The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Home Rule: National Sovereignty and the Separation of Natives and Migrants
Abstract
Reviewer: Gregory J. Goalwin, Aurora University In Home Rule: National Sovereignty and the Separation of Natives and Migrants, Nandita Sharma develops a theory of international migration that situates current political debates within a deep postcolonial history of biopolitics, population control, and citizenship policies. Tracing patterns of colonial relations, Sharma emphasizes the postcolonial nature of the modern world system. Nations, she argues, are the core of a Postcolonial New World Order that have turned us all into National-Natives of some place, creating an expectation that each person belongs to a sovereign separated nation state. Such a system necessarily draws borderlines between members of the nation and everyone else, a distinction that is of critical interest to Sharma. By limiting national membership and creating “people of a place,” Sharma argues that the nation state system creates a new class of people as well, those “out of place” who lack their own sense of national membership or who can be found outside of their “natural” territory. It is this new form of governmentality and biopolitics that forms the core of Sharma’s argument. In tracing how these processes function in the postcolonial world, Sharma identifies a discourse of autochthony that restricts national membership even further: the only “true” nationals are what Sharma calls “National-Natives”: those who can in some way show they are Native to the nation. But this National-Nativity is native in…
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“En tercer lugar, cabe señalar que, como las categorías de nativo y migrante (Sharma 2020), la de cimarrón es, de por sí, una categoría colonial (Amaral 2017).”
From Huida, cimarronaje y santuario: genealogías críticas para deseurocentrar la historia del refugio en el Atlántico Negro (2022) · cites this paper as Sharma 2020
In the citing paper
“Además, tanto en los territorios británicos como en Cuba, Brasil y Peru, el proceso de abolición fue concomitante a la intensificación de la servidumbre por contrato;”
From Huida, cimarronaje y santuario: genealogías críticas para deseurocentrar la historia del refugio en el Atlántico Negro (2022) · cites this paper as Sharma 2020, 63
In the citing paper
“esta no solo reemplazó el sistema esclavista manteniendo a los trabajadores importados en condiciones de subordinación, sino que también inauguró los controles de frontera contemporáneos, a través de los discursos humanitarios anteriormente mencionados.”
From Huida, cimarronaje y santuario: genealogías críticas para deseurocentrar la historia del refugio en el Atlántico Negro (2022) · cites this paper as Sharma 2020, 63
In the citing paper
“También nos induce a tener en cuenta la rica producción de culturas cimarronas y migrantes que trazan nuevas geografías de mestizaje social y político (Gilroy 2014), junto a las muchas formas de solidaridad entre migrantes, indígenas, ciudadanos, presentes en el mundo de ayer (Davidson 1996, 98; Sharma 2020, 87) y de hoy.”
From Huida, cimarronaje y santuario: genealogías críticas para deseurocentrar la historia del refugio en el Atlántico Negro (2022) · cites this paper as Sharma 2020, 87
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Picozza, F. (2022) · Scripta Nova. Revista Electrónica de Geografía y Ciencias Sociales · doi:10.1344/sn2022.26.36875 · Cited by 2
Metadata
- Authors
- Sharma, N.
- Venue
- Social Forces
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2020-06-09
- Volume
- 99
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- e1-e3
- ISSN
- 0037-7732
- 1534-7605
- Cited by
- 2
- References
- 0
- Language
- en
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Home Rule: National Sovereignty and the Separation of Natives and Migrants. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/sf/soaa060
- The paper
- Sharma, N. (2020). Home Rule: National Sovereignty and the Separation of Natives and Migrants. Social Forces. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/soaa060