This thesis explores the possibility of democratic citizenship of temporary migrants. The main problem I investigate is the persistent and systemic vulnerability of temporary migrants to domination. I argue temporary migrants’ vulnerability to domination stems primarily from the fact that responsibilities towards them and their political membership are divided between their country of residence and of origin. While their lives are conditioned by both countries, they are democratically isolated from both. Are they merely partial citizens detached from any democratic politics? If not, what responsibility should each country bear towards temporary migrants within and beyond their jurisdictions? Should our commitments to democracy lead us to endorse a radical conception of migrant citizenship through which migrants represent their interests and perspectives in-between their country of residence and origin? This thesis addresses these normative issues surrounding temporary labour migration. It develops a democratic theory applicable to this phenomenon, explores the moral and political basis of migrants’ freedom, and explains how the current arrangements might be changed to produce a more democratically just outcome. Its main contribution lies in establishing a new account of democratic citizenship and responsibility that coherently accommodates the political agencies of temporary migrants. The thesis introduces, in particular, a new normative concept and political agenda – the Responsibility to Represent (R2R). Under a system of R2R, both sending and receiving countries bear a shared obligation to stage migrants’ contestatory voices in their public policy-making process for creating a society where everyone is free from domination.  In summary, I argue that temporary migration programmes are just and legitimate, if and only if both sending and receiving states (1) recognise temporary migrants as bearers of a distinct life plan deserving equal treatment and non-domination, (2) provide them with necessary protections and sufficient resources for carrying out their plans while accommodating their possible changes, and (3) institutionalise contestatory channels for them to (de)legitimise the current structure of responsibility in-between two states.