birthright citizenship should be abolished in the U.S.

Our first contention is that Birthright Citizenship Hurts The Economy Sub point a) Children of illegal aliens massively increase social service costs Natalie Smith, Georgetown Immigration Law Journal, Winter, 2006, CURRENT DEVELOPMENT: DEVELOPMENTS IN THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH: BILL CHALLENGES BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP, p. 472 The sheer number of these children alone dictate that the monetary costs and the unfunded mandates that they bring with them are immense. Each year, some 16 percent of all births in California are to illegal alien mothers, with the numbers of these children reaching approximately 100,000 annually in California alone. This number imposes a heavy cost on the state since the parents of these children are likely in dire economic straits. While constituting 16 percent of the births in California, a significant number in its own right, children of illegal aliens make up 40 percent of Medi-Cal births, California's system of healthcare for the poor, at a resultant cost to the state of over $ 230 million a year. The costs to the state of these children do not end at their birth. They continue to incur further Medi-Cal costs and AFDC costs until they reach majority, or until their family becomes financially independent. The education of these children likewise imposes a tremendous cost to the state, as the education of the 355,000 such children is estimated to be $ 1.7 billion each year. The cost of these children on the welfare rolls is equally burdensome, as children born to illegal alien mothers constitute the largest case load increase in welfare applicants in counties across California. In fact, where welfare rolls are declining due to welfare reform, benefits for citizen children of illegal alien mothers are on the increase. The costs of these children has not gone unnoticed. Popular cries for immigration and welfare reform have been heard for quite some time. The most public may have been California's Proposition 187, which attempted to stop any welfare, education or health benefits from being diverted to illegal aliens. However, there have been other measures that have been more on point for the purposes of this note, including advocating a constitutional amendment preventing children of illegal aliens from receiving birthright citizenship and stamping "NON-CITIZEN" on the birth certificate of such children. Popular support for the most extreme of these measures has been widespread. For the first time, legislation has been introduced to mandate a correct interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, so that the children of illegal aliens will no longer be considered "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States and thus not be granted citizenship at birth. Though not likely to be successful, this is the correct and prudent policy that the United States should be following. BECAUSE THERE ARE MORE ILLEGAL IMMAGRANTS MAKING MORE CHILDREN IN THE U.S., THE U.S.'S ECONOMY IS NOT FLEXIBLE ENOUGH TO WITHSTAND ALL OF THESE COSTS THAT ARE THEIR RESPOSIBILITY TO HANDLE. ALSO, BECAUSE THESE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS ARE HAVING CHILDREN HERE, BUT ARE NOT HERE LEGALLY, IT LEAVES THE U.S. TO HAVE TO PAY FOR THE CHILD BECAUSE, IF YOU ARE NOT HERE LEGALLY, YOU DON'T HAVE TO PAY THE GOVERNMENT SO THE GOVERNMENT IS FORCED TO PAY FOR THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS BABY. Sub point b) Illegal aliens are expensive Christine J. Hsieh, Associate, Baker & McKenzie, Houston; J.D., Georgetown University Law Center, 1998; B.A., Georgetown Immigration Law Journal, Spring 2008, p. 511, American Born Legal Permanent Residents? A Constitutional Amendment Proposal, p. 522-4 As illegal immigration has expensive ramifications, another justification for the Birthright Amendment is reducing the burden on United States taxpayers. In fiscal year 1995-96, the cost of educating the 355,000 citizen children of illegal aliens for California taxpayers reached $ 1.7 billion. The estimated public cost in California for citizen-children of illegal aliens' health and welfare benefits was $ 542 million for one year. Our present health, education, and welfare state makes the rewards of unconsented membership too alluring to aliens and too costly to the nation. A state may not deny welfare benefits to citizen children even if their parents are illegal aliens. Therefore, American-born children of illegal aliens are equally privy to welfare benefits as other citizen children. Under the Welfare Reform Act of 1996, a state can declare that only citizens are privy (Sharing in the knowledge of something secret or private) to welfare assistance THE U.S. IS TOO UNSTABLE TO HOLD TOGETHER WITH ALL OF THESE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS TAKING THE PLACE OF ALL OF THE COSTS THAT WE COULD BE SPENDING IT ON SUCH AS FIXING THE ECONOMY. Our second contention is that birthright citizenship is generally flawed Citizenship by birth lacks legitimacy because the person did nothing to earn the citizenship Garrett Epps, Professor of Law, University of Baltimore, American University Law Review, December 2010, p. 334-5 The intellectual framework of this critique of the current law derives from Citizenship Without Consent by Peter Schuck and Rogers M. Smith, a book that outlines two conceptions of citizenship, "ascriptive" and "consensual." In this analysis, citizenship that attaches by birth raises questions of legitimacy, for it involves no act of assent by the new citizen, and (if the citizen is born to a citizen of a different country) by her parents either. This concept is seen as medieval in origin and as contravening the trend of contemporary political theory about citizenship. IF THE PERSON HAS DONE NOTHING TO EARN THEIR CITIZENSHIP, WHY SHOULD WE JUST GIVE IT TO THEM BECAUSE AS IT STATES IN OUR FIRST CONTENTION, IT JUST HURTS OUR ECONOMY. Also, many nations do not provide birthright citizenship Garrett Epps, Professor of Law, University of Baltimore, American University Law Review, December 2010, p. 335 Advocates of abolishing or modifying birthright citizenship note also that many contemporary nations do not provide it, suggesting by implication that the Clause is an antiquated remnant of a former time without relevance to present demographic issues. My fourth contention is that birthright citizenship promotes racism. Because these people are coming here to have children, their neighbors for example, may engage in racist activities and stereotypical activities, which promotes racism and does nothing good.