In what seems like a return to origins, for generations, there has been a lack of deep reflection on the concept of citizenship in the United States. Many of my intellectual friends are completely baffled by this topic, having no clue about its origins or significance. However, the fact remains: no other topic has as far-reaching implications for the future of this country or the world as the concept of citizenship.
In ancient Rome, being a citizen meant freedom. Citizens were considered “free born,” meaning their citizenship was determined by family lineage. Being a citizen meant having interests and a certain level of influence in the forms and direction of the government and its laws. Citizens had representation, rights, could hold public office, and own property. In return, citizens had to pay taxes but also enjoyed certain benefits, such as immunity from certain punishments like flogging, torture, or crucifixion.
So, who were not considered citizens? The answer is everyone else. Slaves, merchants, workers, and farmers were not counted, nor were foreigners and immigrants. Citizenship belonged only to a small aristocratic group, a privilege typically inherited within families. It wasn’t until the 3rd century AD that citizenship expanded to the highest ranks of the military.
As the Swiss political thinker Benjamin Constant (1767-1830) articulated in his work “The Liberty of Ancients Compared with that of Moderns” (1819), in the ancient world, citizenship did not entail individual rights but rather a collective concept of liberty. Citizens were under constant surveillance, their will was not their own, and they could not choose whom to marry or where to travel. They were completely controlled by society and the state. The modern concept of individual freedom did not exist. Citizenship only meant the right to participate in forming collective will.
After the fall of the Roman Empire, the concept of citizenship gradually faded, replaced by feudal forms of ownership, autocratic monarchies, and the church’s power in managing academic and public philosophical systems. Public order was maintained in this way.
In the Western world under discussion, this began to change after the last Black Death pandemic in 15th-century Europe. The following two centuries witnessed the rise of commercial empires, leading to rights and freedoms gradually extending to merchants and foreigners. The dawn of prosperity in the modern sense was a turning point, as people could now hold money and choose how to use it. With the growing power of producers and financiers, a consumer culture emerged, and their cultural, political, and economic power began to surpass hereditary monarchies and religious loyalties.
The modern concept of citizenship emerged from this, expanding to more classes. However, crucially, the freedom brought by the concept of citizenship was fundamentally different from that known to the ancients. Modern freedom is individual-centric, allowing individuals to choose professions, travel, migrate, and even form new families without direct control from the community or family lineage. Populations became increasingly diverse in religious beliefs, professional associations, nationalities, and life aspirations. In the 17th and 18th centuries, citizens’ rights were increasingly codified, ultimately culminating in classic documents such as the U.S. Bill of Rights (1791) and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man (1789). These documents greatly influenced the practices of governments in Europe, North America, and other regions.
By the late 19th century, an almost global consensus had been formed. The driving force of social progress was no longer the privileges of monarchs and loyalty to the church but rather commerce, practical arts, and individual rights, with the ideal state of individual rights being related to all people. Slavery itself was a recognized institution in the ancient world, yet morally and practically, it had completely lost credibility. The period known as the Belle Epoque in French was aptly named.
There was gradually a consensus worldwide that nations’ people would organize into nation-states with defined borders to constrain the judicial powers of governments. Governments would act within their borders and not overstep them, and influence would follow trade routes, subject to diplomatic agreements.
The concept of citizenship is defined by nation-states. The main duties of citizens are paying taxes and obeying laws, and in exchange, citizens have the right to influence the form of the government that governs their lives. All governments will become governments of the people, a concept (democracy) that will constrain power domestically and even internationally with the concept of borders limiting nation-states.
This is the concept of citizenship. Anyone can attain citizenship, but it is crucial to note that citizenship will influence the direction and actions of the government. With this in mind, nations should be cautious in nurturing citizens. Citizens need to understand the ideals of the state and invest in and contribute to the future of the country as stakeholders. To be an outstanding citizen means having a certain understanding of the country’s history, possibly mastering a certain language, agreeing to abide by the law, and showing a degree of identification with political society.
The greatest privilege brought by citizenship is the right to vote. Citizens can influence those in public office and their actions during their terms since they are now “representatives” rather than dictators. Thus, people can use the electoral process to prevent tyranny and ensure a peaceful transition of power from one team to another, entirely depending on the election results.
This underscores the absolute importance of the concept of citizenship. While the concept traces back to the ancient world, it saw a rebirth in the modern era (16th century) and has become a key organizing principle of our political and societal structure. The ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle (384-322 BC) once said, “Those who have the right to participate in deliberative or judicial administration of any state, we call citizens of that state.” With the development of modern society, the power of participation has expanded to all aspects, yet the title implied by citizenship restricts it.
If the concept of citizenship collapses, everything will lose its meaning. The state will lack coherence, and society itself will become fragile and fragmented. The future will become fundamentally uncertain. With the rise of modern warlords, tyranny will replace civilization, allowing the easy mobilization of mobs for legal and illegal violent actions. In this sense, the concept of citizenship is an ideal means to distinguish us from complete uncivilized chaos and violence.
The following are three brief thoughts:
First, there is no global citizenship. Governments are not global, and there are no global citizen votes. The concept itself is absurd.
Second, not everyone on Earth can become a citizen of any country at will. Otherwise, the coherence of this system would be entirely lost. People can migrate, work legally, and be bestowed rights. However, formal citizenship, as the most precious privilege, is not universally granted.
Third, non-citizens should not vote in any election since election results affect citizen affairs. This is evident, and writing it down is almost redundant. However, unbelievably, this simple truth has suddenly become a question.
Just last week, the Supreme Court took up a case involving the discovery of 1,600 non-citizens on Virginia’s voter rolls. The majority of justices naturally believed these individuals should and must be removed. Yet Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson held opposing views without giving explanations.
This is mind-boggling. I don’t know to what extent the concept of citizenship has deteriorated in recent decades, but it is time to take action. We ought to act swiftly on this issue to avoid missing the opportunity. Otherwise, all will be in vain. Voter lists will lengthen to manipulate election results. Look around the world, such practices have been attempted by several empires in history trying to dominate foreign lands, but I’ve never heard of any country where this happened internally. Yet, this country is importing millions of people labeled as refugees solely to manipulate election results.
This practice contradicts the understanding of civilized life for nearly half a century. Are we now in such circumstances? Hopefully not.
(Note: The passage above is a rewritten and translated version of the original news article, incorporating additional context and details to provide a comprehensive look at the topic of citizenship as outlined originally.)