Vol. 10 No. 2 (February 2000) pp. 177-180.

IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP IN THE 21ST CENTURY by Noah M. J. Pickus (Editor). Foreword by Rogers M. Smith. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 1998. 237 pp. Cloth $63.00. Paper $23.95.

Reviewed by Daniel Levin, Department of Political Science, Boise State University.

The essays included in IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP IN THE 21ST CENTURYare the product of a conference held at Duke University to consider the 1997 report of the Commission on Immigration Reform. Although it contains many useful reflections on the Commission's report, most of the pieces extend well
beyond it to broader considerations of the contemporary meaning of citizenship in the United States. Moreover, the focus is, as Noah Pickus puts it, on "IMMIGRANT policy . . . rather than on IMMIGRATION policy ...specifically controversies over the Commission's Americanization proposals, as well as naturalization, dual citizenship, and welfare reform." The book works well as a treatment of these policy areas; it does an even better job of treating the theoretical questions that underlie much of contemporary debate over immigration and immigrants' legal status in the United States.

The volume's major contribution is to provide a theoretical background for the general themes of U.S. immigration law and policy. Rogers Smith writes in the foreword, "One major way that politicians not only express but actually craft sense of 'peoplehood' is by enacting laws of membership that determine who is in and who is out and what their respective rights and duties are." The meaning of citizenship is examined in three different sections which analyze the historical and theoretical understandings of American citizenship, how contemporary public policy understands national identity in the contexts of multiculturalism and globalization, and how the variety of different "membership statuses" functions both within nations and among nations. Each section consists of a longer essay representing a
classically liberal view, followed by a shorter multiculturalist response, and another longer essay espousing a multicultural viewpoint, followed by a shorter classically liberal response.

The first section, a historical and conceptual analysis of American citizenship, sets the tone for the larger work by posing the problem of how to reconcile the traditional liberal vision of America with more contemporary understandings of multiculturalism. In a longer essay, Charles Kesler argues for a classically liberal understanding of citizenship based in the aspirations of the Founding Fathers and the project of social contract theory. This project starts from the classical liberal premise of the equality of all people. Although he criticizes the Founders, particularly Jefferson, for their suspicion of immigration, he finds that this suspicion
based in a fear that immigrants would not share the same commitment to republicanism. From this history, Kesler derives the lesson that the "founders labored to shape the 'national spirit' and 'national character' of a people who could live

Page 178 begins here

together as republican citizens." This conclusion supports Kesler's second project, to critique theories that claim that equal citizenship today leads to inequality because of the serious historical disadvantages facing many groups. Kesler finds that such approaches threaten to turn the United States into a "nation of groups" and threaten the republican ideal that requires "the unity of a self-governing people."

Juan Perea's essay constitutes a multiculturalist critique of Kesler's aspirational history, arguing that the Founders' liberal and republican beliefs have hardly been reflected in this nation's history. Instead of worrying that multicultural theories of difference might threaten the unity of the American polity, Perea argues that the history of exclusion of many groups (he mentions Native Americans, African-Americans, Mexican-Americans, and Asian-Americans) has kept all groups from entering the polity on equal and respectful terms. Perea also has a positive program, applauding the Commission on Immigration Reform for calling for "Americanization" of immigrants to become "a mutual and reciprocal process" for "immigrants and natives alike." Rather than simply requiring immigrants to adopt
majoritarian values, this new process recognizes crucial differences of race and culture and can engender a more inclusive understanding of citizenship than American history otherwise contains.

Although John Miller's critique of Perea's piece is largely a restatement of Kesler's liberal argument, asking whether the glass is half-full or half-empty, Kwame Anthony Appiah responds to Kesler by arguing that "Americanization" programs are both unnecessary and illiberal. Such programs are unnecessary because the sheer pervasiveness of American culture in immigrant communities makes Americanization, especially for the second generation, virtually inescapable. Appiah's second argument, that such programs are illiberal, asserts that "Americanization" programs contradict "the fundamental liberal vision - the fundamental American vision . . . of humans as free men and women constructing a common life." Government programs mandating a singular political culture do not allow for such a
process to be truly free.

