Migrants, Minorities, Belongings and Citizenship. Glocalization and ...

‘territory’ stronger than ever (Rokkan 1982). The territoriality principle – instead of
ethnicity – now determined the boundaries of the demos (Bauböck 1994). Blood
affiliation (jus sanguinis) as a criterion almost disappeared, whereas territorial origin (jus
soli) became the primary determinant of membership and participation in citizenship
theories (Rokkan 1971, 1975).
In the period after 1990, immigrants’ ambiguous presence in Western democracies
prompted a new ethical challenge to this demos concept. This resulted in a stronger
focus on another type of territoriality principle, namely the residence principle (jus
domicile), as a membership and belonging criterion. The residence principle is now
acceptable to most citizenship theories. The recent recognition of the residence principle
in citizenship theories eliminates to a larger extent than before the limitations that the
demos concept previously posed to the ideal of inclusion. This is because it potentially
legitimizes new claims to participation by people of different belongings. Therefore, the
third extension of the demos concept has resulted in conceptualizations of citizenship
such as ‘Transnational Citizenship’ (Bauböck 1994), ‘Postnational Citizenship’ (Soysal
1994), ‘Global Citizenship’ (Falk 1994), and ‘Post-Westphalian citizenship’ (Linklater
1982).
However, since ‘demos’ is now primarily defined as persons permanently resident in the
democratic nation state’s territory, the legitimacy of membership and claim to participate
is also fundamentally determined by territorial belonging, i.e. in terms of individuals’
‘establishedness’ in the territory. Still implying the citizen/alien paradigm, this
perspective leaves us with four fundamental anomalies pertaining to the relationships
between inclusion, participation, co-existence, and mobility:
● based on the classical distinction between ‘historical native minorities’ and ‘new
immigrant minorities’, immigrants are regarded as second-class citizens (Linklater
1982, 1998; Young 1990);
● the factor of individual’s and groups’ increasing physical mobility between spaces
and their ‘psychic mobility’ (Lerner 1958) between references of identification,
which basically refers to new forms of belonging, is not addressed satisfactorily
(Bauman 1995);
● citizenship theories’ assumption of “stable borders” and “fixed boundaries” no
longer apply to the European context;
● citizenship theories’ assumption of discrete belongings, loyalties and identities is no
longer a universally valid fact.
36