Earned Citizenship
Claire Slingsby
25-11-2015
European Policy and Practice towards Ethnic Minorities
2967 words
A. Mikeš
Charles University
Content
Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………….. 3
Earned citizenship ………………………………………………………………………… 4
Trend towards earned citizenship ……………………...………………………………… 5
Earned citizenship in the Netherlands ……………..……………………………………… 5
Earned citizenship in the United Kingdom …………………………………………..…… 6
Problems and policy suggestion …………………………………………………………... 7
Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………………... 8
Bibliography ……………………………………………………………………………… 9
Essay assessment form ……………………………………………………………………. 10
2
Introduction
‘’The time new migrants spend as probationary citizens will depend on whether they "earn
their stay in Britain", with those who undertake voluntary work speeding their progress, while
those convicted of minor crimes will have their applications delayed’’ (Travis, 2008). These
kinds of practices regarding ‘earned citizenship’ have become more and more popular in
Western European countries over the last few years.
This leads me to the question: what does the shift towards earned citizenship in
Western European countries entail? Specifically I will focus on the Netherlands and the
United Kingdom because the shift towards earned citizenship is obvious in these states and
they are interesting to compare. I suspect that earned citizenship has become a trend because
of the increasing immigration to Western Europe during the last few decades. The
introduction of earning citizenship may help nation-states to control who is coming in the
country. I suspect it has become more difficult for immigrants to acquire citizenship in
Western European countries since it has to be earned, I think immigrants will have to fulfil
certain criteria in order to earn citizenship. I don’t think that the concept of ‘earned
citizenship’ is the perfect solution to control who is coming into a country. I imagine it
having some problematic elements such as ignoring certain people because they are not
capable of earning their citizenship.
The topic of earned citizenship is relevant because it entails a recent trend which
should be subjected to reflection. It should be evaluated if this is a trend that brings harm to
different actors such as immigrants, society, policy workers and citizens. The purpose of this
paper is to reflect on this trend and figure out why the trend exists, what earned citizenship
entails, what the implications are and how we should deal with it.
Methodology wise I will conduct a literature research. Academic journals and books
will be my main sources of which nearly all of them are peer-reviewed as to make sure that
they are reliable. A limitation of literature research is that I won’t have any empirical data, I
am obliged to stay on a theoretical level.
I will answer my research question about the shift towards earned citizenship in
Western European countries with the help of several sub questions. First I will address the
concept of earned citizenship. Then I will explain why the trend towards it exists. Thereafter I
will elaborate on earned citizenship in the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. Then I will
discuss problems regarding earned citizenship in the Netherlands and the United Kingdom,
and finally I will suggest a solution.
3
Earned citizenship
The word ‘citizenship’ contains the word ‘citizen’ which means ‘’a person who is a
member of a particular country and who has rights because of being born there or because of
being given rights, or a person who lives in a particular town or city’’ (Cambridge
Dictionaries Online, 2015). Citizenship is about what citizens should do, should be and about
the relation amongst citizens themselves and the relation between citizens and the state.
Lister and Pia (2008) state that there are three dominant models of citizenship; liberal
citizenship, communitarian citizenship and republican citizenship. T. H. Marshall had a
liberal stance on citizenship, according to him ‘’Citizenship is a status bestowed on those
who are full members of a community. All who possess the status are equal with respect to
the rights and duties with which the status is endowed’’ (Marshall, 1950, pp. 28-29). Within
liberal citizenship most emphasis is placed on individual rights. Liberal citizenship is formal
and juridical. It doesn’t expect much social and political commitment of citizens, the state
shouldn’t interfere too much with citizens and citizens shouldn’t interfere too much with the
state (Lister & Pia, 2008, p. 30). Communitarian citizenship on the other hand expects more
commitment of citizens, rejects the liberal idea that the individual is more important than
society, and doesn’t think that rights are the most important aspect of citizenship.
Communitarian citizenship places more emphasis on civil society, community, responsibility,
identity, membership, and rejection of state neutrality (Lister & Pia, 2008, p. 30). Republican
citizenship places emphasis on politics and public affairs. It is about developing and changing
policy, consultation, participation and self-government. You are a citizen when you
participate, not when you get rights (liberal) or when rights are needed to be a citizen
(communitarianism). There are no clear boundaries between these three different models of
citizenship, the models can blur and overlap with each other (Lister & Pia, 2008, p. 30).
What is being meant by earned citizenship is that citizenship has to be earned, you
can’t get it by doing nothing. Citizenship is not a right you automatically get, you have to
earn it. You earn your citizenship by fulfilling diverse criteria, in this recent trend towards
earned citizenship there has been emphasis on cultural criteria; you have to integrate well,
have to have knowledge of the country, history, language etc. Identification with the nation
has become an important aspect (Van Houdt, Suvarierol & Schinkel, 2011). This new form of
earned citizenship resembles a contract between the citizen-to-be and the state. In this
contract the prospective citizen accepts the responsibilities to fulfil the criteria in order to get
citizenship (Van Houdt, Suvarierol & Schinkel, 2011, p. 412).
4
Trend towards earned citizenship
More generally, with respect to Western European countries, the trend towards earned
citizenship is triggered by both internal and external pressures on nation-states. Examples of
internal pressures are ageing populations, changing family structures, unemployment,
criminality, integration and social cohesion. Both these internal and external pressures such
as increased globalization and immigration have often posed challenges to the different
Western European nation-states. Changing the way citizenship is obtained is a strategy to
deal with these challenges (Van Houdt, Suvarierol & Schinkel, 2011, pp. 408-409). In
Western European countries citizenship is transformed from a status that could be obtained
by living in a country, to having to prove that the prospective citizen is worthy of citizenship
and all that comes with it such as rights and benefits. This way, responsibility to fulfil
citizenship criteria is being placed upon the prospective citizen (Van Houdt, Suvarierol &
Schinkel, 2011, p. 419). Although the trend towards earned citizenship has taken place in
several Western European countries such as the Netherlands, United Kingdom and France,
this doesn’t mean that earned citizenship entails exactly the same in the different countries.
Politico-cultural and institutional path dependency which are unique for every country
influence the conceptualization of earned citizenship in each country (Van Houdt, Suvarierol
& Schinkel, 2011, p. 424). In the next section I will compare earned citizenship in the
Netherlands with earned citizenship in the United Kingdom.
Earned citizenship in the Netherlands
After the Second World War it was thought in the Netherlands that deeply held convictions
and loyalties could better not be involved in politics because of their ability to split politics.
This is the reason why during this time liberal citizenship prevailed. But during the nineties
people realized that liberal citizenship couldn’t maintain enough cohesion between citizens.
There was also lack of altruism; citizens were doing too little and the government therefore
too much. To restore social cohesion, more emphasis was placed on the national aspect of
citizenship; citizens had to identify themselves with the Netherlands and participate in a
positive way. To be a citizen you had to have knowledge of and identification with the Dutch
culture. This entailed a more intensive relationship between the state and citizens; the state
offered more and interfered with more and citizens participated more (Van Gunsteren, 2009,
p. 41). This all lead to the rejection of citizenship as self-evident and to the idea of earned
citizenship. The criteria to earn citizenship have been extended, especially moral and cultural
requirements. Since 2004 immigrants have to do a civic integration test in their home country
before coming to the Netherlands. When the prospective citizen passes, further civic
integration courses are to be followed when s/he arrives in the Netherlands. The immigrants
have to search and pay for the courses themselves, they have to take care of their own
integration. In the civic courses emphasis is placed on Dutch norms and values and political
institutions. An exam has to be passed within three years, failing will have consequences.
