Jus Domicile: In Pursuit of a Citizenship of Equality and Social Justice

Abstract

Although foreign workers contribute to the economy and society, their lack of citizenship renders them unequal, vulnerable and exploitable. In this article, I suggest that the citizenship principle of jus domicile can address this aspect of inequality and exploitation experienced by migrant labour. In addition, I argue that the jus domicile principle should be combined with open borders. In making this argument, I draw on a dialectical methodology and a diverse literature on social justice and liberal political theory. The model I am developing is not necessarily for immediate policy implementation but rather presents a vision for a future of free mobility and settlement.

Temporary Foreign Workers in Canada

“…Assessing the aforementioned narratives shows that all my respondents, including those who have only lived and worked in Canada for 2 years and those who said that leaving the Philippines was at first traumatic, believed that they had the right to stay in Canada permanently. All of their accounts showed that my respondents felt like they belong in Canada by virtue of the time they have spent in Canada, the ties they have formed and the economic and social contributions that they have made, thus illustrating the relevance of Bauder's (2012) jus domicile in justifying their claims to Canadian membership. That is to say, although the people I interviewed lacked formal Canadian citizenship, they felt that their presence and contributions in Canada make them, to quote an earlier respondent, 'Canadian without the passport'.…”

“…Joseph Carens (2008) believes that the length of time spent by migrants in receiving states means that they are able to build important social ties, which means denying them the right to live there permanently is unjust because they are essentially members of their communities. Harald Bauder's (2012) arguments in favour of jus domicile, which upholds the provision of citizenship rights on the basis of residence, reject the use of jus sanguinis (citizenship on the basis of blood) and jus soli (citizenship on the basis of 'place of birth'), both of which Bauder (2012: 187-188) sees as unjustly conferring citizenship through an 'accident of birth'. Echoing Shachar's (2009) arguments against 'birthright lotteries', which she sees as causing vast global inequalities, Bauder (2012: 188) believes that jus domicile's emphasis on presence within the country ensures that temporary migrants are treated justly because 'all de facto members of the community are included, obtain citizenship, and need to receive equal treatment'.…”

Sanctuary Cities and Republican Liberty

“…Thinking through sanctuary politics, this research has focused on what is described by Engin Isin as "acts of citizenship," by Jennifer Ridgely as "insurgent citizenship," and by Harald Bauder as "urban activism" or, broadly speaking, radical democracy. 24 These writers address the activism through which excluded groups claim their own political standing against the exclusionary practices of state domination and the hegemony of nationalistic conceptions of citizenship. 25 This literature has much to recommend it, but it is also theoretically cloistered and historically presentist in ways that limit its analyses.…”

Local electoral rights for non-French residents? A case-study analysis of British candidates and councillors in French municipal elections

“…Immigrant integration, alien suffrage and expansive citizenship rights have become deeply political issues for many western countries, including France (Nicholls 2012). Academics have responded with theoretical ideas through which citizenship and franchise could be granted to expand alien suffrage beyond nationality and/or citizenship criteria (Bauböck 2005(Bauböck , 2008Kostakopoulou 2008;Bauder 2012Bauder , 2014. While some countries have granted electoral rights to non-citizen residents, Bauböck (2005) identifies this as an irregularity (in contrast with rights for non-resident citizens), and expansions have been applied almost exclusively at local, rather than national, levels.…”

“…Scholars have proposed expansive citizenship around principles or models of, for example, domicile (Hammar 1990;Bauder 2012Bauder , 2014, territorial inclusion (Bauböck 2005), affected interests (Bauböck 2005), jus nexi (Shachar 2009(Shachar , 2011, postnational citizenship (Soysal 1994) and stakeholder citizenship (Bauböck 2005(Bauböck , 2007(Bauböck , 2008. Such ideas tend to be grounded on effective residence within a territorially bounded community, which assign different criteria for the acquisition of formal citizenship.…”