n Jan. 5, House Resolution 140, the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2011, was referred to the U.S. House of Representatives' Judiciary Committee. The bill amends the Constitution's 14th Amendment, which states, "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."

H.R. 140 rearticulates the basis of citizenship by requiring one of a child's parents to be a citizen of the United States, a permanent resident or "an alien performing active service in the armed forces." As you'd be hard-pressed to find many aliens in the army, this bill would effectively deny citizenship to children of undocumented immigrants.

Implicit in the bill's conception is the idea that "nationhood" and "citizenship" are static terms — they don't change. "Nationhood" is somehow contingent on geography. If your parents aren't born here, then you're not a citizen. But how many people think about their ties to a nation that way? Isn't it far more common for people to construct identity based on ideas of home and society rather than on notions of remote borders?

The palace of American exceptionalism, Capitol Hill, still holds onto the illusion that nations are geographically determinable. If you're born on this side of the border you're this, and if you're born on that side of the border you're that.

How do we determine what makes an American citizen? H.R. 140 offers two criteria: papers and military service. But what about immigrant children who have never been to their countries of birth? How can you deport someone to a place he or she has never been to and knows nothing about?

A 5-year-old Guatemalan child who moves to Washington will grow up learning English and reading U.S. history books in a public educational system that teaches exceptionalist discourses about freedom, liberty and democracy. Does his lack of papers make him foreign? The papers that say that he's Guatemalan don't guarantee he can speak Spanish, tell you anything about Guatemalan history or smoothly assimilate into a culture that, to him, is as foreign as it is to H.R. 140's sponsor, Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa).

By getting children of illegal immigrants out of here before they have a chance to grow up, Congress is simplifying the "problem." It's also shoring up all of the jobs that immigrants are going to take when they grow up.

Here's an idea. Given all the prattle of liberalism and the outcry against government "handouts," why do Americans support bills that fundamentally alter the level of job competition? This is a competitive country. If Pedro takes your job, shouldn't you be able to get it back through hard work and thrift?

Do not tell me affirmative action is unfair because it excludes white people from college programs and then institute immigration and naturalization laws that exclude people of color from the work sector and the country. You cannot have them both. I'll give you affirmative action, and you give me the border. Either that or you pull yourself up by your bootstraps and get your spot at Harvard. Just think of equal opportunity as part of the application, like a personal statement or an interview. It's the part of the application that, in a few decades, will be the most difficult.

Michael Casiano is a junior American studies and English major. He can be reached at casiano at umdbk dot com.