Keep Scrolling for continue reading for more stories

Vivek Ramaswamy: The Anti-Immigrant Child Of Immigrants

“Politicians are not born; they are excreted.”

― Marcus Tullius Cicero (106 BC – 43 BC)

Ramaswamy as a Child of Immigrants Yet Against Immigration

Ramaswamy’s roots can be traced back to India, where his parents were born and raised before making the arduous journey to the United States. They were beneficiaries of a then-more lenient and open immigration system, affording their son opportunities that have culminated in his ascendancy within the world of biotech entrepreneurship and now, politics. Yet, as documented by NBC News, Ramaswamy’s immigration stance is a complex dichotomy. The son of Indian immigrants, he celebrates his family’s immigrant history but promotes policies that contradict the open arms that once welcomed his parents.

The Republican candidate’s stringent immigration policies did not align with the nation’s historical openness to immigrants. Ramaswamy’s stance included a robust endorsement of far-right border policies. Despite being the embodiment of the American dream for many immigrants, his propositions painted a different narrative—one that was exclusionary and lacked the empathy borne from a firsthand immigrant experience.

Deseret News revealed a Ramaswamy unapologetic about his hardline immigration proposals. A stark contrast to the welcoming embrace his family received, his policies tilted towards zero-tolerance. Refugees, the war-torn, and persecution victims facing a potential cap of ‘near zero’ admissions starkly underlined this paradox.

Furthermore, Ramaswamy’s propositions, as articulated in his speeches and policy outlines, did not stem from a lack of awareness or information. In fact, he was a well-educated and informed individual, as seen in his sophisticated navigation of the biotech industry and the complex world of politics. His public declaration to universally deport all undocumented immigrants, as reported by NBC News, unveiled a man whose family’s immigrant past did not influence his policy outlines.

Moreover, Ramaswamy’s zero-tolerance approach to immigration reflected a disconnect with the 14th Amendment, a constitutional provision rooted in granting equality and citizenship. In a country where the children of immigrants, including his own parents, contributed to the rich, diverse tapestry of the nation, Ramaswamy’s policies were not just stringent but seemed an antithesis of the American immigrant story.

The historic context, as detailed by Mother Jones, emphasized the role of the 14th Amendment in fostering an environment where children born on U.S. soil were conferred citizenship, a policy that contributed to the nation’s diversity and growth. This approach, over the years, evolved into a pillar of American identity—a nation built by immigrants from around the globe.

Ramaswamy’s hypocrisy emanated not just from his immigrant background but his conscious choice to advocate policies that were seemingly in denial of his own family’s journey. It raised profound questions about the reconcilability of one’s heritage with their political ideologies. Despite the constitutional, legal, and humanitarian frameworks that shaped the United States as a haven for immigrants, Ramaswamy’s proposals were indicative of a departure, a shift towards an America that was less welcoming, less inclusive.

In light of these intricacies, the examination of Ramaswamy’s immigration stance is more than a critique of policy. It is an exploration of a complex interplay of personal history, political ideology, and the intrinsic values that define a nation and its people. Each pronouncement, each policy outline, was not merely a statement of political intent but a revelation of a struggle between the legacy of an immigrant past and the exigencies of contemporary political aspirations.

Ramaswamy’s Proposition to Deport Children

Vivek Ramaswamy’s stance on deporting American-born children of undocumented immigrants sharply contrasted with his personal narrative as the son of immigrants. The magnitude of this policy proposition was not just in its legal and constitutional implications but also in its personal resonance, given his family background. His parents, as highlighted by NBC News, migrated from India, navigating through the complex terrains of U.S. immigration policies to offer their children a shot at the American Dream.

Yet, as NBC News underscored, Ramaswamy’s policy inclination was starkly oppositional. Advocating for the deportation of children born in the U.S. to undocumented parents marked a blatant dismissal of the foundational ethos that once welcomed immigrants like his parents. The children, American by birthright as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment, found themselves at the center of a controversial policy proposition.

The spotlight on children in this policy debate was particularly poignant. Mother Jones traced the historical and legal journey of the 14th Amendment and birthright citizenship. Children, irrespective of the immigration status of their parents, were constitutionally recognized as citizens. This constitutional provision was not arbitrary but rooted in the acknowledgment of the intrinsic human rights and dignity of every child born on American soil.

