These tragic deaths come just over a week after two people died in the Channel.
Each death is a tragedy and completely avoidable.
Our thoughts are with their loved ones and all who were on the boat.
We urgently need safe routes.
www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026...
A second excerpt, reading "That capacious sort of allegiance, based on territorial jurisdiction, was a good measure of who was bound by the laws. But it’s strange to think it was the foundation for citizenship. Whereas territorial jurisdiction was the basis for a generic allegiance to the laws, only an exclusive allegiance, in the sense of loyalty, could be the measure of who was an American citizen. That’s why the drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment repeatedly emphasized that its phrase “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” meant exclusive jurisdiction. In their words, it referred to “complete” jurisdiction and applied to persons “not subject to some foreign Power.”"
And English allegiance *was* exclusive, or at least a lot of people thought so, that's why there was a massive fight about naturalisation in the late 17thC - both for English people abroad, and for Huguenots and Dutch in England. It was a whole thing!
Except from an article by Philip Hamburger reading "Justice Kagan said that the common law’s territorial rule was “very generous” in that it “extended citizenship to those born there who may not have been born of parent citizens.” Again, however, the common law rule was not about citizenship, and was not so much generous as merely sensible in saying that almost all persons in the king’s territory were his subjects and thus subject to his laws"
Pls stop mangling 17thC English law (& legal practice) to support stripping citizenship. Allegiance conferred protection - access to (rightslike) liberties in the common law *and* prerogative protection. It was not merely subjection! There are articles about this, but never mind, I guess.
Call me a bizarre anthropomorphic rabbit, because I’ve got so many Easter Eggs in my 270th #ScholarSunday thread of public scholarly writing, podcasts, new & forthcoming books from the past week. Add more below, share widely, & enjoy the hunt, all! 🗃️ +
blackwhiteandread.com/scholarsunda...
Which is a good thing!
Helpfully scary
!!
I'm not suggesting of course that EM immigration control functioned in the same way as today's technocratic regimes - it was experimental, and piecemeal. However, it *was there*, pointing us towards a history of longer term exclusions of migrants, rather than a 'proud history of welcome'.
Migrants complained about this internal bordering - particularly when they arrived after fleeing persecution. Subjects repeatedly reinforced internal borders - tho sometimes helped migrants to evade them if economically advantageous
Lawyers agreed that migrants' children, born in England, were legally English. However! Their ambiguous status as visibly foreign meant that being English in law did not stop local and national authorities trying to exploit them.
Some towns settled communities of migrants - while this has been understood as a "refuge" for those fleeing persecution, in fact they were constituted as separate communities, unable to access the same rights as their English neighbours.
There were a number of experiments. In the late 16thC, William Tipper was granted a license to "host" (for a fee) all foreign merchants. In the 1620s a national body, the Commission for Strangers, was set up to regulate and govern migrants (the first of its kind)
Because they were governed by prerogative, migrants were also unable to challenge local bylaws that restricted their right to work, particularly in London: they were harassed by informers, sometimes imprisoned.
This experimental immigration control took the form of 'internal bordering' - no bars to entry or control at the external border, but restrictions when living in England, particularly access to work. Statutes enumerated restrictions, particularly the 1540 Acte concerning Strangers
Migrants in EM England, born "out of allegiance" (overseas) could only access prerogative protection. This made them rightsless, vs rights-bearing citizens. This rightslessness was the precondition for experiments in immigration control in EM England (as immigration increased rapidly)
Legal protection was recourse to the laws: natural protection was that provided by prerogative (i.e. the monarch's powers outwith parliament). As this natural protection flowed from the monarch alone, it was unstable - subjects used it when they wanted but often challenged its reach in legal cases
A little thread on early modern immigration control. Feat. a 'commission for strangers' among other experiments... In 16thC and 17thC common law, subjects had access to both 'legal' protection and 'natural' protection by virtue of birth in the monarch's dominions ("in allegiance").
Ah, thanks lads! It only took 3 years but v pleased it's being well received (so far)
I hope so!
This is the product of a lot of thinking with @julietatkinson.bsky.social, excellent questioning from @earlymodernjohn.bsky.social & Phil Withington, the (quite scary) discussion @tudorstuartseminar.bsky.social and of course Anthony Milton's incredible supervision
Really pleased to share my (open access!) article on immigration control in early modern England, feat. rights-bearing subjects, rightsless migrants, and experiments in immigration control
Very pleased to share my review of @endeeekay.bsky.social, Subha Mukherji and Rowan Williams' collection, Crossings, an attempt to reorient migration studies through the lens of migrant knowledge(s) & migrant forms: www.tandfonline.com/eprint/RXI2X...
All hybrid! Come one, come all!
Our programme for summer seminars @ihr.bsky.social is up now! Featuring a v timely paper on American citizenship + immigration at the founding; ancient Greek refugeedom; gypsy and Roma mobility; & cross-confessional solidarity with refugees in early 20thC Britain tinyurl.com/3bxsdy32
Yes! (Tho I do skip over that, shamefully): but looking at the ways that local regimes based on prerogative were utilised to control migrants (who were effectively remedyless as reliant only on prerogative, not legal protection)
*Have, ffs
Gave an article coming out soon which may be relevant to your interests - experiments in immigration control in England c.1540-1640. Includes a fair chunk on 2nd gen migrants: the crown's desires to exploit them despite lawyers, migrants, and Archbishop Laud (!) acknowledging their subjecthood
Ah, thanks! V excited for your forthcoming magnum opus
Please do spread the word about the @srsrensoc.bsky.social Scholars of Colour MA Scholarship Awards -- two pots of £4,000 each, and an optional mentoring opportunity. I've very much enjoyed being a mentor to a fantastic scholar through this scheme!
Performative cruelty (again); refugee status is already temporary. Shortening it causes massive distress to refugees, many of whom have been waiting for leave for years. Given the HO already has a huge backlog, how will they resource reviews for every refugee at 30 months? tinyurl.com/ycx5ewty