Citizenship comp

Question 1

Bosniak, L. (1998). The Citizenship of Aliens

Answer 1

Citizenship is being reclaimed in 3 ways. 1) by theorists focusing on democratic participation and civic virtue, 2) arguing for forms of differentiated citizenship that takes in to account distinct group identity and concerns in a multicultural society, 3) scholars that look outside of the nation-state, and how non-status persons are excluded.
She primarily argues the third point, saying that citizenship is primarily a nationalist project.
She sees two possibilities, the first is to calls for non-status persons to act or perform as citizens, and the second is to scrap the idea of citizenship altogether, until or unless it is removed from being tied up in nationalism.

Question 2

Bosniak, L. S. (1994). Membership and Its Boundaries: Membership, equality, and the difference that alienage makes.

Answer 2

In this work she is looking at Walzer’s work, arguing that his work lets us think “inside” and “outside” of boundaries.
The significance of Walzer’s argument has not been fully appreciated. Scholars see his argument as normatively justifying immigration restrictions. He does see the world as needing to be bounded, but he also says that admission criteria of political communities are constrained by “shared understandings of moral action” (1070), (for instance having racial quotas in US is wrong, because that already established ideas of pluralism). He also says that the rights of states to close their borders are constrained by needing to lend a hand and provide mutual aid.
Bosniak argument in line with Walzer’s, in relation to boundaries, saying that in the legal system non-status persons face two “regimes of regulation and relationship” (1138), the first over admission to community membership “inside” and the second over territorially present persons “outside”

Question 3

Bosniak, L. (2000). Universal Citizenship and the Problem of Alienage.

Answer 3

Citizenship theorists ignore issues of noncitizenship (she uses term alienage). They see citizenship as universal and don’t consider how boundaries are enforced from within..
In order to address questions of noncitizenship, we need to look at ideas of liberal citizenship and rights.

Question 4

Bosniak-The Citizen and the Alien (2008)

Answer 4

1) To consider alienage, we have to have an inward-looking view of citizenship (ie a frame that is boundary conscious).
2) Citizenship can take on new meanings, but it’s constrained by its associations to community belonging, or the particular (ethnically speaking).
3) Citizenship and civic society (academia, corporations, churches, activism, community organizations) has been seen in opposition to each other, where citizenship only being political, but many scholars argue otherwise, where they see abroadening of citizenships in the range of applications and what people see as political. She says this is happening at the local and transnational levels, where with activism, people are engaging in “global civil society”.

Question 5

Foucault, M. (1978). Lecture: 11 January 1978. In Security, Territory, Population. Lectures at the Collège De France

Answer 5

Developing term bio-power which are a “Set of the mechanism through which the basic biological features of the human species became the object of political strategy, of a general strategy of power” (16).
Apparatuses of security, which has 4 features 1) spaces of security, 2) treatment of the uncertain, 3) “form of normalization” associated with security and 4) impact that these security measures have on populations.

Question 6

Kymlicka, W., & Norman, W. (1994). Return of the Citizen: A Survey of Recent Work on Citizenship Theory.

Answer 6

Arguing that we need a theory of citizenship when it comes to issues of identity. They argue that citizenship requires some sort of a balance between rights and responsibilities.
Citizenship is not just a status defined by some rights and responsibilities. It is also an identity, meaning an expression of “one’s membership in a political community”

Question 7

Brubaker, R. (1990). Immigration, citizenship, and the nation-state in France and Germany: A comparative historical analysis.

Answer 7

Argues that the politics of citizenship in relation to immigrants has been informed by distinct national self-understanding that are “deeply rooted in political and cultural geography and powerfully reinforced at particular historical conjunctures”.
Provides a comparison of Germany and France:
France is jus soli, universalist, assimilationist, and state-centered. Germany is jus sanguinis, particularist, and based on ethnocultural unity. France citizenship more accessible than Germany.

Question 8

Marshall, T.H + Bottomore.-Citizenship &; Social class

Answer 8

Marshall:
Makes the argument that there are three forms of citizenship rights, these being civil, political and social.
Duty being tied to rights.
Bottomore:
We need to reconsider the relationship between social class and citizenship. Marshall ignored gendered and racialized analyses.
We need to look at civic, social and political rights through human rights and not through citizenship as Marshall had originally conceived.

