Does Citizenship Matter? — By John Reed

Does Citizenship Matter?
Getting a little highbrow this week. Much has been written here and elsewhere about immigration policy, assimilation, and law enforcement. Society, or at least political leadership, has come down emphatically on one side or the other. But all these arguments result from the larger issue of citizenship: its definition, role, and relevance in modern society.
The concept of citizenship first shows up in early Greek city-states, some 2700-2800 years ago. It redefined the relationship between the leaders and the governed, initially for free male landowners, but in time including every part of society. There came to be a contract whereby the government was beholden to its people, while demanding certain responsibilities in return. This give-and-take has evolved over the centuries, but has become the de facto way of doing business in nations across what we call the “Western world.”
However, in most places in Africa, Asia, and the Near East, an older system has prevailed, even into current day. There, the direction of power is mainly one-way: the government controls the people in varying degrees of totality. Whether the leader is a shogun, king, warlord, ayatollah, or whatever, he [rarely a she] remains a dictator with total decision-making power, including picking their successors.
Karl Marx’ efforts to make communism an exception has devolved in every case to something closer to a dictatorship. Europe’s former colonies have tried to assume the Western model, with some success, but not everywhere. India yes, Zimbabwe no.
For those nations that recognize the rights of citizenship, many are facing the challenge of assimilating immigrants coming from places where it’s a foreign concept. Europe is dealing with the clash of Sharia law and liberal democracy. The theft of government largesse in the Somali population here is apparently common and expected at home.
Here, we face the challenge of deciding what rights and privileges citizens and non-citizens may share. For the Left, nothing short of the full monty will do: access to all government benefits, licensing, schools, voting, etc. The Right is pilloried for expecting some sort of “Americanization” of newcomers before they can become full citizens.
But what does “full citizenship” look like, and what hoops must be jumped through to achieve it? English literacy? DNA/criminal background check? Marketable skill/education? Until there’s agreement on those conditions. We will continue to see some states with different policies than others.
We haven’t even gotten to the legality issue: is merely crossing the border without permission enough to be labeled a criminal? Certainly California and Minnesota, among others, don’t think so. And yet, those laws are on the books, so clearly they must be enforced. I don’t think many would complain about murderers and rapists getting deported, but the 85-90% who merely came here looking for a better life are another story. The challenge is sorting out the bad from the worse and the worst.
Speeders who get stopped for doing “only” ten miles an hour over the speed limit love to look for differences in degrees of criminality…yet it’s rare they get off with just a warning. So is it the cop’s fault we got the ticket? No. We’re the ones who broke the law. If we don’t like it, go to court and challenge it…or vote to change the law. By the same token, we shouldn’t blame ICE for enforcing immigration law. Take it to court. Or vote for folks who will change the law.
But before we do that, consider what kind of citizens your children will be living with.