Somin on Citizenship Reform
Monday, April 06, 2026
Ilya Somin writes provocatively on citizenship reform at The Volokh Conspiracy.
I found his piece worthwhile because, as he does, I oppose Trump's effort to oppose birthright citizenship, although I have long thought the United States needs immigration and citizenship reform.
Widespread confusion about the nature of civil rights vs. individual rights muddies this debate, as I noted years ago:
[I]t reminds me of a distinction Leonard Peikoff drew on his radio show some time ago between civil rights -- which belong to the citizens of a country and pertain to their participation in its government and legal system -- and individual rights -- which belong to anyone in a society. An example of a civil right would be the right to vote. Freedom of speech would be an example of an individual right (that a proper government would guard for its citizens).Somin seems to have such a distinction in mind when he proposes (1) changing the ambit of citizenship to not include voting, and (2) making participation in the government, such as by voting, contingent on competence and revocable on such grounds as insurrection:
The distinction is interesting to me because I suspect that in addition to the massive confusion there already is among the public about the nature of individual rights (e.g., from the philosophical roots of the concept to their very nature, as evidenced by the plethora of ersatz "rights," like medical care), there is further confusion about the distinction mentioned above. The most glaring instance I can think of where this confusion hampers intelligent debate is in the immigration debate, and specifically when the very idea of open immigration is equated with treating all comers as full citizens. [bold added]
... In an ideal system, restrictions on voting and office-holding would be based on competence and (in some cases) there might be exclusions based on a demonstrated danger to liberal democratic institutions (as with Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which the Supreme Court wrongly gutted, to a large extent). We already have some competence-based constraints on the franchise, such as excluding children, some convicts, and immigrants who cannot pass a civics test most native-born Americans would fail if they had to take it without studying.Somin also argues for restricted access to welfare benefits, which I can only advocate as a stopgap measure until the full repeal of the welfare state, as I have argued before.
...
... the ideal political system would have a strong presumption against restrictions on migration, while also imposing competence-based constraints on voting rights and office-holding...
I have not thought deeply about this nor am I a legal scholar, but I like these ideas and agree with Somin that, in the meantime, "Birthright citizenship [is] a second-best policy."
-- CAV
2 comments:
There are two problems with not including voting in civil rights of citizens, one philosophical and one practical.
On the philosophical side, the USA governments gain their legitimacy by via elections. The idea is that sovereignty resides in we the people, and we delegate a portion of this to the various branches of the government. To remove the right to vote from any group of citizens is to say, at a fundamental level, that they are not part of "we the people". This can be justified--it's why people convicted of certain felonies can't vote, for example--but it's got to be via due process. It can't be the default without dehumanizing groups of people.
This leads to the practical problem: History has demonstrated very clearly that any legal limitations on voting (literacy, property, taxes, etc) are used to strip groups of their rights. A group which cannot vote can't stop people from taking other rights away from them, and can't enact laws to prevent further damage to their rights, after all. While this need not necessarily occur--it's a human action, not a physical law--it does happen with sufficient regularity that we should exercise EXTREME caution before even considering such measures.
I think this is an area where laws aren't the answer. We should allow all citizens to vote, because the alternative is horrifying. But that doesn't mean we need to treat voting as sacred, or even good. People voting on issues or for candidates they don't understand should be treated with the same contempt and ostracization as those attempting to work in careers they do not have the qualifications for. We should, as citizens, emphasize the importance of being informed, rather than the act of voting itself.
Good points.
Your last, that voters who cast ballots for stupid reasons should be treated with contempt, is something we can do now, and would be part of a more rational culture, which is the ultimate protection of our Republic in any event.
Post a Comment