1 See Benveniste, Émile, Le vocabulaire des institutions indo-européennes, 2 vols. (Paris: Éditions de Minuit, 1969), 1: 313ff.Google Scholar

2 Some of these tensions are captured in Loycke, Almut, “Der Gast, der bleibt. Dimensionen von Georg Simmels Analyse des Fremdseins”, in Der Gast, der bleibt. Dimensionen von Georg Simmels Analyse des Fremdseins, ed. Loycke, Almut (Frankfurt: Campus Verlag, 1992), pp. 103–109Google Scholar. See also Todorov, Tzvetan, Nous et les autres (Paris: Éditions du Seuil, 1989)Google Scholar. This description of the status of the outsider is by no means peculiar to the Greek or Roman world. For comparable nonclassical analyses see Fortes, Meyer, “Strangers”, in Studies in African Social Anthropology, ed. Fortes, Meyers and Patterson, Sheila (London: Academic Press, 1975), pp. 229–53Google Scholar; on the inequality of resident strangers, see Schildkraut, Enid, “Strangers and local government in Kumasi”, Journal of Modern African Studies 8 (1970): 251–69Google Scholar; on hospitality toward strangers, Pitt-Rivers, Julian, “The law of hospitality”, in The Fate ofSchechem or the Politics of Sex. Essays in the Anthropology of the Mediterranean (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977).Google Scholar

3 Plato Republic 562e.

4 See for example Plato Republic 375a-d; Aristotle Politics 1252b8ff, 1253a.Google Scholar

5 The quoted sentence is from Stanley Hoffmann, quoted in Fishkin, James S., “The Boundaries of Justice”, Journal of Conflict Resolution 27 (1983): 360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6 Habermas, Jürgen, “Citizenship and National Identity: Some Reflections on the Future of Europe”, Praxis International 12 (1992): 13Google Scholar and Habermas, Jürgen and Michnik, Adam, “A Dialogue on Nationalism”, New York Review of Books 41 (1994): 25Google Scholar; Arendt, Hannah, The Burden of Our Time (London: Sacker and Warburg, 1951), pp. 275–76Google Scholar. See also Loycke, Almut, “Der Gast, der bleibt. Dimensionen von Georg Simmels Analyse des Fremdseins”, p. 103.Google Scholar

7 Pocock, J. G. A., “The Ideal of Citizenship Since Classical Times”, Queen's Quarterly 99 (1993): 51Google Scholar; Bottomore, Tom, “Citizenship and Social Class, Forty Years On”, in Marshall, T. H., Citizenship and Social Class (London: Pluto Press, 1992), pp. 66, 84.Google Scholar

8 Simmel, Georg, “The Stranger” in The Sociology ofGeorg Simmel. trans, and ed. Wolff, K. H. (Glencoe, IL: Free Press, 1950), pp. 402–408.Google Scholar

9 See Locke, John, “For a General Naturalization (1693)” pp. 385–87Google Scholar, reprinted in Resnick, David, “John Locke and the Problem of Naturalization”, Review of Politics 49 (1987): 368–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar. To his credit, though, Locke rejected any distinction between naturalized citizens and native-born ones, and noted that the ancestors of most present day Englishmen were themselves foreigners.

10 Sidgwick, Henry, The Elements of Politics, 2nd ed. (London: Macmillan, 1897), pp. 307–309Google Scholar; Beitz, Charles R., “Cosmopolitan Ideals and National Sentiment”, Journal of Philosophy 80 (1983): 592–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Barry, Brian, “Self-Government Revisited”, in The Nature of Political Theory, ed. Miller, David and Siedentop, Larry (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983), pp. 126–27.Google Scholar

