( CNN ) -- The latest constitutional amendment being floated by some Senate Republicans -- to deny citizenship to children born in the United States to unauthorized immigrants -- is not new . Calls for modification of the 14th Amendment 's birthright citizenship guarantee have appeared during other moments of immigration-related hand-wringing . The question is whether the idea is a good one . And the reform is not unthinkable from a democratic point of view . In fact , the United States and Canada stand apart from other major immigrant-receiving societies in the breadth of birthright rules . The United Kingdom amended its laws in 1981 to provide that only children born to citizens , or permanent residents born in the U.K. , are citizens at birth . In 2004 , voters in Ireland amended their constitution along similar lines , in part for reasons familiar to the American audience : fear that birthright citizenship attracted asylum claimants who could use their children as anchors . The French rule allows children born to foreign parents to become citizens at the age of majority ( when the state no longer considers a person a minor ) , rather than at birth . But if ever there were a case for maintaining American exceptionalism , the 14th Amendment is it . Rejection of universal birthright citizenship would upend practices vital to the success of the American venture . The proposed amendment 's implicit premise , that children of parents who have broken the law do not deserve U.S. citizenship , contradicts a basic American value : the sins of the parents should not be visited upon the children . Justice Robert Jackson put it succinctly in dissent from the Korematsu decision ( 1944 ) , which found Japanese internment policies during World War II constitutional : `` If any fundamental assumption underlies our system , it is that guilt is personal and not inheritable . '' Justice Harry Blackmun reasoned similarly in Plyler v. Doe ( 1982 ) when striking down a Texas law that would have denied unauthorized children access to public schools . Frustration with illegal immigration , he wrote , ought not lead to unequal treatment of children who had no hand in creating their `` illegality . '' U.S. courts and most legal scholars have consistently interpreted the Citizenship Clause to apply universally , save to the children of diplomats , invading armies and Native Americans ( though the Supreme Court has never directly addressed the status of children born to unauthorized immigrants ) . The clause thus operates as a constitutional reset button . Each generation born in the U.S. stands on its own , with equal citizenship status , regardless of parentage . Given our history as a society of immigrants , this rule has been crucial to our development into a cohesive political community and to our ability to integrate each new immigrant cohort . It ensures that those who are born and raised in the United States have an equal opportunity to participate and contribute and are regarded by others as full Americans . Not all children born in the U.S. remain , and perhaps those Senate Republicans envision deporting all unauthorized immigrants and their children . But clear-eyed pragmatism tells us that most children born here also go to school , become socialized and enter adulthood here , making them functionally American . Unless we are prepared to tolerate the emergence of castes based on parentage , universal birthright citizenship and a robust naturalization regime should remain in place . The goals of the proposed amendment are not strictly punitive , though its effects inevitably would be . Its supporters argue it would reduce incentives for illegal immigration . But this argument is not serious . The obstacles to passage are nearly insurmountable , and this particular amendment has never come close to succeeding . More important , changing the birthright rule would have little to no effect on illegal immigration . No doubt stories exist of Mexicans crossing the border just to give birth or of tourists arranging vacations to produce U.S.-citizen children . But the actual causes of illegal immigration are complex and overwhelmingly related to the absence of job opportunities in Mexico and the demand for immigrant labor in the U.S . Precisely because illegal immigration is difficult to prevent , lawmakers substitute symbolic posturing for genuine policymaking . Though the 14th Amendment is likely safe , it is instructive whenever politicians propose manipulating it to remember its historical role . The reset principle can also inform debates over other issues , such as the DREAM Act , which would legalize high school graduates who were brought to the U.S. illegally as children . Even the debate over whether to legalize existing unauthorized immigrants , which is more complex because of their culpability , would benefit from an appreciation of how second chances can advance equality and integration . The conventional interpretation of the 14th Amendment reminds us that we take our aspirations to equality seriously . We are willing to risk certain costs , such as opportunistic immigration and the creation of citizens who may never develop ties to the U.S. , to ensure political equality . For the United States to stand alone on this principle does nothing less than reaffirm traditions that have helped turned a collection of people from all over the world into an integrated and powerful success . The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Cristina Rodriguez .
14th Amendment guarantees U.S. citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil . Cristina Rodriguez argues that 's been crucial for cohesive , casteless American society . She argues the Constitution would not reverse waves of illegal immigration .