Should American Citizenship be a Birthright? Research Paper

Name Instructor Task Date    Should American Citizenship be a Birthright? The belief that everybody born in American soil becomes subject to the jurisdiction, hence citizens of the United States was included in the Constitution in 1868, in the 14th amendment. The constitutional amendment was intended to offer nationality to freed slaves. This was after the Civil War, overruling the Dred Scott v. Sandford verdict by the federal court that had prohibited African-Americans from attaining citizenship. This has to turn out to be a bedrock of America immigration policies that have permitted everyone born in U. S. to be citizens. Congress also has enacted policies extending birthright nationality to individuals born in America lands, as well as Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. America, regardless of the custom and history of receiving migrants over generations to its borders has lately, been tied to a discussion on American nationality; what is the meaning of being American citizen, who is an American citizen amongst other matters closely connected to immigration change. This has mainly been centered on whether the American nationality needs to be a birthright or not provided the great inflow of illegal migrants, mostly from Central America, Mexico, and Latin America. This provides for a motivating debate if America is established on the capacity and power of many migrants around the world (Economist 1). The following paper argues whether American citizenship should be a birthright. America is a nation of immigrants; in both means, the adults and young immigrants have led to American rich culture, its financial and physical development, political control, and global repute as an inspiration for independence and opportunity (Chavez 1). The controversy induced by the argument on migration and nationality is, therefore, a worth topic debate. It cannot, however, be agreed in separation to the numerous arguments both pro and against American nationality as an entitlement, as though by diverse quarters. The dispute on migration and if U. S. citizenship requires being considered a birthright should not assume that the U. S has, throughout the years, had traditions of adapting individuals around the world. This has been achieved through several rules like the first amendment rule of 1798, in addition to the 14th amendment of 1898. These regulations enabled the course on which other races could become Americans. People born or accepted in the U. S. are dependent on the jurisdiction thence and are consequently capable as inhabitants in the actual states they inhabit. In 1790, America enacted the first amendment law that recognized the procedure for alien nationals to be citizens (Chavez 1). The determinations by the conformists along with Republicans in Parliament to nullify nationality to children born of unlawful migrants in America, thus, flies in the face of U. S custom and legacy. It is an ill-fated, worsening indication that if observed through a civil lens, it will undeniably risk the election future of the Republican Party (GOP), by isolating Hispanics who are the fastest-growing section of the American population (Chavez 1). Moreover, such an effort would result in a novel sense or understanding of the meaning of being an...