Unequal residence statuses and the ideal of non-domination

Hovdal-Moan, Marit

doi:10.1080/13698230.2013.851483

Cited by 12 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This gradually makes immigrants more vulnerable to domination because denizenship is a status that the state can forcibly transform. Thus, as time goes by, immigrants have a stronger claim to citizenship because their vulnerability increases (Benton, 2014;Hovdal-Moan, 2014).…”

Section: Special Tiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reconciling automatic and conditional immigrant naturalisation

Jensen

Nielsen

2019

Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Discussions within political theory on naturalisation tend to focus on whether or not it is reasonable and fair to make naturalisation conditional on meeting integration requirements. Those who emphasize the right of long-term immigrants to be included as equal citizens argue that automatic naturalisation is preferable, while those who put emphasis on the state's legitimate interest in promoting the conditions for a reasonably just society tend to argue that conditional naturalisation is normatively preferable. However, most participating in this debate seem to agree that naturalisation rules must balance these different concerns. In this paper, we argue that the conflicting views on each side of the automatic-conditional divide can be reconciled by introducing the model of discounting-conditional naturalisation. We suggest that a practice in which integration requirements are gradually relaxed over time can in fact sufficiently accommodate those normative considerations that are in conflict under the current practices.

show abstract

Section: Special Tiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reconciling automatic and conditional immigrant naturalisation

Jensen

Nielsen

2019

Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, Benton (2014) argues that neo-republican freedom is better suited to explain the rights of 'denizens' (resident non-citizens) than liberalism and other dominating perspectives. Similarly, citizenship laws and suffrage restrictions are criticized by Fine (2014) and Hovdal-Moan (2014) on the basis of neo-republican conceptions of freedom. But the task of applying neorepublican standards to political institutions is not equal to the task of elaborating what the substance of these standards should be.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Freedom as Non-domination and Democratic Inclusion

Beckman

Rosenberg

2017

Res Publica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

According to neo-republicans, democracy is morally justified because it is among the prerequisites for freedom as non-domination. The claim that democracy secures freedom as non-domination needs to explain why democratic procedures contribute to non-domination and for whom democracy secures nondomination. This requires an account of why domination is countered by democratic procedures and an account of to whom domination is countered by access to democratic procedures. Neo-republican theory of democracy is based on a detailed discussion of the former but a scant discussion of the latter. We address this lacuna by interpreting the two most influential principles of inclusion, the all-subjected principle and the all-affected principle, in light of neo-republican commitments. The preliminary conclusion is that both principles are able to capture relations of domination between the democratic state and the people controlled by it in the relevant sense. Yet, the state has virtually unlimited powers to control residents, but only limited powers to interfere in the lives of non-residents. Republican aspirations are therefore more in tune with the all-subjected principle according to which only residents in the territory of the state should be granted rights to political participation.

show abstract

Time, Membership, and Citizenship

Müller-Salo

2020

Münster Lectures in Philosophy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Unequal residence statuses and the ideal of non-domination

Cited by 12 publications

References 24 publications

Reconciling automatic and conditional immigrant naturalisation

Reconciling automatic and conditional immigrant naturalisation

Freedom as Non-domination and Democratic Inclusion

Time, Membership, and Citizenship

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About