This paper considers the way mobility has been given meaning by decisions in the United States Supreme Court. It argues that in four key decisions the Court constructed a de facto “right to mobility” by linking mobility to notions of citizenship. The paper suggests that these cases illustrate the importance of considering how mobilities are given meaning in particular contexts and how these meanings are framed within notions of mobility as an essential human freedom. The paper is framed by discussions of mobility, rights and citizenship and concludes with a discussion of the role of othering in the production of mobility-as-citizenship.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tim Cresswell (2006) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: