As populations have grown over the past few decades, so too has the global awareness of how immigration is impacting countries on an international level. Because of this, the issue of immigration and citizenship in the US is a hotly contested topic. Whether it be immigrants who have crossed the border illegally, or those seeking to gain citizenship through more traditional means, there are only a few different ways to obtain citizenship to the United States. The question of whether or not the U.S. should consider selling citizenship to those who want it is then brought into light as a means to expedite the process. I don't agree with this idea. While I believe countries, specifically the United States, have a right to decide who enters the country or becomes a citizen, I don't believe selling citizenship is a feasible plan.
First of all, I believe resorting to selling citizenship would defeat the purpose of even having citizenship in the first place. Being a member of the United States, or any country for that matter, is special and unique to those who can call themselves members. Selling that membership essentially turns citizenship into the equivalent of a gym membership, except with far greater national impacts. Take for example Sandel's case of selling sperm. At first glance it doesn't seem harmful or morally questionable. Yet, a woman who sells herself for commercial surrogacy is judged on a different level. Objectively comparing the two, they both end up facing the same question Sandel poses: "once we characterize the good at stake, it is always a further question whether, or in what respect, market valuation and exchange diminishes or corrupts the character of that good " (Sandel 104). Citizenship in itself is not a morally questionable thing " you either have it or you don't, the concept is not in question " but when you start to apply a monetary value to that concept, then the debate about selling citizenship comes into the moral realm.
