Webster 1

Kevin Leigh Webster Jr.

Stepping
AP English 4 – P. 02
Argument Essay Final Draft

Equality: Illegal Immigrants’ Children Are Illegal Too

Recently, there has been a great deal of political commotion regarding a new bill

that has been introduced. This bill is known as House Bill 2561 in the House of

Representatives, and Senate Bill 1309 in the Senate. The afore mentioned bill makes a

rather conservative change to Arizona’s legislation; the bill adds a clause stating that

“SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES HAS THE

MEANING THAT … THE PERSON IS A CHILD OF AT LEAST ONE PARENT

WHO OWES NO ALLEGIANCE TO ANY FOREIGN SOVEREIGNTY, OR A CHILD

WITHOUT CITIZENSHIP OR NATIONALITY IN ANY FOREIGN COUNTRY.” This

clause defines what “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” actually means.

According to the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, a child born into the

United States is considered a citizen if they are subject to the United States’ jurisdiction –

the “if” clause is extremely vague and leaves people wondering.

Currently, if two illegal immigrants become parents (they have a baby) and their

child is born on United States soil, the child is immediately deemed a citizen of the

United States of America. Does anyone else see a problem with this? The added clause

states, in more complex terms, that one or both parents must either be a citizen or a legal

resident of the United States. If a couple arrives in America a month before their child is

born so that their child will be a citizen of the USA, should that be allowed? The answer

is simple, no. One who partakes in this or a similar method is taking advantage of the
 Webster 2

vague nature of the Fourteenth Amendment. Thus, a clarification clause must be put in

addendum to the original amendment.

As Senator Ron Gould stated, “when [Congress] voted on the 14th Amendment,

[the United States] had open immigration.” Thus, Gould is pointing out that Congress

could not have foreseen such situations as the previously mentioned. Therefore, the

Congress of the United States needs to consider viable addendums and choose the one

that would most fit the nature of the United States’ Constitution. The main sponsor of the

House Bill, John Kavanagh, noted that the amendment needed some revision and argued

that it is “irresponsible and foolish to bestow citizenship rights based upon one’s GPS

location at birth.” Think about it, if you and your spouse went to Russia on vacation and,

whilst you were there, your child was born, should your child then be a citizen of Russia

instead of the country from which you and your spouse hailed?

Tragically, there are people in this country who believe that this bill has racist

undertones. What these people fail to see is that the bill never mentions any specific race.

Nowhere in the bill’s text does it say that the bill applies only to Mexicans, or only to the

Chinese; the bill applies to all races alike, including whites. This matter is strictly legal,

and supporters have said time and time again that the race has nothing to do with it – Ron

Gould stated “I don’t care whether they are from Scotland and they are here illegally or

whether they are from Mexico and here illegally. If they are illegal, they don’t deserve to

be here.”

Hence, the debate on the subject of HB 2561 should not be occurring. The new

bill touches on a topic which was unclear and thence clarifies, in the nation’s best

interests, who is privileged to birth-right citizenship. The immigrants in question have the
 Webster 3

antecedent “illegal,” meaning that they are not supposed to be in the United States – it is

nonsense to argue that the children of these illegals should be legal citizens. Why should

the children of illegal immigrants get special, unequal treatment?