Cyprus

The complex issue of the so-called Turkish settlers in Cyprus figures prominently in public debate on both sides of the divided island, as well as in international deliberations on the Cyprus problem. The political sensitivities that surround the issue combine with a lack of reliable information and data to mar these discussions. This report on the political integration of the ‘settlers’ in northern Cyprus seeks to contribute to more informed discourse and to stimulate further research on this important issue. An examination of the voting patterns of the Turkish ‘settlers’ since their arrival in Cyprus shows that an ethnic voting pattern prevailed until 1990. Since then, however, ‘settler votes’ have been distributed among a range of mainstream political parties, with a majority of votes going to conservative parties. The analysis also reveals that the claim that the ‘settlers’ in Cyprus constitute an extension of the official politics of mainland Turkey is erroneous. The report shows that the ‘settlers’ are more integrated into the Turkish-Cypriot political community than is often believed. Beyond Numbers also suggests that the discussion on the ‘settler issue’ would benefit from a distinction between those who are temporary residents (among them, numerous ‘guest workers’ and university students) and those who have obtained citizenship – and hence the right to vote – in the ‘Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus’ (TRNC). While the ‘settler’ label only meaningfully applies to individuals within the latter category, the electoral lists examined for this report indicate that voters originating from mainland Turkey constitute no more than 20–25% of the total electorate in northern Cyprus. ‘Settler’ influence on politics in northern Cyprus is thus both less and less uniform than is often claimed. Mete Hatay is a Project Leader at the PRIO Cyprus Centre. In 2003 and 2004, he worked extensively with PRIO’s Public Information Project aimed at providing accurate and non-partisan information on the ‘Annan Plan’. He has for many years conducted research on different minority groups in Cyprus.

"Theoretical Background and objectives In the context of the combination of escalated sectarian conflicts in Iraq and Syria, and home-grown conflicts around real and perceived attacks on Islam and its symbols in the West (from Rushdie to Charlie Hebdo), increased numbers of Muslim youth in Western countries have embraced radical forms of Islam and have sometimes become actively involved in violence, both at home and abroad. Beyond impressionistic evidence on a few active radicals, extremely little is known about the incidence among countries’ Muslim populations of adherence to radical versions of Islam and support for religiously-motivated violence. To answer these questions, cross-national surveys across Muslim populations in different countries are necessary, but apart from the very descriptive surveys by the US American Pew Research Institute, which are moreover not publicly accessible for secondary analysis, no such information is available. Existing research also leaves another major question unanswered, namely to what extent religious radicalism is specific to current Islam or whether it is comparable to what we find in other contemporary religions, particularly within Christianity. This project wants to fill these voids. A first step was an analysis based on the SCIICS survey. This was the first representative survey study to compare religious fundamentalism and outgroup hostility between Muslims and Christians (Koopmans 2015), and as such it attracted worldwide media attention. While the study revealed large differences between the two religious groups even when controlled for a range of socio-economic and demographic variables, the limitation of the study to two Muslim ethnic groups as well as the fact that it compared Muslims of immigrant origin to autochthonous Christians limits the generalizability of its findings. Moreover, the SCIICS survey did not include questions about support for religiously-motivated violence and extremist religious organizations. Research design To overcome these shortcomings, we are conducting two studies: Religious Fundamentalism and Radicalization Survey and Jihadi Radicalization in Europe Database. The first project is a representative survey study of Muslims, Christians, Jews, and non-believers in 2017 in the following 8 countries: Germany, the United States, Cyprus, Turkey, Israel, Palestine, Lebanon and Kenya. The choice of countries allows for a broad range of cross-national and cross-sectional comparisons. For instance, all three of the world’s Abrahamic religions are represented in our sample, allowing us to investigate similarities and differences between these three religious groups. In addition to comparisons across religious groups, we are also interested in examining variances within the religious groups. Therefore we sampled across different branches of Islam, i.e. Sunni Muslims (Turkey, Lebanon, Israel, Palestine, Kenya, and Cyprus), Shia Muslims (Lebanon) and Alevites (Turkey, Cyprus); of Christianity, i.e. Catholic and Protestant Christians (Germany, and the USA), Greek Orthodox Christians (Cyprus, Lebanon), Maronite Catholics (Lebanon) and the generally more conservative Christianity of Sub-Saharan Africa (Kenya); and of Judaism, i.e. both Orthodox and Reformist branches (Israel and the USA). Our research design also allows us to investigate the role of immigration and integration experiences in religious radicalization. The study not only includes two Western immigration countries with strongly divergent immigrant integration policies (Germany and the United States), but also three countries with autochthonous Muslim and Christian populations (Kenya, Cyprus, and Lebanon). Furthermore, both in Germany and the United States, we oversample Christians of immigrant origin, thus extending the range of comparisons to a variety of immigrant and native groups and augmenting the possibility of isolating the role of immigration. Apart from the usual socio-economic and demographic control variables, the surveys included questions on religiosity, religious knowledge, fundamentalism, out-group hostility, intergroup contacts, discrimination, adherence to conspiracy theories, violence legitimation, and support for extremist groups. Moreover we employed a survey experiment to test the effect of religious scripture on religious violence legitimation. The broad range of variables and the experiment included in the surveys will enable rigorous hypotheses testing, which will help us uncover causal mechanisms behind religious fundamentalism and radicalization. In the second project Jihadi Radicalization in Europe Database, we aggregate profiles of Jihadist individuals from publicly available information. The main units of analysis of this database are people from four European countries (Germany, France, the Netherlands and the UK) who fit in any of the following characteristics: People (including their partners and children from the age of 15 who accompanying them), who have traveled to Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan or other conflict regions involving Muslims, acting out of their Islamist conviction (the so-called foreign fighters); people who have actively recruited others as foreign fighters or motivated others to join through propaganda activities; people who were involved in the aiding, planning or conducting of Islamist terrorist activity in Europe or were suspected thereof; people who supported, justified or glorified the use of violence in the name of Islam through propaganda activities; people who are members of jihadi-Salafist and Islamist organizations, which support the use of violence. The database will primarily consist of biographical and sociodemographic information on individuals, with the aim of identifying common characteristics. Using the sociodemographic data, we aim to investigate, what kind of people are more susceptible to radicalization, whereas we will use the biographic data to gain insights into contexts of radicalization. In addition to these characteristics, social contacts and networks of the individuals will also be registered, in order to analyze the social network structures. This information will be used to explore group-specific radicalization processes as well as to identify central influential figures within the networks. The relevant data will be gathered through an online and media research. A variety of sources of data will be used to collect relevant information such as newspaper articles, interviews, online-blogs, biographies, news databases such as LexisNexis®, and court proceedings, in order to gather as much data as possible on the individuals. The database can be understood as an aggregation of publicly available data on European Islamists."

