In Steve Chapman’s article “Why Citizenship Should Remain a Birthright,” he argues that Donald Trump’s proposition that people born in the United States should not be considered U.S. citizens automatically. Chapman also claims that if the policy was to be changed, consequently, advanced ways to demonstrate that the newborn is a legal citizen would be required, which would lead to an extremely long process. The author connects with the audience effectively by thinking logically, the research he completed was evident, and the language he used was to make it manageable to take him seriously.
Chapman was able to connect with the audience by thinking logically due to the fact that other authors would not consider to write that way. An example
…show more content…
He uses his professionalism to influence the readers to view him on a humorless level. An example of him using language to his advantage is when he stated, “Americans would have to apply to the federal government just to assure their kids the perquisites of citizenship” (Chapman 17). The author benefits from using sophisticated words as long as he is seen as a specialized man that can be trusted in his work by the readers. Word choice is outstanding in that it will vary depending on who the author’s intended audience is. In this case, his intended audience would be people above the age of eighteen, which is evident in view of the phrases and words he uses throughout the complete article. The author constructs his work effortless to interpret which will result in the readers being able to comfortably read without having excessive difficulties with understanding what he is saying, which is imperative seeing that if he was to utilize higher level words, he would completely lose readers.
It is necessary for authors to be effective in their writing. Steve Chapman, an author showed his effectiveness in one of his articles called “Why Citizenship Should Remain a Birthright” by providing the readers with logical reasoning on the topic for the reason that they will understand that he is able to think outside the box. He was also effective by researching the topic in which he had an interest
There are several theories to look into when discussing the morality of borders. I specifically look into Stephen Macedo’s chapter “The Moral Dilemma of U.S. Immigration Policy, open borders versus social justice?” in Debating Immigration and Joseph Carens article “Aliens and Citizens: The Case for Open Borders.” Using political theory back up his argument, Carens uses Rawlsian, the Nozickean, and the utilitarian to support and explain his claims that there is little justification for keeping oppressed people from other countries seeking a better life out of the United States. Macedo also uses similar liberal philosophy referencing Rawlsianism to support the opposing idea of a more restrictionist society, posing the question of cosmopolitanism
In spectacularly calloused fashion, the Trump administration recently announced the termination of the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA. With thousands of hard-earned collegiate degrees, blossoming careers and immeasurable amounts of gratitude and patriotism, DACA recipients have inspired the successes of future generations. Yet, with the stunning overconfidence of a seasoned gambler and the bumbling inexperience of an amateur, President Trump may have just jeopardized the futures of thousands of dreamers and America’s identity, gratifying his own electoral base through the destruction our nation’s identity.
Currently, there are 11.7 million undocumented immigrants in the United States; 6 million of those immigrants are Mexican-born (Preston). Within that undocumented population are individuals who were brought to the States as children. These individuals have grown up in the American culture and consider themselves American, but struggle with being treated as second class citizens due to their undocumented status. On June fifteenth of 2012, the Obama Administration announced the executive order Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). This order will allow immigrants who were brought illegally to the U.S. as children to apply for work permits and avoid deportation (Hennessey and Bennett). President Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals is not only beneficial to it applicants but also to the United States as a whole.
Irene Bloemraad. The North American Naturalization Gap: AN Institutional Approach to Citizenship Acquisition in the United States and Canada. Retrieved from https://courses.ryerson.ca/@@/CF12EBC688315C67DED46723CFC1F310/courses/1/pog100_w14_01/content/_2488288_1/Bloemraad2002.pdf
However, others may disagree, but in addition to lacking nce their arguments are also insignificant. Although there is a controversy on this matter, America should welcome immigrants that are already here. Immigrants may earn legal status as well as cost just as much or less than deportation. But, so what? Why is this notable? Well, here’s why, the future is on the line and we have to take charge. If leading undocumented immigrants to a path to citizenship, includes all of the previously mentioned advantages, there is no point to do otherwise. If we don’t go through with this, imagine the troublesome possibilities, imagine the costs, imagine the risks. It is necessary to lead undocumented immigrants to a path to citizenship, and your help is needed. Share this essay, spread the outlook, get involved, and do what you can to make sure, we are where we need to be in our
Imagine yourself in a life of poverty. No healthcare, earning low wages in poor working conditions. This is the life of an illegal immigrant, surprisingly, in the United States of America. What, exactly, is an immigrant? According to the World Almanac of U.S. Politics 1997, “Not subject to any numerical limitation, immigrants [are] classified as immediate relatives (spouses, parents, or natural children) of U.S. citizens; returning permanent resident aliens; certain former U.S. citizens; and certain long-term U.S. government employees” (Wagman). The fear stemmed from being caught as an illegal immigrant hinders every decision of his livelihood, from education to employment—their whole lives are affected in a negative manner. No one needs to live that way. The solution, however, is not to simply accept every willing immigrant freely, but to give all foreigners a more fair and reasonable chance of becoming a citizen of the “land of the free and the home of the brave.” Strict enforcement of a more streamline verification process by the government in supervising legal immigration is needed to continue America’s evolution culturally and economically with the addition of individuals from foreign nations trying to properly enter the United States of America.
