A more inclusive citizenship open to immigrants
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

A more inclusive citizenship open to immigrants

on

  • 854 views

Presentation by Prof. Dora Kostakopoulou (Warwick University) on the occasion of the EESC hearing on 'A more inclusive citizenship open to immigrants' - Brussels, 4 September 2013

Presentation by Prof. Dora Kostakopoulou (Warwick University) on the occasion of the EESC hearing on 'A more inclusive citizenship open to immigrants' - Brussels, 4 September 2013

Statistics

Views

Total Views
854
Views on SlideShare
846
Embed Views
8

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

1 Embed 8

http://www.eesc.europa.eu 8

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • {}

A more inclusive citizenship open to immigrants A more inclusive citizenship open to immigrants Presentation Transcript

  •    Citizenship as an oligarchic good  Citizenship as a network good   The model ◦ Principles ◦ Templates of domicile  Objections  Conclusion
  •  Citizenship as national membership has exclusionary effects which undermine the normative ideals of democratic participation and equality.  Liberal nationalism and contractarian moral theory do not regard this as problematic, because they have been premised on the assumption that national societies are self-sufficient and self-enclosed schemes of social cooperation the membership of which is by and large confined to co-nationals (Walzer 1983). Accordingly, the exclusion of non-national residents from the rights and benefits of citizenship is seen as a necessary consequence of a community’s process of self-definition.
  •  But this assumption is flawed. Not only it is based on an odd circularity, whereby aliens are by definition outside the community by virtue of a prior self-definition of the community which separates ‘us’ and ‘them’ and privileges ‘us’ over ‘them’, but it also screens out the various lines of connections and ties of interdependence between ‘us’ and ‘them’.  Political exclusion and the transformation of democracy into an ethnarchy might not be necessary, albeit unfortunate, consequences of a community’s right to democratic selfdetermination, but, instead, they may be contingent consequences of a contestable model of democracy which is rooted in the modern national-statist world and is, therefore, in need of correction in this millennium.
  •  Postnational citizenship – the legal discourse on human rights has permeated national legal orders and led to the dilution of the ‘natural dichotomy’ between citizens and aliens (Soysal 1994) and the decline of national citizenship (Jacobson 1996).  BUT human rights are the outgrowth of commitments made by the state which remains the body that defines the nature and scope of the rights granted to resident non-nationals. And while international law has helped the plight of migrants, it has never called into question the nationality principle as the basis for distributing community membership    Transnational citizenship - international migration and the ensuing interactions between receiving and sending countries result in the creation of mobile societies beyond the borders of territorial states (Baubock 1994).  BUT transnational citizenship denies neither the existence nor the normative relevance of borders and nation-states.  Citizenship thus remains a national statist affair and no one has articulated an institutional framework of postnational citizenship
  • Active Connections   State ↕ Individual ↔ Community/nation Individual       Domicile captures the various connections and bonds of association that a person has with a political community and its legal system from which rights and obligations flow.    
  •  Domicile (the special connection that one has with a country in which she has her permanent home) (factum of residence + animus).  Ius soli  The independence of domicile for married partners  Free will
  •  Db - domicile of birth (the domicile a person acquires at birth; ius soli; tenacious)  Dc - domicile of choice (the domicile that a person of full age may voluntarily acquire by residing in a country other than that of his/her origin)   Da – the domicile a person acquires by being legally dependent (a derived domicile; under the age of 16 Da and Db, later either Db and Dc or Db and Da continues to exist as deemed domicile of choice).  Combinations
  •  Integration requirements in citizenship laws  Integration requirements in order to enter European countries, obtain temporary or permanent residence and to have access to social benefits  ‘Integration abroad’ - pre-departure integration tests for spouses seeking family reunification
  • The Framer • • Governmental elites are not only implicated in diagnostic exercises but they are also part of the ‘integration issue’ Civic integration programmes are state-led projects The Frame • • • • The meaning of integration A discursive isomorphomism in favour of integration and assimilation Integration as a second order concept A law enforcement and sanctions-based approach (power, control, hierarchy, the test as a disciplinary technique)
  • (Interrogating the conceptual frame and shedding light onto why and how ideals, assumptions and reasoning templates are implicated in the adoption and justification of civic integration programmes) Travelling backwards in time Theory (From the melting pot to ordopolitics) History (Education tests in America in the mid-19th century, literacy tests designed to exclude ‘undesirable races’ from entry into the US, Immigration Restriction Bill 1886, Naturalisation Act of 1906, the Americanisation movement, dictation tests in Australia, Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950) Conclusion: the conceptual frames of integration and assimilation and their institutional manifestations cannot be separated from nationpolitics and ideology.
  •  Freedom to enter a contractual relationship?  Mutual recognition of ‘party’ status?  No intersubjective understanding following dialogue, exchange of views and negotiation  Integration contracts are mandatory and migrants do not have the power to negotiate or change the terms  Can integration be delivered?
  • The Integration Frame The Pluralistic Frame Obsession with national identity Belonging as something that develops as a matter of course Re-education: Newcomers have to unlearn the old and learn the new before being admitted into the country and into political membership Newcomers are welcome and encouraged to express their individuality The content of re-education is determined by state authorities and includes formal courses, compulsory attendance, specified hours and curriculum Learning occurs as matter of fact in everyday life – social interactions, the workplace, the market, religious ceremonies are sites of learning and newcomers should be encouraged to take part in as many spheres of social life as possible Learning is an obligation and the cost should be borne by newcomers themselves Learning is self-directed, unavoidable and the host society should be actively committed to investing in human capital Education to learn the language, history and ways of life of the host society is a means of ensuring social cohesion and harmony Linguistic adaptation is matter of time and a positive context of reception facilitates this process. Knowledge of history and ways of life s obtained via living and working in the host country and migrants should be allowed the freedom to pursue their own priorities of making a living, settling and creating a home for themselves and their families Coercion – penalties for non-attendance and exam failure Being made to feel at home – civic and political participation encouraged and valued Passive and subject status – they must know their place Collaborators, stakeholders and citizens in waiting It is the responsibility of the newcomers to demonstrate their commitment to the country by jumping over the hurdles and their devotion to its national values It is the responsibility of the newcomers to be law abiding and willing contributors to the commonwealth Re-certifying their commitment at multiple gates – ‘should they really be here?’ ‘who is worthy to belong to the community of citizens?’ A common sense approach – accrediting their resources, skills, hard labour, commitment, dynamism, problem-solving capacity and resilience Nationality is the foundation of the unity of society – homogeneity (linguistic, cultural, religious or ethnic) is an ideal and the norm The unity of society is achieved by doing things together, solving problems together by designing appropriate institutions and by valuing the efforts of all those who contribute to the commonwealth Ethnocentric communities by design or default Dynamic and relaxed communities Integration as hierarchy and intolerance Emphasis on participation, equal treatment and non-discrimination
  • David Oleson’s ‘parquet deformation’ created at Cargegie-Mellon in 1964.