ACE

Author: Gwenevere Tatara

  • Pros and Cons of the Youth Voting Rights Act 

    Pros and Cons of the Youth Voting Rights Act 

    Background 

    In the 2022 midterms, youth voters (ages 18 to 24) turned out in record numbers nationwide. In today’s political climate, the youth vote is becoming an increasingly elusive but crucial factor in winning campaigns. However, compared to other age groups, 18-24 year olds have the lowest participation rates.

    Many in this age group could only vote after Congress expanded the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in 1970, lowering the voting age from 21 to 18. This change responded to public outrage that young people could be drafted for the unpopular Vietnam War but couldn’t vote. While President Nixon signed this into law, a Supreme Court decision ruled Congress had overstepped its power by mandating all states to lower the voting age. In response, Congress created the 26th Amendment, which was ratified by all states within four months. Despite this strong support for youth civic involvement, only 23% of voters in this age group cast a ballot in the 2022 midterms.

    The Youth Voting Rights Act 

    In response to low youth voter participation, the Youth Voting Rights Act was introduced to Congress in July 2022 by Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren and Georgia Representative Nikema Williams. The bill has faced delays primarily due to the election of a new Congress. The act aims to enforce the 26th Amendment by addressing infrastructural voting issues that hinder young voters. Key policies include expanding voter registration services at public universities, allowing 16-17 year olds to pre-register in every state, requiring higher education institutions to have on-campus polling locations, prohibiting durational residency requirements for federal elections, accepting student IDs as valid identification, creating a grant program for youth involvement in elections, and collecting data on youth voter registration and participation.

    Arguments in favor of the Youth Voting Rights Act

    Proponents of the Youth Voting Rights Act argue that practices such as automatic registration and using student IDs have been effective in other states and could address youth voter disengagement nationwide. A Tufts University study found that youth registration is 9 points higher in states allowing pre-registration at age 16 or 17, but fewer than half of the states permit this. Proponents believe implementing this policy nationwide would have a broader impact.

    A CalTech and MIT study found that in 2008, about 3 million Americans couldn’t vote due to registration problems like missing deadlines. Voter ID laws also inhibit turnout, as younger voters often lack documents like birth certificates or proof of permanent residency. A study from the Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE) found that strict rules limiting student ID use in Wisconsin contributed to lower youth participation in the 2016 election. Allowing student IDs as valid voter ID would ensure more young people can vote.

    Additionally, proponents argue that young people are civically engaged but face practical obstacles to voting. A CIRCLE study found youth activism is rising. Common reasons for not voting include no time off work, difficulty finding polling places, and problems with voter ID. Addressing these issues could increase youth voter turnout, suggesting that apathy is not the root cause of low participation.

    Arguments against the Youth Voting Rights Act 

    Conversely, some argue that the bill’s policies overstep federal authority and undermine states’ autonomy in managing their voting practices. They point to numerous Supreme Court decisions in recent years that have eroded the Voting Rights Act of 1965 on the grounds of federal overreach. In many cases, the Supreme Court has sided with states seeking greater control over their voting regulations. Since the Youth Voting Rights Act is intended to enforce part of this overarching legislation, it could face similar constitutional challenges, as it limits states’ flexibility in implementing these changes.

    Additionally, some believe that infrastructural changes alone will not significantly increase youth voter turnout. Younger voters often view traditional civic engagement as ineffective and prefer non-traditional activism to create positive change. A 2022 Harvard Youth Poll found that 56% of voters aged 18-22 believe current politics cannot meet the country’s challenges, and 42% feel their voices do not make a difference. Critics argue that low turnout reflects a shift toward activism rather than voting, and making voting easier may not address this issue and could compromise voting security. If young voters do not believe voting will amplify their voices, there is little incentive for them to vote, even if it becomes more accessible.

