Abstract
Philip Kasinitz on a constitutional conferral.
As of this writing, President Trump’s “first day in office” Executive Order to end “birthright citizenship” is bound up in the courts. We have already seen the opening salvos in what will almost certainly be a lengthy legal battle over the meaning of the 14th Amendment, the intentions of authors of the 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, and the extent and limits of Presidential authority. I will leave it to august legal minds to debate these matters, but as a social scientist, I suggest we attend to a different, though related question: Is birthright citizenship a good idea?
One simple sentence in the 14th Amendment gives the U.S.-born children of immigrants, regardless of their parents' legal status, a stake in the country and its future.
For anyone acquainted with American immigration history, the answer is an unambiguous “yes.” If history teaches us anything, it is that birthright citizenship works. The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1868, clearly states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States....” This simple sentence gives the children of immigrants, regardless of their parents’ legal status, a stake in the country and its future. It avoids the creation of a large permanent underclass of people who are part of our country economically, socially, and culturally but not politically. It favors inclusion rather than exclusion, and it is one of the reasons that, despite its deeply troubled history of racism and nativism, the United States has managed to incorporate millions of diverse people into our national community at a speed that is the envy of much of world. In return, the children of immigrants contribute to America’s economic, scientific, and cultural achievements to a degree far beyond their numbers. For the most part they have also been patriots, as their service in both World Wars attests. It was a child of immigrants who wrote the song “God Bless America.”
With my colleagues Mary C. Waters and John H. Mollenkopf, I directed one of the largest studies of the now-adult children of post-1965 immigrants to the United States. We surveyed thousands of young New Yorkers and conducted in-depth life history interviews with hundreds of them. Their stories were highly diverse, yet most had experienced modest but very real upward mobility relative to their immigrant parents. Whatever ambivalence they had about the country and the struggles they had had coming of age here, across all the diverse ethnic groups we studied, the children of immigrants expressed little doubt that they belonged in the United States. They were Americans, and indeed New Yorkers. Few had any interest in spending time in their parents’ homelands, save perhaps a family vacation.
Our team concluded that if there is a danger of creating an excluded “underclass” it is not among birthright citizens, but among those known as the “Dreamers.” Originally a reference to the “Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors” (DREAM) Act, first introduced in 2001, the term is now widely used to refer to anyone who came to the United States without documentation as a child, often a very young child, usually with their family. In many cases the older siblings of the US born respondents in our study were “Dreamers”. They also grew up in the United States and generally shared the nation’s values and dreams. But because they lack legal citizenship, they often discover—just on the verge of adulthood—that they are excluded from much of what it takes to truly be an independent adult American: college financial aid, Social Security cards, jobs in the mainstream economy, and, in many states, even driver’s licenses.
The plight of the Dreamers arouses sympathy from conservatives and liberals alike. During his 2024 campaign, even President Trump spoke sympathetically about the Dreamers and his desire to “do something” to help them. One problem: the elimination of birthright citizenship would do exactly the opposite. It would swell the ranks of Dreamers, further growing the population of young people marginalized in the economy and excluded from political participation in the only country they have really ever known.
Every few years, some lawmaker or politician proposes ending the constitutional practice of granting citizenship to all those born in the United States. In his own effort, Trump has even repeated the common misconception that this nation is unique in granting birthright citizenship. In fact, most countries in the western hemisphere have laws that establish birthright citizenship. Some European countries in which citizenship was once based on ethnic origin and descent have moved closer to U.S. policy in recent decades. President Trump has also suggested that migrants strategically give birth in the United States to obtain a pathway to legal residence. In reality, a birthright citizen must be 21 years old before they are able to begin the lengthy journey of paperwork and fees required to sponsor a parent—a journey that will lead to years of waiting for approval. Anyone contemplating giving birth in the United States in order to become a legal resident is a long-term thinker, to say the least!
For America to be a great country it needs to be an inclusive country. Birthright citizenship is one of the building blocks on which that inclusivity, and our greatness, has been achieved. Rather than turn our back on this achievement, why not recognize the value of birthright citizenship and extend it by offering citizenship to the “Dreamers” as well?
Every few years, some lawmaker or politician proposes ending the constitutional practice of granting citizenship to all those born in the United States.
iStockPhoto // chomplearn
