The 14th Amendment was written to provide slaves with well-deserved citizenship. It promised that all Americans born in this country would be treated fairly. As the United States grew to be the melting pot it is today, the amendment applied to all people of all races.

Sen. David Vitter, R-La., and Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., do not see it this way. To them, this amendment is a loophole for illegal immigrants to “drop a child,” as Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., so eloquently stated. They have put forward a proposal to repeal the Amendment, hoping that it will end the “anchor baby” phenomenon (when a mother comes into the country pregnant and uses the child—born a citizen—to gain entry into the country legally).

Unfortunately, Vitter and Paul are grossly misinformed. First, the Pew Immigration study on the anchor baby myth shows that 80 percent of undocumented mothers as of 2009 have been in the country since at least 2005. Furthermore, 90 –95 percent of undocumented mothers have been here for over a year. These statistics indicate that these mothers entered with the intention of living and working here—not to have a baby and run.

Second, the immigration process is not as simple as these senators make it out to be. If an undocumented immigrant stays in the U.S. for longer than 180 days, they are barred from applying for citizenship for the next 10 years. Additionally, a child cannot apply for citizenship for his or her parents until 21 years of age. Since the Pew Center’s report indicates that most of these mothers are here to stay, the 10-year bar applies to them. They can only become citizens through an I-601 Waiver, which is only rarely approved when children apply for their parents. In the end, a 23-year process with little chance of success does not encourage illegal immigration.

Clearly, repealing the amendment would do little to prevent undocumented immigrants. Some might enter, have a child and leave this country within a short period of time. There are probably some who do not mind waiting the 21 years and, because they did not stay, are able to successfully apply for a green card and later citizenship. But to take away citizenship from so many children to prevent these rare abuses seems ridiculous. Even worse, it seems like a political ploy focused on appearing to fix the larger issue of illegal immigration while doing little.

Instead of working to fix the immigration process and secure our borders, supporters of the repeal want to punish children who had no say in the matter, know no other land and are here to stay. These children will still be here, but they will have limited resources, no motivation to attain an education and no prospects for employment.Years down the line, if they are caught by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, where will we send them?

Over 30 other countries have birthright citizenship, and three Supreme Court cases have upheld it. Many of the mothers who entered the U.S. to have a child did not do so for citizenship. They enter legally for better quality hospitals or specialized services, which is confirmed by practitioners in border states and firms in other countries that specialize in “birth packages” to the U.S.

The purpose of birthright citizenship is not to provide the parents of the child with a path to citizenship. Taking citizenship from these children will not curb future illegal immigration. It takes children’s rights because of their parents’ transgressions while failing to address the real issues surrounding immigration. These children are Americans, and we cannot take that away from them.