A keyword analysis.
The term “naturalization” has developed to describe the political inclusion of an individual in a given country. The term first appeared in Middle French to describe something similar to what it is used to describe today. According to Priscilla Wald for the reference text Keywords for American Cultural Studies, “naturalization” or the infinitive form, “to naturalize,” described “the conferral of the rights and privileges of a native-born subject on a foreigner.” Use of the word spread throughout Europe during the 16th century and expanded to apply to inanimate objects and concepts, in addition to people. Words, phrases, beliefs, and practices all became concepts that could be transformed into something familiar over time and, thus, be described as “naturalized” (Wald, 2014).
Wald notes that the concept of naturalization would not be possible if not for the ideas that began during the Renaissance:
“An emerging interest in social classification and taxonomy, an increasing emphasis on human agency and the potential to adapt sufficiently to a new environment to enable settlement, and a fascination with the interplay between the natural world and human experience” (2014).
The term first attained widespread use during the mid 16th century as a result of the royal marriage of French and Scottish royal families near the end of the Auld Alliance between the two countries. At this time, the governments used the term “naturalization” to describe the necessary administration of French citizenship rights to Scottish people in France and Scottish citizenship rights to French people in Scotland (Bonner, 1999). It was further proliferated by increasing global mercantilism and exploration (Wald, 2014). This globalization meant people needed new words to describe “belonging.”
As discussed in the earlier section covering the history of U.S. naturalization and permanent residency policies, terms derived from the word “naturalize” are often used in U.S. law. Most prominently, the term is included in title of the Immigration and Naturalization Act, or INA, which is “the body of law governing current immigration policy[. It] provides for an annual worldwide limit of 675,000 permanent immigrants” (How the United States Immigration System Works, 2017). It was also included in the title of the INA’s derivative organization, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), which was active until 2003. The functions of the INS now operate under the U.S. Department of Homeland Security as the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).
The INA, originally called the Immigration and Nationality Act, was signed into law in 1965 by President Lyndon B. Johnson at the base of the Statue of Liberty (Chishti, Hipsman & Ball, 2017). “Though ratified half a century ago, the Hart-Celler framework still defines today’s legal immigration system” (Chishti, Hipsman & Ball, 2017). The INA defines nationality through birth, collective naturalization, and individual/family naturalization. The text of the law states that the following are nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: a person born in the United States, a person born in the United States to the member of an “Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe,” a person born to United States citizen parents outside the United States, a person who was born to one parent who is a United States citizen and has resided in the United States for a continuous time period of one year prior to the person’s birth and the other parent who is a non-citizen “national,” a few other specific dispensations for natural citizenship at birth. The collective or regional and date-based naturalization of people born in United States acquisitions are as follows: people born in Puerto Rico on or after April 11, 1899, people born in the Republic of Panama or the Canal Zona whose mother or father or both were citizens of the United States on or after February 26, 1904, people born in Alaska on or after March 30, 1867, people born in Hawaii on or after August 12, 1898, former Danish citizens and Virgin Islands natives residing in the United States Virgin Islands or the United States on January 17, 1917 and their children, and people living in or born in Guam on or after April 11, 1899 (Immigration and Nationality Act, n.d.). If one who wishes to be a U.S. citizen does not fit into the specifics outlined here and explained in detail in the INA, they must attain citizenship through the “naturalization” process.
The Oxford English Dictionary defines “naturalization” as,
“The action of admitting a foreigner or immigrant to the position and rights of citizenship, or of investing with the privileges of a native-born subject” (Oxford English Dictionary Online, n.d.).
The root of the word “naturalization” is the Latin “natio” meaning birth. “Naturalization” shares its root with words like “nature,” “native,” and “nation” (Wald, 2014). The word can be split into several parts to investigate the implications of the word: “natural,” meaning innate, indigenous, or existing in/formed by nature, and the suffix “--ation,” meaning the state of being. Put together, “naturalization” appears to mean “becoming natural” or “becoming indigenous.” In the true sense of the word, no human being is unnatural, but the concept of naturalization in the U.S. legitimizes the nation-state by giving the government the power of assigning “naturalness” to foreigners. In regards to connotation, it is ironic that many modern-day Americans refer to “natural food” when they mean “unprocessed food” while the naturalization system for potential United States citizens is such an onerous process.
(See the blogpost titled "References" for bibliography)