{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.019579405366207395, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.4186046511627906, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Rights, Identity and Claims-Making

The nation-state mode of citizenship – the predominant way we think about citizenship – assumes the existence of actors whose rights and identities are grounded within the bounds of national collectives. And these collectives are assumed to constitute the authentic sites for the realization of claims-making and civic participation. The experience of postwar immigrants in Europe, on the other hand, reveals that the contemporary practices of citizenship are increasingly decoupled from belonging in the national collective. Regardless of their historical or cultural ties to the German nation, and even without a formal German nationality, Turkish immigrants in Berlin make claims on Berlin's authority structures and participate in Berlin's public institutions. When Pakistani immigrants in Britain make demands for the teaching of Islam in public schools, they mobilize around a Muslim identity, but they also appeal to a universalistic language of 'human rights' to justify their claims. And, not only do they mobilize to affect the local school authorities, they also pressure the national government and take their case to the European Court of Human Rights. Contrary to the predominant understandings and conceptualizations, the boundaries of citizenship are not located in a nation-state but encompass the local and the transnational.