Final Report Summary - TRANSFORNATION (Dual Citizenship Recognition and Equal rights in Germany: Construction of a (Trans)national Form of Citizenship in 21st Century Europe)
Migration, E-U integration and equalisation of rights between men and women as to maintaining and passing nationality have led to the increase of dual citizenship, which has become a main political issue in many European countries and a key topic to understand the transformation of civil societies.
Built on political anthropology of the State, this project focuses on present-day Germany to see how issues about the recognition of this status can be understood within the reconfiguration of EU-immigration policies. Through an ethnographic approach, it studies both dual citizenship politics and experiences to build a multi-dimensional model of nation and immigration issues in the European context. First, it examines the moments of problematisation of a dual citizenship issue in Germany, between 1989 and the most recent controversy concerning its full recognition in spring 2013. Historical and political transformation of society and the democratic configuration of German politics will be used to enlighten these moments of problematisation. Secondly, it analyses the discursive strategies and collective actions that aim at the full recognition of dual citizenship. Thirdly, it studies the legal and administrative practices that frame the way in which German State tolerates dual citizenship. Fourthly, it explores, through personal narratives, the everyday experience of German dual citizens with different backgrounds to show how gender, race and social class guide the uses of dual citizenship. With a comparative approach to differentiated migration experiences, this project explores how dual citizen’s status may weave into patterns of everyday life.
This project also offers a challenge to anthropology. Indeed, the timeline engages analyses with the responsibility of naming and defining the issues about dual citizenship in Germany in the light of today’s controversies and dynamics of power. This occurs not only after political initiatives have been activated, but through accompanying them and even in some ways contributing to them. As such, my research explores the relationships between anthropology as a project of understanding and politics.
Thus, both in its empirical dimension as in its theoretical dimension, the project, “TransforNation”, filled a real void since there are no comprehensive scientific and methodical studies that propose an approach to dual citizenship at the intersection between political anthropology of the State and ethnography of everyday life and subjectivities.
• A summary description of project context and objectives (not exceeding 4 pages).
Context of the project
The German context is a particularly interesting case to study, as one must consider the tradition of high hostility to dual citizenship and the strong and political dominance of parties, such as the CDU and the CSU, opposed to the recognition of this status. They have a majority in Parliament. They still influence the German parliamentary system and reject claims in favour of recognizing dual citizenship. In this context, dual citizenship remains a controversial issue as citizens of two States are more or less explicitly suspected of dual allegiance. This process of stigmatization was particularly present at the end of the 1990’s, during the debates that led up to the Gesetz zur Reform des Staatsangehörigkeitrechts and rejected the possibility of the full recognition of dual citizenship by the German State. In the context of the federal parliamentary elections of 2013, the recognition of dual citizenship was again at stake in the political and social debate. In February 2013, the Minister of Justice, Sabine Leuthesser-Schnarrenberger, FDP (Freie Demokratische Partei) member of the governing coalition challenged Angela Merkel and said that allowing dual citizenship would help promoting integration of migrants while the Chancellor remained opposed to this recognition. In May 2013, Philipp Rösler, the German vice Chancellor who is of the FDP, staked out a position on the issue as he demanded that the foreign-nationals were allowed to keep their native citizenship when they became German.
Despite these controversies and oppositions, German nationality law has slowly shifted as well as the position of political parties such as the CDU. Indeed, through a convergent trend to EU-countries, reforms of nationality laws were used as a tool for the integration of foreign-nationals and their children (Bauböck, Ersbøll, Groenendijk & Waldrauch 2006). These reforms aimed either at introducing jus soli principle in order to give citizenship to second-generation, or at reducing the required time of residency to be naturalized, or at recognizing or tolerating dual citizenship (Joppke 2003; de Hart van Oers 2006). In the case of Germany, the reform of Nationality Law of December 10th 1974 equalised the rights between men and women as to passing nationality on to their children. This reform led to the recognition of dual citizenship for children of couples of different nationalities. The recognition of jus soli introduced by the reform of Nationality Law of July 15th 1999 (Gesetz zur Reform des Staatsangehörigkeitrechts) was first articulated to a limited tolerance of dual citizenship for extra-EU nationals. Indeed, at the age of majority, children born in Germany to foreign-parents had to renounce their native citizenship to be allowed to keep their German citizenship. This obligation to choose was called Optionspflicht and it was cancelled by the Law of July 7th 2014. Since then the German state fully recognizes dual citizenship in the case of jus soli. It only regulates this status in the case of naturalization. Unless they are not allowed by their native country to renounce their citizenship of origin or they prove they might lose social and civil rights, Non-EU citizens who are made into German-nationals must give their native citizenship up. Thus, today only naturalization requires full allegiance to the German state. Therefore tis procedure has become a laboratory to understand how and in which conditions German citizenship is granted and dual citizenship accepted.
Objectives
Through the study of dual citizenship politics and experiences in Germany, the project aimed to contribute to the sociological understanding of transnational forms of citizenship within the EU. It introduced both dual citizenship politics and experience as a topic.
•It sought to enlighten different moments in the problematisation of dual citizenship issues in Germany.
Historical and political contexts contribute to the way in which dual citizenship is problematized. The research established the conditions of emergence of a dual citizenship issue in Germany in the second half of twentieth century as to provide a map of different political and historical moments in the German democratic context. These moments of problematisation correspond to temporal boundaries within which values, norms, feelings and emotions are involved and frame issues on dual citizenship. Drawn on a critical moral anthropology approach, Dr Sarah Mazouz attempted to comprehend the moral boundaries and stakes that arose during controversies. Her research also aimed to analyse the moral economy of dual citizenship in Germany and the ways that the political intersects with moral issues. As she already highlighted the impact of such controversies on practices and subjectivities in another social and national context, Dr Sarah Mazouz intended to show how such events guide bureaucratic treatment of dual citizenship and shift dual citizens’ experiences.
•It sought to study the administration of dual citizenship in the case of the naturalization. The emergence of dual citizenship politics is generally understood as the introduction of new norms in international and municipal law and in national State. The existing studies in political science and in political sociology contribute to elucidate some of the more structural and institutional aspects. However the main contribution of the project led by Dr Sarah Mazouz is to lean on ethnography to question the way in which dual citizenship policies are implemented. The ethnographical fieldwork carried out with bureaucrats in charge of naturalization and dual citizenship authorizations helped examine how they translate into practice Nationality and Immigration policies. The bottom-up approach followed also enlightened how the practices of these bureaucrats determine policies and guide the way in which (future) dual citizens act. It makes fully understand implicit and explicit values and categorizations involved in the administration of dual citizens. It questions the levels and relationships of power, with particular attention to the encompassing classifications and assumptions embodied in Street-level bureaucrats’ worldviews and practices.
• It sought to understand the lived experience of dual citizens
This innovative study of dual citizenship leant on political anthropology of the State, a theoretical and methodological approach already developed by Dr Sarah Mazouz. As this approach focuses on both institutions and subjects, the project “TransforNation” also explored the impact of identity documents on the way dual citizens experience their status. This relation to German ID-documents has been linked to the way in which the recognition of dual citizenship was socially and politically problematized for each of the three groups of dual citizens selected (German-French, German-Tunisian and German-Turk or German from Turkish origin). The empirical study of dual citizenship also addressed the social significance of law for dual citizens. It aimed to question the kind of legal consciousness produced by this status as it treated dual citizens’ everyday relation to the law. Thus it investigates the difference between the three groups of dual citizens chosen in relation to how they become dual citizens.
Beyond the anthropology of dual citizenship administration, this project studies the impact of a legal status on different aspects of social life. On the one hand, it questioned the ways in which the intersectional aspects of ascriptions such as gender, race and social class guide the uses of dual citizenship and turn this status either into a constraint or into a resource. On the other hand, it investigated the impact of dual citizenship rights on everyday life to analyse citizenship practices beyond the fact of only considering the political realm.
• A description of the main S&T results/foregrounds (not exceeding 25 pages), Work performed during the project
Dr Sarah Mazouz managed to conduct archival work at the Bundestag and interviews with MP and persons in charge of migration and citizenship issues in the political parties and in associations.
She also had access to reports of the Bundestag on the situation of Foreigners in Germany and working documents on the Naturalization policy from parliamentary groups.
This part of the research was also completed by a regular press review to follow the on-going debates on migration and citizenship policy in Germany.
To enlighten different moments in the problematisation of dual citizenship issues, Dr Sarah Mazouz has also carried out interviews with members of the work team of the federal “Beauftragte für Migration, Flüchtlinge und Integration”.
To explore the bureaucratic treatment of dual citizenship, Dr Sarah Mazouz led fieldwork in different Naturalization offices. Given that the naturalization procedure is coordinated at the municipal level in one of the selected cities, Dr Sarah Mazouz chose two districts with an important population of migrants and foreigners and two others where migrants and foreigners are fewer. This part of the fieldwork was completed from November 2015 on by fieldwork in other States (Länder) in Germany.
Dr Sarah Mazouz could also carry out several biographical interviews with dual citizens from the three defined groups. She also could meet with people who had to give up their native citizenship when they became German and with other who decided not to become German nationals because this would have meant for them the loss of their native citizenship.
This empirical aspect of the research has also been completed by new reading in the field of social, anthropological and political studies and establishing a completed bibliography of the existing literature on (dual) citizenship policies in Germany.
Main results achieved
•Moments in the problematisation of dual citizenship issues.
Historical and political contexts contribute to the way in which dual citizenship is problematized (Foucault 2001). During its first empirical phase, the research established the conditions of emergence of a dual citizenship issue in Germany in the second half of twentieth century as to provide a map of different political and historical moments in the German democratic context. For example, it focused on the role of the German reunification in the emergence of issues concerning citizenship, nationality and belonging. It also tried to dig out how gender equality and citizenship issues are intertwined. The detailed study of archives at the Bundestag and interviews with MP and persons in charge of migration and citizenship issues in the political parties and in associations allowed to show how gender issues also took part in the redefinition of German logics of belonging. In
the case of Germany, the reform of Nationality Law of December 10th 1974 equalised the rights between men and women as to passing nationality on to their children. This reform was driven by the measures against gender discrimination adopted in the 1970 by the European Union. One of the consequences of this reform was the recognition of dual citizenship for children of couples of different nationalities. It was the first step to consider that there were different ways of being German and once Germany was unified anew, it was possible to open the debate to other means of being granted the German citizenship.
The analysis of the role played by gender issues in the redefinition of German citizenship politics has been presented and discussed at the 7th International Conference of Feminist Francophone Studies that took place in Montreal from August 24th to August 28th 2015 (paper entitled in French: “Double nationalité en acte. Injonctions de genre et assignations raciales dans les pratiques de nationalité en Allemagne”).
These moments of problematisation correspond to temporal boundaries within which values, norms, feelings and emotions are involved and frame issues on dual citizenship. Drawn on a critical moral anthropology approach developed during her former post- doctoral fellowship in the ERC program MORALS – Towards a Critical Moral Anthropology, Dr Sarah Mazouz attempted to comprehend the moral boundaries and stakes that arose during controversies. Her research also aimed to analyse the moral economy (Fassin 2009) of dual citizenship in Germany and the ways that the political intersects with moral issues. As she already highlighted the impact of such controversies on practices and subjectivities in another social and national context (Mazouz 2007), Dr Sarah Mazouz intended to show how such events (Bensa & Fassin 2002) guide bureaucratic treatment of dual citizenship and shift dual citizens’ experiences.
The analysis of the moralization of dual citizenship issues was the argument of the multi- disciplinary workshop entitled “Citizenship Loyalties” and organised at the Humboldt University on June 15th 2016 in collaboration with the research program Ethopol funded by the French National Agency for research (ANR) and with ethnoPol the Association française de science politique network of projects on political ethnography.
•Dual citizenship in the light of bureaucratic practices
The emergence of dual citizenship politics is generally understood as the introduction of new norms in international and municipal law (Vonk 2012) and in national State (Kalekin- Fisheman & Ptikänen 2008). Many studies in political science and in political sociology have shown how the recognition of this status was a path-dependent process including national states, transnational institutions and diasporas’ communities (Faist, Gerdes & Rieple 2004; Bauböck & Faist 2010). Each of these studies contributes to elucidate some of the more structural and institutional aspects. However, none of these studies is able to provide an empirically based approach of administering dual citizenship. Therefore the project led by Dr Sarah Mazouz leant on ethnography to question the way in which dual citizenship policies are implemented (Elmore 1979). The ethnographical fieldwork carried out with bureaucrats in charge of naturalization and dual citizenship authorizations helped examine how they translate into practice Nationality and Immigration policies (Brodkin 2011a & 2012, Infantino & Rea 2012). This ethnographical fieldwork also included the analysis of German citizenship tests. As she did in the case of French “entretiens d’assimilation linguistique” (Mazouz 2010 & 2012), analysis of German written tests and interviews with assessors permitted to understand the conception of citizenship conveyed during all the process of naturalization (Michalowski 2007, 2010 & 2011). It allowed putting it in relation with the bureaucratic practices observed. The bottom-up approach followed also enlightened how the practices of these bureaucrats determine policies and guide the way in which (future) dual citizens act. It makes fully understand implicit and explicit values and categorizations involved in the administration of dual citizens (Gilboy 1991). It questions the levels and relationships of power, with particular attention to the encompassing classifications and assumptions embodied in Street-level bureaucrats’ worldviews and practices (McC Heyman 1995).
The research activities allowed the researcher to underline some critical concepts to understand how the granting of German citizenship to foreign nationals is conceived by the German state. In particular, Dr Sarah Mazouz worked with the notions of allegiance and loyalty to analyse the still limited recognition of dual citizenship. Indeed, in the case of naturalization, applicants to German citizenship are mostly required to give up their native citizenship to be allowed to become German citizen. In other terms, they have to show their full allegiance to Germany. However, while this requirement is stricter and more constraining, bureaucratic practices appears to be less discretionary in the case of naturalization in Germany than in France to compare with a case studied previously by Dr Sarah Mazouz. The officers only have indeed to check that the requirements are fulfilled without having to assess in a more vague way the applicant’s loyalty. Observations and interviews led in naturalization offices helped thus the researcher to highlight, in a renewed way, how allegiance or loyalty may frame citizenship granting in different national contexts.
The analysis of these two concepts helped the researcher to take part to the debate about citizenship deprivation in France by drawing a comparison between German and French naturalization (see: http://mouvements.info/politiques-de-la-delegitimation-de-la-remise-en-cause-de-la-double-nationalite-au-projet-dextension-de-la-decheance-de-nationalite/). She also drew a comparison between French and German national anxieties. The first draft of this analysis has been presented during the conclusive conference she organized at the Humboldt University on September 8th and 9th 2016. This text entitled « Loyalty and Allegiance. National Anxiety in France and Germany » is to be submitted to an English speaking peer-reviewed journal.
This critical work also allowed Dr Sarah Mazouz to present a paper at the annual ICON-S International Conference (The International Society of Public) that took place at the Humboldt University on June 17-19 2016. In the presentation she gave, she compared French and German legal definition of naturalization and the impact of these different definitions on bureaucratic practices (paper entitled: “Favor as a Frame: Logics of Belonging and Exclusion in French Practices of citizenship” to be submitted to a peer- reviewed journal).
•The lived experience of dual citizens
Beyond the anthropology of dual citizenship administration, this project studied the impact of a legal status on different aspects of social life. It investigated how intersectional ascriptions guide the uses of dual citizenship and turn this status either into a constraint or into a resource. This allowed showing how the social uses of this legal status are intertwined with gender, racialisation class and age. It explored thus the discriminations produced by such categorizations. The project also analysed the impact of dual citizenship rights on everyday life, paying special attention to the forms of legal consciousness produced by the entanglement of legal status and life experience.
This innovative study of dual citizenship leant on political anthropology of the State, a theoretical and methodological approach already developed by Dr Sarah Mazouz. As this approach focuses on both institutions and subjects, the project “TransforNation” also explored the impact of identity documents on the way dual citizens experience their status (Gordillo 2006; Coutin & Yngvesson 2006; Green 2012). This relation to German ID- documents has been linked to the way in which the recognition of dual citizenship was socially and politically problematized for each of the three groups of dual citizens selected (German-French, German-Tunisian and German-Turk or German from Turkish origin). The empirical study of dual citizenship addressed the social significance of law (Garth & Sarat 1998; Coutin 2000; Israël, Sacriste, Vauchez & Willemez 2005) for dual citizens. It questioned the kind of legal consciousness produced by this status. It also treated dual citizens’ everyday relation to the law (Ewick & Silbey 1998). Dr Sarah Mazouz thus investigated the difference between the three groups of dual citizens chosen in relation to how they become dual citizens. She highlighted the relation between the kind of rights provided by their native citizenships and the change of status introduced by being granted German citizenship in order to set different ways of being related to the law and to legality. She showed thus how the entanglement of legal status and everyday life experience produces legal consciousness. This appeared very clearly in interviews led with French- German since the two citizenships give the same rights, ID-documents are less important and they are disconnected from the process by which one identifies her or himself. By contrast, for dual citizens whose citizenships don’t give the same rights, ID-documents are constitutive of their legal consciousness since they play an important role in their way to conceive their everyday life and thus to identify. A first version of this analysis was presented at the 6th Conference of the Association française de sociologie that took place in Paris from June 29th to July 2nd 2015 (paper entitled: “Les usages sociaux de la double nationalité au prisme des parcours biographiques”).
Beyond the anthropology of dual citizenship administration, this project sought to study the impact of a legal status on several aspects of social life. It investigated the ways in which the intersectional aspects (Crenshaw 1995; West & Fenstermaker 1995) of ascriptions such as gender, race and social class guide the uses of dual citizenship and turn this status either into a constraint or into a resource. It renewed the approaches on dual citizenship as it showed how the social uses of this legal status are intertwined with gender, racialisation (Murji and Solomos 2005), class and age, and it explores the discriminations produced by such categorizations. The study of intersectional aspects in the lived life of dual citizens has been published in the French peer-reviewed journal (article entitled: “Faire des différences. Ce que l’ethnographie nous apprend sur l’articulation des modes pluriels d’assignation”, Raisons politiques, 58, 2015, p. 75-89).
It also observed how this status acts as a constraint or as a resource, looking specifically at the modes of subjectification (Foucault 2008 & 2009). For instance, Dr Sarah Mazouz could follow the campaign for parliamentary elections in Turkey and analyse the different ways chosen by German-Turks or German from Turkish origin to take part in this process. She especially paid attention to the way in which persons who had to renounce their Turkish citizenship to be granted the German one were involved in this process. She could thus analyse how some of them try to maintain a tie with their native country through their political engagement or through their commitment to associations and NGO working in Turkey. Others among the interviewees who had to renounce their native citizenship explained how they definitely transferred their life into their “new country”. For those of them who got involved in German parties or associations, activism in a new context was also a way to keep up something from their previous life. These observations also allowed the researhcer to draw a comparison with German-Tunisians. Tunisians who are granted the German citizenship keep their Tunisian nationality because the Tunisian state does not allow renouncing to it. However, given the political regime before the revolution of December 2010-January 2011, they were dual citizens but they could only use indeed their political and civic rights as German citizens. So, the comparison between the members of the two groups showed a kind of paradox: on the one hand, there is a group where citizens who had to renounce one of their citizenship seek nevertheless to maintain a tie with their previous citizenship through political and civic activism; on the other hand, there a group of persons, who are allowed to be dual citizens without having the possibility before 2011 to use in the same way the political and civic rights related to their citizenships. The comparison and the shift produced in terms of legal consciousness and political practices for German-Tunisians will be presented on April 25 2017 at the École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales (Paris), seminar: “Histoire et sciences sociales en révolution: un paradigme tunisien?” (person in charge: Prof Jocelyne Dakhlia).
The research project “TransforNation” also questioned the impact of dual citizenship rights on everyday life (Engel & Munger 2003), beyond the only political realm. It examined how being a dual citizen can inform the ways professional trajectories and family life are conceived and lead. It paid attention to the different impact of dual citizenship on the members of the three groups chosen: given the difference of status and rights between EU- citizens and extra-EU citizens, having German citizenship does not mean the same thing for a French citizen as for a Tunisian or a Turkish one in terms of professional career for example. The considered research also looked at the intimate life in order to figure out forms of “nationality careers” (Becker 1985; Darmon 2008). What does it mean to become dual citizen? What is the impact of having to renounce one’s native citizen on the lived experience? This aspect has been presented on April 1st 2016 at the École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales, seminar “Affects” (persons in charge: Dr Sébastien Roux and Dr Mélanie Gourarier). An article drawn from this presentation is currently peer-reviewed by a French journal in anthropology.
Final results
The multidimensional model of nation proposed by this project helps to enrich the European literature on citizenship, immigration and nationhood. It provides with tool to understand the entanglement of rights recognition, rights granting through bureaucratic practices and the lived experience of those who are either granted or denied these rights. It leads to consider dual citizenship as a complex and plural topic including three major dimensions:
• Equal rights: Through this project the tension between German dual citizenship policy and the norm of equality derived from principles of citizenship and European anti-discrimination legislation has been investigated. Dual citizenship introduces indeed a realignment of citizenship understood as a status of equal membership in political communities. In the case of the German State, the very definition of dual citizenship produces inequalities between those who are automatically allowed to be dual citizens and those who must be granted an authorization. It also translates societal anxieties into exclusionary immigration law and policies.
• Recognition: the process through which dual citizenship is recognized by national State has an impact on subjectivities, lived experiences and forms of legal consciousness. Therefore, this project articulated the analysis of the public process of recognition of dual citizenship with dual citizens’ subjective process of recognition.
• (Trans)national form of citizenship: Within the reconfiguration of EU-immigration policies, citizenship policies and control of migratory flows are intertwined (Bauböck 1994). In this context, dual citizenship tends to be a transnational form of citizenship controlled by national State. As in the case of other immigration policies, dual citizenship politics shows the persistence of national sovereignty. The study led throughout this project showed how national State is affected by transnationalism and how it frames and produces, in turn, conceptions of (trans)national citizenship. Therefore the conclusive conference of the project, entitled “Transnational Politics: State Practices and Everyday Life Experiences”, was dedicated to transnational politics and opened to a wider range of cases to study both state practices and lived experiences in transnational situations. This conference was organised at the Humboldt University on September 8th and 9th 2016 in collaboration with the Centre Marc Bloch (Berlin), the ANR grant Ethopol, the AFSP network of projects on political Ethnography EthnoPol and the research program SERR on racialization in the Nordic Countries (University of Aalborg, Danmark).
Bibliography
Anderson B. (2002), L’Imaginaire national. Réflexion sur l’origine et l’essor du nationalisme, Paris, La Découverte.
Appadurai A. (1996), Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimension of Globalization, Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press.
Arnaud A.-J.(ed.) (1993), Dictionnaire encyclopédique de théorie et de sociologie du droit, Paris, LGDJ.
Avanza M. and Laferté G. (2005), “Dépasser la “construction des identities” ? Identification, image sociale, appurtenance”, Genèses. Sciences sociales et histoire, n° 61, p. 134-152.
Bar-Yaacov N. (1961), Dual Nationality, Londres, Stevens and Sons Limited.
Bauböck R. (2003), “Towards a Political Theory of Migrant Transnationalism”, International Migration Review, vol. 37, n° 3, p. 700-723.
Bauböck R. et alii (2006), Acquisition and Loss of Nationality, Volume 1: Comparative Analysis. Policies and Trends in 15 European Countries, Amsterdam, Amsterdam Universiy Press.
Bauböck R., Perchining B. and Sievers W. (eds.) (2009), Citizenship Policies in the New Europe, Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Press.
Bauböck R. and Guiraudon V. (2009), “Realignments of citizenship: Reassessing rights in the age of plural memberships and multi-level governance”, Citizenship Studies, vol. 13, p. 439-450.
Bauböck R. and Faist T (eds) (2010), Diaspora and Transnationalism. Concepts, Theories and Methods, Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Press.
Bauböck R. (2012), “Migration and Citizenship: Normative Debates”, in D. Tichenor and M. Rosenblum (eds.) Oxford Handbook on International Migration, Oxford University Press, Oxford, p. 594-613.
Batiffol H. (1974), Droit international privé, tome 1, Paris, Librairie générale de droit et de jurisprudence. Beauftragte der Bundesregierung für Migration, Flüchtlinge und Integration in Zusammenarbeit mit dem efms – Europäisches Forum für Migrationsstudien, Bamberg, Daten, Fakten, Trends. Einbürgerung, Berlin, Beauftragte der Bundesregierung für Migration, Flüchtlinge und Integration (Herausgeberin) 2005.
Becker H. (1985), Outsiders, Paris, Métailié.
Bensa A. and Fassin É. (2002), « Les sciences sociales face à l’événement », Terrain, 38, p. 5-20.
Boubakri H and Mazzella S. (2011), “L’horizon transnational d’une famille tunisienne élargie”, Autrepart, 57- 58, p. 111-126.
Bouche N. (2002), “La réforme de 1999 du droit allemand de la nationalité”, Revue internationale de droit comparé, Vol. 54, 4, p. 1035-1072.
Boos-Nünning U., Granato M. (2008), “Integration junger Menschen mit Migrationshintergrund: Ausbildungschancen und Ausbildungsorientierung”, IMIS-Beiträge, n° 34, p. 57-89.
Brodkin E. (1986), The False Promise of Administrative Reform: Implementing Quality Control in Welfare, Philadelphia, Temple University Press.
Brodkin E. (2007), “Bureaucracy redux: Management reformism and the welfare state”, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory (17), p. 1-17.
Brodkin E. (2008), Accountability in street-level bureaucracies: Issues in the analysis of organizational practice. International Journal of Public Administration. (31), p. 317-36.
Brodkin E. (2011a), “Putting street-level organizations first: New directions for research”, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. 21(2), p. 199-201.
Brodkin E. (2011b), “Policy Work: Street-Level Organizations Under New Managerialism”, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, vol. 21, suppl. 2, p. 253-277.
Brodkin E. (2012), “Les agents de terrain: Entre politiques et action publique” (“Street-Level Organizations: Between politics and public action”), Sociologies Pratiques, n° 24, p. 10-18.
Brubaker R. (1992), Citizenship and Nationhood in France and Germany, Cambridge (Mass.), Harvard University Press.
Chauvin S. (2009), “En attendant les papiers. L’affiliation bridée des migrants irréguliers aux États-Unis”, Politix, vol. 22, n° 3, p. 47-69.
Cheah P. and Robbins B. (eds.) (1998), Cosmopolitics: Thinking and Feeling Beyond the Nation, Minneapolis, University of Minesota Press.
Christe G. (2011), Notwendig, aber reformbedürftig! Die vorberufliche Bildung für Jugendliche mit Migrationshintergrund. Expertise im Auftrag des Gesprächskreises Migration und Integration der Friedrich- Ebert-Stiftung, Bonn, WISO Diskurs.
Conley J. and Richland J. (eds.) (2011), “Symposium on bureaucracy: ethnography of the State in everyday”, PoLAR, vol. 34, n° 1, p. 6-94.
Crenshaw K. (1995), “Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence Against Women of Color” in K. Crenshaw, N. Gotanda, G. Peller and K. Thomas (eds.) Critical Race Theory, New York, The New Press, p. 357-383.
Darmon M. (2008), “La notion de carrière: un instrument interactionniste d’objectivation”, Politix, vol. 82, n° 2, p. 149-168.
Das V. (1996), Critical Events: an Anthropological Perspective on Contemporary India, New York, Oxford University Press.
Das V. and Poole D. (eds.) (2004), Anthropology at the Margins of the State, Santa Fé, SAR Press.
De Hart B. en van Oers R. (2006), “European Trends in Nationality Law”, in R. Bauböck, E. Ersboll, K. Groenendijk and H. Waldruch (eds.) Acquisition and Loss of Nationality. Volume I: Comparative Analyses, Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Press, p. 317-357.
Dubois V. (2003), La Vie au guichet. Relation administrative et traitement de la misère, Paris, Economica. Elmore R. (1979), “Backward mapping. Implementation Research and Policy Decisions”, Political Science Quaterly, vol. 94, n° 4, p. 601-616.
Engel D. and Munger F. (2003), Rights of Inclusion. Law and Identity in the Life Stories of Americans with Disabilities, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.
Ewick P. and Silbey S. (1998), The Common Place of Law. Stories of Everyday Life, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.
Fassin D. (2009), “Les économies morales revisitées. Étude critique suivie de quelques propositions”, Annales. Histoire, Sciences sociales, 6, 1237-1266.
Faist T., Gerdes J. and Rieple B. (2004), “Dual Citizenship a Dependent Path-Process”, International Migration Review, 28, 3, p. 913-944.
Faist T. (2007), “The fixed and Porous Boundaries of Dual Citizenship”, in Thomas Faist (ed.) Dual Citizenship in Europe. From nationhood to Societal Integration, Aldershot, Ashgate, 2007, p. 1-43.
Foucault M. (2008), Le Gouvernement de soi et des autres. Cours au Collège de France (1982-1983), Paris, Hautes Études, Gallimard, Seuil.
Foucault M. (2009), Le Courage de la vérité. Le gouvernement de soi et des autres II. Cours au Collège de France (1983-1984), Paris, Hautes Études, Gallimard, Seuil.
Foucault M. (2001), “Le souci de vérité”, Dits et écrits II, Paris, Gallimard, p. 1487-1497.
Gilboy J. (1991), “Deciding Who Gets in: Decision Making by Immigration Inspectors”, Law and Society Review, vol. 25, n° 3, p. 571-600.
Goffman E. (1975), Stigmate. Les usages sociaux des handicaps, Paris, Minuit.
Gordillo G. (2006), “The crucible of citizenship : ID-paper fetishism in the Agentinean Chaco”, American Ethnologist, vol. 33, n° 2, p. 162-176.
Götz I. (2011), Deutsche Identitäten. Die Wiederebtdeckung des Nationalen nach 1989, Cologne, Weimar, Vienna, Böhlau.
Green S. (2005), “Between Ideology and Pragmatism : The Politics of Dual Citizenship in Germany”, International Migration Review 39, n° 4. p. 921-952.
Hailbronner K. (2002), “Germany’s Citizenship Law under Immigration Pressure”, in R. Hansen and P. Weil (eds.) (2002), Dual Nationality, Social Rights and Federal Citizenship in the US and in Europe. The Reinvention of Citizenship, New York and Oxford, Berghahn Books, p. 121-135.
Hansen R. and Weil P. (eds.) (1999), Nationalité et citoyenneté en Europe, Paris, La Découverte.
