Marquez: On legal and social citizenship
Citizen, as defined, is allegiance to, for the protection from, any given state. Citizenship, in today's global arena, may be seen as a political quandary. Individuals today must contend with the multiplication of single attributes that lead to identity, which become the basis for the concept of individual inclusion of a nation; the terms ''enrolled member'' or ''residence'' may serve as an emblem to that understanding as well. Citizenship, membership or residence, can be seen only as claims for certain rights and privileges, and identity only serving as the backdrop. Multiple solitaire identities, self-reliance and cultural distinctions are the defining attributes of society.
James Madison, in the Federalist Papers, discusses various classifications of individuals in the United States, but fails to provide a definition of U.S. citizenship. As stated in the U.S. Constitution, ''citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several states,'' and the first nine amendments - the 14th, 15th, 18th, 21st, 24th and 26th Amendments - are crafted as direct safeguards for citizens.
''Birthright citizenship'' - any individual who is born on U.S. soil - was legally established by the Supreme Court in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), only legally defines this phenomenon and naturalization provides a procedural process to receive the citizenship label. The various doctrines prescribe contractual obligations, but fail to capture the question: What is a citizen or a society member? The Constitution does not discuss ''natural-born citizenship,'' but the country is conditioned to accept such action as constitutional. A little-known practice of this country is honorary citizenship or private bills that extend citizenship status to groups such as immigrants who are seeking governmental protection. Today, citizenship is a colloquial term; the courts have extended constitutional rights to those who are not citizens, thus further questioning the meaning and usefulness of citizenship.
For tribal communities, citizenship and membership are problematic terms. Or perhaps these terms have been constrained and conditioned; the essence of their meaning lost in time. Either way, tribal communities and their polities, knowing or unknowing, have been dealing with this tribally universal issue since 1924. Tribes have the ability to define ''citizenhood'' beyond the modern understanding; an ethno-cultural understanding should be attached to or replace the Western meaning. The notions of citizenship go beyond the mere meaning of rights, privileges and protection.
Read More
Legal descriptions of citizenhood are found in formulation doctrines. Tribal constitutions, without surveying, may address this question. Tribes have mechanisms that produce final judgment on an individual's status and such a decision, as solidified by the Supreme Court, has been the sole discretion of the tribal nation. But Santa Clara Pueblo was a case involving enrollment; does that also deny an individual from the community, access to the community? Is the individual asked to leave the community? If not, then the individual is granted some level of rights and privileges by the tribal nation, i.e., health care facilities, schools, parks, cultural participation, use of common language and so on. The only difference is a legal disposition, which is an external variable but yet not socially prohibitive.
Social citizenship is more likely the proper description for many tribal communities. Regardless of the legal description, individuals from the community still practice their language and culture. Participation by ''non-enrolled'' individuals, sometimes more so than those with higher status, increases their social-participation level thus earning them a higher standing within the community. On some reservations, like mine, children from a previous relationship are eligible for certain services once the adults are joined in marriage. These children are extended the protection of the tribal government in the form of safety, health care and education. They are also allowed to participate in community programs. Another ''class'' of tribal participants includes those who are adopted. Individuals who are adopted at birth register with the community at a different level, higher than non-enrolled individuals. Except for the extent of political rights and access, both enrolled and non-enrolled community participants are able to participate within the community. So, social practice, usually not codified, is profoundly different than the legal (mis)understanding.
Deron Marquez, former chairman of San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, is a Ph.D. candidate in politics and public policy at Claremont Graduate University.
