Hubbry Logo
Second-class citizenSecond-class citizenMain
Open search
Second-class citizen
Community hub
Second-class citizen
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Second-class citizen
Second-class citizen
Second-class citizen
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

A second-class citizen is a person who is systematically and actively discriminated against within a state or other political jurisdiction, despite their nominal status as a citizen or a legal resident there. While not necessarily slaves, outlaws, illegal immigrants, or criminals, second-class citizens have significantly limited legal rights, civil rights and socioeconomic opportunities, and are often subject to mistreatment and exploitation at the hands of their putative superiors. Systems with de facto second-class citizenry are widely regarded as violating human rights.[1][2]

Typical conditions facing second-class citizens include but are not limited to:

Citizenship and nationality have essential imbued rights that define them, and some commentators argue that having second-class citizenship may amount to statelessness.[3] As an example, Nazi Germany's Reich Citizenship Law of 1935 created a second-class citizenship status, which was used for anyone excluded from the "Reich Citizenship." On paper, the holders of the second-class citizenship "enjoyed the protection of the state and were bound to fulfill all the duties of citizenship," but in practice the status was worse than that for aliens, allowing any form of discrimination and other maltreatment against the holders, effectively nullifying the defining function of citizenship.[4] There is much debate as to where to draw the line on defining second-class citizenship and whether it amounts to statelessness. The category remains unofficial and mostly academic, and is generally used as a pejorative by commentators.

Governments will typically deny the existence of a second class within its polity, and as an informal category, second-class citizenship is not objectively measured. Cases such as the Southern United States under racial segregation and Jim Crow laws, the repression of Aboriginal citizens in Australia prior to 1967, deported ethnic groups designated as "special settlers" in the Soviet Union, Latvian and Estonian non-citizen minorities, the apartheid regime in South Africa, women in Saudi Arabia under Saudi Sharia law, and Roman Catholics in Northern Ireland during the Parliamentary era are all examples of groups that have been historically described as having second-class citizenry and being victims of state-sponsored discrimination.

Historically, before the mid-20th century, this policy was applied by several European colonial empires on colonial residents of overseas possessions.

A resident alien or foreign national, and children in general, fit most definitions of a second-class citizen. This does not mean that they do not have any legal protections, nor do they lack acceptance by the local population, but they lack many of the civil rights commonly given to the dominant social group.[1] A naturalized citizen, on the other hand, essentially carries the same rights and responsibilities as any other citizen, except for possible exclusion from certain public offices, and is also legally protected.

Relationship with citizenry class

[edit]
Citizenry class Freedoms Limitations Legal status
Full and equal citizenship Freedom to reside and work, freedom to enter and leave the country, freedom to vote, freedom to stand for public office No limitations

Internationally recognized

Second-class citizenry Restrictions on freedom of language, religion, education, property ownership, and other material or social needs. Largely limited

Internationally recognized

Non-citizens Rights are neither given nor withdrawn from the individual. Non-Assessable

Internationally recognized

Outlaws, criminals No rights to outlaws, or criminals in normal citizenry classes, however, certain countries have constitutional sets and legal standards for criminals and outlaws Completely limited

Widely unrecognized

Examples

[edit]
  • Christian minorities in the Ottoman Empire (e.g., Armenians, Greeks, Assyrians) were second-class citizens.[5][6] This was legally codified under the millet system, which subjected them to higher taxes (like the jizya) and restrictions on public religious expression, political participation, land ownership, and military service.
  • Latvian non-citizens constitute a group similar to second-class citizens.[7] Although they are not considered foreigners (they hold no other citizenship, have Latvian IDs), they have reduced rights compared to full citizens. For example, non-citizens are not eligible to vote or hold public office. The European Commission against Racism and Intolerance has described their status as making "people concerned feel like "second-class citizens".[8] Estonian non-citizens are in a similar position.
  • In Hong Kong, Sindhis make up 0,1% of the population and most hold British citizenship. They are stopped by police frequently and assumed to be criminals, fail to integrate into Hong Kong Chinese society, and struggle to get even minimum wage employment.[citation needed]
  • In Malaysia, as part of the concept of Ketuanan Melayu (lit. Malay supremacy), a citizen that is not considered to be of Bumiputera status may face roadblocks and discrimination in matters such as economic freedom, education, healthcare and housing.[9]
  • Mainland Chinese citizens who are settling in Hong Kong or Macau by means of a one-way permit do not have citizenship rights (such as obtaining a passport) in both the mainland or the SAR after settling but before obtaining the permanent resident status, effectively rendering them second-class citizens.
  • Special permanent resident (特別永住者) is a type of Japanese resident with ancestry usually related to its former colonies, Korea or Taiwan. They are usually afforded additional rights and privileges beyond those of normal Permanent Residents, but are still unable to vote in Japanese elections.
  • The burakumin (部落民, 'hamlet/village people') are a social grouping of Japanese people descended from members of the feudal class associated with kegare (穢れ, 'impurity'), mainly those with occupations related to death such as executioners, gravediggers, slaughterhouse workers, butchers, and tanners. Burakumin are physically indistinguishable from other Japanese but have historically been regarded as a socially distinct group. When identified, they are often subject to discrimination and prejudice.[10] They are often called eta (穢多, "great filth") or hinin (非人, "non-persons"). Although liberated legally during 1871 with the abolition of the feudal caste system, this did not end social discrimination against burakumin nor improve their living standards. Outside of the Kansai region, people in general are often not aware of the issues experienced by those of buraku ancestry. Prejudice against buraku most often manifests itself in the form of marriage discrimination and sometimes in employment.[11]
  • The British Nationality Act 1981 reclassified the British national classes as British Overseas Territories citizen, British Nationals (Overseas) and British Overseas citizens in addition to British citizens. Martin Lee referred to it as "One country, six citizenships". The creation of British Nationals (Overseas) (BNO) class was satirized as "British NO" by some Hong Kong media.[12]: 40  Despite its status as a British national, holders do not have the right of residence in the United Kingdom, with its application and status similar to a general Commonwealth citizen of other sovereign countries.
  • Apartheid in South Africa between 1948 and 1991 was a nationwide institutional racially segregated multi-level system in which European residents of the nation had more rights and privileges than Indians, who in turn had more rights than those of mixed descent, who had more rights than the majority of the population, namely Black Africans. This segregation included having separate events for those of different races, separate walkways and modes of transportation, separate hospitals, Black Africans being banned from voting, and compelling those of separate races to live in separate townships. The international condemnation of apartheid that led to its end largely began in the aftermath of the Sharpeville massacre, in which 69 protesters were killed and more than 175 were injured when police opened fire on a crowd of thousands on March 21, 1960.
  • The Bedoons in Kuwait,[13] the "untouchable" Dalits in India,[14][15] and some ethnic minorities in China are sometimes referred to as second-class citizens.[16]
  • Heribert Adam and Kogila Moodley wrote in 2006 that Israeli Palestinians are "restricted to second-class citizen status when another ethnic group monopolizes state power" because of legal prohibitions on access to land, as well as the unequal allocation of civil service positions and per capita expenditure on educations between "dominant and minority citizens".[17]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Second-class citizen

