The Birthright Battle

With millions of immigrants still entering the United States across the U.S.- Mexican border, the question of whether citizenship should be granted to children of illegal immigrants that are born in America has once again been brought up. This past week, President Trump has stated that he is considering trying to put an end of birthright citizenship, which means possibly revoking the 14th Amendment. In light of this statement, many Americans have been wondering what this could mean for the country.

Although the president has yet to comment on what the birthright revokement could mean for children of legal U.S. citizens, it is predicted that this would effect the citizenship status of roughly over 8 million children. As of 2016, the are 4 million U.S. born children with at least one parent who is undocumented, 1.3 million with parents who are both undocumented and 909,000 children with a single undocumented parent (Click Here). These varying statuses of U.S. born children of illegal parents have begun to make Americans think of how birthright revokement will effect each specific case of undocumented families, as well as U.S. born children of legal citizens.

What do you think? Should the United States get rid of birthright citizenship? Should it effect both children of undocumented parents and legal citizens?

The Push to Vote Younger

  In light of rising political tensions in the U.S. for the past few years, teens have increasingly become more and more politically aware and active. Especially with the push for stricter gun laws from students in the past year, young adults have shown they’re interest in having a say in government. This has brought up the question that has been asked for years: should the voting age be lowered from 18 to 16 years old?

Many supporters of lowering the voting age have argued that teens are just as affected by government policies as older adults and that it is their right since many teens are tax payers due to many having jobs. On the other hand, many people are reluctant to lowering the voting age, arguing that 16 year olds aren’t mature enough and lack enough life experiences. In addition, there is concern that lowering the voting age could be benefiting one party over another, seeing that most young people vote as Democrats (Click Here). Due to these conflicting views, some local elections have lowered their voting age to 16, while others remain reluctant.

What do you think? Do you think the voting age should be lowered to 16? How would this affect our government and policies?

Eternal Digital Footprints

Growing up in the digital age, many adolescents are aware that whatever they post on social media will last forever. Knowing this, adolescents are also aware that negative social media posts could come back and haunt them in the future (Click Here).

Many have pointed to the Kavanaugh Case, in which Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh was accused of sexually assaulting a woman in high school, as a prime example of how past mistakes can have negative consequences in the future. In light of this case, the question of whether past mistakes should largely impact someone’s future has been applied to social media use, sparking a debate of whether inappropriate should follow people later in life. Many argue that people should not be punished due to a past comment or vulgar tweet that was written when that person was most likely younger and less mature and therefore prone to more questionable actions. On the other hand, others believe that people should have to face the consequences for their actions, no matter how long ago they may have occurred.

What do you think? Should people be haunted by inappropriate social media posts made in the past? Or should they face consequences for past mistakes? To what degree should they be punished?