20 Noncitizenism Unhyphenated noncitizenship differs from ‘denizenship’. Denizenship is often used to refer to resident foreigners, to not-quite-citizen members (such as freed slaves) or to those born far from an empire’s metropole.28 In contemporary analyses of denizenship, Rainer Bauböck presents it as a (poor) second to citizenship. Tomas Hammar observes that the high level of rights amongst denizens (qua foreign residents) is making naturalisation less attractive in some States.29 They portray denizens as being within the State of their denizenship, with denizenship providing a citizen-like-but-not-citizen relationship with that State. Unhyphenated noncitizenship should not be seen as secondary to citizenship, and, like citizenship, noncitizenship can also be held with a State from afar. Alongside his analysis of denizenship, Bauböck directly addresses the fact that there are people who do not have political rights in a faraway State that has power over their lives.30 But in his discussion of denizenship, he puts these people to one side. His focus for denizenship is on those who are, to use his terms, ‘resident aliens’ in the State in question.31 He argues that such individuals should not be forced to become citizens in order to access basic and not so basic rights. The discourse of noncitizenship helps to link Bauböck’s denizens with his others far away (who are the focus of the cosmopolitan global justice literature). The removal of the hyphen also challenges the existing system’s binarity. It can seem as if there are two mutually exclusive options. On the one hand, there is citizenship, and on the other hand is its negation: hyphenated noncitizenship. There is also currently a middle ground populated by those who are not quite citizens, with priority given to citizens. Within this common approach, the dividing line between those persons who count as citizens and those persons who count as (hyphenated) non-citizens will depend on where along the continuum you place your cut-off. This provides too limited a framework within which to understand the complex relations people have with States. It shapes the theorisations that can be developed and the options that are imaginable. Indeed, the hyphenated term ‘non-citizenship’ even makes it difficult for someone disagreeing with the position in this book to argue in favour of seeing non-citizenship as merely a non-relationship, since this position seems terminologically trivial. 28 Rachel Ida Buff (2012) ‘Domestic Internationalisms, Imperial Nationalisms’, pp. 123–140 in Sukyana Banerjee, Aims McGuiness and Steven Charles McKay (eds) (2012) New Routes for Diaspora Studies, Indiana University Press; Peter Kvisto and Thomas Faist (2010) Beyond a Border: The Causes and Consequences of Contemporary Immigration, Pine Forge Press (Sage), pp. 225, 226. 29 Bauböck 2008 ibid. p. 11 states explicitly that denizenship cannot replace citizenship; see also particularly Rainer Bauböck (1991) ‘Migration and Citizenship’, pp. 27–48 in New Community 18(1) p. 31; Tomas Hammar (1990) Democracy and the Nation State: Aliens, Denizens, and Citizens in a World of International Migration, Avebury. 30 Rainer Bauböck (1994) ‘Changing the Boundaries of Citizenship: The Inclusion of Immigrants in Democratic Politics’, pp. 199–232 in Rainer Bauböck (ed.) (1994) From Aliens to Citizens: Redefining the Status of Immigration in Europe, Avery, Vienna. 31 Bauböck 1994 ibid. p. 203.