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A second-class citizen is a person who, despite holding , is systematically denied the full , protections, or opportunities afforded to other citizens within the same political , typically due to discriminatory policies or practices based on group characteristics such as race, , , or gender. The term emerged in the United States in 1942 to describe the inferior legal and social imposed on through segregation and disenfranchisement laws. Historically, second-class citizenship has manifested in explicit legal frameworks that differentiated citizens by class, as seen in the Jim Crow era in the American South, where , though citizens post-14th Amendment, were relegated to inferior facilities, education, and voting access, effectively reducing them to second-class status for over half a century. Similar distinctions appeared in other societies, such as Ottoman dhimmis—non-Muslim subjects granted limited protections but burdened with taxes and restrictions absent for Muslims—or apartheid South Africa's classification of non-whites as possessing truncated rights despite nominal citizenship. These arrangements often stemmed from majoritarian or ruling-group dominance, prioritizing group cohesion or resource allocation over individual equality under law. In modern contexts, de jure second-class citizenship is rarer in constitutional democracies committed to equal protection, yet the concept persists in rhetoric to highlight de facto disparities arising from enforcement gaps, cultural norms, or policy outcomes rather than codified inferiority. Notable controversies include debates over whether groups like immigrants, certain religious minorities, or ideological dissenters qualify as second-class in ostensibly egalitarian states, with empirical assessments requiring scrutiny of legal texts and outcomes over anecdotal or ideologically driven claims, given institutional tendencies toward selective emphasis on grievances. Defining traits include not just disparity but causal mechanisms traceable to or societal structures that perpetuate unequal citizenship burdens and benefits.

Conceptual Foundations

Definition and Core Attributes

A second-class citizen is an individual who holds formal legal citizenship within a state but is systematically denied equal protection, rights, or opportunities afforded to other citizens, resulting in a subordinate status that contravenes the principle of equal citizenship under law. This condition arises when citizenship, which nominally grants membership in the polity with reciprocal rights and duties, fails to confer uniform dignity, access to public goods, or participation in governance. Legally, it manifests as either explicit hierarchies in statutes—such as tiered citizenship categories restricting certain privileges—or implicit disparities in enforcement that perpetuate inequality among citizens. Core attributes encompass deprivations across civil, political, and social dimensions of . Politically, second-class citizens often face curtailed voting rights, ineligibility for public office, or diminished influence in policy-making, as seen in historical exclusions based on qualifications or tests that disproportionately affected specific groups while preserving nominal citizenship. Economically, barriers include restrictions on ownership, in , or access to welfare benefits, embedding structural disadvantages that hinder wealth accumulation and mobility. Socially, it involves inferior treatment in , healthcare, or public accommodations, fostering stigma and isolation without revoking citizenship outright, thus avoiding the sharper distinctions of alienage. These attributes distinguish second-class citizenship from non-citizen status by retaining basic rights—such as from arbitrary —while eroding fuller membership entitlements, often justified by majoritarian perceptions of group differences in loyalty, productivity, or cultural fit. De facto iterations emerge from biased institutional practices, where formal equality exists on paper but evaporates in application, as evidenced in disparate policing or sentencing outcomes that signal unequal regard for citizens' lives and liberties. This framework underscores causal mechanisms rooted in power imbalances, where dominant groups institutionalize preferences to maintain advantages, rather than incidental oversights. Aristotle's conception of citizenship in established early philosophical grounds for differentiated status within polities, defining citizens as those who participate in deliberative and judicial functions, thereby excluding women, slaves, and resident aliens (metics) from full membership. This framework presupposed equality among qualified citizens in ruling and being ruled, but justified hierarchical exclusions based on perceived capacities for rational deliberation and , positioning non-citizens as dependents without political agency. Such distinctions reflected a realist view of human variation in aptitude for , influencing later understandings of as conditional on communal contribution rather than universal entitlement. Enlightenment natural rights theories, particularly John Locke's, introduced a countervailing emphasis on pre-political equality, asserting that individuals enter with inherent to , , and property, which governments must protect without arbitrary distinctions. Yet, doctrines, by delimiting membership to consenting parties, inherently create insiders with amplified protections and outsiders—or partial insiders—with curtailed , as the polity's legitimacy derives from mutual agreement among equals, excluding those deemed incompatible. This tension manifests in second-class citizenship when contracts or constitutions impose tiers, such as natural-born versus naturalized citizens, where the latter face revocable status or lesser privileges, undermining the egalitarian premise. Legally, second-class citizenship emerges from positive law's failure to align with equal protection norms, as in frameworks where statutes grant differential rights based on immutable traits or acquisition mode, diverging from natural law's . For example, pre-1920 U.S. laws denied women despite nominal citizenship, reflecting statutory hierarchies rationalized by traditional roles rather than empirical incapacity. Internationally, conventions like the 1954 Stateless Persons Convention address de jure inequalities but permit states to maintain graded citizenships, such as in limitations that disadvantage children of immigrants, perpetuating legal asymmetries justified by sovereignty over membership. These underpinnings highlight causal realism: unequal rights often stem from pragmatic state interests in cohesion and , not mere caprice, though they conflict with abstract equality when unmoored from verifiable differences in civic fitness.

Historical Evolution

Ancient and Pre-Modern Precedents

In ancient during the Classical period (c. 500–400 BCE), s—free resident foreigners who had migrated to the city for economic opportunities—held a subordinate status to native-born male . They were required to register with a citizen sponsor (prostates), pay a special metic tax (metoikion), and perform without eligibility for full rights such as voting in the assembly or holding office. While s could own , engage in , and access courts under certain protections, their legal dependency on sponsors and exclusion from political participation exemplified a tiered citizenship where economic contributions did not confer equal standing. The Roman Empire similarly distinguished between cives Romani (full citizens) and peregrini (provincial non-citizens), particularly before the Constitutio Antoniniana of 212 CE, which extended citizenship empire-wide. Peregrini, comprising most free inhabitants outside Italy, were governed by local laws rather than Roman civil law, lacked voting rights (ius suffragii) or eligibility for high office, and faced higher taxation without the protections of provocatio (appeal to the emperor against capital punishment). They could own property and serve in auxiliary military units but remained legally inferior, often subject to arbitrary provincial governors, reflecting a pragmatic hierarchy that prioritized Roman core privileges over universal equality. In ancient , the varna system outlined in texts like the (c. 1500–1200 BCE) and later codified in the (c. 200 BCE–200 CE) stratified society into four hereditary classes: Brahmins (priests), Kshatriyas (warriors), Vaishyas (merchants), and Shudras (laborers), with Dalits (untouchables) outside this framework. Shudras were barred from Vedic study, priestly roles, and inter-varna marriage, confined to menial labor while owing service to higher varnas, though they retained basic property rights and ritual purity distinctions enforced social immobility. This occupational and ritual hierarchy, justified by notions of divine order (), institutionalized unequal access to , governance, and religious authority, predating jati subcastes but establishing enduring precedents for birth-based legal disparities. Under early Islamic caliphates from the 7th century CE, non-Muslims designated as dhimmis—primarily and as ""—received protection (aman) in exchange for the and adherence to restrictions like prohibitions on building new places of worship, bearing arms, or proselytizing. The (c. 7th–9th century) formalized humiliations such as distinctive and deference in public interactions, ensuring dhimmis' testimony held less weight in courts and barring them from public office, thus subordinating their communal autonomy to Islamic supremacy while permitting internal religious governance. Medieval European serfdom, prevalent from the 9th to 15th centuries, bound peasants to manorial lords, restricting free movement (requiring permission for marriage or departure) and mandating labor obligations () alongside payments in kind, such as using the lord's mills exclusively. Unlike chattel slaves, serfs could not be sold individually apart from land, inherit holdings, and sue in manorial courts for basic protections, but their status—hereditary and tied to economic utility—denied participation in feudal assemblies or urban guilds, perpetuating a rural amid noble privileges. Jews in medieval Christian , from the onward, faced charters like those under Frederick I (1152) that confined them to moneylending and trade due to guild exclusions and land ownership bans, subjecting them to special taxes (tallage) and vulnerability to royal protection-withdrawal leading to pogroms or expulsions, such as England's 1290 . Their legal status—neither full subjects nor aliens—allowed limited via rabbinical courts but enforced inferiority, with blood libels and bans reinforcing isolation from Christian society. These precedents collectively illustrate pre-modern societies' reliance on hierarchical legal statuses to allocate based on origin, utility, or conformity, often prioritizing group cohesion over individual equity.

Modern Emergence and Key Milestones

The concept of second-class citizenship in the modern era, characterized by formal legal distinctions within national polities granting unequal rights to certain groups despite nominal inclusion, gained prominence in the early amid rising and post-colonial transitions. In , the Reich Citizenship Law, enacted on September 15, 1935, as part of the , explicitly created a tiered system: "Reich citizens" with full political rights were limited to those of "German or related blood," while and others were demoted to mere "state subjects" or partial citizens, deprived of voting, public office, and protections against arbitrary state action. This framework institutionalized racial hierarchy, serving as a precursor to further persecutions, and exemplified how modern bureaucratic states could codify inferior status under the guise of citizenship. In the United States, the persistence of Jim Crow segregation after the 1877 end of Reconstruction effectively rendered second-class citizens through state-enforced separation in public facilities, education, and voting, upheld by the Supreme Court's 1896 decision endorsing "" accommodations. This system, rooted in disenfranchisement tactics like poll taxes and literacy tests, limited access to economic opportunity and legal recourse until challenged in the mid-20th century. The phrase "second-class citizen" entered documented English usage in 1942, initially describing the systemic barriers faced by , amid wartime highlighting domestic inequalities during global fights for . Other 20th-century milestones included gender-based exclusions addressed by : the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified on August 18, 1920, granted voting rights to women, who prior to this were full citizens in theory but barred from political participation, service, and certain professions. In immigration contexts, the U.S. Naturalization Act of 1906 centralized processes but introduced provisions, enabling revocation of citizenship for perceived disloyalty—often targeting immigrants—and reinforcing perceptions of naturalized citizens as inherently lesser. Post-World War II decolonization further highlighted the term, as newly independent states grappled with ethnic minorities retaining inferior statuses from colonial legacies, though empirical data on implementation varies by region. These developments underscored causal links between legal codification and , often persisting despite formal equal-citizenship declarations like the 1789 French Declaration of the Rights of Man.

