Immigration, Citizenship, and Belonging in America
This paper analyzes Bharati Mukherjee's essay "Two Ways to Belong in America" as a lens for examining the broader debate over immigrant citizenship and assimilation in the United States. Drawing on Mukherjee's contrast between her own path to naturalization and her sister's choice to remain a permanent resident, the paper argues that immigrants who benefit from American society bear a moral, if not legal, obligation to pursue citizenship. It discusses reasons people immigrate, the problems of divided loyalty and dual citizenship, the concrete benefits of naturalization, and the failure of U.S. policy to encourage assimilation. The paper concludes by advocating for time-limited residency for those who do not seek citizenship.
- Introduction: Two Paths to Belonging: Mukherjee's essay frames the citizenship debate
- Why Immigrants Come to America: Motivations for immigration and social cost concerns
- Loyalty, Dual Citizenship, and National Security: Divided loyalty risks after September 11
- The Benefits of Becoming a Citizen: Voting rights, family sponsorship, and legal protections
- Assimilation and the Failure of U.S. Immigration Policy: Policy failures that discourage assimilation
- Conclusion: Citizenship as Privilege: Time limits for non-citizens; citizenship as earned privilege
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Grounds its argument in a specific literary text — Mukherjee's essay — and uses it as a recurring touchstone without losing sight of the broader policy debate.
- Moves logically from the personal (two sisters, two choices) to the national (immigration policy, post-9/11 security concerns), giving the argument both human scale and civic weight.
- Incorporates a range of sources — a legal practitioner, a policy commentator, and an academic scholar — to support claims about practical benefits and social consequences of citizenship.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates the technique of using a primary text as an analytical frame: Mukherjee's essay is not merely summarized but used to personalize and introduce an argument that then expands outward into policy analysis. This approach allows the writer to anchor abstract policy claims in concrete human experience before moving to evidence-based argument.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens by summarizing Mukherjee's essay and establishing the central thesis. It then broadens to discuss motivations for immigration, followed by a section on loyalty and security concerns. A dedicated section catalogs the practical benefits of citizenship. The paper then pivots to a critique of U.S. assimilation policy before closing with a policy recommendation and restatement of the thesis. Six logical sections move from personal narrative to policy prescription.
Introduction: Two Paths to Belonging
The purpose of this paper is to analyze Bharati Mukherjee's essay "Two Ways to Belong in America," focusing on the position that immigrants who legally come to this country should become citizens, because they have enjoyed all the benefits the country has to offer and should demonstrate loyalty to the nation that has given them success and a new life. Immigrants who come here to live and work are certainly not legally bound to become American citizens. However, as Mukherjee notes in her essay, many immigrants are grateful to the country that has given them so much, and they do not want to take it for granted or turn their backs on it. Immigrants who choose not to become citizens have a place in American society, but if that is their choice, then they should only be allowed to stay for a certain period of time before returning home, where their real allegiance clearly lies.
Mukherjee's essay is the story of herself and her sister, and the different choices they have made about citizenship in America. Her sister is an expatriate who has lived in the United States for over thirty years but plans to return to India, her native country, when she retires. She does not feel any real affection for America and believes her true roots remain at home. The author, however, feels the opposite: America has given her many opportunities, and this country is now her home. She became a citizen, can vote, and may live here permanently, just like any other American. The differences between these two sisters mirror the differences among millions of immigrants who come to America. Some embrace the culture and fabric of American life; others do not. Some throw themselves into their new lives and take advantage of everything America has to offer, including citizenship; others do not. Some choose to retain their former ways, never fully adapting to American culture and always longing for home. That is understandable. Citizenship is an honor, not a duty, and those who do not want to become citizens should not be compelled to do so. However, if they do not wish to become citizens after a certain period of time, they should make way for others who do.
Why Immigrants Come to America
There are many reasons why people immigrate to America. Some, like Mukherjee and her sister, come for educational opportunities and end up staying because they marry or find good work. Others come because they have specific skills and find greater demand for them in the United States — such as the significant influx of Asian professionals who work in the technology and computer industries. Many other immigrants come because they have little future in their own countries and hope to build a better life in America. Most bring solid job skills, but some do not.
Many Americans believe that immigrants should be financially self-sufficient: "Recent congressional actions confirm a strong consensus that immigrants (or their sponsors) should at least pay for themselves" (Schuck 340). Immigrants who subsist on social welfare systems without pursuing citizenship should not be permitted to remain in the country indefinitely. They are using the many benefits the country provides while contributing little or nothing in return. Immigrants who take advantage of what the country offers but maintain no loyalty to it are, at best, simply using the system for their own benefit. Citizenship is certainly a choice, but when that choice is not made and the immigrant's contribution is minimal, allowing indefinite residency is difficult to justify — and most Americans agree on this point.
Loyalty, Dual Citizenship, and National Security
There are significant problems associated with immigrants who come to America and never obtain citizenship or file for dual citizenship. Their loyalty to the country, especially in times of crisis, comes into question. One scholar notes that dual citizenship "epitomizes the problem by diluting the dual citizen's commitment to American society and creating divided loyalties" (Schuck 162). After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, many Americans feared all immigrants — a reaction rooted in fear and misunderstanding. Not all immigrants are enemies of the country, but it is understandable that long-term residents who have never pursued citizenship might attract greater scrutiny than those who have become naturalized citizens.
Immigrants who become citizens must swear an oath of loyalty to the United States. This does not guarantee absolute loyalty — someone with ulterior motives could certainly lie — but the naturalization process is long and involved, and those who go to the trouble of completing it are demonstrably more motivated and committed to the country than those who do not. The citizenship process itself functions as a meaningful, if imperfect, filter for civic intention.
Conclusion: Citizenship as Privilege
In conclusion, immigration is a controversial and consequential challenge facing the country. Citizenship should never be forced on immigrants, but some immigrants appear to take the United States and its policies for granted, never intending to become legal, voting members of the American civic community. These immigrants may not be the best candidates for long-term residency, as their allegiance will never fully transfer to their new home. In such cases, there should be a time limit on how long immigrants may remain in the United States, and those who choose not to pursue citizenship should ultimately return to their homelands. This may seem harsh to some, but in certain cases the security of the nation is at stake.
Immigration is not a right — it is a privilege. So, too, is citizenship. Those who choose not to pursue citizenship should not enjoy the same advantages as those who do. It is not equitable, it is not fair, and it is not just. A nation that offers so much to those who come to its shores is entitled to ask, in return, for a meaningful commitment to the country and its future.
References
Mukherjee, Bharati. "Two Ways to Belong in America." Writer's Presence: A Pool of Readings, 4th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martin's.
Salins, Peter D. "Toward a New Immigration Policy." Commentary Jan. 1997: 45+.
Schuck, Peter H. Citizens, Strangers, and In-Betweens: Essays on Immigration and Citizenship. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1998.
Susser, Siskind. "Why Become a Citizen?" VisaLaw.com. 4 Feb. 2004. Accessed 22 Nov. 2004. <
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.