Everyone knows this controversy by now. Here is the bill. Here is Mitch McConnell yesterday. It’s highly unlikely that this push to end birthright citizenship will go anywhere, but it’s worth probing public opinion on this question and on an underlying question: what should be the boundaries of the American national community?
Some quick searching did not turn up many polls on birthright citizenship per se. Rasmussen recently asked whether children of illegal immigrants should be citizens. In their sample, 58% of respondents said no, and 33% said yes. It would be interesting to know whether this is an objection to birthright citizenship per se or essentially an objection to illegal immigration.
Now to the broader question. In 2004, the General Social Survey asked a battery of questions on potential qualifications for being American. This was the preamble:
Some people say the following things are important for being truly American. Others say they are not important. How important do you think each of the following is…
Here is the average importance that respondents accorded to each qualification.
On average, respondents saw all of these qualifications are more important than unimportant. However, they also saw some qualifications as more important than others. In general, the more important qualifications reflect things that an immigrant can achieve: speaking English, becoming naturalized, respecting American institutions and laws. More exclusive criteria, and ones that immigrants cannot change (or change easily), are less important: being born in America, being Christian, or having American ancestry.
How might we interpret these results in light of the debate over birthright citizenship? Here are two possibilities.
First, Lindsey Graham and other opponents of birthright citizenship could take heart. Look, they might say, the public doesn’t even think being born in America is as important as other things. Given the importance accorded to American citizenship, we could make native-born children of immigrants go through the naturalization process and Americans would still see them as American. No harm done.
Second, some might object to that interpretation as a violation of the “spirit” underlying American public opinion. Americans’ sense of their national community is more inclusive than exclusive. Shifting American law in a more exclusive direction is not in this spirit. Why not recognize that more important than birthplace is speaking English, loyalty to the United States, and respect for its laws? And why not take heart that immigrants do learn English and are no less patriotic than native-born Americans? For evidence on this score, see this article by Jack Citrin, Amy Lerman, Mike Murakami, and Kathryn Pearson. Here is the abstract:
Samuel Huntington argues that the sheer number, concentration, linguistic homogeneity, and other characteristic of Hispanic immigrants will erode the dominance of English as a nationally unifying language, weaken the country’s dominant cultural values, and promote ethnic allegiances over a primary identification as an American. Testing these hypotheses with data from the U.S. Census and national and Los Angeles opinion surveys, we show that Hispanics acquire English and lose Spanish rapidly beginning with the second generation, and appear to be no more or less religious or committed to the work ethic than native-born whites. Moreover, a clear majority of Hispanics reject a purely ethnic identification and patriotism grows from one generation to the next. At present, a traditional pattern of political assimilation appears to prevail.
For more on this general subject, see my article with Jack Citrin, which compares qualifications for immigrants across the U.S. and Europe. More importantly, see Elizabeth Theiss-Morse’s new book Who Counts as an American? The Boundaries of National Identity.
{ 5 comments }
So would the non-English-speaking Cajuns or Mexican-Americans (Tejanos, Californios, etc.) present in territories prior to annexation be “less American” because they held onto their native French or Spanish?
Is it “this is an English-speaking country, they should learn English.”? If that’s the position, how is this not cultural genocide?
I favor an ‘inclusive’ notion of citizenship and therefore am against getting rid of birthright citizenship.
On the question of Spanish and English, however: I don’t doubt that second-generation Hispanics for the most part learn English, as the cited article indicates, but I’m inclined to be a little skeptical about the ‘losing Spanish rapidly’ claim. I live in an area with a large Hispanic population and I hear people of different generations speaking Spanish constantly. Even if the younger ones can speak English, as many or most of them can, they still seem to prefer Spanish in many settings. I can even see why some people might think that in 50 years English and Spanish may be on a rough par in the U.S. in terms of status (for lack of a better word). I think that English will, for numerous reasons, retain its role as the language of government, journalism, and education, but beyond that I would be a bit wary of making predictions about the evolution of the roles of English and Spanish in the broader culture in coming decades.
How about this? You are an American if you and your parents have paid a minimal amount of taxes to this country. Why should this country support you if you don’t support it? Birthright is an outdated concept and should be repealed.
Clay, by that standard many people who’ve never even been here would be American. As would every single illegal immigrant.
(I assume this is not the outcome you’re looking for, but I could be wrong)
The birthright citizenship debate is over whether being born in America is a sufficient condition, while the survey question about qualifications is more about whether it is a necessary condition, so they aren’t that comparable. I might think that being born in America definitely makes you an American, but you can still be an American if you’re born abroad, so I could answer “not important” to the survey question despite being completely in favor of birthright citizenship.
Comments on this entry are closed.