Access to Citizenship European Trends and Comparative Approaches Maarten Vink ICS-UL ENCONTRO COM A CIÊNCIA 2009 Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian, 29 e 30 de Julho de 2009

Project Research Question: what explains the different ways in which states attribute citizenship? Relevance: access to citizenship is of essential importance for political incorporation of immigrants Analysis: citizenship laws in 30 developed democracies from 1985 to 2009 Method: comparative configurational analysis (CCA)

Limits to Comparative Research Different state-building processes –Consolidated vs. fragile states Different citizenship traditions –Ius soli vs. ius sanguinis Different migration experiences –Emigration vs. immigration Different political contexts –E.g. left-wing vs. populist parties

Trends 1: Discursive changes Instrumentalization –Since 1980s –Citizenship policies as ‘integration’ policies –Elite-driven Politicization –Since 1990s –Citizenship policies as ‘identity’ policies –Society-driven

Trends 2: Substantive changes 1.Equal treatment men / women (ius sanguinis) 2.Inclusion 2 nd and/or 3 rd generation (ius soli) 3.Acceptance of multiple citizenship 4.Introduction of ´integration´ conditions 5.Deprivation of citizenship (fraud / crime) 6.European Union membership Vink, M., ed. (2010). Migration and Citizenship Attribution: Politics and Policies in Western Europe. Special issue of Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 36(4).

1a. Extension of ius sanguinis

Extension to children born out of wedlock –LUX (87), DE (93), ICE (98) DEN (99), UK (02), FIN (03), NOR (06) for biological fathers –SWE (05) also to non-biological mother (art. ins.) Extension to adopted children –e.g. NED (98/05), FIN (03) Extension to emigrants (reacquisition) –FRA, ITA, SPA Conditional when born abroad, 1 parent citizen –SLO (registration), LAT, LIT (parental consent) Limitation to first generation born abroad –BE (85), DE (00); see also IRE, POR and UK 1b. Extension and limitation of ius sanguinis

2. Extension and limitation of ius soli Ius soli countries amend their ius soli principle - UK (83), IRE (04) Ius sanguinis countries introduce ius soli - GER (00) Ius sanguinis countries provide for ex lege acquisition via a double ius soli - NET (53), SPA (82), BEL (92), POR (06) Extension of ius soli to stateless minors - EST, LAT (98) Restriction of ius soli for potential stateless, if registration in the ‘country of origin’ possible - FIN (03), FRA (03), LUX

4. Introduction of integration conditions Language tests –AUS (98/06), BUL (01), LUX (01), UK (03/04), NET (03/09), FRA (06), NOR (06) Contra this trend: BEL (00), POR (06) General integration tests –BUL (01), DEN (02), FRA (03), UK (02/05), NET (03), AUS (06) Naturalisation ceremony and oath of allegiance –UK (02/05), NET (05/07/09).

5. Deprivation of citizenship Introduction of fraudulent behaviour during naturalization procedure as reason for deprivation (even when otherwise stateless) –DEN (02), FIN (03), NET (03), BEL (06), DE (06), cf. Art. 7 (b) ECN Deprivation of nationality because of criminal behaviour seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the state –UK (more severe 02), DEN (04), NET (09?), contra this trend SPA (02)

6. European Union Shorter residence requirement for nationals EU in case of naturalization –AUS, ITA, HUN (03) Loss of citizenship because of permanent residence abroad, but not within EU –NET Loss of nationality in case of voluntary acquisition of foreign citizenship, but not of other MS / SWI –GER (07) Renunciation previous citizenship as condition for naturalization, but not if citizen of other MS / SWI –GER (07)

3. Increasing acceptance of multiple citizenship  increasing occurrence of multiple citizenship due to migration and mixed marriages  question: why do some states recognize multiple citizenship as a reality, while others do not?

Multiple Citizenship in EU15: Ius soli Ius soli (at birth) Double ius soliNo ius soli (at birth) UK (1707/81) IRE (1922/04) POR (1867/81) BEL (1992) GER (2000) FRA (1889) NED (1953) SPA (1954/82) BEL (1992) POR (2006) LUX (2009) AUT DEN FIN GRE ITA SWE

Multiple Citizenship in EU15: Renunciation demand No (10) Yes, but… (3) Yes (2) BEL FRA IRE GRE POR UK ITA (1992) SWE (2001) FIN (2003) LUX (2009) GER (2000) NET (2003) SPA (1990) AUT DEN

Explanations Legal tradition (Weil, 2001) –Common vs. Civil law? Colonialism (Howard, 2006) –Former colonial power (1945)? Left-wing governments (Joppke, 2005) –No. of years largest gov. party is left Presence of populist parties (Howard, 2006) –Max. electoral support

Comparative Configurational Analysis Charles Ragin The Comparative Method Fuzzy-set social science Calibration: -Crisp-set (0/1) -Fuzzy-set (0-1) No ´independent´ variables No linear regression Necessary and sufficient conditions (or combinations)

Citizenship Configurations (2009)

Analysis 1: 1985 ConfigurationCountriesMultiple Nationality COLPOW45{1} + COMLAW{1} + EARLYDEM{1} BEL,FRA,NET,POR, SPA,UK + IRE + GRE Tolerant COLPOW45{0} * COMLAW{0} * EARLYDEM{0} AUT, DEN, FIN, ITA, SWE, GER, LUX Intolerant

Analysis 2: 2009 ConfigurationCountriesMultiple Nationality COLPOW45{1} + POPPAR{0} + LEFGOV{0} BEL,FRA,NET,POR, SPA,UK + FIN,GER,GRE,SWE, IRE,LUX + ITA Tolerant COLPOW45{0} * POPPAR{1} * LEFGOV{1} AUT, DENIntolerant

Conclusions No single European model Citizenship attribution in flux Citizenship policies explained by: –legal tradition common law vs. civil law –colonial experience –ideological factors absence / presence of strong populist parties (rather than absence / presence of strong leftwing parties)

Online observatory 33+ countries Comprehensive comparative grid –Laws / Case law –Country reports –Comparative tables –Statistics Launch Fall 2009 Funded by EC eudo-citizenship.eu