11 Mill, John Stuart, Considerations on Representative Government (South Bend, IN: Gateway, 1962), pp. 307, 309, 311Google Scholar; and see Parry, Geraint, “Traditions, Community and Self-Determination”, British Journal of Political Science 12( 1982): 416–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12 On this neglect see Bader, Veit, “Citizenship and Exclusion: Radical Democracy, Community, and Justice. Or, What is Wrong with Communitarianism?” Political Theory 23 (1995): 212–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Several exceptions to this, for example, Joseph Carens and Bader himself, are cited in this essay. There is also a large body of literature, much of it developed in France, that is related to the arguments made here. For some recent examples, see Kristeva, Julia, Ėtrangers à nous-mēmes (Paris: Gallimard, 1988)Google Scholar; Schnapper, Dominique, La Communauté des Citoyens (Paris: Gallimard, 1994)Google Scholar; Xiberras, Martine, Les Théories de L'exclusion (Paris: Méridiens Klincksieck, 1994)Google Scholar; Baudrillard, Jean and Guillaume, Marc, Figures de L'altérité (Paris: Descartes & Cie, 1994)Google Scholar; Sayad, Abdelmalek, L'immigration ou les Paradoxes de L'altérité (Brussels: De Boeck, 1991).Google Scholar

13 See for example Young, Iris Marion, “Polity and Group Difference: A Critique of the Ideal of Universal Citizenship”, Ethics 99 (1989): 250–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Justice and the Politics of Difference (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990)Google Scholar. The Epilogue of that book seeks to move the analysis beyond the community of members.

14 Ackerman, Bruce A., Social Justice in the Liberal State (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1980), p. 93Google Scholar. See Tamir, Yael, Liberal Nationalism (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993), pp. 117–19, 121, 130Google Scholar. As will become clear, I question Tamir's valuation of that contradiction (the practices, she seems to suggest, are more right than the theory), as well as her justification for it. See also Rawls, John, “The Law of Peoples”, Critical Inquiry 20 (1993): 36–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Rawls, , Political Liberalism (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993), pp. xviii, 3, 12–13, 40ffGoogle Scholar; Marshall, Citizenship and Social Class, pp. 6, 18; Barry, Brian, The Liberal Theory of Justice (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973), p. 129Google Scholar; Fishkin, , “The Boundaries of Justice”, pp. 355–56; Aristotle Nicomachean Ethics 1133a19ffGoogle Scholar.; and Nelson, William N., “Special Rights, General Rights, and Social Justice”, Philosophy and Public Affairs 3 (1914): 423.Google Scholar

15 Walzer, Michael, “The Moral Standing of States,” Philosophy and Public Affairs 9 (1980): 211, 227–28Google Scholar; Walzer, Michael, “The Distribution of Membership”, in Boundaries: National Autonomy and its Limits, ed. Brown, Peter G. and Henry, Shue (Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield, 1981), p. 21Google Scholar; Walzer, , “Nation and Universe”, The Tanner Lectures on Human Values XI (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1990), p. 554Google Scholar; Maclntyre, Alasdair, After Virtue (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1984), p. 221Google Scholar. Cf. Bader, , “Citizenship and Exclusion”, pp. 217, 223–24.Google Scholar

16 Burke, Edmund, Reflections on the Revolution in France (Indianapolis: Library of Liberal Arts, 1955), pp. 38–39Google Scholar. This language is also meant to highlight the naked abstractness of that other contract theory of the social union, one based on humankind, personhood and universal rights. Their abstractness, and the weakness of the hands of human rights in this world, have been amply demonstrated by the fate of those, the stateless above all, who had no other claims to sanctuary under which to seek protection. (See Arendt, , The Burden of Our Time, p. 295Google Scholar). Whether the lesson of this is yet a further reason to celebrate“our state, our hearths¨” is, needless to say, another matter.

