Final Report Summary - NATAC (The acquisition of nationality in EU Member states: rules, practices and quantitative developments)
Nationality or citizenship has been called upon to be all things to all people: civil rights, political participation, social welfare, identity and recognition, the common good and the consciousness of community (Liebich, 1995). Formally, nationality is defined as the legal bond between a person and a state. It is a guiding principle of international law that it is for each state to determine under its own law who are its nationals. But with the development of human rights since the Second World War, there has been a trend towards recognition of the right to a nationality as a human right, and it has been accepted that in matters of nationality states shall also take individual interests into account. Nationality does not only link an individual to a state, it also links individuals to international law; and in the EU it provides individuals with a specific set of rights within this supranational union.
The project's recommendations are based on a generational approach. Access to nationality should be automatic for the third generation with parents already born in the country, there should be entitlements to an optional acquisition for the second generation and for the 'generation 1.5' who was born abroad but has been raised in the country. For first generation immigrants, naturalisation requirements should be clearly defined and implemented in ways that enable and encourage them to acquire the nationality of their country of long-term residence. We identify good practices along these lines in states that require a legal residence of no more than five years, that do not demand renunciation of a previous nationality and that do not exclude immigrants below a certain income threshold. The recent trend towards more extensive 'integration tests' should be evaluated by asking whether these provide positive incentives for immigrants or serve instead to exclude larger numbers from naturalisation. Expecting applicants for naturalisation to acquire basic language skills can promote their socioeconomic integration and enable new citizens to participate in public political life. Written tests on language and knowledge about the society, history and constitution, however, do not allow sufficient flexibility in judging relevant skills and deter many lower skilled or elderly immigrants. On the other hand, vague criteria such as good character, sufficient integration or assimilation often give too much scope to arbitrary decisions or discriminatory treatment of migrants of different origins.
There are four categories of persons who enjoy facilitated access to naturalisation in many countries. These are:
1) refugees and stateless persons;
2) spouses and minor children of nationals and of immigrants who apply for naturalisation;
3) immigrants with historic ties or cultural affinity to the country of immigration; and
4) citizens of other EU Member States.
We strongly advocate easier access to nationality for the former two of these groups because their claims are based on individual needs for protection through a new citizenship or for family unity in matters of nationality. Facilitated naturalisation based on ascriptive grounds of national or ethnic origin may be justified in specific contexts, but will often become problematic over time when there is more immigration from many different origins, since easier access for some nationals will then be experienced as discriminatory by other immigrants with longer residence.
Emigrants, although they will not be able to enjoy most citizenship rights of nationals residing in their country of nationality, still have a general claim to retain that nationality. When they acquire the nationality of their country of residence, they must be free to renounce their previous nationality, but we suggest that they should not be forced to do so. Our recommendation for tolerating dual nationality among migrants who are stakeholders in two countries applies to immigrants as well as to emigrants. Several states in our sample also have specific provisions for the reacquisition of nationality by emigrants who have lost it under prior legislation, especially due to marriage or because of a former renunciation requirement. We generally support these provisions but criticise that some countries allow reacquisition only if the nationality had been acquired by birth rather than through naturalisation.
Our final set of recommendations concerns the institutional arrangements and procedures for naturalisation. Even where the law itself does not create high hurdles, access to nationality may be blocked by administrative practices and procedures of implementation. We recommend that applicants for naturalisations should not be burdened by high fees and excessive demands for official documents. There should be a maximum period within which applications have to be decided. Civil servants dealing with naturalisation should be trained and supervised, negative decisions should always have to be justified in writing and applicants should have opportunities to complain and rights to appeal. Public administrations ought to provide assistance and cooperate with migrant organisations in helping immigrants prepare their applications and meet language requirements. In countries where the implementation of nationality laws is delegated to regional or local authorities, it is important to assure uniform standards in applying the law.
