Political Science: Analyzing the Dreamers debate on legal citizenship

This political science essay delves into the complex debate surrounding the legal citizenship of Dreamers, children of illegal immigrants. It examines the arguments from both conservative and democratic perspectives, exploring the potential benefits of granting citizenship, such as strengthening social capital and boosting the economy, against concerns about illegal immigration and potential burdens on government resources. The essay references the US Constitution and historical contexts, such as racial discrimination, to contextualize the debate. Ultimately, it concludes that granting legal birthright citizenship aligns with democratic principles and constitutional rights, advocating for a more inclusive approach to immigration policy.

Running head: POLITICAL SCIENCE
Political science
Name of the student
Name of the university
Author note

1
POLITICAL SCIENCE
Dreamers (Immigration) – should children of illegal immigrants be granted legal
citizenship?
Introduction
This has remained an argumentative topic since many years and rather many ages.
This can be judged from two different point of views. One is from the conservative point of
view and the other is from the democratic point of view. The democratic believers argue that
the immigrants and their child should be given more opportunities and chances to stay in the
foreign countries and to get all the rights of that country. By analyzing the democratic view
this can be mentioned that immigration strengthens the social capital of a country.
Body of discussion
The countries should offer not only legal right of citizenship to the children of the
immigrant, but also should give opportunity to the ones who seek opportunity and better
future for themselves and for their families. It has been argued by the believers of the
democratic idea that immigration strengthens the social capital and it deepens the feeling of
national patriotism. It expands the general economy of the country (Abrego & Lakhani,
2015). The important argument that can be presented in this context is that the children of the
immigrants have not any crime and they were born in the same country where his parents
took shelter. The children who was born in the same country had the full right to stay in the
same country and he had the full right to get the legal rights that a citizen usually gets while
staying in the country. In the historical times the blacks were held inferior by the whites and
this is the reason they were not given the legal right to stay in the region (Kritz, 2015). The
orthodox view share the idea that the immigrants come in the region in an illegal manner and
this is the reason they are suspected to be criminals or illegal citizens. This is the reason
behind not giving them the equal legal right. This view can be argued by stating that the

2
POLITICAL SCIENCE
children of the immigrants are born in the same country where their parents have immigrated
and this is the reason that by default they are born as the official citizens of that country. It
has been written into the US constitution that all the persons who are born or who are
naturalized in the US and subject to the jurisdiction therefore the citizens of the country
where they reside (Hammar, 2017).
The idea of avoiding the trespassers into the country was the real intention of not
giving the legal right to stay in the country. There is however a logical reason behind not
giving a legal right to the children of the immigrants (Schiller, 2017). The country tries to
save itself from the influx of the large of amount of people. It has been observed in many
cases that the immigrants in order to carry forward their illegal acts gives birth to a baby so
that the baby gets the legal right to stay there and they can carry their illegal work. The
government takes care of them and it becomes easier for them. The illegal immigrants can
claim varied benefits (Geddes & Scholten, 2016).
A contradictory idea has been put forward by many critics which defends the former
idea that the immigrants immigrated because of the hardships they faced in the former
country. Not only had the individuals who were involved in crime immigrated to some other
country. The people who found it difficult to stay in the former country took the final resort
of immigrating in other country. The children of the illegal immigrants should not be judged
as they don’t have any fault. However, it was argued that the government of the country in
which the immigrants immigrated faced the economic problems and it is not possible to
expect the government to cater to the needs of the illegals and further burden itself
(Bloemraad, Silva & Voss, 2016).
Conclusion

3
POLITICAL SCIENCE
Apart from the above arguments it can finally be concluded by mentioning that there
are two different views regarding this. One view is the radical view and the other is the
democratic view. The implementation of an exception to birthright citizenship would be a
radical view and a racist view. It is itself there in the constitution of many countries that all
the persons who are born or naturalized in some other country and therefore are subjected to
the jurisdiction and this is the reason they should be given the legal right to stay there. In light
of this, it can be said that the children of the immigrants should be given the legal birthright
citizenship.

4
POLITICAL SCIENCE
References
Abrego, L. J., & Lakhani, S. M. (2015). Incomplete inclusion: Legal violence and immigrants
in liminal legal statuses. Law & Policy, 37(4), 265-293.
Bloemraad, I., Silva, F., & Voss, K. (2016). Rights, Economics, or Family? Frame
Resonance, Political Ideology, and the Immigrant Rights Movement. Social
Forces, 94(4), 1647-1674.
Geddes, A., & Scholten, P. (2016). The politics of migration and immigration in Europe.
Sage.
Hammar, T. (2017). Democracy and the nation state. Routledge.
Kritz, M. M. (2015). International migration. The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Race,
Ethnicity, and Nationalism.
Schiller, N. G. (2017). Transborder citizenship: an outcome of legal pluralism within
transnational social fields. In Mobile people, mobile law (pp. 39-62). Routledge.