Between Principles and Politics

September 18, 1998

Panelists: T. Alexander Aleinikoff, Senior Associate, International Migration Policy Program, and Professor of Law Georgetown University Law Center; Frank Sharry, Executive Director, National Immigration Forum; Gerri Ratliff, Acting Associate Commissioner for Business Process
and Reengineering, Immigration Services Division, Immigration and Naturalization Service

Moderator: Kathleen Newland, Senior Associate, International Migration Policy Program, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

On Friday, September 18, the International Migration Policy Program of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace held a policy briefing at the Carnegie Endowment Conference center. The session marked the release of T. Alexander Aleinikoff's Between Principles and Politics: The Direction of United States' Citizenship Policy, the eighth in the Program's monograph series on issues in International Migration. In celebration of Citizenship Day, an occasion that annually draws attention to citizenship policy, the panelists convened to discuss the citizenship debate, U.S. citizenship policy, and the Immigration and Naturalization Service's naturalization initiative.

Alexander Aleinikoff pointed out that citizenship issues have increasingly moved to center stage on policy agendas around the world. This growing trend, he argued, is a consequence of significant increases in immigration to developed states. Furthermore, there has been a general reevaluation of the role of the welfare state in the United States and abroad, a perceived challenge to the sovereignty of nation-states from international, supranational, and subnational forces, and political developments in the world such as the European Union's Treaty of Maastricht. In addition, states that have transitioned from authoritarian to democratic styles of governance have had to rethink national membership and how it is defined and applied. Aleinikoff observed that these issues have coalesced to make citizenship a topic of significant debate.

Aleinikoff explained that since its founding, U.S birthright citizenship law has operated under the principles of jus soli (right of the soil) and jus sanguinis (right of blood). The United States follows jus sanguinis principles for children born to U.S. citizens outside its territory and follows the principle of jus soli for those born within its borders. While little controversy has emerged over jus sanguinis rules, Aleinikoff noted that there has been in recent years considerable debate over the application of the principle of jus soli to the children of undocumented aliens. Those Opposing this application have argued that such a policy is inappropriate, because it "bestows citizenship on a kind of technicality based more on logistics and timing then on roots, community, or legality" (Aleinikoff, p.12) It is also argued that full application of the jus soli principle is expensive especially considering the growth in the welfare state and the government's failure to effectively control undocumented migration. However, Aleinikoff argued that applying the jus soli principle to the children of undocumented aliens has significant assimilative advantages that must also be considered. Unlike many European countries, the United States has avoided the "second-generation immigrant problem" because it has no second-generation aliens. Furthermore, such application is in keeping with the United States' constitutional character and has eliminated the possibility of a "hereditary caste of permanent aliens."

Aleinikoff also pointed out that the United States' combined policy of jus soli and jus sanguinis has produced large numbers of dual nationals—yet another controversial area of citizenship policy that has received considerable attention. Also contributing to the existence of plural citizenships, Aleinikoff argued, is the unwillingness of the international community to establish international norms on the acquisition and maintenance of citizenships. The United States also confronts the reality that foreign state laws make the loss of citizenship for their nationals procedurally complicated even as the American naturalization requirement obligates new nationals to" renounce and abjure absolutely and entirely all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which the applicant was before a subject or citizen." The recent Mexican constitutional amendment that allows Mexican nationals to keep their Mexican nationality even after naturalizing in the United States directly conflicts with the U.S. renunciation requirement and has caused considerable controversy in the United States.

Aleinikoff pointed out that much of the concern generated in the United States over Mexico's amendment has largely resulted from the mistaken belief that the amendment grants dual nationals voting rights in both countries. He explained that, unlike in the United States, nationality and citizenship have different meanings in Mexico. Mexico's amendment allows its dual nationals to maintain their nationality, which gives them the right to keep a Mexican passport and own land, but not their citizenship, which allows them to vote.

Aleinikoff argued that while dual nationality has historically been looked upon with disfavor in international law and practice for the obvious reasons of concern over divided loyalty during times of war, military service, and diplomatic protection, these areas have lost much of their relevance in the post-Cold War setting. While Mexico's amendment highlights the more relevant contemporary concerns of political allegiance, voting rights, and national loyalty, Aleinikoff argued that there is little evidence to support the claim that dual nationality diminishes either national loyalty or political allegiance, or that dual nationality is harmful to national interests. He pointed out that many new nationals keep personal ties to their home countries regardless of existing laws. Dual nationals, he argued, are not any more likely to commit espionage or vote in the interest of another state than persons of only one nationality. He also noted that dual nationality has advantages that are often not considered such as ease of travel and business benefits.