Question 9

Taylor, C. (1994). The Politics of Recognition in Multiculturalism.

Answer 9

He argues that our identities are partly shared by the recognition and misrecognition of others and that people can be distorted when people or society mirrors back a negative view of themselves.
Discourses of recognition can be expressed in two levels 1) intimate sphere where identity forms in continuous dialogue with significant others and 2) in the public sphere, where politics of equal recognition (emphasizing equal rights and entitlements of all citizens) becomes more important. Politics of equal recognition and politics of difference come into conflict.

Question 10

Bloemraad, I., Korteweg, A. C., & Yurdakul, G. (2008). Citizenship and Immigration: Multiculturalism, Assimilation, and Challenges to the Nation-State.

Answer 10

This review suggests that globalization places challenges on understandings of citizenship as being state controlled and centered. But, they further argue that nation-states continue to hold considerable power over the formal rules and rights of citizenship and in shaping institutions that provide differentiated access to participation and belonging, which has important consequences for immigrant incorporation and equality.

Question 11

Lister, R. (1997). Citizenship: Towards a feminist synthesis.

Answer 11

Lister is aiming to propose a theory of synthesizing rights and participatory approaches, linked through notions of human agency, to come up with a feminist theory of citizenship. Secondly, she examines citizenship’s exclusionary tendencies which work to exclude women and minority groups of full citizenship.
She calls for a “differentiated universalism” which particularizes the universal.

Question 12

Orloff, A. 1993. Gender and the Social Rights of Citizenship: The Comparative Analysis of Gender Relations and Welfare States

Answer 12

She argues that the “power resource model” provides a good starting point to look at gender in the context of state social provision. The “power resource model” where these scholars have developed a mode of evaluating the content of social provision.. they began from the idea that workers are oppressed by capitalism, which transfers labour power into commodity. Political rights allow workers to mobilize for their interests.
Gender is absent from this model, where it assumes that civil and political rights are available equally to all persons

Question 13

Young, I.M. (1990). Social Movements and the Politics of Difference.

Answer 13

Young is critical of the universal liberal democratic conception and is proposing an alternative. Sees the problem being between the public and the private and that we need to bring everyone to the public. Calls for a group differentiated citizenship, and a heterogeneous public, where differences are recognized and seen as irreducible, where no perspective takes precedence. In order for everyone to be included in public discussion and decision making, we need group represenation.

Question 14

Anthias, F. & Yuval-Davis, N. (1992). Whose Nation? Whose State? Racial/Ethnic Divisions and “the Nation”.

Answer 14

They are looking at ideas of nationalism and racism, specifically looking in the case of Britain. They are looking at the changing boundaries of British national collectivity and how legislation and ideology affect them. Arguing that theories of the state need to be separate from the nation and “civil society” in order to analyze racism and nationalism. When considering issues of racism and nationalism, we need to look at class division.

Question 15

Balibar, E. (1991). Racism and Nationalism.

Answer 15

Arguing that nationalism and racism are entangled, but that the weight of nationalism is much less contested. He makes the argument that there are many racism (internal, external theoretical and spontaneous).

Question 16

Bannerji, H. (2000). Charles Taylor’s Politics of Recognition: A Critique.

Answer 16

She is critiquing Taylor’s work calling his work “non-official elite multiculturalism”. She wants to put forth a historical materialist perspective. She wants to move beyond the liberalism/communitarian debate.
Counter to Taylor’s call for recognition, she says its not recognition that we call for, but a struggles to end injustice and exploitation.

Question 17

Chatterjee, S. (2019). Immigration, anti-racism, and Indigenous self-determination: towards a comprehensive analysis of the contemporary settler colonial.

Answer 17

Chatterjee is analyzing the land, labour, and dispossession and exploitation, proposing a no-borders politics as a tool that can be used to challenge settler colonialism, that can help us understand problems/movements on both sides. Wants to build an anti-racist politics that can meaningfully respond to settler-colonial project of resettlement and dispossession without binarizing.
She argues that privileging “spatialized belonging” underpins the notion of immigrant settlerhood and that this idea should be unpacked.

Question 18

Walia, H. (2010). Transient servitude: migrant labour in Canada and the apartheid of citizenship.

Answer 18

Walia is arguing through a case study of SAWP and LCP in BC that global capitalism exerts a structural violence over populations, forcing people to move from their homes and forcing migrants into positions of being subjects of cheap labour, where they are excluded from the nation-state, and maintained in a state of vulnerability.

Question 19

Balibar, E. (2004). Homonationalis: An anthropological sketch of the nation-form.

Answer 19

Balibar is critically examining the relation between the nation, “nation-form” and “nationalism”.
Nation-state as a structural institution does not mean it is static, but rather, it is also changing and transforming itself.
National identity is a secondary identity which presupposes primary identities. Our identities are formed through outside sources and ideologies and we create our identities through accepting or rejecting the roles imposed upon us. Primary identities have to be deconstructed in order to fit into the national imaginary (to belong must assimilate).

Question 20

Glick Schiller, N., L. Basch, and C. Szanton Blanc.1995 “From Immigrant to Transmigrant: Theorizing Transnational Migration.”

Answer 20

They are looking through an ethnography of transnational migration to see the ways that immigration in the US can be seen as a nation-building project which works to restrict the loyalties of transmigrants.
Argue that there is a re inscription of the border happening which serves to counter transnational identities and create a terrain wherein immigrants are drawn into defending what they have achieved or obtained by defending in against those that do not hold status. Therefore, they are drawn in discourses of identity which link them to the US nation-state and the bounded structures of laws and institutions.

Question 21

Itzigsohn, J. (2000). Immigration and the boundaries of citizenship: The institutions of immigrants’ political transnationalism,

Answer 21

Arguing that in our current age new forms of political action and citizenship that go beyond territorial and political boundaries of the state have emerged. Looks at the Dominican Republic, Haiti and El Salvador to consider the transnational activities in each, arguing they all develop similar patterns of immigrant political transnationalism, these being demands by home country for extension of political rights of migrants, demands to political rights in their home country and right to dual citizenship .
Argue that although transnationalism has opened a space for participation of previously marginalized groups, that it doesn’t subvert the current economic order.

Question 22

Maira, S. (2009). Cultural Citizenship & Transnational Citizenship: Flexibility and Control.

Answer 22

Rights and obligations of civic citizenship are mediated by race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, religion, and class.
Citizenship membership based on ideas of social morality and cultural beliefs around defining what makes a good citizen and these beliefs are racialized, gendered, and classed. There is a tension between formal legal citizenship and cultural citizenship.
Citizenship is increasingly individualized and privatized, with some arguing that it is related to being a consumer of social goods, than anything else.
She draws on Ong’s ideas of flexible citizenship, seeing it as related to post national/denationalized citizenship, emerging in response to changes in the institution of citizenship within nation-states, where receiving citizenship the youth felt would shield them to from human rights abuses, but where she says getting a passport still does not mean you will be seen as an american.

Question 23

Ong, A. (2006). Mutations in Citizenship. Theory, Culture and Society,

Answer 23

Arguing that we are moving beyond the citizenship-stateless nexus and that there are many kinds of partial citizenship, where she develops flexible citizenship, which is a term used to describe the maneuvers of mobile subjects who respond in ways that are fluid and opportunistic towards borderless market conditions .
She describes a democracy in action against lack of rights and benefits, and against corruption. Says that human rights discourse are western construct and biased towards Asian countries. Protests in streets in Asian countries, not about human rights, but about ethics of culture and religion.
Forming global citizenship
Health based claims (biological citizenship) have been important in the west.
The opposition between territorialized citizenship and deterritorialized human rights can’t capture the various assemblages that are the sites of contemporary political claims, arguing instead that we need to also include new claims (postnational/flexible/cyber-based/biological) as grounds for protection, entitlement, and resources.

Question 24

Stasiulis, D., & Bakan, A. (2005). Negotiating Citizenship in an Era of Globalization.

Answer 24

Proposes a theory for conceptualizing citizenship experiences of women from the South migrating as caregivers.
Argue that nation states are still the most important governance site for allocation and regulation of citizenship rights, responsibilities, and burdens. But, that the power relations that underlie national citizenship are not confined to dynamics in the nation-state, instead they reflect and reinforce global relations of power, for instance the hierarchy of states in the overarching world system of states, and the increasingly transnational character of resistance in civil society.

Question 25

Bhambra, G. (2015). Citizens and Others: The Constitution of Citizenship through Exclusion.

Answer 25

Bhambra is looking at how citizenship has been understood, considering its deeper racialized structures. He proposes the idea of “connected sociologies” which he defines as recognizing that events and history that are constituted by process are always more broad than the selections that bound them as particular and specific to their theoretical constructs.
argues that we need to reexamine historical accounts when there is evidence that something else occurred.
Citizenship seen as a system of inclusion and not as one of exclusion.

Question 26

Isin, E. (2012). Citizenship after orientalism: an unfinished project.

Answer 26

“Citizenship after orientalism” started with an anti-colonial movement struggle in the 20th century and intensified after WW2. He calls this an unfinished project because despite anticolonial struggles and decolonizing and deorientalizing occurring, that western political thought has barely begun. He is looking at a number of theorists and theories of critical citizenship.
Argues that it is through the movements of different forms of orientalism that the binaries are maintained and projected into other areas.
We need to turn a new leaf and consider coloniality as a condition of modernity.

Question 27

Mongia, R. (2018). Race, Nationality, Mobility: A History of the Passport.

Answer 27

She is looking at the 1906/1907 debates around the demand that Indians immigrating to Canada should have passports..
Arguing that the nation-state being bounded to territory, the “national frontier” takes shape in the context of racialized migration.
Passport as a technology that harnesses the strategy to create a “nationalized” migrant body. Race as a national attribute codified in the passport as a state document.

Question 28

Thobani, S. (2007). Nationals, Citizens, and Others.

Answer 28

Argues that migration is the direct result of imperalism and colonialism.
“Crisis” of immigration in the west is racial-threatening the disintegration of white supremacy.
Migration and citizenship are deeply entrenched with national formation, where immigration policies organize access to formal citizenship.

Question 29

Abji, S. (2013). Post-nationalism re-considered: a case study of the “No One Is Illegal” movement in Canada.

Answer 29

Arguing that scholars reconsider the usefulness of post-nationalism in relation to debates around precarious status. Human rights frames offer both risk and reward, but argues that the benefits could outweigh the risk.
She outlines the “advocates dilemma” where using state-limited frames are self-limiting because they work to reinforce assumptions which produce immigration restrictions in the first place.

Question 30

Berlant, L. (2011). On the Desire for the Political.

Answer 30

She describes ambient citizenship as a “complicated thing, a mode of belonging, really, that circulates through and around the political in formal and informal ways, with an affective, emotional, economic and juridical force that is at once clarifying and diffuse” (230).
She describes the subject of democracy as a “Being without qualities” where they fit in based on rule of blood or birth. she says rather, that the anonymity of the “informatic citizen” has a different status, where what is being recorded is not their citizenship status, but evidence of their potential intentions Ie: who they could become. This means that every act is an audition for citizenship, were in the security state “no one knows when the citizen’s audition for citizenship is happening, through what channels, and according to what standards. (foucaultian analysis here).

Question 31

Isin, E. (2008). Theorizing Acts of Citizenship.

Answer 31

Globalization and neoliberalism produce new subjects of law and action, with new sites of struggle over identity and scales of identification.
Aims to contribute to acts of citizenship as objects of investigation distinct from but related to status and habitus (Bordieaus terms for ways of thought and conduct internalized over a relatively long period of time).
Citizenship studies tell us not only is citizen a legal status, but it also involves practices of making citizens.
Outlines 3 principles of theorizing act of citizenship 1) interpreting them through “their grounds and consequences, which includes subjects becoming activist citizens through scenes created, 2) principle of recognizing that acts produce actors that “become answerable to justice against injustice” and 3) principle of recognizing the acts of citizenship don’t always need to be based in law or enacted in the name of law.

Question 32

Nyers, P. (2018). The Subject of Irregularity & Liberating Irregularity: Democratizing borders in sanctuary cities

Answer 32

Looking at the multiple forms of irregular citizenship.
Irregular citizenship is enacted through the convergence of 5 processes: 1) racialization IR “sticks” to certain individuals more than others (Sara Ahmed “sticky attachments” certain words repeated which produce particular affects. 2) externalization- people need to be seen as having a place to return to. “foreignness [that needs to be] displaced, expelled, and externalized”. 3) Exceptionalism-finding loopholes 4) accident- issuing documents in error, passing back and forth between states (in case of Deepan) 5) Contestation- movements IR being related to discourse of “danger, calamity and fear” (27).
looking analytically at IR citizenship lets us think about continual enactments of “no borders” through opening up new ways of being political and new worlds.

