Should America End Birthright Citizenship?
Topics: Law, Politics, U.S.
Birthright citizenship, guaranteed by the 14th Amendment’s jus soli principle, grants U.S. citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil, regardless of parents’ legal status.
Recently, it has come under scrutiny following an Executive Order seeking to limit citizenship for children of noncitizens, now being challenged in court. Legal scholars, civil rights advocates, and lawmakers are also questioning whether it should be altered, and if so, what it would mean to be born in the U.S. Supporters argue the 14th Amendment was meant to make citizenship a right, not a privilege, and that it prevents children from being punished for their parents’ status while encouraging long-term economic and civic contributions.
Ending birthright citizenship would also create a permanent underclass of vulnerable stateless children born and raised in America but denied the rights of full citizens, such as healthcare and education. Critics say it fuels illegal immigration, encourages “birth tourism,” and grants citizenship to children of those with no legal ties to the U.S. They argue this creates perverse incentives and strains an already overburdened immigration system.
With this legal context, Open to Debate, in partnership with Arizona State University, debates the question: Should America End Birthright Citizenship?
This debate was recorded on October 9, 2025 at the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication at Arizona State University in Phoenix, AZ.
ARGUING YES
Mark Krikorian: Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies
Horace Cooper: Senior Fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research; Chairman of the Project 21 National Advisory Board
ARGUING NO
Kris Mayes: Arizona Attorney General
Chris Newman: Legal Director of the National Day Laborer Organizing Network (NDLON)
MODERATOR-IN-CHIEF:
John Donvan: Emmy award-winning journalist
IN PARTNERSHIP WITH
This event is part of a new partnership between Open to Debate and Arizona State University’s Institute of Politics to bring live debate programming to ASU’s campus in a special series titled PRO/CONversations. Produced by Arizona PBS in the Arizona State University Media Enterprise—which will air and promote the recorded programs—the series is designed to model civil discourse for students while offering hands-on production experience to ASU journalism students.
I love Open to Debate (ne Intelligence Squared) and was looking forward to this discussion. My take after listening: this was a low point in the Open to Debate series. Of the four debaters, one on the "Yes" side presented compelling, balanced arguments; the other "Yes" debater was fixated on abstract tangents about what justices should have done in circa 1900. The two people arguing "No" basically said "it's in the constitution" (true, but not the point of the debate) and then ranted about the current administration and levied personal attacks on the "Yes" panel.
It was interesting to learn the history and spirit of the Amendment - basically to ensure no question about the citizenship of children of former slaves. It was also interesting to listen to the arguments of the one reasonable debater on how the world has changed since then and why the policy may no longer make sense. This does seem to be something that we (America) should discuss on its merits and outside of political affiliation. Sadly, that didn't happen in this debate.
I love open to debate, I’ve been following it for a long time. I love to analyse arguments and to learn from them.
I’d love to make a suggestion that I’ve been pondering for a long time: The debate shouldn’t be revolving around an open question but a statement: this is how classic debates work and helps to narrow down the positions