Mehnaaz Momen is Associate Professor in the Department of Social Sciences at Texas A & M International University, USA and the author of The Paradox of Citizenship in American Politics. Read Chapter 2, “American Identity: Ideals Versus Illusions” free until February 28.

One of the visible cultural clashes in 2019 took place in the Washington Mall, amidst Americans of all strides, a MAGA hat-wearing young teenager and Native American Veteran playing the lead characters. The micro aspects of the story are concerned with who was disrespectful, who violated personal space, who were the real agitators. The macro aspect of the story is how American identity is being redefined and who participates in this discourse.

American citizenship was built on contradictory premises: rules of exclusion borrowed from the Greek to keep out undesirable races and yet adopting the Roman tradition of rules of inclusion which permitted new entrants to join the citizenship fold conditionally and periodically. Although these rules are paradoxical, they were applied selectively to different groups of people (mostly based on race, but often on national origin or professional expertise) and hence existed without logical convergence. Back in the eighteenth and early nineteenth-century when the rules of exclusion prevailed, it was much easier to define who can be part of “we” in terms of race and ethnicity. The thematic change in immigration provisions in 1965 with the Hart-Cellar law is hailed as a replacement of exclusionary measures. In reality, inclusionary provisions were introduced along with rigid legal restrictions which produced an array of immigration regulations, applicable to particular groups selectively. The Dreamers are a perfect example of the paradox of our porous yet inflexible immigration policy. They cannot be denied their American identity through the rules of exclusion as their statuses as community members are, perhaps, irrefutable. However, their lack of a legal contract, the inclusionary measure, is the obstacle for them to claim full membership in their communities as citizens. Depending on the economy, foreign wars, political ideology, we shift between the two narratives and make changes in how we interpret and implement our immigration policies, often without changing the policy itself.

In the last two years, during the Trump presidency, there is a new dimension that is being added to our tangled immigration policies, the provision of punishing not only the act of breaking immigration laws but the total rejection of the premise of immigration itself. By closing the border to stop asylum seekers to come in and follow a legal process, Trump administration is not only conflating criminals and asylum seekers but changing the very way we perceive immigrants. By taking away the children from asylum seekers and putting them in prison, the Trump administration is refuting not only the existing exclusionary provisions but establishing precedence where state power supersedes human rights.

A series of new definitions of “we” are emerging in the process: some are built on age-old racial and ethnic biases and prejudices; some are fashioned in the neo-liberal language of desirability; some are stuck in the illogical bureaucratic jargon of statecraft. As American empire dwindles in the global stage, the need for defining who “we” are is once again crucial. In the global village where cosmopolitans dominate in economic and cultural power, it is the populism-inspired, self-defined patriots who are voicing a stronger opinion armed with supportive leadership. These measures may seem targeted towards law-breakers, asylum seekers, or immigrants in general, but these new rules of penalty and vengeance are already shaping citizenship rights and privileges. A substantive portion of the American populace has become redundant in the American economy and culture because of the neoliberal structure of the economy and its policy manifestations. This is the exact underlying logic of immigration policies that reject the basic human rights of poor immigrants, both legal and illegal. and assault their dignity. 

Policies that shrink rights and privileges of citizenship—consumer protection, voting rights, political protest rights—and policies that diminish immigrant rights—the right to see a judge, rights against losing permanent status for minor convictions such as shoplifting—both follow a symbiotic pattern. Taking away someone’s right and dignity is an expression of state power and it begins with the most vulnerable group and extends to all groups that can be marginalized. We have already experienced a spark in the number of police killings of unarmed blacks and other minorities in the years of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, where dehumanizing people and obsessing about the “enemy” was not contained in distant war fronts. Following a similar pattern, disciplining immigrants and reprimanding non-citizens are being written into policies that will result in decreasing the rights of all citizens. Along with the definition of who “we” are, the very definition of the rights of a citizen, native or otherwise is being redefined where the state yields more power and citizens fear non-citizens, though they are actually being overpowered by the state, not fellow community members.