Recent publications on citizenship laws and policies


Routledge Handbook of Global Citizenship Studies


edited by Engin F. Isin and Peter Nyers, Routledge, 2014

Citizenship studies is at a crucial moment of globalizing as a field. What used to be mainly a European, North American, and Australian field has now expanded to major contributions featuring scholarship from Latin America, Asia, Africa, and the Middle East.

The Routledge Handbook of Global Citizenship Studies takes into account this globalizing moment. At the same time, it considers how the global perspective exposes the strains and discords in the concept of ‘citizenship’ as it is understood today. With over fifty contributions from international, interdisciplinary experts, the Handbook features state-of-the-art analyses of the practices and enactments of citizenship across broad continental regions (Africas, Americas, Asias and Europes) as well as deterritorialized forms of citizenship (Diasporicity and Indigeneity). Through these analyses, the Handbook provides a deeper understanding of citizenship in both empirical and theoretical terms.

This volume sets a new agenda for scholarly investigations of citizenship. Its wide-ranging contributions and clear, accessible style make itessential reading for students and scholars working on citizenship issues across the humanities and social sciences.



Naturalization and Earnings: A Denmark–Sweden Comparison


by Jonas Helgertz, Pieter Bevelander, Anna Tegunimataka, in European Jounal of Population, July 2014

The determinants and consequences of the naturalization of immigrants is a hot topic in the political debate in Europe. This article compares the effect of naturalization on the income attainment of immigrants in two Scandinavian countries, Denmark and Sweden, using longitudinal register data from 1986 and onward. Sweden is characterized by low obstacles to naturalization, and existing studies provide inconclusive evidence regarding the impact of naturalization on labor market outcomes. Denmark is instead characterized by higher barriers to naturalization, as well as a virtual inexistence of previous studies on the topic. Results, obtained through individual fixed-effect regression analysis, suggest similar effects in both countries. A consistent naturalization premium is detected for immigrants of Asian and African descent, but not for any other immigrant group. The similarity across contexts arguably questions the use of more stringent naturalization laws to promote the economic integration of immigrants.




Progressive Inklusion: Zugehörigkeit und Teilhabe im Migrationsrecht


Migrant Citizenship: Progressive inclusion and transnational migration

by Anuscheh Farahat, Springer, Beiträge zum ausländischen öffentlichen Recht und Völkerrecht, vol. 246, Heidelberg (2014)

This book explores two principles governing migrant citizenship in Germany: the principle of progressive inclusion and the principle of static attribution. It develops both the structural and the legal dimensions of the two principles and proposes a model for the legal empowerment of migrant. In doing so, the book draws on the concept of transnational migration by using three fictional migrant families from Italy, Turkey, and Ukraine to exemplify the particular difficulties resulting from this form of migration being essentially characterized by multiple and simultaneous ties to several countries.

The main thesis of the book is that the difficulties faced by this form of migration result from the tension between two principles of migration law. The principle of progressive inclusion says that migrants are to be included in the host society by approximating their rights progressively to the rights of the citizens of that country. This aim shall be reached by progressively equipping migrants with ever more rights with regard to their host state, corresponding to the growing duration of their stay or their increasing social and economic ties to the host society. According to this principle migrants shall be empowered by rights to enable participation so that becoming a citizen is only the consequence of their legal inclusion. The principle of static attribution, on the other hand, argues that citizenship remains the essential prerequisite for full participation in social, economic and political life. Granting citizenship means rewarding successful integration, according to this principle. Consequently, the principle of static attribution argues for exclusive attribution and loyalty of a person to one state, meaning that multiple citizenships need to be avoided. 

After tracing the historic emergence of both principles, the structuring function of both principles is developed by analyzing four legal complexes governing transnational migration: residence law, nationality law, social security law and political rights of migrants. Each of these areas of law can be structured by the principle of progressive inclusion on the one hand and by the principle of static attribution on the other hand. While the older principle of static attribution is still prevalent in most of these four fields, the principle of progressive inclusion is increasingly gaining ground. Apart from the structuring function of the two principles, the book argues that progressive inclusion and static attribution can be understood as general principles of law in the sense of Article 38 of the ICJ Statute. As such, both principles imply minimum requirements in relation to the legal situation of transnational migrants and argue among others for abolishing the so-called “optional model” in German nationality law. Based on the idea of minimum requirements the author finally proposes a model for enhancing the effectiveness of the principle of progressive inclusion in migration law. This model includes a minimum set of rights for all migrants, an entitlement to equal rights based on duration of residence or social ties, the acceptance of multiple citizenship, a permanent residence status with privileged rights, and a fast track to citizenship.


Citizenship Tests: Can They Be a Just Compromise?


 by Andy Mason, in Journal of Social Philosophy, Volume 45, Issue 2, pages 137–161 (2014)

In a number of countries immigrants are required to pass formal tests before they can become citizens, the most common of which assess language proficiency and knowledge of society. Responses to the implementation of these 'citizenship tests' have been mixed: some have regarded them as a sensible way of ensuring that those who become citizens have acquired the competences that are needed for them to integrate properly and to fulfil their responsibilities as citizens, whilst others have seen them as seriously unjust, as depriving long-term residents of their right to citizenship. This article addresses the issue of whether citizenship tests can be justified and, if so, how, in what form, under what circumstances, and subject to what conditions. It argues that citizenship tests are most plausibly defended on the grounds that they promote conditions that are either required for a reasonably just society to be created and sustained, or which are conducive to the creation and maintenance of such a society. This argument can take a number of different forms, but each version of it is vulnerable to the response that citizenship tests are nevertheless unjust because long-term residents are automatically entitled to citizenship, and requiring them to pass a test before they are granted it either delays or denies that entitlement. The article explores how a defence of citizenship tests may respond to this objection, and under what circumstances these tests might legitimately be regarded as a reasonable resolution to a conflict between, on the one hand, the just treatment of long-term residents and, on the other hand, promoting the conditions required for creating or sustaining a reasonably just society. 


Regime type, international migration, and the politics of dual citizenship toleration


by Nikola Mirilovic, in International Political Science Review, 1-16 (2014)

Why do some countries tolerate dual citizenship while others do not? The answer concerns the interaction between regime type variation and international migration. Democracies with a relatively large migrant stock are more likely to tolerate dual citizenship than democracies with a low migrant stock. Meanwhile, democracies with relatively high emigration rates for the highly educated population are more likely to tolerate dual citizenship than democracies with low emigration rates of the highly educated. In authoritarian states, the opposite is the case: emigration of the highly educated and immigration both reduce the likelihood of dual citizenship toleration. These claims are supported by the evidence from a large n examination of contemporary cross-national data. Understanding dual citizenship helps us address larger questions about the significance of democracy and the nature and scope of nation states.