17 Walzer, , “The Distribution of Membership”, p. 32.Google Scholar

18 Walzer, , “The Moral Standing of States”, p. 212.Google Scholar

19 Walzer, , “The Distribution of Membership”, p. 1Google Scholar and Walzer, Michael, Spheres of Justice: A Defense of Pluralism and Equality (New York: Basic Books, 1983), p. 31.Google Scholar

20 Tamir, , Liberal Nationalism, pp. 99, 105–106, 121, 126–27, 135Google Scholar; Walzer, , “The Distribution of Membership”, pp. 8–9, 10–11, 23, 32Google Scholar; Walzer, , Spheres of Justice, pp. 43, 51, 62, 64.Google Scholar

21 Walzer, , Spheres of Justice, p. 61. Emphasis added.Google Scholar

22 Walzer, , “The Distribution of Membership”, pp. 2–4, 18, 23Google Scholar; Walzer, , Spheres of Justice, pp. 33–34Google Scholar. Maclntyre, Alasdair, Whose Justice? Which Rationality? (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1988), pp. 146, 148.Google Scholar

23 Tamir, , Liberal Nationalism, p. 161Google Scholar, and see Walzer, , Spheres of Justice, pp. 52–61Google Scholar; Walzer, , “Exclusion, Injustice, and the Democratic State”, Dissent 40 (1993): 55.Google Scholar

24 Parry, Geraint, “Paths to Citizenship”, in The Frontiers of Citizenship, ed. Vogel, Ursula and Moran, Michael (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1991), pp. 177, 183Google Scholar, and Tamir, , Liberal Nationalism, pp. 100–101,118Google Scholar; Walzer, , Spheres of Justice, p: 5.Google Scholar

25 Yick Wo v., Hopkins (356 U.S. 10 Term, 1885), p. 369Google Scholar. And see Martin, David A., “Due Process and Membership in the National Community: Political Asylum and Beyond”, University of Pittsburgh Law Review 44 (1983): 207nGoogle Scholar. On some accounts, it should be noted, Yick Wo, and later rulings in a similar vein, were not sharp turning points. For on these readings, the citizen-alien divide, whatever political force it may have had, was not central constitutionally (apart from such perverse uses as Dred Scott, where the concept of citizenship was used to deny African-Americans their rights). That is, citizenship has historically been a weak concept, and the distinction between citizen and alien correspondingly unsubstantial. (Hull, Elizabeth, “Resident Aliens and the Equal Protection Clause: The Burger Court's Retreat from Graham v. Richardson”, Brooklyn Law Review 47 (1980): 38Google Scholar; Bickel, Alexander M., The Morality of Consent [New Haven: Yale University Press, 1975], pp. 33, 40–42, 44, 53–54.)Google Scholar Little was made to depend on it by the Framers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights and when in 1866 it received its first authoritative definition, the purpose was not to draw tight the bonds of membership against the world of outsiders but to protect former slaves against the predations of their fellow citizens. (Bickel, , The Morality of Consent, pp. 40, 44.Google Scholar) If that is accurate, rulings like Yick Wo are the natural extension of a tradition which, not attaching much importance to citizenship and resisting attempts to give it more than a minimal content, must necessarily find it difficult to sustain preferences for citizens. (Bickel, , The Morality of Consent, p. 51Google Scholar and Aleinikoff, Alexander T., “Aliens, Due Process and “Community ties': A Response to Martin”, University of Pittsburgh Law Review 44 [1983]: 239).Google Scholar

26 People v., Crane (Court of Appeals of New York. 25 02 1915), pp. 428–29Google Scholar; Truax v. Raich (239 U.S. 10 Term, 1915), pp. 39–40.Google Scholar

27 Richardson, Graham v. (403 U.S. 10 Term, 1970), pp. 370–75Google Scholar. Rosberg, Gerald M., “The Protection of Aliens from Discriminatory Treatment by the National Government”, The Supreme Court Review (1977), pp. 275–339, pp.275, 291, 310Google Scholar. Hull, , “Resident Aliens and the Equal Protection Clause: The Burger Court's Retreat from Graham v. Richardson”, p. 12.Google Scholar

28 Schuck, Peter H. and Smith, Rogers M., Citizenship Without Consent in the American Polity (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985), pp. 107–108Google Scholar; Rosberg, , “The Protection of Aliens”, p. 331.Google Scholar

29 Doe, Pyler v. (457 U.S. 10 Term 1981), pp. 210, 216, 218nGoogle Scholar and Schuck, Peter H., “The Transformation of Immigration Law”, Columbia Law Review 84 (1984): 58CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The scope of Pyler v. Doe is of course open to question since it concerned the children of illegal aliens.

