A very pregnant Palestinian woman boards an airliner in Mexico City, Mexico. She’s on a non-stop flight directly to Toronto, Canada. While in route over the United States she gives birth to a male child. From Toronto she flies home to Palestine where she places the child under the tutelage of a radical Muslim Imam. When the boy turns 18 he goes to Afganistan to join Al-Qaeda and receives extensive terrorist training. He returns to Palestine. Since he has the appropriate paperwork and his birth made verifiable headlines he applies for and receives his U.S. passport. Having never before set foot in the country of his birth he flies to the United States and enters the country as a full birthright citizen.
Welcome Home, kid!
People from all over the world (especially Mexico) sneak into the country and give birth to children who are then assumed to be citizens by right of birth. The parents, who are in fact illegal aliens, claim an ancillary right to stay on the basis of their child’s birthright citizenship; and some in the government just hate to “break up families”. One would think illegal imigration on the part of the parents would nullify birthright citizenship for the children. Little children know nothing, can’t vote and aren’t even allowed to vote.
One might differentiate between a denizen and a citizen by saying a denizen lives there but a citzen belongs there. One may further differentiate between a “good” citizen and a “bad” citizen.
It’s been said that Winston Churchill was at one point made an honorary citizen of the United States. All well and good but could he actually cast a vote or hold an elected office?
When St. Paul was persecuted and condemned he claimed the right of appeal to Caesar as he was an “imperial” citizen.
There are those who claim dual-citizenship with other countries. In all probability there are others who claim multiple-citizenship for tax advantage purposes. Does it make any sense at all to say “They’re a good multi-national corporate citizen”?
How do we define the true meaning of “citizen”?
How about the expression: “law-abiding citizen”? Wouldn’t that rationally exclude illegal immigrants? Wouldn’t the criminal acts of the parents, especially so purposed, nullify the citizenship of the children?
If children don’t know or are never taught the law of the land, can they be “good” citizens?
In none of this, birthright citizenship or dual-citizenship, lawless (criminals) citizenship, do we find anything regarding a sense of morality – a sense of law, loyalty or duty.
When drafted (conscripted) into the military I answered the call because I was taught that it was my duty as a citizen. Apparently some very famous citizens didn’t think so.
Can a life-long member of Al-Qaeda grow up to be a good, loyal, law-abiding American citizen? It is, after all, his birthright.