Being American/Becoming American: Birthright Citizenship and Immigrants’ Membership in the United States

• Date: 15 January 2013
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/S1059-4337(2013)0000060007
• Published date: 15 January 2013
• Pages: 55-84
• Author: Irene Bloemraad

BEING AMERICAN/BECOMING

AMERICAN: BIRTHRIGHT

CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRANTS’

MEMBERSHIP IN THE UNITED

STATES

1

Irene Bloemraad

ABSTRACT

Various politicians and public commentators seek to deny birthright

citizenship to children born in the United States to undocumented or

temporary migrants. Among their claims, critics of universal birthright

citizenship contend that the practice flies in the face of liberal principles,

in which both individuals and the state should consent to membership.

From this perspective, citizenship through naturalization is valorized,

since it rests on the affirmative choice of the immigrant and the clear

consent of the state. This chapter proposes a different approach to these

debates, one that underscores the principles of inclusion and equality. The

argument rests on empirical evidence on how those affected by these

debates – foreign-born residents and their U.S.-born children – under-

stand belonging in the United States. Interviews with 182 U.S.-born youth

and their immigrant parents born in Mexico, China, and Vietnam show

Special Issue: Who Belongs? Immigration, Citizenship, and the Constitution of Legality

Studies in Law, Politics, and Society, Volume 60, 55–84

Copyright r2013 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited

All rights of reproduction in any form reserved

ISSN: 1059-4337/doi:10.1108/S1059-4337(2013)0000060007

55

that despite a discourse portraying U.S. citizenship as a civic and political

affiliation blind to ascriptive traits, many of those interviewed equate

‘‘being American’’ with racial majority status, affluence, and privilege.

For many immigrants, membership through naturalization – the exemplar

of citizenship by consent – does not overcome a lingering sense of outsider

status. Perhaps surprisingly, birthright citizenship offers an egalitarian

promise: it is a color-blind and class-blind path to membership. The

Citizenship Clause of Fourteenth Amendment provides constitutional

legitimacy for the ideals of inclusion and equality, facilitating immigrant

integration and communal membership through citizenship.

In November 2010, soon after the Republican Party secured a majority in the

U.S. House of Representatives, Steve King (R-Iowa) declared that one of the

first pieces of business for the House Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and

Enforcement would be to deny birthright citizenship to the children of

undocumented migrants. Currently, the Fourteenth Amendment ensures that a

child born in the United States automatically receives U.S. citizenship,

regardless of his or her parents’ legal status.

2

Citing the intentions of nineteenth

century lawmakers, fears that birthright citizenship increases migration through

‘‘anchor babies,’’ concerns about rewarding illegal behavior, and worry over

cash-strapped social programs, King joined a chorus of politicians challenging

automatic birthright citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment.

3

Political attacks against birthright citizenship find reflection in – and gain

legitimacy from – the writings of political and legal scholars. In particular,

Peter Schuck and Rogers Smith’s 1985 book, Citizenship Without Consent,

serves as a frequent source of historical material and legal reasoning

presented by those in favor of restrictive birthright citizenship (see, e.g.,

Feere, 2010). Schuck and Smith argue that consent was a foundational

principle of the American Revolution. The citizenship of new members

should rest on the consent of both would-be members and the state. Other

scholars criticize birthright citizenship on different grounds, for example, as

a quasi-feudal system perpetuating global inequality, but they concur that

the practice flies in the face of modern philosophies of membership based on

social contract and deliberative choice (e.g., Shachar, 2009).

Thus, for individuals like Representative King, providing birthright

citizenship to the children of undocumented migrants is illegitimate since the

state never consented to their parents’ presence.

4

In contrast, King has gone

on record to underscore his participation in naturalization ceremonies ‘‘to

IRENE BLOEMRAAD56