Who counts as one of us: citizenship from ancient Rome to civic nationalism

Who counts as one of us? Across five conversations, the answer is that belonging is always offered on terms, such as service, loyalty, creed or lineage. The fights over those terms are far older than today's immigration debates.

Gregory Aldrete, a historian of ancient Rome, argues that Rome rose from a tiny village because of manpower. Most ancient conquerors destroyed or subjugated defeated cities. Rome instead gave conquered Italian cities full or partial citizenship or alliance, and in exchange it demanded troops. That let Rome lose enormous battles, against Pyrrhus and against Hannibal at Cannae, and still raise new armies.

Later the imperial army became, in his words, a machine that "takes in foreigners and churns out Romans." Auxiliaries earned citizenship after 25 years of service. By the second century, emperors came from Spain, and later from North Africa and Syria.

Aldrete also stresses Rome's limits. Early integration was easy because the Italians shared Rome's language and gods. Only about six million of roughly 50 million people were citizens. Slavery was deeply dehumanizing. And Italian allies who were denied citizenship were among the resentments that broke the Republic.

Anthony Kaldellis picks up the story in 212 AD, when Caracalla extended citizenship to nearly all free inhabitants. The Romans "meant it": within a generation, provincials held the top jobs. He compares this to the unthinkable idea of Britain giving Indians full access to power in London. A shared tax system, law and identity gave people reason to stay loyal. That continuity of the political community, not sameness of language or religion, is why he sees the so-called Byzantine Empire as Rome continuing.

Christopher Capozzola, an MIT historian, splits citizenship into two parts: legal rights and obligations, and a looser sense of belonging. World War I redefined American citizenship around the obligation to serve and, if asked, to die. About 24 million men registered for the draft. Enforcement came mostly through neighbors and community pressure, and a new surveillance apparatus watched German Americans, labor organizers and draft resisters. Yet those new obligations fueled new demands for free speech and equality. He favors civic, inclusive nationalism and fears the kind built on ethnic hatred.

Vivek Ramaswamy argues that American identity is a creed rooted in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, not blood and soil, and he calls the opposite view anti-American. He wants immigrants chosen honestly by stated criteria such as English, assimilation, knowledge of American history and economic contribution. His complaint is that the current system rewards lying. His enforcement claims drew pushback from Lex Fridman.

Darryl Cooper describes an America that renegotiates its identity every generation. He warns about the exploitation of immigrant labor and defends the right of nations like Ireland to stay themselves. Joe Rogan worries that current immigration supplies cheap labor and shifts votes.

The speakers agree on several points: Membership is a bargain. Integration sticks when newcomers can reach real power. Capozzola and Ramaswamy, from very different positions, both favor civic over ethnic nationalism.

They split on whether the civic model is universal or distinctly American. Ramaswamy and Rogan also fault today's system for different reasons. Capozzola's history adds a warning: a creed based on loyalty can still be enforced harshly.

What to do with this: When you hear a debate about belonging, ask whether it concerns legal papers or identity. Name the terms being offered, and check whether newcomers can reach the top. Watch for people who are left half in or exploited for their labor, and notice how loyalty is enforced. Judge integration over generations rather than news cycles. Read history with humility, since accounts reflect the time they are written in.