By Alexi Knock, Assistant News Editor
University law school professors participated in a panel on Sept. 15 as part of Constitution Day to discuss the recent proposals to abolish birthright citizenship in the United States.
“All one has to do is open up any media outlet and you will see something about birthright citizenship,” said third-year law student and moderator for the panel Alexia Marie.
The new controversial proposals would alter the 14th Amendment and require children to have at least one parent be a U.S. citizen in order to gain citizenship. This would mean that simply being born in the United States would no longer be grounds for automatic citizenship.
“You’re not going to see any of us taking the position that abolishing the citizenship clause would be a good thing,” said University law professor Eric Freedman. “It would reinstate the system of apartheid that the 14th Amendment was invented to eliminate.”
The panel also discussed that abolishing birthright citizenship would be like following the ancient rule that the sins of parents must be put on the shoulders of their children.
“Denying children born in the United States citizenship violates a moral principle that this country has followed for years,” said panelist and University law professor Leon Friedman.
Third-year law student Larry Samuels disagreed with this notion. “I think the sins of the parents are being rewarded by granting their children citizenship,” said Samuels. “Why are we so interested with the rights of people who somehow don’t belong to this country and came here illegally? Citizenship is a privilege and it seems like we are just giving it out willy nilly.”
According to University law professor and panelist Rose Villazor, getting rid of birthright citizenship would be both morally wrong and illogical. “[Abolishing birthright citizenship] will not solve illegal immigration problems,” said Villazor. “It will create a caste system and it would be very difficult to enforce given the country’s highly complicated immigration laws.”
All three members of the panel were against the abolishment of birthright citizenship, which was a concern for Samuels. “I found it interesting but I don’t know that both sides were adequately presented,” said Samuels. “To have a panel all on one side is not really fair or an accurate representation of what the issues are.”