Objective: The objective of the study is to design an EU-wide scheme to attract high-skilled non-EU resident entrepreneurial innovators, and to facilitate the creation and development of high-potential companies in Europe. The study fits to the EC’s objective to boost innovation, growth and investments by unleashing the EU’s full capacities and competitiveness, while addressing the consequences of demographic ageing and offsetting skills shortages in the continent. Summary: The study will recommend a scheme to attract 20,000 migrant entrepreneurs per year to the EU through the creation of an electronic platform of services to potential migrant entrepreneurs, possible financial support and a promotion campaign. The direct objectives of the schemes are to facilitate access to the EU for non-EU nationals (visa scheme), create incentives (including linking to financial support), facilitate access to EU ecosystems, incubator schemes and private funding (via the platform) as well as to inform aspiring entrepreneurs. The study will include amongst other an assessment of existing (public and semi-public) initiatives in following EU Member States: Austria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, United Kingdom, and Spain. Moreover, it will benchmark these against schemes in a number of non-EU countries with successful entrepreneurial support initiatives.

Trafficking in human beings is a crime against the victim’s fundamental rights. It can take several forms, such as sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery and servitude-related practices, as well as the removal of organs. This practice is prohibited under numerous EU and international instruments. Yet, persistent demand for sexual services and for low-wage workers employed in manual jobs continues to provide opportunities for traffickers to exploit human beings. This EMN study provides an overview of measures and best practices around detection, identification and protection of third-country national victims of trafficking in human beings from January 2015 to December 2020. The European study provides an answer to a number of key questions. How do EU Member States, Norway and Georgia tackle human trafficking of third-country nationals? How do countries ensure cooperation at EU and international level? What were the main challenges and good practices identified in respect of the impact of COVID-19?

