One of the critical flash points of the 2016 Presidential Campaign is Birthright Citizenship where any child born in the US, no matter the citizenship status of the parent, automatically is born a US citizen. This has become a contentious point in the election. Some feel it is a valid argument and that it should be eliminated while others feel that this is a drafted component of the 14th amendment and, as a constitutional protection, that it should not be altered.
While it may appear impossible to resolve, both camps are right, but they are looking to the wrong source for correction. Birthright citizenship was originally designed to allow children born of legal immigrants the ability to become citizens automatically so that the government was not burdened with the need to naturalize all of the children born of immigrants in the country legally.
So the reasoning behind keeping birthright citizenship is valid and the mechanism should not be eliminated, but then how is the other camp right? Worst case scenario, the mechanism needs to only be altered to allow children of immigrants or visitors in this country legally, the ability to access birthright citizenship. We do not want to deter legal access to our great nation, but we also must be vigilant in controlling our borders.
A final aspect of birthright citizenship that deters us from eliminating it altogether is that the focus should not be on the mechanism, rather the source. If there are no illegal immigrants in the country to have children, then there is no need to delete birthright citizenship. Follow the logic and you find that it becomes moot when you control the source – illegal immigration. Additionally, the need to utilize birthright citizenship diminishes and usage reverts back to the intended purpose.