Is it unreasonable to have proof of citizenship when entering another country?
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
I have never concealed my dual citizenship. People involved in state business should probably declare their dual citizenship if they have it.
We should be very concerned: if identity theft is so simple to do, what's to stop me from entering this country and assuming the identity of someone else for the sole purpose of living here illegally for terrorist reasons? That alone would be a concern.
Citizenship consists in the service of the country.
On the other hand, the vast majority of all westernized countries, including every single European country along with Israel and Japan, do not offer birthright citizenship.
Although an increasing proportion of the Hispanic population is foreign-born - about half of adults in this group - English proficiency is and should remain a requirement for citizenship.
The test of good citizenship is loyalty to country.
I am a naturalized U.S. citizen, which means that, unlike native-born citizens, I had to prove to the U.S. government that I merited citizenship.
It's not the physical location of birth that defines citizenship, but whether your parents are citizens, and the express or implied consent to jurisdiction of the sovereign.
There's no such thing as second class citizenship. That's like telling me you can be a little bit pregnant.
You want to defend citizenship? Don't persecute or isolate those without papers. Just live like a citizen. That'd be a first-class way to be American.