This study aims to provide an overview of existing policies and practices in the EU Member States and Norway towards third-country nationals in a prolonged situation of irregular stay. The overall focus is on those third-country nationals subject to a return decision but whose return was not enforced or was postponed, and those without a return decision who are unknown to the authorities. The study explores the responses and approaches by central and local authorities to end those situations and mitigate the social consequences for the third-country nationals affected. It examines access by these groups to mainstream services. The status of third-country nationals who cannot be returned due to legal or practical obstacles varies within and across the Member States as it does not rely on a harmonisation at EU level and usually depends on individual circumstances. Services provided to long-term irregular migrants with some form of status/authorisation are limited compared to those provided to regular migrants, often discretionary, and difficult to access, especially concerning social protection benefits and employment. Services available to undetected migrants with no authorisation to stay are even more limited and essentially rely on the application of standards set out in international human rights law. The main service providers for long-term irregular migrants are national authorities and municipalities, with non-governmental organisations (NGOs) providing complementary and/or autonomous services. In order to end irregular stay in general, not only focusing on long-term specifically, (voluntary) return is prioritised in the Member States, whereas regularisation is only marginally addressed in policy. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the situation of migrants who cannot be returned or who remain undetected by the authorities, due to the urgency in ensuring universal access to medical care. In a limited number of cases, labour market shortages in essential sectors due to border closures led to regularisation of workers with skills in shortage areas.

This study examines how data are managed in the different phases of the asylum procedure (making, registering, lodging and examining) across the Member States and Norway. It maps data management approaches in the asylum procedure (i.e. data protection and safeguards), examines challenges faced by Member States, and analyses the impact of any procedural changes to enhance data-sharing among asylum authorities (and others). This study reflects the situation and developments in data management in the asylum procedure between 2014 and 2020. Member States collect different types of data as part of the asylum procedure. However, some categories of data are commonly collected by most, if not all, Member States and Norway, including data on current and/or birth names, birth date, citizenship, contact details, health status, photo and fingerprints, information on family members already in a Member State, vulnerabilities, and level of education. Data on asylum applicants are primarily collected through oral interviews, questionnaires and electronic tools (for biometric data). However, several Member States have also started to use social media analysis, analysis of mobile devices and artificial intelligence (AI) to collect data on asylum applicants. Most Member States and Norway cross-check data on asylum applicants against European (i.e. Visa Information System (VIS), Schengen Information System (SIS), Eurodac) and national databases. Only a minority cross-check information against international databases. Since 2014, most Member States have experienced challenges in data management. These challenges primarily relate to the lack of human or financial resources and the interoperability of (national) databases. Some Member States changed their data management procedures in response to challenges to the implementation of asylum processes posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, including the digitalisation of some steps of the asylum procedure and changes in the collection of fingerprints.

The HEUNI report "Unseen Victims" presents the manifestations and consequences of gender-based violence and the challenges in assisting victims of violence in the migration context. With this report the authors aimed to increase the understanding of policymakers on the structural challenges asylum-seeking and refugee women who have experienced gender-based violence face.

The purpose of this handbook is to describe a counselling method for assisting refugee women who have been victims of gender-based violence (GBV). The handbook was developed during 2017-2019 in a project titled “Co-creating a counselling method for refugee women GBV victims (CCM-GBV)” funded by the European Commission through the Rights, Equality and Citizenship (REC) Programme.

