Birthright Citizenship

Birthright citizenship refers to the legal status of citizenship when acquired through birth to a citizen parent (ius sanguinis) or birth in the territory of a state (ius soli). This is how most people acquire citizenship, often unconditionally and automatically at birth. A minority across the globe acquire citizenship through naturalization. Historically ius soli predominated from the Early Modern period, when those born in the sovereign’s territory automatically became their subjects. Ius sanguinis arose following the French Revolution, reflecting the free citizen father’s right to pass citizenship on to his child. Both forms spread globally through imitation and colonization. All states now award citizenship by birth; most have a combination of the two forms. But the strength of provisions varies. All states have substantial ius sanguinis provision; fewer have strong ius soli. In both, acquisition may depend on certain restrictive conditions related to parental birthplace or residence, marital status, gender, religion, ethnicity, or race. Until recently citizenship has been studied more by lawyers than political scientists, and birthright citizenship has received less attention than naturalization. Studies have tended to focus on the citizenship laws and policies of a limited number of states, mainly in the Global North. Only recently have studies covering a greater number and diversity of countries begun to emerge. Comparative scholars have sought to identify and explain different patterns of birthright citizenship provision related to the strength of ius soli and ius sanguinis. These have been interpreted variously as alternative models reflecting different national conceptions of citizenship, as determined by civil or common law traditions, or as dependent on histories of emigration, immigration, and colonization. Contemporary changes have been understood as a function of domestic electoral politics, developments in international law, norm diffusion among states, or a range of contingent contextual factors. Scholars dispute whether diversity of citizenship regimes has been succeeded by convergence. More complex typologies and indices, including birthright citizenship, have emerged, along with increasing availability of data on citizenship around the world. The justification of birthright citizenship has been much debated. Birthright citizenship has been seen as an appropriate way of allocating democratic membership, providing intergenerational continuity of citizenry, reducing the incidence of statelessness, and integrating immigrants. But ius sanguinis has often been criticized as exclusive and illiberal. It is debated whether ius soli is better justified, or if all forms of birthright citizenship should be seen as conveying arbitrary privilege and contributing to global inequality.

'IF YOU CAN WORK FROM ANYWHERE, WHY WORK ANYWHERE ELSE?': FLEXIBLE CITIZENSHIP, REGIMES OF MOBILITY, AND THE DISCOURSE OF DIGITAL NOMADISM

Digital nomadism is a term that has entered the cultural lexicon relatively recently to describe a lifestyle unbound from the traditional structures and constraints of office work (Makimoto and Manners, 1997; Cook, 2020; Thompson, 2018). This identity is organized around the digital technologies and infrastructures that make “remote work” possible, allowing digital nomads to claim “location independence” and granting them the freedom to travel while working (Nash et al., 2018). Largely employed as freelancers or as self-styled entrepreneurs, digital nomads assert their independence from the traditional strictures of work through the digital technologies they use at the same time that they remain “plugged in” to the infrastructures, economies, and lifeworlds of Silicon Valley (McElroy, 2019, p. 216). As such, the digital nomad represents a key site to examine privileged transnationalism and the enduring forms of coloniality that inform contemporary “regimes of mobility” (Hayes and Pérez-Gañán, 2017; Glick Schiller and Salazar, 2013, p. 189). This paper considers how discourses of digital nomadism have been constructed, circulated, and leveraged by governments offering “digital nomad visas,” “remote work visas,” or “freelancer visas” to examine how regimes of mobility have been imagined and enacted. Utilizing discourse analysis to examine popular press articles, Instagram posts from the official accounts of tourism boards, and governmental websites, I examine the ways digital nomadism was constructed during the COVID-19 pandemic and consider how this lifestyle has been formalized and institutionalized. I argue that mobility itself has become a central resource through which nations compete for global capital accumulation.

“Missing minorities” in blood donation: Rethinking blood procurement in Europe as a citizenship regime

Although European blood collection organizations are currently obtaining sufficient and safe blood from the majority population, they report having difficulty recruiting first and second-generation immigrants from non-European countries. Most existing studies on these underrepresented groups, who have been coined the “ missing minorities” in blood donation, have adopted an instrumental approach that focuses on the development of targeted recruitment strategies to overcome specific barriers to donation faced by members of these minorities. Although this approach does offer several short-term benefits, our central argument is that it is one-sided in its questioning of the non-participation of ethnic minorities. The literature currently lacks research on how the blood procurement system is failing to include minorities. Drawing on recent social theory, we seek a broader sociological understanding of minority under-representation in blood donor populations by shifting the analytic focus toward a critical examination of the main pillars of the procurement system within the European context. This paper advances a novel analytical framework based on two general propositions. First, we apply the literature on “citizenship regimes” to argue that blood donation is part of one specific institutionalization of citizenship and solidarity. We then reconceptualize the “problem” of missing minorities in European blood donation as an application for social change, suggesting avenues related to blood collection as a way of renegotiating minority-majority relations of solidarity.

Part VII The End of Refugeehood—Cessation and Durable Solutions, Ch.58 Refugee Naturalization and Integration

Refugees' access to citizenship of their host country is key to their integration. Manifesting full and equal permanent political community membership, citizenship entails cessation of refugee status, pursuant to Article 1C(3) of the Refugee Convention. Yet the 2018 ‘Global Compact on Refugees’ omitted naturalization and 'local' integration from its list of objectives, merely describing ‘durable legal status and naturalization’ as ‘useful’. Globally, citizenship regimes vary widely, with direct ramifications for refugees’ access thereto; meanwhile. The Chapter highlights a ‘global north’/’global south’ divide regarding naturalization practices, situating then within an international law framework in which host countries remain (the) ultimate gatekeepers. The Chapter argues it is unhelpful to describes forms of integration that do not offer pathways to naturalization as ‘durable’, given that many refugees find themselves in protracted displacement with neither a ‘durable solution in sight nor the legal, economic, and social capacity to properly integrate in their asylum countries.