    Conclusion

    This bill represents a greater debate surrounding youth civic engagement in the U.S. Some argue that the way to engage younger voters as a powerful untapped voting bloc is to make voting more accessible to them. Others argue that this will not fully address the problem and could present legal issues. Ultimately, the U.S. is left with the challenge of effectively engaging its young people. 

  • Understanding the Absentee Voting Debate

    Understanding the Absentee Voting Debate

    While absentee voting in the United States can be traced back to the Civil War Era, the Pandemic created an unprecedented demand for absentee ballots as an alternative to traditional polling locations. Absentee voting or voting by mail is a process that allows voters to cast their ballots before election day either by dropping off or mailing in a completed ballot. Absentee voting has recently found itself at the center of election skepticism and denialism that is becoming an increasingly prominent part of our political climate. This was arguably most prominent during the 2020 election year, as approximately 70% of the 50 million votes cast were absentee. This increased use of absentee voting combined led to new discussions about election security implications, and resulted in a largely mixed record when it comes to absentee voting policies. While some states are attempting to make absentee voting more accessible, others believe absentee voting poses election integrity concerns, and want to restrict access to the process. 

    Arguments in Favor of Restrictive Absentee Voting Laws 

    Many laws that restrict absentee voting access aim to improve election security by ensuring only registered voters cast ballots. This is accomplished primarily through requiring stricter voter ID laws. Proponents argue that absentee ballots could provide a loophole for non eligible citizens to vote, as mail-in ballots are subject to less scrutiny than traditional voting. In particular, advocates of these laws often intend stricter policies to prevent non-citizens (including permanent legal residents), as well as those with certain felony convictions from casting an absentee ballot. One argument in favor of more restrictive laws is that these policies will signal greater election security to voters, and this will increase their faith in elections and in turn inspire them to participate in the democratic process. Proponents of ID absentee requirements argue that voters have little incentive to trust in the democratic process if illegitimate votes are cast and their voice is not prioritized. Supporters point to mistrust in elections as proof that these measures are necessary. For example, a 2020 poll found that 38% of Americans reported lacking confidence in election fairness. Proponents argue that if voters know elections are fair this will incentivize their participation. 

    Another argument typically proposed for more restrictive ID requirements for absentee ballots is that these requirements are routine for government procedures, and therefore should not pose an unnecessary burden on citizens who are eligible to vote. The reasoning is that presenting these identifying documents is commonplace, and the process of voting should not be less secure than procedures such as operating a vehicle. Proponents of these laws claim to prioritize increased voter security. Lastly, many Republican lawmakers argue that Democrats advocate for easier access to absentee voting for partisan gain. They point to the last presidential election as evidence of this, as a Pew Research poll found 58% of Biden voters voted by absentee, compared to only 32% of Trump voters. This partisan disparity is likely due to former President Trump discouraging his voters from mailing in absentee ballots, and public health concerns during the pandemic which followed some political lines. However, there was still a partisan divide in voting format in 2022, as Democrats cast more absentee ballots than Republicans. Critics argue that Democrats are simply trying to ensure more democratic leaning voters are able to vote in order to win elections. 

    Arguments Against Restrictive Absentee Voting Laws 

    Conversely, advocates of increased access to absentee voting argue that its convenience will increase turnout, particularly for groups that are least likely to vote like voters under 25 and voters of color. Proponents of this idea point to studies such as a Tufts voting law analysis that found youth voter turnout was highest (57%) and had the largest increase since 2016 in states that automatically mailed ballots to voters. Additionally this study found that the average youth voter turnout for states with the most restrictive absentee voting policies was significantly lower than other states. Similarly, an analysis of Colorado’s all mail in voting policy found that the largest increase in turnout following the institution of the policy was observed in the state’s Asian American and African American populations. Proponents of these laws argue absentee voting is proven to help bring formerly disenfranchised communities to the ballot box. Finally, some worry that more restrictive ID laws will disproportionately impact minority communities. They point to evidence such as a study examining Texas’ institution of more restrictive voter ID laws that show the majority of voters that were barred from turning in a mail in ballot were disproportionately African American and Latinx. Other studies also found that stricter ID laws disproportionately disenfranchise minority voters. Some believe that this disproportionate burden is indicative of racist sentiments, and absentee voting can facilitate more equitable civic engagement. 