MiTSoPro focuses on the link between migration and welfare across different European and non-European countries. The first part of the project closely examines migrants’ access to welfare in home and host countries. In doing so, the project adopts a top-down analytical approach of the concept of Transnational Social Protection from above, thus aiming to provide answers to the following research questions: Do migrants have access to social protection in Europe and beyond? What kind of social benefits can they access in their countries of residence and what type of social protection entitlements can they export from their countries of origin? Do some migrant groups benefit from an easier formal access to welfare benefits than others? Do some countries offer more inclusive social protection regimes for immigrants and emigrants alike? The first part of the project provides an in-depth analysis of eligibility conditions for accessing welfare entitlements across 40 countries. The project thus includes all EU Member States and 12 non-EU sending countries distributed across different continents, whose nationals represent an important share of the migration inflows towards European countries (the 12 non-EU countries included in the project are: Argentina, China, Ecuador, India, Lebanon, Morocco, Russia, Senegal, Serbia, Switzerland, Tunisia and Turkey). For each country, we systematically analyse migrants’ access to social benefits across five core policy areas that are closely examined via a broad range of indicators (i.e. specific types of social benefits in kind and cash): 1) Health care (benefits in kind and cash in case of sickness and invalidity benefits); 2) Unemployment (covering both unemployment insurance and unemployment assistance); 3) Old-age pensions (including contributory and non-contributory pensions); 4) Family benefits (maternity, paternity, parental, and child benefits); 5) Guaranteed minimum resources (social assistance programmes aiming to provide a “safety net” aiming to protect individuals from severe poverty). The data collection process was conducted between April 2019-January 2019, based on a survey with national experts across all country analysed. The survey included standardized questions, thus ensuring comparability across the different countries analysed, despite their different political settings and migration histories. The project covers national legislations in place in 2019. This first dataset on migrants’ access to welfare entitlement is complemented by a second one that examines the programmes and initiatives led by home countries authorities to respond to the social protection needs of their non-resident nationals. Covering the same 40 countries, this second dataset highlights the role of three key actors (consulates, diaspora institutions and home country ministries/agencies responsible for specific social policy areas) through which sending states interact with their nationals abroad across the five policy areas previously mentioned. The data collection of this second dataset is based on another survey conducted between April 2018-January 2019 with national experts across the 40 countries analysed in the project.

The Statelessness Index is a comparative tool that assesses European countries’ law, policy and practice on the protection of stateless people and the prevention and reduction of statelessness, against international norms and good practice. It is a tool created for civil society, government, researchers, the media and other interested individuals. The Index was developed and is maintained by the European Network on Statelessness (ENS). The Index allows users to quickly understand which areas of law, policy and practice can be improved by states and which can be looked to as examples of good practice in addressing statelessness. The Index is the first to provide comprehensive and accessible comparative analysis of European countries’ efforts to address statelessness. The Index assesses how countries in Europe perform against international norms and good practice for the protection of stateless people and the prevention and reduction of statelessness. A country’s performance is assessed against a set of benchmarks drawn from international and regional human rights standards, soft law, relevant reports, and consultation with experts. The index covers 18 countries for the period 2017-2019. It consists of 23 indicators sorted in 5 strands: International and regional instruments; Statelessness Population Data Availability; Statelessness Determination and Status; Detention; Prevention and Reduction. The country data is gathered through a detailed survey, structured around the themes and subthemes. The surveys are completed by country experts (researchers, lawyers, NGOs and other civil society actors), referenced with links to sources, reviewed by a second country expert, and then returned to the ENS Secretariat for analysis.

The MACIMIDE Global Expatriate Dual Citizenship Dataset charts the rules that existed in near all states of the world since 1960 with regard to the loss or renunciation of citizenship after a citizen of a respective state voluntarily acquires the citizenship of another state. The central variable of the Dataset is the dualcit_cat variable. This is a categorical variable whose values may be used to interpret, in broad lines, the position of a country with regards to the expatriate dual citizenship. The dualcit_cat variable reflects what consequences the legislation and legal practice of a country attaches to the voluntary acquisition of a foreign citizenship. The value of this variable depends on a number of criteria, including whether a citizen of the reference country who voluntarily obtains a foreign citizenship automatically loses – in principle – the citizenship of the origin country, and whether a citizen of the reference country can renounce that citizenship. The value assigned to dualcit_cat reflects the position of the country on the 1st of January of the reference year. Any subsequent changes in legislation will be reflected in the dualcit_cat value of the following year and included in updated versions of the Dataset. The dualcit_binary variable is a recoding of the dualcit_cat variable. This variable can be used for broad comparisons of the dual citizenship positions around the world. The possible values reflect whether the legislation of a country, in a given reference year, provides for the automatic loss of the origin citizenship (1) or not (2). All data have been centrally collected and refer to specific provisions in national law.

CITLAW indicators address citizenship laws (acquisition and loss of citizenship) in Europe. Basic indicator scores are calculated on the basis of a list of substantive and procedural requirements for each mode of acquisition or loss using both additive and weighting formulas. CITLAW indicators are also aggregated at different levels in order to analyse more general features of citizenship laws. The 6 highest level CITLAW indicators that are calculated using all 45 basic indicators are: ius sanguinis, ius soli, residence-based ordinary naturalisation, naturalisation on specific grounds, voluntary renunciation and withdrawal/lapse. CITLAW indicators have been calculated for 42 European states for 2011 and 2016. Coding of CITLAW indicators is based on an assessment of legal provisions in national citizenship laws.

