Citizenship: jus soli or jus sanguinis?
This short scene follows Alex, a first-year philosophy major at Redwood Springs University in California at his first-ever college class.
Birthright citizenship is an American conception of citizenship guaranteed by the 14th Amendment: anyone born on US soil (apart from very few exceptions) is an American citizen, through and through.
‘All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.’
I chose to write a creative piece on this topic because I thought it was timely. In January, President Trump issued a ‘blatantly unconstitutional’ executive order that attempted to restrict citizenship to children with at least one parent, who is either a US citizen or a legal permanent resident.
The question I invite you to consider is which conception of citizenship you prefer. However, a more haunting theme needs to be considered too: the erosion of American democracy.
Scene 0 : Jus Soli or Jus Sanguinis ?
I read the paper this morning: “President issues Executive Order restricting birthright citizenship”, and in almost immediate succession: “Judge blocks President’s bid to restrict birthright citizenship”. I sipped on my coffee; I flicked through more of my paper. The songs of a Robin brightened that dark Monday morning, and the songs of my mother would officially start the day. But not before a prayer, not before thanking God for letting her be witness to another day.
“Hello, my name is Alex, I study Philosophy. I am based in the Northernmost side of campus, together with the other Humanities”, a phrase I knew I was to repeat endlessly. That day I had classes back-to-back, starting first with an introductory lecture on the course, and a flurry of classes, for which I had not prepared. A Professor at the front of the lecture theatre began speaking: “Hello everyone and welcome. I hope this is going to be an exciting year for you. I hope you will enjoy both the social and learning aspects of this college. Trust us that you will be in good hands for the few years you’re here”. I was frantically trying to get some work done, while we were told more information on the administrative side. At the same time, I was also trying to be secretive. I didn’t want this to be the first impression I made to other students at celebrated Redwood Springs University.
This time I checked my phone to see where my next class would be. “Judge calls President’s bid to restrict birthright citizenship ‘blatantly unconstitutional’”. The “State, ideology and politics” module, colloquially known as SIP, was on the Southern side of campus. I resolved that I was going to be late, so I jogged lightly to the other side of college. “Trust us that you will be in good hands for the few years you’re here”, the Professor had claimed in the welcome lecture. His words ricocheted in my head, but there was no time to hold grudges. I had to get to my class.
As the time was 10:10, I could not admire the glossy Engineering building, and so I eventually made it to class. Luckily, I had not missed much and as I walked in, the tutor welcomed me warmly. “Please come sit with us. I understand that you’re all finding your way around this giant campus, and I also understand that some of the slots in your timetables might be unlucky.” The classroom overlooked the vast expanse of greenery, and if you squinted, you could see the metal gates that enclosed the field.
“Has anyone read the paper today?” asked Dr Jones.
The class stared blankly.
“Alright. Can anyone guess what birthright citizenship is?”. Another student raised their hand, and upon being promptly selected from Dr Jones said:
“A constitutional principle that makes any child born on US soil an American citizen, subject to its jurisdiction. It is enshrined in the 14th Amendment.”
“Correct. Today, the President tried to restrict birthright citizenship on the grounds of jus sanguinis. Does Anyone know what jus sanguinis is?”
Another hand goes up and this person, much older than anyone else here, said: “Jus sanguinis is a legal principle that claims that nationality should be strictly tied to ancestry.” He continued: “It is juxtaposed to jus soli, which claims that nationality should be tied to territory.”
“Yes. There is an argument currently running in the papers that what this executive order sought to do was change American birthright citizenship from a jus soli right to a jus sanguinis. Do you find this convincing? For context, if the executive order had been allowed through, only children with a clear, parental link to American citizenship would have been able to become US citizens. Surely, this is not a jus soli anymore?” Dr. Jones argued.
I raised my hand. “I think that it will depend on what citizenship will rely most on. Restricting birthright citizenship to an explicit parental link to US citizenship would be a full-blown jus sanguinis right, however, if the executive order only blocks US citizenship to children born on US soil, but still allows them to work towards citizenship, by taking into account how long they live in the US, then citizenship would still have a jus soli aspect to it. What the president’s executive order seeks to do is block citizenship to undocumented migrants and temporary visitors. In theory, birthright citizenship is still jus soli, but perhaps a more corrupt version.”
Dr. Jones continued: “I agree. The problem is not very much whether this right is jus soli or sanguinis but rather how it fits into our constitution. Birthright citizenship has a complex history, and the next week will be dedicated to this history. Birthright citizenship is the idea that citizenship should be given to most born on US soil. In 1857, the Dred Scott decision of the US Supreme Court excluded African Americans from citizenship, then overturned in 1868 through the Fourteenth Amendment.”
“In the next 10 minutes, please write down arguments for and against both jus soli and sanguinis and come to a decision about which one you think is more favourable.”
Reflecting after the class, I personally could not come to a decision. Again, I think that a citizenship cannot be fully soli or sanguinis, but if it had to be more one than the other, I would rather citizenship be based on territory. I know very well that feeling, despite having lived in a country your whole life, that you still don’t truly feel like you’re part of it. But I also think that location overpowers blood. What pair is more likely to develop a lifelong friendship? The cousins that live continents apart, or the two children that live right next to each other and go to the same school?
By Daniel Akerele