    Additionally, many emphasize the infrastructural and practical problems that in person voting creates on election day, and consider this a reason to expand absentee ballots. The reasoning is that voters will anticipate problems like wait times and this ultimately disincentives voting. Proponents of this idea point to sources such as a Brennan Center for Justice article that found 3 million people waited in voting lines that exceeded 30 minutes in 2018. Additionally, a 2022 poll found that 61% of Americans said they did not vote because they would have to vote in person. Common grievances with in person voting included issues such as few voting hours outside of the workday, long wait times, and inability to get to a polling place. Proponents of expanded access to absentee voting point out that increased use of mail in ballots would alleviate many of these infrastructural issues.  

    Lastly, those who support increased access to absentee voting point out that there is no evidence of widespread election fraud, and therefore more restrictive measures such as requiring ID for absentee ballots simply make voting more difficult and disincentivize voters from participating. Numerous studies, including one from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, analyzed the claims of election denialism candidates and found that none of these claims had factual basis. 

    As a developed nation with some of the worst rates of voter participation , American lawmakers and activists face the difficult challenge of engaging an increasingly diversifying public.While some believe increased absentee voting is the solution to increasing civic engagement, others find it to be a dangerous and counterproductive strategy.

  • California Senate Bill 10: Ending Cash Bail

    California Senate Bill 10: Ending Cash Bail

    What is Cash Bail? 

    When a person is arrested, cash bail is the amount of money arrestees must pay in order to leave custody before their trial. Bail is used as collateral to incentivize arrestees to attend their trial, and this amount of money is assigned by a judge. When assigning bail, judges take into account the severity of the alleged crime, the risk of the defendant fleeing, and the potential danger the defendant poses. Despite monetary bail’s longevity in the American criminal justice system, there is a recent movement to end cash bail, as some claim that it leads to inequity. States like Kentucky, New Mexico, and New Jersey passed reforms to their cash bail system, but California’s Money Bail Reform Act was the first to propose completely eliminating monetary bail. While the policy ultimately failed to pass a referendum, other states like New York have adopted similar policies.

    What Would CA Senate Bill 10 do? 

    Under the California Money Bail Reform Act, or Senate Bill 10, cash bail does not determine pretrial release. Rather, release decisions are determined by orders issued by judges. Judges base these release decisions on their reasoning of the arrestee’s public safety threat and their likelihood of attending their trial. To assist in these judgements, the policy establishes Pretrial Assessment Services in each court system, which provide the judge a recommendation for release based on predictive algorithms. While this recommendation is shared with a judge, they are not restricted by this suggestion and ultimately have final discretion in issuing a release order. SB 10 did not pass a ​​2020 referendum, and efforts to pass a scaled down version of the bill in the state legislature this year have failed as well. However, in 2021, the California Supreme Court ruled that setting bail at an amount a person cannot pay is unconstitutional. 

    Arguments for SB 10 

    Proponents of SB 10 assert the change in policy decriminalizes poverty as the cash bail system meant those who could not afford bail were imprisoned without due process. Following this logic, cash bail unequally burdens impoverished arrestees in a way it does not for wealthier arrestees. According to a study analyzing Bureau of Justice statistics by the Prison Policy Initiative, those in jail (arrestees awaiting trial) had a median income of $15,000. Additionally, cash bail means that large numbers of arrestees are incarcerated before their trial, which incurs a cost that falls on taxpayers. In a survey conducted by the Vera Institute of Justice in 2015, approximately 53% of the jail population in the state of California consisted of individuals incarcerated before their trial. Additionally, according to a brief from the Pretrial Justice Institute, nationally taxpayers spend $38 million per day to incarcerate individuals who are awaiting trial. 