Hansen R. and Weil P. (eds.) (2002), Dual Nationality, Social Rights and Federal Citizenship in the US and in Europe. The Reinvention of Citizenship, New York and Oxford, Berghahn Books.
Honneth A. (1996), The Struggle for Recognition: The Moral Grammar of Social Conflicts, MIT Press. Infantino F. and Rea A. (2012), “La Mobilisation d’un Savoir Pratique Local: Attribution des Visas Schenghen au Consulat Général de Belgique à Casablanca”, Sociologies pratiques, n° 24, p. 67-78.
Joppke, C. (2003), “Citizenship Between De- and Re-ethnicisation (I)”, Archives européennes de sociologie, 44, p. 429-458.
Kalekin-Fishmann D. and Pritkänen P. eds (2008), An Emerging Instituion ? Multiple Citizenship in Europ : Views of officials, Bern, P. Lang.
Kastoryano K. (2002), “Türken mit Deutschem Pass: Sociological and Political aspects of Dual Nationality in Germany”, in R. Hansen P. Weil (eds.) Dual Nationality, Social Rights and Federal Citizenship in the US and in Europe. Reinvention of Citizenship, New York and Oxford, Berghahn Books, p. 158-176.
Keller C. (2009), “Strategien und Faktoren der Partizipation von Jugendlichen mit Migrationshintergrund im Blickfeld von SozialexpertInnen. Erste Ergebnisse eines deutschen-französischen Vergleichsprojekts”, Revue d’Allemagne et des pays de langue allemande, vol. 41, n° 3. p. 409-431.
Koopmans R. and Statham P. “Challenging the Liberal Nation-State? Postnationalism, Multiculturalism, and the Collective Claims Making of Migrants and Ethnic Minorities in Britain and Germany”, American Journal of Sociology, vol. 105, n° 3, p. 652-696.
R. Koopmans, I. Michalowski and S. Waibel (2012), “Citizenship Rights for Immigrants: National Political Processes and Cross-National Convergence in Western Europe 1980-2008”, American Journal of Sociology, vol. 117, n° 4, p. 1202-1245.
Lipsky M. (1980), Street-Level Bureaucracy. Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services, New York, Russell Sage Foundation.
Mazouz S. (2010), “La République et ses autres. Politiques de la discrimination et pratiques de naturalisation dans la France des années 2000”, PhD Dissertation, Paris, EHESS.
Mazouz S. (2012), ““Une faveur que vous a accordée la République” ou comment la naturalisation se mérite” in D. Fassin and J.-S. Eideliman (eds.) Économies morales contemporaines, Paris, La Découverte, 2012, p. 137-154.
McC Heyman J. (1995), “Putting Power in the Anthropology of Bureaucracy: The Immigration and Naturalization Service at the Mexico-United States Border”, Current Anthropology, vol. 36, n° 2, p. 261- 287.
Michalowski I. (2007), Integration als Staatsprogramm. Deutschland, Frankreich und die Niederlande im Vergleich, Dissertation, Münster, Lit Verlag.
Michalowski I. (2010), “Integration tests in Germany. A communitarian approach?” in E. Ersbøll, D. Kostakopoulou, R. van Oers (eds.) A Re-definition of Belonging? Language and Integration Tests in Europe, Leiden, Brill Publishers, p. 185-210.
Michalowski I. (2011), “Required to assimilate? The content of citizenship tests in five countries”, Citizenship Studies, vol. 15, n° 6-7, p. 749-768.
Murji K. and Solomos J. (eds.) (2005), Racialization. Studies in Theory and Practice, Oxford, OUP.
Noiriel G. (1995), “Socio-histoire d’un concept. Les usages du mot “nationalité” au XIXe siècle”, Genèses.
Sciences sociales et histoire, n° 20, p. 4-23.
Pratt A. (1999), “Dunking the Doughnut: Discretionary Power, Law, and the Administration of the Canadian Immigration Act”, Social and Legal Studies, vol. 8, n° 2, p. 199-226.
Renault E. (2004), Mépris Social: Éthique et Politique de la Reconnaissance, Paris, Édition du Passant. Renault E. and Zeneidi-Henry D. (2008), “Formes de reconnaissance conflictuelle: relations sociales, appropriation de territoire, culture et politique dans un groupe de punks squatters” in A. Battegay and J.-P. Payet (Eds.) La Reconnaissance à l'Épreuve. Explorations socio-anthropologiques, Lille, Presses Universitaires du Septentrion.
Sassen S., Denationalization: Territory, Authority and Rights in a Global Digital Age, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 2005.
Sayad A. (1999), La Double Absence. Des illusions de l’émigré aux souffrances de l’immigré, Paris, Seuil, coll. “Liber”, 1999.
Scott J.W. (1988), “Genre. Catégorie d’analyse historique”, Les cahiers du GRIF, n° 37-38, p. 1-20.
Spire A. (2005), Étrangers à la carte. L’administration de l’immigration en France (1945-1975), Paris, Grasset.
Spire A. (2008), Accueillir ou reconduire. Une enquête sur les guichets de l’immigration, Paris, Raisons d’agir.
Tussi I, Jossin A., Keller C. and Groh-Samberg O. (2011), “Success Despite Starting Out at a Disadvantage: What Helps Second-Generation Migrants in France and Germany?”, DIW Economic Bulletin.
Watkins-Hayes C. (2009), The New Welfare Bureaucrats: Entanglements of Race, Class, and Policy Reform, Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
Weil P. (2012), The Souvereign Citizen: Denaturaliszation and the Origins of the American, Penn Press.
Werner M. and Zimmermann B. (2006), “Beyond comparison: Histoire croisée and the challenge of reflexivity”, History and Theory, vol. 45, n° 1, 2006, p. 30-50.
West C. and Fenstermaker S. (1995), “Doing Difference”, Gender and Society, vol. 9, n° 1, p. 8-37.
Wonk O. (2012), Dual Nationality in the European Union: a Study on Changin Norms in Public and Private International Law and in Municipal Laws of Four EU Member States, Leiden, Boston, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
Worbs S., Scholz A. and Blicke S. (2012), Die Optionsregelung im Staatsangehörigkeitsrecht aus der Sicht von Betroffenen. Qualitative Studie, Nürnberg, Bundesant für Migration und Flüchtlinge.
Wrench J. and Solomos J. (eds.) (1993), Racism and Migration in Western Europe, Oxford, Berg.
• The potential impact (including the socio-economic impact and the wider societal implications of the project so far) and the main dissemination activities and exploitation of results (not exceeding 10 pages).
Potential impact of the project
Through an original approach to dual citizenship issues, mixing archival researches, as well as ethnographic and biographic approaches, the researcher has mapped the critical moments in the history of German citizenship politics, which allow the understanding of a major political trajectory. To what extent does Germany conceives itself as a country of immigration? How is this acknowledgment intertwined with the bureaucratic practices of granting German citizenship? What kind of impact do these debates and administrative practices have on the subjectivities of German born in Germany to foreign-national parents or on naturalised German nationals, depending on their being dual citizens or not?
The researcher Dr Sarah Mazouz has conducted ethnographic researches mixing interviews and observations. These methods helped strengthen the understanding of the main hypothesis of the project.
In the preparatory phase of her research, the hypothesis of Dr. Sarah Mazouz was that the tolerance for dual citizenship was articulated to a growing importance of naturalization procedure in the way to make foreign national into German citizens.
However, while the number of naturalization is important (112 350 in 2013, source: Statistisches Bundesamt; in France for the same year, there were 52 207 naturalizations stricto sensu and a total of 97 318 acquisitions of French citizenship), this growing importance has not led to allow Non-EU persons who are granted German citizenship to keep automatically their native nationality.
After the elections of 2013, nothing has been made indeed for dual citizenship in the case of naturalization. Naturalization remains a selective procedure that requires from extra-EU applicant to give up their native citizenship. This has an impact in terms of equal rights since Non-EU applicants are not administrated in the same way as EU-applicants to German citizenship. This requirement of renouncing one’s native citizenship is also one of the main reason why non-EU nationals living in Germany decide not to apply to German citizenship even when they have built their professional and family life in this country. Thus, this produces a situation where people living in Germany and contributing to its social and economical life are not fully granted with political rights.
Since the elections of 2013, the only full recognition of this status concerns in fact jus soli. Thus, while jus soli was used to oppose French and German citizenship conception, it has now become the focus point between the two countries. Criteria set in France at the end of the 1990’s to restrict the acquisition of citizenship by birth on the territory are those introduced by the German law of July 7th 2014 to cancel the Optionspflicht and set a full jus soli.
The main contribution of the project “TransforNation” is thus to highlight the complexity of the configuration of dual citizenship issues in Germany. It helps to show how dual citizenship has been finally fully accepted in the case of the birth on the German territory. This recognition has introduced thus a redefinition of the way in which German nationhood has been so far conceived as merely grounded on jus sanguinis. On the contrary, the granting of German citizenship through naturalization remains grounded on the requirement of the full allegiance to Germany. Therefore, except some limited cases, applicants to German citizenship through naturalization must give up their native citizenship. Still, in a paradoxical way, this requirement of allegiance limits the naturalization procedure to an administrative check while in countries where only the loyalty of the applicant is expected the procedure turns to be an ordeal. In the case of Germany, the bureaucrats of the naturalization offices only have to check that the requirements are fulfilled without having to assess the person of the applicant.
At the end of the fellowship period, Dr Sarah Mazouz will be able to edit a book on transnational politics. She will also publish a monograph on the redefinition of citizenship laws and practices in Germany.
These research and the related activities of publication and dissemination of the results will permit to introduce in the field of citizenship studies an analysis of dual citizenship leaning on ethnography and articulating both state practices and everyday life experiences. Since such study of this topic isn’t available, it will fill a real void.
The project “TransforNation” has also a wider societal impact given the reconfiguration of immigration policies in the EU and its deeper articulation with citizenship and belongings policies, following the so-called “Migrant crisis” during the summer of 2015. It is indeed assumed that most of the people who arrived in Germany and were granted the status of refugee will then apply to German citizenship. This research provides tools to understand how German citizenship is granted and how dual citizenship regulation is now conceived and how it might be redefined or changed. By focusing on the trajectories of dual citizens and on the path of those who had to renounce their native citizenship to become German, this project also makes aware of forms of racial discrimination that go beyond the distinction between national and foreigners. It makes thus clear that the full recognition of dual citizenship fosters equal right and prepares a deeper commitment for the State and the civil society in implementing policies and tool against discriminations.
