2011] AN INTERNATIONAL LAW OF CITIZENSHIP 741 loyalty.”333 There is a further understanding that extending citizenship will itself enhance solidarity by facilitating full political integration.334 If this correspondence of territorial presence, citizenship, and social membership persisted today, mandating access to citizenship for long-term residents would be identity reinforcing (or at least not identity diluting) while also advancing other rights. These assumptions are becoming less stable.335 Globalization enables communities both to persist over distance and to isolate in proximity. It has also been associated with increased migration flows.336 Individuals can be geographically present over long periods of time without developing community ties or at least not ties to a state-defined community. Human existence has an inevitable spatial component; some community connections will arise from presence over time. But those ties can be restricted to the local level,337 and they may not come to represent an individual’s primary identity, especially in the face of sustained contact with homecountry communities eased by improved communications and mobility.338 Nor will citizenship acquisition itself necessarily enhance community solidarity.339 To the extent that territory no longer correlates with community, and to the extent that (as Charles Maier puts it) the sense of territory becomes “plural and fugitive,���340 governance defined on a territorial basis may lose authority. Individuals who do not share a sense of identity with other individuals may be unwilling to commit to common structures that will decide the distribution of resources, whether in the form of rights or material goods.341 Governance 333 Orentlicher, supra note 155, at 317; see also BENHABIB, supra note 7, at 219 (noting “crucial link between democratic self-governance and territorial representation”; conceiving the “scope of democratic legitimacy” to be contingent on “the demos which has circumscribed itself as a people upon a given territory”). 334 See, e.g., PICKUS, supra note 2, at 175–78. 335 See BENHABIB, supra note 7, at 178 (“We are at a point in political evolution when the unitary model of citizenship, which bundled together residency upon a single territory with the subjection to a single administration of a people perceived to be more or less cohesive entity, is at an end.”). 336 See United Nations Population Division, Trends in International Migrant Stock: The 2008 Revision 1–3 (report with summary of UN Database POP/DB/MIG/Stock/Rev.2008 (2009)), at http://www.un.org/esa/ population/migration/UN_MigStock_2008.pdf (describing increase in global migration, especially to developed countries). 337 See, e.g., Rainer Bauböck, Reinventing Urban Citizenship, 7 CITIZENSHIP STUD. 139, 149 –50 (2003); Yishai Blank, Spheres of Citizenship, 8 THEORETICAL INQUIRIES L. 411, 426 (2007) (both noting possibility of local identity detached from national one). 338 See, e.g., Kim Barry, The Construction of Citizenship in an Emigration Context, 81 N.Y.U. L. REV. 11 (2006); Maier, supra note 1, at 83– 84 (suggesting that “ a sense of diaspora identity, or at least a sense of multiple homelands, will become increasingly generalized”); cf. ARJUN APPADURAI, MODERNITY AT LARGE: CULTURAL DIMENSIONS OF GLOBALIZATION 171 (1996) (concluding that United States has been transformed from “a land of immigrants” to “being one node in a postnational network of diasporas”). 339 Anecdotal evidence suggests that, in the U.S. context, some people secure naturalization as a form of protected exit strategy, allowing return to homeland while insuring continued access to the United States. See Greta Gilbertson & Audrey Singer, The Emergence of Protective Citizenship in the USA: Naturalization Among Dominican Immigrants in the Post-1996 Welfare Reform Era, 26 ETHNIC & RACIAL STUD. 25, 37–39 (2003) (describing cases in which naturalization was undertaken at time that applicants contemplated leaving country of naturalization and returning to country of origin). 340 Maier, supra note 1, at 84. 341 The dependence of democratic governance capacity on solidarity is a defining feature of liberal nationalism. See, e.g., DAVID MILLER, ON NATIONALITY 90 –99 (1995); SHACHAR, supra note 2, at 47 (noting “social bonds and mutual responsibilities that, through joint action and decision making, help bind a people together and motivate them to redistribute internally the benefits of membership in a relatively stable and self-ruling political community”); David Abraham, The Boundaries and Bonds of Citizenship: Recognition and Redistribution in the United This content downloaded from 82.196.111.31 on Thu, 07 Oct 2021 15:20:30 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms