Abstract

In his seminal work Strangers in Our Midst (2016a.), David Miller develops his version of liberal nationalism, where he argues for liberal states being justified in requiring immigrants to integrate themselves culturally before giving them access to formal citizenship equal to native citizens. Elsewhere, Miller (2016b.) has also expressed that there are instances when states are justified in revoking citizenships for national security reasons. This paper argues that these positions held by Miller are inconsistent with each other. To make the case against Miller for why this is, three arguments are presented. Firstly, the strict immigration policy suggested in liberal nationalism is permissible because once it is successfully completed, the naturalised citizen gains equal standing in citizenship to native born citizens. If denationalisation is applied in conjunction, but only to some, then their citizenship statis is not equal, and thus the justification for liberal nationalist immigration policy is undermined. Secondly, while it might otherwise be plausible that this injustice is permissible by viewing dual citizens secondary citizenship as a protective privilege, the necessary integration in liberal nationalism makes this response less believable. Finally, one of the most important objectives in liberal nationalism is to promote trust between members. If dual citizens are the only ones who can have their citizenship revoked, and the only reason for this is on suspicion of terrorism, then this risk promoting mistrust against these individuals, making the combination of liberal nationalism and denationalisation self-defeating.