A Theory of Denizenship
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
A Theory of Denizenship Meghan Benton Thesis submitted for the degree of PhD in Political Science at the Department for Political Science, University College London (UCL) I, Meghan Benton, confirm that the work presented in this thesis is my own. Where information has been derived from other sources, I confirm that this has been indicated in the thesis. 2 Abstract Political philosophers have generally assumed that all residents of states are citizens, and vice versa. But the changing face of migration from permanent, ‘settler’ migration to temporary, multiple migration means that ‘denizenship’ – the state of being a resident non-citizen – can no longer be considered anomalous. Denizenship is clearly a less favourable status than citizenship. However, little has been done to explore this intuition. To the extent that immigration has been theorised, it has been according to three main dimensions. The first considers first admission, the second what rights denizens are entitled to, and the third what conditions states can set on citizenship acquisition. Part 1 of my thesis examines and identifies the limitations with these existing approaches. I argue that, by identifying the problem of denizenship with the absence of legal rights, the rights approach cannot specify the conditions under which it is problematic for denizens to enjoy fewer of the rights of citizenship. It also takes insufficient account of the way in which states lack the incentive to protect their non-citizen population. The citizenship acquisition approach, on the other hand, is not sensitive enough to deal with the different claims of vulnerable groups of migrants. In Part 2 I advance an alternative framework for addressing the problem of denizenship structured around the republican ideal of non-domination. First, I develop a conception of domination as dependence on unaccountable power. Second, I apply this conception to the case study of denizens and to different groups of vulnerable migrants. I find that denizens as a group are vulnerable to domination, and that they encompass vulnerability subgroups, including refugees and undocumented migrants. Finally, I outline features of a domination-reducing policy approach to migration. I suggest that domination can inform policies in four areas: improving the accountability of states to their non-citizen population; empowering denizens in their private relationships; reducing domination in immigration policy; and reducing arbitrariness in citizenship acquisition. 3 Contents ABSTRACT .............................................................................................................................................3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..........................................................................................................................6 CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................7 I: Denizenship and Citizenship.......................................................................................................10 II: Denizenship in the Literature ....................................................................................................12 III: Research Questions and Objectives .........................................................................................16 IV: Structure ...................................................................................................................................17 PART 1: EXISTING APPROACHES TO DENIZENSHIP..............................................................21 CHAPTER 2 – SELECTIVELY OPEN BORDERS: AN ETHICAL BORDER POLICY.......................................22 I: Arguments for Closed Borders....................................................................................................23 II: Arguments for Open Borders.....................................................................................................29 III: Selectively Open Borders .........................................................................................................41 CHAPTER 3 – THE TYRANNY OF THE ENFRANCHISED MAJORITY? DENIZENSHIP AS RIGHTS VULNERABILITY ..................................................................................................................................45 I: The Rights Approach to Denizenship..........................................................................................46 II: The Liberal-Rights Approach to Denizenship............................................................................49 III: The Democratic-Republican Approach to Denizenship ...........................................................55 IV: Beyond Rights Vulnerability.....................................................................................................59 CHAPTER 4 - BEYOND NATURALISATION: THE ROLE OF CITIZENSHIP ACQUISITION IN NORMATIVE APPROACHES TO DENIZENSHIP ............................................................................................................61 I: Exit from Denizenship.................................................................................................................62 II: Fair Exit from Denizenship .......................................................................................................67 III: Automatic Exit from Denizenship.............................................................................................74 IV: The Role of Citizenship Acquisition in Normative Theories of Immigration ............................78 PART 2: A DOMINATION-REDUCING APPROACH TO DENIZENSHIP ................................80 CHAPTER 5 - DOMINATION AS DEPENDENCE ON UNACCOUNTABLE POWER ........................................81 I: Why Domination? .......................................................................................................................82 II: Domination as ‘Inhibited Participation’ ...................................................................................83 III: Domination as “Subjection to Capacity for Arbitrary Interference”.......................................86 IV: Domination as “Dependence on Unconstrained Power” ........................................................99 V - Domination as Dependence on Unaccountable Power...........................................................101 VI: Conclusion..............................................................................................................................105 CHAPTER 6 - THE VULNERABILITY OF DENIZENS: A DOMINATION-BASED FRAMEWORK ..................106 I: The Domination Framework and Indicators of Vulnerability to Domination...........................107 II: The Vulnerability of Denizens to Domination .........................................................................113 III: Case Studies ...........................................................................................................................122 4 IV: Conclusion..............................................................................................................................131 CHAPTER 7 - REDUCING DOMINATION IN IMMIGRATION POLICY.......................................................134 I: The Good of Non-Domination...................................................................................................134 II: Promoting the Non-Domination of Denizens and Citizens......................................................137 III: Outlining a Non-Domination Inspired Policy Approach........................................................146 IV: Evaluation of a Non-Domination Theory of Denizenship.......................................................162 REFERENCES......................................................................................................................................166 5 Acknowledgements I am thankful to have been supported by Arts and Humanities Research Council funding. In a very real sense this work would not have been possible without this assistance. On a personal and professional level, I have had the benefit of intellectual, practical and emotional support from a large number of friends, colleagues and family. They have helped with the conception, development and completion of this thesis, and provided me with the support to persist with, survive, and even enjoy the process. All deserve huge thanks. I am grateful for rich comments on drafts of chapters from Alex Brown, Sarah Fine, Henry Hicks, Robert Jubb, Katerina Mantouvalou and Jack Simson Caird. Participants of the UCL Political Theory PhD workshop, the Association of Legal and Social Philosophy Conference 2010, and the York University Political Philosophy Conference 2009 provided feedback on various chapters. The comments from two anonymous reviewers for the journal Res Publica – on an article adapted from Chapter 3 – were also invaluable at a critical time. Thanks to my brilliant colleagues at the Constitution Unit. In particular, Meg Russell, Vicki Spence, Kristina Wollter, and Ben Worthy for wisdom, advice, problem-solving and support through, and Gabrielle Bourke and Mark Chalmers for some savvy proofreading. My PhD colleagues have made the journey easier and contributed to the development of my thinking, especially David Karp, Katerina Mantouvalou, Coro Power-Febres and Laura Valentini. The Department of Political Science as a whole has been a nurturing, enjoyable place for me both as a student and member of staff, and thanks go to all my colleagues. Richard Bellamy in particular