What is it about?
The 14th Amendment to the US Constitution grants citizenship to every child born on US soil. This 150 year old formulation is not permanent is actually open to change. We explore the legal debate over the current formulation of US citizenship. We undertake a conceptual metaphor-based critical discourse analysis of three contending contemporary legal stances regarding US citizenship. In the light of four current court cases, some legal theorists argue that the formulation is both undemocratic and inadequate, and should be amended to address 21st century national concerns. Others argue to retain the current formulation in spite of these concerns. Our study reveals that the rival stances are argued in terms of irreconcilable conceptual metaphors, and each legal stance in itself is deficient to address these current concerns.
Featured Image
Photo by Global Residence Index on Unsplash
Why is it important?
The notion of citizenship is contested today as part of the immigration debate in the US. Some conservatives want to eliminate "birthright citizenship," because it grants US citizenship to children born in the US--irrespective of the parents legal status. The paper reveals the relative limits and strengths of these three rival notions.
Perspectives
I use Critical Discourse Analysis to unpack the legalese of law journal articles to make clear (I hope) the fundamental ideas underlying this critical notion.
Professor Otto Santa Ana
University of California Los Angeles
Read the Original
This page is a summary of: Blood, Soil, and Tears, Journal of Language and Politics, March 2017, John Benjamins,
DOI: 10.1075/jlp.15038.san.
You can read the full text:
Contributors
The following have contributed to this page
