Primer: Birthright Citizenship
Last week, President Donald Trump signed an executive order to end birthright citizenship in the United States. Though it is legally dubious and likely will not stand, the move has introduced arguments for jus sanguinis, a form of citizenship where family ethnicity determines status, not whether you were born in a country, often called jus soli. Most of the world has the jus sanguinis form of citizenship, while North and South America predominantly have birthright citizenship. This week, Political Union will debate the following resolution: All countries should guarantee birthright citizenship.
A key argument for birthright citizenship is that it is generally better to have more citizens living in your country. Your country’s government would better represent the interests of the people living in your country if most of them can vote. The people living in your country would feel a sense of fidelity and belonging, so they would be more loyal and more likely to work for their country. It could also help bring in high-skilled immigrant workers, who would improve the economy. Birthright citizenship also makes a lot of sense theoretically: if you are born within a territory, you should have the same rights as everyone else in that territory.
There may be reasons to grant citizenship based on heritage, though. There is value to maintaining a national identity through bloodlines. Many Eastern European countries were flooded with Russian immigration during Soviet occupation, and Russia is a threat and geopolitical rival to these countries now, so they don’t want people who may identify as Russians but were born elsewhere to help dictate the business of their countries. And birthright citizenship may incentivize a consistent stream of immigration, which a country might not necessarily want, like in the United States right now.
Come join our debate Monday night at 7pm in Scott Hall 201!