In his address to a joint session of Congress on January 8, 1918, President Woodrow Wilson declared freedom of the seas in times of peace and war. Looking back, it seems ridiculous to think that anyone could challenge the right of individuals to navigate the oceans freely. However, fast-forward to the twenty-first century and we can see an analogous debate over the issue of immigration rights, with territorial borders being the main topic of discussion. The system of immigration in the United States is complex and oftentimes restrictive, and while revisions to the system usually include increasing quotas or other solutions to let in certain groups of people who deserve special consideration (such as those whose skills are needed in a particular field), they are still very limited solutions. The obvious question that arises from letting in some people but not others is that of fairness. Is the accident of birth or luck of being in the right place at the right time enough to justify restrictive citizenship to a select few? I would argue not. I intend to argue that a commitment to human rights entails the position that borders ought to be open in order to guarantee other human rights, especially the right to migrate.
Having the author’s purpose is vital to knowing how informative, opinionated, or factual the article ...
Having the author’s purpose is vital to knowing how informative, opinionated, or factual the arti...
Among many of the highly disputed issues in the United States, illegal immigration is near the top, as it is continually growing and must be brought to an end. The term “illegal immigration” is used to describe the migration of people into another country without the government’s permission. Due to the United States’ highly desirable lifestyle, illegal immigration is more common than many other countries in the world. Even before the Constitution was written, significant political and social idols, such as Benjamin Franklin worried about the outcome of immigration. His ideas were particularly towards the increase of German immigrants, for he would caution that “Pennsylvania will in a few years become a German colony; instead of their learning our language, we must learn their, or live as in a foreign country.” Although Franklin’s thoughts influenced a large number of people living in the country, the first hundred years of the nation were established with an open border (Hing). This would welcome foreign nationals displaced by the ravages of war or persecuted by totalitarian governments in hope of a better life. The fourteenth amendment, ratified in 1868, would establish the rights of citizens, or legally recognized subjects or nationals of a state or commonwealth, either native or naturalized (McClenaghan). Many illegal immigrants refuse to assimilate into their surroundings of which they have brought themselves upon. They also take a variety of unskilled jobs that citizens could use, but instead become unemployed. The concept of immigration is what allowed the United States to flourish in its early years to the present day; however, when it is done illegally, it can hurt the domestic tranquility and security of the nation, as we...
On the other hand, those whose natural born status is unclear “could become entangled in a battle over the meaning of the natural born citizenship clause in a variety of ways.” Similarly, increases in international adoptions and births of citizens living abroad would benefit from constitutional amendment. As constitutional standards remain ambiguous, the legal risks remain. The provision should make children born abroad to United States, naturalized citizens, and children born in other countries who are subsequently adopted by a U.S. citizen eligible for presidency. Thus, such factors should signal the significance in constitutional
but base on the constitution this is the land of the free, so I feel like no matter where someone is from they should have an operation to start a new life in the U.S.A. As the Barack Obama administration is burdened with many pressing problems, the plight of undocumented immigrants ranks high among them. Luckily, some of the most xenophobic voices on the national scene have been temporarily stunned by Obama’s victory. In this new political context, where Hope has vanquished Fear, we might hope that America can return to the task of constructing a reasonable and humane response to the needs of its illegal people. U.S. immigration policy has been a touchstone of political debate for decades as policymakers consider U.S. labor demands and border security concerns. Comprehensive immigration reform has eluded Congress for years, moving decisions into the executive and judicial branches of government and pushing the debate into the halls of state and municipal governments. Meanwhile, the fates of the estimated eleven million undocumented immigrants in the country, as well as future rules for legal migration, lie in the balance. It shows over and over time aging no matter what the U.S.A does it will not stop people from coming here to start a better life for them and their family no matter what the penalty
Birthright citizenship is the law that anybody born on American soil is automatically a natural-born citizen with rights and privileges regardless of the citizenship status of the parents. To some this is an issue known as immigrants making “anchor babies.” An anchor baby is an offspring of an illegal immigrant, who under legal interpretation becomes a United States citizen. Some republican politicians aim to change the 14th Amendment that grants citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.” The interpretation of this amendment has caused many controversies but overall, birthright citizenship should remain
Writing can be very frustrating; laying your ideas out on paper so that others can grasp the concept you are trying to convey is a very difficult task. In Writing 101 I have learned how to formulate good theses that are arguable and also how to validate articles that have to do with my topic. The most important element of a paper is the thesis statement. It captures the reader's attention and tells them what the essay is about. Having a well-structured thesis along with evidence to support that thesis are the main ingredients to a well-written essay. I have also learned how important it is to research an author’s background to ensure their credibility. This is a very important step in writing because today we can find information on a topic, however, it is not valid. By researching the author, we can see if he or she is an expert in the area and so this would make his or her information more credible. There is a ...
Will and in this essay the author challenges the citizenship status of children born to illegal immigrants. Will argues that the 14th Amendment, which grants citizenship to any person born in the United States, is being misinterpreted. He explains how this misinterpretation leads to the actual act of illegal immigration. For example, by essentially rewarding the children of illegal immigrants with an American citizenship Will demonstrates how this provides an incentive for illegal immigration. The author makes clear the idea that when the 14th Amendment was written in 1866 it could not have included illegal immigrants since that concept did not exist at that time. He continues by using Indians as an example of people not included in the 14th Amendment since Indians and their children owed allegiance to their tribes. Finally, the author uses a decision by the Supreme Court in 1884 that declared both person and country must consent to the citizenship; therefore, if the source is illegal then the child should not be considered a