Citizenship Hierarchies in Law

Citizenship hierarchies in law establish formal distinctions among individuals within a polity, where nominal citizens or residents receive unequal bundles of rights based on criteria such as birth status, ethnicity, or mode of acquisition. These structures contrast with egalitarian ideals by codifying tiers that limit access to political participation, property ownership, or legal protections, often justified historically by notions of loyalty, cultural assimilation, or racial superiority. In Roman law, for instance, cives Romani enjoyed full civic rights including suffrage and legal standing, while peregrini—free inhabitants without citizenship—were subject to separate tribunals and lacked equivalent privileges, a system formalized under the Twelve Tables around 450 BCE and expanded through imperial edicts. In modern constitutional frameworks, the exemplifies persistent legal tiers despite egalitarian amendments; Article II, Section 1 of the , ratified in 1788, mandates that the president be a "natural born Citizen," barring naturalized citizens from the executive office and creating a de jure second-class status for the latter group, a provision unchanged as of 2025. This distinction, rooted in early republican fears of foreign influence, has been critiqued as an anachronistic relic but upheld without challenge in federal courts. Similarly, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 codified preferences in and , indirectly tiering rights by quotas until partially reformed by the 1965 amendments, though vestiges influence contemporary visa hierarchies. De jure hierarchies also appear in denizenship regimes, where long-term residents hold quasi- without full political rights; under English , denizens—aliens granted partial privileges like property holding—lacked inheritance or office-holding capacities equivalent to citizens, a status echoed in U.S. Code Title 8, Section 331.1, defining denizens as entitled to residence but not comprehensive protections. In postcolonial contexts, French colonial of 1685 explicitly tiered rights by race, denying full to non-whites in territories like , enforcing slavery and segregation until abolition in 1848. Such systems, while often dismantled post-independence, inform analyses of contemporary disparities, as in Israel's 1950 granting preferential to Jews over non-Jewish residents, who face restricted land rights under the 1965 Absentee Property Law, though defenders argue this reflects security imperatives rather than hierarchy. Judicial precedents have both reinforced and challenged these tiers; the U.S. Supreme Court's decision of March 6, 1857, denied citizenship to , deeming them perpetual aliens incapable of legal personhood, a ruling overturned by the Fourteenth Amendment's ratified July 9, 1868, which mandates birthright citizenship irrespective of parental status. Yet, in stratified acquisition systems like China's 1980 Nationality Law, citizenship transmission via creates tiers favoring patrilineal descent, with overseas-born children facing procedural hurdles absent for mainland natives, perpetuating informal inequalities. These legal architectures underscore causal links between codified status and enforced disparities, where empirical outcomes—such as voting exclusions or economic barriers—validate the hierarchical intent over nominal equality claims.

Judicial Interpretations and Precedents

In (1857), the U.S. held that , whether enslaved or free, were not U.S. citizens and thus lacked standing to sue in federal court or enjoy protections under the , explicitly affirming a in citizenship rights that relegated them below white citizens. This decision, rooted in originalist interpretation of citizenship at the founding, was later repudiated by the [Fourteenth Amendment](/page/Fourteenth Amendment) (1868) and subsequent rulings, but it established a for denying full civic equality based on ancestry. Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) upheld state-mandated racial segregation under the "" doctrine, permitting laws that enforced unequal facilities and opportunities for Black citizens despite their formal citizenship, which courts and historians have characterized as institutionalizing second-class status through disparities in access to public services, education, and economic participation. This interpretation tolerated systemic inequalities until overturned by Brown v. Board of Education (1954), where the Court declared segregated public schools inherently unequal, rejecting the prior framework as incompatible with equal protection guarantees and mandating desegregation to eliminate citizenship hierarchies based on race. Addressing distinctions between native-born and naturalized citizens, (1964) invalidated a statutory provision under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 that revoked naturalized citizens' status for extended foreign residence while exempting native-born citizens, ruling it an invidious discrimination that impermissibly created "second-class" citizenship by subjecting one group to stricter retention requirements without rational basis. The decision emphasized that citizenship, once granted, carries equal privileges under the Fourteenth Amendment, influencing later cases like (1967), which prohibited involuntary expatriation except in narrow fraud contexts. Gender-based inequalities in citizenship transmission faced scrutiny in Sessions v. Morales-Santana (2017), where the struck down provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act imposing different physical presence requirements on unwed U.S. citizen mothers versus fathers for conferring citizenship to children born abroad, holding the disparity violated equal protection by enforcing unequal parental rights tied to sex. This precedent aligned with broader rulings, such as United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), affirming birthright citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment irrespective of parental origin, thereby preventing ethnic or parental status from creating tiers of citizenship. Internationally, precedents vary but often invoke frameworks; for instance, the has adjudicated cases under the European Convention on Nationality (1997) challenging discriminatory loss of for women or minorities, though outcomes depend on state compliance and rarely use "second-class" terminology explicitly, focusing instead on proportionality and non-discrimination. These interpretations underscore causal links between legal hierarchies and empirical disparities in rights enforcement, with courts increasingly prioritizing uniform absent compelling justification.

Manifestations in Society

Racial and Ethnic Contexts

In the United States, enacted primarily between 1877 and the 1960s established a system of that relegated to second-class citizenship, denying them equal access to public facilities, education, voting, and employment. These state and local statutes mandated separation in transportation, schools, and accommodations, often justified under the "separate but equal" doctrine affirmed by the in (1896), which permitted disparities as long as facilities were nominally distinct. Disenfranchisement mechanisms such as poll taxes, literacy tests, and grandfather clauses further eroded political rights, reducing black voter registration in Southern states to under 3% by 1900 in some areas. This framework persisted until federal interventions like the and dismantled key provisions, though socioeconomic legacies endure. South Africa's apartheid regime, formalized in 1948 and lasting until 1994, codified a classifying citizens as white, black, coloured, or Indian, with whites enjoying full civic privileges while non-whites faced severe restrictions on residence, movement, and political participation. The enforced racial categorization through bureaucratic and pseudoscientific criteria, confining black South Africans to 13% of land in Bantustans—homelands stripped of national citizenship in "white" —and requiring pass laws for urban access. Blacks, comprising 75% of the population, were barred from voting in national elections until 1994 and subjected to forced removals affecting over 3.5 million people. The system's collapse followed and , culminating in multiracial elections, but racial inequalities in land ownership and wealth persist. The Roma, Europe's largest ethnic minority numbering 10-12 million, have faced systemic exclusion across the continent, manifesting as second-class status through segregated housing, education, and limited access to public services despite formal in most countries. In , Roma communities endure high poverty rates—over 80% in some nations—and residential segregation, with evictions and ghettoization documented in , , and . Educational disparities are acute, with Roma children often channeled into special schools for the disabled or segregated classes, resulting in literacy rates below 50% in affected groups. Reports from organizations highlight persistent in and healthcare, compounded by police profiling and hate crimes, though EU integration strategies since 2011 have yielded uneven progress amid nationalist backlashes. Indigenous peoples in settler states like the exemplified racialized second-class citizenship prior to mid-20th-century reforms; Native Americans were denied birthright citizenship until the of 1924, which granted it to approximately 300,000 individuals but preserved tribal sovereignty tensions and reservation-based restrictions on land and self-governance. Pre-1924, rulings like Elk v. Wilkins (1884) classified many as non-citizens despite U.S. birth, excluding them from voting and federal protections while subjecting them to relocation policies such as the (1830s), which displaced 60,000 from ancestral lands. Contemporary data shows Native Americans facing elevated (25% rate in 2020) and disparities, linked to historical treaties and federal trusteeship that limit full economic autonomy. Similar patterns appear in and , where indigenous groups were historically barred from citizenship until the 1940s-1960s, with ongoing land rights disputes underscoring incomplete integration.

Gender, Disability, and Identity-Based Cases

In many historical legal systems, women were systematically denied full civic equality, functioning as second-class citizens through doctrines like , which subsumed a married woman's legal identity under her husband's, preventing independent property ownership or contract-making until reforms such as the Married Women's Property Act of 1882 in the . , women were barred from voting, jury service, and public office prior to the Nineteenth in 1920, with the ruling in cases like (1875) that they were not entitled to under the Fourteenth Amendment. These restrictions stemmed from prevailing views of women as dependent, limiting their political and economic agency despite shared . Contemporary gender-based disparities persist in areas like military , where the U.S. mandates registration only for males aged 18-25, imposing a unique civic obligation absent for females. In family courts, fathers receive primary custody in fewer than 20% of contested cases, with data from the U.S. Census Bureau indicating mothers awarded sole custody in approximately 80% of arrangements, often attributed to presumptions favoring maternal caregiving despite evidence of comparable paternal fitness. Individuals with disabilities have faced de facto second-class status through exclusionary policies predating modern legislation, such as institutionalization without and barriers to , with empirical studies showing persistent gaps like employment rates of 21.3% for working-age disabled Americans versus 65.4% for non-disabled in 2022 data. The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 aimed to remedy this by prohibiting discrimination, yet implementation has created parallel systems—such as segregated or underfunded community services—perpetuating unequal access, as evidenced by a 2019 analysis noting that disabled persons often experience rights enforcement via separate administrative channels rather than integrated civil protections. Causal factors include higher dependency on public benefits, with 2011 data revealing sensory-disabled individuals facing compounded barriers in voting and employment due to inaccessible , underscoring how physical or cognitive limitations interact with societal failures to yield full parity. Identity-based cases, particularly involving and , historically manifested as second-class treatment through criminalization, such as U.S. sodomy laws upheld until (2003) invalidated state bans on consensual same-sex conduct, which had branded homosexual acts as felonies in 14 states as late as 2003. claims faced similar marginalization, with individuals denied legal recognition or protections until rulings like (2020), which interpreted Title VII's sex discrimination ban to encompass orientation and identity, addressing prior exclusions from employment safeguards. However, tensions arise in single-sex domains, where policies permitting biological males identifying as female to access women's prisons or sports—such as the 2022 NCAA allowance for transgender swimmers—have led to documented disadvantages for biological females, including higher risks in facilities (e.g., 2023 reports of incidents in women's prisons) and competitive inequities, prompting arguments that such accommodations subordinate sex-based rights. These dynamics reflect causal trade-offs, where expanding identity protections can erode prior sex-segregated equities without empirical justification for parity in biologically dimorphic contexts.

Immigration and Residency Status

In many jurisdictions, individuals holding temporary or permanent residency statuses lack the full suite of rights afforded to citizens, resulting in a form of hierarchical legal standing that limits political participation, security of tenure, and access to certain benefits. For instance, lawful permanent residents in the United States, often referred to as green card holders, are authorized to live and work indefinitely but cannot vote in federal or state elections, serve on federal juries, or hold certain public offices reserved for citizens. They also remain subject to deportation for aggravated felonies or other removable offenses under the Immigration and Nationality Act, a vulnerability absent for citizens. Eligibility for naturalization typically requires five years of continuous residence, during which residents must maintain good moral character and avoid prolonged absences exceeding six months without a re-entry permit. Undocumented immigrants face even more pronounced restrictions, lacking legal authorization for , public benefits, or pathways to residency in most cases, which exposes them to summary removal proceedings without the procedural safeguards available to citizens or even lawful residents. Under U.S. , such as the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, undocumented individuals are ineligible for means-tested programs like or non-emergency , reinforcing economic marginalization and dependency on informal labor markets. This status persists despite U.S.-born children of undocumented parents acquiring birthright citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment, creating familial disparities where parents hold inferior legal positions. Internationally, systems like the kafala sponsorship framework in states have historically bound migrant workers—comprising over 80% of the workforce in countries such as and the —to specific employers, restricting job changes, travel, and residence without sponsor approval, thereby enabling exploitation including wage withholding and . Reforms in recent years, including Saudi Arabia's abolition of kafala elements on October 22, 2025, aim to decouple worker visas from employers and enhance mobility, yet enforcement gaps and residual dependencies continue to limit migrant autonomy compared to nationals, who enjoy preferential access to pathways and jobs. In the , third-country nationals with long-term residence permits gain rights to work and social security after five years but are excluded from EU-wide voting in national elections and face expulsion risks for threats, distinguishing their status from that of EU citizens under free movement directives. These residency frameworks reflect deliberate policy choices prioritizing national over equal treatment, often justified by concerns over integration, , and , though critics argue they perpetuate castes by design rather than merit or behavior. Empirical data from the U.S. Department of indicates that in 2022, over 1.2 million removals targeted non-citizens, underscoring the precariousness of non-citizen status absent full legal protections.

