Repealing Birthright Citizenship Was A Necessity: Here’s Why.
A response to Gil Guerra’s "The Unseen Implications of Repealing Birthright Citizenship"
One of President Trump’s first executive orders of his new administration was to repeal the birthright citizenship of children born to families in which neither parent were citizens of the United States. More specifically, as outlined in the order Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship, this applies when the father is not a citizen or lawful resident, and the mother is illegally in the county or is in the country under a temporary order, such as visas, temporary protected status, or asylum seeker status. This has sparked debates online and across the nation, with many liberals arguing the unconstitutionality of the order, while conservatives argue it is well within the constitution's authority. All of this boils down to how we interpret the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment, Section 1 reads as follows:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
The liberal argument is focused on the very first clause, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States,” while the conservatives focus on the second, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof…” Liberals argue that this clearly states all persons born in the United States are granted citizenship, or unconditional birthright citizenship. Conservatives believe that by including the requirement of having to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, this would naturally exclude those who are in the country illegally or temporarily, who are not citizens. In fact, Trump’s executive order made this exact argument.
It is perhaps important now to highlight that very few countries practice unconditional birthright citizenship. Outside of the United States, the most notable countries to practice unconditional birthright citizenship are Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Mexico, and Pakistan. In other words, no serious country grants birthright citizenship unconditionally, though many will do so with conditions, such as the requirement that one parent be a citizen.
That is all well and good, but why do Conservatives believe that repealing unconditional birthright citizenship is a necessity?
Examining Arguments for Unconditional Birthright Citizenship
First, let’s look at the primary and most compelling arguments against Trump’s executive order. On January 20, 2025, Gil Guerra published The Unseen Implications of Repealing Birthright Citizenship, an essay in The Dispatch. His goal is to provide a compelling defense of birthright citizenship, though his arguments largely miss the mark.
Guerra has 3 primary pillars for his argument:
It would erode America’s current demographic advantage over rival powers,
It would needlessly endanger the advantage we have in internal assimilation and stability,
And it would mire us in an unnecessary and protracted distraction from building an immigration system designed to compete with our adversaries and guarantee continued American prosperity.
I aim to give a sufficient rebuttal to each of these claims, but to do so, we will have to set some base principles.
Guerra’s claims on why birthright citizenship should be allowed to continue in its current form rely on the idea that illegal immigrants residing in the United States have a right to be here, and thus should not be deported. Because of this, many of my rebuttals to his claims will be focused on the nature of illegal immigration and its effects on the United States. Birthright citizenship is often abused by immigrants to gain protections from being forced out of the country. The reality is that they have no right to be here, and under the new administration, we expect many of them will be deported in turn. Additionally, when we refer to birthright citizenship, Guerra and I are both talking specifically about unconditional birthright citizenship.
“It would erode America’s current demographic advantage over rival powers”
Guerra claims that America’s practice of importing people has positioned itself as the only major power in the world currently maintaining stable population growth. This claim makes sense to the extent that having a population increase is inherently good and the only thing that matters. Obviously, this is not the case. While the claim is true that many countries have seen native born populations decline, including the United States, the suggestion that importing foreigners is the only solution is, at best, misguided.
The reason for the declining birth rate in the United States is heavily debated, though a report by Pew Research Center in July of 2024 sheds some light on the issue. Pew Research finds that the top 4 major reasons for adults under 50 who do not want children are as follows:
They just don’t want to. (57%)
They want to focus on other things. (44%)
They have concerns about the state of the world. (38%)
They do not believe they could afford a child. (36%)
There are two major takeaways from this data. We have a selfish culture at home that puts the focus and interests of the self above those of the country and its future, and the country is in such a state that those who choose to prioritize themselves are hard to blame. The reality is that raising a child is indeed expensive and time consuming. On the other hand, we would do ourselves favors to ease the burden of the taxpayer.
Illegal immigrants are a net negative on the economy and thus a drain on the tax base. In a report prepared for congress, the Director of Research Center for Immigration Studies found that between the extensive use of the welfare systems, education, incarceration and health care costs, illegal immigrants and their children put a burden of $68,000 on the economy across a lifetime when also factoring in the revenue they generate for the economy. Estimates vary widely as to how many illegal immigrants reside in the United States, with a range somewhere between 12-20 million. This translates to a burden on the American taxpayers of somewhere between $816 million to $1.36 billion. No small change. As a side note, this is orders of magnitude more than any potential costs for a border wall.
The other primary concern was about the state of the world. If we can assume that this translates into concerns about the state of the Union as well, we can also see a net negative of illegal immigration. During the waning months of the Biden administration, Deputy Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement Patrick Lechleitner wrote in response to Representative Tony Gonzalez of Texas a letter that listed key crime statistics of illegal immigrants residing within the United States. Some of these statistics will shock you if you are not familiar with the data:
13,099 known illegal immigrants have been convicted of homicide and remain undetained.
15,811 known illegal immigrants have been convicted of sexual assault and remain undetained.
77,074 known illegal immigrants have been convicted of traffic offenses and remain undetained.
Across all categories of crimes listed, 425,431 illegal immigrants have been convicted, with another 222,141 having charges pending that have not been detained.
This is contrasted by those who have been detained; 10,288 convicted illegal immigrants and 4,706 with charges pending.
These numbers are staggering. I would encourage you to actually look at the letter and see all the crime categories listed yourself. The point here is that illegal immigration has opened the doors to a slew of crimes that have, for whatever reason, gone completely unpunished. If we want to make the country safer and more financially stable for the American people, it is imperative that at the very least, every single illegal immigrant convicted of one of these crimes is swiftly deported.
Guerra’s other major justification for how illegals provide us a demographic advantage comes in a statistic he cites, claiming that 7.5% of all births come from families where neither parent is a legal resident. He also posits that Trump would seek to argue that those who overstay their visas or who have seen their asylum seeker or temporary protected status lapse are illegal immigrants. Yes Guerra, if you have overstayed a visa or had your legal status lapse, you are, by definition, in the country illegally. That is how these policies work.
All told, it is important that we ask ourselves a simple question. Is the perceived benefit of a growing population worth all the burdens it puts on the American taxpayers, who are the backbone of our great nation? Additionally, is this truthfully the only solution to a decline of births, or have we neglected to investigate other solutions so a select few can benefit off of cheap labor? It certainly does not rectify the problem. All it accomplishes is to increase the number of people in the United States.
“It would needlessly endanger the advantage we have in internal assimilation and stability”
Guerra claims that the United States has a great track record of assimilating different groups into the United States culture and systems, which historically has some merit to it. What is historically true is not always applicable to today. In the past, the United States has placed a heavy focus on assimilating immigrants from across the world into our culture. Today, this is not only largely lost, but many native born Americans could not give you a sound understanding of what American culture and beliefs even are. Additionally, we must once again remember that there is a distinction between those looking to come to the United States legally and illegally.
The legal process to come to the United States has certainly changed several times throughout history. However, the legal process to come to the United States today and gain citizenship still exists, a fact which many seem to leave out of the discussion altogether. Those who do acknowledge the traditional legal path to citizenship argue that the process is just too difficult to expect anyone to engage in it. Yet, in fiscal year 2024, the United States saw 818,500 people become naturalized citizens. The reality is that we have allowed illegal immigration to be easier than the actual immigration process. This never should have happened in the first place. In a country with reasonable border security and policy, illegal immigration would be far more difficult than simply walking across the border. Because of this, it is not an unreasonable assumption to draw that those who would choose to immigrate into the United States illegally are fully aware that they are taking advantage of the system as it exists. Additionally, by virtue of the fact that they have violated the law already, it is not an unreasonable assumption that some will continue to do so. Our systems are not important to them unless the systems benefit them, as they do not have to put back into said systems nearly as much as American citizens do. What is key to understand is that the immigration process is the assimilation process of today, and those who choose not to engage with it should not expect to be nearly as assimilated as those who do.
Guerra bolsters his argument here by saying that the children of illegal immigrants face claims of allegiance to other countries and that their citizenship dispels these claims while also giving them a sense of loyalty to the United States. Further, he believes that neglecting to give them citizenship will turn them largely into political pawns.
As discussed before, illegal immigrants who have not interacted with the immigration process are largely less assimilated than those who have. If we are to believe that the children of illegal immigrants are not all being taken away by the state to indoctrination camps to make them more American, then we can assume that these parents will raise their children to hold many of the same beliefs they hold. Of course, this is all underscored by the fact that illegal immigrants should not even be in the country to begin with, and thus, neither should their children.
“It would mire us in an unnecessary and protracted distraction from building an immigration system designed to compete with our adversaries and guarantee continued American prosperity”
Guerra really only lists one feasible defense of this claim that does not tread on territory we have already covered in the above rebuttals. Guerra rightfully points out that repealing birthright citizenship would run the risk of creating a generation of stateless children who do not have citizenship of any nation. The example Guerra gives is India, which does not automatically grant citizenship to children born abroad, even if the parents themselves hold Indian citizenship. Interestingly, India does not have unconditional birthright citizenship and hasn't since 1987, when they amended their laws to require that at least one parent be a citizen of India. India amended their laws for a second time in 2004, and the requirements hold to today. At present, in order to be a citizen at birth, not only must one parent be a legal citizen, but the other parent cannot be in the country illegally. Ironically, this is effectively the very same principle that President Trump’s executive order has put in place.
