As the political debate on both legal and illegal immigration seems to steadily grow in the United States every day, the debate of what becoming or being a citizen in the United States in this climate actually means and the benefits that it can bring to an individual has also seen a steady increase among immigrants and politicians. With this, there has been a surge in hate crimes which are being done to those who have either entered the United States legally or illegally, causing some scholars to question the nature of the hate and the determination of those who are seeking American citizenship.
In his book, Disenchanting Citizenship: Mexican Migrants and The Boundaries of Belonging, through the use of open-ended interviews with students in his citizenship classes and community leaders, newspaper articles, court cases, legislations, and direct observations, author Luis F.B. Plascencia explores why immigrants chose to pursue the very painstaking path toward citizenship in the United States.
Not only this, but his goal is to also try and comprehend what being a “citizen” actually means to not only the individual seeking it, but what it also means politically and historically, in certain countries. Plascencia’s main argument is the fact that the concept of what a citizen is and citizenship means have become important in U.S. as sociopolitical terms, meaning that the terms have gained a politicized attribution, therefore changing the meaning of a citizen and citizenship and making them terms which are hard to comprehend and therefore placing them into a gray areas of discussion and words that can no longer be used freely.
127 our experts are availableright now
Early in the book, Plascencia goes on to explain what he believes is the difference between what citizenship and nationality actually mean. In his point of view, these words have created a sort of “puzzle” which many scholars tend to overlook and not pay much attention to (Plascencia 2). This means that there is little information known about the issue, therefore there seems to be no solution to the “puzzle,” which luckily, he attempts to create a solution for this “puzzle” by using his personal, first-hand experience.
He notes that over the two years that he had spent as a volunteer citizenship class instructor, he noticed that “not a single person ever referred to themselves as a ‘Mexican citizen,’” but instead, they would refer to themselves as simply “Mexican” (Plascencia 2). He explains that they were identifying themselves based on their nationality, instead of their citizenship status to the country which they originated from. Yet, whenever he would examine the way that a U.S. born individual would refer to themselves, he noticed that they would never referred to themselves as “U.S. nationals, or a national of the U.S.,” but instead they would choose to identify themselves as a citizen or as American, which he then states that he views these terms as “assertations about citizenship,” rather than embracing their roots (Plascencia 2).
The fact that he refers to this problem as a “puzzle” is justified, due to the fact that the term “citizenship” does not have a clear definition or a clear meaning, and not many scholars have attempted to solve the “puzzle.” He goes on to quote author Herman van Gunsteren who states that “when studying citizenship one should not assume that one knows-or after some clarification can know-what citizenship is,” this amplifies the complexity that accompanies citizenship and how the meaning of it can change from person to person, region to region, and country to country, therefore making it difficult to get one correct definition for citizenship that can be universally used (Gunsteren 10; Plascencia 21).
As he defends his argument of the complexity of citizenship, he moves on to explain and question the validity of how European and North American cultures conceptualize the term citizenship. He does this, by comparing and contrasting how both Mexico and the United States view citizenship, and how their understanding of the concepts differs among both cultures. Plascencia goes on to explains that Mexicans view nationality and citizenship as two different concepts. Plascencia explains that the difference between both citizenship and nationality for Mexicans is rooted in the fact that both words have different historic and political notions, which have been embedded into their politics and government for a long time.
Mexico’s first declaration lacks the concept of what being a citizen means, and lacks the meaning of citizenship altogether, and instead focuses on the notions and concept of pueblo. These being “el pueblo, del pueblo, pueblo Mexicano, los pueblos, nuestro pueblo and pueblo de Mexico,” leaving out altogether the concept of citizenship and instead opting to use words which signify togetherness and community (Plascencia 28). The document also provides the Mexican people with basic rights such as “justice, peace, and equality,” but these are never correlated with citizenship, meaning that citizenship is not required to be granted those rights (Plascencia, 28). Instead, they are attributed with nuestra nationalidad, or in other words, these rights are granted based on their nationality. In contrast, the United States often correlates certain rights of their people based on citizenship, excluding those who are not citizens.
Through his research, he is able to conclude that citizenship causes a simultaneous “exclusion and inclusion,” due to the fact that it becomes very difficult for those seeking citizenship to forget where they come from therefore making it very challenging for them in terms of adapting and assimilating (Plascencia 7). His question then becomes, why apply for citizenship? What drives those individuals to become citizens and what does citizenship in the United States mean to them? Well, as he has observed, he explains that most individuals who are applying for citizenship are doing so because they believe that it finally gives them the ability to not only participate politically within the country and have their voices and demands heard, but also because it gives them a feeling of being able to participate socially and for them to finally be part of the “American culture.”
This is because everyday actions are what make individuals and groups establish “feelings of belonging, of being part of the community,” and for a lot of Mexicans, who are working to obtain citizenship, see this as one of the biggest advantages: finally, being able to belong. Mexicans do not see themselves becoming citizens of the United States as them losing their Mexican origin, but instead they see it as an opportunity to better themselves in a country which provides more. While they may be American citizens, they will continue to hold on to their Mexican nationality and will always be Mexican (Plascencia).
Throughout his book, Plascencia is able to tackle very complex topics and he is able to simplify and try to understand them. As a documented immigrant, he himself has experienced first handily the difficulties of trying to become a citizen. Not only this, but he has also struggled with the difficulty of pin pointing what being a citizen and what citizenship means to him. He is able to provide the reader with many first-hand examples of what he is researching, and through these, he is able to gain validity from the reader, making his arguments that much stronger.
His in-depth research and passion have provided him with explanations for concepts that other scholars have not attempted to look at. He reminds the reader that one must not “overlook the variability of the concept [of citizenship], that citizenship is a politically contested category and its meaning cannot be assumed [for a certain individual]” therefore there is no true answer to what being a citizen and citizenship actually mean (Plascencia 35). Even though the word has grown to become a political term, and has been embedded into certain culture, it is ultimately up to the individual to determine what those words mean to them.