Debates and Analytical Perspectives

Victimhood Narratives vs. Causal Accountability

In debates surrounding second-class citizenship, victimhood narratives posit that marginalized groups' inferior socioeconomic or social standing stems primarily from systemic and historical injustices, framing individuals as passive recipients of external forces beyond their control. This perspective, advanced by figures like , argues that such narratives foster a mentality where self-identification as victims erodes personal agency, leading to dependency on grievance-based entitlements rather than self-improvement. Steele contends that rewarding victimization reinforces it as an identity theme, perpetuating cycles of underachievement by discouraging for behaviors contributing to outcomes like family instability or educational failure. Conversely, causal accountability emphasizes empirical examination of behavioral, cultural, and individual choices as primary drivers of group disparities, rather than attributing them monolithically to . Economist has critiqued victimhood ideologies for harming disadvantaged groups by promoting blame-shifting that obscures self-reliant paths out of , such as skill acquisition and family formation. For instance, data on the "success sequence"—obtaining a , securing full-time employment, and marrying before childbearing—demonstrate that adherence correlates with a 97% avoidance of across racial groups, including and , underscoring how personal decisions mitigate second-class-like conditions more effectively than redress demands. Empirical contrasts highlight this divide: Nigerian immigrants in the U.S., facing similar racial barriers as native-born Black Americans, achieve median household incomes exceeding $70,000 and attainment rates over 50%, outcomes Sowell attributes to cultural emphases on and rather than victim claims. Victimhood narratives often overlook such variances, as noted in identifying a generalized victim mindset that amplifies perceived slights while diminishing , correlating with poorer and relational outcomes independent of actual levels. Critics of victimhood frameworks, including Sowell, argue that institutional promotion of these narratives—prevalent in academia and media despite of cultural causation—perpetuates second-class status by incentivizing grievance over merit, as seen in persistent gaps like single-parent household rates (over 70% since the ) linking to higher and , which accountability models address through behavioral reforms yielding measurable uplift in comparable groups. This approach prioritizes verifiable causal chains, such as structure's role in intergenerational mobility, over undifferentiated claims that, per Steele, transform potential power into self-inflicted paralysis.

Merit-Based Differentiation vs. Arbitrary Discrimination

Merit-based differentiation entails evaluating and rewarding individuals according to verifiable criteria such as skills, , , and effort, which are directly relevant to the demands of a or societal function. This approach aligns incentives with outcomes, promoting and by ensuring that positions of responsibility are filled by those most capable of fulfilling them effectively. In contrast, arbitrary imposes disadvantages or exclusions based on traits like race, , , or origin that bear no causal relation to competence or contribution, thereby undermining rational allocation without justifiable ends. Legal doctrines, including U.S. federal principles codified in 5 U.S.C. § 2301, explicitly require agencies to select and advance employees based on relative , , and skills while prohibiting adverse actions rooted in personal favoritism or irrelevant personal attributes. Philosophically, merit-based systems derive legitimacy from the principle that social cooperation thrives when benefits accrue proportionally to value added, a view articulated in meritocratic theory as rejecting all forms of non-merit as morally arbitrary. For instance, classical liberal arguments, as elaborated in analyses of , contend that deviations from merit—such as group quotas—introduce inequities by penalizing high performers irrespective of their inputs, effectively creating hierarchies not of achievement but of ascriptive identity. This distinction holds even amid unequal starting points; while access to merit-developing opportunities may warrant remedial focus on capability-building (e.g., ), overriding outcomes via identity preferences constitutes reverse arbitrary treatment, as evidenced in judicial scrutiny of where demographic targets displaced qualified applicants without evidence of compensatory necessity. Empirical cross-national data further supports that societies emphasizing merit in allocation, such as those with transparent exams, exhibit higher and reduced compared to patronage-driven systems reliant on arbitrary favoritism. In the context of second-class citizenship, conflating merit differentiation with risks entrenching de facto inferior status for groups or individuals excluded not by incapacity but by policies prioritizing equity of representation over equity of process. Recent executive actions, such as the January 21, 2025, U.S. order directing federal agencies to prioritize merit in hiring and contracting while curtailing race- or sex-based preferences under civil rights laws, underscore this boundary by affirming that true arises from deviations from neutral, performance-linked criteria rather than from disparate results alone. Critiques from institutional sources often attribute outcome gaps to , yet reveals that such gaps frequently stem from behavioral or preparatory differences rather than irremediable barriers, with interventions like blind auditions in orchestras demonstrating how merit protocols can equalize access without arbitrary overrides. Where sources invoke "meritocracy myths" to justify identity weighting, closer examination shows these claims rely on correlational assumptions of inherited disadvantage rather than randomized controls isolating merit's effects, highlighting a need for toward narratives that equate competence hierarchies with .

