Commented bibliography

Before discussing the main bibliography in political theory, political philosophy, political science and sociology that represent the basis of this study, it is important to note that eight important projects constituted its starting point. The first is the EUDO Observatory on Citizenship11 project (started in 2009), supported by the Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies and the European University Institute: at the time of writing this study, it already provided 47 country reports on current citizenship legislation in all European countries, and other countries from Asia and Africa. These country reports were essential for writing chapter two (on the history of residence-based citizenship) and also for writing the seventh chapter on present-day legal provisions on citizenship based on residence. The seventh chapter also relies on the EUDO Observatory on Citizenship’s database on acquisition and loss of citizenship, which compares citizenship laws in Europe. The second study is the Clandestino

project12 (2007-2009), which examined the problem of irregular migrants (data, numbers, legislation and trends) in twelve European states.13 The third project concerns two normative debates hosted by the Boston Review: ‘The Immigrants as Pariah’ (1998)14 and ‘The case for amnesty’ (2009);15

11

Link:

the third chapter on irregular migrants heavily uses the aforementioned study and the two public discussions to

http://eudo-citizenship.eu/ (last accessed: 12 August 2013).

12 _{Clandestino – Undocumented Migration: Counting the Uncountable. Data and Trends Across Europe, 2007-2009,}

available at the following three links: (1) http://clandestino.eliamep.gr/; (2) http://research.icmpd.org/1244.html; (3)

http://irregular-migration.hwwi.de/Country-reports.6114.0.html (last accessed: 12 March 2013).

13 _{It is important to note that later the country reports of this project have been published (in a slightly modified form than}

the one presented online) in Triandafyllidou (2010).

14 _{Boston Review, 23 (5) (October/November 1998), available at http://bostonreview.net/BR23.5/contents.html (last}

accessed: 5 February 2013).

15 _{Boston Review, 34 (3) (May/June 2009), available at http://bostonreview.net/BR34.3/ndf_immigration.php (last accessed:}

support its normative claims. Other five projects are concentrated on dual citizenship and they are the main sources for writing the fifth chapter on multiple citizens: I am referring to an on-line normative debate about dual citizenship for transborder minorities (Bauböck 2010a)16

Chapter four on temporary migrants begins with a discussion of an international covenant very

important for the rights migrant workers should enjoy, but not signed by any important immigration country by now. This is the 1990 UN International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All

Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families. Important authors discussed in this chapter include

law scholars like Linda Bosniak (Bosniak 2004) and Beth Simmons (Simmons 2009), political

and to other four published (edited) books: two are about dual citizenship in global perspective(Faist 2007a) and about dual

citizenship in Europe (Faist and Kivisto 2007), while the last two are about rights and duties of dual nationals (Martin and Hailbronner 2003), and about the 2001 Hungarian Status Law which offered privileges to Hungarian ethnics living in the region (Kántor, Majtényi et al. 2004). The sixth chapter on ‘external quasi-citizenship’ heavily relies on this latter study.

Chapter two on the history of residence-based citizenship uses historical notes and clarifications

offered by the 47 country reports on current citizenship laws published on-line by the aforementioned

EUDO Observatory on Citizenship.

Chapter three on irregular migrants opens the discussion by relying on two important authors

well-known for their interest in this subject. The first is Joseph Carens, a philosopher who drew academic attention on this subject more than 25 years ago and introduced it in philosophical and political debates (Carens 1987), (Carens 2008a). The second is Linda Bosniak, a law scholar who continued Carens’ work and advanced a form of residence-based proposal of warranting rights to irregular migrants (Bosniak 2006). Other important political and social theorists with close interests on illegal immigration and citizenship issues are taken into account, among them Rainer Bauböck

(Bauböck 2009a), (Bauböck 2010b), (Bauböck 2011), Michael Walzer (Walzer 1983), Veit Bader (Bader 2005), Andrew Altman, Christopher Wellman (Altman and Wellman 2009), Daniel A. Bell (Bell 2005), Ruth Rubio Marín (Rubio-Marín 2000), Kamal Sadiq (Sadiq 2009), Bill Jordan, Franck Düvell (Jordan and Düvell 2002), Ryan Pevnick (Pevnick 2009), Mae Ngai (Ngai 2004), and Sarah Fine (Fine forthcoming, 2014). As already stated, the Clandestino country reports constituted the empirical basis of this chapter, while the two debates hosted by the Boston Review in 1998 and 2009 set this subject’s legal and normative framework.