5
However, knowledge migrants are seen as immigrants who will contribute to society and
therefore have easier access to Dutch citizenship. Citizenship has to be earned in the
Netherlands by being responsible for your own economic and cultural integration (Van
Houdt, Suvarierol & Schinkel, 2011, pp. 421-422). This emphasis on cultural integration has
assimilationist features; ‘’(…) accepting the values and customs of that society while losing
the distinctive values and customs it once had’’ (Birch, 1989, p. 49). The Dutch state doesn’t
want people to have multiple nationalities, so new immigrants have to lose their original
nationality if they want to become Dutch citizens. All in all, the Dutch interpretation of
earned citizenship places a lot of demands on immigrants, makes immigrants responsible for
their own economic and cultural integration, gives more penalties, and focuses strongly on
culture (Van Houdt, Suvarierol & Schinkel, 2011, p. 422).
Earned citizenship in the United Kingdom
As in the Netherlands, the United Kingdom also reformed the procedures to get citizenship
because they wanted to strengthen social cohesion and control national boundaries.
Citizenship is now not only about rights and duties but also about national identity and
belonging (Andreouli & Dashtipour, 2014, pp. 100-101). There are three stages that
prospective citizens have to go through to acquire British citizenship; temporary residence,
probationary citizenship and British citizenship/permanent residence. During the
probationary stage migrants are expected to integrate and show that they earn British
citizenship. Requirements they have to fulfil and are responsible for are speaking the English
language and have knowledge of British life, paying taxes, managing to function
economically, having real relationships, obeying the law, and be an active citizen (Van
Houdt, Suvarierol & Schinkel, 2011, pp. 412-413). Since 2005 applicants for naturalisation
have to pass a ‘Life in the UK’ test and attend a citizenship ceremony where they affirm or
swear allegiance to the Queen and pledge loyalty to the United Kingdom (Andreouli &
Dashtipour, 2014, pp. 100-101). British citizenship is a right to be earned whereby
conditionality and selectivity play a role. Migrants have to fulfil a set of conditions whereby
the distinction is being made between ‘good migrants’ who are worthy of citizenship and
‘bad migrants’ who are unworthy of citizenship (Andreouli & Dashtipour, 2014, p. 102). This
distinction is reflected in migration policy where they speak of ‘wanted’ migrants who are
skilled and contribute to society and ‘unwanted’ migrants who are unskilled and abuse
welfare benefits. Welfare benefits and social rights are thus rights to be earned (Andreouli &
Dashtipour, 2014, p. 104). Because citizenship is being earned, migrants are often seen as
having a moral duty to be grateful and committed to Britain. The United Kingdom is giving
citizenship and in return they expect migrants to show appreciation and make an economic
contribution; the notion of reciprocity (Andreouli & Dashtipour, 2014, pp. 105-107). ‘Bad
migrants’ are seen as just wanting a British passport so that they can make use of welfare
benefits (opportunists). ‘Good migrants’ are seen as being proud to be British, are grateful,
show commitment and contribute to society (Andreouli & Dashtipour, 2014, p. 107). These
two different portrayings of immigrants reflect also two different ways of constructing
6
Britishness. The ‘good immigrant’ is connected to the view that the United Kingdom is
tolerant, free and humanitarian. The ‘bad immigrant’ is connected to the view that the United
Kingdom is suffering from economic decline and cultural threats (Andreouli & Dashtipour,
2014, p. 108). The United Kingdom monitors if prospective immigrants contribute positively
or negatively to society. Positive contributions such as voluntary work can speed up the
process of becoming a British citizen, whereas negative contributions such as committing a
crime can halter the process of becoming a British citizen. Positive contributions to society
are especially important during the probationary stage where active citizenship is seen as the
most ideal form of citizenship. British citizenship is being earned by fulfilling the formal
requirements and passing the necessary tests (Van Houdt, Suvarierol & Schinkel, 2011, p.
417).
