As it relates to the U.S.
Pros of birthright citizenship:
-Enables birthright citizens currently contributing to the economy and culture to do so legally
-Enables the U.S. to avoid the complications associated with relocation (such as expenditures and PR problems)
-Birthright citizens don't have to face complications associated with relocation (such as being deported to a country they have no preparation for)
Cons:
-Adds to trends toward general overpopulation (which creates scarcity of local resources)
-Can potentially introduce cultural elements that conflict with the cultural elements that bind the U.S. together, creating instability (however, not by definition)
The trouble with the "cons" side of the analysis is that most if not all of the criticisms we could bring against birthright citizens could also be brought against other citizens. Keeping with the theme, so long as we avoid double standards, the conversation should expand to include criteria for anyone and everyone who should be allowed in the country. Ie. should we be deporting people, including 3rd, 4th, or 5th generation citizens, for contributing to overpopulation or contradicting cultural norms? Trying to mitigate these cons in a general sense comes with its own set of cons as well. For example, the U.S. would have to restrict freedom of information that includes unusual, "destabilizing" cultural elements, which would infringe on 1st Amendment freedoms. Additionally, a few studies have suggested that areas with lower (undocumented) immigrant populations have higher crime rates than areas with higher (undocumented) immigrant populations. So, it doesn't seem like the presence of new arrivals creates an uptick in crime in a way that surpasses crime in areas with historically established populations.
https://www.cato.org/publications/im...egal-immigrant
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...745-9125.12175
Anyway, 30 countries offer birthright citizenship. It's not just the U.S.