citizenship rules, creating a citizenist perspective and hierarchy. Anita “Citizenism,” Tijerina Revilla writes, occurs when anti-immigrant and federally sanctioned “state- classification results in a system of unearned advantages for citizens and unwarranted discrimination of noncitizens, such as the denial of basic human rights” (Tijerina Revilla 2011, 7-8, n2). To describe and explain how challenges to traditional notions of citizenship materialize in and around the bridges, checkpoints, rivers, fences, and asymmetry that mark the frontiers where the United States and Mexico meet, the state’s derived ability, or the citizenship regime, which creates and control citizens must be conceptualized. According to Jane Jenson and Martin Papillon (2000), citizenship regime “A can be defined as the institutional arrangements, and understandings that guide and shape concurrent policy decisions and expenditures of states, problem definitions by states and citizens, and claims making by citizens” (246). Citizenship regimes thus generally have four dimensions: 1) they establish the boundaries of inclusion and exclusion of a political community; 2) set the political rules of the game for a polity and define state institutions, political participation, and claims making; 3) contribute to the definition of nation in the sense that formal, cultural, and historical positions define the political community; and 4) establish and legitimize the geographical borders of the political community as nation (Jenson and Papillon 2000, 246). For these reasons, the citizenship regime is an institution deeply entrenched with the nation-state and, as such, many assume citizenship as the primary political identity within political boundaries (see Sassen 2003).
citizenship rules, creating a citizenist perspective and hierarchy. “Citizenism,” Anita Tijerina Revilla writes, occurs when anti-immigrant “state- and federally sanctioned classification results in a system of unearned advantages for citizens and unwarranted discrimination of noncitizens, such as the denial of basic human rights” (Tijerina Revilla 2011, 7-8, n2). To describe and explain how challenges to traditional notions of citizenship materialize in and around the bridges, checkpoints, rivers, fences, and asymmetry that mark the frontiers where the United States and Mexico meet, the state’s derived ability, or the citizenship regime, which creates and control citizens must be conceptualized. According to Jane Jenson and Martin Papillon (2000), “A citizenship regime can be defined as the institutional arrangements, and understandings that guide and shape concurrent policy decisions and expenditures of states, problem definitions by states and citizens, and claims making by citizens” (246). Citizenship regimes thus generally have four dimensions: 1) they establish the boundaries of inclusion and exclusion of a political community; 2) set the political rules of the game for a polity and define state institutions, political participation, and claims making; 3) contribute to the definition of nation in the sense that formal, cultural, and historical positions define the political community; and 4) establish and legitimize the geographical borders of the political community as nation (Jenson and Papillon 2000, 246). For these reasons, the citizenship regime is an institution deeply entrenched with the nation-state and, as such, many assume citizenship as the primary political identity within political boundaries (see Sassen 2003).
DryHate.docx