The following is the text of the speech that won second prize in this year’s AG’s Cup Speech Competition.
LOOK around you. See the faces that reflect the beautiful blend of Saipan. I stand before you today not just as one of you, but as a living testament to the power and necessity of birthright citizenship. My story began here, on this very soil, under the vast, embracing arms of the Marianas. I am the daughter of two Korean immigrants, legal residents who, for thirty tireless years, poured their hearts and souls into building a stable life for me on this island they chose as their home.
From my earliest memories, I was immersed in a vibrant mix of cultures. While my Korean heritage was a cornerstone, the Filipino, Chinese, Chamorro, and American influences that shaped my formative years significantly contribute to my identity. This rich cultural immersion led me to ponder the very essence of belonging. I understood my Korean heritage, the jus sanguinis, the right of blood that connected me to my parents’ homeland. Yet, I was born here. This soil, this air, this community shaped me. This is jus soli, the right of the soil, a principle enshrined in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
That pivotal amendment, ratified in 1868, declared with resounding clarity: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” This wasn’t just legal jargon; it was a profound statement about who belongs, about who is seen, about who is granted the fundamental rights and protections of this nation. The Supreme Court, in the landmark case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, affirmed this ancient and fundamental rule: birth within the territory, under the allegiance and protection of the country, grants citizenship, even to children born of resident aliens.
For us in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, this right is doubly affirmed by the Covenant that brought us into political union with the United States. Sections 301 through 304 explicitly paved the way for American citizenship for those born here. Section 303 unequivocally states that “all persons born in the Commonwealth on or after [November 4, 1986] and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States will be citizens of the United States at birth.” This isn’t a privilege; it is a right, etched in law and in the very fabric of our being here.
Yet, this foundational principle, the very bedrock of my American identity and that of so many others born here, is now under debate. Elected officials are questioning whether birthright citizenship in the CNMI should continue or end. This isn’t an abstract policy discussion; it strikes at the heart of who we are as a community and the future we envision for our children.
Consider this: does birthright citizenship help or harm the CNMI? For me, it was the key that unlocked a future filled with opportunity. It meant that the sacrifices my parents made weren’t just for a better life, but for my full inclusion as an American citizen. It allowed me to pursue my education, to dream without the shadow of legal uncertainty, to contribute fully to the society that nurtured me. Birthright citizenship fosters a deep sense of belonging, weaving individuals into the social and civic fabric of our islands. It empowers us to participate fully in our democracy, to contribute our unique talents to our economy, and to travel freely as American citizens.
However, I understand the concerns that have been raised. The fear of straining our resources, the anxieties about demographic shifts — these are valid considerations that deserve thoughtful discussion. But we must not allow these concerns to overshadow the fundamental human right at stake. We must find solutions that address these challenges without dismantling the very principle that ensures equality and belonging for those born here.
What are the pros and cons? The pros are clear: integration, equal rights, economic contribution, and alignment with the foundational principles of American citizenship. The potential cons regarding resource strain and demographic shifts require careful management and planning, not the dismantling of a core right.
Think about the impact on our students, the future of our islands. For them, birthright citizenship is not a political concept; it is their reality. It means growing up knowing they are unequivocally American, with the same hopes and opportunities as any other child born on American soil. To deny them this right would be to create a generation of second-class residents, individuals born and raised here, yet denied the full promise of American citizenship. This would not only hinder their personal growth and potential but would also fracture the unity of our community.
Now, let’s address the legal foundation: Even without Section 303 of the Covenant, would the Fourteenth Amendment still apply? The consensus among legal scholars suggests it would. The broad and inclusive language of the Fourteenth Amendment, encompassing all persons born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction, would likely extend to the CNMI as an American territory. Our Covenant simply solidified this application, offering clarity and assurance. To question birthright citizenship here is to question the very applicability of the United States Constitution within our islands.
This leads us to a profound historical understanding. The Fourteenth Amendment arose from the ashes of slavery, a powerful tool to combat racial discrimination and ensure the citizenship and equal protection of formerly enslaved people. Its purpose was to eradicate the legal structures of inequality. While we have made progress, to suggest that its purpose has been fully achieved would be to ignore the persistent realities of systemic inequality that continue to affect marginalized communities. The spirit of the Fourteenth Amendment, its unwavering commitment to equality and the fundamental right of citizenship by birth, remains a vital cornerstone of American justice.
To argue that birthright citizenship should end because its initial purpose was tied to the aftermath of slavery is to misunderstand its enduring significance. It has become a fundamental tenet of American identity, a testament to the ideal that birth on American soil makes you American, regardless of your parents’ origins. To dismantle it would be a step backward, potentially creating new forms of discrimination and undermining the very principles of equality and inclusion that the Fourteenth Amendment sought to establish.
My own life, as a Korean American born on Saipan, is a direct result of birthright citizenship. It allowed me to bridge two worlds, to embrace my Korean heritage while fully participating as an American citizen. It has enriched my life immeasurably and allowed me to contribute to the vibrant tapestry of our island community.
The debate surrounding birthright citizenship in the CNMI is not just about legal statutes; it is about people, about families, about the future of our home. It is about ensuring that every child born on our soil has the same opportunity to reach their full potential as an American citizen. Let us not unravel the threads of belonging that make our community so strong. Let us uphold the principle of birthright citizenship, a principle that has made me, and countless others born here, unequivocally American. Let us choose a future of inclusion, opportunity, and unity for all who call these beautiful islands home.
Thank you.
