Part I. Introduction and Context “Most fundamentally, nationalism changed in status from an anti-government opposition force to a propaganda tool wielded by governments to justify hegemonism; also, national thought was infected by the discourse of biological determination, race, the spectre of ‘decadence’ and degeneration, and the new cult of the authoritarian leader.”297 Different commentators demonstrate that nationalism in this sense, and when applied to the nation-state, contributes to making distinctions between different groups and defining citizenship, which could eventually result in exclusion and might be a possible precursor to the emergence of statelessness on a large scale. Rogers Brubaker demonstrates that defining citizenship – citizenship law – is influenced by nationalism using the examples of the France and Germany: France’s “state-centred, assimilationist understanding of nationhood” corresponds with “an expansive definition of citizenship”, whereas Germany’s “ethnocultural, differentialist understanding of nationhood” is articulated by “a definition of citizenship that is remarkably open to ethnic German immigrants from Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, but remarkably closed to non-German immigrants”.298 Making distinctions, for instance between those of a certain ethnicity and those who are not, was easily justified in national thought. Furthermore, ethnic homogeneity became an aspiration of any strong and capable state after 1870: ethnicity and descent are now used as criteria for determining the nation. This form of ethnic nationalism, which included hierarchical distinctions being drawn between nationals and minorities, and could lead to exclusion of foreigners, led – amongst others – to a different attitude towards crossborder cooperation.299 As a corollary, the attitudes towards freedom of movement changed too. States wanted to be able to distinguish between citizens and non-citizens more and more and no longer accepted everyone within their borders. The only manageable way to accomplish this would be to require documentation from individuals.300 This bureaucratization of distinction was further stimulated by the advance of the processes of democratization through the extension of suffrage that was mentioned, which led to a closer connection between citizens and states. This, in turn, resulted in “an intensified preoccupation with determining who is ‘in’ and who is ‘out’ when it came to enjoying the benefits – both political and economic – of membership in those states. This is one of the ways that democratization promoted bureaucratization, a dynamic that Weber noted long ago. In the process, passports became essential to the bureaucratic administration of modern mass migration, just as identity cards have become something like the ‘currency’ of domestic administration, marking out eligibles from ineligibles in the areas of voting, social services, and much more besides.”301 297 298 299 300 301 58 Joep Leerssen, National Thought in Europe. A Cultural History (Amsterdam University Press 2006) 215–216. Rogers Brubaker, Citizenship and Nationhood in France and Germany (Harvard University Press 1992) 2. Marie-Janine Calic, Südosteuropa. Weltgeschichte einer Region (CH Beck 2016) 366. John Torpey, The Invention of the Passport. Surveillance, Citizenship and the State (Cambridge University Press 2000) 93. Ibid, 121. Intersentia