Citizenship, naturalisation and statelessness

The Barrier to Naturalization Index focuses specifically on the naturalization process and jus soli. It takes twelve requirements of the naturalization process into account: (1) good conduct, (2) willingness to integrate, (3) language skills, (4) dual nationality, (5) application complexity, (6) application fees, (7) state discretion in granting citizenship, (8) residency requirements, (9) jus sanguinis laws preventing jus soli naturalization of children, (10) jus sanguinis concerning children of parents born in country (double jus soli), (11) women allowed to maintain citizenship after marrying a foreigner, and (12) mothers when married to a foreigner being able to transfer citizenship to their children. It purposely excludes entry requirements, unemployment, and other variables. Data were taken from the naturalization laws of each country and reports from foreign country consulates in the United States. For the index, components were grouped into four categories with a weighing scheme. The total index was constructed as a percentage of the maximum score of the highest-scoring country, so it varied from 0 to 1.

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).

This the Citizenship Regime Inclusiveness Index (CITRIX) mainly builds on selected and partly modified indicators of the Migration and Integration Policy Index (MIPEX) strand on the Access to Nationality. It also uses the citizenship indicators of Fitzgerald et al. (2014) as well as the resources offered by DEMIG and GLOBALCIT as further cornerstones for data collection. Covering a total of 23 OECD countries from 1980 to 2014 (805 country-year observations), CITRIX zooms in on four fundamental components of citizenship regimes relating to the acquisition of nationality by immigrants and their children: (1) the residence duration requirement for ordinary naturalization; (2) the toleration of dual citizenship in naturalization; (3) further naturalization requirements, namely language and citizenship tests as well as economic and criminal record condition; and (4) the strength of jus soli.

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.

'Managing global migration is one of the most pressing issues of our time, particularly in Europe. With more than 230 million international immigrants, the manner in which new citizens are/should be 'created' has become a controversial issue, morally and politically. Traditionally, international law has not regulated nationality law; naturalization requirements remain the last stronghold of national sovereignty. This project advances the establishment of a new subfield in public international law—International Citizenship Law (ICIL)—which would regulate nationality law. It asks a critical and timely question: what are/should be the international legal limitations/privileges imposed on/granted to states in setting naturalization requirements? In order to address this question, the project has five scientific objectives: [1] to investigate the history of the law of naturalization in international law and what it can teach us about 21th-century challenges; [2] to identify the most recent legal developments in the field of naturalization law and establish the most up-to-date international legal standards of naturalization law; [3] to set out the theoretical foundations and the justifications for the establishment of ICIL; [4] to analyze the normative and structural implications derived from an-ICIL approach for future citizenship policy development, as well as to identify the legal reforms that should be taken to promote an-ICIL approach; and [5] to explore the interrelationship between ICIL, immigration policy, and constitutional identity. In essence, the project seeks to formulate international legal standards by which states can admit immigrants without fundamentally changing their cultural heritage and slipping into extreme nationalism. The outcome can serve as a basis for a future reform in international law, EU law, and national legal systems. As the immigration debate reaches a decisive moment, this project has both theoretical significance and policy implications'

Managing global migration is one of the most pressing issues of our time, particularly in Europe. With more than 230 million international immigrants, the manner in which new citizens are/should be "created" has become a controversial issue, morally and politically. Traditionally, international law has not regulated nationality law; naturalization requirements remain the last stronghold of national sovereignty. This project advances the establishment of a new subfield in public international law—International Citizenship Law (ICIL)—which would regulate nationality law. It asks a critical and timely question: what are/should be the international legal limitations/privileges imposed on/granted to states in setting naturalization requirements? In order to address this question, the project has five scientific objectives: [1] to investigate the history of the law of naturalization in international law and what it can teach us about 21th-century challenges; [2] to identify the most recent legal developments in the field of naturalization law and establish the most up-to-date international legal standards of naturalization law; [3] to set out the theoretical foundations and the justifications for the establishment of ICIL; [4] to analyze the normative and structural implications derived from an-ICIL approach for future citizenship policy development, as well as to identify the legal reforms that should be taken to promote an-ICIL approach; and [5] to explore the interrelationship between ICIL, immigration policy, and constitutional identity. In essence, the project seeks to formulate international legal standards by which states can admit immigrants without fundamentally changing their cultural heritage and slipping into extreme nationalism. The outcome can serve as a basis for a future reform in international law, EU law, and national legal systems. As the immigration debate reaches a decisive moment, this project has both theoretical significance and policy implications