    Furthermore, because cash bail means release is dependent on monetary value and not risk assessments, it cannot not take into account the potential danger that an arrestee poses to society. There is little societal value for imprisoning individuals who are not likely to pose a public safety threat and individuals who do present a public safety threat may be released because they can afford bail. Proponents point to research suggesting that the majority of those held pretrial were not charged with a serious crime following their trial. For example, a survey of Connecticut prisons by the Office of Policy Management found that only approximately ⅓ of the arrestees faced incarceration post-trial. Additionally, a study from the Prison Policy Institute found that 75% of arrestees held in jails are legally innocent.

    Arguments Against S.B. 10 

    One argument against SB 10 is that cash bail is a necessary screening measure that prevents dangerous arrestees from committing further crimes as they await their trials. Opponents point out that those who are imprisoned likely committed a crime, and a monetary barrier based on a judge’s discretion is likely to prevent further danger to society. Additionally, opponents argue that cash bail disincentivizes crime, as the threat of jail time before a trial could mean people are less likely to offend. 

    Additionally, opponents also had concerns about the equity of pretrial release assessments, as there is evidence that these algorithms show racial bias. For example, a 2016 study done by ProPublica analyzed the effectiveness of a commonly used criminal assessment tool called Correctional Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions (COMPAS) by comparing the program’s predictions of arrestees’ recidivism and actual criminal records in a Florida county. The study found that COMPAS incorrectly predicted black defendants would reoffend at a rate of 44.9%, and only a rate of 23.5% for white defendants. Criminal justice experts theorize that because algorithms rely on criminal records within a system that often overpolices communities of color, as well as markers of poverty, the results of many algorithms are subject to some of the same inequities as cash bail. 

  • Introduction to DACA

    Introduction to DACA

    Background

    Originally introduced to Congress in 2001, the DREAM or Development Relief and Education for Minors Act would have guaranteed citizenship to unauthorized immigrants who arrived in the U.S. as children. Although 11 versions of the bill have been introduced to Congress over the past 20 years, the DREAM act has never been signed into law. However, the bill has given rise to the concept of Dreamers as a niche migrant population composed of primarily young people and students. When Congress did not pass the DREAM act in 2012, former President Obama issued an executive order to establish Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals or DACA. While DACA defers the deportation of eligible immigrant youth who came to the U.S. as children, it does not grant citizenship.  

    What is DACA? 

    DACA-eligible individuals can apply for renewable two-year work permits and receive a social security number as well as state-issued documents like a driver’s license. Current estimates suggest that DACA stops approximately 800,000 young people from being deported, however, not all unauthorized young immigrants are eligible. DACA protections only extend to individuals who were under the age of 31 as of June 15, 2012, and entered the U.S. before their 16th birthday. Applicants must either be currently enrolled or graduated from high school, have a GED, or be honorably discharged from the U.S. military. 

    DACA Uncertain Legal History 

    Former President Trump campaigned to rescind DACA, and in September of 2017, he formally announced his intention to terminate the ​​program. However, federal courts ruled against this decision because stating that ending DACA was a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. As a result, the Department of Homeland Security continued to accept new applications. To preserve programs like DACA and Dreamer efforts, President Biden instructed DHS to fortify DACA when he took office. A few months later, a 2021 court ruling in Texas found the program unlawful, casting doubts on its future. While the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals hears arguments, individuals already enrolled in DACA can continue to receive benefits, but the federal government is not currently granting applications for first-time applicants. 

    Arguments Against DACA 

    Some consider legislation like the DREAM Act and DACA to encourage illegal immigration, as they argue that these potential protections will incentivize families to enter the U.S. illegally to ensure their children are eligible for these programs. Proponents of this idea point to the millions of undocumented immigrants already living in the U.S. and an unprecedented spike in migration to the U.S. this past year in light of the COVID-19 pandemic and Biden’s pledges to advocate for Dreamers. In response to this influx, some have proposed harsher restrictions on pathways to citizenship, such as limitations on student Visas and work permits. Proposed legislation such as the Student Visa Security Act, would require more DHS oversight of student visas, in particular, making it harder for non-citizens to enter the country to study. Additionally, many believe that DACA’s enactment is indicative of a larger pattern of executive overreach, as the Obama-era executive action bypassed the legislature’s decision to halt the DREAM Act. 

