It is time now to focus on the objections the claim to full inclusion is likely to encounter. This and the following chapter will be devoted to the analysis of some of them. One powerful objection to my account of the political exclusion of immigrants, and the one which I will discuss now, is that it presents immigrants only or mainly as resident workers asking for full inclusion in the community of residence while neglecting the fact that their alien status usually implies their inclusion in another political community. Implicitly, this may suggest that, for my argument, only the bonds that exist between the individual and the community of residence are morally and legally relevant. But it could be argued that the actual and legal bonds between aliens and their country of nationality are also of essential importance in deciding on the fair distribution of benefits among citizens and non-citizens within each state.

Underlying the concern with the distribution of rights and duties are basic notions of fairness grounded on the moral imperative of equality, requiring that similar individuals be treated equally. Aliens and citizens are not equally situated as far as duties and commitment to the state are concerned, and, to that extent, allocating them equal rights would be unfair vis-à-vis the body of citizens. The exclusion of aliens from political rights and from the full right to residence would thus be required to preserve for citizens the distinctive place they deserve within the national community.