Tom Walton is an attorney in Dallas County.

Your American citizenship would turn on the subjective judgment of some Citizenship Czar as to whether you have been sufficiently supportive of a MAGA administration, if Vice President JD Vance and the Trump administration have their way.

On July 5, Vance spoke at a meeting of the Claremont Institute, a MAGA think tank. He delivered a shocking and exceedingly poorly reasoned argument for redefining what it means be an American citizen. The speech was backward, bewildering, and without basis in law or logic.

In his speech, Vance urged that we must “redefine American citizenship.” He suggested that “identifying America just with agreeing with its principles” is “not enough by itself.” Think of the oath that thousands of new American citizens take all the time:

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.

Of course, this oath is substantially the same as that taken by every president of the United States when they are sworn into office.

In this form, it has been the required oath for seventy-three years, with an oath first being used to establish citizenship in 1790.

Oaths are one of the foundations of our legal system. Criminal defendants have and will be put to death based, in part, on the oath of witnesses to tell the truth. One more thing, the taking of a solemn oath before witnesses is an entirely objective act—either someone took the oath or did not. There is no subjectivity in the conduct. More on that later.

Not enough, Vance asserts! More must be required to be an American citizen, he says. First, Vance uses a straw man fallacy. Well, he struggles to reason, if it is sufficient to be an American citizen to simply profess belief in its Constitution, why then, billions of people around the world would be entitled to citizenship. “Must we admit all of them tomorrow?,” he asks.

We can only hope that billions of earth’s inhabitants share the values of the Constitution. But Vance forgets the simple requirement of legal residency. He—so warped by American Firstisms—also totally ignores that maybe these citizens of other countries do not want to be U.S. citizens for a host of sensible reasons. Down falls Vance’s strawman.

Unbelievably, he goes on to assert that more than an oath of allegiance to the rule of law, the equal rights of all, and a democratic system should be required, because Americans who have resorted to political violence could no longer be considered citizens given their violation of the oath. He asserts that this therefore renders a creed-based citizenship, “under inclusive.”  

So . . . we need a new definition of citizenship because some people who have violated bedrock American values to which they have pledged allegiance might still be considered good citizens? Of course, an oath-based citizenship is not “under inclusive” under these circumstances—even convicted felons retain their U.S. citizenship. Vance is just plain wrong.

He went on. After all, he crowed, some of these oath violators descended from true American stock who fought in the American Revolution and the Civil War. Vance just cannot resist his next moronic overstatement: “I think the people whose ancestors fought in the Civil War [but who have violated the American creed by committing politically motivated violence] have a hell of lot more claim over America than the people who say they don’t belong.” He doesn’t explain this strange statement. Probably because any explanation would reveal something deeply un-American about it—that the right bloodline, not oaths to the rule of law, is the real test of citizenship.

At the very start of his argument, in a room of people whom Vance fawningly called “brilliant intellectuals” (including board member John Eastman—right, the lawyer to January 6 insurrectionists), Vance miserably failed to establish the foundational basis of his “redefinition” of American citizenship.

Of course, consistent with his lack of intellectual rigor, Vance mispresented by omission that more is required than the oath to become a citizen: a prospective citizen must be a lawful permanent resident for five years, demonstrate continuous residence, pass English and civics tests, and prove good moral character. The further legal requirements to become “a lawful permanent resident” add many additional Byzantine administrative burdens The website of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services lists at least ten steps to becoming a U.S. citizen. Now comes Vance’ new citizenship tests—all of which may be boiled down to just two requirements:

1. You must be MAGA, and
2. You must demonstrate to the satisfaction of someone—perhaps a Citizenship Czar—to some unknown degree certain vague subjective qualities.

Vance requirement number one: To be a citizen, you must believe in Trump’s border policy, including mass deportations, a border wall, and the $170 billion newly allocated to that effort. To be a citizen, a person must believe in “sovereignty,” which is Vance’s euphemism for MAGA’s frenzied anti-immigration efforts.

But how and who will evaluate whether a person so believes? In whose infinite discretion will lie the subjective determination of whether a person supports “sovereignty,” and whose definition of that term is definitive? Any such requirement is an invitation to bias, favoritism, arbitrariness, corruption, and retribution. Very MAGA, must say.

Vance requirement number two: You must support Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill because it denies government benefits to illegal aliens because a true citizen must agree that “basic legal privileges of citizenship” must be preserved, Vance said. This obviously omits a lot of what is in that bill.

If he just means upholding the law, the current citizenship oath already covers this issue—“I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States.” So, Vance must mean something more is required in the judgment of someone to be an American citizen—a would-be citizen must really, really support the Big Beautiful Bill?

Vance requirement number three: You must sufficiently fulfill your “obligations” to your other “countrymen.” And this shall be reflected in “shared qualities, our heritage, our values, our manners and customs,” Vance explained. Of course, this will automatically leave out some who do not happen to share “our heritage” (including racial, ethnic, religious, and cultural background). And who exactly is included in the possessive adjective, “our”?

Vance requirement number four: finally, the last requirement is Vance’s apparently favorite virtue—”gratitude.” (Remember his big moment with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in the Oval Office—”Have you said thank you once this entire meeting?”)

Gratitude? Does Vance mean the kind of subservient, no-shame groveling of the kind he has mastered on his own calculated climb or would a simple “thanks” suffice? “Our” two-hundred-thirty-five-year-old oath of citizenship has never required a person to say even “thank you, America.” How and whether a person could meet any of Vance’s completely subjective requirements—let alone just one of them—is anyone’s guess. Who would decide? Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem? What is the standard? For sure, any would-be citizen better have some good knee pads and a red hat.

What serious, responsible elected American public servant would ever suggest such requirements for citizenship? Even if not a serious proposal—but only pseudo-intellectual posturing—what is the message Vance is sending? Kowtow or else.

Vance’s new test for citizenship has a dark history. Soon after gaining power, in 1935 Hitler decreed the Reich Citizenship Law. Before that law, like “birthright citizenship” under the U.S. Constitution, German citizenship was generally based on birth within German territory and belonging to a German state. Hitler’s redefinition of citizenship introduced the concept of “Reich citizen,” which was limited to those of “German or related blood,” while others were relegated to the status of “state subjects” with limited rights. 

What could await? Just consider the slippery slope we all would be on—not just undocumented immigrants—if birthright citizenship is restricted and Vance’s new definition of American citizenship is applied, either as a matter of law or social conformity.

In the final analysis, Vance’s Claremont speech urging a “new definition of citizenship” was a heap of fallacies, misrepresentations, MAGA party lines, just not well thought through, and corrupting. What he proposes is unworkable—or if instituted, would have to be a totalitarian system of naturalization based upon coercion, ever-shifting subjective standards, and ultimately, the personal whim of a dictator and his accomplices.  

---

Top image: Vice President JD Vance speaks at a Sports Council announcement on July 31 at the White House. (White House Intern Photo by Julian Casciano, available via Flickr)