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.

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.

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.

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.

"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."

"Das Forschungsprojekt fokussiert Gründe und Folgen der Einführung von Prüfung sprachlicher Kenntnisse und/oder Kenntnisse der Rechts- und Gesellschaftsordnung und der Lebensverhältnisse in Deutschland im Zusammenhang mit dem Ehegattennachzug von Migranten, dem Erwerb einer Niederlassungserlaubnis und der Einbürgerung. Ziel der wissenschaftlichen Untersuchung ist es, die Rechtsgrundlage und die Umsetzungspraxis der so genannten Sprach- und Einbürgerungstests zu erfassen und ihre Wirkungen zu analysieren. Die empirische Grundlage für die Analyse bilden leitfadengestützte Interviews, die auf die Bestandsaufnahme einschlägiger Forschungsliteratur aufbauen. Interviewt werden Migranten, die an solchen Tests teilgenommen haben, sich zu den Tests vorbereiten oder gegen ihre Teilnahme am Test entschieden haben, aber auch Kursleiter, Vertreter der Migrantenselbstorganisationen und kommunale Verwaltungsmitarbeiter. Verfahren der Sprach- und Einbürgerungstests für Zugewanderte sowie ihre gegenwärtigen Wirkungen werden unter Berücksichtigung des jeweiligen Entstehungskontextes und der nationalen Integrationspolitik in Belgien, Dänemark, Deutschland, Großbritannien, Lettland, den Niederlanden und Österreich verglichen. Die Ergebnisse der Untersuchung werden im Rahmen einer nationalen Tagung diskutiert und ferner auf einer internationalen Abschlusstagung vorgestellt. "

"In this project we examine the obstacles and opportunities immigrants may face when seeking naturalization with an empirical focus on German municipalities. Naturalization can be a deeply personal moment for many migrants, fostering national identification and attachment. There is also evidence that naturalization improves integration outcomes in the political realm. Though non-citizens have access to many of the same rights as do citizens, citizenship continues to signify full membership in a political community. Yet, even though more and more immigrants in Europe are eligible for citizenship, they might not apply because the bureaucratic hurdles can appear daunting, and state authorities may seem inaccessible. Our project examines the barriers to – and facilitators of – citizenship in German municipalities. In addition to examining administrative and political hurdles, our project considers psychological factors such as how immigrants are perceived by citizens and how decisions that have consequences for immigrants seeking naturalization are made in the realm of local politics. Methodologically, we use a combination of experimental, survey and qualitative methods."

The National Integration Evaluation Mechanism (NIEM) is a six-years long transnational project (2016-2021) which aims to prepare key actors in the integration field in 15 EU Member States to better face the current challenges and improve the integration outcomes of beneficiaries of international protection. NIEM establishes a mechanism for a biennial, comprehensive evaluation of the policies to foster integration of beneficiaries of international protection, to provide evidence on gaps in integration standards, identify promising practices and evaluate the effects of legislative and policy changes. The tool allows for cross-country comparison in the dimensions of legal integration (residency, family unity and reunification, access to citizenship), socio-economic integration (housing, employment, vocational training, health and social security) and socio-cultural integration (education, language learning/social orientation and building bridges). 14 countries were included in the first round of assessment (2017). Results have been scored on a scale from 0 to 100, ranging from least favourable to most favourable provisions.

