In this paper I want to raise the problem of the rights irregular migrants can enjoy before and after regularisation, with a special focus on voting rights. My claim is that irregular status cannot be tolerated; a first consequence of this claim (against Carens and Bosniak) is that it is not an acceptable policy to offer undocumented individuals almost all citizenship rights while at the same time keeping them in an irregular status (section two). In consequence, if irregular migrants cannot enjoy civil, social, economic and political rights while being irregulars, only two other options are available: deportation (triggered by their illegal status) or regularisation (supported by the fact that in time undocumented persons become members of the host society) (section three). However, none of the reasons for which states can legitimately exclude foreigners can justify irregular immigrants’ expulsion; as such, deportation is not a solution to the problem of irregular migration (section four). This leaves states with only one option – that is, legalisation of their status. However, none of the regularisation programs experienced by now are able to eradicate the existence of illegal status because they are based on the ‘long-term residence threshold’ proposal (section five). The last two sections discuss the problem of irregular migrants’ franchise in both origin and host states, both before and after regularisation.
