Birthright citizenship has been one of the most controversial issues in America and always in the heated center of immigration reform battles. In addition, bills to deny birthright citizenship have been introduced in Congress many times so far. According to the report from Devin Burghart, in the 113th Congress, Rep. Steve King, an outspoken hardliner on immigration, introduced a bill on January 3 to "require that only the children of citizens, legal immigrants permanently living in the country or immigrants in the military, be granted citizenship" (Burghart). King is not making a fuse about nothing. Nowadays, the United States and Canada are the only developed nations in the world that grant automatic U.S. citizenship to almost all children born in the United States, regardless of whether the parents are U.S. citizens, legal residents, temporary visitors, or illegal aliens in the United States. According to Every year, about eight percent of all U.S. births come from at least one illegal-alien parent, according to the Pew Hispanic Center. Moreover, alone with a range of social problems publicly ascribed to birthright citizenship, there has been a great calling for abolishing such a clause from the U.S. immigration laws. I am one of the opponents of birthright citizenship.
The most obvious point showing that birthright citizenship is unacceptable is that it does not embody the meaning of citizenship which reflects more than where one was born. Citizens must take on their civic duties, for example, paying taxes, complying with laws, and so on. Most of all, citizens must have a strong allegiance to their country, in this case, America. Therefore, citizenship actually involves great responsibilities and genuine commitment, and should be strictly granted to those fully eligible immigrants. However, in households where "anchor babies" were raised up, it is hard to see signs of patriotism that normal citizens should have: they do not pay income tax, sometimes...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document