30 “Developments in the Law. Immigration Policy and the Rights of Aliens”. (No author) Harvard Law Review 96 (1983): 1432.Google Scholar

31 Dougall, Sugarman v. (413 U.S. 10 Term, 1972), pp. 641, 647.Google Scholar

32 Foley v. Connelie (435 U.S. 10 Term, 1977), pp. 295–96; Ambach v. Norwick (441 U.S. 10 Term, 1978), pp. 73–74.

33 Cabell v. Chavez-Salido (454 U.S. 10 Term, 1981), pp. 438–39; Ambach v. Norwick, p. 75.

34 Schuck, and Smith, , Citizenship Without Consent, pp. 26, 28–29.Google Scholar

35 Schuck, , “The Transformation of Immigration Law”, pp. 85, 88Google Scholar; Parry, Geraint, “Traditions, Community and Self-Determination”, pp. 415–16.Google Scholar

36 See Rehnquist dissenting in Sugarman v. Dougall, pp. 650–51, 661–62; Schuck, , “The Transformation of Immigration Law”, p. 10Google Scholar.“A Dual Standard for State Discrimination Against Aliens”, Harvard Law Review 92 (1979): 1523Google Scholar; Rosberg, Gerald M., “Aliens and Equal Protection: Why Not the Right to Vote?” Michigan Law Review 75 (1977): 1127–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Aleinikoff, , “Aliens, Due Process and ‘Community ties’: A Response to Martin”, p. 240Google Scholar; Hull, , “Resident Aliens and the Equal Protection Clause”, pp. 33–34.Google Scholar

37 Schuck, and Smith, , Citizenship Without Consent, p. 107.Google Scholar

38 In fact, through much of the 19th and early 20th centuries, aliens were allowed to vote in many states. See Rosberg, , “Aliens and Equal Protection”, pp. 1093, 1100.Google Scholar

39 See Bickel, , The Morality of Consent, p. 46Google Scholar; Blumstein, Dunn v. (405 U.S. 10 Term, 1971)Google Scholar; Rosberg, “Aliens and Equal Protection”, pp. 1092, 1102, 1133; “Developments in the Law”, pp. 1409–10; O'Fallon, James M., “To Preserve the Conception of a Political Community”, University of Detroit Journal of Urban Law 57 (1980): 778.Google Scholar

40 O'Fallon, “To Preserve the Conception of a Political Community”, p. 781.

41 Schuck, “The Transformation of Immigration Law”, pp. 1, 3, 29, 62; Martin, “Due Process”, p. 176. See also Fernandez v. Wilkinson (United States District Court, D. Kansas. 31 12 1980). This reasoning in this decision handsomely captures the tensions outlined in the earlier pages between the fundamental principles of (American) liberalism, the limits of the Constitution and the treatment of excludable aliens.

42 “Developments in the Law. Immigration Policy and the Rights of Aliens,” p. 1311 and see Rosberg, “The Protection of Aliens,” pp. 319, 325, 327; Martin, “Due Process,” pp. 21 Off.

43 See Leca, Jean, “Questions on Citizenship,” in Dimensions of Radical Democracy, ed. Chantal, Mouffe (London: Routledge, 1992), pp. 17–18, 20–21;Google ScholarBeiner, Ronald S., What's the Matter with Liberalism? (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992), pp. 99, 109Google Scholar. See also Schuck, and Smith, , Citizenship Without Consent, pp. 106–108;Google ScholarSchuck, Peter H., “Membership in the Liberal Polity: The Devaluation of American Citizenship,” in Immigration and the Politics of Citizenship in Europe and North America, ed. Brubaker, William Rogers (German Marshall Fund of America and University Press of America), pp. 52, 65.Google Scholar