Built on political anthropology of the State, this project focuses on present-day Germany to see how issues about the recognition of this status can be understood within the reconfiguration of EU-immigration policies. Through an ethnographic approach, it studies both dual citizenship politics and experiences to build a multi-dimensional model of nation and immigration issues in the European context. First, it examines the moments of problematisation of a dual citizenship issue in Germany, between 1989 and the most recent controversy concerning its full recognition in spring 2013. Historical and political transformation of society and the democratic configuration of German politics will be used to enlighten these moments of problematisation. Secondly, it analyses the discursive strategies and collective actions that aim at the full recognition of dual citizenship. Thirdly, it studies the legal and administrative practices that frame the way in which German State tolerates dual citizenship. Fourthly, it explores, through personal narratives, the everyday experience of German dual citizens with different backgrounds to show how gender, race and social class guide the uses of dual citizenship. With a comparative approach to differentiated migration experiences, this project explores how dual citizen’s status may weave into patterns of everyday life.
This project also offers a challenge to anthropology. Indeed, the timeline engages analyses with the responsibility of naming and defining the issues about dual citizenship in Germany in the light of today’s controversies and dynamics of power. This occurs not only after political initiatives have been activated, but through accompanying them and even in some ways contributing to them. As such, my research explores the relationships between anthropology as a project of understanding and politics.
Thus, both in its empirical dimension as in its theoretical dimension, the project, “TransforNation”, filled a real void since there are no comprehensive scientific and methodical studies that propose an approach to dual citizenship at the intersection between political anthropology of the State and ethnography of everyday life and subjectivities.
• A summary description of project context and objectives (not exceeding 4 pages).
Context of the project
The German context is a particularly interesting case to study, as one must consider the tradition of high hostility to dual citizenship and the strong and political dominance of parties, such as the CDU and the CSU, opposed to the recognition of this status. They have a majority in Parliament. They still influence the German parliamentary system and reject claims in favour of recognizing dual citizenship. In this context, dual citizenship remains a controversial issue as citizens of two States are more or less explicitly suspected of dual allegiance. This process of stigmatization was particularly present at the end of the 1990’s, during the debates that led up to the Gesetz zur Reform des Staatsangehörigkeitrechts and rejected the possibility of the full recognition of dual citizenship by the German State. In the context of the federal parliamentary elections of 2013, the recognition of dual citizenship was again at stake in the political and social debate. In February 2013, the Minister of Justice, Sabine Leuthesser-Schnarrenberger, FDP (Freie Demokratische Partei) member of the governing coalition challenged Angela Merkel and said that allowing dual citizenship would help promoting integration of migrants while the Chancellor remained opposed to this recognition. In May 2013, Philipp Rösler, the German vice Chancellor who is of the FDP, staked out a position on the issue as he demanded that the foreign-nationals were allowed to keep their native citizenship when they became German.
Despite these controversies and oppositions, German nationality law has slowly shifted as well as the position of political parties such as the CDU. Indeed, through a convergent trend to EU-countries, reforms of nationality laws were used as a tool for the integration of foreign-nationals and their children (Bauböck, Ersbøll, Groenendijk & Waldrauch 2006). These reforms aimed either at introducing jus soli principle in order to give citizenship to second-generation, or at reducing the required time of residency to be naturalized, or at recognizing or tolerating dual citizenship (Joppke 2003; de Hart van Oers 2006). In the case of Germany, the reform of Nationality Law of December 10th 1974 equalised the rights between men and women as to passing nationality on to their children. This reform led to the recognition of dual citizenship for children of couples of different nationalities. The recognition of jus soli introduced by the reform of Nationality Law of July 15th 1999 (Gesetz zur Reform des Staatsangehörigkeitrechts) was first articulated to a limited tolerance of dual citizenship for extra-EU nationals. Indeed, at the age of majority, children born in Germany to foreign-parents had to renounce their native citizenship to be allowed to keep their German citizenship. This obligation to choose was called Optionspflicht and it was cancelled by the Law of July 7th 2014. Since then the German state fully recognizes dual citizenship in the case of jus soli. It only regulates this status in the case of naturalization. Unless they are not allowed by their native country to renounce their citizenship of origin or they prove they might lose social and civil rights, Non-EU citizens who are made into German-nationals must give their native citizenship up. Thus, today only naturalization requires full allegiance to the German state. Therefore tis procedure has become a laboratory to understand how and in which conditions German citizenship is granted and dual citizenship accepted.
Objectives
Through the study of dual citizenship politics and experiences in Germany, the project aimed to contribute to the sociological understanding of transnational forms of citizenship within the EU. It introduced both dual citizenship politics and experience as a topic.
•It sought to enlighten different moments in the problematisation of dual citizenship issues in Germany.
Historical and political contexts contribute to the way in which dual citizenship is problematized. The research established the conditions of emergence of a dual citizenship issue in Germany in the second half of twentieth century as to provide a map of different political and historical moments in the German democratic context. These moments of problematisation correspond to temporal boundaries within which values, norms, feelings and emotions are involved and frame issues on dual citizenship. Drawn on a critical moral anthropology approach, Dr Sarah Mazouz attempted to comprehend the moral boundaries and stakes that arose during controversies. Her research also aimed to analyse the moral economy of dual citizenship in Germany and the ways that the political intersects with moral issues. As she already highlighted the impact of such controversies on practices and subjectivities in another social and national context, Dr Sarah Mazouz intended to show how such events guide bureaucratic treatment of dual citizenship and shift dual citizens’ experiences.
•It sought to study the administration of dual citizenship in the case of the naturalization. The emergence of dual citizenship politics is generally understood as the introduction of new norms in international and municipal law and in national State. The existing studies in political science and in political sociology contribute to elucidate some of the more structural and institutional aspects. However the main contribution of the project led by Dr Sarah Mazouz is to lean on ethnography to question the way in which dual citizenship policies are implemented. The ethnographical fieldwork carried out with bureaucrats in charge of naturalization and dual citizenship authorizations helped examine how they translate into practice Nationality and Immigration policies. The bottom-up approach followed also enlightened how the practices of these bureaucrats determine policies and guide the way in which (future) dual citizens act. It makes fully understand implicit and explicit values and categorizations involved in the administration of dual citizens. It questions the levels and relationships of power, with particular attention to the encompassing classifications and assumptions embodied in Street-level bureaucrats’ worldviews and practices.
• It sought to understand the lived experience of dual citizens
This innovative study of dual citizenship leant on political anthropology of the State, a theoretical and methodological approach already developed by Dr Sarah Mazouz. As this approach focuses on both institutions and subjects, the project “TransforNation” also explored the impact of identity documents on the way dual citizens experience their status. This relation to German ID-documents has been linked to the way in which the recognition of dual citizenship was socially and politically problematized for each of the three groups of dual citizens selected (German-French, German-Tunisian and German-Turk or German from Turkish origin). The empirical study of dual citizenship also addressed the social significance of law for dual citizens. It aimed to question the kind of legal consciousness produced by this status as it treated dual citizens’ everyday relation to the law. Thus it investigates the difference between the three groups of dual citizens chosen in relation to how they become dual citizens.
Beyond the anthropology of dual citizenship administration, this project studies the impact of a legal status on different aspects of social life. On the one hand, it questioned the ways in which the intersectional aspects of ascriptions such as gender, race and social class guide the uses of dual citizenship and turn this status either into a constraint or into a resource. On the other hand, it investigated the impact of dual citizenship rights on everyday life to analyse citizenship practices beyond the fact of only considering the political realm.
• A description of the main S&T results/foregrounds (not exceeding 25 pages), Work performed during the project
Dr Sarah Mazouz managed to conduct archival work at the Bundestag and interviews with MP and persons in charge of migration and citizenship issues in the political parties and in associations.
She also had access to reports of the Bundestag on the situation of Foreigners in Germany and working documents on the Naturalization policy from parliamentary groups.
This part of the research was also completed by a regular press review to follow the on-going debates on migration and citizenship policy in Germany.
To enlighten different moments in the problematisation of dual citizenship issues, Dr Sarah Mazouz has also carried out interviews with members of the work team of the federal “Beauftragte für Migration, Flüchtlinge und Integration”.
To explore the bureaucratic treatment of dual citizenship, Dr Sarah Mazouz led fieldwork in different Naturalization offices. Given that the naturalization procedure is coordinated at the municipal level in one of the selected cities, Dr Sarah Mazouz chose two districts with an important population of migrants and foreigners and two others where migrants and foreigners are fewer. This part of the fieldwork was completed from November 2015 on by fieldwork in other States (Länder) in Germany.
Dr Sarah Mazouz could also carry out several biographical interviews with dual citizens from the three defined groups. She also could meet with people who had to give up their native citizenship when they became German and with other who decided not to become German nationals because this would have meant for them the loss of their native citizenship.
This empirical aspect of the research has also been completed by new reading in the field of social, anthropological and political studies and establishing a completed bibliography of the existing literature on (dual) citizenship policies in Germany.
Main results achieved
•Moments in the problematisation of dual citizenship issues.
Historical and political contexts contribute to the way in which dual citizenship is problematized (Foucault 2001). During its first empirical phase, the research established the conditions of emergence of a dual citizenship issue in Germany in the second half of twentieth century as to provide a map of different political and historical moments in the German democratic context. For example, it focused on the role of the German reunification in the emergence of issues concerning citizenship, nationality and belonging. It also tried to dig out how gender equality and citizenship issues are intertwined. The detailed study of archives at the Bundestag and interviews with MP and persons in charge of migration and citizenship issues in the political parties and in associations allowed to show how gender issues also took part in the redefinition of German logics of belonging. In
the case of Germany, the reform of Nationality Law of December 10th 1974 equalised the rights between men and women as to passing nationality on to their children. This reform was driven by the measures against gender discrimination adopted in the 1970 by the European Union. One of the consequences of this reform was the recognition of dual citizenship for children of couples of different nationalities. It was the first step to consider that there were different ways of being German and once Germany was unified anew, it was possible to open the debate to other means of being granted the German citizenship.
