Access to citizenship & its impact on
immigrant integration (ACIT)
Results for Ireland
16 January 2012
Iseult Honohan
University College Dublin
Jasper Dag Tjaden
Migration Policy Group
Co-financed by the
European Fund for the
Integration of ThirdCountry Nationals
Access to citizenship & its impact on
immigrant integration (ACIT)
http://eudo-citizenship.eu
End date: 31/03/2013
Goal: Researchers & policy actors better understand how law, implementation, and other
factors affect citizenship acquisition and how citizenship affects integration processes;
Goal: Policymakers & civil society use evidence to design more effective laws and measures
 Consolidate law indicators
 Pilot implementation indicators
 Expand ‘outcome’ indicators
 Assess determinants of naturalisation across EU
 Assess citizenship impact on integration process
 10 national citizenship dialogues and national handbooks
 EU conclusions, recommendations, dialogue, module
Citizenship Law Indicators
(CITLAW)
• 57 indicators compare specific aspects of citizenship regimes
across countries and time
– basic indicators (e.g. Ius Soli for second generation)
– several combined indicators (e.g. Ius Soli at birth)
– six combined indicators: ius sanguinis, ius soli, ordinary
naturalisation, special naturalisation, renunciation,
withdrawal
• Indicators measure strength of the purpose or principle of the
citizenship law
• Indicator scores range from 0 to 1
0 = purpose/principle not represented
1 = purpose/principle strongly represented
Summary of Findings
Renunciation
Ius Sanguinis
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
Ius Soli
Involuntary Loss
Ordinary Naturalisation
Special Naturalisation
Ireland
EU-15
EU-27
Ordinary Naturalisation
1
1.0
0.9
0.6
1
1
0.88
0.85
0.83
0.8
0.7
1
0.73
0.64
0.58
0.630.65
0.61
0.57
0.61
0.55
0.47
0.5
0.37
0.4
0.300.29
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.0
Overall
Residence
Conditions
Renunciation
Ireland
Language
Conditions
EU-15
Civic Knowledge / Criminal Record
Assimilation
EU-27
Economic
Resources
Ordinary Naturalisation
opportunities
• full acceptance of dual
citizenship
• Inclusive residence
requirement in law
– Ireland
– EU-15
0.88
0.61
• Relatively few statutory
requirements
obstacles
• Criminal record & good
character (0)
• Non-statutory
employment
requirement for most
Special Naturalisation
1
1
1
0.88
0.9
0.81
0.8
0.75
0.8
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.68
0.64
0.7
0.6
0.54
0.5
0.4
0.75
0.46
0.4
0.36
0.33
0.38
0.330.35
0.50
0.48
0.46
0.43
0.38
0.3
0.24
0.2
0.13
0.1
0
Ireland
EU-15
EU-27
0.48
0.47
0.39
0.35
0.31
0.39
Special Naturalisation
opportunities
• spousal transfer
• cultural affinity
• refugees
• stateless persons
• adoption
• special achievements
obstacles
• family-based
naturalisation below EU15 and EU-27 averages
• child extension only
after 3 years of
residence
• no socialisation-based
access for foreign-born
children
Citizenship Implementation
Indicators (CITIMP)
• 38 indicators compare formal aspects of naturalisation procedure.
These include all stages, from efforts by public authorities to
inform applicants to the options to appeal a negative decision.
• 5 dimensions covered administrative procedure:
1) Promotion: how much do authorities encourage applicants to apply?
2) Documentation: how easily can applicants prove they meet the conditions?
3) Discretion: how much room do authorities have to interpret conditions?
4) Bureaucracy: how easy is it for authorities to come to a decision?
5) Review: how strong is judicial oversight of the procedure?
Summary of Findings
Generally, countries with few legal obstacles (CITLAW) have few
procedural obstacles (CITIMP)
Unlike in most EU countries, Ireland’s naturalisation law is
undermined by slightly unfavourable implementation procedures
IE procedure most like those in Central Europe (HU & PL)
• Some promotion (Ceremonies, NCP free service), however
IE has higher overall official fees/costs than nearly all EU countries
• More demanding documentation than in most EU15 countries
• ‘Absolute discretion’ & relatively bureaucratic (e.g. No legal internal
or overall time limit, number of authorities involved)
• Critically lacking right to reasoned decision and right to appeal
* Note: As of 15 August 2012, this scores no longer apply for Poland. The new
procedure is rights-based, less bureaucratic, subject to judicial review.
Documentation
Documentation in IE is more demanding than in all EU15 countries but GR
Opportunities:
• Authorities obtain themselves information on criminal record & good character
• Facilitated for refugees and stateless people
Obstacles:
• Several years of documentation on past IDs/residence permits
• Several years of documentation on employment situation
• Additional paperwork from country of origin (translated and certified)
Discretion
Naturalisation in IE is more discretionary than in any other EU-15 country
•
•
In most countries, authorities must make decisions based on the same documents &
follow the same publically-available guidelines to interpret the requirements, specifically
on good character/criminal record and om language
In some EU15 countries, rights-based procedures mean that applicants who meet the
legal conditions are entitled to become citizens(BE, DK, DE, NL)
* Note: As of 1 January 2013, Belgium’s new citizenship law replaced the
discretionary ordinary naturalisation procedure with a new rights-based procedure.
Judicial review
IE is now the only EU15 country without a clear right of appeal for naturalisation
•
•
•
Most EU countries grant right to reasoned decision & right to appeal
In most, rejected applicants can appeal to lower and highest national courts
In most, courts can cover both substantive and procedural aspects
* Note: As of 1 January 2013, Belgium’s new ordinary naturalisation procedure
allows full judicial review of all decisions.