44 SeeHabermas, , “Citizenship and National Identity: Some Reflections on the Future of Europe,” pp. 16–17;Google ScholarMiller, David, “The Ethical Significance of Nationality,” Ethics 98 (1988): 648;CrossRefGoogle ScholarBeiner, Ronald, “Liberalism, Nationalism, Citizenship” (n.d. Manuscript), p. 1Google Scholar. See also Scruton, Roger, “In Defense of the Nation” in The Philosopher on Dover Beach (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1990), pp. 301, 303;Google ScholarTamir, , Liberal Nationalism, pp. 126–27;Google ScholarBeiner, , What's the Matter with Liberalism?, p. 126;Google ScholarWalzer, , “The Distribution of Membership,” pp. 12–13, 21.Google Scholar

45 Hampshire, Stuart, Morality and Conflict (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1983), p. 135;Google ScholarBeiner, , What's the Matter with Liberalism?, p. 121.Google Scholar

46 The “memory of our youth” phrase is Régis Debray's quoted in Alain Finkielkraut, La defaite de la pensee (Paris: Gallimard, 1987), p. 126Google Scholar, and see Finkielkraut's, comment, p. 127.Google Scholar

47 Walzer, , “The Distribution of Membership,” pp. 9, 10, 32;Google ScholarWeale, Alfred, “Citizenship Beyond Borders,” in Vogel, and Moran, , The Frontiers of Citizenship, p. 158;Google ScholarTamir, , Liberal Nationalism, p. 121Google Scholar. Notions of identity and community such as these make one suspicious of Yael Tamir's effort to chart a via media between liberalism and communitarianism. She wants to, at one and the same time, preserve the choosiness of liberalism, and its related notions of self-revision, cultural mobility and openness to outsiders together with the communitarian emphasis on context, embeddedness and the morality of (closed) community.

48 Hence the effect of heterogeneity:“America's heterogeneity⃛,” Walzer writes, “[goes] a long way toward explaining the shoddiness of our welfare system.” He adds that this is not a reason to regret that heterogeneity or the disentanglement of citizenship and ethnicity (Walzer, “Response to Veit Bader,” p. 248). See also Beiner, , What's the Matter with Liberalism?, p. 109;Google ScholarParry, , “Traditions, Community and Self-Determination,” p. 146;Google Scholarvan Gunsteren, Herman R., “Admission to Citizenship,” Ethics 98 (1988): 738;CrossRefGoogle ScholarTamir, , Liberal Nationalism, pp. 8, 96, 99, 105, 117–19, 130;Google ScholarWalzer, , Spheres of Justice, pp. 64ff;Google ScholarFreeman, Gary P., “Migrations and the Political Economy of the Welfare State,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 485 (1986): 51;CrossRefGoogle ScholarZig, Layton-Henry, “Citizenship and Migrant Workers in Western Europe,” in Vogel, and Moran, , The Frontiers of Citizenship, p. 112.Google Scholar

49 See for example Miller, David, On Nationality (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995), pp. 49–80Google Scholar. Note that these theorists do not usually attempt to set out the justification of particularism on a universalist foundation, as other analyses do— that is, as an instance of a more general principle. On Walzer's account, though, the justifications of particularism are iterative and so in that sense, universal. See Walzer, , “Nation and Universe.”Google Scholar

50 See Ignatieff, Michael, The Needs of Strangers (New York: Penguin, 1984), pp. 17–18.Google Scholar

51 See Waldron, Jeremy, “When Justice Replaces Affection: The Need for Rights,” Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 11 (1988): 635Google Scholar and O'Neill, Onora, “Ethical Reasoning and Ideological Pluralism,” Ethics 8 (1985): 711–13.Google Scholar

52 Carens, Joseph H., “Aliens and Citizens: The Case for Open Borders,” Review of Politics 49 (1987): 256CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Cf. Tamir, , Liberal Nationalism, p. 118.Google Scholar

