Description
In order to understand the casual cruelty inflicted at various border crossings and the widespread loss of life, I argue in this paper that we must first return to core concepts of citizenship and citizenship theory: specifically, the role of the noncitizen. An important, yet overlooked, factor that is blocking progress in these fields is a lack of empathy for migrant noncitizens, asylum seekers in particular. This stems from a deliberate positioning in legislative and societal discourse that has served to reduce the noncitizen to a mere “opposite” of a citizen. Understanding the noncitizen’s deliberate positioning is essential to evaluating the distance between citizens and noncitizens, and is a matter of not just conceptual but practical urgency.
Drawing upon current noncitizenship theorists and the work of Hannah Arendt, this article will critically evaluate twenty-first century government policy regarding the asylum seeker, utilizing the United States and the United Kingdom as comparative case studies. It will further draw parallels between the time Arendt was writing in and our own, and the importance of interrogating the differences. Lastly, it will conclude that citizenship is, first and foremost, found in our relationships with each other. Consequently, the only means by which to remove these barriers to progress is to critically examine why this distance was created and the varying means by which it impedes the universal right to live in a political community. Asking how to rebuild these relationships, in an era of ever-increasing polarization and misinformation, is an essential first step.