Problems and policy suggestion
Both the Dutch and the British interpretations of earned citizenship contain problematic
elements. The biggest problem with Dutch policies regarding earned citizenship is the fact
that they contain assimilationist elements. Rodriguez-Garcia (2010, p. 254) calls these
policies ‘’neo-assimilationist’’ because the Netherlands is traditionally a multiculturalist
country. The assimilationist tendencies can be seen as harmful because it results in forcing
immigrants to be as Dutch as they can get, having a new Dutch identity forced on them
without having any choice. Dutch policies want immigrants to lose their original identity so
that they can become fully part of Dutch society. Forgotten is that immigrants sometimes
can’t or don’t want to get rid of their original group identity and loyalties. The right to differ
is at stake (Rodriguez-Garcia, 2010, p. 260). Rodriguez-Garcia (2010, p. 262) argues that
social cohesion and civic equality don’t require cultural homogeneity, so assimilation is not
necessary. Assimilation can lead to marginalization and alienation of diverse groups who are
unsuccessful at blending into society (Rodriguez-Garcia, 2010, p. 267). Policies of the United
Kingdom are more multiculturalist which means that the different cultures in the country are
being respected and protected (Rodriguez-Garcia, 2010, p. 253).
The biggest problem with British policies regarding earned citizenship is the
distinction that is being made between good, worthy, wanted, grateful and skilled migrants
and bad, unworthy, unwanted, opportunist and unskilled migrants. This distinction is
problematic because it leads to inclusion of certain people that are thought of to contribute
positively to society and exclusion of certain people that are thought of to contribute
negatively to society. Selectivity plays a big role in the policies of the United Kingdom.
Underlying this is the dichotomy between natives and immigrants that is apparent in Europe
because most European countries reject immigration and diversity and the changes in society
that come with it. The main policy in Europe is one of anti-immigration and this is reflected
in the United Kingdom with its selectivity (Rodriguez-Garcia, 2010, p. 267). Quite some
European countries are afraid that migration will effect wages and the finances of the welfare
state. Therefore they rather have skilled immigrants instead of unskilled immigrants so that
the financial burden on the welfare state doesn’t increase (Razin & Wahba, 2015, p. 400).
7
Also, how higher the skills of the immigrants, how higher their earnings and employment
chances, how more they contribute fiscally to society, how more positive public opinion will
be towards these immigrants and immigration. It is not hard to understand why the United
Kingdom is increasingly selecting on skills (Belot & Hatton, 2012, p. 1105). Problem is that
some people don’t have a chance to earn British citizenship because they haven’t got a high
educational level. Why is the United Kingdom allowed to select this way? Some people
haven’t had the chance to attain a good level education in their country of origin and are in
need of a better life in a different state such as the United Kingdom. The people that need to
migrate the most become the people that are being deprived by the way British policy works.
I suggest that these two national models of earned citizenship should complement and
improve each other. Immigration policy shouldn’t have neo-assimilationist aspects and
shouldn’t focus too much on selecting only good, skilled and wanted migrants. Diverse
cultures must be respected and people who are unskilled should also get a chance to earn
citizenship.
Conclusion
From the above I conclude that there is a trend in Western European countries, such as the
Netherlands and the United Kingdom, towards earned citizenship whereby citizenship isn’t
automatically received but has to be earned by fulfilling a set of conditions. Internal and
external pressures on nation-states have led to this new form of citizenship which is a strategy
to deal with population. The Dutch interpretation of earned citizenship makes immigrants
responsible for their own integration and has a strong emphasis on culture. Problem is the
neo-assimilationist aspects which don’t respect diverse cultures. The British interpretation of
earned citizenship entails conditionality and selectivity. Problem is privileging people with
high skills over people with lower skills who hereby don’t get a chance to earn citizenship.
Solution would be to mix these two interpretations of earned citizenship and get rid of the
problematic elements. Shortly said, this is what the shift towards earned citizenship in
Western European countries entails.
This paper has given a reflection on the recent trend towards earned citizenship in
Western European countries. I have tried to show that earned citizenship has some
problematic features. Further research should continue to reflect on this recent trend and
evaluate it. More countries should be scrutinized and more emphasis can be placed on the
immigrant’s point of view on earned citizenship.
This paper contains a few concerns. First of all culture is being portrayed as static
rather than flexible and changing. It is as if Dutch and British culture consists of some
dominant elements that aren’t subjected to change and that are being reified in the civic
integration courses and tests that immigrants have to take. Second, it is difficult to generalize
these findings on earned citizenship to all the Western European countries since we have seen
that every nation-state has its own interpretation of earned citizenship.
Right now acquiring citizenship in Western Europe is like a competition in which
8
immigrants have to compete with each other on skills and have to play by the rules of the
destination country in order to earn their prize; citizenship.
Bibliography
Andreouli, E. & Dashtipour, P. (2014). ‘British Citizenship and the ‘Other’: An Analysis of
the Earned Citizenship Discourse’. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 24
(2), pp. 100-110.
Belot, M. V. K. & Hatton, T. J. (2012). ‘Immigrant Selection in the OECD’. The
Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 114 (4), pp. 1105-1128.
Birch, A. (1989). Nationalism and National Integration. London: Unwin Hyman Ltd.
Cambridge Dictionaries Online (2015) citizen. Consulted on 12 November, 2015, via
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/citizen
Gunsteren, H. van (2009). ‘Burgerschap in Nederland 1992-2008: voortschrijdend inzicht?’.
Beleid en Maatschappij, 36 (1), pp. 41-49.
Houdt, F. van, Suvarierol, S. & Schinkel, W. (2011). ‘Neoliberal communitarian citizenship:
Current trends towards ‘earned citizenship’ in the United Kingdom, France and the
Netherlands’. International Sociology, 26 (3), pp. 408-432.
Lister, M. & Pia, E. (2008). Citizenship in Contemporary Europe. Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press.
Marshall, T. H. (1950). Citizenship and Social Class. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Razin, A. & Wahba, J. (2015). ‘Welfare Magnet Hypotheses, Fiscal Burden, and Immigration
Skill Selectivity’. The Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 117 (2), pp. 369-402.
Rodriguez-Garcia, D. (2010). ‘Beyond Assimilation and Multiculturalism: A Critical Review
of the Debate on Managing Diversity’. Journal of International Migration & Integration, 11
(3), pp. 251-271.
Travis, A. (2008, 29 February) ‘Migrants to earn citizenship during probationary period’. The
Guardian.
Image on title page:
https://www.google.cz/search?q=neoliberal+communitarian+citizenship&es_sm=93&source
=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAWoVChMIjsni39mKyQIVRcUUCh3K5wf9&
biw=1366&bih=667#tbm=isch&q=citizenship&imgrc=7qfWk8ZDVr6pyM%3A
9
Faculty of Social Sciences, Charles University
ESSAY ASSESSMENT FORM
Student’s
name:
Claire Slingsby
Name of
assessor:Lara
Belliot
Edona
Date:
19-112015
Please refer to the field research handout if you have any questions
Excellent
Good
Average
Poor
Not
acceptable
Comments
1) Introduction
a) Does the introduction have
a clear thesis statement or
hypothesis?
xx
x
b) Is this sustained in the
report?
xx
x
I am answering a research question. It is grea
want to achieve through this paper.
2) Methods
a) Is the methodology clearly
explained?
xxx
You did a great job stating in the beginning w
b) Is the methodology
integrated into the report?
xx
c) Was the methodology
clearly executed?
xxx
x
It is very easy to follow your think.
3) Data Usage
a) Is there enough data to
support the hypothesis?
b) Has the source material
been well integrated into the
report?
xxx
c) Is the data well
documented?
xxx
xx
x
x
x
4) Representation/
Reflections
a) Do these connect to your
hypothesis?
x
10
b) Is the fieldwork experience
well-integrated?
?
I am doing a literature research, no fieldwork
is involved.
5) Interpretation
a) Is the data synthesized
well?
x
x
b) Is the report sufficiently
critical?
xxx
c) Have you combined this
report with the information
you learned in class?
xx
d) What is the significance of
your report?
xxx
x
Maybe you can evoke the democracy crisis th
population.
x
7) Expression/Presentation
a) Are the style, grammar
and general use of English
adequate?
X
b) Is the report professionally
presented?
xxx
xx
8) Closing
Remarks/Referencing
a) Is the thesis re-stated?
xx
b) Were your conclusions
summed up?
xxx
c) Are your sources properly
acknowledged? Remember,
fieldwork is documented!
xxx
x
Field Report grade:
Further comments:
11