Since the mid-1970s, the World Population Policies Database, last updated in 2015, provides comprehensive and up-to-date information on the population policy situation and trends for all Member States and non-member States of the United Nations. Among several areas, the database shows the evolution of government views and policies with respect to internal and international migration. The migration strand covers internal migration, immigration, emigration, and return. The Database is updated biennially by conducting a detailed country-by-country review of national plans and strategies, programme reports, legislative documents, official statements and various international, Inter-governmental and non-governmental sources, as well as by using official responses to the United Nations Inquiry among Governments on Population and Development.

The ELECLAW indicators measure the degree of inclusion of the electoral franchise for three categories of potential voters or candidates: resident citizens, non-resident citizens and non-citizen residents. They cover both the right to vote (VOTLAW) and the right to stand as candidate (CANLAW) in three types of elections (presidential/executive, legislative and referendum) at four levels (supranational, national, regional and local). For each category of persons, the ELECLAW indicators measure on a 0 to 1 scale the degree of inclusion of electoral laws along two dimensions. First, eligibility restrictions determine the category of persons who have the right to vote or stand as candidate. Second, access restrictions determine how those eligible can exercise their right to vote by means of voter registration and voting methods. The indicators have been calculated on the basis of the qualitative information included in our National Electoral Laws and Electoral Rights databases and our country reports on Access to Electoral Rights. The current version includes the 28 Member States of the European Union based on electoral laws in both 2013 and 2015, as well as Switzerland, the Americas, and Oceania based on electoral laws in 2015.

The authors created an overall index of migration policies, taking into account 38 countries in the period 1996-2014. They constructed an indicator of the restrictiveness of immigration entry policy across countries as well as a more comprehensive indicator of migration policy that also accounts for staying requirements and regulations to foster integration. Specifically, they estimate a Bayesian-state space model to combine all publicly available data sources that are informative on migration policy. Therefore, starting from some of the previously-created indexes, and from a database of over 250 indicators of migration policy, they created three sub-indexes that correspond to three categories traditionally distinguished in migration policy: (1) entry policies (including family reunification); (2) stay policies (permanent as opposed to temporary migration); and (3) integration policies (including migrant rights). They constructed three different migration policy indexes, MPIE; MPIS and MPII, of respectively entry, stay, and integration policies, that asses the restrictiveness of each of these sub-fields of migration policy, as well as a comprehensive indicator MPIC reflecting the overall stance of migration policy.

The Migrant Integration Policy Index (MIPEX) is a unique tool which measures policies to integrate migrants. The MIPEX aims to address this by providing a comprehensive tool which can be used to assess, compare and improve integration policy. The index is a useful tool to evaluate and compare what governments are doing to promote the integration of migrants in all the countries analysed. The tool allows you to dig deep into the multiple factors that influence the integration of migrants into society and allows you to use the full MIPEX results to analyse and assess past and future changes in policy. The MIPEX includes 38 countries in order to provide a view of integration policies across a broad range of differing environments. Countries included are all EU Member States, Australia, Canada, Iceland, Japan, South Korea, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland, Turkey and the USA. 167 policy indicators have been developed to create a rich, multi-dimensional picture of migrants’ opportunities to participate in society. MIPEX addresses 8 policy areas of integration: Labour Market Mobility, Family Reunion, Education, Political Participation, Long-term Residence, Access to Nationality, Anti-discrimination and Health. Thanks to the relevance and rigor of its indicators, the MIPEX has been recognised as a common quick reference guide across Europe. Policymakers, NGOs, researchers, and European and international institutions are using its data not only to understand and compare national integration policies, but also to improve standards for equal treatment.

EUDO Citizenship Implementation Indicators measure on a 0 to 1 scale the formal aspects of naturalisation procedures: promotion activities, documentation requirements, administrative discretion, bureaucratic procedures, and review and appeal options. CITIMP indicators allow for comparisons of the specific steps in the procedure across countries. CITIMP indicators have been calculated for 35 European states, as well as for three German federal provinces. CITIMP indicators are an output of the research project 'Access to Citizenship and its Impact on Immigrant Integration (ACIT). = The project was financially supported by the European Fund for the Integration of Third Country Nationals, administered by DG Home Affairs. CITIMP indicators were computed on the grounds of self-collected information: questionnaires on implementation of citizenship policies were filled out by country experts.

The index focuses on labour immigration (and related rights) in the EU27. The data reflect the policies in place by 1st of January 2012. IMMEX analyses admission schemes for migrant workers, looking at both general-worker schemes and schemes for high-skilled migrants. The index, which has been developed by the Migration Policy Group (MPG), addresses four domains: identification needs; conditions of admission; security of status acquired; rights associated with status. Dimensions are assessed through a set of indicators and policy options (principles of human rights and good governance). The policy options are designed to capture the scope of immigration policies with the first option representing favourable terms laid down in existing international legal instruments, national practices or NGO proposals, and in some instances EC legislation (enacted and proposed). The second and third options are based on less favourable or unfavourable provisions of EC legislation (enacted or proposed) or national legislation. Legal experts in each of the EU27 countries were asked to assess which of the three policy options comes closest to the situation in their respective country. The index is presented by scheme and country, for general migrant workers and high-skilled migrant workers.

The Inquiry gathers critically important data for monitoring the implementation of the Programme of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development and other international agreements, including the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The Inquiry, mandated by the General Assembly in its resolution 1838 (XVII) of 18 December 1962, has been conducted by the Secretary-General at regular intervals since 1963. The Twelfth Inquiry consists of multiple-choice questions, organized in three thematic modules: Module I on population ageing and urbanization; Module II on fertility, family planning and reproductive health; and Module III on international migration. In 1994, Member States attending the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) in Cairo agreed that “population-related goals and policies are integral parts of cultural, economic and social development” and recommended that actions be taken “to measure, assess, monitor and evaluate progress towards meeting the goals of its Programme of Action”. The year 2019 will mark the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Cairo conference and adoption of the ICPD Programme of Action, which continues to provide crucial guidance for addressing the fundamental development challenges facing the world today. Population issues are also at the core of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development adopted in 2015. The United Nations Inquiry among Governments on Population and Development (the “Inquiry”) gathers critically important data for monitoring the implementation of the ICPD Programme of Action and other international agreements, including the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The Inquiry, mandated by the General Assembly in its resolution 1838 (XVII) of 18 December 1962, has been conducted by the Secretary-General at regular intervals since 1963. The most recent Inquiry, the Eleventh, was implemented in 2014.

Immigrant Inclusion Index (IMIX) is a quantitative tool for measuring the electoral inclusion of immigrants in 20 EU member states for 2010. The index includes both de jure (outputs) and de facto (outcomes) indicators. The jure strand assesses the laws regulating the immigrants’ access to citizenship and alien voting rights. Therefore, under de jure indicators, access to citizenship (ius soli, naturalization, and toleration of multiple citizenship for immigrants) and alien enfranchisement (active suffrage for non-citizen residents in legislative and presidential elections, and referend – national and local level) are included. De jure indicators are drawn from EUDO Citizenship Law Indicators. Within the de facto dimension the authors measure the citizenship rate, the naturalization rate, and the alien enfranchisement rate. Data are harmonized and the measurement level is ordinal and ranges from 0 (theoretical minimum) to 100 (theoretical maximum). To aggregate the components in the respective dimensions, they applied the arithmetic mean. Finally, the authors aggregated the de jure and the de facto dimension by applying the geometric mean.

The index is based on three types of entry visa restrictions: visa required, visa not required for short stays and visa not required. The author identifies country pairs which changed their visa regime during 1998–2010. This immigration policy index is constructed for all countries and territories in the world for both March 1998 and November 2009. This index is heterogeneous across destination and origin countries as well as over time.

The Citizenship Policy Index (CPI) addresses policies for citizenship acquisition for the EU15 member states (for years 1980 and 2008), and other 10 EU member states entered in 2004 (for 2004). CPI consists of the simple aggregation of three factors: whether or not a country grants jus soli, the minimum length of residency requirement for naturalization; whether or not naturalised immigrants are allowed to hold dual citizenship. It also takes into account language and civic integration requirements that a number of countries have mandated as a condition for naturalization. Each component is scored on a 0-2 scale, yielding a 0-6-point range for the total index. CPI draws on in-depth research by individual country experts, within a common methodological framework. CPI allows for distinguishing between three groups of countries, depending on whether their citizenship policies can be characterised as ‘restrictive’ (scores between 0 and 1.5), ‘medium’ (over 1.5 but less than 4) or ‘liberal’ (4 and above).