The changing nature of citizenship legislation

What is citizenship?

Citizenship is the legal institution that designates full membership of an individual in a state, with the associated rights and duties that entails. A state grants certain political, social, and legal rights to its citizens and, in return, citizens are expected to assume certain responsibilities toward the state. Citizenship provides benefits, such as the right to vote, better employment opportunities, the ability to travel without restrictions, legal protection in case of criminal charges, and the possibility to obtain a visa for a relative. There are also costs to citizenship, such as the military draft, renunciation of the original citizenship, and the pecuniary and non-pecuniary costs that may be required for naturalization and for recognition at the age of majority.

Citizenship also indicates “belonging” to a country, thereby drawing boundaries between foreigners and nationals. In the presence of societies characterized by people originating from different countries and cultures, however, the dividing line between belonging and separation appears to be more difficult to adequately identify. The traditional concept of citizenship, based on the idea of a coherence between a culture and a nation, indeed does not imply cultural diversity, and therefore appears inadequate to accommodate for the cultural differences that characterize current multicultural societies.

Recent changes in citizenship laws

Citizenship policies, both in Europe and in North America, have undergone a process of significant transformation over recent decades. While traditionally restrictive states have introduced important reforms to liberalize access to citizenship, other liberal countries have taken steps toward introducing more restrictive regulations. The extent of liberal and restrictive reforms has differed considerably across countries.

Steps toward liberalization in Europe have followed the liberal reforms of the 1980s and the 1990s, consisting mainly of facilitating access to citizenship to second-generation immigrants (e.g. in Germany and Italy) and of allowing for the possibility of holding dual citizenship (e.g. in Finland, Luxembourg, and Sweden). There have also been reforms to reduce the number of years of residence that are required in order to be eligible for citizenship (e.g. in Luxembourg and Portugal) [1]. Since all these liberal steps have been concentrated in a relatively short period of time, some scholars have interpreted this as evidence of a process of liberal convergence among European countries [2]. This conclusion, however, does not match the available evidence on the evolution of citizenship laws. Indeed, within the same period a number of traditionally liberal countries have implemented restrictive regulations, in turn initiating a debate over the surge of a restrictive backlash [3], [4].

The moves toward more restrictive regulations have mainly taken the form of an increase in residency durations (e.g. in Belgium and Luxembourg), the prohibition of holding dual citizenship (in the Netherlands), and the adoption of compulsory requirements as part of the process to obtain permanent residence or naturalization, mostly consisting of assessing language and country knowledge (e.g. in Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands, and the UK). Citizenship policies have also recently been restricted in Greece, where in 2013 the Council of State annulled the major liberal reform of 2010, and in Canada [5].

In summary, what emerges from the last decades is that there has been a combination of both liberalizing and restrictive citizenship policies in Europe, though neither the liberal nor the restrictive hypothesis can be considered appropriate (Figure 1) [4].

Evidence from around the world on the evolution of citizenship law offers a similar picture: that is, there is no general convergence between liberal and restrictive policies. More particularly, in terms of the laws that regulate access to citizenship at birth, most countries are now characterized by a mixed regime in which both liberal (ius soli) and restrictive (ius sanguinis) elements are in place [6]. The ius soli principle establishes that citizenship is attributed by birthplace: this implies that the child of an immigrant is a citizen as long as s/he is born in the country of immigration. The ius sanguinis principle establishes that citizenship is attributed by descent, so that a child inherits citizenship from his/her parents, independent of where s/he is born.

Despite the fact that ius soli is rooted in the legal tradition of common law and ius sanguinis is rooted in the legal tradition of civil law, in many countries during the 20th century (and particularly in the post-war period), the regulation of citizenship laws at birth has gone through a process of continuous transformation. The three major patterns of birthright citizenship law dynamics around the world have been the following (see Figure 2): (i) “stability” (e.g. the US, Canada, and New Zealand, which have remained steadily ius soli since World War II); (ii) “switch” (e.g. former UK colonies that switched from ius soli to ius sanguinis at the time of independence); (iii) “convergence” over a mixed regime (e.g. Australia and the UK, which started from ius soli; and Continental Europe, where most countries started from ius sanguinis).

According to the latest figures from the Migrant Integration Policy Index (MIPEX) (a well-known index of migrant integration that includes information on birthright citizenship), in 2014, out of a total 38 countries around the world eight were favorable toward birthright citizenship for second-generation immigrants (MIPEX index: 100), while 20 countries were critically unfavorable (MIPEX index: 0). The remaining 10 countries were halfway favorable (MIPEX index: 50). Moreover, regarding the policies that regulate access to nationality (including not only birthright citizenship but also regulations such as those on dual citizenship and on the years of required residence to be eligible for citizenship), 13 countries out of 38 were favorable, or slightly favorable (MIPEX index: 60–100), and 16 countries out of 38 were unfavorable or slightly unfavorable (MIPEX index: 1–40). The rest were halfway favorable (MIPEX index: 41–59) [5].

