Patti Tamara Lenard assesses the justifications given for the right to revoke citizenship in democratic states and concludes that this practice is inconsistent with a commitment to democratic equality. She provides three normative reasons for the mismatch between democratic principles and revocation laws: that the practice of revocation discriminates between different citizens within each state; that it provides differential penalties for the same crime; and that it does not provide transparent justification or due process for this harsh punishment. Although I too am repulsed by this practice, I do not think it is necessarily undemocratic. Moreover, such analysis overlooks one legitimate motivation behind expatriation: the aim to regulate national allegiance. The new revocation initiatives act as a powerful symbolic tool in reinforcing a world order based on sovereign nation-states.
Full article available to subscribers only. Access the article here.
More in this issue
Summer 2016 (30.2) • Feature
Rethinking Central Bank Accountability in Uncertain Times
As the dust has settled following the 2008 financial crisis and the economic dislocations that ensued, it has become clear that central banks have gained considerably ...
Summer 2016 (30.2) • Review
Sexualities in World Politics: How LGBTQ Claims Shape International Relations
As states mobilize popular sentiment, diplomatic pressure, and foreign aid over the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) persons, it is no ...
Summer 2016 (30.2) • Essay
When Democracies Denationalize: The Epistemological Case against Revoking Citizenship
Discomfort with denationalization spans both proceduralist and consequentialist objections. I augment Patti Lenard’s arguments against denationalization with an epistemological argument. What makes denationalization problematic ...