Three Models of Citizenship

摘要: This conference paper, focusing on the citizenship debate in U.S., elaborates three distinctive models of citizenship, which I call nationalistic, human rights, and Marshallian (after sociologist T. H. Marshall's seminal essay). analyze each model along normative dimensions: justification, territoriality, entitlements. The nationalistic is justified by a theory mutual democratic consent emphasizes bounded territoriality as main basis for membership. A liberal, highly individualistic polity like U.S. takes decidedly ambivalent view On one hand, they are part quid pro quo, social contract consensual membership rests, at least contemporary society. Moreover, most Americans manifestly believe that even liberal - or perhaps especially such certain minimum entitlements fact necessary to secure dignified, participatory, independent life their fellow citizens some non-citizens who reside work among them. other also additional entitlements, either kind amount, threaten these very same values, independence, would margin reduce motivation take responsibility oneself one's family. Although all developed societies exhibit this ambivalence, different ones strike balance benefits, costs, risks quite differently, with being an outlier limiting publicly-funded welfare supports. rights imperative securing individual group will assure humane protective conditions those unfortunate enough cruel despotic states, outside country nationality risk unequal inhumane treatment new locations. model's domain emphatically transnational, not territorially bounded. account, birth particular state parents adventitious; locational accident arbitrary should determine access that, matter distributive justice, be enjoyed universally, only national members. keen preserve, diminish, full panoply civil political already guaranteed (constitutionally statute) nationals European democracies. These constitute baseline entitlements; goal extend them people located within thus subject its governmental authority focuses but rather what he viewed incomplete set accorded citizens. Its justification lies aspiration equality citizens, including equal resources essential participation community life. It has little say about because assumes autonomy nation-state, specifically his own, United Kingdom. Unlike models, fails discuss phenomenon so central today large-scale immigration consequent claims against non-citizens. society, polity, economy. proponents "welfare laggard" respect, premise question calling attention six complicating factors: size, immigration, demography, privatization, globalization, intra-EU dynamics. For model, paper poses strikes me urgent, usually neglected, raised it, offer tentative all-too-brief simple, if simplistic, answer question. continuing relevance rapidly globalizing world. whether it contains any real limits, internal itself, obligations impose states dealings often (not always) perfect strangers universalistic, humanistic sense. why gained much less public support States than states. conclusion briefly speculates future both Europe. predicts distinctively individualistic, privatistic form nationalist continue flourish, bewilder Europeans edge way inexorably toward own more communitarian version it.