Page 194 - Contemporary Political Sociology Globalization Politics and Power

180 Citizenship

resident aliens tend to be based on “ activist ” interpretations of US law
itself. Bosniak argues that US law is inherently schizophrenic, separating
out questions of who is and can be a member of the society, which is
covered by immigration law, from questions of the rights of individuals
within the territory, which may include those of non - citizens. She argues
that constitutionally resident aliens are entitled to virtually the same rights
as citizens in US law, and the courts have accepted this to some degree
(Bosniak, 2006 ). On the other hand, as Rainer Baubock points out, where
resident aliens have recourse only to national law, with no direct appeal
to international human rights in US courts, those rights are particularly
vulnerable to changes in the political regime. Indeed, from 1996, resident

aliens were denied federal welfare benefits through government legislation
(Baubock, 2002 : 134).
Theorists of post - national citizenship are much more optimistic than
Richmond because they do not see the state as acting in a singular and

unified fashion with regard to migration processes. Nor do they see a
homogeneous global order emerging. It is rather that there is often a void
in national law with respect to detailed provision for non - national resi-
dents and asylum - seekers. Under these conditions, associations, organiza-
tions, and individuals maneuver to try to gain a measure of security and
well - being when non - citizens would otherwise be without rights – with
some degree of success. As Soysal puts it, states are caught between com-
peting claims to legitimacy: bound on one hand to respect human rights,
and we might add, domestic law where it may be interpreted to cover
non - citizens, and on the other, to regulate immigration as an expression
of sovereignty. Their activities are not always consistent (Soysal, 1994 :
7 – 8).
Jacobson argues that post - national citizenship erodes the principle that
a state should, above all, be concerned to protect its national interests
(Jacobson, 1996 ). This is far from evident, however, even in Europe. First,
states have withheld rights to vote in national elections from non - citizens;
although in most European states they have the right to vote in local elec-
tions. In this respect, then, they deny non - nationals the right to determine
the laws and policies under which they live that is considered the defi ning
feature of democratic citizenship. Second, especially since heightened
security fears after 9/11, the precariousness of even the formal rights of
resident non - citizens has become much more visible, especially where
accusations of involvement in terrorist activities have resulted in the
infringement of basic civil rights. In the UK, several non - citizens were
detained without trial for a number of years following 9/11, without even
being allowed to see the evidence against them, before the policy was