Theoretical error, real-world problems 37 which requires that the State’s culture and social character are protected by strong external borders, trumping claims of outsiders. This is why, famously, for Michael­Walzer,­allowing­there­to­be­non-­member­permanent­residents­within­a­ State is like being in a house with ‘live-in servants’, leaving some people, while fully present and contributing to society, effectively denied full human status within the polity. To avoid this, Walzer advocates easy access to membership for all­long-­term­residents­alongside­significantly­closed­borders.­On­one­level,­this­ is positive, giving the individuals concerned the option of accessing citizenship. But this is based on an implicit citizenism. Stretching the household metaphor (which is already over-stretched by Walzer), it also seems a little like household ers saying that if someone wants to work for them, s/he has to become a family member, whether s/he wants to or not. To see the problem with this it is useful to look beyond the metaphor, at realworld­ discourse­ relating­ to­ the­ treatment­ of­ migrant­ domestic­ workers.­ Mary­ Romero critiques the quasi-family relationship which she argues has often been cultivated between employers and domestic workers in the United States. She observes that this stands in the way of those workers accessing the full dignity and respect of workers.43 In the UK, it has been observed that households employing such workers often characterise themselves as ‘benefactors’ or ‘hosts’ who are enabling those individuals to start a new life in the country, rather than seeing themselves as employers of employees who are providing a service.44 This skews the logic of the relationship. The worker is expected to be grateful and may struggle to claim rights. These writers demonstrate the need for live-in workers not to be seen as family members. The alternative to a house with live-in servants need not, there fore, be a house with family members treated as servants, as Walzer suggests. Instead, it could be a house with paid members of staff who are respected and treated appropriately, in the role of employees. Walzer’s example is emotive and provides a useful stimulus for thought. However, his solution does not take a sufficiently­critical­approach­to­existing­relationships. While most thinkers would not go as far as Walzer, in the power of his example and his response to it, we see implications of assuming citizenship to be the only proper relationship with a State. This most commonly arises as a result of a State-based status quo (with States largely understood as nation-States); what has variously been called ‘methodological nationalism’ and ‘explanatory nationalism’.45 That is, a system that assumes nations. It gives rise to ‘methodo logical citizenism’, an assumption of citizenship as the principal or only form of relationship between an individual and a State. 43­ Mary­Romero­(2016)­Maid in the USA,­Routledge­[first­published­1995];­ILO­2013­p.­44. 44­ Bridget­Anderson­(2007)­‘A­Very­Private­Business.­Exploring­the­Demand­for­Migrant­Domestic­ Workers’, pp. 247–264 in European Journal of Women’s Studies 14(3). 45 Thomas Pogge (1997) ‘The Boundaries of Nationalism’, Canadian Journal of Philosophy 26; Ulrich Beck (2004) ‘Cosmopolitan Realism: on the distinction between cosmopolitanism in philosophy and in the social sciences’, in Global Networks 4(2).