121 CHRONICLESngiven America so many of her greatest soldiers. Theynbelieved, again quite passionately, that no one can be a goodncitizen if he shirks his military obligation, avoids jury duty,nor shrinks from the sordid reality of public service.nThe Civil War and the 14th Amendment settled permanentlynthe question of slavery; it did not solve the problemnof citizenship. On the one hand, blacks continued to suffernunder a variety of legal disabilities that made a mockery ofnthe I4th Amendment’s solemn declaration that “All personsnborn or naturalized in the United States, and subject tonthe jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States andnof the state wherein they reside.” On the other hand, thenAmendment restored the old and largely irrelevant doctrinesnof the common law. The American way of life, that is, thenproduct of the peculiar virtues and habits of the Americannpeople, includes a generous — some would say toongenerous — provision for the welfare of the unfortunate. Innancient Athens, the existence of welfare benefits compellednthe Athenians to put rigid restrictions on citizenship. InnAmerica, the opposite is the case. Illegal immigrants arengiven amnesty, and legal aliens are free to avail themselvesnof a smorgasbord of rights and benefits with no stringsnattached. Under the circumstances, it is hard to see whatncitizenship means or what advantages citizens possess.nThe rediscovery of citizenship is among the most pressingnproblems faced by the American nation. One hundrednyears ago enlightened and progressive political leadersnpanicked at the thought of so many immigrants from Irelandnand from southern and eastern Europe. They not onlynbegan to tighten restrictions on immigration — probably ansensible move—but they also decided to use the power ofngovernment in their effort to Americanize the newcomers.nMany of the most objectionable features of our educationalnand welfare systems were designed as measures to convert orncontrol the Catholics. They only succeeded in temporarilynalienating them from the mainstream. In the end, Irish andnItalian Catholics became just as good Americans as thenSwedish Protestants who attended public schools, but we arenstill saddled with the coercive mechanisms of Americanization.nIn their effort to define America as an idea that can bentaught, progressive educators and journalists turned to thenslogans of the French Revolution for their inspiration. Wencan hardly blame the immigrant children for growing up tonbelieve that the United States was created by the 14thnAmendment, or that equality was the most basic principle ofnthe Constitution. Unfortunately, many of these Americanizednnewcomers grew up to be journalists and educatorsnthemselves, and ever since the First World War we have hadnto hear the cliches of Americanization parroted back to usnby the second- and third-generation immigrants who domineernover the nation’s conscience from their citadels in thennortheast.nThe worst mistake we could make at this point in ournhistory — and there are those in the U.S. Department ofnEducation who are eager to make it—would be to rely onneducation, once again, as the remedy for our immigrationnproblem. European Catholics are one thing, Buddhists fromnAsia and Caribbean devotees of Santeria and voodoo quitenanother. Increasingly, we are told that it is not only in ourninterest, it is also positively our duty to open the country tonnnanyone who wishes to come, whatever his motives andnwhatever his prospects. The open border is, in fact, more ornless the present reality. In such circumstances, we have onlyntwo choices: either redefine the United States as an imperialnstate whose subjects are held together only by ties of lawnand bureaucracy—which is what our ruling class seems tonhave in mind—or else rethink the meaning of nationalncitizenship.nIn their recent book. Citizenship Without Consent, Yalenscholars Peter Schuck and Roger Smith draw attention tonthe major flaw in our liberal understanding of citizenship. Ifnnationality is largely a matter of consent, a contract betweenncitizens and the nation, then it is within the power of eithernparty to withhold their consent. While urging a morengenerous immigration policy, Schuck and Smith take thennecessary — and very risky — step of arguing against ius solincitizenship: How can the American people or the governmentnbe said to “consent,” when illegal aliens or casualntravelers bear children upon American soil?nThis is an important step in the right direction; however,nit is not necessary to restrict our conception of citizenship tonthe bloodless abstractions of John Locke and internationalnlaw. As an alternative, we as a nation might reconsider ournown old-fashioned and robust citizenship as one of thenanswers to the growing problem of ethnic strife in America.nNo matter how generous we are in our immigrationnpolicies, Schuck and Smith are right: the notion that anyonenaccidentally born in U.S. territory automatically becomes ancitizen — as the 14th Amendment seems to guarantee —nhas to be abandoned. It derives from the all but irrelevantncommon law doctrine of ius soli. We cannot as a nationncontinue to tolerate the large number of illegal aliens whoncome to America for the sole purpose of producing citizensnor finding jobs.nAs a corollary, we would need to redefine the duties — asnopposed to the rights — of citizens. Any minimum definitionnwould have to include: the obligation to vote, to servenin something like the National Guard, and to pay taxes.nRefusal to perform such duties or the willingness to live onnthe nation’s bounty as a welfare dependent would result innan automatic (although not necessarily permanent) changenof status from citizen to subject. As a subject, the shirkernwould enjoy eqtial protection under the laws but could notnvote, hold office, or serve on juries. Rich and poor would benaffected alike, since the poor are more likely to go onnwelfare, while the rich are more likely to evade militarynservice. (Remember Vietnam?) Combat duty should wipenthe slate clean.nWhy do I think we will never consider something like thenabove? Think about it. Minority spokesmen would lose theirnclout, the liberal rich could not continue to send poor blacksnout to die for their favorite charities—like the suicidalnLebanese or social justice (democratic or Marxist) innCentral America. We could begin to deport all noncitizensnon welfare. Rioting Iranians would be shown the doornwithin 24 hours, like guests that have overstayed theirnwelcome. Real democracy, the strong democracy advocatednby leftists like Benjamin Barber, might then be allowed tonfunction, and the movers and shakers of both parties wouldndry up and blow away like flyspecks on the wall. Democracy?nGood lord, anything but that!n