Today it is difficult to define what makes an American. As immigration policy has redefined the borders of citizenship, the easiest way for a non-American to gain citizenship is no longer through honoring American values but is instead by working in lucrative industries. The law’s definition of “American” increasingly looks like the ability to code. While migrants useful to America’s largest companies rapidly become citizens, another group of migrants (many of whom crossed illegally from the Southern border) remain non-Americans, at least nominally. Of these 13 million illegal immigrants, around half have been in America for over 20 years. While they have been here since before the Iraq War, they are not, according to our current policy, as American as those who have migrated more recently using the visa system.
Due to the apparent incoherence of our citizenship policy, one may start to wonder what really makes someone an American. In this light, the recent tendency towards nativism among some on the right seems only natural. Vice President J.D. Vance describes those whose families have been here longer, particularly those whose ancestors fought in American wars, as those who have the most “claim to America.” To nativists like Vance, those whose blood has stained American soil are true Americans, while those whose ancestors migrated to America after our defining wars are not.1 Recent restrictions on birthright citizenship and international work visas, for instance, are, for nativists, ways of making sure the country is not overwhelmed by “fake” Americans.
But what the nativist view gains in ideological clarity it loses in accuracy. Nativism does not account for what makes America truly distinctive. America is not a nation in which identity and status are determined by bloodline. Unlike in Europe, there are no royal or noble titles to be passed down. Unlike much of East Asia, citizenship is not de facto restricted to a homogeneous ethnic and cultural group whose ancestors have controlled those lands for millennia. Rather, America’s distinctive identity transcends ethnic ties. When Germans and Irishmen fought in the Civil War, they had been in the country for less time than many modern illegal migrants. These historic immigrants could identify themselves with America, and were willing to die for it, because they could identify with American ideals.
One of these ideals, individualism, itself contradicts nativism. In America, people are defined by what they do, not by what their families or tribes do. In North Korea, soldiers wear the medals of their fathers and grandfathers as if they were their own, and when parents commit crimes, children are punished. In cultures like North Korea’s, there is no difference between the accomplishments of the father and those of the son. In America, however, punishing children based on their parents’ crimes is unfathomable. Our culture correctly understands that the son is defined by his actions, not by those of his parents. The nativist must, in attempting to “save” America, reject this fundamental aspect of American identity.
No American worth his salt would point to his ancestors and say that since they built something great, he is entitled to reap the benefits and create nothing further for his children. Worse are those who actively deny others the opportunity to do something equally great in service of this nation and its ideals. Rather, those who want to be American and have shown a deep reverence for the nation should be empowered to contribute to our country. America should implement a new pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants and non-resident foreign nationals with demonstrated ties to the country and without criminal convictions. This policy will provide those illegal immigrants with enlistment contracts in the United States military in exchange for an accelerated pathway to citizenship.
This would neither be radical nor unprecedented. Indeed, the West has a strong tradition of service in exchange for citizenship. In the Roman Empire, for example, non-citizen soldiers were granted citizenship after 25 years of service in the auxiliaries. At the height of its power, these auxiliaries comprised more than half of the empire’s forces. As Machiavelli writes, this policy allowed Rome the unique ability to defend itself against foreign adversaries while maintaining its fundamental Roman greatness.2 America has historically understood the value of this insight.
During the Civil War, slaves who had not been granted citizenship fought in the Union army to be recognized as American citizens when slavery was abolished. During World War II, Jewish refugees from Europe, called the “Ritchie Boys,” were granted citizenship in exchange for their service. This policy provided America with 60% of actionable intelligence used against Nazi Germany, and the Ritchie Boys received citizenship in a nation they loved and honored.3 Even today, the United States military accepts some migrants, Green Card holders, into its ranks for roles that do not require security clearance, offering an accelerated path to citizenship to those who qualify. These individuals make up 2-5% of our military manpower.
This article’s policy would extend that opportunity to a carefully selected class of illegal immigrants and non-resident foreign nationals who have demonstrated a serious attachment to the United States. This would not involve any radical shift in the purpose of American policy, nor in the composition of troops, which already include non-citizens. Rather, it would fall squarely within a broad conservative understanding that strict immigration enforcement and an earned path to legal status can exist side by side.
