Citizenry - March 2012 Issue

http://webpub.allegheny.edu/employee/I/iroy/weblogfa2010/global_citizenship/

This past month, I went to a national debate tournament at Harvard Square in Massachusetts. I was surrounded by history, a joint of colonial and modern architecture, and plenty of activity. I was walking through a neighborhood of Victorian homes, when I got to thinking about my debate topic: Birthright citizenship would be abolished in the United States. One of my major arguments in support of maintaining birthright citizenship was that it upheld American Ideals. Now this is where things get interesting. What defines American ideals? What are they? It’s an interesting topic to think about because it’s so arbitrary and abstract that a concrete representation of these “ideals” manifests itself in theory entirely. Through my long, introspective walk, I was able to narrow down the list to a couple essential “American Ideals” which were: equality, representation, and mobility.

Equality can be broken down into several categories, such as equality of opportunity, gender equality, racial equality, and many more. Equality of opportunity is very controversial because often enough, people feel as though their abilities are infringed upon; the government is restricting their ability to pursue aspects of life such as higher education, the ability to vote, or even work. Equality is vital in the United States, it’s ubiquity in every household is one of the foundational bases on which the Constitution was drafted. Equality is crucial to a progressive and democratic America, as it provides every constituent with an even playing field on which they may be represented by their government; this is a theory known as the social contract.

The social contract, created by John Locke, is the theoretical basis of the American government. It states that there is a compromise made between the constituents and the government; the people sacrifice some freedom for protection from themselves through a third party – the government – and the government is obligated above all else to protect its constituents and represent them diplomatically and civilly. Then comes the interesting topic of tacit consent; no one can be forced into submission – if someone doesn’t want to become a citizen, then they should not be forced into the title. Birthright citizenship, going back to the primer in this discussion, is important in upholding the social contract because it gives people the ability to not only exercise equality, but also to expand and engage in social and economic mobility.

Arguably, one of the greatest benefits of being an American citizen is that a person is able to engage in social and economic mobility. Social and economic mobility grants a person the ability to work to earn an income, and income which is not regulated by the government, nor is it limited by any faction. This allows for income classes to grow and expand. However, this provides the counterargument of the rising income disparities and the “negative” impacts they have on society. It’s a very partisan issue, because on one side is the argument that validates rising income disparities because they are the result of capitalism, while on the other end is the argument that income disparities are causing decreased democratic representation.

What do you think? After analyzing the transition from birthright citizenship and its link to income disparities, is it possible that birth right citizenship is granting too many opportunities to the “anchor babies?” Or perhaps, as justified by the Social Contract Theory, it is the governments duty to provide these benefits to all of its constituents?