While Guerra is correct to point out that it could indeed create a generation of stateless children, this was a risk inherited by those who chose to enter our country illegally. If they do not wish for their children to be stateless, they should peacefully return to their home country before we have to remove them. Additionally, perhaps we should put the responsibility on India to recognize the child's Indian citizenship, whether it be through threat of tariff or revocation of visa privileges, and ensure their own citizens are not creating a stateless child.
Revisiting the 14th Amendment
Let’s revisit the 14th Amendment and why it was written. The United States had just fought its bloodiest war to date and survived its nearest experience to completely falling apart. Additionally, we had passed the 13th Amendment, which effectively freed all slaves within the United States. As a result, around 4 million former slaves were left without any status, being neither a citizen of America, nor any other foreign nation. Their families had been here for generations, they had no home to return to. They were native to these lands and to our nation, but not citizens.
The Senate took to writing a new amendment to the Constitution to rectify this glaring oversight, and what we got was the 14th Amendment. What does the 14th Amendment really say about birthright citizenship? To clarify, we can look to the man who wrote it. Jacob M. Howard, a senator from Michigan, wrote the 14th Amendment with very specific language. Naturally, there was much debate about the scope, scale, and implications of the amendment. During these debates, Senator Howard clarifies exactly what this amendment was meant to accomplish. These debates were recorded in the Congressional Globe, and as such, I will share with you his own words on what the 14th Amendment was meant to entail:
“This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born within the limits of the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States.”
This almost immediately led to debates on how the American Indians would be classified, as they are native born to the lands of the United States. Here, Howard clarifies once and for all exactly his position, stating:
“Indians born within the limits of the United States, and who maintain their tribal relations, are not, in the sense of this amendment, born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. They are regarded, and always have been in our legislation and jurisprudence, as being quasi foreign nations.”
Howard leaves no question as to how the 14th Amendment has always meant to be interpreted. It was meant to grant citizenship to a group of people who had been rendered stateless through their former status as property rather than person. It was never meant to be used for members of foreign nations or their children. In essence, if you came here from distant lands, chose to skirt around our immigration system and plant yourself in our country, you are not a citizen and neither is your child. This is all implied in the clause, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” just as Howard clearly explains when discussing the American Indians.
Why Repealing Unconditional Birthright Citizenship Was Necessary
Guerra almost hits the nail on the head at one point in his essay. Guerra says at one point that, “Large segments of the left now view assimilation as a form of cultural imperialism and have retreated from defending it, let alone promoting it.” This is so close to accurate that it hurts to see him say it. The left attacks assimilation because the left attacks what it is to be American. In reality, American citizenship is a privilege and a blessing that not everyone can be a part of. There is also a tacit implication in talking about assimilation that there is something tangible to being an American. Though, through all his arguments, Guerra never seems to touch on what exactly that is, so allow me.
America is not an economic zone. The ability to participate in the labor force alone does not make you a citizen of the United States, nor does simply thinking freedom is a vaguely positive principle to hold. America is not just a set of ideas, if it was, why would we not just export those ideas back to the countries that millions have fled from to come here?
America has a people, a culture, and a foundational set of beliefs that underscore our existence. The reality is that not everyone is compatible with that set of beliefs, that culture, and our people. This is why we have a legal immigration process to begin with. Those who have chosen not to interact with this process can not be expected to magically mesh in with the rest of us.
Think back to the last time you had to fly on a commercial flight. At the beginning of every trip, no matter how many times you have flown, the flight crew always gives a basic set of instructions to ensure everyone's safety. What do we do if the cabin loses pressure? Oxygen masks fall from the ceiling and you put them on to ensure you don’t become hypoxic and pass out or even die. On every flight I’ve been on, they have made an emphasis on putting on your own mask before helping anyone else with theirs.
America is a great country, maybe the best in the world, but its existence is fragile and in peril. Increasingly, our own citizenry are losing sight as to what it means to be an American and simply importing people from around the world is a surefire way to make certain we never find it again. Allowing people to the tune of hundreds of thousands to abuse our broken system every year will suffocate us to our deaths if we allow it. We must regain our national identity or risk fizzling into something unrecognizable to the countless generations that have fought and died to protect our great nation’s people and its principles.