Access to citizenship & its impact on immigrant integration (ACIT) Results for Portugal 28 January 2012 Professor Maarten Vink University of Maastricht Thomas Huddleston Migration Policy Group Co-financed by the European Fund for the Integration of Third- Country Nationals

Access to citizenship & its impact on immigrant integration (ACIT) End date: 31/03/2013 Goal: Researchers & policy actors better understand how law, implementation, and other factors affect citizenship acquisition and how citizenship affects integration processes; Goal: Policymakers & civil society use evidence to design more effective laws and measures Consolidate law indicators Pilot implementation indicators Expand ‘outcome’ indicators Assess determinants of naturalisation across EU Assess citizenship impact on integration process 10 national citizenship dialogues and national handbooks EU conclusions, recommendations, dialogue, module

Citizenship Law Indicators (CITLAW) 57 indicators compare specific aspects of citizenship regimes across countries and time – basic indicators (e.g. Ius Soli for second generation) – several combined indicators (e.g. Ius Soli at birth) – six combined indicators: ius sanguinis, ius soli, ordinary naturalisation, special naturalisation, renunciation, withdrawal Indicators measure strength of the purpose or principle of the citizenship law Indicator scores range from 0 to 1 0 = purpose/principle not represented 1 = purpose/principle strongly represented

Summary of Findings

Ordinary Naturalisation

opportunities A few key basic requirements Inclusive residence period Dual citizenship accepted Basic language certification obstacles

Special Naturalisation (selected modes)

Special Naturalisation opportunities child transfer descendants of former citizens & cultural affinity obstacles No specific provision for child/spouse extension No specific provision for refugees or stateless

38 indicators compare formal aspects of naturalisation procedure. These include all stages, from efforts by public authorities to inform applicants to the options to appeal a negative decision. 5 dimensions covered administrative procedure: 1)Promotion: how much do authorities encourage applicants to apply? 2)Documentation: how easily can applicants prove they meet the conditions? 3)Discretion: how much room do authorities have to interpret conditions? 4)Bureaucracy: how easy is it for authorities to come to a decision? 5)Review: how strong is judicial oversight of the procedure? Citizenship Implementation Indicators (CITIMP)

Summary of Findings Positive link between law (CITLAW) & implementation (CITIMP) Portuguese law & procedure more favourable for naturalisation: More procedural than legal obstacles, but fewer than average in EU15

PT procedure most like DE Some state promotion today Some demanding documentation, but no more than EU15 average Limited discretion (entitlement) Not very bureaucratic Some judicial review (only procedural for application, none for language)

Promotion Portugal does slightly more to promote naturalisation than most countries Opportunities: Promotional materials/website, info services, cooperation with agencies/migrant NGOs... Free language courses ‘Missed’ opportunities: Closure of Naturalisation Support Office & suspension of official language test Citizenship ceremonies involving public authorities & media Significant official fee without right to exemption (discretionary on documentation) Online submission of applications

Documentation Documentation not more demanding than in most EU15 countries Opportunities: Flexible documentation on residence and language certification Obstacles: Documentation required on criminal record from country of origin Additional paperwork for birth certificate from country of origin (legalisation, translation) Discretionary alternative means to prove identity

Bureaucracy Less bureaucratic in Portugal than in most EU15 countries Opportunities: Specialised Nationality Office within Central Registry Office (CRC) Legal time limits (though with possible delays and without sanctions) Obstacles: CRC must obtain data from various services Authority that checks documentation (CRC) does not decide on the application (Justice)

Citizenship acquisition (CITACQ) Acquisition indicators compare rates of citizenship acquisition among foreign-born in their country of residence Percentages of foreign-born immigrants who have acquired citizenship at any point in time, not naturalisation rates measuring the number of new naturalisations divided by resident population with foreign citizenship Information based on European Labour Force Survey Ad Hoc Module (2008) that targets immigrants and their descendants, aged Data exclusively on foreign-born (1 st generation) and allows for comparisons of citizenship acquisition rates across 25 European countries

Includes information on the following indicators for citizenship acquisition by foreign-born: – ALL – SEX (female vs. male) – ORIGIN (EU vs. non-EU countries) – AGE AT MIGRATION (age at which respondent took up residence) – YEARS OF RESIDENCE (years of residence) – YEARS OF RESIDENCE (minimum number of years of residence) – TIME UNTIL NATURALISATION (numbers of years until naturalisation) Citizenship acquisition (CITACQ)

On average around 34% of foreign-born persons are a citizen of their EU-15 country of residence. – Citizenship acquisition rates in EU-15 range are lowest in Luxembourg (10%) and highest in Sweden (67%). In Portugal, in 2008 the acquisition rate (21%) was below average. – Immigrants from non-EU countries (42%) more often acquire citizenship than those from EU countries (20%). On average it takes around 10 years for foreign-born persons to acquire citizenship of their country of residence, within EU-15 countries. – In Luxembourg it takes almost 15 years on average to naturalise, whereas in Ireland this is around 5 years. In Portugal in 2008 the speed (7,5 years) is below the EU15 average. – Portugal: selective, but fast naturalisation (in 2008!). Summary of Findings

Acquisition rates, EU-15 +CH, NO, 2008 Portugal

Speed of naturalisation, 2008 Portugal

Portugal (2008) compared I (% foreign-born with citizenship)

Portugal (2008) compared II (% foreign-born with citizenship)

Analysis of acquisition rates Citizenship acquisition & speed of acquisition are mainly driven by: Socio-economic development of countries of origin Citizenship laws of the country (see following graph) Variation in acquisition rates is mainly explained by: Marital status (married people are more likely to be naturalised) Socio-economic status (employed immigrants are more likely) Gender (female immigrants are more likely) Use of native language at home (immigrants who speak the language of the destination country at home are more likely)

Predicted probability of having destination country citizenship by MIPEX Access to Nationality (by years of residence in country) Portugal (MIPEX’ = 79) MIPEX Access to Nationality score (adjusted for first generation only)

Citizenship and Integration (CITINT) 18 core indicators measure the the extent to which changes in citizenship status affect levels of integration. Three categories of indicators: – Labour force participation (2008 Eurostat LFS ad hoc module) – Social inclusion and standard of living (2008 EU-SILC) – Host society attitudes (ESS rounds 1-5) Sample: EU-27, Iceland, Norway, Switzerland As expected, immigrants who naturalised are often better off than immigrants who have not naturalised.

Labour Force Participation Source: 2008 EU Labour Force Survey Ad Hoc Module

Social Exclusion Source: 2008 EU Labour Force Survey Ad Hoc Module

Living Conditions Source: 2008 EU-SILC Survey

Conclusions Major legal opportunities Most inclusive regimes on ius soli, Ordinary naturalisation, Dual nationality Minor legal obstacles No specific provisions for refugees/stateless, child/spouse extension Major administrative opportunities Limited discretion & bureaucracy, State promotion (though some stopped) Major administrative obstacles Documentation from country of origin, Limits on judicial review, Official fee Settled immigrants from developing countries more likely to naturalise Before new law in 2008, Portugal had below-average naturalisation rates Policies have major impact on naturalisation rates