    Arguments for DACA 

    Unauthorized students arguably stand the most to gain through DACA’s protections, as the program expands access to all levels of education for eligible non-citizens. When DACA-eligible individuals apply for two-year renewable work permits, they can also receive social security numbers. The Free Application for Federal Student Aid or FAFSA, and other financial aid documents require a social security number. This means DACA members can apply for federal financial aid and in some states, in-state tuition and education grants. Access to these resources makes higher education more accessible for unauthorized immigrants, and a 2020 study found that more than 45,000 undocumented students are enrolled in colleges or universities across the U.S., while 87% of DACA-eligible students are enrolled in undergraduate programs. 

    Some researchers believe having access to these tertiary education financing options promotes engagement at all levels of education. A study comparing high school graduation and attendance rates for citizens and non-citizens before and after DACA’s enactment found that the program reduced this achievement gap between the two groups by 40%. Beyond education, DACA’s work permits enable recipients to legally find jobs in the United States. A survey found that after applying for DACA 60% of beneficiaries found a new job, and on average, their wages were 8.5% higher than before. 

    Conclusion 

    While the future of DACA is uncertain, Dreamer immigrants are indicative of larger debates and value judgments surrounding immigration in the United States. As the U.S. recovers from the pandemic, immigration policy has returned to the forefront of the political landscape, particularly under the leadership of a President who has pledged to advocate for the citizenship of Dreamers in contrast to his predecessor. However, many Dreamers are still in legal limbo.

  • Immigration Policy and Undocumented Immigrants in the Workforce

    Immigration Policy and Undocumented Immigrants in the Workforce

    American immigration policy largely reflects the historical context and cultural beliefs, and immigrants are often politicized through their impact on the American workplace. Whether this is touting the benefits of immigrants as an innovative and necessary group, or warning that undocumented immigrants pose a threat to native workers, the fiscal repercussions of migration patterns are a central talking point on either side of the political spectrum. In an attempt to reconcile these views while addressing the questions surrounding unauthorized workers, President Reagan signed into law the Immigration Reform and Control Act in 1986 and left a complicated legacy that still instructs the federal response to undocumented labor. 

    The Immigration Reform and Control Act 

    In an attempt to reduce the demand for undocumented labor (and, in turn, reduce the number of unauthorized workers migrating to the U.S.), the IRCA prohibits employers from knowingly hiring, recruiting, or referring for a fee any alien who is unauthorized to work in the U.S. The offense is punishable by fees ranging from $100-1,000 per worker, or criminal liability with the possibility of imprisonment. In addition to the bill’s outlined punishments for employers, the IRCA also granted amnesty to unauthorized residents currently living in the U.S., which led to the citizenship of approximately 3 million formerly undocumented immigrants. 

    The Legacy of the IRCA

    At the time of the act’s passage, many pointed out that the IRCA’s potential punishments for employers might lead them to discriminate against foreign workers regardless of their legal status as citizens. In fact, a study by Urban Institute in the years following the IRCA’s passage found that Latinx applicants were three times more likely than their white counterparts to encounter unfavorable treatment when applying for a job. In a similar study done by the General Accounting Office, 5% of employers responded that their interpretation of the IRCA had led them to turn away applicants because of a “foreign appearance or accent” and 14% of employers responded that they had begun a practice of not hiring those with temporary work eligibility. To address these issues and other inadequacies created by the IRCA, the 1990 Immigration Act was passed to reform legal immigration by instating a citizenship preference system that favored skilled workers. 

