The recent foray into the question of illegal immigration has raised many interesting challenges and proposals in facing the challenge. Reasonable people can disagree on whether legal status should be extended and to what extent the government should seek out those who are in this country illegally. It is perfectly reasonable in a democratically elected Republic for one set of people to believe with passion that all persons who have entered the country illegally should be rounded up and expelled, and equally valid for a set of people to believe with equal passion that those who are here should be protected and invited to become either permanent residents or full citizens. Each side has the opportunity to present its arguments, voice its reasoning and persuade via the normal avenues this country provides. Indeed, such a thorough debate provides the backdrop of why this country is as free as it is.
This does not mean, however, that all reasoning presented holds the same inherent value in terms of logic, power and cohesion. For instance, what of the assessment that all people who have entered this country illegally ought to be rounded up and expelled? On the one hand, the arguments for law and order and the fact that this country is based on even enforcement of the law on all peoples equally is very persuasive on its face. However, as in all cases of import, a closer look at the issue itself raises significant troubles and problems.
The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution holds, in pertinent part, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.” The Constitution defines, at least in part, citizenship as a guaranteed right to all persons born within the borders of the United States, and the Supreme Court has upheld this right as beyond the control, restriction or regulation of even Congress. The Common Law of both England – and, by default, the United States – has always held the intrinsic status of a person by both stated allegiance and birth. A person born within the borders of the United States, whatever the reason or cause, is entitled to the status of natural-born citizen. We find this not only as a Constitutional proviso, but indeed as a reflection of Judeo-Christian ethic on several levels.
First and foremost, we do not hold people accountable for the crimes of others. If, for example, Johnny steals a car from a car lot, we do not hold Johnny’s father accountable unless he has directly aided and assisted Johnny in the crime. In the same way, just because Miguel’s parents entered the country illegally does not mean that we can – or indeed ought to even if we could – hold Miguel accountable for that crime. That his parents entered the country in violation of the law is in no way the fault of Miguel, and his status as a natural-born citizen is, if he or his parents can establish that he was in fact born on U.S. soil, beyond contest.
Which brings us to the next question. What are we to do when immigrant families are split, or when children are by default citizens by birth while their parents are illegal immigrants? The children, under our system of laws, have the sacrosanct right to remain in this country, but what will happen if you were to round up their parents and expel them? Who would care for these children? Never mind that Hispanic parents are actually employed, hard-working adults.
If you think that there are difficulties with welfare benefits now, imagine how much each state would be compelled to dole out if we had to find foster parents for each Hispanic child left parentless should we actually succeed in finding every illegal adult immigrant. Part of the separation from America and the third world, after all, is the fact that we care for those, at least theoretically, that can not care for themselves. We would not, I think, leave hundreds of thousands, if not millions, or children to fend for themselves in the streets.
It can not be argued that the vast majority of Americans have either completely discarded the citizenship question, or at the very least have failed to project into the future the consequences inherent in following through with what they propose. Who is to care for those left in the country without parental care, and who is to carry this financial burden? The states? The current financial yoke for them has caused numerous crisis in education and infrastructure budgets, and there can be little doubt that such an additional strain would dwarf any that currently exists as a result of immigration. The federal government? With deficits spending already out of control, this can lead to nothing more than a further entrenching of already potential economic recess.
Certainly there is room for debate and reasoning in this question, but Americans should be true and honest with what lies in the future, and ought not to forget all of the implications of ideas and proposals set forth. To do so would be to ignore the intellectual rigor and integrity that has set us apart for so long.

Scott D. Austin lives in Las Vegas, Nev.