The analysis of the role played by gender issues in the redefinition of German citizenship politics has been presented and discussed at the 7th International Conference of Feminist Francophone Studies that took place in Montreal from August 24th to August 28th 2015 (paper entitled in French: “Double nationalité en acte. Injonctions de genre et assignations raciales dans les pratiques de nationalité en Allemagne”).
These moments of problematisation correspond to temporal boundaries within which values, norms, feelings and emotions are involved and frame issues on dual citizenship. Drawn on a critical moral anthropology approach developed during her former post- doctoral fellowship in the ERC program MORALS – Towards a Critical Moral Anthropology, Dr Sarah Mazouz attempted to comprehend the moral boundaries and stakes that arose during controversies. Her research also aimed to analyse the moral economy (Fassin 2009) of dual citizenship in Germany and the ways that the political intersects with moral issues. As she already highlighted the impact of such controversies on practices and subjectivities in another social and national context (Mazouz 2007), Dr Sarah Mazouz intended to show how such events (Bensa & Fassin 2002) guide bureaucratic treatment of dual citizenship and shift dual citizens’ experiences.
The analysis of the moralization of dual citizenship issues was the argument of the multi- disciplinary workshop entitled “Citizenship Loyalties” and organised at the Humboldt University on June 15th 2016 in collaboration with the research program Ethopol funded by the French National Agency for research (ANR) and with ethnoPol the Association française de science politique network of projects on political ethnography.
•Dual citizenship in the light of bureaucratic practices
The emergence of dual citizenship politics is generally understood as the introduction of new norms in international and municipal law (Vonk 2012) and in national State (Kalekin- Fisheman & Ptikänen 2008). Many studies in political science and in political sociology have shown how the recognition of this status was a path-dependent process including national states, transnational institutions and diasporas’ communities (Faist, Gerdes & Rieple 2004; Bauböck & Faist 2010). Each of these studies contributes to elucidate some of the more structural and institutional aspects. However, none of these studies is able to provide an empirically based approach of administering dual citizenship. Therefore the project led by Dr Sarah Mazouz leant on ethnography to question the way in which dual citizenship policies are implemented (Elmore 1979). The ethnographical fieldwork carried out with bureaucrats in charge of naturalization and dual citizenship authorizations helped examine how they translate into practice Nationality and Immigration policies (Brodkin 2011a & 2012, Infantino & Rea 2012). This ethnographical fieldwork also included the analysis of German citizenship tests. As she did in the case of French “entretiens d’assimilation linguistique” (Mazouz 2010 & 2012), analysis of German written tests and interviews with assessors permitted to understand the conception of citizenship conveyed during all the process of naturalization (Michalowski 2007, 2010 & 2011). It allowed putting it in relation with the bureaucratic practices observed. The bottom-up approach followed also enlightened how the practices of these bureaucrats determine policies and guide the way in which (future) dual citizens act. It makes fully understand implicit and explicit values and categorizations involved in the administration of dual citizens (Gilboy 1991). It questions the levels and relationships of power, with particular attention to the encompassing classifications and assumptions embodied in Street-level bureaucrats’ worldviews and practices (McC Heyman 1995).
The research activities allowed the researcher to underline some critical concepts to understand how the granting of German citizenship to foreign nationals is conceived by the German state. In particular, Dr Sarah Mazouz worked with the notions of allegiance and loyalty to analyse the still limited recognition of dual citizenship. Indeed, in the case of naturalization, applicants to German citizenship are mostly required to give up their native citizenship to be allowed to become German citizen. In other terms, they have to show their full allegiance to Germany. However, while this requirement is stricter and more constraining, bureaucratic practices appears to be less discretionary in the case of naturalization in Germany than in France to compare with a case studied previously by Dr Sarah Mazouz. The officers only have indeed to check that the requirements are fulfilled without having to assess in a more vague way the applicant’s loyalty. Observations and interviews led in naturalization offices helped thus the researcher to highlight, in a renewed way, how allegiance or loyalty may frame citizenship granting in different national contexts.
The analysis of these two concepts helped the researcher to take part to the debate about citizenship deprivation in France by drawing a comparison between German and French naturalization (see: http://mouvements.info/politiques-de-la-delegitimation-de-la-remise-en-cause-de-la-double-nationalite-au-projet-dextension-de-la-decheance-de-nationalite/). She also drew a comparison between French and German national anxieties. The first draft of this analysis has been presented during the conclusive conference she organized at the Humboldt University on September 8th and 9th 2016. This text entitled « Loyalty and Allegiance. National Anxiety in France and Germany » is to be submitted to an English speaking peer-reviewed journal.
This critical work also allowed Dr Sarah Mazouz to present a paper at the annual ICON-S International Conference (The International Society of Public) that took place at the Humboldt University on June 17-19 2016. In the presentation she gave, she compared French and German legal definition of naturalization and the impact of these different definitions on bureaucratic practices (paper entitled: “Favor as a Frame: Logics of Belonging and Exclusion in French Practices of citizenship” to be submitted to a peer- reviewed journal).
•The lived experience of dual citizens
Beyond the anthropology of dual citizenship administration, this project studied the impact of a legal status on different aspects of social life. It investigated how intersectional ascriptions guide the uses of dual citizenship and turn this status either into a constraint or into a resource. This allowed showing how the social uses of this legal status are intertwined with gender, racialisation class and age. It explored thus the discriminations produced by such categorizations. The project also analysed the impact of dual citizenship rights on everyday life, paying special attention to the forms of legal consciousness produced by the entanglement of legal status and life experience.
This innovative study of dual citizenship leant on political anthropology of the State, a theoretical and methodological approach already developed by Dr Sarah Mazouz. As this approach focuses on both institutions and subjects, the project “TransforNation” also explored the impact of identity documents on the way dual citizens experience their status (Gordillo 2006; Coutin & Yngvesson 2006; Green 2012). This relation to German ID- documents has been linked to the way in which the recognition of dual citizenship was socially and politically problematized for each of the three groups of dual citizens selected (German-French, German-Tunisian and German-Turk or German from Turkish origin). The empirical study of dual citizenship addressed the social significance of law (Garth & Sarat 1998; Coutin 2000; Israël, Sacriste, Vauchez & Willemez 2005) for dual citizens. It questioned the kind of legal consciousness produced by this status. It also treated dual citizens’ everyday relation to the law (Ewick & Silbey 1998). Dr Sarah Mazouz thus investigated the difference between the three groups of dual citizens chosen in relation to how they become dual citizens. She highlighted the relation between the kind of rights provided by their native citizenships and the change of status introduced by being granted German citizenship in order to set different ways of being related to the law and to legality. She showed thus how the entanglement of legal status and everyday life experience produces legal consciousness. This appeared very clearly in interviews led with French- German since the two citizenships give the same rights, ID-documents are less important and they are disconnected from the process by which one identifies her or himself. By contrast, for dual citizens whose citizenships don’t give the same rights, ID-documents are constitutive of their legal consciousness since they play an important role in their way to conceive their everyday life and thus to identify. A first version of this analysis was presented at the 6th Conference of the Association française de sociologie that took place in Paris from June 29th to July 2nd 2015 (paper entitled: “Les usages sociaux de la double nationalité au prisme des parcours biographiques”).
Beyond the anthropology of dual citizenship administration, this project sought to study the impact of a legal status on several aspects of social life. It investigated the ways in which the intersectional aspects (Crenshaw 1995; West & Fenstermaker 1995) of ascriptions such as gender, race and social class guide the uses of dual citizenship and turn this status either into a constraint or into a resource. It renewed the approaches on dual citizenship as it showed how the social uses of this legal status are intertwined with gender, racialisation (Murji and Solomos 2005), class and age, and it explores the discriminations produced by such categorizations. The study of intersectional aspects in the lived life of dual citizens has been published in the French peer-reviewed journal (article entitled: “Faire des différences. Ce que l’ethnographie nous apprend sur l’articulation des modes pluriels d’assignation”, Raisons politiques, 58, 2015, p. 75-89).
It also observed how this status acts as a constraint or as a resource, looking specifically at the modes of subjectification (Foucault 2008 & 2009). For instance, Dr Sarah Mazouz could follow the campaign for parliamentary elections in Turkey and analyse the different ways chosen by German-Turks or German from Turkish origin to take part in this process. She especially paid attention to the way in which persons who had to renounce their Turkish citizenship to be granted the German one were involved in this process. She could thus analyse how some of them try to maintain a tie with their native country through their political engagement or through their commitment to associations and NGO working in Turkey. Others among the interviewees who had to renounce their native citizenship explained how they definitely transferred their life into their “new country”. For those of them who got involved in German parties or associations, activism in a new context was also a way to keep up something from their previous life. These observations also allowed the researhcer to draw a comparison with German-Tunisians. Tunisians who are granted the German citizenship keep their Tunisian nationality because the Tunisian state does not allow renouncing to it. However, given the political regime before the revolution of December 2010-January 2011, they were dual citizens but they could only use indeed their political and civic rights as German citizens. So, the comparison between the members of the two groups showed a kind of paradox: on the one hand, there is a group where citizens who had to renounce one of their citizenship seek nevertheless to maintain a tie with their previous citizenship through political and civic activism; on the other hand, there a group of persons, who are allowed to be dual citizens without having the possibility before 2011 to use in the same way the political and civic rights related to their citizenships. The comparison and the shift produced in terms of legal consciousness and political practices for German-Tunisians will be presented on April 25 2017 at the École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales (Paris), seminar: “Histoire et sciences sociales en révolution: un paradigme tunisien?” (person in charge: Prof Jocelyne Dakhlia).
The research project “TransforNation” also questioned the impact of dual citizenship rights on everyday life (Engel & Munger 2003), beyond the only political realm. It examined how being a dual citizen can inform the ways professional trajectories and family life are conceived and lead. It paid attention to the different impact of dual citizenship on the members of the three groups chosen: given the difference of status and rights between EU- citizens and extra-EU citizens, having German citizenship does not mean the same thing for a French citizen as for a Tunisian or a Turkish one in terms of professional career for example. The considered research also looked at the intimate life in order to figure out forms of “nationality careers” (Becker 1985; Darmon 2008). What does it mean to become dual citizen? What is the impact of having to renounce one’s native citizen on the lived experience? This aspect has been presented on April 1st 2016 at the École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales, seminar “Affects” (persons in charge: Dr Sébastien Roux and Dr Mélanie Gourarier). An article drawn from this presentation is currently peer-reviewed by a French journal in anthropology.