The Index captures citizenship rights in eighteen OECD countries. The index is based on four indicators: allowance of dual citizenship; acceptance of birthright citizenship; absence of a language requirement; number of years required prior to naturalization. The index is constructed as follows. first, authors created three categories for the residency requirement coded 0 for countries that require more than ten years, 1 for countries that require between five and ten years, and 2 for countries that require fewer than five years. Then they created an additive index as residency+2*dual citizenship+2*citizenship by birth+2*no language requirement

The civic integration policy index (CIVIX) addresses civic integration requirements in EU-15. It analyses three target civic knowledge areas (country knowledge, language and values) for entry, settlement and citizenship acquisition. The scale of the CIVIX is 0 to 6: a high score indicates ‘thick’ citizenship content. A low score represents ‘thin’ citizenship content, with minimal or easy content requirements for obtaining status. The coding of requirements takes into account four distinct dimensions: the category of third-country nationals accountable, specifically family unification; whether civic conditions are required for entry, settlement or citizenship; the number of requirements across the civic targets of country knowledge, language and values, including integration courses, tests, contracts, oath ceremonies and interviews; and, finally, the severity of requirements along the path to citizenship (for example, a ‘high’ level of language proficiency or cost). This dimension is also reflected in point valuation, where more points are assigned to language and knowledge requirements at the settlement stage than at naturalisation, where a longer period of residency engenders greater linguistic and knowledge competence. In order to understand the ‘depth’ of current citizenship content and the degree of policy change over time, values were assigned for each of the 17 countries in 1997 and 2009 respectively.

The IMISEM project adopts a comprehensive view of migration policy that includes both its emigrant/emigration and immigrant/immigration sides, bridging the two sides of migration policy. The main research question is: how does policy offer or hinder a path for migrants to become or remain an integral part of the polity? The theoretical framework bridges the stages of entry/exit, residency in/abroad, and access to citizenship and looks for patterns of how states manage the process of migrant inclusion in or exclusion from the polity. IMISEM gathers cross-regional evidence on the variety and depth of policy configurations governing migration trajectories for different profiles of migrants. With these data it charts the connections between policies of mobility, settlement and belonging, looking forward to extracting the underlying principles structuring them, and possibly to find whether or not there are threads of coherence across the “two sides” (emi-/immigrant policies). Using a comparative area study angle, IMISEM develops a broadened perspective on the migration policy landscape across regions. Thus, it looks at 30 cases from Europe, Latin America and the Caribbean, and Asia, to cover a wide breadth of migratory profiles and institutional contexts to which policies can be traced back un further analyses.

The LOI-index measures the Legal Obstacles to the Integration of Immigrants. The goal of the index is to condense information on integration policies and to evaluate the liberality or restrictiveness of legal systems governing the integration of immigrants. The focus of the index is the legal frameworks governing the integration or settlement of migrants in eight European countries in 1995. 80 different items are included concerning the legal regulation of integration in the countries investigated. These items are aggregated into five main dimensions: (1) residence; (2) access to the labour market; (3) family reunification; (4) naturalisation; (5) second generation. Authors used two kinds of indicators: binary ones to measure whether a certain legal rule exists in a country or not, and temporal indicators to measure waiting periods or other relevant time periods. They standardised these time measures on a scale between 0 and 1 by relating them to minimum and maximum standards: the minimum standard in each case, for example for a waiting period, is what we consider to be a reasonable and acceptable period. The maximum standard, in contrast, is the score above which it seems to us any other score will not add further to the restrictiveness of the regulation in question in terms of legal disintegration. Weights were assigned to the particular items and aggregate constructs. Weights are inevitable when building an index. In this case it was necessary to decide which legal regulations are more and which are less important. The strongest weights were generally assigned to waiting periods to reflect the centrality of the principle of consolidation of residence.

"Theoretical background and objectives This project looks at the recent development of integration requirements as a condition for immigration, residence or citizenship. These integration requirements usually comprise knowledge of the host country's language, democracy, history, geography, and society. Proponents argue that they are a necessary and legitimate way for liberal democracies to defend their principles and rally new citizens behind them and that states, even though this may seem rather paternalistic, should help immigrants improve their human capital and become more competitive on the labour market. Opponents on the other hand argue that these policy measures create unnecessary conflicts by excluding immigrants who do not fulfil these requirements and by applying criteria that are at odds with political liberalism. While the opponents of the tests and integration requirements criticise that they oblige immigrants to adopt certain cultural traits of the host society, proponents argue that they do not oblige anybody to give up his or her identity and that the tests are above all capacity-enhancing. The project contributes to this debate by applying a systematic content analysis to citizenship tests in Germany, the UK, the US, the Netherlands, and Austria as well as to curricula for civic education courses addressed to immigrants who want to become permanent residents in Germany, France and the Netherlands. The objective is to find out what the content of these integration requirements and more particularly of the civic education component of these requirements really is. Can these citizenship tests and civic education curricula be classified as an attempt at cultural assimilation or do they stay within the confines of procedural liberalism? Research design, data and methodology The data used for this study are citizenship test questions or detailed guidelines for these tests that have been made publicly available in the countries compared, as well as curricula and learning materials for civic education courses targeted at immigrants who want to become permanent residents. While France is part of the second sample of countries, it is not part of the first one because it does not have an established citizenship test comparable to those in Germany, the Netherlands, Austria, the UK and the US. All questions and answers were systematically content-coded by attributing every question and (if public) correct answer to particular themes (e.g., democracy, history, cultural norms) and normative categories (distinguishing formal questions about legal rules pertaining to ""what is right"" from questions about cultural customs and social norms referring to ""what is good""). The content of the civic education courses has similarly been analysed with regard to its thematic and normative content. Findings The analyses show that the content of the citizenship tests and civic education curricula in almost all countries corresponds to a Rawlsian definition of political liberalism (Rawls 1993), a finding that rebuts the thesis of citizenship tests and integration requirements as an instance of ""forced cultural assimilation"" (Orgad 2010). In addition, the research suggests that the content of citizenship tests and other integration requirements tells us more about the role that a certain state claims to have in the governance of cultural, ethnic and religious diversity than it actually tells us about how the population on the ground defines and understands notions of citizenship and national belonging."

Emigrant policies cover any kind of policy that states develop to establish a new relation towards, or keep the links with, their emigrants. Emigrant policies vary among different countries and include programs as diverse as return policies, dual citizenship, the stimulation of remittances and the creation of government agencies to administer emigrant issues. The Emigrant Policies Index (EMIX) is a tool to order and structure the emigrant policies adopted (up to the end of 2015) by 22 states of origin in Latin America and the Caribbean. It includes information about 102 policy indicators, grouped hierarchically along 12 dimensions and two components. Emigrant policies have two main components: (1) policies and (2) the administration setting developed to cope with their design and implementation. The first component summarizes the content of the policies. It is composed of ten subcomponents: citizenship policies, electoral rights, institutional consultation, external obligations, economic policies, social policies, political competition abroad, symbolic policies, cultural policies and exit and transit policies. The second component, administration, accounts for the capabilities of the state to design and implement emigrant policies and is integrated by two subcomponents: the home administration setting and the administration deployed by the given country abroad. All items, attributes, subcomponents and components that integrate the index score between 0 and 1. The EMIX is composed by two aggregation steps. First, subcomponents are aggregated to calculate the POLICY and ADMINISTRATION scores (arithmetic means). In the final aggregation between components (POLICY and ADMINISTRATION), arithmetic mean was used but the authors gave more weight to the POLICY component than to the ADMINISTRATION component.