Ramaswamy’s policy, therefore, was not just a constitutional challenge but a human rights issue. Children, by virtue of their birth in the U.S., were endowed with rights and privileges that his proposed policy threatened. The hypocrisy was pronounced – a child of immigrants, who benefitted from the opportunities accorded by a liberal immigration framework, was now advocating for policies that were fundamentally exclusionary.

The betrayal was not just of the constitutional provisions as detailed exhaustively by Mother Jones but of the children who, like Ramaswamy, were born in the U.S. to immigrant parents. These children, American citizens by birthright, faced the prospect of deportation, a policy that not only undermined their legal status but also their human dignity.

A thorough examination of his policy proposition revealed a glaring contradiction. On one hand, Ramaswamy celebrated his immigrant heritage as outlined by NBC News, and on the other, he was advocating for a policy that was not just constitutionally questionable but also morally and ethically perplexing. The children, who were at the core of this policy debate, epitomized the clash between constitutional rights, ethical considerations, and political propositions.

In this context, the children represented more than legal entities; they embodied the moral and ethical dilemmas embedded in Ramaswamy’s policy propositions. The dichotomy between his celebrated immigrant roots and his advocated policy highlighted a profound inconsistency. The children, American by birthright, were caught in the crossfire of a policy that questioned their place in a country constitutionally deemed theirs. Ramaswamy’s personal narrative, marked by the privileges and opportunities offered by the U.S. to his immigrant parents, stood in stark contrast to the policies he proposed for children born under similar circumstances but to undocumented parents.

Affront to the 14th Amendment

Ramaswamy’s stance on the 14th Amendment and birthright citizenship starkly contrasted the constitutional, historical, and moral foundations of the United States, an irony not lost considering his immigrant heritage. The businessman-turned-politician’s views, as outlined by NBC News, portrayed a figure keen on redefining the contours of citizenship and belonging, crafting a narrative that directly opposed the ideals of a nation built upon the bedrock of diversity and inclusivity.

The 14th Amendment has been a pivotal aspect of American democracy. As articulated by Mother Jones, it was a product of a deep, reflective endeavor to create a nation where every person born or naturalized in the United States is accorded equal protection under the law. Ramaswamy’s assertive stance to eliminate birthright citizenship, therefore, didn’t just target a legal statute; it questioned an ethos, an American identity woven into the national fabric since the post-Civil War era.

The gravitas of Ramaswamy’s proposition was not merely in its legal implications but also its symbolic affront to a constitutional guarantee. Mother Jones echoed the sentiments of legal scholars and historians alike, underlining the entrenched nature of the 14th Amendment in American jurisprudence and identity. It was a right not lightly conferred but a deliberate, conscious effort to outline the contours of American citizenship, ensuring inclusivity and equality were not just ideals but tangible, enforceable rights.

Yet, Ramaswamy’s assertions, as highlighted by NBC News, posed a direct contradiction. A son of immigrants who benefited from the liberal, inclusive nature of American immigration policies now stood as a proponent of exclusionary policies. The 14th Amendment was not an abstract, distant legal text for millions of Americans; it was a testament of their belonging, an affirmation of their American identity. Ramaswamy’s position did not just challenge a legal norm but sought to redefine the very criteria of who gets to be American.

Yet, within this contentious discourse, the inherent contradiction of Ramaswamy’s position remained evident. He celebrated his immigrant roots, a narrative richly highlighted by NBC News, showcasing a familial journey of aspiration, struggle, and ultimate triumph – a narrative made possible by a nation’s commitment to openness and opportunity. Yet, his political ideologies espoused a different narrative, one marked by exclusion, selective application of constitutional rights, and a redefinition of American identity that sought to restrict, rather than expand, the circles of belonging.

It was a contradiction that was not just legal or political, but profoundly personal. It raised fundamental questions on the ethics of enjoying the privileges of an open, inclusive system, only to advocate for policies that would deny others similar opportunities. Each pronouncement against the 14th Amendment was not just a policy proposition but an echoing statement of a profound disconnect between the personal narratives of opportunity and the political ideologies of exclusion.