53 Carens, Joseph H., “Who Belongs? Theoretical and Legal Questions about Birthright Citizenship in the United States,” University of Toronto Law Journal 37 (1987): 415;CrossRefGoogle ScholarCarens, Joseph H., “Immigration and the Welfare State,” in Democracy and the Welfare State, ed. Amy, Gutmann (Princeton University Press, 1988), p. 215;Google ScholarBrubaker, William Rogers, Citizenship and Nationhood in France and Germany (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992), p. 101.Google ScholarMiller, , “The Ethical Significance of Nationality,” p. 649Google Scholar; Beiner, , What's the Matter with Liberalism?, pp. 102–103Google Scholar; Beiner, , “Liberalism, Nationalism, Citizenship,” p. 2;Google ScholarFishkin, , “The Boundaries of Justice,” p. 358;Google ScholarCarens, , “Aliens and Citizens: The Case for Open Borders,” pp. 255, 257, 261;Google ScholarBarry, , The Liberal Theory of Justice (Oxford:Clarendon Press, 1973), p. 129Google Scholar. See also Tamir, , Liberal Nationalism, p. 113.Google Scholar

54 Beitz, , “Cosmopolitan Ideals and National Sentiment,” p. 595;Google ScholarCarens, , “Who Belongs?”, pp. 415, 429.Google Scholar

55 Ackerman, , Social Justice in the Liberal State, p. 93.Google Scholar

56 Beitz, , “Cosmopolitan Ideals and National Sentiment,” p. 593;Google ScholarCarens, , “Aliens and Citizens: The Case for Open Borders,” p. 267;Google ScholarFishkin, , “lThe Boundaries of Justice,” pp. 360–61.Google Scholar

57 Carens, Joseph H., “Membership and Morality: Admission to Citizenship in Liberal Democratic States,” in Brubaker, , Immigration and the Politics of Citizenship in Europe and North America, p. 36;Google ScholarCarens, , “Immigration and the Welfare State,” pp. 220, 222, 227;Google ScholarBeitz, , “Cosmopolitan Ideals and National Sentiment,” p. 598;Google ScholarFishkin, , “The Boundaries of Justice,” pp. 356, 368ffGoogle Scholar and Fishkin, James S., The Limits of Obligation (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1982), pp. 153ff.Google ScholarNagel, Thomas, The View from Nowhere (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986), pp. 172, 190,191,202,209.Google Scholar

58 van Gunsteren, , “Admission to Citizenship,” p. 732;Google ScholarHabermas, , “Citizenship and National Identity: Some Reflections on the Future of Europe”, pp. 16–17;Google ScholarBeiner, , “Liberalism, Nationalism, Citizenship,” p. 1;Google ScholarPocock, , “The Ideal of Citizenship Since Classical Times,” p. 51;Google ScholarBrubaker, , Citizenship and Nationhood, p. 29.Google Scholar

59 Bottomore, “Citizenship and Social Class, Forty Years On”, p. 66; Habermas, “Citizenship and National Identity: Some Reflections on the Future of Europe”, p. 14.

60 Gray, John, “The Politics of Cultural Diversity”, The Salisbury Review (1988), p.41Google Scholar; O'Neill, “Ethical Reasoning and Ideological Pluralism”, p. 713; Young, “Polity and Group Difference: A Critique of the Ideal of Universal Citizenship”, p. 251; Taylor, Michael, Community, Anarchy and Liberty (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), p. 161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

61 Oldenquist, Andrew, “Loyalties”, Journal of Philosophy 79 (1982): 177–78.Google Scholar

62 Williams, Bernard, Moral Luck (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), p. 18CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Beiner, What's the Matter with Liberalism?, p. 102.

63 Williams, Bernard, Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1985), p. 103Google Scholar; Miller, “The Ethical Significance of Nationality”, p. 649.

64 Williams, Moral Luck, pp. 2,37; Williams, Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy, pp. 7–8.

65 Petit, Philip, “Social Holism and Moral Theory: a Defence of Bradley's Thesis”, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 86 (1985–1986): 187Google Scholar; Miller, “The Ethical Significance of Nationality”, p. 650; Williams, Moral Luck, pp. 18, 37 and Williams, Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy, p. 14.

66 See Nagel, View from Nowhere, p. 198.

67 Nagel, Thomas, Mortal Questions (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979), p. 213Google Scholar and Nagel, View from Nowhere, pp. 210–11.