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

1.

Citizenship as an oligarchic good

Citizenship as a network good

The model
◦ Principles
◦ Templates of domicile

Objections

Conclusion

2. 
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.

3. 
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.

4. 
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

5. 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.

6. 
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

7. 
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

8.  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

9. 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)

10. (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.

11. 
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?

12. 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

13. David Oleson’s ‘parquet deformation’ created at Cargegie-Mellon in 1964.