    Arguments in favor of more regulation of unauthorized immigrants in the workplace

    Many argue that measures such as the IRCA are necessary to ensure citizens can find a job and receive fair wages. Proponents of this idea say that an influx of migrant workers means a higher labor supply for a fixed demand, forcing down wages in the long run. Politicians like former Presidents Reagan and Trump have pointed to the disproportional impact migrant labor has on low-skilled workers and Latinx and African American workers in the United States. According to census data, immigrants entering the U.S. in the past 20 years have increased the number of low-skilled workers (defined here as workers without a high school diploma) by about a quarter. As a result, the annual earnings of this group have dropped between $800-1500. Legislation such as the IRCA is also meant to control the numbers of seasonal workers who often come to the U.S. temporarily in search of work, as many argue that these workers are unauthorized and therefore exempt from tax burdens of legal citizens while utilizing public services. A study by the Center for Immigration Studies found that in 2014, 63% of households headed by a non-citizen used at least one welfare program compared to 35% of native-headed households. Statistics like these are often used to support measures to ensure companies comply with workplace standards regarding workers’ citizenship. Some worry that continuing to employ unauthorized migrants will increase the undocumented population in the U.S. 

    Arguments against more regulation of unauthorized immigrants in the workplace 

    On the other hand, many argue that immigrants, regardless of their legal status, can be valuable additions to the cultural makeup of the U.S. and our economy. One argument is that immigrants, particularly undocumented immigrants, often work in industries with labor needs not fulfilled by U.S. citizens. A 2020 report released by the Center for American Progress found that an estimated 7 million undocumented immigrants are contributing to the American workforce. Undocumented workers make up 13% of the construction industry, and approximately a quarter of workers in the forestry, fishing, and farming occupations. Beyond the undocumented immigrant presence in these industries, many argue that laws such as the IRCA make it harder for immigrants to feasibly find work and gain even temporary visas, which will diminish the total immigrant population in the long run. As it currently stands, employers must file an application with both the USCIS and DOL for their employees to begin the green card process. Some believe these processes keep many from even the opportunity of gaining citizenship and may facilitate economic loss, as they point out the entrepreneurial opportunities many immigrants have found in the U.S. According to the Brookings Institute, immigrants make up 15% of the general U.S. workforce. Yet, they are approximately 25% of the entrepreneurs and investors in the U.S. 

    Conclusion 

    Despite its passage nearly 40 years ago, the IRCA is still largely indicative of the rhetoric surrounding immigrants as economic actors and speaks to the political compromises necessary to pass sweeping immigration reform. While the demographics and scope of U.S. immigration have rapidly shifted over the past few decades, bipartisan gridlock has made immigration reform nearly impossible, as a center anchored around the American business community largely does not exist today.

  • Introduction to Birthright Citizenship in the American Immigration System

    Introduction to Birthright Citizenship in the American Immigration System

    Jus soli, or birthright citizenship, is the idea that those born in the U.S. are automatically considered citizens of the United States regardless of their parents’ citizenship. While birthright citizenship is often attributed to the 14th Amendment , the policy has recently sparked debate in political and legal circles, in part due to Donald Trump’s promise to issue an executive order ending birthright citizenship for those born to unauthorized parents during his presidency. 

    The Birthright Citizenship Act, introduced into the House of Representatives in 2021, would amend section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act  to clarify who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and in turn, who is eligible for citizenship. An individual is subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. when the United States government has the right to enforce its governing laws against a person. Under the Birthright Citizenship Act, automatic citizenship would only be granted to those who have a parent who is a: 

    1. U.S. citizen or national
    2. lawful resident residing in the U.S. 
    3. foreign national performing active service in the Armed Forces. 

    While the bill would not impact the citizenship or nationality status of any person born before the potential enactment date, it would mean all future children born in the U.S. to parents of both unauthorized immigrants and immigrants in the U.S. on a temporary visa are not guaranteed citizenship.

