Recent publications on citizenship laws and policies


Regime type, international migration, and the politics of dual citizenship toleration


by Nikola Mirilovic, in International Political Science Review, 1-16 (2014)

Why do some countries tolerate dual citizenship while others do not? The answer concerns the interaction between regime type variation and international migration. Democracies with a relatively large migrant stock are more likely to tolerate dual citizenship than democracies with a low migrant stock. Meanwhile, democracies with relatively high emigration rates for the highly educated population are more likely to tolerate dual citizenship than democracies with low emigration rates of the highly educated. In authoritarian states, the opposite is the case: emigration of the highly educated and immigration both reduce the likelihood of dual citizenship toleration. These claims are supported by the evidence from a large n examination of contemporary cross-national data. Understanding dual citizenship helps us address larger questions about the significance of democracy and the nature and scope of nation states.

Democracy and Disenfranchisement: The Morality of Electoral Exclusions


by Claudio López-Guerra, Oxford University Press, 2014

The denial of voting rights to certain types of persons continues to be a moral problem of practical significance. The disenfranchisement of persons with mental impairments, minors, noncitizen residents, nonresident citizens, and criminal offenders is a matter of controversy in many countries. How should we think morally about electoral exclusions? What should we conclude about these particular cases? This book proposes a set of principles, called the Critical Suffrage Doctrine, that defies conventional beliefs on the legitimate denial of the franchise. According to the Critical Suffrage Doctrine, in some realistic circumstances it is morally acceptable to adopt an alternative to universal suffrage that would exclude the vast majority of sane adults for being largely uninformed. Thus, contrary to what most people believe, current controversies on the franchise are not about exploring the limits of a basic moral right. Regarding such controversies, the Critical Suffrage Doctrine establishes that, in polities with universal suffrage, the blanket disenfranchisement of minors and the mentally impaired cannot be justified; that noncitizen residents should be allowed to vote; that excluding nonresident citizens is permissible; and that criminal offenders should not be disenfranchised-although facilitating voting from prison is not required in all contexts. Political theorists have rarely submitted the franchise to serious scrutiny. Hence this study makes a contribution to a largely neglected and important subject.


The Democratic Potential of Enfranchising Resident Migrants


by Luicy Pedroza, in International Migration (2014)

The right to vote has always been the central privilege of citizenship. Its extension to resident migrants holds a promise of democratizing citizenship by bringing it closer to principles with deep roots in liberal and republican traditions, and further away from particularistic understandings that reduce citizenship to nationality. This article's main contribution is a systematic and policy-relevant discussion of the kind of enfranchisement that can realize that potential, approached in three steps: first, a demarcation of citizenship policy within migration policy substantiates the need to employ a normative perspective; second, a description of the trend of enfranchisement of non-citizens provides the normative paper with a sound empirical base for a non-ideal discussion; third, a discussion of different kinds of enfranchisement tackles the controversial issues related to it and delineates the specific requisites to realize its potential.


Conceptualizing and Measuring Immigration Policies: A Comparative Perspective


by Liv Bjerre, Marc Helbling, Friederike Römer, Malisa Zobel, in International Migration Review (2014)

In the last decade, researchers have developed many innovative ideas for the construction of indices measuring immigration policies. Methodological considerations have, however, been largely absent from the discussion. To close this gap, this paper investigates the characteristics of existing indices by critically comparing and discussing them. We start by providing a definition of immigration policy which may serve as a benchmark when assessing the indices. By means of the analytical framework developed by Munck and Verkuilen (2002), which we adapt and customize for our analysis, we then evaluate the conceptualization, measurement, and aggregation, as well as the empirical scope of thirteen immigration policy indices. We discuss methodological strengths and weaknesses of the indices, how these affect the research questions that can be answered and what the next steps in index building within the field of immigration policy should be.


Demos Problems and the European Union: An Exercise In Contextual Democratic Theory

by David Owen, in Anali Hrvatskog Politološkog Društva, vol. 10, No. 1 (2013), pp 7-23

Debates concerning the ‘democratic deficit’ have been a prevalent feature of the normative literature on the European Union, but rather less attention has been paid to ‘demos problems’ constructed by the normative ordering of the EU and what such problems reveal about the nature of democratic citizenship in the EU, the character of the EU as a normative order and the institutional character of the relationship between the constitution of the EU as a normative order and as a structure of political incentives. This article addresses this topic by focusing on one such ‘demos problem’.


Read full text (with pre-publication release with permission from the Anali Hrvatskog Politološkog Društva)