Contemporary Applications and Reforms

Recent Policy Developments

In January 2025, President Trump issued an executive order titled "Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity," directing federal agencies to eliminate race- and sex-based preferences in government contracting, hiring, and grants, aiming to address what the administration described as systemic disadvantages imposed on non-favored groups through prior equity initiatives. This built on the 2023 Supreme Court decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which prohibited race-conscious admissions in higher education, but extended to broader policy by rescinding Biden-era directives that had prioritized demographic outcomes over individual qualifications. By April 2025, a follow-up executive order, "Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy," instructed agencies to deprioritize disparate impact liability in civil rights enforcement, arguing that such theories had enabled reverse discrimination against majority groups without evidence of intentional bias, thereby leveling the playing field for citizens previously disadvantaged in competitive processes like promotions and scholarships. Proponents cited empirical data from pre-2023 affirmative action programs showing Asian American applicants required SAT scores up to 140 points higher than Black applicants for equivalent admission chances at elite universities, framing these reforms as corrective measures against de facto citizenship hierarchies based on immutable traits. In June 2025, the U.S. Department of issued guidance prioritizing for naturalized convicted of serious crimes or found to have concealed material facts during the process, resulting in over 200 proceedings initiated by October, compared to an annual average of under 100 pre-2024. Critics, including legal analysts, contended this created a two-tiered where naturalized individuals faced revocable status for post-naturalization actions unavailable to native-born citizens, potentially eroding equal protection under the 14th Amendment, though supporters emphasized it targeted rates estimated at 10-20% in high-risk applicant pools from certain regions. These U.S. developments coincided with efforts under the 2024 Migration Pact, implemented in phases through 2026, which standardized asylum processing but imposed stricter residency quotas on member states, leading to policies in countries like and that limited welfare access for new citizens from non-EU backgrounds, with data showing naturalized migrants receiving 15-25% fewer benefits than native citizens due to integration requirements. Such measures aimed to curb fiscal burdens—EU-wide migrant welfare costs exceeded €50 billion annually by 2023—but drew accusations of institutionalizing second-class status for recent naturalizers lacking full or .

Empirical Outcomes and Critiques

Policies implementing group-based preferences, such as affirmative action in employment and education, have demonstrably increased representation of targeted minorities but often at the expense of non-preferred groups, fostering perceptions of second-class status among the latter. In the United States, research indicates that affirmative action redistributes opportunities in university admissions and jobs, with minority shares rising by 1-2 percentage points in affected sectors, yet it correlates with lower academic performance and higher dropout rates for beneficiaries due to mismatch effects, where students are placed in environments exceeding their preparation levels. Critiques highlight that such interventions prioritize demographic targets over qualifications, resulting in resentment and legal challenges, as evidenced by the 2023 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which documented Asian American applicants facing higher admissions barriers despite superior metrics. Multicultural policies emphasizing group rights over uniform have yielded mixed empirical outcomes on social cohesion, with numerous studies documenting reduced interpersonal trust in high-diversity contexts. Meta-analyses across and the U.S. reveal a consistent negative between ethnic diversity and , including trust levels dropping by 10-20% in diverse neighborhoods compared to homogeneous ones, independent of income or education controls. This erosion persists at local levels, where diversity predicts lower cooperation and higher , though aggregate national data sometimes shows attenuation through institutional mediation. regimes granting differential rights to non-citizens, such as access to welfare without full obligations, exacerbate these divides; in , rapid inflows since 2015 have correlated with policy reversals toward stricter enforcement, as integration failures manifest in elevated crime rates among certain migrant cohorts and native backlash. Critiques of these approaches emphasize causal mechanisms undermining merit-based systems, arguing that privileging group identities over individual perpetuates dependency and stifles innovation. Evidence from India's caste-based reservations shows short-term access gains but long-term inefficiencies, with beneficiaries underperforming in competitive roles and overall productivity lagging behind meritocratic alternatives. In Western contexts, asymmetrical protections for minorities can render majorities effectively second-class by eroding their cultural and political primacy, as seen in empirical links between diversity policies and declining native birth rates alongside rising identity-based conflicts. Reforms advocating equal —such as color-blind policies—demonstrate superior outcomes in fostering , with studies indicating higher compliance and social trust in regimes enforcing uniform rules. These findings underscore that deviations from equal treatment often yield suboptimal equilibria, prioritizing equity over efficacy.

