I am a birthright citizen: my U.S. citizenship is based on having been born inside the United States, while subject to its jurisdiction. In fact, like many U.S. citizens, that is the only reason I am a citizen. I’ve never made an Oath of Allegiance or taken a citizenship exam.

As it happens, both of my parents are citizens so I can also prove citizenship by heredity. But I need only go back four generations to find an ancestor that wasn’t a citizen. I know many people who can’t even go back that far.

This is why I don’t understand the movement to eliminate birthright citizenship. Eliminating it means eliminating the sole basis of citizenship for a large number of U.S. citizens. Even restricting citizenship to heredity past the parents’ level will exclude a considerable amount of the population.

Do those who argue against birthright citizenship realize that they may very well be arguing against their own citizenship?

I can certainly understand the argument against “anchor babies” and, to an extent, I actually agree with it. But I don’t think eliminating birthright citizenship is the answer. There’d be too much of an unintended consequence.