Page 193 - Contemporary Political Sociology Globalization Politics and Power

Citizenship 179

immigration. Measures include the use of detention camps where migrants
are held, sometimes for years, in overcrowded and poor conditions whilst
waiting for asylum cases to be heard. Such measures are often described
as constructing “ fortress Europe ” or “ fortress America, ” political units
which put up barriers to those outside. On the grounds that these are at
the same time barriers to maintain racial segregation, Anthony Richmond
has described this new world order as “ global apartheid. ” He argues that
immigration controls involving work permits, segregated housing loca-
tions, restricted travel, and deprivation of political rights are used against
illegal immigrants and asylum - seekers in order to protect privileged access
to health, education, and welfare services, just as the South African gov-
ernment used such measures to control and exploit the black population
when apartheid was enforced (Richmond, 1994 ; see Balibar, 2004 ;
120 – 3).
An alternative, much more optimistic, assessment of global migration

processes sees them as significant for the way in which they have prompted
a form of post - national citizenship. According to Yasemin Soysal, migrant
groups who are resident but not citizens in Europe (most notably “ guest -
workers ” ) have won human rights to a wide range of benefi ts within
European states. They have been able to do so because international
human rights have been incorporated into national law in Europe.
Organizations representing migrants have won civil rights to appeal
against deportation, political rights to vote in local elections, cultural
rights to translation services in public institutions, and a range of social
rights to healthcare, education, housing, and welfare. As a result of global
migration and developing regime of international human rights, Soysal
argues that rights are now based on universal personhood, not member-
ship of a particular nation. Nationality and rights are disarticulated as
the absolute distinction between “ citizenship ” and “ foreigner ” is eroded
within nation - states, at least in terms of formal legal rights (Soysal, 1994 ).
Similarly, David Jacobson (1996) argues that in the US, individual
rights are no longer directly tied to nationality; the individual now has a
status in international law, and in many cases, rights attached to this
status are equivalent to the rights of citizens guaranteed by nation - states.
The US has adopted quite generous interpretations of international human
rights law covering asylum - seekers, including for women fl eeing gender -

specific violence to which much of Europe remains closed. It is also the
case that, over many years, resident aliens in the US have won rights
through the courts, including social rights to children ’ s education and

welfare. However, US state officials are notoriously reluctant to introduce
international human rights law into domestic law, and the rights of