Denizens
Definition: Denizens are immigrants who have resided in their “destination” countries for
long periods without becoming naturalized citizens but who nonetheless have substantial
sets of rights.
Despite lacking citizenship, denizens typically have secure rights of residence and could not
easily be deported (as with American “green card” holders, or those with “indefinite leave
to remain” in the UK). A more common dictionary definition of the word is simply
inhabitants, but it now has a more developed conceptual meaning primarily as a result of
the work of Tomas Hammar (1990), who observed the need for a way to describe the status
of people who are not full members of the society in question but who are not exactly
“foreigners” either. Denizens are people who have become members of and have rights in
their adopted countries to a substantial extent – in other words they have gained a degree
of citizenship – but they are not citizens in a formal status sense.
The combination of immigrants’ long-term residence with lack of formal citizenship has
significant implications for democratic countries in particular. In democratic theory, the
legitimacy of the state derives from the notion that the government expresses the will of
the people. Mechanisms for expressing this will include the right to vote and to hold office
(among other forms of political activity). These rights are sometimes imagined to be
universal, though in practice there are always exceptions (e.g. children, prisoners/felons).
Even so, there is indeed a historical trend towards universalization, with the progressive
extension of political rights to women, the poor, particular minority groups, etc. – a trend
which however has not included extension of voting rights to immigrants who have not
become naturalized citizens (i.e., denizens). (One can find hints of countertrends as well,
e.g. in the US where measures ostensibly intended to prevent voter fraud are arguably
better understood as attempts to discourage or inhibit voting by members of particular
social groups.)
Denizens thus constitute a significant exception to the notion that democratic governments
are (in the American expression) “of the people, by the people…”. That phrase is telling
insofar as with large-scale immigration there is manifestly an ambiguity in the term “the
people”. In idealized understandings of modern nation-states, citizenship is to be congruent
with membership of the nation – a point evident in the fact that “citizenship” and
“nationality” are sometimes used interchangeably. To the extent that individuals are not
(and do not become) members of the nation, then one might adopt the view that there is no
problem when they are not included in mechanisms of democratic self-governance: they are
not part of “the people”. Few if any observers would worry about the lack of full political
rights among people whose residence in another country is genuinely temporary, e.g.
foreign students. But that perspective becomes less compelling the longer an individual
lives in the country in question – and we should recall that in many instances (including
those in which individuals were born in the “destination”) the period of residence is long
enough to dispel any notion that these are temporary immigrants (e.g. “guestworkers”) who
will someday return “home”. When there are many people in this anomalous situation, it
becomes a matter of concern not just for the individuals themselves but for the country as a
whole: it raises questions about the “quality” of one’s democracy and indeed about the
legitimacy of the state.
The matter might resolve itself if most immigrants simply became naturalized citizens after
a reasonable period of residence. The continued existence of “denizens” shows that this
solution is not so simple. Two different paths have led to this outcome. In some countries,
requirements for naturalization are not prohibitive (at least for those having legal residence
status) – but significant proportions of those who could become citizens do not choose to
do so. Data… Why are some people content to remain non-citizens? One reason is that as
permanent residents they already have most of the rights held by full citizens. Citizenship
refers (in part) to the full set of civil, political and social rights held by members of
democratic societies – and denizens hold most of those rights despite lacking citizenship in
its formal status sense. They may for example express themselves freely, own property,
travel without restriction, and even receive benefits under social welfare systems (though
there are exceptions to this one, as in the US under the 1996 reforms to welfare laws). In
short, they are citizens to a certain extent. They lack only a subset of political rights – they
cannot vote or hold office (though they can attempt to wield political influence in other
ways). Some people do not care much about political participation – as when native citizens
do not bother to vote, typically in double-digit percentages – and a certain proportion of
immigrants are no different in this respect. Their (relative) lack of citizenship is thus not a
significant problem for them, though one might still make the case that it is a problem from
the perspective of the society as a whole.
In other countries, the main reason many immigrants (and their children) do not become
naturalized citizens is that the requirements for doing so are difficult or impossible for them
to satisfy. These requirements express a point that operates at a deeper level: some
immigrants cannot become citizens in a formal/status sense because they are not
considered suitable as members of the nation. This point is particularly evident in countries
where citizenship and nationality have strong ethnic dimensions, expressed in restrictive jus
sanguinis citizenship laws: one is a citizen if one’s parents are citizens. Until 1999, people
lacking German ethnicity could become German citizens only with difficulty (if at all) even if
they were born in Germany (i.e., to immigrant parents). The result was a large population
of denizens, particularly of Turkish background – a group that included people who spoke
only German, had never lived anywhere else, and who had no political allegiances outside of
Germany. This population is now slowly diminishing as more accessible provisions for
naturalization attract more applications.