Question 33

Goldring, L. & Landolt, P. (2017). Assembling Non-citizenship Through the Work of Conditionality.

Answer 33

States are restrictive and noncitizenship involves claims making and enacting substantive citizenship. Providing a conceptual framework for understanding noncitizenship, where they see it as a multiscalar, dynamic assemblage that brings together a number of relations of power, social actors, discursive “frames, regulation bureaucracies, sectors, ect.” in ways that are patterned and changing.
They see three broad apporaches that scholarships takes to assemblages of citizenship: 1) socio-legal production of citizenship and noncitizenship is “embedded in transnational effort” (“illegality” and deportability literature), 2) noncitizenship agency, acts of citizenship and subjectivitiy and 3) negotiating boundaries through institutional actors.

Question 34

Carens, J. (2009). The Case for Amnesty.

Answer 34

Arguing that irregular migrants should be granted amnesty based on the amount of time that they have resided in a country. Sometimes there is a wider moral argument for letting people stay and we can learn from Europeans in this area. The longer the stay, the stronger the moral claim.

Question 35

Casas-Cortés, M., Cobarrubias, S., De Genova, N., Garelli, G., Grappi, B., Heller, C., Hess, S., Kasparek, B., Mezzadra, S., Neilson, B., Peano, I., Pezzani, L., Pickels, J., Rahola, F., Riedner, L., Scheel, S., & Tazzioli, M. (2015). New Keywords: Migration and Borders.

Answer 35

Looking at reconceptualizing how we think about borders and migration to define new keywords which deconstruct and reconstruct how we talk about critical migration studies in productive ways.

1. Migration studies: Historical roots in 19th century (Chicago school of sociology) and under “guest-worker regime” in West Germany + other countries in Europe in 50/60’s. Emerged in era of mass industrialization in early 20th C and in Fordism. Even though economy has changed these frameworks still inform migration today.
2. Border spectacle: a performance where “illegalization” function alongside other devices such as waiting, missing paperwork, interviews, ect. “enactment of exclusion through the enforcement of the border produces (illegalized) migration as a category and literally and figuratively renders it visible” (67).
3. Border regime: “epistemological, conceptual and methodological shift in the way we think about, how we envision and how we research borders” (69).
4. Differential inclusion/exclusion: Looks at how inclusion in something can be based on various degrees of subordination, discrimination, racism and exploitation. Migration control divides, link between migration control and regimes of labour management and allows us to critically analyze practices of integration and programs of social inclusion. It highlights how the border has moved to the centre of political life.
5. Migrant struggles: protest and daily refusals and resistance (Goldring-says we only focus on big acts). Migrations are “caught up within relations of power” (81).
6. Subjectivity: Avoids framing migrants as atomized individual rational-choice actors, they rather want to start with migrant experiences, and struggles, not in isolation from discourses, practices and devices, laws, institutions which constitute forms of human mobility as migration and thus “make migrants out of some people who move but not others” (84).

Question 36

De Genova, N. (2010). The Deportation Regime: Sovereignty, Space, and the Freedom of Movement.

Answer 36

Considers the work of Agamben, Foucault, and Marx in an analysis of deportation, considering a no-borders method. He calls for a more substantial form of citizenship unconstrained by systems of deportation.
The allure of membership in state power operates as a device of entrapment, otherwise known as citizenship and declared sacred by birthright (who qualifies as “natural” citizen and whose “nativity” may serve to verify national belonging.
Foucault stayed away from talking about soverignty saying that it is pre-modern. However, Agamben in his work brought it back as bare life of human beings to the centre of polis, where he sees predatory relationship between sovereign (state) power and bare life, where bare life is not biologically given preceding sovereign power, rather, bare life is the “product of the bio-political machine” (44).
Citizenship institutionalized a circle of protection of rights and entitlements to those who are counted as “properly” belonging. “Citizenship struggles become…ensnared in the state’s foundation but incessant project of producing a “people” in its own image” (51).

