In this paper I argue that there is a lack of normative reflection on how to justify the incoherencies that arise when different policies are implemented in different territories according to different criteria. Sub-state politics does not merely mirror national politics. It often shows a distinct logic, and different philosophies are likely to co-exist in multi-level setting. Yet, some democratic challenges can arise since immigrants in the same territorial state and jurisdiction might face different systems of rights and duties, different cultural recognition of their identities (language and religion), etc. Different policy frames can contradict the principle of coherence, both vertically and horizontally. The lack of coherence is coupled with the weakness of the coordination principle together with fragmentation, and this can nurture both an anti-immigrant rhetoric and negative public opinion towards immigrants and governments (if different local governments give different answers to hot religious issues such as for instance the construction of religious infrastructures).
The main purpose of this paper is to identify from a normative perspective these democratic challenges and conduct these challenges towards a problem of democratic citizenship in multi-level states. I will try to propose a heuristic framework allowing empirical comparative analysis.
