Citizens at 250

By Dr. Jonathan Calvillo, PhD

After voting in a recent election, Nani, my spouse, and I, stopped by a market to pick up some groceries. While in line to check out, a young woman asked me in Spanish about a sticker that I was wearing. “I Voted,” read the sticker. She pointed out that another customer nearby wore the same sticker. I explained that an election was happening that day and we had just voted. “You have your papers then,” she observed. She shared that she had recently arrived in the US; in hushed tones, she agreed with me that especially in that season, those of us that cared about immigrants and could vote needed to do so. That exchange, and my experience as the US-born son of Mexican immigrants, reminded me that my citizenship represented both a privilege and a duty.

In a season in which the United States commemorates its 250th anniversary, questions abound about who gets to fully belong within this nation. The concept of citizenship has long been held up as the gold standard for membership in the United States. Often talked about as a straightforward, stable legal category, a deeper examination of citizenship paints a far more complex picture. Citizenship turns out to be a shifting construct of social belonging and civic participation, of rights and duties, that has historically been handed out in unequal ways. Latinos as a population have a complicated history with citizenship in the US. Yet, Latino faith communities can play an important role in this ongoing story.

Historically, the categories that individuals are born into affect their access to citizenship status and rights. Originally, citizenship in the US was restricted to free, property-owning white men. This created brutal restrictions for Black people and Native Americans. Black people were granted citizenship status after the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, but Jim Crow segregation spelled continued inequality for Black Americans. For Native Americans, US citizenship was not granted until 1924, and thereafter recognized as a universal birthright citizenship; still, Native American communities have faced significant inequalities in the US.

Many white people also experienced forms of inequality. White people of lower socio-economic status faced limitations in their abilities to exercise citizenship. Furthermore, the rights of white women were largely contingent on their husbands’ social standings, drawing on the English legal doctrine of coverture, which meant that these women’s civil identities, properties, and abilities to make contracts were "covered" by their husbands. The Naturalization Act of 1790 codified many of these stipulations into law. Legal changes to citizenship would follow, but the beginnings of these laws have had long-lasting repercussions.

The first sizable Latine population that dealt with issues of citizenship in the US were Mexican Americans following the Mexican-American War; while granted citizenship under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, and by extension labeled as legally white, they were often relegated to a diminished form of membership. Though some Mexican residents of high social status integrated with white American settlers, often forging linkages of land and property through marriage and business arrangements with the newer arrivals, ethnic Mexicans of the labor class, many of whom were of darker skin tone, often experienced segregation and inequality, and sometimes violence.

Puerto Ricans in their relationship to the US empire also experienced a liminal status. Following the 1898 Spanish-American War, the Treaty of Paris, and the 1900 Foraker Act, the US designated residents of newly acquired Puerto Rico as "citizens of Porto Rico." With a non-citizen national status, Puerto Ricans were required to hold allegiance to the US without full constitutional protections. The Jones Act of 1917 collectively naturalized Puerto Ricans as US citizens, allowing Puerto Ricans to move freely to the continental US, but Puerto Ricans on the island still lacked full access to constitutional rights. Residents of other US occupied territories such as Filipinos and residents of the Virgin Islands have also held liminal statuses at various points in history; this includes residents of American Samoa today.

The US today is one of the most diverse nations on the planet, and has made significant gains in areas of civil rights; we continue to celebrate and learn from these important developments. Yet, it’s important to consider the limitations of belonging evident in the early design of the nation. Aside from the historical developments presented thus far, many struggles related to the histories of immigration law and enforcement have also defined notions of belonging in the US. There, too, citizenship has been an important and contested designation.

To understand how the church might play a role in the experience of citizenship for communities whose members have experienced barriers to citizenship, it is helpful to take a landscape view of the matter. Citizenship can be thought of as encompassing four interlocking spheres: permission (legal status), privilege (rights), participation (civic engagement), and place (societal belonging). This works well with what scholars have referred to as "substantive citizenship," the idea that belonging is determined not just by papers, but by the daily realities of how one is recognized and treated within civil society. Terms like social citizenship and cultural citizenship have also been used to explain these realities.