Citizenship acquisition
(CITACQ)
• Acquisition indicators compare rates of citizenship
acquisition among foreign-born in their country of residence
• Percentages of foreign-born immigrants who have acquired
citizenship at any point in time, not naturalisation rates
measuring the number of new naturalisations divided by
resident population with foreign citizenship
• Information based on European Labour Force Survey Ad Hoc
Module (2008) that targets immigrants and their
descendants, aged 15-67
• Data exclusively on foreign-born (1st generation) and allows
for comparisons of citizenship acquisition rates across 25
European countries
Citizenship acquisition
(CITACQ)
Includes information on the following indicators for
citizenship acquisition by foreign-born:
–
–
–
–
ALL
SEX (female vs. male)
ORIGIN (EU vs. non-EU countries)
AGE AT MIGRATION (age at which respondent took up
residence)
– YEARS OF RESIDENCE (years of residence)
– YEARS OF RESIDENCE (minimum number of years of
residence)
– TIME UNTIL NATURALISATION (numbers of years until
naturalisation)
Summary of Findings
• On average around 34% of foreign-born persons are
a citizen of their EU-15 country of residence.
– Citizenship acquisition rates in EU-15 range are lowest in
Luxembourg (10%) and highest in Sweden (67%). In Ireland
the acquisition rate is 13%, hence among the lowest.
– Immigrants from non-EU countries (42%) more often
acquire citizenship than those from EU countries (20%).
• On average it takes around 10 years for foreign-born
persons to acquire citizenship of their country of
residence, within EU-15 countries.
– In Luxembourg it takes almost 15 years on average to
naturalise, whereas in Ireland this is around 5 years.
Hence, whereas the few foreign-born persons able to
naturalise in Ireland could do so quickly.
Acquisition rates in EU-15 (+CH, NO)
IRELAND
Speed of naturalisation
IRELAND
Ireland compared I
(% foreign-born with citizenship)
45
Ireland
42,04
EU-15
40
35,67
34,43
35
33,02
30
25
%
20,48
20
15
14,24
12,62
12,68
12,56
12,00
10
5
0
ALL
SEX (female)
SEX (male)
ORIGIN COUNTRY
(EU)
ORIGIN COUNTRY
(non-EU)
Ireland compared II
(% foreign-born with citizenship)
70
Ireland
EU-15
60
50
40
%
30
20
10
0
at least 5 years
at least 10 years
at least 15 years
years of residence
at least 20 years
Analysis of acquisition rates
Citizenship acquisition & speed of acquisition are mainly driven by:
• Socio-economic development of countries of origin
• Citizenship laws of the country (see following graph)
Variation in acquisition rates is mainly explained by:
• Marital status (married people are more likely to be naturalised)
• Socio-economic status (employed immigrants are more likely)
• Gender (female immigrants are more likely)
• Use of native language at home (immigrants who speak the
language of the destination country at home are more likely)
Predicted probability of having destination country citizenship
by MIPEX Access to Nationality
(by years of residence in country)
Ireland (55)
Ireland (55)
MIPEX Access to Nationality score (adjusted for first generation only)
Citizenship and Integration (CITINT)
• 10 core indicators measure the the extent to which
changes in citizenship status affect levels of integration
• Three categories of indicators:
– Labour force participation (2008 Eurostat LFS ad hoc
module)
– Social exclusion (2008 Eurostat LFS ad hoc module &
2008 EU-SILC)
– Living conditions (2008 EU-SILC)
• Sample: EU-27, Iceland, Norway, Switzerland
• As expected, immigrants who naturalised are often
better off than immigrants who have not naturalised.
CITINT: Labour Force Participation
Unemployment Rates, 2008 (%)
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Ireland
EU-27
Natives
Naturalised Immigrants
EU-15
Non-citizen Immigrants
Source: 2008 EU Labour Force Survey Ad Hoc Module
Labour Force Participation
Overqualification Rates, Ireland, 2008 (%)
Native-born
27.4
23
Naturalised Immigrants
25.6
39.1
Non-citizen Immigrants
48.9
0
10
20
Non-EU
30
40
50
60
EU
Source: 2008 EU Labour Force Survey Ad Hoc Module
Social Exclusion
Share Having Difficulty Making Ends Meet, 2008 (%)
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Ireland
EU-15
Natives
Naturalised Immigrants
EU-27
Non-citizen Immigrants
Source: 2008 EU-SILC Survey
Living Conditions
Housing Cost Burden, Gaps with Natives, 2008 (%)
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Ireland
EU-15
Naturalised Immigrants
EU-27
Non-citizen Immigrants
Source: 2008 EU-SILC Survey
Conclusions
Major legal opportunities
• Strong ius soli • Dual nationality • Inclusive naturalisation law (all models for other new
countries of immigration)
Major legal obstacles
• Non-statutory requirements
Major administrative opportunities
• Recent promotion activities • Ceremonies • Facilitation for refugees/stateless
Major administrative obstacles
• ‘Absolute discretion’ • No right to reasoned decision/appeal • Exceptionally high costs
•
•
•
•
•
Citizens of EU & other highly-developed countries less likely to naturalise
Non-EU citizens are more to naturalise across the EU, as newcomers settle long-term
The relatively few foreign-born able to naturalise in EU could do so quickly
Still, IE has below-average naturalisation rates—policies have had major impact
Rare in EU, IE has favourable laws undermined by absolute discretion, procedural
obstacles, and high costs & discouraging many eligible immigrants from applying