    Major Legislation and Court Cases Relating to Birthright Citizenship

    • The 14th Amendment: The 14th amendment is a piece of Reconstructionist Era legislation which ensures due process and equal protection under the law as well as citizenship for all those “born or naturalized” in the U.S. The amendment granted citizenship to groups previously excluded from this right, most notably African Americans, but some argue that the precedent should not extend to children of undocumented immigrants, as, at the time of the amendment’s passage, there was little context for illegal immigration. 
    • United States v Wong Kim Ark: In this 1898 Supreme Court case, the court ruled that Wong Kim Ark was a U.S. citizen because he was born in the United States, despite the fact that his parents could not become citizens due to the Chinese Exclusion Act. However, opponents of birthright citizenship argue this statute cannot apply to those with unauthorized parents because although Wong Kim’s parents were not citizens, they were documented. Opponents also point to the Slaughterhouse cases, in which the Supreme Court ruled that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction of” was intended to exclude children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign states, regardless of their birthplace. 

    Arguments in Favor of Birthright Citizenship

    Advocates of existing birthright citizenship policy consider the practice to be a cornerstone of the United States as a nation of immigrants, and point to the practical and legal complications if birthright citizenship were to be restricted. One major difficulty is that many of those who gain citizenship due to their birthplace do not have citizenship to another nation and therefore cannot be deported as they lack the right of entry to their parents’ country of origin. As a result, many argue that altering birthright citizenship would create a legal crisis for those born into this situation and their family members. Additionally, following former President Trump’s promise to issue an executive order restricting birthright citizenship, many were quick to point to the 30 other countries who also offer citizenship to those born in their nation regardless of parent’s legal status. In countries without this practice, citizenship is often determined by descent and critics argue this is nearly impossible in a diverse nation like the U.S. Furthermore, critics of the act argue that current U.S. birthright citizenship policy enables children of unauthorized parents to receive the benefits of citizenship—including federal aid, civic rights, and legal protection—and they can use these resources to support the rest of their family networks. Above all, critics of the move to diminish this right view the policy as a staple of not only American immigration but American identity, as they argue birthright citizenship facilitates a sense of nationalism. 

    Arguments Against Birthright Citizenship

    Those who support the Birthright Citizenship Act argue that current birthright citizenship policy perpetuates illegal immigration, as some believe that unauothrized parents may use their child with automatic citizenship to gain legal status themselves. The derogatory term “anchor babies” refers to this notion, and proponents of this idea point to statistics such as the Migration Policy Institute’s  estimate that 4.1 million children had at least one undocumented parent in 2016. Additionally, opponents of existing birthright citizenship policy point to the net fiscal burden of unauthorized immigrants, which the NAS estimates to be $65,292 per immigrant. They argue that while unauthorized immigrants often have access and utilize public services like education, social care, and law enforcement, they do not have the same tax burdens that legal citizens do, and therefore citizens face higher taxes due to unauthorized immigrants living in the U.S. 

    Conclusion

    A variation of this act has been introduced to numerous sessions of Congress beginning in 2007, and while the 2021 version is unlikely to pass, it is indicative of a larger debate surrounding citizenship and legal status in this country. Controversy continues to surround the question of birthright citizenship’s application to those born in U.S. territories or out of wedlock, and questioning the legitimacy of an opponent’s citizenship due to their birthplace remains a popular smear tactic.

  • Gwenevere Tatara, University of Michigan

    Gwenevere Tatara, University of Michigan

    Gwen (she/her) is a rising sophomore at the University of Michigan planning to major in Public Policy or Political Science. After undergrad she hopes to pursue a Master’s degree in Public Policy or attend law school. This summer, in addition to the ACE Fellowship, Gwen is a Democracy Summer Fellow for her state representative Debbie Dingell, and is a passionate advocate for women in politics. She became interested in U.S. immigration through her coursework in Asian American Studies, and is excited to gain policy research experience through this opportunity.

    LinkedIn