The first essay in the section examining national identity in an era of multiculturalism is by David Hollinger, who attempts to reconcile liberal understandings of national citizenship with more universalist norms of global concern to develop a cosmopolitan form of nationalism. Hollinger's essay is a thoughtful, if occasionally frustrating, study in the contradictions that animate much of modern liberal theory. Hollinger notes that "[i]t has proven easier to laud cosmopolitanism against tribalists or to defend bounded communities against rootlessness than to bring these two perpetually satisfying but diverse discursive practices together ...". Hollinger finds "liberal nationalist" understandings of the need for national solidarity persuasive, especially when they are inclusive in orientation, but urges that such solidarity be understood in a "postethnic" manner that celebrates the contemporary capacity for multiple cross-cutting identities. Hollinger believes that "the constitutional order of the United States is not simply a list of abstract liberal values ... [but] a finite historical entity with a record of specific tragedies, successes, failures, contradictions and
provincial conceits ...". By incorporating the stories of these challenges, which include the many identities which have come to constitute the United
States, Hollinger asserts that we can


Page 179 begins here

"partake of the 'national culture'" while telling other stories about the other group identities Americans partake of. In the short essay following, Linda Bosniak responds to Hollinger by insisting that, "the solidarity of national citizenship - ought to be primary."

The second group of essays in this section is less interesting, and features a longer essay by Noah Pickus that argues better civic education is needed to develop the participatory practices that are essential to citizenship. Pickus is, however, very careful to argue that citizenship education need not be about assimilation nor lead to immigrants having to give up their culture. Joseph Carens' response relies largely on the argument that there should not be any requirements for citizenship beyond
residence, because residence itself will lead immigrants to value their attachments to American society.

The final section is more focused on immigration policy itself. The first group of essays asks the question of whether individuals should be allowed to maintain plural citizenship. Peter Shuck arguing for a more refined understanding of plural citizenship, while Michael Jones-Correa argues that multiple citizenship is generally beneficial. Shuck's argument is that dual citizenship seems to be relatively harmless and that citizenship is one of a multitude of identities and loyalties that individuals possess, and therefore should not be exclusive. He does argue, however, that plural citizenship should be allowed only when the individual is willing to express
U. S. citizenship as his or her primary political allegiance, and that U. S. citizens should not be allowed to hold significant political office in another country because of the possibility of conflicts of interest. Jones-Correa is even more sanguine about plural citizenship, arguing that "[i]t is the rare citizen who doesn't have conflicting attachments and loyalties of one sort or another, and yet somehow or other we all still manage to stumble along and fulfill our obligations as citizens." Jones-Correa views the requirement that naturalized American citizens renounce their former nation as harmful because it establishes a conflict between two identities which is
not necessary and which can harm new citizens' relations with family and other relationships in their country of birth. Allowing plural citizenship, he argues, will only result in immigrants becoming fuller participants in the American polity without imposing the cost of estrangement from their original identities.

The final group of essays concerns the status of permanent residents. Hiroshi Motomura proposes three different models for understanding permanent residency. The affiliation model, which treats permanent residents as stakeholders in American society because of their economic and social contributions, is reassuring because it neutralizes the idea that permanent residents constitute a threat to the polity; it also implies that permanent residents should be treated more and more like citizens with the passage of time. Unfortunately, Motomura suggests, it also devalues citizenship by reducing the distinction between the two different statuses. The contract
model, in which immigrants are understood to accept "certain conditions" when they decide to reside here, and where the nation is obligated to honor the original expectations under which resident aliens have immigrated, is attractive because of its reliance on basic notions of fairness. However, Motomura notes, it is insufficiently attentive to the other values that inform residency and citizenship, and he may provide insufficient protection for immigrants against Congress' plenary

Page 180 begins here

powers over the law of alienage. Motomura appears to find his third alternative, the transition model, in which residency is largely understood as part of a process towards citizenship, to be most satisfactory, and treats it at greatest length. If we view permanent residency as a transitional process, he argues, barriers to citizenship should be minimal and policies that disadvantage immigrants would be suspect because they would impair the primary purpose of permanent residency - integration into the larger society. In response, Daniel Tichenor argues that each of Motomura's models has the potential for more repressive approaches towards immigrants, particularly the contract model that would implicitly allow for more punitive policies towards new immigrants, so long as they understood those conditions when they arrived. Tichenor also questions whether the transitional model protects immigrant rights because it may encourage greater restrictions as policymakers attempt to limit residency to those who show themselves most virtuous by their capacity for work and self-reliance in the belief that such individuals will make the best citizens.

IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP IN THE 21ST CENTURY works best when approached for what it is, the result of a series of discussions over the
nature of American citizenship in a diverse society. The selections are high quality, and, while some are far more focused on the actual question of immigration policy than others, the book holds together as a whole. The combination of longer essays and shorter responses would work well in any upper-division or graduate class which treats the topic of immigration at length, and many of the contributions counter the prevailing wisdom, which may spark energetic classroom conversation. For those wishing to enter into the current conversation, this volume is a better starting place than most.


Copyright 2000 by the author