In het asielrecht is het in eerste instantie aan de asielzoeker om aannemelijk te maken dat hij bescherming nodig heeft van de Nederlandse overheid. De Nederlandse overheid beoordeelt de aannemelijkheid van het asielrelaas op basis van de gesprekken die medewerkers van de Immigratie- en Naturalisatiedienst (IND) voeren met de asielzoeker en algemene informatie over het land van herkomst. Naast deze informatie wordt in sommige gevallen medisch onderzoek gebruikt om stellingen van de asielzoeker te onderbouwen, of juist te weerleggen. Dit type medisch onderzoek vormt het onderwerp van dit advies. In het asielrecht werd jarenlang het uitgangspunt gehanteerd dat bij de beoordeling van asielverzoeken medische aspecten in beginsel geen rol kunnen spelen. De verantwoordelijke bewindspersonen hebben de afgelopen jaren steeds het standpunt ingenomen dat er medisch gezien (meestal) geen zekere uitspraken kunnen worden gedaan over de oorzaak van littekens, fysieke en psychische klachten. Dit standpunt is niet onomstreden. Al in 1999 stelde een groot aantal deskundigen een handleiding op voor onderzoek naar de gevolgen van marteling en andere wrede, onmenselijke of vernederende behandeling of bestraffing. Deze handleiding wordt ook wel het Istanbul Protocol genoemd. In dit protocol is expliciet neergelegd hoe de waarschijnlijkheid van een causale relatie tussen littekens, lichamelijke en psychische klachten en de gestelde oorzaak daarvan, kan worden onderzocht. Ook in de praktijk bij de IND wordt het standpunt dat medische aspecten in beginsel geen rol kunnen spelen genuanceerd. Als de asielzoeker een medische rapportage indient die conform de richtlijnen van het Istanbul Protocol is opgesteld, wordt deze door medewerkers van de IND betrokken bij de beoordeling van de asielaanvraag. Voor het verkrijgen van dit type medisch onderzoek zijn asielzoekers tot op heden afhankelijk van particuliere organisaties, met name van het instituut voor Mensenrechten en Medisch Onderzoek (iMMO). Aanleiding voor het advies en adviesvraag Met het oog op verdere harmonisering van het Europese asielstelsel is op 26 juni 2013 de herziene Procedurerichtlijn gepubliceerd. Deze richtlijn bevat minimumnormen waaraan alle asielprocedures in de lidstaten van de Europese Unie moeten voldoen. De richtlijn dient uiterlijk op 20 juli 2015 te zijn geïmplementeerd in nationale wet- en regelgeving. Artikel 18 van de herziene richtlijn bevat een nieuwe bepaling die specifiek ziet op medisch onderzoek betreffende aanwijzingen van vroegere vervolging of ernstige schade. Het gevolg van de richtlijn is dat littekens en psychische of fysieke klachten een element zullen gaan vormen waarmee de staatssecretaris bij de beoordeling van asielaanvragen rekening zal moeten gaan houden en waar hij ook op eigen initiatief onderzoek naar zal moeten gaan doen. De staatssecretaris heeft de Adviescommissie voor Vreemdelingenzaken (ACVZ) op 21 maart 2014 gevraagd hoe artikel 18 in de asielprocedure kan worden vormgegeven. De adviesvraag die door de ACVZ is gehanteerd luidt: “Hoe moet de implementatie van artikel 18 van de Procedurerichtlijn betreffende medisch onderzoek in regelgeving en in de asielprocedure worden vormgegeven?” In het advies wordt nagegaan in welke gevallen medisch onderzoek moet worden verricht, aan welke normen het medisch onderzoek moet voldoen, hoe het medisch onderzoek procedureel kan worden ingericht en hoe het onderzoek moet worden meegewogen in de beoordeling van een asielverzoek. Daarnaast is nagegaan hoe immigratiediensten van andere landen omgaan met dit type medisch onderzoek.