Question 37

De Genova, N. P. (2002). Migrant “Illegality” and Deportability in Everyday Life

Answer 37

Providing a review that looks critically at scholarship of undocumented migration, with a specific emphasis on ethnographic works that focus on the every day lives of migrants.
We can’t look at “illegality” of undocumented folks only as it relates to the consequences and that we also need to look critically at the sociopolitical processes of “illegalization” itself, which he argues can be understood as “the legal production of migrant “illegality”” (440).
See “illegality” as a social relationship, inseparable from citizenship and as a judicial status and thus, a political identity.
Migrant “illegality” produced as a result of the law, but also sustained “as an effect of a discursive formation” (432).
We have to call out the perceived “naturalness” of “illegality” which requires a critique of the ways that “the sociopolitical presuppositions and conceits of nationalism and how it has shaped the concept of migration itself.

Question 38

Ellis, B. Gonzales, R.G. & Rendón García, S. (2019). The Power of Inclusion: Theorizing “Abjectivity” and Agency Under DACA.

Answer 38

Using a critical psychological theory to consider how DACA has altered the conditions of abjectivity of DACA recipients., looking at how precarious status can reinforce liminality, but also work to bring about agency and belonging.
The concept of abjectivity is useful to understand how exclusion is experienced by conditions of “illegality” for non-status youth.
Abjectivity is pointing to bot the subjective experiences of migrant “illegality” shaped by threats of deportation, as well as how exclusion operates on a day-to-day basis by stigma, and discourses that construct non-status persons as outsiders.

Question 39

Gonzales, R.G., & Signona, N. (2017). Mapping the soft borders of citizenship: An introduction

Answer 39

Talks about how citizenship and membership is experienced and how it is spatially and bureaucratically constructed and how policies and practices of excluded are contested + how political claims of membership test boundaries to create new political relations across the arena of human mobility and border control.
“Illegality” is historically and legally produced, situated in a broader framework of a global economy, produced and experienced as a master status.
People without status still engage in activities in community and establish relationships through being included in local policies or by institutional practices, even when excluded from the legal-political system.

Question 40

Könönen Jukka. 2018. Differential inclusion of non-citizens in a universalistic welfare state.

Answer 40

Analyzing differential inclusion of non-status persons entitlements in Finland. Unequal access to the welfare system is representative of a significant sphere of differentiation in immigration processes.
Universalism of rights and residence based welfare state is invalidated by the role that immigration law plays in managing residence status of non-status persons.
Idea of differential inclusion in critical migration research is used to “demonstrate the selective inclusion of migrants within the sphere of rights in receiving society in contrast to the idea of borders as devices of inclusion and exclusion” (54).
Categorizations of immigrants reflect state deemed categories of deservingness.
Social rights as an embodiment of citizenship in contemporary age, but non-status migrants can obtain social security before political rights as citizens. Critical of Marshall, saying with non-status migrants its not a linear trajectory of rights.
Welfare system creates hierarchies among non-citizens, which can create challenges to integration process and undermine position in labour market.

Question 41

Neilson, B., Mezzadra, S. (2013). The Proliferation of Borders.

Answer 41

Borders do not just block or obstruct global flows, but rather they have become essential devices for their articulation. Borders have not only proliferated, but have also undergone complex transformation. Borders play a key role in the times and spaces of global capitalism and thet shaped the struggles that emerge in these time and spaces.
Borders equally devices of inclusion, selecting and filtering people no less violent than what is deployed in exclusionary measures.

Question 42

Bloemraad, Irene, Michèle Lamont, Will Kymlicka, and Leanne Son Hing. (2019). Membership without Social Citizenship? Deservingness and Redistribution as Grounds for Equality

Answer 42

As more groups obtain formal national membership, a more restricted number of people are seen as deserving of social rights and welfare distributions. Draw on 4 fields to offer alternative approaches to understand tensions and consider pathways to inclusive membership: 1) solidarity by normative political theorists, 2) group identity and distributive justice by social psychologists, 3) boundary-drawing and destigmatization by cultural psychologists and 4) contestation and social movements by political sociologists and scientists.
See two different views of ensuring inclusive membership and social solidarity 1) national-level inclusion and 2) boundary-drawing emerging from particular experiences from activities, workplaces, social networks, and political coalitions.