16 _{This normative debate can be read online at: http://eudo-citizenship.eu/docs/RSCAS%202010_75.rev.pdf (last accessed:}

economists like Martin Ruhs (Ruhs 2005) or Thomas Straubhaar (Straubhaar 1986), sociologists like Stephen Castles (Castles 2006), political theorists like Rainer Bauböck (Bauböck 2011), Arash Abizadeh (Abizadeh 2010), Daniel A. Bell (Bell 2005) and Yasemin Soysal (Soysal 1994), but also scholars of international relations theory like Chris Reus-Smith (Reus-Smit 2011), Jack Goldsmith and Eric Posner (Goldsmith and Posner 2005), Stephen Krasner (Krasner 1999), Mary Ann

Glendon(Glendon 2002), Lynn Hunt (Hunt 2008), and Neta Crawford (Crawford 2002). Other

important scholars who focused on temporary workers are Thomas Hammar (Hammar 1985), Rita Chin (Chin 2007), Ray Rist (Rist 1978), Robert Mayer (Mayer 2005), Valeria Ottonelli and Tiziana Torresi (Ottonelli and Torresi 2012) and Edwin Reubens (Reubens 1986). Another important bibliographic material is the special issue of International Migration Review on ‘Temporary Worker Programs: Mechanisms, Conditions, Consequences’ (volume 20, issue 4, 1986).

Chapter five on multiple citizens heavily relies, as previously stated, on five collective projects:

the first is the 2010 on-line normative debate about dual citizenship for transborder minorities (Bauböck 2010a). The following four projects published as edited books refer to dual citizenship in Europe (Faist and Kivisto 2007), to dual citizenship in global perspective (Faist 2007a), to the rights and duties of dual nationals (Martin and Hailbronner 2003) and to the 2001 Hungarian Status Law which offered privileges to Hungarian ethnics living in the region (Kántor, Majtényi et al. 2004). An important contributor in the debate on dual citizenship is Rainer Bauböck, who strongly supports a congruence principle regarding multiple status (if dual citizenship is accepted for emigrants, then immigrants must also be able to access it) (Bauböck 2005a); he also supports increasing freedom of movement through establishing more union of states like the European Union (Bauböck 2011); in another article he takes into account ‘swamping’ and ‘tipping’ scenarios in external voting (Bauböck 2007b); and finally he supports a ‘trade off’ between dual citizenship and autonomy in Eastern Europe (Bauböck 2007a). Other important contributions are taken into account: David Owen has an interesting view which differentiates between ‘dormant’ and ‘active’ citizenships of multiple citizens (Owen 2010); David Fitzgerald considers that in some countries lack of interest (in case of emigrants) to apply for their former citizenship when this possibility was offered shows a low interest in both former and dual citizenship (Fitzgerald 2005); Constantin Iordachi discusses about the instrumental use of dual citizenship, which seems to be the general case all over the world (Iordachi 2004); and political theorist Robert Dahl has a seminal contribution in which he discusses who can qualify as member of a political association (Dahl 1989).