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.

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.

This report discusses citizenship in Mozambique. It explores the history of citizenship in this country, modes of acquisition and loss, and current debates and reform plans regarding citizenship policy.

This report discusses citizenship in Uganda. It explores the history of citizenship in this country, modes of acquisition and loss, and current debates and reform plans regarding citizenship policy.

This report discusses citizenship in Israel. It explores the history of citizenship in this country, modes of acquisition and loss, and current debates and reform plans regarding citizenship policy.

This position paper addresses the following research question: “How do actors in sending countries influence the integration of immigrants in the European Union, with regard to the access to citizenship?” The paper argues that the access to citizenship can be viewed as an important factor in the process of integration of immigrants in the destination country. The role of actors in third countries, while only one of the factors that determine citizenship take-up among integration, is crucial as particularly by allowing dual citizenship, countries of origin can take away a major constraint for immigrants in the naturalisation process. Research shows that naturalisation rates are positively impacted by tolerant policies towards dual citizenship. The report discusses the state-of-the-art on the propensity to naturalise among immigrants, as well as on the relation between citizenship and integration. It also presents some key findings from the literature and outlines the relevant questions for further research.

This report discusses citizenship in Myanmar. It explores the history of citizenship in this country, modes of acquisition and loss, and current debates and reform plans regarding citizenship policy.

Dumbrava’s Citizenship Policy Index, which builds on Howard,s citizenship policy index, analyses the citizenship regulations (citizenship laws and additional relevant legislation) in sixteen postcommunist countries in two periods of time (in the 1990s and 2000s). The index focuses on theregulations regarding the acquisition of citizenship- at birth (ius soli, ius sanguinis and overlapping) and through regular naturalization (without facilitations). In discussing the naturalization rules, a numeric scale has been designed to measure the “restrictive”-ness of citizenship rules (0-20). In order to measure the restrictiveness of the naturalization regulations, the present codification took into consideration five categories of requirements: residence (4 points), integration language and society/constitution (2+2 points), personal record criminal and political (2+2 points), loyalty- dual citizenship and oath of allegiance (3+1 points) and welfare income and medical situation (2+2 points). The index represents the sum of the indicators.

This report discusses citizenship in Azerbaijan. It explores the history of citizenship in this country, modes of acquisition and loss, and current debates and reform plans regarding citizenship policy.

This report discusses citizenship in Australia. It explores the history of citizenship in this country, modes of acquisition and loss, and current debates and reform plans regarding citizenship policy.

This report discusses citizenship in Nepal. It explores the history of citizenship in this country, modes of acquisition and loss, and current debates and reform plans regarding citizenship policy.

This report discusses citizenship in Angola. It explores the history of citizenship in this country, modes of acquisition and loss, and current debates and reform plans regarding citizenship policy.

This report discusses citizenship in India. It explores the history of citizenship in this country, modes of acquisition and loss, and current debates and reform plans regarding citizenship policy.

This report discusses citizenship in Afghanistan. It explores the history of citizenship in this country, modes of acquisition and loss, and current debates and reform plans regarding citizenship policy.

This report discusses citizenship in Sri Lanka. It explores the history of citizenship in this country, modes of acquisition and loss, and current debates and reform plans regarding citizenship policy.

This report discusses citizenship in the Dominican Republic. It explores the history of citizenship in this country, modes of acquisition and loss, and current debates and reform plans regarding citizenship policy.