Ramaswamy’s advocacy to revise the 14th Amendment didn’t just echo in legal chambers or political rallies. It reverberated through the lives of millions who saw in the Amendment not just a legal right but a moral affirmation of their place in the American story. It posed questions on the integrity of advocating restrictive policies, while oneself being a product and beneficiary of an open, inclusive system – a contradiction that remained as profound as it was unsettling.

Ignorance of U.S. Immigration History and the 14th Amendment

Ramaswamy’s stance on immigration and the 14th Amendment drew criticism and analysis for its seeming disconnection from the historical progression of American values and laws. Mother Jones meticulously underscored the intrinsic linkage between the 14th Amendment and the nation’s progression towards an inclusive society, illuminating a pathway forged through historical struggles and relentless pursuits of equality. Against this backdrop, Ramaswamy’s viewpoint appeared not only misaligned but regressive.

His perspectives seemed disjointed from the layered historical and legal contexts that have shaped American immigration and citizenship policies. NBC News reported on Ramaswamy’s vocal support for far-right border policies, a position that sharply contrasted with his family’s immigrant history. This divergence highlighted a disconnect, placing his political rhetoric at odds with the lived experiences of countless immigrants, including his own family.

The 14th Amendment, as expounded by Mother Jones, symbolizes more than legal text; it encapsulates the nation’s moral and ethical progression. Born from the tumultuous post-Civil War era, it was not a casually inserted provision but a deeply deliberate insertion, marking a societal commitment to abandon the divisive past and embrace a future defined by inclusivity and equal rights. Ramaswamy’s opposition to birthright citizenship, therefore, did not merely represent a legal debate but instigated profound moral and ethical questions about American identity.

His policy propositions, delineated by Deseret News, exposed an irony that was both conspicuous and unsettling. Ramaswamy’s advocacy for stringent immigration policies, particularly those potentially imperiling the status of American-born children of undocumented immigrants, painted a stark contrast to the narrative of an immigrant’s child who rose to prominence in the same country he proposed to restrict access to.

The discordance of Ramaswamy’s perspectives with historical and constitutional contexts was not a passive observation but an active narrative, echoing in the public discourse and policy debates. Mother Jones offered a detailed exegesis of the roots and implications of the 14th Amendment, illuminating its integral role in shaping the nation’s identity. This rigorous exploration stood in sharp contrast to Ramaswamy’s positions, which seemed lacking in historical depth and contextual understanding.

Every narrative surrounding the stringent immigration postures, as encapsulated in Deseret News and NBC News, presented an inherent contradiction. A man of immigrant descent, benefiting from the open arms of American society, now stood at the forefront of advocating policies that would potentially retract those arms for future generations. It was a dichotomy that transcended legal arguments, seeping into moral terrains and ethical considerations, compelling observers to confront questions around the balance between protecting national borders and upholding the nation’s historical and moral legacy of inclusion.

In summary, the complexity of Ramaswamy’s position on immigration and the 14th Amendment was not just rooted in its legal or political implications. It echoed a deeper, more intrinsic contradiction, a tug of war between an individual narrative richly ingrained in the immigrant journey and a political stance sharply pivoting towards exclusion. Each policy proposition, every advocacy for stricter immigration controls, and opposition to the 14th Amendment were not just political statements but echoes of a profound contradiction, inviting observers, critics, and supporters alike to delve into the intricate dance between historical legacies, constitutional safeguards, and evolving political ideologies.


  • Venkatraman, Sakshi. “Vivek Ramaswamy Celebrates His Immigrant Family While Pushing Far-Right Border Policies.” NBC News. Last modified August 24, 2023.
  • Tabet, Alex, and Katherine Koretski. “Vivek Ramaswamy Says He’ll Deport Children of Undocumented Immigrants Born in the U.S.” NBC News. Last modified September 8, 2023.
  • Dias, Isabela. “Birthright Citizenship Is Fundamental to ‘Who We Are as a Nation.’ So Why Do Republicans Attack It?” Mother Jones. July 26, 2023.
  • Benson, Samuel. “GOP Presidential Hopeful Vivek Ramaswamy Rejects Sen. Mitt Romney’s Call to Back One Trump Opponent.” Deseret News. Last modified August 13, 2023.