Vivek Ramaswamy, a prominent figure in the 2024 presidential race, frequently shares his family’s immigration narrative to bolster his controversial policy proposals. These policies include revoking citizenship for children born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants and mandating civics tests for young voters aged 18 to 24. This approach places his family story at the heart of his political messaging, inviting scrutiny into the details of the Vivek Ramaswamy Family history and its connection to his current political viewpoints.
Ramaswamy has publicly stated, “I think there’s no reason why every high school student who graduated in this country should not have to pass the same civics test that an immigrant, like my parents, had to pass in order to become a citizen of this country.” He made this remark to Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds at the Iowa State Fair in August, drawing a direct parallel between the naturalization process his family underwent and his proposed requirements for young American citizens.
However, in a subsequent interview, Ramaswamy clarified a nuanced aspect of his family’s experience. He acknowledged that while his mother did become a U.S. citizen after passing the civics test and completing the required procedures post his birth, his father did not. “He did not. And that’s a choice that he has made for familial reasons,” Ramaswamy explained. He further elaborated on his mother’s path, stating, “But my mother did,” emphasizing her completion of the citizenship test and process. This personal family narrative serves as a crucial backdrop to Ramaswamy’s policy stance that “every immigrant who comes to this country in order to become a full voting citizen has to do the same.”
This narrative is central to a campaign characterized by bold pronouncements and policy proposals that have been described as attention-grabbing and aggressive. His suggestion that young voters should pass a civics test before being granted voting rights directly challenges the 26th Amendment of the Constitution, which explicitly states, “The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.” This constitutional challenge highlights the significant departure of Ramaswamy’s proposals from established legal norms.
Furthermore, Ramaswamy has passionately advocated for ending birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants. This stance directly confronts the 14th Amendment, a cornerstone of American citizenship law, which declares, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” Despite being born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents himself, a fact that granted him birthright citizenship, Ramaswamy draws a distinction by noting his parents immigrated legally. This detail is crucial in understanding the nuances of his position on birthright citizenship and how his Vivek Ramaswamy family history informs his policies.
“I want to be very clear about this. I think that birthright citizenship does not and should not apply to the kids of parents who entered this country illegally,” Ramaswamy stated, clarifying his stance on this contentious issue. He further outlined his proposed policy: “Here’s the policy we’re going to apply — this is where I’ve been clear — the kid of illegal immigrants and the families who came here undocumented have to be returned to their country of origin.”
In response to direct questioning about whether his plan would include deporting U.S. citizens born to undocumented parents, even if they have only ever lived in the United States, Ramaswamy confirmed, “yes.” When NBC News probed further, asking, “You become president, that 25-year-old, 30-year-old that was born to undocumented immigrants, their parents and they themselves are deported — to say they’re from Venezuela they all go back just to Venezuela?” Ramaswamy unequivocally agreed, acknowledging the radical shift this policy would represent. He responded to concerns about the impact on individuals who have lived, worked, and paid taxes in the U.S. their entire lives under the 14th Amendment by stating, “It has to be.”
While advocating for these stringent measures, Ramaswamy indicated support for a pathway back to citizenship “through legal meritocratic immigration.” He emphasized the need to create a system that is fair to those immigrating legally, stating, “This can’t be a system that unfairly penalizes those who are waiting in line to enter this country legally, with the illegal migration that we have wrongfully allowed in this country. And I acknowledge that will not be easy.” This complex stance reflects the ongoing debate within the Republican party and among voters regarding immigration policy and the balance between border security and humanitarian concerns.
Recently, there have been subtle shifts in Ramaswamy’s public statements regarding his parents’ experiences. At a campaign event in Contoocook, New Hampshire, he asserted, “I think every high school kid graduating from high school should pass the same civics test that our parents had to pass to become immigrants of — voting citizens in this country.” In Laconia, New Hampshire, he broadened the reference to include his wife’s family, saying, “I think every 12th grader who graduates from high school should have to pass the same civics test that every immigrant has to pass — Apoorva’s parents, my parents had to pass.” His wife, Apoorva, immigrated from India at the age of four, and he has mentioned that her parents also took the citizenship test.
Later the same day as the Contoocook event, Ramaswamy refined his message, stating, “Every kid who graduates from high school should have to pass the same civics test that my own mother, that every immigrant, has to pass in order to become a citizen of this country.” These variations in his phrasing highlight the evolving nature of his campaign messaging and his attempts to connect his personal family story with his policy proposals.
Campaigning and Controversies
Despite being a relatively new entrant to the political scene, Ramaswamy has gained traction in polls, positioning himself ahead of more established politicians, though still trailing behind former President Donald Trump in the GOP primaries. Interestingly, Ramaswamy has expressed a somewhat detached view of the presidency itself, stating, “I don’t relish the idea of being the next president. I’ve come to realize that more through this process.” He further added, reflecting on his campaign experience, “I don’t even personally view it as an enjoyable job.”
However, Ramaswamy emphasizes a sense of duty as the driving force behind his and his Vivek Ramaswamy family’s involvement in the campaign. He believes they have an obligation to a country that has offered them significant opportunities. This sense of gratitude and responsibility appears to be a core motivator for his political endeavors.
Ramaswamy’s campaign has been marked by a series of controversial statements, contributing to his high media profile. From his comments regarding 9/11 to his description of Rep. Ayanna Pressley as a “modern wizard of the modern KKK,” Ramaswamy has consistently courted controversy. He defends this approach by stating, “I know it’s going to be controversial. So I think it is healthy for our country to have open, radically honest and candid conversations.”
Speaking to reporters in Iowa, Ramaswamy characterized his responses during public forums as often “off the cuff,” suggesting a spontaneous and unfiltered communication style. When questioned about the sincerity behind his statements, Ramaswamy asserted, “On the things that matter, I am sharing my honest and true convictions.” However, he also conceded, “Not everything I say is a policy priority,” indicating a distinction between his broader viewpoints and his specific policy agenda.
Abortion is one policy area where Ramaswamy has taken a clear stance, distinguishing himself from many in the Republican primaries. He identifies as “unapologetically pro-life” but advocates for state-level legislation rather than a federal policy. He believes the Republican party has missed opportunities by being ambiguous on this issue. Ramaswamy suggests a more comprehensive approach to the abortion debate, encompassing “contraception to adoption to child care to sexual responsibility for men into the conversation, as well.” He emphasizes that his positions are not based on polling or focus groups but are “substantive,” underscoring his commitment to his pro-life stance.
Conclusion
Vivek Ramaswamy’s campaign is significantly shaped by his family’s immigration story, which he uses to advocate for contentious policies on birthright citizenship and civics tests. While his narrative resonates with certain segments of the electorate, his proposals have also drawn considerable criticism and legal challenges. His willingness to engage in controversial rhetoric and his self-proclaimed “off the cuff” communication style have made him a notable, if polarizing, figure in the 2024 Republican presidential primaries. As the campaign progresses, the Vivek Ramaswamy family story and its connection to his policy platforms will likely remain a central point of discussion and debate.
