Citizenship and the Right to Leave

Abstract

The right to leave one's country, in conjunction with the right to change one's nationality, both of which are proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), are examined in historical and philosophical perspective and with special reference to their implications for a theory of citizenship. These rights are novel elements in enumerations of fundamental rights, at variance with traditional conceptions of state sovereignty and with the practice of many slates, past and present. They are also rights which have not frequently been defended, and have often been denied, by political and legal philosophers, many of whom have defended stronger ties of allegiance and obligations between the citizen and the state than is evidently implied by the human rights doctrine. These rights are clearly grounded in basic liberal values of individual liberty and voluntarism; however, they represent extensions of these values beyond what was usually acknowledged in the classical liberal tradition.

Exit and the duty to admit

“…The right to leave is combined, however, with acceptance of substantial state sovereignty, epitomized so far as this issue is concerned in the state's authority to regulate and even prohibit immigration. 30 As a result, the right to exit one's state and the right to enter another is said to be justifiably 'asymmetric'*one can possess the right to leave one's own country without the concomitant right to enter any other country in particular.…”

“…Perhaps, the most familiar reason to value the right to exit is for its fundamentally protective role*as Frederick Whelan has written, the right to leave protects citizens 'in the face of possible excessive demands for allegiance'. 6 When states behave oppressively towards their citizens, the right to exit offers a safety valve by providing citizens with an avenue to escape that oppression. Refugees seeking asylum are understood to be exiting to gain protection from a less oppressive, violent or persecuting state.…”

The Ethics of Immigration: Self‐Determination and the Right to Exclude

“…chapters 1 and 3, and Caplan and Torpey). These practices were commonplace, and the fact that states claimed those rights also might have seemed obvious and morally uncontroversial in the past (see Whelan). However, if you are a citizen of a democratic state today you probably take it for granted that you enjoy the freedom to move around and settle in the place of your choosing within your own country, as well as the freedom to leave any state, and to return to your own state.…”

Reasonable Impartiality and Priority for Compatriots. A Criticism of Liberal Nationalism’s Main flaws

“…If states are unable to prevent 'illegal' immigration and the presence of so-called 'undocumented aliens', the emerging special associative relations in due time also create special duties, particularly for children of 'illegal residents' (Whelan, 1981;Carens, 1992;Bader, 2004). Both are costly special duties dramatized by patriotic defenders of priority for compatriots as one of the many reasons in their relentless struggle to close borders.…”