Naar verwachting neemt het aantal mensen dat naar Nederland migreert de komende jaren toe. Overheden zullen zich daarom steeds beter moeten voorbereiden op de komst van migranten, bijvoorbeeld door opvang te regelen. Toegenomen migratie houdt ook in dat de zogenoemde irreguliere migratie toeneemt, dat wil zeggen: het oversteken van een landgrens zonder de daarvoor benodigde toestemming of het verblijven in een land zonder de benodigde documenten. Deze vorm van migratie gaat gepaard met relatief grote risico’s zoals smokkel en uitbuiting. Tegelijkertijd is er slechts beperkt zicht op zowel de aantallen als de reisroutes van irreguliere migranten. Dit leidt tot verhoogde risico’s op smokkel en uitbuiting en tot beperkte beheersbaarheid van migratie vanuit overheden. Verschillende ketenpartners in de Nederlandse migratieketen hebben te maken met verschillende aspecten van irreguliere migratie. Ze beschikken daardoor (slechts) over data met betrekking tot de eigen specifieke domeinen. Dit kan bijvoorbeeld informatie zijn over reisroutes van irreguliere migranten die over land Nederland binnenkomen, of juist via luchthavens. Ook de dataverzameling bij deze ketenpartners kan specifiek afgestemd zijn op de aspecten waarmee zij te maken hebben.

Unaccompanied minors (UM) coming to Europe form an especially vulnerable group of migrant children, traveling without their parents or other adults exercising authority over them. In many European countries, asking for international protection is the main way for them to receive accommodation and a residence permit. However, minors coming from so-called safe countries, where in general there is no (fear of) persecution (e.g. Morocco, and in the Netherlands until June 2021 Algeria) have little or no chance of receiving a residence permit. Some of these mostly North African youngsters travel from one European country to another, in search of opportunities to work and earn money. The aim of this study was to learn more about the background of this group of minors, and gain knowledge about the experiences of other European countries with this specific group of minors. The general aims of this study were: to paint a picture of the nomadic existence of UMs with (multiple) problems in Europe; to investigate the underlying reasons of their nomadic behaviour and the (multiple)problems they have; and to explore the type of (policy) measures that are taken regarding the supervision and care of this group in other European countries.

Executive Summary The Saalfeld Roundtable held on September 22, 2022, served as a valuable forum for the discussion of policies and experiences related to the emplacement of migrants. The event brought together a diverse group of stakeholders, including migrants, policymakers, practitioners, citizens, and academics, to share perspectives and learn from one another. Key Discussions The roundtable provided a platform for the examination of issues related to migrants' agency, entrepreneurial capacity, and employment hardships. Participants also had the opportunity to learn about the experiences of long-term residents collaborating in socio-entrepreneurship activities, such as those in Altenburg and Saalfeld. Challenges to Sustainability The roundtable participants identified several sustainability challenges facing welcoming initiatives, both those run by civil society and those led by governments. In terms of governance and policy, discussions centred on issues such as discontinuity in funding, difficulties incorporating new demands into existing systems, and lack of stable structures and financing for integration work. Additional challenges discussed included those related to mobility in rural areas, housing shortages, and labour market integration, including discrimination and racism. Policy Recommendations Based on the discussions held at the Saalfeld Roundtable, a series of recommendations were formulated for improving the integration of migrants. These recommendations include: ▪ The transfer of project funding into regular public funding structures, along with the implementation of new integration laws and the new integration programme (such as the one that has been developed in the state of Thuringia) to govern the distribution of funds ▪ The enhancement of more participation mechanisms by migrants, their organisations and other civil society organisations to mitigate top-down decision-making ▪ The utilisation of crowdfunding to avoid bureaucratic obstacles in funding distribution ▪ The enhancement of job attractiveness, such as long-term employment, to attract and keep personal ▪ The enhancement of the provision of regular and visible opportunities for advice, offered by local governments, welfare state organizations and other organizations, such as Caritas, ThINKA, IQ Netwerk, MigraNetz Thüringen and Plattform. ▪ The dissemination of announcements by mayors to all inhabitants in ad-hoc situations ▪ The increased utilization of technical tools, such as video or audio translations, in doctor appointments, for example ▪ The further implementation of welcoming programs with regular and continuous public funding, such as the education budget ▪ The funding of places for social gatherings on a structural basis to promote inclusion ▪ The organization and promotion of public debates on discrimination in employment and education on regular basis and in addition to the programme Demokratie Leben! ▪ The utilization of a variety of communication channels, including art (in public spaces), music, and theatre ▪ The recognition by the political sphere and social society organisations that welcoming spaces are "making creative spaces", fostering social entrepreneurship, local small business, and art manifestations, among others, which leads to the inclusion of refugees and migrants in hosting societies. In summary, effective migrant inclusion policies should be developed through a collaborative and an inclusive approach that involves migrants themselves, provides targeted support and resources, and promotes positive public opinion towards migrants.

