By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Vice President JD Vance delivered a keynote address at the Claremont Institute, focusing on the administration’s hardline stance on immigration. He presented a vision of American citizenship that prioritizes ancestral ties and shared history over simply adhering to American values. This stance aligns with the administration’s actions, including increased funding for immigration enforcement and potential moves to end birthright citizenship. Vance’s remarks suggest a regressive view of citizenship, contrasting with the existing definition rooted in values and enshrined in the Constitution.
Read the original article here
JD Vance’s recent comments about who has a “claim over America” have sparked some pretty strong reactions, and it’s easy to see why. The core idea, that some Americans are somehow “more American” than others, based on their ancestry and allegiance, is a tricky one, and it brings up a lot of uncomfortable questions about belonging, identity, and who gets to define what it means to be American.
Vance seems to be suggesting that those whose ancestors fought in the Civil War, presumably on the Union side, have a stronger claim to the country than those who might disagree with certain viewpoints or whose families haven’t been here as long. This feels a lot like trying to create a hierarchy of Americanness, where some people are more entitled to call this country their own than others. It’s reminiscent of the famous quote from Animal Farm, “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” The echoes of historical exclusion and nationalism are pretty hard to miss.
The reactions online are pretty clear. A lot of people are calling out the implications, pointing out the potential for this kind of rhetoric to be divisive and exclusionary. Many people are pointing out that his words bring a stark reminder of the Civil War and the conflicts that created this country. Others are questioning the underlying assumptions about what defines being American. Is it a shared history? Is it a commitment to ideals like liberty and equality? Or is it something else entirely? And if it’s ancestry, where does that leave people whose ancestors were enslaved, or who were here long before the formation of the United States?
The idea that “fighting in the Civil War” is the ultimate test of Americanness raises some serious questions. Whose side matters? What about those who fought for the Confederacy, against the very idea of the United States? And what about Native Americans, who were here long before any of the conflicts that Vance references? This is not a new rhetoric; the idea that heritage, and particularly bloodlines, defines who “truly” belongs is a very old, and often very dangerous, one.
Vance also seems to dismiss the idea of America as a nation built on ideals, like those found in the Declaration of Independence. This is interesting, because the Declaration is the document that lays out the fundamental principles of the nation. By downplaying the importance of these ideals, he seems to be suggesting that something else is more important in defining Americanness. Is he intentionally being obtuse, or does he really believe this is a valuable point of view?
Many people are also pointing out the potential for this kind of thinking to be used to exclude certain groups of people. If ancestry becomes the key to belonging, it’s easy to see how that could be used to justify discrimination or to create a sense of “us” versus “them.” The implication that “those who don’t belong” have no claim to the country could easily be interpreted as a message of exclusion, which is the antithesis of the ideals of equality and inclusion that America, at least in its stated ideals, claims to stand for.
There’s a sense that Vance’s comments are part of a broader trend toward a more nationalist and less inclusive view of American identity. He seems to be attempting to define “Americanness” in a way that might appeal to a specific part of the population while simultaneously pushing others to the periphery. Many people are interpreting this as being deeply dishonest. It is seen as potentially dangerous, because it could pave the way for policies that marginalize certain groups of people and create a more divided society.
So, what does it really mean to be American? Is it about bloodlines and ancestors? Or is it about shared values, a commitment to freedom and equality, and a belief in the possibility of a better future? The conversation, like the country itself, is ongoing and complicated. It’s clear, however, that Vance’s comments have struck a nerve, and they’ve brought this conversation into sharp focus.