Political rights for denizens have evolved considerably particularly in Europe since the onset
of mass immigration in the 1950s (Miller 1981). Early in this period, many countries had
significant restrictions on immigrants’ political activities, e.g. limiting their rights of
expression and association; the passports of immigrants from the Baltic countries in Sweden
were stamped with the words “political activities are not allowed” (Hammar 1990). These
restrictions were progressively eased, and in some instances governments adopted laws
explicitly granting political rights, though retaining the discretion to impose limitations e.g.
on grounds of national security. In some countries governments created structures for
consultation with foreign residents via immigrant associations, providing a means of
representation designed to compensate for exclusion from regular political processes –
though views expressed via this mechanism were not binding on those with authority to
make and implement policy (Andersen 1990). By the mid-1980s, the Nordic countries and
the Netherlands had extended to immigrants the right to vote and run for office in
local/municipal elections after a minimum residence period – a significant step particularly
in light of the fact that immigrants were (are) highly concentrated in particular cities
(Layton-Henry 1990). In most cases, however, these trends have stopped short of granting
rights for participation in national elections to those who have not become naturalized
citizens (one exception is New Zealand, where immigrants can vote following three years of
residence).
Denizens are excluded, then, from certain political rights associated with citizenship – to a
greater extent in some countries than in others. Variation also characterizes
inclusion/exclusion of denizens from the social rights of citizenship (Rosenhek 2000). In
many countries immigrants are eligible for most if not all of the programs and institutions
that constitute the “welfare state”, e.g. unemployment insurance. This is particularly true
for those with rights of permanent residence, but even illegal/undocumented immigrants
can often access basic services (Joppke 1999 book). A key reason for inclusion of
immigrants – for not making formal citizenship a condition of eligibility – is the fact that
immigrants and citizens alike pay the taxes that support these programs. On the other
hand, the welfare state does not operate according to a fiscal logic alone – it also reinforces
(or is intended to reinforce) solidarity. That point raises the question: solidarity among
whom? Some countries have adopted a more restrictive answer to that question, as when
the US in 1996 amended its welfare eligibility rules to exclude non-citizens from certain
programs, including core income support programs (e.g. “Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families” and food stamps). Understanding the exclusion of non-citizens from welfare
programs which they nevertheless support with their taxes requires recalling that
citizenship is not only a matter of rights; it is also about identity, a way of drawing the
borders around “us”. Solidarity is always bounded.
The concept of denizens is useful particularly insofar as it reminds us that citizenship is not
an all-or-nothing status. Immigrants by definition begin (when they first arrive in the
destination) as “foreigners”. But even foreigners have certain rights, and in most
democratic countries one gains rights via residence, not only via formal naturalization. The
extensive rights held by denizens add up to a significant degree of membership despite the
absence of formal citizenship, and in this respect denizens have more in common with
citizens than with “foreigners”. Even so, the right of permanent residence is an important
precondition for this (unofficial) status, and immigrants in many categories do not achieve it
(Castles and Davidson 2000). The discussion above highlights important inclusionary trends,
and in some cases e.g. Germany the result has been a significant redefinition of the nationstate, an abandonment of an exclusively ethno-nationalist understanding of what it means
to be German. But these trends are by no means universal or irreversible: some immigrants
are effectively confined to a status best captured by the word “margizens” (Martiniello
1994), though this concept as well denotes a (limited) degree of membership and rights as
against complete exclusion.
See also: Integration; Citizenship
(Hammar 1990) (Miller 1981) (Layton-Henry 1990) (Andersen 1990) (Rosenhek 2000) (Castles and
Davidson 2000) (Joppke 1999) (Martiniello 1994)
References
Andersen, Uwe (1990), 'Consultative institutions for migrant workers', in Zig Layton-Henry (ed.), The
Political Rights of Migrant Workers in Europe, London: Sage, pp. 113-26.
Castles, Stephen, Alastair Davidson (2000), Citizenship and migration: globalization and the politics
of belonging. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Hammar, Tomas (1990), Democracy and the nation state: aliens, denizens, and citizens in a world of
international migration. Aldershot: Avebury.
Joppke, Christian (1999), Immigration and the nation-state; the United States, Germany, and Great
Britain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Layton-Henry, Zig (1990), The Political Rights of Migrant Workers in Europe. London: Sage.
Martiniello, Marco (1994), 'Citizenship of the European Union: a critical view', in Rainer Bauböck
(ed.), From aliens to citizens: redefining the status of immigrants in Europe, Aldershot:
Avebury, pp. 29-47.
Miller, Mark J. (1981), Foreign workers in Western Europe: an emerging political force. New York:
Praeger.
Rosenhek, Zeev (2000), 'Migration regimes, intra-state conflicts and the politics of exclusion and
inclusion: migrant workers in the Israeli welfare state', Social Problems, 47 (1), 49-67.