Democratic countries of immigration should not only grant immigrants opportunities to acquire nationality, they also have a vital interest in encouraging them to do so. Common citizenship provides a reference point for solidarity in societies composed of diverse origins. Public campaigns promoting naturalisation and public ceremonies when nationality is awarded can be useful instruments. Such campaigns have been rare in Europe, but they would not merely raise the numbers of applications, but would also contribute to a more positive perception of immigrants as new citizens among the general population.
The project's recommendations are based on a generational approach. Access to nationality should be automatic for the third generation with parents already born in the country, there should be entitlements to an optional acquisition for the second generation and for the 'generation 1.5' who was born abroad but has been raised in the country. For first generation immigrants, naturalisation requirements should be clearly defined and implemented in ways that enable and encourage them to acquire the nationality of their country of long-term residence. We identify good practices along these lines in states that require a legal residence of no more than five years, that do not demand renunciation of a previous nationality and that do not exclude immigrants below a certain income threshold. The recent trend towards more extensive 'integration tests' should be evaluated by asking whether these provide positive incentives for immigrants or serve instead to exclude larger numbers from naturalisation. Expecting applicants for naturalisation to acquire basic language skills can promote their socioeconomic integration and enable new citizens to participate in public political life. Written tests on language and knowledge about the society, history and constitution, however, do not allow sufficient flexibility in judging relevant skills and deter many lower skilled or elderly immigrants. On the other hand, vague criteria such as good character, sufficient integration or assimilation often give too much scope to arbitrary decisions or discriminatory treatment of migrants of different origins.
There are four categories of persons who enjoy facilitated access to naturalisation in many countries. These are:
1) refugees and stateless persons;
2) spouses and minor children of nationals and of immigrants who apply for naturalisation;
3) immigrants with historic ties or cultural affinity to the country of immigration; and
4) citizens of other EU Member States.
We strongly advocate easier access to nationality for the former two of these groups because their claims are based on individual needs for protection through a new citizenship or for family unity in matters of nationality. Facilitated naturalisation based on ascriptive grounds of national or ethnic origin may be justified in specific contexts, but will often become problematic over time when there is more immigration from many different origins, since easier access for some nationals will then be experienced as discriminatory by other immigrants with longer residence.
Emigrants, although they will not be able to enjoy most citizenship rights of nationals residing in their country of nationality, still have a general claim to retain that nationality. When they acquire the nationality of their country of residence, they must be free to renounce their previous nationality, but we suggest that they should not be forced to do so. Our recommendation for tolerating dual nationality among migrants who are stakeholders in two countries applies to immigrants as well as to emigrants. Several states in our sample also have specific provisions for the reacquisition of nationality by emigrants who have lost it under prior legislation, especially due to marriage or because of a former renunciation requirement. We generally support these provisions but criticise that some countries allow reacquisition only if the nationality had been acquired by birth rather than through naturalisation.
Our final set of recommendations concerns the institutional arrangements and procedures for naturalisation. Even where the law itself does not create high hurdles, access to nationality may be blocked by administrative practices and procedures of implementation. We recommend that applicants for naturalisations should not be burdened by high fees and excessive demands for official documents. There should be a maximum period within which applications have to be decided. Civil servants dealing with naturalisation should be trained and supervised, negative decisions should always have to be justified in writing and applicants should have opportunities to complain and rights to appeal. Public administrations ought to provide assistance and cooperate with migrant organisations in helping immigrants prepare their applications and meet language requirements. In countries where the implementation of nationality laws is delegated to regional or local authorities, it is important to assure uniform standards in applying the law.
Democratic countries of immigration should not only grant immigrants opportunities to acquire nationality, they also have a vital interest in encouraging them to do so. Common citizenship provides a reference point for solidarity in societies composed of diverse origins. Public campaigns promoting naturalisation and public ceremonies when nationality is awarded can be useful instruments. Such campaigns have been rare in Europe, but they would not merely raise the numbers of applications, but would also contribute to a more positive perception of immigrants as new citizens among the general population.