Access to citizenship & its impact on immigrant integration (ACIT) Results for Hungary 24 January 2012 Thomas Huddleston Migration Policy Group Costica Dumbrava European University Institute 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 Dual nationality accepted (becoming EU trend) Basic language exam Clean criminal record obstacles Long & complicated residence requirement, more than average EU12 Demanding resource requirement, rare in EU

Special Naturalisation (selected modes)

Special Naturalisation opportunities cultural affinity / descendants of former citizens Entitlement for refugees spousal transfer adoption obstacles child extension/transfer

Cultural affinity 1 indicator: Either descendant of former citizen or probable HU origin & proven HU speaker + Criminal record & public order conditions in HU Very rare across EU; Only same CITLAW score as LV; At least some provisions in: – HR, RS, BG, SK, PL – GR & TU – DE & FR – ES, PT, IE

Descendants of former citizens 1 indicator: Entitlement based on declaration BUT residence & other naturalisation conditions Less common in EU; Wide range; more open in only IT, LT, IE, BE, NL

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 Generally, positive link between law (CITLAW) & implementation (CITIMP) Similarly, HU creates both many legal and procedural obstacles for the naturalisation of ordinary immigrants (without Hungarian descent)

Ordinary immigrants face more procedural obstacles in HU than in any of its neighbouring countries, similar to SK Slightly more state promotion than in most EU countries Some demanding documentation as in most EU countries More discretionary procedure than most in Central Europe Most bureaucratic of any EU country Critically missing the right to reasoned decision & appeal

Promotion HU makes procedure accessible but little else for ordinary immigrants Opportunities: Free procedure, courses, and study materials Ceremonies involving public dignitaries and media Obstacles: No special campaigns or promotional services/materials for people without HU descent Comparatively high fee for test

Bureaucracy HU has more bureaucratic procedure than other EU countries (same as IT) Opportunities: Decision made at national level Internal time-limits (e.g. security and ID checks) Obstacles: Different authorities receive the application, check it, provide data/opinions, and decide No overall legal time limit to procedure

Review HU is one of last EU countries missing right to reasoned decision & appeal for ordinary naturalisation of immigrants (i.e. without Hungarian descent). Obstacles: No right to obtain information on reasons for rejection No specific right to appeal a rejection No specific right to appeal citizenship exam results Note: Discrimination is prohibited in procedure; Applicants can complain to Ombudsman Note: Since this research, the right to reasoned decisions & appeal have been instituted in Poland (as of 15 August 2012) and in Belgium (as of 1 January 2013).

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

Acquisition rates among foreign-born generally higher in EU-12 (51%) than in EU-15 (34%) Rates have likely changed since 2008 based on changes for persons of Hungarian descent. Hungary (67%) CITACQ findings I: acquisition rates

Within EU-12 large differences in speed of naturalisation. The fast naturalisationin Hungary (5,5 years) likely indicates selective treatment (confirmed by Immigrant Citizens Survey in Budapest, where average speed was 5 years for native-speakers, 9,5 for non-native speakers) Data not of sufficient quality to investigate further (due to small samples of immigrants in surveys in EU-12 countries) CITACQ findings II: speed of naturalisation Hungary (5,5 years)

CITACQ findings III: analyses No sufficiently reliable data available for analysis of naturalisation in Central and Eastern Europe. In Western Europe, citizenship acquisition and the speed of acquisition are mainly driven by: Socio-economic development of countries of origin Legal opportunity structure of the country of destination (see graphs) The variance in acquisition rates between immigrants is mainly explained by: Marital status (married immigrants are more likely naturalised) Socio-economic status (immigrants with employment are more likely naturalised) Gender (female immigrants are more likely naturalised) Use of native language at home (immigrants who speak the language of the destination country at home are more likely naturalised)

Citizenship and Integration (CITINT) 10 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 exclusion (2008 Eurostat LFS ad hoc module & 2008 EU-SILC) – Living conditions (2008 EU-SILC) 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

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

Social Exclusion Source: 2008 EU-SILC Survey

Conclusions Major legal opportunities Dual nationality Special naturalisation Major legal obstacles Residence & economic resource requirements for ordinary naturalisation Major administrative opportunities Free procedure & courses Citizenship ceremonies Major administrative obstacles No right to appeal & reasoned decision Bureaucracy Limited promotion Policies have major impact on naturalisation rates Naturalised Hungarian citizens took on average 5,5 years to naturalise, but much longer for those without Hungarian descent