Chapter six on ‘external quasi-citizens’ starts with four examples of legislative measures taken

in this sense in four different countries. I discuss favourable treatment offered to former citizens or ‘ethnic kins’ in India, and the most important references here are Katharine Adeney and Marie Lall, who discuss different institutional attempts to build a national identity in this state (Adeney and Lall 2005) and Anupama Roy, which surveys citizenship policies in the same country (Roy 2010). The second state under consideration is Mexico, and the most important contributions under consideration regarding nationality laws, migration and dual citizenship are offered by Manuel Becerra Ramirez (Ramirez 2000), David Fitzgerald (Fitzgerald 2005), (Fitzgerald 2006), and Pablo Lizarraga Chavez (Chavez 1997). Another significant input is offered by David Gutierrez on Mexico and external voting rights (Gutierrez, Batalova et al. 2012). The third country analysed is Turkey, and here I especially rely on Zeynep Kadirbeyoglu’s work on dual citizenship and transnationalism (Kadirbeyoglu 2007),

(Kadirbeyoglu 2010) and on Ayse S. Caglar’s contribution regarding ‘external quasi-citizens’ as holders of the ‘pink’ card (Caglar 2004). The fourth and last country analysed is Hungary, and here I heavily rely on Myra A. Waterbury’s recent analysis of kin-state nationalism in Hungary (Waterbury 2010), and on the contributions to a working paper edited by Rainer Bauböck on dual citizenship for transborder minorities (Bauböck 2010a). The idea of offering ‘external quasi-citizens’ ‘favourable treatment’ (and not ‘formal status’) has been suggested in a paper written by Nándor Bárdi (Bárdi 2004). Other normative considerations have been offered in the extremely interesting 2004 on-line debate (later published as a book) on the Hungarian Status Law edited by Zoltán Kántor, Balázs Majtényi, Osamu Ieda, Balázs Vizi, and Iván Halász (Kántor, Majtényi et al. 2004). I have most cited articles written by George Schöpflin (Schöpflin 2004), Iván Halász, Balázs Majtényi and Balázs Vizi (Halász, Majtényi et al. 2004), Zoltán Kántor (Kántor 2004), Judit Tóth (Tóth 2004), Fernand de Varennes (Varennes 2004), Miroslav Kusý (Kusý 2004) and János Kis (Kis 2004).

Chapter seven on residence-based citizenship is based on the country reports on current

citizenship legislation in 47 European and non-European states (delivered, as already mentioned, by the

EUDO Observatory on Citizenship); I also added citizenship legislation from three other states:

Canada, New Zealand, and the United States (whose citizenship laws are easily accessible online). Regarding normative discussions, the online debate on the liberal character of citizenship tests edited by Rainer Bauböck and Christian Joppke is an important point of reference (Bauböck and Joppke 2010d); Costica Dumbrava’s enquiry on the liberal nature of citizenship rules in the European Union countries is another significant contribution (Dumbrava 2010). I also mention Bauböck’s interesting proposal of ‘urban citizenship’, which is very close to my suggestion of residence-based citizenship

(Bauböck 2003); however, I criticise his later drift from this suggestion to one that would accept non- resident citizenship under a stakeholdership principle (Bauböck 2009a), (Bauböck 2012). Two other normative contributions by Rainer Bauböck are important in this chapter: the extended discussion on voting rights for external citizens (Bauböck 2007b), and the idea of offering political autonomy instead of dual citizenship to ‘ethnic kins’ in Eastern Europe (Bauböck 2007a).

Chapter eight (conclusions) uses references only in the section dedicated to criticising

alternative normative theories to my proposal of residence-based citizenship. In this sense, I firstly discuss the stakeholdership theory proposed by Rainer Bauböck (Bauböck 2009a), (Bauböck and Perchinig 2009). Secondly, I assess the liberal theory of permissive inclusion in the citizenry of all those trying to access it (both ‘citizens-minus’ and ‘citizens-plus’) advanced by David Owen (Owen 2010), (Owen 2013). Thirdly, I take issue with the theory of automatic naturalisation by forced

inclusion, advanced by Ruth Rubio-Marín (Rubio-Marín 2000). The fourth alternative I criticise is the proposal of keeping a permanent second-class citizenship status for temporary workers as a realistic way of reducing global poverty, supported by Daniel A. Bell (Bell 2005). Other political theorists taken into account here are Valeria Ottonelli and Tiziana Torresi (Ottonelli and Torresi 2012) and Thomas Pogge (Pogge 1997).