Is citizenship like feudalism? An egalitarian defense of bounded citizenship

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

ABSTRACT This article examines the provocative analogy between feudalism and modern citizenship in Joseph Carens’s case for open borders. The analogy raises a distributive objection against bounded citizenship: modern citizenship is an inherited status assigned by birth and is attached to great advantages or disadvantages, and states reinforce these objectionable inequalities by restricting people’s mobility across borders. I argue the analogy is misleading. The case for bounded citizenship does not stand or fall with feudalism. One can be committed to the value of equality and defend bounded citizenship while rejecting feudalism. A key aspiration of the modern liberal ideal of citizenship is to recognize and promote the equality of citizens. One way to promote the equal standing of citizens is to respect their right of collective self-determination, including the right to make decisions about matters of immigration and membership in their political community. A commitment to equality is compatible with bounded citizenship if we adopt certain qualifications on the right of collective self-determination, including the duty to remedy historical injustice, the duty to extend membership to resident noncitizens, the duty to take in refugees and other necessitous migrants, and the duty to alleviate global poverty through development assistance.