The index addresses the economic requirements and the costs (fees) for naturalization. The index is composed by two sub-indexes index of economic requirements for naturalisation (ERN index) and index of naturalisation fees (fee index), which are combined by calculating the mean of the two indexes. ERN Index. Economic resources as a requirement for naturalisation may take three principal forms: the requirement to participate in the formal economy, to have an income, or not to draw certain welfare benefts In order to measure the relative strength of these requirements, six indicators on their legal format, thresholds, duration and exemptions are combined into an index ranging from 0 (no requirement) to 100 (most difficult requirement). These six indicators vary over time and across countries and can give a meaningful account of differences in economic requirements for naturalisation. Each indicator measuring the strength of economic requirements has three coding options. The index score for each observation (country_year) is measured by taking the mean of the six indicators. Fee Index. Fees may constitute an economic obstacle for accessing citizenship. For the purpose of investigating costs in the naturalisation process over longer periods and across countries, only general expenses in the naturalisation process, which are independent from an applicant’s individual condition, can be considered. These expenses are measured with five indicators, which are subsequently summarised to a weighted index, in which the total fees make up 70%, language skill certificates and exemptions/reductions for the second generation 10%, and exemptions/reductions for spouses and kin-citizens 5% of the index

The index analyses naturalization policies in twenty-six Western immigrant-receiving democracies in order to show how different countries deal with newcomers (year of reference: 2009). The index looks at five aspects of a country’s citizenship and naturalization policies. First, it considers whether a country grants automatic citizenship only to children of citizens (ius sanguinis) or only to those who are born within the country’s border (ius soli). Second, every naturalization policy stipulates that immigrants have to have lived at least a certain number of years within the borders of the country before they can apply for citizenship. Third, it looks at whether passing a language test is part of the naturalization requirements. These tests vary significantly in difficulty. Fourth, in some countries immigrants cannot be naturalized without passing a citizenship test, while in other countries such a test does not exist. Moreover, these tests vary in nature. Fifth, and finally, it includes whether immigrants are required to give up their former nationality or nationalities before they can become citizens. These five scores are combined in an index that ranges from 0 to 15. Overall, this summary score should give a valid indication of the exclusiveness, or ‘ethnicness’, of a country’s naturalization policy.

The aim of the paper is to address and analyze the process of integration of migrants and returnees into Ukrainian society while applying the following criteria, set by the Migration Integration Policy Index: anti-discrimination and equity; access to education, social benefits system and healthcare; employment opportunities; grade of execution of the right for a freedom of movement and choice of a free place of residence; level of legally-enforced mechanisms aimed at guaranteeing access to citizenship of Ukraine through the process of naturalization as well as various economic and socio-political rights and lawful interests.

When does citizenship provide a boost to migrant integration? A fast-track to citizenship can maximise the potential for settlement success, though too short a pathway can disincentivise integration. Not all migrants have an equal interest in naturalising and some are discouraged by restrictive policies. Yet little is known about why, how and for whom legal status transition matters and, especially, how policy variation impacts on this relation. Which migrants are most discouraged by stricter requirements for naturalisation? For whom carries citizenship the largest pay-off? Does it still matter if a migrant acquires citizenship after a long waiting period? This project combines for the first time the ideas that a) migrants have different motivations to naturalise; b) legal status transitions are conditioned by the institutional and socioeconomic contexts in origin and destination countries and c) the potential ‘integration premium’ associated with naturalisation is conditioned by the trajectory into citizenship. The innovative project contributions are: 1. modelling migrants’ legal status transitions as life course events, which are shaped by migrants’ origin, their family context and societal structures and institutions; 2. analysing the relevance of citizenship for work and income, living conditions, health status and out-migration among immigrants and for educational attainment among their descendants; 3. developing novel methodologies to analyse step-to-citizenship trajectories and the impact of policy changes on status transitions and related outcomes among migrant groups and cohorts; 4. testing models on the basis of a unique combination of longitudinal register-based and survey-based micro-data in 8 European and North American countries, which provide the comparative context to analyse the impact of institutional variation; 5. yielding information for targeted citizenship policies to maximise settlement success for immigrants and their children.

