Citizenship and inequality in a global age

Abstract

Although the notion of national citizenship has long held the promise of equal membership, it has proved less useful in a world of circulating cultures, people, and loyalties through money, media, and migration. The increasing mobility of capital and people across national borders compels us to conceptualize welfare and inequality at the global level. Although the enforcement of citizen rights remains within the purview of the nation‐state, the source of these rights can no longer be firmly placed within the national framework. From cosmopolitan imaginations to postnational research, contemporary configurations of citizenship trace their legitimacy to global discourses that increasingly challenge the national order of citizenship. Yet current transformations in citizenship also point to the possibility of new inequalities, particularly, when nation‐states are increasingly able to modulate the rights they make available to immigrants, and differentiate among refugees, professionals, and investors among many other categories of people.

Nationalism and Inequality Scholarship in the Age of Populism: Bringing Territory Back In?

“…Considering the different national approaches of support for the poor and vulnerable, it can be argued that the pandemic has strengthened this correlation. On the other hand, before the pandemic, some scholars of cosmopolitan citizenship and its effect on social inequalities highlighted the diminishing role of national citizenship versus the growing role of human and social rights at the global level (Aneesh and Wolover 2017). Others centered on the diminishing role of national boundaries and the central role of class and various local relations of capital for biopolitics and border politics (Glick Schiller and Salazar 2013).…”

Convivialidad al borde

“…Por otra parte, varios Estados de origen migrante reconocen a sus ciudadanos en el extranjero y les conceden derechos en forma de ciudadanía trasnacional sobre la base de la ciudadanía dual (Faist, 2000;Whitaker, 2011). Sin embargo, aunque ello pueda involucrar compromisos multilocales y una flexibilización de la ciudadanía (Ong, 1999), la restricción de derechos y la forja de estructuras de desi gualdad son resultados frecuentes, especialmente obvios en los lugares de destino (Aneesh y Wolover, 2017). Las personas que se desplazan a través de las fronteras permanecen vulnerables a la explotación, tanto durante el proceso migratorio como en sus nuevos lugares de residencia.…”

“A Privilege That Cannot Be Bought”: Jews of Turkey and Citizenship Restitution from Portugal and Spain

“…There are different methods of strategic citizenship acquisition. Direct purchase, offered by countries including Malta and Portugal (Aneesh and Wolover 2017), and strategically giving birth in jus soli countries are the first two routes (Baltan and Altan-Olcay 2016; Harpaz 2019a; Ong 1999). A third strategy is restitution of citizenship through ancestry, an extension of jus sanguinis (citizenship by blood).…”

“…Changes in Citizenship Politics: An Overview Since the 1990s, multiple-citizenship holding has increased and become more acceptable (Aneesh and Wolover 2017;Pogonyi 2019). Conceptions of citizenship increasingly emphasize individual rights over duties to the collective.…”