In the current political climate, the struggle over belonging has intensified. Geographic, physical borders, alongside social and cultural borders, are being fortified. Pathways toward citizenship are being closed or restricted. More extreme restrictionist voices are continually platformed and normalized. Communities of people who remain in liminal statuses have especially been targeted; not merely communities with migrants who have crossed the border in unauthorized fashion or those who have committed crimes but also communities of people who are refugees or asylum seekers, working through designated pathways of the legal system.

While migrants are told to go back to where they came from, few in the public discourse across political parties acknowledge the role of the US in influencing the push and pull factors that spur migrants to leave their homelands and that draw them to particular locations. The US’s influence through political and military interventions, economic policies, and increasingly environmental impacts, have all affected the homelands of many of the immigrants the US is now targeting.

These realities pose profound challenges to the Christian church. What vision of citizenship does the church hold? Who is included in the vision of citizenship that the church promotes? How do understandings of the Kingdom of God that many Christians hold to influence how Christians understand citizenship?

No modern nation-state is the Kingdom of God. The church is called to represent the Kingdom of God, but God’s Kingdom is more expansive than the church. Indeed, the church expresses God’s order more fully when it operates as a Kin-dom rather than in service to any imperial structure, as proposed by theologian María Isasi-Díaz. The church can work to invite people into spiritual kinship, and also into a relational network of interdependence and care here on earth. As we look out for each other, and function as interdependent neighbors, a bi-product is that our sense of citizenship expands.

For those who are our neighbors, and do not experience the fullness of citizenship, the church can play a critical role. The church can provide a platform for those voices that are marginalized or disenfranchised. The church can offer spaces for dialogue and understanding. The church can be an advocate for those whose citizenship statuses and pathways have been severely limited, whether that means changing the laws or holding people in power accountable to the laws that are already in place. The church can be a site where people participate and belong, even if the nation has tagged them with a negative label.

In my research on immigrant Latine churches, I observe how migrants have a voice in church. In some cases, they have opportunities to shape the well-being of their communities. And this is not solely about partisan politics. When immigrants pray, sing, preach, and partake of the sacraments, they are contributing to society. They are caring for each other and meeting each other’s needs. And yes, they are worshipping. More than just seeking to meet their own needs, I often find that in their experiences of worship, immigrants are lifting each other up and engaging in sacrificial care.

That’s not to say that Latine churches are perfect institutions, including those with many immigrant members. Some churches promote political positions and theologies that are harmful to others. Some seek a salvation that is tied up with a romanticized view of the US as a purely Christian nation. At the same time, many churches and church leaders are coming together to invite the US into an alternative vision of what could be. Many are taking a prophetic role and the invitation is there for many more to join in. This too can be an expression of citizenship.

As the nation marks this 250-year milestone, the call is to move toward a society that is not built on exclusion, but on care and well-being. This is a time to care not only about citizens, but also about citizenship — how it is cultivated, and how others are invited in. Concern for citizenship in this context requires more than just enforcement of laws; it calls for an active, intentional approach where those with greater access leverage their position to advocate for those with less. This vision of citizenship emphasizes interdependence, urging us to define belonging not by the walls we build, but by the just and sustainable community we create together.

How might we best represent the Jesus way in this moment where citizenship continues to be contested? In following the way of Jesus, may we build communities where we call out the gifts in each other and offer our best for the benefit of others.

Dr. Jonathan Calvillo is Associate Professor of Latinx Communities at Candler School of Theology. He teaches about Latine and Latin American faith experiences and holds a PhD in sociology. Prior to becoming a full-time seminary professor, Jonathan served as a pastor for ten years in a bilingual Latine majority context. Born and raised in Southern California, Jonathan is the son of Mexican immigrants. He, his spouse Puanani, and their children, reside in the Atlanta area and enjoy the natural landscapes, food, and rich cultures of the area.