References

  1. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/second-class-citizen
  2. https://www.etymonline.com/word/second-class
  3. https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/brown/brown-segregation.html
  4. https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/15th-amendment
  5. https://philarchive.org/archive/SAMTSC
  6. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4359061
  7. https://lifestyle.tearfund.org/libweb/QJ1Hs6/271012/SecondClassCitizen.pdf
  8. https://scholarship.law.unc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1727&context=ncilj
  9. https://academic.oup.com/book/36498/chapter/321201614
  10. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00323217221099101
  11. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-politics/
  12. https://iep.utm.edu/aristotle-politics/
  13. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke-political/
  14. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40802-018-0123-8
  15. https://academic.oup.com/socpro/article-pdf/47/1/1/4584864/socpro47-0001.pdf
  16. https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-14/08-equal-protection-and-race.html
  17. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13621025.2015.1110282
  18. https://www.ime.gr/chronos/05/en/society/metoikoi_intro.html
  19. https://www.greekboston.com/culture/ancient-history/metics/
  20. https://fiveable.me/key-terms/ancient-mediterranean/metics
  21. https://carolashby.com/citizenship-in-the-roman-empire/
  22. https://academic.oup.com/ahr/article/111/4/1011/26711
  23. https://www.worldhistory.org/article/1152/caste-system-in-ancient-india/
  24. https://www.studentsofhistory.com/the-aryan-caste-system
  25. https://katz.sas.upenn.edu/resources/blog/what-do-you-know-dhimmi-jewish-legal-status-under-muslim-rule
  26. https://www.aei.org/op-eds/islamic-states-reality-check-on-dhimmitude/
  27. https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/world-history/medieval-times/european-middle-ages-and-serfdom/a/serfdom-in-europe
  28. https://www.theholocaustexplained.org/anti-semitism/medieval-antisemitism/medieval-laws/
  29. https://publicmedievalist.com/tale-two-europes-jews-medieval-world/
  30. https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/nuremberg-laws
  31. https://ghdi.ghi-dc.org/sub_document.cfm?document_id=1523
  32. https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/nuremberg-laws
  33. https://jimcrowmuseum.ferris.edu/what.htm
  34. https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-resources/essays/women-american-politics-twentieth-century
  35. https://www.historians.org/perspectives-article/second-class-citizens-a-history-of-denaturalization-in-the-us-september-2018/
  36. https://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/arts/features/womenwriters/emechetta_work.shtml
  37. https://polsci.institute/understanding-political-theory/historical-development-of-citizenship/
  38. https://academic.oup.com/book/41614/chapter/353431832
  39. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1921-1936/immigration-act
  40. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/8/331.1
  41. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13621025.2022.2137468
  42. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-14/historical-background-on-citizenship-clause
  43. https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/dred-Scott-v-sandford
  44. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/separate_but_equal
  45. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/377/163/
  46. https://www.reuters.com/article/legal/us-top-court-invalidates-gender-inequality-in-citizenship-law-idUSL1N1J917O/
  47. https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/supreme-court-case-library/united-states-v-wong-kim-ark-1898
  48. https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/jim-crow-era
  49. https://nmaahc.si.edu/explore/exhibitions/reconstruction/citizenship
  50. https://overcomingapartheid.msu.edu/multimedia.php?kid=163-582-14
  51. https://www.barnesfoundation.org/williamson-kganye/apartheid-in-south-africa
  52. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8887645/
  53. https://www.hrw.org/report/2012/04/04/second-class-citizens/discrimination-against-roma-jews-and-other-national
  54. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2015/04/the-stunted-education-of-romani-children-in-europe/
  55. https://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2022/roma-survey-findings
  56. https://time.com/7026723/indian-citizenship-1924/
  57. https://www.whitehousehistory.org/calvin-coolidge-and-native-americans
  58. https://www.bridgew.edu/stories/2023/united-states-treatment-native-americans
  59. https://racism.org/articles/worldwide/oppressed-groups/174-indigenous-peoples/11208-indigenous-rights
  60. https://www.mylearning.org/stories/where-are-all-the-women
  61. https://nationalpost.com/feature/fathers-fighting-for-shared-parenting
  62. https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/07/23/why-disabled-americans-remain-second-class-citizens/
  63. https://www.davidpettinicchio.com/press.html
  64. https://www.uscis.gov/green-card/after-we-grant-your-green-card/rights-and-responsibilities-of-a-green-card-holder-permanent-resident
  65. https://www.uscis.gov/green-card/after-we-grant-your-green-card/international-travel-as-a-permanent-resident
  66. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R47318
  67. https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/blog/breaking-down-trump-end-birthright-citizenship/
  68. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/what-kafala-system
  69. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/middle-east/saudi-arabia-abolishes-kafala-system-after-50-years-grants-freedom-and-new-rights-to-millions-ofmigrantworkers/articleshow/124660103.cms
  70. https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/residence/residence-rights/index_en.htm
  71. https://ohss.dhs.gov/topics/immigration/lawful-permanent-residents/profiles
  72. https://www.hoover.org/research/wages-victimhood
  73. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/munk-debates/shelby-steele-once-you-think-of-yourself-as-a-victim-theres-no-hope-for-you/article26955996/
  74. https://www.dispatch.com/story/opinion/cartoons/2013/12/03/thomas-sowell-commentary-victimhood-is/24035607007/
  75. https://www.pennlive.com/opinion/2014/05/self-reliance_not_victimhood_i.html
  76. https://www.aei.org/op-eds/personal-responsibility-not-victimhood-is-the-path-to-success/
  77. https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/social-justice-fallacies-by-the-great-thomas-sowell/
  78. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/unraveling-the-mindset-of-victimhood/
  79. https://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2025/09/25/a_1986_thomas_sowell_column_decries_a_victim_culture_that_wont_die_1136973.html
  80. https://twitter.com/Rhetors_of_York/status/1743024121351442827
  81. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/meritocracy/
  82. https://www.cato.org/regulation/summer-2019/what-constitutes-discrimination-college-admissions
  83. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/ending-illegal-discrimination-and-restoring-merit-based-opportunity/
  84. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6761281/
  85. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/04/restoring-equality-of-opportunity-and-meritocracy/
  86. https://www.npr.org/2025/06/30/nx-s1-5445398/denaturalization-trump-immigration-enforcement
  87. https://antone.com/denaturalization-on-the-rise-a-legal-political-and-civil-liberties-analysis/
  88. https://www.niskanencenter.org/dojs-new-naturalization-push-explained/
  89. https://www.government.se/contentassets/6310cf0f5c5049c6b0ee15d1cfc49b74/harry-holzer-the-economic-impact-of-affirmative-action-in-the-us
  90. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004727272300021X
  91. https://johepal.com/article-1-309-en.pdf
  92. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/247447618_Diversity_Multiculturalism_and_Social_Cohesion_Trust_and_Ethnocentrism_in_European_Societies
  93. https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/immigration-diversity-and-social-cohesion/
  94. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/padr.12641
  95. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5875770/
  96. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/understanding-europes-turn-on-migration/
  97. https://remahanna.scholars.harvard.edu/file_url/183
  98. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w32778/w32778.pdf
  99. https://comparativemigrationstudies.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40878-022-00319-8
  100. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/european-constitutional-law-review/article/nationality-and-equal-political-rights-a-necessary-link/8F5032B9F0EB2D3B1F4066BB1973E5B8
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.