Aleinikoff pointed out that critics of the increasing numbers of dual nationals and naturalized citizens are alleging that the standards for naturalization are being lowered and the integrity of INS procedures is being compromised—all generating a fear in the United States that citizenship's symbolic value has been "cheapened." Many claim that immigrants are naturalizing for instrumental reasons such as the maintenance of benefits rather than for the "affective" reasons of loyalty and love of country. Aleinikoff suggested that the fear that citizenship has somehow been devalued has led to attempts to "revalue" it by widening the differences between citizens and immigrants as seen in the 1996 welfare legislation. He pointed out that policy makers are thus confronted with a paradox: attempts to make citizenship matter more by heightening distinctions between citizens and aliens produces behavior that is deemed to diminish citizenship's symbolic value and removing such distinctions seems to reduce citizenship to a "mere personal affiliation." Aleinikoff argued that the best route to "affective" naturalization is not to calibrate incentives or increase distinctions between citizens and aliens through legislation but to direct efforts toward fostering commitment to the nation, such as through publicly funded programs of civics and English language education. Aleinikoff concluded that policies should not relegate immigrants to an outsider status but citizenship's meaning might be better enhanced by treating immigrants as "citizens in training."

Frank Sharry, Executive Director of the National Immigration Forum, observed that viewing immigrants as future citizens is a concept that has recently begun to take hold in the United States and has transformed the way that politicians view and approach immigrants and immigration. Whereas previously immigrants were viewed as outsiders with little political power, in 1996, politicians discovered immigrants do indeed have an influence and vote in favor of their interests. This recent realization, Sharry noted, has manifested itself in efforts by politicians to gain favor in immigrant communities. This effort, he indicated, is particularly apparent in California in the campaign between Barbara Boxer and Matt Fong, in Dan Lungren's struggle to distance himself from the unpopular Pete Wilson, and in the recent Republican effort to overcome the damage done by their restrictionist policies. Sharry noted that as immigrants become citizens, they could indeed change the face of American policy.

Sharry argued that while the surge in naturalization applications is often associated with the immigrant community's desire to fight welfare reform and the proponents of anti-immigration legislation, the surge in naturalization applications actually predates the anti-immigrant animus. He noted that the surge may have resulted from the fact that many ethnic and religious groups believed that citizenship was important and have encouraged a green card turnover. Sharry pointed out that the number of naturalization applications has since dropped from 1.6 million to a projected 850,000—perhaps because potential applicants have been discouraged by INS backlogs and long waiting periods.

Improving the quality of the INS' services has been an issue of significant discussion, and is yet another issue that has taken center stage on the U.S. policy agenda. Gerri Ratliff, Acting Associate Commissioner for Business Process and Reengineering for the INS, pointed out that the INS is working on heightening the integrity of the naturalization process as well as its services. These efforts include using digital fingerprinting, distributing information packets, expanding telephone centers, standardizing testing and processing procedures, and working on its infrastructural systems. In the area of customer service and training, Ratliff noted that the INS is working to promote uniformity, equip adjudicators with the proper tools, and is diligently striving to meet the needs of the disabled population. She pointed out that while many of these programs will take several years to complete and will certainly require additional funding, improvement efforts are currently underway. In order to get information out to those who need it, the INS has created a Guide to Naturalization. This handbook is in its final stages and will eventually be available on tape, in large print, and in three different languages.

For further study:

Aleinikoff, T. Alexander.1998. Between Principles and Politics. The Direction of U.S. Citizenship Policy. Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

To contact the panelists:

Alexander Aleinikoff
Senior Associate
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
1179 Massachusetts Ave
Washington, D.C. 20036
Telephone: (202) 939-2275
Fax: (202) 332-0945
Aleinikoff@ceip.org

or

Georgetown University Law Center
600 New Jersey Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20001
Tel: (202) 662-9120

Kathleen Newland
Co-Director
International Migration Policy Program
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
1779 Massachusetts Ave
Washington, D.C. 22306
Telephone: (202) 939-2279
Fax: (202) 332-0945
Knewland@ceip.org

Gerri Ratliff
Acting Associate Commissioner for Business Process and Reengineering
Immigration Services Division, INS
Telephone: (202) 514-1814
Fax: (202) 305-0108

Frank Sharry
Executive Director
National Immigration Forum
2201 St, N.E., suite 220
Washington, D.C. 20002
Telephone: (202) 544-0004
Fax: (202) 544-1905
URL:http://www.immigrationforum.org