Evaluating and Explaining the Restrictive Backlash in Citizenship Policy in Europe

• Date: 15 January 2013
• Pages: 111-139
• Published date: 15 January 2013
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/S1059-4337(2013)0000060009
• Author: Sara Wallace Goodman,Marc Morjé Howard

EVALUATING AND EXPLAINING

THE RESTRICTIVE BACKLASH IN

CITIZENSHIP POLICY IN EUROPE

Sara Wallace Goodman and Marc Morje

´Howard

ABSTRACT

This chapter examines recent citizenship policy change in Europe in order

to address two important questions. First, are immigrant-receiving states

undergoing a ‘‘restrictive turn,’’ making citizenship less accessible to

foreigners? Our analysis finds that while certain restrictive developments

have certainly occurred, a broader comparative perspective shows that

these hardly amount to a larger restrictive trend. Second, regardless of

what the restrictive changes amount to, what explains why certain

countries have added more onerous requirements for citizenship? In

answering this question, we focus on the politics of citizenship. We argue

that once citizenship becomes politicized – thus mobilizing the latent anti-

immigrant sentiments of the population – the result will likely be either

the blocking of liberalizing pressures or the imposition of new restrictive

measures. We support this argument by focusing on three countries: a

case of genuine restrictiveness (Germany), another where the anti-

immigrant rhetoric’s bark has been more noticeable than the citizenship

policy’s bite (the United Kingdom), and one where proposed policy

Special Issue: Who Belongs? Immigration, Citizenship, and the Constitution of Legality

Studies in Law, Politics, and Society, Volume 60, 111–139

Copyright r2013 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited

All rights of reproduction in any form reserved

ISSN: 1059-4337/doi:10.1108/S1059-4337(2013)0000060009

111

change in the restrictive direction does not add up to a restrictive policy

overall, but rather a normalization with other liberal citizenship regimes

in Europe (Belgium). We argue that politics accounts for why states

adopt restrictive policies, and we conclude that it is premature and

inaccurate to suggest that policies of exclusion are converging across

Europe.

INTRODUCTION

The past two decades are widely considered a watershed period of

citizenship change in Europe. Famously restrictive states have taken

important steps toward liberalization, including making citizenship more

accessible to second-generation migrants through birthright citizenship

(Germany), lowering periods of required residency (Greece, Luxembourg

after 2001, Portugal), and increasing toleration of dual citizenship (Finland,

Luxembourg, Sweden). Since these changes have taken places across a

number of states in a relatively concentrated period of time, many scholars

have interpreted policy change as evidence of the liberal convergence thesis

(e.g., Cornelius, Tsuda, Martin, & Hollifield, 2004).

Following – and sometimes alongside – this wake of inclusive change,

however, there appears to be a recent undertow of restrictiveness. First,

several states with historically liberal models of citizenship and those that

experienced recent liberalizing change have made provocative gestures away

from openness in the form of increased residency durations (Belgium,

Luxembourg after 2008), the re-adoption of renunciation requirements

preventing dual citizenship (the Netherlands), and in several European

states (including Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands, and

the United Kingdom) the adoption of mandatory integration requirements,

such as language and country knowledge assessment, as part of the

permanent residence and naturalization processes. Second, the tone of

politics seems to be moving in the direction supportive of further

restrictions. France and the Netherlands have even considered the

possibility of de-naturalization for immigrants convicted of certain crimes,

thus essentially creating a less secure citizenship status for those who acquire

citizenship by naturalization. Also, the explicit rise of anti-immigrant parties

in numerous European countries – most recently Sweden, which had never

before seen a far right party win representation in Parliament – may also

portend future moves in the direction of restrictiveness.

SARA WALLACE GOODMAN AND MARC MORJE

´HOWARD112