Chesterton's Ideas on American Citizenship

"Now in a much vaguer and more evolutionary fashion, there is something of the same idea at the back of the great American experiment; the experiment of a democracy of diverse races which has been compared to a melting-pot. But even that metaphor implies the pot itself is of a certain shape and a certain substance. The melting-pot must not melt. The original shape was traced on the the lines of Jeffersonian democracy; and it will remain in that shape until it becomes shapeless. America invites all men to become citizens; but it implies the dogma that there is such a thing as citizenship. Only, so far as its primary ideal is concerned, its exclusiveness is religious because it is not racial (p. 9)."

In this quote Chesterton refers to the different cultures and races that form America. He calls the idea of American of welcoming new citizens an experiment. This experiment is seen as failure which will eventually mix so many races that will loose its original shape. The foundation of the American society is called by Chesterton a melting pot.

Citizenship is seen by Chesterton as a questionable set of believes with no real sustainability. He also argues how American princibles are made of Christianity ideas and believes. These ideals of freedom and liberty are the foundation of the declararion of independence. This declaration is against anarchism, poligamy, and atheism the same way as Christianism.

Chesterton also compares the American set of believes and actions with the Spanish Inquisition. During this cruzade Christianism and its believes was the excuse for many wrongful acts. The essay this week is very simmilar in the context of citizenship it shows. As immigrants we have to undergo a set of questions and give up our own ideas of democracy.

Despite of the amount of years it has passed since Chesterton's essay we still have to answer questions that go against our own believes. We no longer have to answer how many husbands or wives we have, but yet we have to give up loyalty to the countries that gave us birth. Chesterton also discusses innequality and seems to understand  it as the result of the comparision people tend to perform in order to try  compete between one and other. He does not see it as something that is real and tangible.

Bourne and Dual Citizenship

D

ual citizenship we may have to recognize as the rudimentary form of that international citizenship to which, if our words mean anything, we aspire. We have assumed unquestioningly that mere participation in the political life of the United States must cut the new citizen off from all sympathy with his old allegiance. Anything but a bodily transfer of devotion from one sovereignty to another has been viewed as a sort of moral treason against the Republic. We have insisted that the immigrant whom we welcomed escaping from the very exclusive nationalism of his European home shall forthwith adopt a nationalism just as exclusive, just as narrow, and even less legitimate because it is founded on no warm traditions of his own. Yet a nation like France is said to permit a formal and legal dual citizenship even at the present time. Though a citizen of hers may pretend to cast off his allegiance in favor of some other sovereignty, he is still subject to her laws when he returns. Once a citizen, always a citizen, no matter how many new-citizenships he may embrace. And such a dual citizenship seems to us sound and right. For it recognizes that, although the Frenchman may accept the formal institutional framework of his new country and indeed become intensely loyal to it, yet his Frenchness he will never lose. What makes up the fabric of his soul will always be of this Frenchness,-so that unless he becomes utterly degenerate he will always to some degree dwell still in his native environment.”

In this piece of writing Bourne talks about the universal citizenship. In my understanding what he means is a form of immigration in which people could travel anywhere and acquire multiple citizenships. Citizens are often required to express loyalty to the country of which they are citizens giving up loyalty to the country in which the where born. This action often creates a conflict of interest. Bourne tries to explain using France as a guide how people can be loyal to multiple countries, one at a time. He explains how each citizen can be subject to the laws and rules of a particular country when being in that country and loyal to other countries in which they are also citizens at any other time.

I decided to focus in this quote written by Bourne moved by my own feelings regarding my country and how as immigrants we have no choice other than promise to give up our roots. In this essay Bourne continuously refers to an important process in which every immigrant redefines itself after immigrating to America. He also refers to how America is made up of immigrants and shows an unfriendly approach to the mixture of cultures. It looks like America has taken multiple cultures to create one which will help the others disappear. Also, this quote shows how to move forward in allowing the new citizens be not only American citizens, but to maintain their own identity outside its new land. The French dual citizenship seems like the ideal of a world where most of the people get to be immigrants at least once and remain faithful to their origins.

Bourne’s ideas were very futuristic. Nowadays, we still have to give up our citizenships in other countries even if we plan to be faithful to America. Bourne mentions a narrow nationalism which can be seen as illegitimate because it has no foundations in the roots of the new citizen. In my own words I can say he means that in America’s idea citizens are supposed acquire their love and loyalty to this country as soon as they decide to become American citizens even if the process happens from one day to the next one.  Despite the fact that some immigrants do not have any reason coming from their hearts or memories loyalty to this country in the eyes of America is an automatic situation.  

In my country the Dominican Republic,   dual citizenship is allowed and is not seen as treason. Therefore, when I first read the allegiance I was confused by the reasons why I should stop being faithful to my country of origins. It is not a secret that I am faithful to both countries and do not see any conflict between loving the Dominica Republic where I was born and the United States the country who has given me the opportunity to grow. In my opinion, Bourne’s essay is a very important eye opener of what the U.S should eventually become an open doors country who gives its best to immigrants and nationals in the same way.  

Welcome

 

Hello Everyone!!!

Welcome to my first blog ever. I look forward to a wonderful semester and to getting to know you through your posts and comments. Good luck to us in this great adventure!!