Sanctuaries, City-zenship, and Republican Theory before and after the Nation State

Contemporary debates over sanctuary cities, city-zenship, and “acts of citizenship” are usually framed as studies of novel or transgressive politics. In large measure, the reason for this is that those kinds of politics clearly do deviate from the liberal thought and practice that defines so much of the contemporary debate. This article argues that this perspective is overly narrow. Consequently, it is descriptively and analytically mistaken, and thus potentially normatively misleading. Sanctuary and city-zenship are not new, they are old. Sanctuary politics predate liberalism, were at the core of the early-modern republican revolutions, and their constitutional and institutional vestiges remain with us. Nevertheless, much has indeed been forgotten, most obviously the theory that once undergirded these constitutional practices. One reason sanctuary appears to be novel is that we have forgotten about the theory that once made it so common. This article sets out to rectify that theoretical problem. This paper focuses on retrieving the republican theory of sanctuary and city-zenship, characterizing that theory, and then evaluating its contemporary normative appeal. I argue that it yields important descriptive, analytical, normative insights for thinking about migration and membership today beyond the limits of liberalism while also avoiding the trappings of more radical critiques.