Historically, many Republicans have supported a conditional pathway to citizenship for illegal migrants, in conjunction with aggressive means to curb illegal immigration at the border. Senators John McCain, Marco Rubio, and Lindsey Graham all campaigned for a 2013 immigration bill that both furthered border security and introduced a limited pathway to citizenship. President George W. Bush backed similar measures. In these cases, conservatives rightly worried that unlimited pathways to citizenship would incentivize law-breaking. Requiring national service eliminates that incentive.
Only those who truly love America enough to honor it with service will take up the offer. If the choice is between deportation and service, the system separates the wheat from the chaff. Those who genuinely value the opportunities in our country will serve it. Those who do not love America should not be given the privilege of living here. No one who is unwilling to do difficult things for his country when called upon to do so should enjoy the fruits of the nation.
Naturally, such a policy would require strict limitations. Military enlistment should never become a blanket amnesty program disguised in uniform. Eligibility should be restricted to able-bodied applicants who have resided in the United States for a meaningful period of time, possess no criminal record, pass enhanced background screening, demonstrate English proficiency, and meet the same physical and professional standards imposed on American recruits. Those with ties to hostile governments, extremist organizations, organized crime, or foreign intelligence services should be excluded and deported from this country without hesitation. The purpose of the program would not be to lower the standards of military service but to offer qualified people the opportunity to meet them.
Critics may argue that this rewards illegal conduct. In one sense, they are correct: any regularization of an illegal immigrant’s status gives him something he did not previously possess. But the relevant question is whether the nation receives something of greater value in return. The government already exercises discretion in immigration enforcement, already offers legal benefits in exchange for cooperation, and already distinguishes between dangerous criminals and otherwise productive residents. A policy that converts a small, highly screened portion of the illegal population into disciplined servicemen is not an abandonment of enforcement. It is enforcement married to national interest.
But more importantly, such a program would restore seriousness to the idea of citizenship. For too long, the immigration debate has been divided between those who treat citizenship as a universal entitlement and those who treat it as an inherited possession. Both positions cheapen it. Citizenship is neither a participation trophy awarded to anyone who crosses the border nor an ancestral estate belonging permanently to the descendants of earlier settlers. It is membership in a political community, carrying obligations as well as rights. Any pathway to citizenship should therefore demand more than patience and good intentions. It should demand proof of being attached to our values. What this means is viewing America as uniquely deserving of one’s service, of one’s effort, and of one’s support. The American born here is American by necessity; they have no other homeland. The American immigrant, on the other hand, must prove by service that he is attached to this nation above all others.
The deepest American tradition is not ancestry, but adoption. America has repeatedly taken people who were foreign by birth and made them American through language, law, labor, marriage, religion, education, and service. The process has never been automatic, and it has never been free of conflict. Yet it is precisely because American identity is not reducible to blood that it has proved capable of surviving waves of migration that would have fractured more tribal societies.
The man who invokes his grandfather’s service may rightly feel pride, but he cannot inherit his grandfather’s courage. He cannot claim his grandfather’s sacrifice as a permanent title to superior citizenship. The foreign-born recruit who accepts the burdens of military life has made a commitment of his own. Whatever his legal status was before that moment, the nation should take that commitment seriously.
A secure border and a generous nation are not mutually exclusive. Neither are deportation and mercy, punishment and redemption, or citizenship and high standards. The United States can remove those who threaten it while offering a pathway to those willing to defend it. The road should be difficult, the screening severe, and the consequences of failure clear. But for those who complete the journey honorably, citizenship would not be a handout. It would be the culmination of their sacrifice to our country and its ideals.
Vance particularly focuses on the Civil War. This focus, however, may be distracting, as it implies that fighting against America may make one just as American as fighting for it.
Macchiavelli, Niccolò. Discourses on Livy. University of Chicago Press, 1998/II.IV.
Henderson, Bruce. Sons and Soldiers: The Untold Story of the Jews Who Escaped the Nazis and Returned with the U.S. Army to Fight Hitler. William Morrow Paperbacks, 2018.