Well, actually he doesn’t, but he said some things worth considering, I think. And they came to mind as I read Nathan Newman’s entry, What looks like a Crappy Immigration Deal. I’m going to come to this in my usual oblique manner: hopefully some will zig and zag with me. Again, the Aristotle references are to books three and four of Politics, courtesy of MIT’s Internet Classics Archive. As we debate issues of Citizenship and Amnesty it might be useful to consider what it means to be a Citizen, and I think if Aristotle was not the first to analyze the idea thoroughly, he must have been one of the first:

But a state is composite, like any other whole made up of many parts; these are the citizens, who compose it. It is evident, therefore, that we must begin by asking, Who is the citizen, and what is the meaning of the term? (Book Three, part I.)

I hope that a few will have time to read parts of the offering at MIT, partly because the website is interactive and some interesting comments have been posted there. I’m going to short cut this discussion a little–hard for a windy old guy like me–but if I cherry-pick too much, someone will hold me accountable, I’m sure.

First, cutting through all the possible definitions of "Citizen," Aristotle comes to a simple definition: one who "shares in the administration of justice, and in offices". So far, so good. But it must be amplified just a bit...one who has the potential to share–one who doesn’t labor under any disability keeping him/(her) from sharing. I placed the parentheses around "her" to indicate the importance of the 19^th Amendment and the fight to pass it which took nearly 150 years. Aristotle did not contend that the right to hold every office was the key, but the right to hold any office was. And this included the office, Voter.

As one of the kind respondents to this blog wrote, Aristotle needed to reconcile the idea of merit or a meritocracy with the idea of Democracy–participation by ordinary men. He came at this using a couple of homely metaphors with which I can identify. For example Aristotle must have been a man of healthy appetite (I wonder if he’d be in Weight Watchers today?) He defends a government tending toward Democracy by saying.

Most of these questions may be reserved for another occasion. The principle that the multitude ought to be supreme rather than the few best is one that is maintained, and, though not free from difficulty, yet seems to contain an element of truth. For the many, of whom each individual is but an ordinary person, when they meet together may very likely be better than the few good, if regarded not individually but collectively, just as a feast to which many contribute is better than a dinner provided out of a single purse. (Book 3 part 11)

He proceeds to suggest that one does not need to be a chef to be a judge of good food, or an accomplished musician to appreciate good music. Collectively, the judgment of a group, deciding on a course of action leading to the good life (which is, after all, the purpose of civic life in the first instance) is better, because of the diversity of talents represented.

Back to Nathan Newman and the discussion chain there. I think Aristotle would favor policies which encourage diversity of talents within the body politic, rather than exclusivity. More cooks for a more diverse banquet, if you will. And I think he would discourage policies which create more "aliens" and less "citizens". If he wouldn’t, I do. And I think we’re smart enough to protect the rights of labor here, and abroad, and be a welcoming country simultaneously.

There is little or no difference between Neo-nativism now and the Nativist, Know-Nothing movement of 150 years ago, except the "True Americans" then worked avariciously to exclude the great-great-grandparents of many of our current citizens. The Platform of the Know Nothing Party, in facsimile, is available on the Net. Seeing it, and the perfect copperplate script in which it was written is chilling to me. Wikisource (Bless you, Wikisource) has provided it in an easier form to read. How much of this 1856 Document would need changing to interject it into the discussion about Immigration today? Samuel P. Huntington wouldn’t need to change too much, would he?

1. Repeal of all Naturalization Laws.
2. None but Americans for office.
3. A pure American Common School system.
4. War to the hilt, on political Romanism.
5. Opposition to the formation of Military Companies, composed of Foreigners.
6. The advocacy of a sound, healthy and safe Nationality.
7. Hostility to all Papal influences, when brought to bear against the Republic.
8. American Constitutions & American sentiments.
9. More stringent & effective Emigration Laws.
10. The amplest protection to Protestant Interests.
11. The doctrines of the revered Washington.
12. The sending back of all foreign paupers.
13. Formation of societies to protect American interests.
14. Eternal enmity to all those who attempt to carry out the principles of a foreign Church or State.
15. Our Country, our whole Country, and nothing but our Country.
16. Finally,-American Laws, and American Legislation, and Death to all foreign influences, whether in high places or low

 aMike