This Foreign Policy Centre report focuses on two unusual but strategically important British communities overseas. It builds on the findings of 252 survey responses, interviews, a focus group and research to give a detailed summary of who the British communities in Brussels and Washington DC are, what their needs are and how the UK Government can better support them and other Britons around the world.

Het onderzoek betreft een analyse van zowel de Europese regelgeving en jurisprudentie met betrekking tot de Terugkeerrichtlijn, als de Nederlandse wetgeving en rechtspraak. Er tevens is een beschrijvende analyse van de beschikbare data van DT&V gemaakt. De hoofdvraag hierbij is welke invloed heeft de implementatie van de Terugkeerrichtlijn en de interpretatie van bijhorende jurisprudentie met focus op de inbewaringstelling van derdelanders in Nederland gehad? Daarnaast is een vergelijkend onderzoek uitgevoerd naar de effecten van de implementatie van de Terugkeerrichtlijn in België, Denemarken, Duitsland, en Noorwegen. INHOUD: 1. Inleiding, 2. De Terugkeerrichtlijn en de jurisprudentie van het HvJ, 3. Implementatie van de Terugkeerrichtlijn in het Nederlandse vreemdelingenrecht, 4. De data en de observaties van respondenten, 5. Implementatie van de Terugkeerrichtlijn in andere Europese staten, 6. Conclusies

Die durch das Forschungszentrum des Bundesamtes für Migration und Flüchtlinge (BAMF) konzipierte MIMAP soll empirisch-fundierte und anwendungsbezogene Erkenntnisse zu Verbleib, Rückkehr und Weiterwanderung Ausreisepflichtiger liefern und ein besseres Verständnis darüber ermöglichen, warum ausreisepflichtige Personen trotz geringer rechtlicher Bleibe- und Partizipationsperspektiven und Angeboten zur freiwilligen Rückkehr in Deutschland verbleiben. Darüber hinaus soll der empirische Zugang zur Untersuchungsgruppe Ausreisepflichtiger erprobt werden. Der Schwerpunkt der MIMAP liegt auf ausreisepflichtigen Personen mit Asylbezug, von denen der überwiegende Teil im Besitz einer Duldung ist. Die Forschungserkenntnisse sollen Impulse für die Weiterentwicklung der rückkehrpolitischen und aufenthaltsverstetigenden Maßnahmen geben.

Since the 2012 crisis and its culmination in the 2013 coup d’état, the borderlands of the Central African Republic have turned into a hotspot of violent conflict involving migratory (transhumant) herders and farmers, armed groups and self-defence groups. This has further eroded already compromised social cohesion and governance institutions. Against this backdrop, FCDO’s UK Aid Direct and the European Union’s BEKOU Trust Fund awarded Concordis a three-year programme entitled, “Promoting peaceful and safe seasonal migration in northern Central African Republic”. This aims to contribute to peace and poverty reduction in northern CAR by fostering community-based conflict resolution between nomadic herders and settled populations. The programme covers the borderlands between CAR, Chad, Sudan and Cameroon, focusing on the prefectures of Ouham-Pendé, Ouham, Bamingui Bangoran and Vakaga. The first phase of the programme comprised a large-scale mapping and consultation exercise, collecting detailed quantitative and qualitative information through individual questionnaires and focus groups with those involved in or affected by seasonal transhumance, consulting over 2,500 people in the targeted areas between February and June 2019. The purpose of this consultation was to identify grassroots challenges to peace and opportunities to promote social cohesion and economic development. It is intended to inform subsequent phases of the conflict resolution programme and provide a baseline against which impacts of ensuing interventions may be measured. This report covers the consultation in the prefectures of Ouham-Pendé and Ouham, with the key challenges, project figures and findings, as well as a suite of recommendations, presented in graphic format immediately below. A detailed discussion of the methodology is provided as an annex at the end of the report. For the intervention to deliver sustainable outcomes, it is necessary to avoid the temptation of a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach. The implementation of the recommendations offered here requires distinct approaches in each area, recognizing existing initiatives and listening to the needs, fears and hopes stakeholders express. This entails discussions being held at the local level with representatives of all stakeholder groups, in order to plan and deliver interventions that are responsive to the lived reality of each unique situation.

