A few weeks ago I wrote about the concept of free speech. I made a distinction between freedoms and rights. Our Charter of Rights and Freedoms explicitly separates these two basic concepts because their authority emanates from different sources: rights are given to citizens by the state and freedoms are respected by the state essentially because we are human.
For example, I have the freedom of opinion, belief and expression because I am a sentient being with free will but I have the right to vote because I am a member of this state. I am a citizen and citizenship grants me particular rights from the state.
But citizenship is complex and many states grant citizenship in different ways. Citizenship is complicated by the human need for mobility particularly from places where individuals suffer from persecution or because they want to find a better life. So, what constitutes "citizenship?"
There are different ways by which states grant citizenship. Jus soli means that an individual is granted citizenship if they are born with boundaries of a state. Jus sanguinis means that children become citizens if one or both parents are citizens. A person may also become a citizen by being naturalized, which means the state grants the individuals citizenship as adults usually under strict rules. A number of countries use a mixture of these rules including Canada and the United States.
I raise all of this in order to begin a discussion about the nature of citizenship because there are those who fall outside of either the Jus soli or the jus sanguinis rule. If you have been following U.S. politics over the last few weeks you will have heard of the fears that "Dreamers" now face because the DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) program is ending. The program was set up to grant some rights to the children of illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. with their parents. These people were not born in the U.S. but came to America as minors. The DACA program, created by Barack Obama, asked these young people to come forward to register even though the program did not have any mechanism for these young people to become citizens. The program did allow these youth to access social security numbers and federal benefits.
These Dreamers as they have been called total nearly 800,000. DACA allows them to attend college and be gainfully employed without fear of deportation. Dreamers also pay taxes.
Over the last week, Donald Trump has decided to wind down the DACA program. He has argued that DACA will be challenged in court and could, therefore, come to abrupt end. He argues that President Obama acted outside of his constitutional authority in developing the DACA program and so President Trump is calling on Congress to come up with new immigration policy that would cover the Dreamers. The problem is that Congress is very unlikely to be able to settle this issue considering the deep divides over immigration.
The ending of the program has raised serious ethical and moral questions about the rights of citizenship. I find it particularly interesting that these young people have been called Dreamers. The core of American civil society has been the idea that there is an American Dream. That notion was always predicated on the idea that individuals who work hard and contribute to society will be able to achieve their dreams. Over the last few years, in the wake of many disruptions in the economy through trade and technology and other factors, the dream no longer seems possible to many Americans and some have chosen to blame immigrant populations for this problem. A statement by Donald Trump, released from the White House, articulated the blame game clearly. He said: "As I've said before, we will resolve the DACA issue with heart and compassion - but through the lawful democratic process - while at the same time ensuring that any immigration reform we adopt provides enduring benefits for the American citizens we were elected to serve. We must also have heart and compassion for unemployed, struggling, and forgotten Americans. Above all else, we must remember that young Americans have dreams too. Being in government means setting priorities. Our first and highest priority in advancing immigration reform must be to improve jobs, wages and security for American workers and their families."
The fact is, however, that these young people are Americans in almost every sense of the word: they were raised in America, they work in America, and they pay taxes in America. They represent just about one quarter of one per cent of the entire population. It is absurd to assume that they have any responsibility for the failure of other Americans to get a job.
