal status: [He was] caught at the border and sent home with an order to stay out. Violating that order made him ineligible for a green card and eligible for deportation (703). Sadly, there may come a day when Angel may be permanently separated from his wife and child.

3 Defilippis 3 Cara Defilippis Prof. Rosselli English May 2016 The New Debate in Town Immigration and immigration reform may be at the top of every politician s to do list, but it comes in dead last when real action is required. Why is such an important issue being circumvented, even ignored? The answer may have to do with history and the American people s collective reaction to fear. When Americans feel threatened, they play the blame game. Since the 1800s, the easy scapegoats were immigrants. Referencing the Know-Nothing movement of 1856, a bigoted and fear-mongering group, Cole states,... the movement fizzled.... But the pilot light kept burning and is turned up whenever the American public feels vulnerable and in need of an enemy (696). Thus, there is a new debate swirling around the country regarding immigration: do anchor babies afford their immigrant parents an unfair advantage to legal status? The answer is surprising and complex. Anchor babies do not help their parents or families to an unfair advantage at legal status; in fact, it is just the opposite. Perhaps, the real debate should be about the immigrant as outsider. Maybe the hue and cry about birthright citizenship as an unfair practice is really an intricate part of the blame game. Blame immigrants and refugees for stealing our jobs, draining our social services, specifically the health care system, and robbing us of our culture because they refuse to assimilate. Immigrants do not steal our jobs. In the article, Anchor Babies, Lee explains that the only reason her parents were granted legal status was because the community advocated for

4 Defilippis 4 them. The town needed her father s medical services: In the end, self-interest won out... [the] town... needed its anesthesiologist (370). Her father was allowed to remain in the country because he had a job that was vital and could not easily be filled. Had the town not had a compelling need, her parents would have been deported back to Korea. According to Cole, immigrants are responsible for creating new jobs. He cites a study that was conducted between 1970 and 1980: [Mexican Immigration to Los Angeles County] was responsible for 78,000 new jobs (696).

5 Defilippis 5 Works Cited Cole, David. Five Myths About Immigration. Current Issues and Enduring Questions. Ed. Sylvan Barnet and Hugo Bedau. 8 th ed. Boston: Bedford, Print. Lee, Marie Myung-Ok. I Was an Anchor Baby. The Compact Reader: Kuhl Repetto. 10 th ed. Boston: Bedford, Print. Will, George F. Subject to Interpretation. The Compact Reader: Kuhl Repetto. 10 th ed. Boston: Bedford, Print.

6 Defilippis 6 English 90 Rosselli Works Cited Exercise Value: 10 points Directions: Hand write the other two citations from the sources your professor provided; then alphabetize all the entries. You may designate the order using numbers. Works Cited Lee, Marie Myung Ok. I Was an Anchor Baby. The Compact Reader: Kuhl Repetto. 10 th ed. Boston: Bedford, Print. Will, George F. Subject to Interpretation. The Compact Reader: Kuhl Repetto. 10 th ed. Boston: Bedford, Print. Cole, David. Five Myths about Immigration. Current Issues and Enduring Questions. Ed. Sylvan Barnet and Hugo Bedau. 8 th ed. Boston: Bedford, Print.