Benefits without the responsibility because some are more equal than others

What's in the oath you take when you're born here?

Unless one is raised with an anti-American family, most people grow up identifying with and having a natural sense of belonging to America. It is natural to defend your own community and country. It is a given that Americans will defend America. The question to me is why do you have a problem with asking people, who are asking to join us, if they are willing to do the same? They are not being asked to do more, they are being asked if they have the same sense of responsibility which goes along with loyalty.

Upvoted because I like you question BTW

I don't object to the idea of defending the country, but to the idea that there is an unequal burden created by this change. Birthright citizens take no oath, yet we seem to take their willingness to do these things for granted, perhaps even against evidence to the contrary. A person who moves here and deliberately makes the choice to seek citizenship deserves at least that much benefit of the doubt in my opinion.

I thought about the what you said about the unequal burden and this is what I came up with. The oath asks immigrants if they are willing to follow the same laws that everybody else would be subject to, nothing more. However now they have the option to declare to “defend” the Constitution with the understanding of our government that they won’t lift a finger to do so. This is a blanket exemption to laws(s) that citizens are subject to, so yes it places an unfair burden on citizens, IMO. I find it interesting in particular since it’s the Democrats who want to enact the Universal Service Act or some similar compulsory service. The same people refusing to accept conscientious objections of citizens on the issue of abortion in relation to the health law are extending a conscientious objection to new immigrants(not yet citizens) on the issue of protecting the Constitution.