In recent years changes in Hungarian citizenship policy and legislation have aroused public interest. The efforts of the Hungarian government to facilitate the naturalisation of ethnic Hungarians particularly encountered esistance from neighbouring countries,1 and was also viewed critically by some scholars.2 At the same time, the issue of unaccompanied minors has been high on the political agenda in EU Member States, including Hungary. Various EU institutions and bodies have commissioned studies and reports to analyse the situation in the European Union3 and an Action Plan was launched in order to ensure greater coherence and cooperation and to improve the protection offered to this vulnerable group.4 Nevertheless, a group of unaccompanied minor children, who do not fit into the traditional definition of unaccompanied minors in Europe, has been neglected. These children were born in Hungary of a foreign national, but of a Hungarian speaking and presumably ethnic Hungarian mother who subsequently abandoned the child in hospital shortly after birth. Despite liberal citizenship policy and an existing legal framework for the protection of unaccompanied minors, these children do not, for various reasons, obtain any nationality at or after birth and remain in a legal limbo for many months or even years. The aim of this paper is to explore the legal situation of these children in three areas: citizenship, immigration status and reception and care, and to analyse to what extent the current practices of the Guardianship Office and the Office of Immigration and Nationality is in compliance with Hungary’s international legal obligations, with Community law and, indeed, with domestic law. Particular attention will be paid to the obligations of Hungary as set out in the Convention of the Rights of the Child, the Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons and the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. As an unclear citizenship status constitutes the main reason for their peculiar situation, we will also look at the possibility of granting Hungarian citizenship or stateless status.

1. Policies on the acquisition of citizenship have evolved over the past five years, with Member States reporting trends that have had the impact of making access to citizenship either more liberal or more restrictive. Trends in the numbers of individuals granted citizenship of an EU-28 Member States have shown an overall decline in the period of time covered by the study. 2. The criteria for granting citizenship and the procedures in place are broadly similar across the Member States but the specific conditions and requirements that apply vary considerably, depending on whether more liberal or restrictive policies are in place. Processing times, the costs to applicants and available support were found to all vary significantly. 3. For many aspiring citizens, naturalisation can be a lengthy and costly process, with limited available support, and a positive outcome is in general not guaranteed, even where all conditions have been met. 4. The majority of Member States now allow for dual citizenship, which may acknowledge the demographic reality that many migrants have ties to more than one country. Other Member States - in practice - apply exemptions where the renunciation of a previous citizenship cannot reasonably take place. However, dual citizenship brings both benefits and challenges. 5. Citizenship is seen by Member States as either the culmination of the integration process or as facilitating the integration process. However, in most Member States, third-country nationals are not actively encouraged to apply for citizenship, and support is limit

The Philippines has the interesting experience of having gone through two citizenship regimes. From an initial period in which jurisprudence favoured the principle of ius soli the country transitioned to the current regime in which ius sanguinis has been the prevailing principle. The initial period occurred during the first half of the twentieth century when the Philippines was under US colonial rule, while the subsequent period occurred after the Philippines gained independence.

"Theoretical background and objectives The project contributes to societal and scientific debate by examining the relationship between integration policies and the socio-cultural integration of immigrants in three European countries that have pursued contrasting integration policies: France, Germany and the Netherlands. Socio-cultural integration is treated as a two-dimensional concept consisting of the degree of host culture adoption and the degree of ethnic retention. Following Berry (1997) these two dimensions are seen as – at least potentially – independent. Both dimensions are measured on the basis of four indicators. The degree of host culture adoption is measured as identification with the host country, host country language proficiency, host country language usage and social contacts with natives. The degree of ethnic retention is measured as identification with Turks, Turkish language proficiency, identification with Muslims and the observance of Islamic religious rules (halal diet, participation in Ramadan, mosque visits and headscarf wearing). The project tests several theories of immigrant assimilation in a cross-national perspective: theories em­phasis­ing material costs and benefits of retention and adoption, which claim that assimilation pressures will lead to adoption of the host culture and multicultural policies will promote ethnic retention; acculturative stress theories that pose that adoption is less likely to occur if it is seen as requiring the rejection of the culture of origin; and reactive ethnicity theories, which assume that immigrants withdraw in their ethnic cultures if they face assimilation pressures. In addition, the project pays special attention to naturalisation policies: Based on the widespread assumption that easily accessible citizenship promotes socio-cultural integration, two hypotheses are tested. First, whether naturalised immigrants display higher levels of socio-cultural integration than non-naturalised immigrants. Second, whether immigrants in countries with few preconditions for naturalisation show higher levels of socio-cultural integration. Research design, data and methodology Most previous comparative studies have not been able to control sufficiently for compositional effects related to the timing of immigration and the national and regional composition of immigrant populations. By choosing a quasi-experimental design, the project sought to eliminate such composition effects as far as possible. Therefore, original data were collected based on a telephone survey in the three countries that targeted a selected group of Turkish immigrants and their direct offspring originating in two rural regions of Turkey, who migrated before 1975. Thus, the sample (n = 1 000) excludes all follow-up migration of Turkish refugees and marriage migrants, which occurred to varying degrees in the three countries, and ensures that we are comparing similar immigrants in the three countries, and not predominantly urban Turkish guest workers from Istanbul in one country to Kurdish refugees in another country. All respondents had the option to answer the questionnaire either in Turkish or in their host-country language. The survey data were analysed using multivariate regression techniques, and took into account a range of individual-level control variables as well as the local density of the Turkish immigrant population. The quantitative findings were corroborated and refined with almost 90 additional in-depth interviews. Findings Results show that ethnic retention is strongest in the Netherlands, where multicultural policies were long prevalent, while host culture adoption is strongest in the French context, which has more strongly emphasised assimilation, at least where participation in the public realm is concerned. On the individual level, there is a negative relationship between ethnic retention and host culture adoption, which persists after controlling for relevant background variables. Naturalisation is positively associated with socio-cultural integration only in those countries—France and Germany—that have traditionally required a certain degree of cultural assimilation from their new citizens. Regarding country differences, the analyses reveal that Turkish immigrants in France show higher levels of host culture adoption on all four indicators. For host-country identification, they share this position with Dutch Turks. Taken together, these results provide no support for reactive ethnicity theories, as ethnic retention was strongest in the Netherlands, where citizenship policies have been most inclusive. They do provide support for a combination of material cost/benefit perspectives and acculturative stress perspectives, as neither a lack of incentives for adoption of the host culture (as was long the case in the Netherlands) nor very restrictive citizenship policies that promote an ethnically thick conception of citizenship (as long prevalent in Germany) have been successful in seducing immigrants to adopt the host culture. The results show that limited cultural assimilation conditions tied to an otherwise inclusive notion of citizenship (as in France) may be more helpful in promoting socio-cultural integration, but they also demonstrate that the allowance of dual nationality does not have the negative effects that are sometimes ascribed to it."

Citizenship is the legal status through which states establish who their members are. Thanks to this mechanism, a sharp division is established between non-members – foreigners – and members – citizens. As Rogers Brubaker (1992: 46) points out, the two categories are “correlative, mutually exclusive, exhaustive.” With the status of citizen, a person not only is permanently linked to a particular state but also acquires a set of rights and duties. In the course of history, each state has developed its own particular conception of citizenship and it has worked as a fundamental tool to maintain “the intergenerational continuity of the state” (Vink and Bauböck 2013). In particular, this tool has helped to regulate the transmission of membership to new generations and the admittance of new members when international migration takes place.