In other words, doing the deeds of a citizen within the polis will make that individual a citizen regardless of family ancestry or heritage. "A citizen is a citizen in being a citizen" (Winthrop, 1975). In a political sense, this aspect of Aristotle's view on citizenship is not particularly followed in the polis or city-state societies of today. More emphasis is placed on an individual's place of birth and the citizenship of one's parents are viewed in order to determine this, and in some cases it is the place of birth that decides a person's citizenship. In a theoretical perspective, a person is a citizen of a modern polis community if he or she participates in the activities of the polis, or as Aristotle would state, an activity which has in itself it's own end. A citizen is then deemed to be a person who is ruled or ruled and shares a common constitution. .
As stated above, according to Aristotle, an individual's race, place of birth or heritage should not be a determining factor in obtaining citizenship in a polis. Aristotle also concluded that those individuals who have specifically been made citizens by the magistrates as well as those who have been made citizens after a revolution are to also be excluded from automatic citizenship consideration within the polis. These aspects of gaining citizenship are considered by Aristotle to be "accidental and should be cast aside." Therefore, those individuals that were appointed by the judges of the polis as citizens and those individuals that were either conquered by or in accord with the polis are not considered citizens of the polis based solely on these facts. There must be other determining factors when applying the rules of citizenship. But is this aspect of Aristotle's citizenship a part of our world today? In the case of the United States, an individual can gain citizenship if deemed appropriate by a ruling magistrate.
