Originally, I understood citizenship according to the “legal” framework offered in the reading, that laws, statutes and constitutions determine who gets citizenship handed to them, who doesn’t, and how those who don’t can earn it. The authors point out a few problems with this framework, such as the fact that laws are applied inconsistently to immigrants, for example when immigrants are forced to pay taxes but receive no benefits, or the fact that they don’t enjoy protections provided by laws but can receive the punishments. I don’t think this is a flaw, but rather a planned inequality allowing for the easy exploitation of docile immigrants, and the deportation of less compliant individuals.
The other framework, the “ethic of caring”, is mostly the same in the fact that those born in a country are automatically citizens, and those who are not, are not. The difference between the two is how non-citizens become citizens. In the caring framework, citizenship can be earned through moral behavior and contributions to society. Under this framework Jesus and his family would not be facing deportation because while the were here they didn’t cause any problems and they contributed to their community, even though they entered illegally.