Vivek Ramaswamy, one of the republican candidate for the presidency in 2024, made a contentious statement during the second GOP debate at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California, calling for an end to the “US citizenship at birth” rule’s application to children born to “illegal immigrants.” This claim attracted a lot of attention and created a contentious discussion both at the time and afterwards. Ramaswamy’s argument was supported by his reading of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Image Source : Hindustan Times
Ramaswamy made it quite apparent in his statement that he supported ending birthright citizenship for children born to unauthorized immigrants in the country. This position prompted quick condemnation from a variety of sources, especially on social media platforms, where conversations about immigration policy are frequently fervent and divisive.
Ramaswamy cited the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to support his claim. He claimed that the amendment’s text only applied to individuals “born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” not to everyone born inside American borders. He argued that this clause precluded birthright citizenship for foreign ambassadors’ children who were born on American soil, including Mexican diplomats.
About the 14th Amendment
It should be noted that the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution specifically states in Section 1 that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.” Birthright citizenship in the United States is based on this clause, which guarantees that everyone born within its boundaries receives automatic citizenship regardless of their parents’ immigration status.
Ramaswamy’s contention, however, focused on the words “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” He argued that this language should be read more strictly, barring children born to ambassadors and other recognized government figures from nations outside the United States who are not under American jurisdiction. He said that this interpretation, which would restrict certain people’s entitlement to birthright citizenship if they were born on American soil, is consistent with the 14th Amendment’s actual intent.
There is debate over the interpretation of the 14th Amendment
Ramaswamy’s opinion was not without dispute, it is vital to remember that. Legal discussion and conflicting viewpoints have surrounded the interpretation of the 14th Amendment’s text. The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was not meant to exclude children of undocumented immigrants, according to many legal scholars and advocates of birthright citizenship, despite the fact that he argued for a more restrictive interpretation of the amendment. Instead, they claim that it was meant to exclude particular diplomatic privileges or immunity.
Ramaswamy’s remarks were made in relation to the ongoing national discussion on immigration reform, a divisive topic in American politics. It is complicated and contentious to decide whether children born to undocumented immigrants should immediately become citizens of the United States since it involves questions of constitutional interpretation, immigration law, and national identity.
The Second GOP Debate
Seven candidates for the 2024 Presidential elections participated in the second GOP debate, including former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, former United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley, former Vice President Mike Pence, businessman Vivek Ramaswamy, and South Carolina Senator Tim Scott. Ramaswamy’s opinion on birthright citizenship added a contentious element to the conversation and brought attention to the ongoing argument within the Republican Party over immigration policy and its position on the 14th Amendment.
During the second GOP debate of the 2024 Presidential elections, Vivek Ramaswamy’s call to end birthright citizenship for children born to undocumented immigrants, which was based on his interpretation of the 14th Amendment, sparked controversy and sparked debates on social media and within the Republican Party. In the broader discussion of immigration policy in the United States, the subject of birthright citizenship is still divisive