Final results
The multidimensional model of nation proposed by this project helps to enrich the European literature on citizenship, immigration and nationhood. It provides with tool to understand the entanglement of rights recognition, rights granting through bureaucratic practices and the lived experience of those who are either granted or denied these rights. It leads to consider dual citizenship as a complex and plural topic including three major dimensions:
• Equal rights: Through this project the tension between German dual citizenship policy and the norm of equality derived from principles of citizenship and European anti-discrimination legislation has been investigated. Dual citizenship introduces indeed a realignment of citizenship understood as a status of equal membership in political communities. In the case of the German State, the very definition of dual citizenship produces inequalities between those who are automatically allowed to be dual citizens and those who must be granted an authorization. It also translates societal anxieties into exclusionary immigration law and policies.
• Recognition: the process through which dual citizenship is recognized by national State has an impact on subjectivities, lived experiences and forms of legal consciousness. Therefore, this project articulated the analysis of the public process of recognition of dual citizenship with dual citizens’ subjective process of recognition.
• (Trans)national form of citizenship: Within the reconfiguration of EU-immigration policies, citizenship policies and control of migratory flows are intertwined (Bauböck 1994). In this context, dual citizenship tends to be a transnational form of citizenship controlled by national State. As in the case of other immigration policies, dual citizenship politics shows the persistence of national sovereignty. The study led throughout this project showed how national State is affected by transnationalism and how it frames and produces, in turn, conceptions of (trans)national citizenship. Therefore the conclusive conference of the project, entitled “Transnational Politics: State Practices and Everyday Life Experiences”, was dedicated to transnational politics and opened to a wider range of cases to study both state practices and lived experiences in transnational situations. This conference was organised at the Humboldt University on September 8th and 9th 2016 in collaboration with the Centre Marc Bloch (Berlin), the ANR grant Ethopol, the AFSP network of projects on political Ethnography EthnoPol and the research program SERR on racialization in the Nordic Countries (University of Aalborg, Danmark).
Bibliography
Anderson B. (2002), L’Imaginaire national. Réflexion sur l’origine et l’essor du nationalisme, Paris, La Découverte.
Appadurai A. (1996), Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimension of Globalization, Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press.
Arnaud A.-J.(ed.) (1993), Dictionnaire encyclopédique de théorie et de sociologie du droit, Paris, LGDJ.
Avanza M. and Laferté G. (2005), “Dépasser la “construction des identities” ? Identification, image sociale, appurtenance”, Genèses. Sciences sociales et histoire, n° 61, p. 134-152.
Bar-Yaacov N. (1961), Dual Nationality, Londres, Stevens and Sons Limited.
Bauböck R. (2003), “Towards a Political Theory of Migrant Transnationalism”, International Migration Review, vol. 37, n° 3, p. 700-723.
Bauböck R. et alii (2006), Acquisition and Loss of Nationality, Volume 1: Comparative Analysis. Policies and Trends in 15 European Countries, Amsterdam, Amsterdam Universiy Press.
Bauböck R., Perchining B. and Sievers W. (eds.) (2009), Citizenship Policies in the New Europe, Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Press.
Bauböck R. and Guiraudon V. (2009), “Realignments of citizenship: Reassessing rights in the age of plural memberships and multi-level governance”, Citizenship Studies, vol. 13, p. 439-450.
Bauböck R. and Faist T (eds) (2010), Diaspora and Transnationalism. Concepts, Theories and Methods, Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Press.
Bauböck R. (2012), “Migration and Citizenship: Normative Debates”, in D. Tichenor and M. Rosenblum (eds.) Oxford Handbook on International Migration, Oxford University Press, Oxford, p. 594-613.
Batiffol H. (1974), Droit international privé, tome 1, Paris, Librairie générale de droit et de jurisprudence. Beauftragte der Bundesregierung für Migration, Flüchtlinge und Integration in Zusammenarbeit mit dem efms – Europäisches Forum für Migrationsstudien, Bamberg, Daten, Fakten, Trends. Einbürgerung, Berlin, Beauftragte der Bundesregierung für Migration, Flüchtlinge und Integration (Herausgeberin) 2005.
Becker H. (1985), Outsiders, Paris, Métailié.
Bensa A. and Fassin É. (2002), « Les sciences sociales face à l’événement », Terrain, 38, p. 5-20.
Boubakri H and Mazzella S. (2011), “L’horizon transnational d’une famille tunisienne élargie”, Autrepart, 57- 58, p. 111-126.
Bouche N. (2002), “La réforme de 1999 du droit allemand de la nationalité”, Revue internationale de droit comparé, Vol. 54, 4, p. 1035-1072.
Boos-Nünning U., Granato M. (2008), “Integration junger Menschen mit Migrationshintergrund: Ausbildungschancen und Ausbildungsorientierung”, IMIS-Beiträge, n° 34, p. 57-89.
Brodkin E. (1986), The False Promise of Administrative Reform: Implementing Quality Control in Welfare, Philadelphia, Temple University Press.
Brodkin E. (2007), “Bureaucracy redux: Management reformism and the welfare state”, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory (17), p. 1-17.
Brodkin E. (2008), Accountability in street-level bureaucracies: Issues in the analysis of organizational practice. International Journal of Public Administration. (31), p. 317-36.
Brodkin E. (2011a), “Putting street-level organizations first: New directions for research”, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. 21(2), p. 199-201.
Brodkin E. (2011b), “Policy Work: Street-Level Organizations Under New Managerialism”, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, vol. 21, suppl. 2, p. 253-277.
Brodkin E. (2012), “Les agents de terrain: Entre politiques et action publique” (“Street-Level Organizations: Between politics and public action”), Sociologies Pratiques, n° 24, p. 10-18.
Brubaker R. (1992), Citizenship and Nationhood in France and Germany, Cambridge (Mass.), Harvard University Press.
Chauvin S. (2009), “En attendant les papiers. L’affiliation bridée des migrants irréguliers aux États-Unis”, Politix, vol. 22, n° 3, p. 47-69.
Cheah P. and Robbins B. (eds.) (1998), Cosmopolitics: Thinking and Feeling Beyond the Nation, Minneapolis, University of Minesota Press.
Christe G. (2011), Notwendig, aber reformbedürftig! Die vorberufliche Bildung für Jugendliche mit Migrationshintergrund. Expertise im Auftrag des Gesprächskreises Migration und Integration der Friedrich- Ebert-Stiftung, Bonn, WISO Diskurs.
Conley J. and Richland J. (eds.) (2011), “Symposium on bureaucracy: ethnography of the State in everyday”, PoLAR, vol. 34, n° 1, p. 6-94.
Crenshaw K. (1995), “Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence Against Women of Color” in K. Crenshaw, N. Gotanda, G. Peller and K. Thomas (eds.) Critical Race Theory, New York, The New Press, p. 357-383.
Darmon M. (2008), “La notion de carrière: un instrument interactionniste d’objectivation”, Politix, vol. 82, n° 2, p. 149-168.
Das V. (1996), Critical Events: an Anthropological Perspective on Contemporary India, New York, Oxford University Press.
Das V. and Poole D. (eds.) (2004), Anthropology at the Margins of the State, Santa Fé, SAR Press.
De Hart B. en van Oers R. (2006), “European Trends in Nationality Law”, in R. Bauböck, E. Ersboll, K. Groenendijk and H. Waldruch (eds.) Acquisition and Loss of Nationality. Volume I: Comparative Analyses, Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Press, p. 317-357.
Dubois V. (2003), La Vie au guichet. Relation administrative et traitement de la misère, Paris, Economica. Elmore R. (1979), “Backward mapping. Implementation Research and Policy Decisions”, Political Science Quaterly, vol. 94, n° 4, p. 601-616.
Engel D. and Munger F. (2003), Rights of Inclusion. Law and Identity in the Life Stories of Americans with Disabilities, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.
Ewick P. and Silbey S. (1998), The Common Place of Law. Stories of Everyday Life, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.
Fassin D. (2009), “Les économies morales revisitées. Étude critique suivie de quelques propositions”, Annales. Histoire, Sciences sociales, 6, 1237-1266.
Faist T., Gerdes J. and Rieple B. (2004), “Dual Citizenship a Dependent Path-Process”, International Migration Review, 28, 3, p. 913-944.
Faist T. (2007), “The fixed and Porous Boundaries of Dual Citizenship”, in Thomas Faist (ed.) Dual Citizenship in Europe. From nationhood to Societal Integration, Aldershot, Ashgate, 2007, p. 1-43.
Foucault M. (2008), Le Gouvernement de soi et des autres. Cours au Collège de France (1982-1983), Paris, Hautes Études, Gallimard, Seuil.
Foucault M. (2009), Le Courage de la vérité. Le gouvernement de soi et des autres II. Cours au Collège de France (1983-1984), Paris, Hautes Études, Gallimard, Seuil.
Foucault M. (2001), “Le souci de vérité”, Dits et écrits II, Paris, Gallimard, p. 1487-1497.
Gilboy J. (1991), “Deciding Who Gets in: Decision Making by Immigration Inspectors”, Law and Society Review, vol. 25, n° 3, p. 571-600.
Goffman E. (1975), Stigmate. Les usages sociaux des handicaps, Paris, Minuit.
Gordillo G. (2006), “The crucible of citizenship : ID-paper fetishism in the Agentinean Chaco”, American Ethnologist, vol. 33, n° 2, p. 162-176.
Götz I. (2011), Deutsche Identitäten. Die Wiederebtdeckung des Nationalen nach 1989, Cologne, Weimar, Vienna, Böhlau.
Green S. (2005), “Between Ideology and Pragmatism : The Politics of Dual Citizenship in Germany”, International Migration Review 39, n° 4. p. 921-952.
Hailbronner K. (2002), “Germany’s Citizenship Law under Immigration Pressure”, in R. Hansen and P. Weil (eds.) (2002), Dual Nationality, Social Rights and Federal Citizenship in the US and in Europe. The Reinvention of Citizenship, New York and Oxford, Berghahn Books, p. 121-135.
Hansen R. and Weil P. (eds.) (1999), Nationalité et citoyenneté en Europe, Paris, La Découverte.
Hansen R. and Weil P. (eds.) (2002), Dual Nationality, Social Rights and Federal Citizenship in the US and in Europe. The Reinvention of Citizenship, New York and Oxford, Berghahn Books.
