Citizenship in Federal Systems

American Journal of Comparative Law

Volumn 48, Issue 2, 2000, Pages 195-

  Schuck, Peter H ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0041728992     PISSN: 0002919X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2307/840970     Document Type: Article

References (6)

1. I discuss different dimensions of what I call citizenship talk in Peter H. Schuck, Citizens, Strangers, and In-Betweens: Essays on Immigration and Citizenship 176-78 (1998).
2. For sound normative and perhaps constitutional reasons, citizenship in the U.S. (and presumably elsewhere) is an essentially undifferentiated status. American law treats all citizens, whether native-born or naturalized, the same for virtually all purposes, save two: eligibility to be elected President of the United States, and the renunciation oath required of naturalizing citizens, leading to somewhat different dual citizenship rules. See id. at 227-29. Not germane here is the conventional distinction between citizens and "nationals" (i.e., near-citizens but with lesser status and rights, usually as to voting) under domestic and international law. See id. at 412, n. 2.
3. The term "alien" carries a more unpleasant - and for some, offensive - connotation than the term "non-citizen." Johnson, "'Aliens' and the U.S. Immigration Laws: The Social and Legal Construction of Nonpersons," 28 Miami Inter-American L. Rev. 263 (1996-97). Nevertheless, using "alien" can reduce confusion when one wishes to discuss both federal and state citizenship, as I do here. We do not speak of U.S. citizens who are citizens of New York and who enter New Jersey as "aliens" there. Unlike the citizen category, immigration law divides aliens into many subcategories, each bearing different rights, duties, and administrative statuses. See Schuck, "Current Debates About U.S. Citizenship," in In Defense of the Alien, 1998 (Lydio Tomasi, ed., 1999), at 83-84.
4. The term "alien" carries a more unpleasant - and for some, offensive - connotation than the term "non-citizen." Johnson, "'Aliens' and the U.S. Immigration Laws: The Social and Legal Construction of Nonpersons," 28 Miami Inter-American L. Rev. 263 (1996-97). Nevertheless, using "alien" can reduce confusion when one wishes to discuss both federal and state citizenship, as I do here. We do not speak of U.S. citizens who are citizens of New York and who enter New Jersey as "aliens" there. Unlike the citizen category, immigration law divides aliens into many subcategories, each bearing different rights, duties, and administrative statuses. See Schuck, "Current Debates About U.S. Citizenship," in In Defense of the Alien, 1998 (Lydio Tomasi, ed., 1999), at 83-84.
5. Inequalities, of course, also persist, and may even be growing, within each of these groups, perhaps especially among non-citizens who are distributed bimodally (in the U.S., at least) with respect to their socioeconomic status at the time of entry.
6. This comparison can prompt disparate reactions. I rejoice, for example, that Germany has decided to permit long-resident descendants of former guestworkers to acquire and transmit German citizenship, but I also wonder whether their new status