International migration is certainly a potential relevant determinant of the evolution of citizenship legislation. According to the latest available MIPEX data it appears that, across countries, there is a positive relationship between the stock of international migrants and the degree of liberalism in the policies that regulate access to nationality. The significance of this relationship, however, cannot be considered robust, in part due to the presence of outlier countries such as Luxembourg (Figure 3). This suggests that the countries with a larger stock of international migrants are not necessarily those with more liberal citizenship policies.

Determinants of the evolution of citizenship laws

Contemporary socio-political and economic scholars have indicated several potential determinants of the evolution of citizenship laws. Notwithstanding the differences in their contributions, a number of common explanations emerge. The legal tradition of a country appears to affect the legislation that regulates the acquisition of citizenship at birth: most countries with a common law tradition have indeed adopted the ius soli principle, while most countries with a tradition of civil law have adopted the ius sanguinis principle. Border instability and historical events, such as de-colonization, have a negative impact on inclusiveness: indeed, former ius soli colonies have abandoned this in favor of ius sanguinis after having achieved independence [6]. A higher level of democracy is instead associated with more inclusiveness: the countries that were democratic in the 19th century have developed a more inclusive concept of national identity and have been more inclined to allow foreigners to become members of society.

Furthermore, being a former colonial power is an important determinant of the evolution of citizenship laws: these states generally have been more inclusive toward the people belonging to their colonies [1]. Citizenship laws have been also strictly related to migration flows. Large-scale migration, in general, has produced a negative impact on inclusiveness, but in ius sanguinis countries it has led to a shift of the legislation toward a mixed regime, with both ius soli and ius sanguinis elements [6].

Finally, some political factors play a role in the development of citizenship laws. The presence of strong populist parties and the introduction of particular petition campaigns appear to be negatively related to citizenship liberalization (e.g. in Austria, Denmark, Italy, and Germany). At the same time, liberalization has occurred in some countries where far-right political parties are weak or absent (e.g. in Spain and Portugal) [1].

In sum, the evidence shows that citizenship laws have responded endogenously and systematically to historical, economic, and institutional factors and that they have been jointly determined with other institutions.

New measures of citizenship and migrant integration policies

There has been a boom in the development of citizenship and migrant integration policy indicators, which has given rise to a growing body of comparative research on the topic [7]. All the available indices and indicators classify citizenship regimes on a scale that goes from the most liberal (inclusionary) to the most restrictive (exclusionary). Apart from policies regulating access to citizenship, migrant integration policies generally include policies related to anti-discrimination, access to labor markets, labor migration, family reunification, political participation, and educational, cultural, and religious rights.

Currently, the major indexes of citizenship policies are the following: MIPEX [8]; the Citizenship Policy Index (CPI) [1]; the Barriers to Naturalization Index (BNI) [9]; Koning’s index on naturalization policies [10]; the Indicators for Citizenship Rights of Immigrants (ICRI) [11]; and the EUDO “Citizenship Law Indicators” (CITLAW) [7].

In the presence of global changes in citizenship and migrant integration policies, the use of these new comparative indices can be extremely useful for undertaking cross-country analyses that can fully investigate the determinants of these policies and their effects on the socio-economic and political integration of migrants.

Citizenship policy is certainly a central step in the process of formal incorporation of immigrants. However, although it is necessary for full integration it is only one element of social and economic integration of immigrants. Taking this into account, a significant amount of research has been conducted on developing more general indices of migrant integration, which collect and analyze information on policies, such as the procedures for immigration admission, naturalization, and other migrant integration policies.

Citizenship in multicultural societies

As previously discussed, the traditional concept of citizenship does not explicitly embrace cultural diversity, and so fails to accommodate the cultural differences that characterize today’s multicultural societies. Defining multiculturalism, however, is not simple. For example, it can be defined exclusively in demographic terms, in philosophical terms, or it can be recognized as a political orientation by government or institutions toward ethnically and culturally diverse societies. It has been argued that multiculturalism undermines social capital, social cohesion, and national cultural values. This view has contributed to the recent surge of far-right political parties in many European countries, including the Netherlands, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Norway, and France. At the same time, there have been concerns over multiculturalism within the political mainstream. In 2010, the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, admitted that multiculturalism was a failure in Germany, and in 2015 she confirmed her previous belief, saying that it remains “a life lie” and is a “sham” [12]. The former British Prime Minister, David Cameron, was of the same opinion in 2011, arguing that multiculturalism failed to promote a sense of common identity within society. According to these political views, multiculturalism is potentially a problem, mainly because it can lead to the emergence of isolated societies within host countries.

Although there is a perception that the multicultural approach has failed, the evidence tells that in contemporary Europe most countries adopted multicultural policies in the latter part of the 20th century and have maintained this approach into the first decade of the new century, though with some exceptions (e.g. the Netherlands). According to the Multiculturalism Policy Index, in 2010 most Western liberal democracies were characterized either by an intermediate or a strong level of multiculturalism: the countries with a higher degree of multiculturalism were Australia, Canada, Finland, and Sweden (Figure 4) [13].