Honneth A. (1996), The Struggle for Recognition: The Moral Grammar of Social Conflicts, MIT Press. Infantino F. and Rea A. (2012), “La Mobilisation d’un Savoir Pratique Local: Attribution des Visas Schenghen au Consulat Général de Belgique à Casablanca”, Sociologies pratiques, n° 24, p. 67-78.
Joppke, C. (2003), “Citizenship Between De- and Re-ethnicisation (I)”, Archives européennes de sociologie, 44, p. 429-458.
Kalekin-Fishmann D. and Pritkänen P. eds (2008), An Emerging Instituion ? Multiple Citizenship in Europ : Views of officials, Bern, P. Lang.
Kastoryano K. (2002), “Türken mit Deutschem Pass: Sociological and Political aspects of Dual Nationality in Germany”, in R. Hansen P. Weil (eds.) Dual Nationality, Social Rights and Federal Citizenship in the US and in Europe. Reinvention of Citizenship, New York and Oxford, Berghahn Books, p. 158-176.
Keller C. (2009), “Strategien und Faktoren der Partizipation von Jugendlichen mit Migrationshintergrund im Blickfeld von SozialexpertInnen. Erste Ergebnisse eines deutschen-französischen Vergleichsprojekts”, Revue d’Allemagne et des pays de langue allemande, vol. 41, n° 3. p. 409-431.
Koopmans R. and Statham P. “Challenging the Liberal Nation-State? Postnationalism, Multiculturalism, and the Collective Claims Making of Migrants and Ethnic Minorities in Britain and Germany”, American Journal of Sociology, vol. 105, n° 3, p. 652-696.
R. Koopmans, I. Michalowski and S. Waibel (2012), “Citizenship Rights for Immigrants: National Political Processes and Cross-National Convergence in Western Europe 1980-2008”, American Journal of Sociology, vol. 117, n° 4, p. 1202-1245.
Lipsky M. (1980), Street-Level Bureaucracy. Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services, New York, Russell Sage Foundation.
Mazouz S. (2010), “La République et ses autres. Politiques de la discrimination et pratiques de naturalisation dans la France des années 2000”, PhD Dissertation, Paris, EHESS.
Mazouz S. (2012), ““Une faveur que vous a accordée la République” ou comment la naturalisation se mérite” in D. Fassin and J.-S. Eideliman (eds.) Économies morales contemporaines, Paris, La Découverte, 2012, p. 137-154.
McC Heyman J. (1995), “Putting Power in the Anthropology of Bureaucracy: The Immigration and Naturalization Service at the Mexico-United States Border”, Current Anthropology, vol. 36, n° 2, p. 261- 287.
Michalowski I. (2007), Integration als Staatsprogramm. Deutschland, Frankreich und die Niederlande im Vergleich, Dissertation, Münster, Lit Verlag.
Michalowski I. (2010), “Integration tests in Germany. A communitarian approach?” in E. Ersbøll, D. Kostakopoulou, R. van Oers (eds.) A Re-definition of Belonging? Language and Integration Tests in Europe, Leiden, Brill Publishers, p. 185-210.
Michalowski I. (2011), “Required to assimilate? The content of citizenship tests in five countries”, Citizenship Studies, vol. 15, n° 6-7, p. 749-768.
Murji K. and Solomos J. (eds.) (2005), Racialization. Studies in Theory and Practice, Oxford, OUP.
Noiriel G. (1995), “Socio-histoire d’un concept. Les usages du mot “nationalité” au XIXe siècle”, Genèses.
Sciences sociales et histoire, n° 20, p. 4-23.
Pratt A. (1999), “Dunking the Doughnut: Discretionary Power, Law, and the Administration of the Canadian Immigration Act”, Social and Legal Studies, vol. 8, n° 2, p. 199-226.
Renault E. (2004), Mépris Social: Éthique et Politique de la Reconnaissance, Paris, Édition du Passant. Renault E. and Zeneidi-Henry D. (2008), “Formes de reconnaissance conflictuelle: relations sociales, appropriation de territoire, culture et politique dans un groupe de punks squatters” in A. Battegay and J.-P. Payet (Eds.) La Reconnaissance à l'Épreuve. Explorations socio-anthropologiques, Lille, Presses Universitaires du Septentrion.
Sassen S., Denationalization: Territory, Authority and Rights in a Global Digital Age, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 2005.
Sayad A. (1999), La Double Absence. Des illusions de l’émigré aux souffrances de l’immigré, Paris, Seuil, coll. “Liber”, 1999.
Scott J.W. (1988), “Genre. Catégorie d’analyse historique”, Les cahiers du GRIF, n° 37-38, p. 1-20.
Spire A. (2005), Étrangers à la carte. L’administration de l’immigration en France (1945-1975), Paris, Grasset.
Spire A. (2008), Accueillir ou reconduire. Une enquête sur les guichets de l’immigration, Paris, Raisons d’agir.
Tussi I, Jossin A., Keller C. and Groh-Samberg O. (2011), “Success Despite Starting Out at a Disadvantage: What Helps Second-Generation Migrants in France and Germany?”, DIW Economic Bulletin.
Watkins-Hayes C. (2009), The New Welfare Bureaucrats: Entanglements of Race, Class, and Policy Reform, Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
Weil P. (2012), The Souvereign Citizen: Denaturaliszation and the Origins of the American, Penn Press.
Werner M. and Zimmermann B. (2006), “Beyond comparison: Histoire croisée and the challenge of reflexivity”, History and Theory, vol. 45, n° 1, 2006, p. 30-50.
West C. and Fenstermaker S. (1995), “Doing Difference”, Gender and Society, vol. 9, n° 1, p. 8-37.
Wonk O. (2012), Dual Nationality in the European Union: a Study on Changin Norms in Public and Private International Law and in Municipal Laws of Four EU Member States, Leiden, Boston, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
Worbs S., Scholz A. and Blicke S. (2012), Die Optionsregelung im Staatsangehörigkeitsrecht aus der Sicht von Betroffenen. Qualitative Studie, Nürnberg, Bundesant für Migration und Flüchtlinge.
Wrench J. and Solomos J. (eds.) (1993), Racism and Migration in Western Europe, Oxford, Berg.
• The potential impact (including the socio-economic impact and the wider societal implications of the project so far) and the main dissemination activities and exploitation of results (not exceeding 10 pages).
Potential impact of the project
Through an original approach to dual citizenship issues, mixing archival researches, as well as ethnographic and biographic approaches, the researcher has mapped the critical moments in the history of German citizenship politics, which allow the understanding of a major political trajectory. To what extent does Germany conceives itself as a country of immigration? How is this acknowledgment intertwined with the bureaucratic practices of granting German citizenship? What kind of impact do these debates and administrative practices have on the subjectivities of German born in Germany to foreign-national parents or on naturalised German nationals, depending on their being dual citizens or not?
The researcher Dr Sarah Mazouz has conducted ethnographic researches mixing interviews and observations. These methods helped strengthen the understanding of the main hypothesis of the project.
In the preparatory phase of her research, the hypothesis of Dr. Sarah Mazouz was that the tolerance for dual citizenship was articulated to a growing importance of naturalization procedure in the way to make foreign national into German citizens.
However, while the number of naturalization is important (112 350 in 2013, source: Statistisches Bundesamt; in France for the same year, there were 52 207 naturalizations stricto sensu and a total of 97 318 acquisitions of French citizenship), this growing importance has not led to allow Non-EU persons who are granted German citizenship to keep automatically their native nationality.
After the elections of 2013, nothing has been made indeed for dual citizenship in the case of naturalization. Naturalization remains a selective procedure that requires from extra-EU applicant to give up their native citizenship. This has an impact in terms of equal rights since Non-EU applicants are not administrated in the same way as EU-applicants to German citizenship. This requirement of renouncing one’s native citizenship is also one of the main reason why non-EU nationals living in Germany decide not to apply to German citizenship even when they have built their professional and family life in this country. Thus, this produces a situation where people living in Germany and contributing to its social and economical life are not fully granted with political rights.
Since the elections of 2013, the only full recognition of this status concerns in fact jus soli. Thus, while jus soli was used to oppose French and German citizenship conception, it has now become the focus point between the two countries. Criteria set in France at the end of the 1990’s to restrict the acquisition of citizenship by birth on the territory are those introduced by the German law of July 7th 2014 to cancel the Optionspflicht and set a full jus soli.
The main contribution of the project “TransforNation” is thus to highlight the complexity of the configuration of dual citizenship issues in Germany. It helps to show how dual citizenship has been finally fully accepted in the case of the birth on the German territory. This recognition has introduced thus a redefinition of the way in which German nationhood has been so far conceived as merely grounded on jus sanguinis. On the contrary, the granting of German citizenship through naturalization remains grounded on the requirement of the full allegiance to Germany. Therefore, except some limited cases, applicants to German citizenship through naturalization must give up their native citizenship. Still, in a paradoxical way, this requirement of allegiance limits the naturalization procedure to an administrative check while in countries where only the loyalty of the applicant is expected the procedure turns to be an ordeal. In the case of Germany, the bureaucrats of the naturalization offices only have to check that the requirements are fulfilled without having to assess the person of the applicant.
At the end of the fellowship period, Dr Sarah Mazouz will be able to edit a book on transnational politics. She will also publish a monograph on the redefinition of citizenship laws and practices in Germany.
These research and the related activities of publication and dissemination of the results will permit to introduce in the field of citizenship studies an analysis of dual citizenship leaning on ethnography and articulating both state practices and everyday life experiences. Since such study of this topic isn’t available, it will fill a real void.
The project “TransforNation” has also a wider societal impact given the reconfiguration of immigration policies in the EU and its deeper articulation with citizenship and belongings policies, following the so-called “Migrant crisis” during the summer of 2015. It is indeed assumed that most of the people who arrived in Germany and were granted the status of refugee will then apply to German citizenship. This research provides tools to understand how German citizenship is granted and how dual citizenship regulation is now conceived and how it might be redefined or changed. By focusing on the trajectories of dual citizens and on the path of those who had to renounce their native citizenship to become German, this project also makes aware of forms of racial discrimination that go beyond the distinction between national and foreigners. It makes thus clear that the full recognition of dual citizenship fosters equal right and prepares a deeper commitment for the State and the civil society in implementing policies and tool against discriminations.