This report is the first of its kind: mapping the Romanian diaspora in the UK, particularly how diaspora associations contribute to, interact with and sometimes challenge both host and home country institutions, whilst also measuring the impact of diaspora initiatives overall. This analysis aims to improve public understanding about the issues faced by the Romanian diaspora, while providing ideas to help inform and inspire policy and decision-making for what has become a strategic constituency for both Romania and the UK. It also aims to encourage a more effective and sustained cooperation between Romanian diaspora organisations, strategically maximising their impact and relevance, while promoting best practice to all institutions and organisations.

This report is the first of its kind: mapping the Romanian diaspora in the UK, particularly how diaspora associations contribute to, interact with and sometimes challenge both host and home country institutions, whilst also measuring the impact of diaspora initiatives overall. This analysis aims to improve public understanding about the issues faced by the Romanian diaspora, while providing ideas to help inform and inspire policy and decision-making for what has become a strategic constituency for both Romania and the UK. It also aims to encourage a more effective and sustained cooperation between Romanian diaspora organisations, strategically maximising their impact and relevance, while promoting best practice to all institutions and organisations.

Op 1 maart 2017 is een aantal anti-terrorismewetten in werking getreden, waaronder de wijziging van de Rijkswet op het Nederlanderschap (RWN) in het belang van de nationale veiligheid. Door de toevoeging van artikel 14, vierde lid, aan deze wet, kreeg de minister van Justitie en Veiligheid (JenV) de daarop volgende vijf jaar de bevoegdheid om het Nederlanderschap te ontnemen van uitreizigers die zich vrijwillig hebben aangesloten bij een terroristische organisatie die een bedreiging vormt voor de nationale veiligheid. Het gaat hierbij om een preventieve maatregel waartoe de minister zonder voorafgaande strafrechtelijke veroordeling kan beslissen. De legale terugkeer van Nederlandse leden van buitenlandse, jihadistische organisaties naar ons land wordt op deze manier verhinderd door middel van intrekking van hun Nederlanderschap. Met dit onderzoek wordt invulling gegeven aan de toezegging aan de leden van de Eerste Kamer om de wet drie jaar na haar inwerkingtreding te evalueren (Tweede Kamerstukken, Vergaderjaar 2015-2016, 34.356 (R2064), nr. 26). Het betreft een plan- en procesevaluatie.Tijdens de behandeling van de wetswijziging in de Eerste Kamer heeft de toenmalige minister van Veiligheid en Justitie toegezegd dat artikel 14 lid 4 RWN drie jaar na inwerkingtreding zou worden geëvalueerd om vast te stellen of de bepaling na de vervaldatum (1 maart 2022) zal worden gehandhaafd, al dan niet in gewijzigde vorm. In het evaluatieonderzoek staat de volgende onderzoeksvraag centraal: In hoeverre heeft de invoering van artikel 14 lid 4 RWN de legale terugkeer van Nederlandse leden van buitenlandse, jihadistische organisaties naar Nederland door middel van intrekking van hun Nederlanderschap weten te verhinderen? Ter beantwoording van die vraag is een planevaluatie en een procesevaluatie uitgevoerd.