Hiroshi Motomura, Kenan distinguished professor of law at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, discussed his immigration research earlier this year with the John Locke Foundation’s Shaftesbury Society. Motomura also discussed immigration policy with Mitch Kokai for Carolina Journal Radio. (Click here to find a station near you or to learn about the weekly CJ Radio podcast.)
Kokai: One of the key things of your discussion for the Shaftesbury Society was that there are three different ways to look at immigration and citizenship and immigrants coming in, whether they are citizens, if they’re on the path towards citizenship. What are those three different ways?
Motomura: Well, in a nutshell, the three ways are to think about immigration as contract, to think about immigration as affiliation, and to think about immigration as transition. Now those are abstract terms, but I can give you examples. Immigration as contract is something you often hear in the media or in op-eds, in congressional debates. It’s the idea that there’s a set of understandings that come into play when immigrants come to this country, that they promise not to go on welfare, or that the rules for their staying don’t change in midstream. That would be a way of thinking about immigration − as kind of a contract or promises or expectations. Another way of thinking about immigration is to think of it as affiliating with the United States, and I think everyone hears this kind of talk also in congressional debates or in the media. It would be, for example, saying, “I’ve lived here for a long time. My kids go to school, I pay taxes, I go to church, I belong to American society, I should be recognized.” That’s a way of thinking about immigration as affiliation. The third way of thinking about immigration, which is the principal focus of my book Americans in Waiting, is to think about immigration as a transition to American citizenship. That, I think, is the way that immigrants were treated for much of American history. I don’t think it’s as true today as it was then, but there was a time when immigrants, when they came to this country, were treated like citizens with expectations that they would become citizens.
Kokai: You really made a point of mentioning that the idea of immigration as contract or immigration as affiliation − people saying, “Hey, you violated the rules, you shouldn’t be here,” or people saying, “I’ve been here for a long time, I should get the benefits from it” − those are the dominant strains in the debate. But this third way, this third idea, has really gotten lost.
Motomura: It has gotten lost, and it is interesting to think about why. But the basic idea is, you’re right, the dominant way we think about immigration debates today is that you’ll have someone saying, for example, “Someone came in for the harvest, the harvest is over, they promised to leave, why haven’t they left?” That is a contract way of looking at the issue of engaging the debate. Often the counterargument is, “Yes, but they pay taxes, they contribute to society.” This is a lot of the debate about legalization. Proponents of legalization would say that people should be recognized for their contribution. Opponents of it say that it amounts to amnesty because they’re not supposed to be here. So that’s the dominant way of thinking about it. So what’s interesting is that in the 19th century, for example, the Homestead Act, and even voting, was extended to new immigrants on the expectation that they would become citizens, and that faded over time. It’s interesting to think about why. One of the things that’s interesting is that the immigration-as-transition idea of treating immigrants as Americans in waiting, was at a time when immigration itself, and indeed citizenship, was racially restricted. So one of the things that happens in American history is that it becomes easier to become an immigrant, it becomes easier to become a formal citizen of the United States through naturalization. But somehow becoming an immigrant is less valuable because it doesn’t mean being treated like a citizen upon arrival in the way that it used to mean in the 19th century.
Kokai: One of the things that you pointed out was that perhaps turning back to this idea of Americans in waiting, or this transition period, might be beneficial, especially for the idea of convincing more immigrants that it is valuable and important to be citizens.
Motomura: Yes, I think the idea here is one that combines giving more to immigrants by being more generous upon arrival, but also expecting more from immigrants by raising the expectation that they become citizens. So that is not in the current debate an idea you hear very much, but I think it’s very well grounded, as I mentioned, in American history. So, for example, you would treat people essentially on a trial basis, if you want to think about it that way, as citizens, with the idea that to retain that status and those benefits from beyond the point that they can naturalize, they have to decide to naturalize. So, for example, they would have the ability to bring in their family members, but they would have this ability on the trial basis until the five year runs [out], after which they can apply for naturalization. If they don’t apply for naturalization, then their abilities or their rights at that point would revert to what we have today, which is less advantageous.
Kokai: One of the ideas that you pointed out, that drew the most attention I think, was something I guess that was part of America’s past. And that was that immigrants could vote without necessarily being citizens at one time, and you mentioned that might be one of the ideas that we could consider as part of this group of rights that Americans in waiting would have.
Motomura: Yes, and admittedly, this is the part of the proposal, or part of the thought experiment in this book, that is least likely to ever be politically viable. But I think it’s worth thinking about. Voting was freely extended to intending citizens until the early part of the 20th century; really from the mid-19th century to the 20th century. But the idea here would be to extend voting rights to people who are new but − and really to think about that as a method of integrating them into the political system − but they would lose the right to vote if they choose not to naturalize. Now this seems, today I think, to today’s ear, like a radical idea, but in fact the idea of extending voting to intending citizens was very commonplace in the 19th century. One way to think about this is that today, we often hear that people who are long-term residents should be allowed to vote even if they’re not citizens. That may have it backwards. If people are long-terms residents and they can naturalize, maybe we should expect them to, in order to keep the vote. And the people who are non-citizens who should be allowed to vote are the ones that we want to bring more into American society from the day they get here.
Kokai: Regardless of whether the vote is part of this package or not, do you think that there is a need to look more at this transition principle rather than just the contract or affiliation as we move forward?
Motomura: I think it’s an important idea, and this is the idea that I’m trying to explain and present in the book, because regardless of whether you buy into any of the specific proposals or applications that I discuss in the book, I think that the way of thinking about immigration as a transition to citizenship is driven by the idea that we should use citizenship as a vehicle for integrating immigrants into American society, and that that’s a way, as I said, of giving more to immigrants but at the same time, expecting more. And the idea here is to, at the same time, open up citizenship but also make it more valuable. So in this sense, this book is driven by the idea that citizenship should matter, but that it should be consistent with American ideals of equality and justice, which have to do, I think, with an openness to the outsiders to the extent that outsiders are willing to make a commitment to this country.