We are Sri Lankans as much as Americans are Americans

Professor Jinadasa, writing in your Letters column on June 17 from Massachusetts, USA, claims that “the greatest democracy on Earth” confers citizenship to any illegal migrant’s child when they are born on US soil. He was attempting to contrast the privileges there with those of Indian Tamils in the Estate sector in Sri Lanka who were denied their rights to citizenship.

I would like to remind the good Professor that in 1942, more than a hundred thousand Americans of Japanese ancestry were simply rounded up and nearly two thirds of them were interned in “War Relocation Camps”. Many of these US citizens lived in the states of Hawaii, California, Arizona and Oregon. After the war, the US Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the forced incarceration on the grounds of “a state of war”. US citizens of German descent only fared slightly better.

A decade after the September 11th attacks, US citizens who happen to be Muslim are increasingly discriminated against, at work places, schools, hospitals and public utilities. They are heavily scrutinised, interrogated, body- searched and often humiliated by airport security, and often denied transport, simply due to their names being “Islamic”. This is despite their black president’s middle name being Hussein.

I do not wish to deny that Sri Lanka has a staggering amount to learn (if ever it happens) from progressive nations elsewhere, on how to treat its citizens better. While US citizens may all call themselves “Americans” by name, it is altogether a separate issue if the term can be meaningful and genuinely describes acceptance, inclusivity and belonging by the more ‘entitled’ Americans.

Sri Lankans cannot yet honestly accept a Christian or Catholic president, let alone a Tamil or Malay one. However, the “jaathiya” is not what matters, but a common identity that Prof. Jinasena cannot successfully define in drawing analogies with his adopted country’s citizenship policy.