Question 43

Chauvin, S., & Garcés-Mascareñas, B. (2012). Beyond Informal Citizenship: The New Moral Economy of Migrant Illegality.

Answer 43

Arguing that in liberal democracies, there is an increasing tension between “illegal” statuses of new immigrants, where their limited but effective incorporation doesn’t always pit formal law against informal practices, but is often located in the law itself. Second, they don’t see “illegality” as functioning as an absolute marker of illegitimacy, but as a barrier to the continuum of probationary citizenship. third, they see holding access to formal civic attributes is being made extremely difficult by increased restrictions and controls on immigration, labour and welfare, where migrants risk being framed, “more illegal” by the same frame that brings them into being seen as holding civic deservingness.
Universal inclusion in nation-states is interconnected with the subordination of non-status persons.
Article looking beyond “informal” citizenship looking at the ways that migrants become integrated into key formal institutions and explore moral and dynamics that can come regulate such incorporation.
There has been a hardening of immigration regimes in Europe and North America which has created two dilemmas in relation migrant deservingness, where they have to be more visible through committing “illegalities” to make themselves “less illegal”.

Question 44

Chauvin, S., & Garcés-Mascareñas, B. (2014). Becoming Less Illegal: Deservingness Frames and Undocumented Migrant Incorporation.

Answer 44

Looking at the frames between universal and particular claims to legal status, legalization based on vulnerability vs performance, economic and cultural deservingness and policy level vs individual nation.
Examining nexus between the social incorporation of undocumented migrants and the moral economy that regulates uncertain access to legal status.
Outline 4 claims that have been prevalent in contemporary literature on migrant “illegality”: 1) we should look at “illegality” laws, not “illegalized” themselves, 2) migrant “illegality” is not predominantly about deportation, 3) migrant “illegality” as a political institution means considering the majority of migrants who stay, where civic exclusion is a form of subordinate inclusion and 4) irregular migrants exclusion does not just operate through the labour market, but also through “discipline imposed by the threat of detention and deportation, what they call “deportability” which sustains migrants “vulnerability and traceability as workers “

Question 45

Willen, S. S. (2012b). Migration, “illegality,‘’ and health: Mapping embodied vulnerability and debating health-related deservingness.

Answer 45

Health-related deservingness needs to be fore-fronted so that social scientists can understand and meaningfully respond to global health challenges.
Being “illegalized” has health consequences. Non-status persons are not only excluded from political communities, but also moral communities of “people whose lives, bodies, illnesses, and injuries are deemed worthy of attention, investment and concern” (806).
Deservingness as the flip side of rights

Question 46

Landolt, P. (forthcoming 2020). Assembling the Local Politics of Noncitizenship: Contesting Access to Healthcare in Toronto-Sanctuary City

Answer 46

Looking at scholarship on assemblages and precarious noncitizenship, drawing together an analysis of regulations, networks, cultural narratives, and how discretion is deployed.
Define the local politics of noncitizenship as “multi-actor , multi-scalar contestations over the formal and substantive boundaries between citizenship and noncitizenship” (1).
Argue that the relation between individual face-to-face discretion and the larger systemic structural of social life has not been considered.
See’s the local politics of of noncitizenship as developing along two axis’s, first looks at structural and organizational, looking at things like demographics of those with/without status, local policy environment, ect, and 2) looks at relation between culture and power, has emphasis on the role of media in framing ideas of deservingness and moral worth, where assessments shape discretionary decisions of gatekeepers. Additionally institutional cultures and professional codes also shape the formation of policies, how procedures are interpreted and how encounters between citizens and presumed non-citizens go.
Research on non-citizen healthcare can provide a unique insight into theorizing local politics of noncitizenship, where scholars see structural and organizational conditions being shaped by migrant health-seeking or claims making, which can be things like fear, cultural/linguistic barriers, limited social networks, “illegality” knowledge and performing deservingness.

Question 47

Villegas, P. (2013). Negotiating the Boundaries of Membership: Healthcare Providers, Access to Social Good and Immigration Status.

Answer 47

Health care is an important site to look at the boundaries between citizens and non-citizens. Citizenship discussions do not take into account experiences of non-citizens often. There is a division between substantive rights and entitlements for citizens and non citizens, arguing this needs to be examined.
Gatekeepers don’t necessarily change citizenship law, but through determination of access, can effect citizenship practices.