Access to citizenship & its impact on immigrant integration (ACIT) Results for Ireland - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

slide1 n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Access to citizenship & its impact on immigrant integration (ACIT) Results for Ireland PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Access to citizenship & its impact on immigrant integration (ACIT) Results for Ireland

play fullscreen
1 / 29
Access to citizenship & its impact on immigrant integration (ACIT) Results for Ireland
Download Presentation
Download Presentation

Access to citizenship & its impact on immigrant integration (ACIT) Results for Ireland

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. 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 Third-Country Nationals

  2. Access to citizenship & its impact on • immigrant integration (ACIT) • 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

  3. 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: iussanguinis, 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

  4. Summary of Findings

  5. Ordinary Naturalisation

  6. Ordinary Naturalisation opportunities • full acceptance of dual citizenship • Inclusive residence requirement in law • Ireland 0.88 • EU-15 0.61 • Relatively few statutory requirements obstacles • Criminal record & good character (0) • Non-statutory employment requirement for most

  7. Special Naturalisation

  8. Special Naturalisation obstacles • family-based naturalisation below EU-15 and EU-27 averages • child extension only after 3 years of residence • no socialisation-based access for foreign-born children opportunities • spousal transfer • cultural affinity • refugees • stateless persons • adoption • special achievements

  9. 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: • Promotion: how much do authorities encourage applicants to apply? • Documentation: how easily can applicants prove they meet the conditions? • Discretion: how much room do authorities have to interpret conditions? • Bureaucracy: how easy is it for authorities to come to a decision? • Review: how strong is judicial oversight of the procedure?

  10. 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

  11. 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.

  12. 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)

  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. 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

  16. 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)

  17. 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.

  18. Acquisition rates in EU-15 (+CH, NO) IRELAND

  19. Speed of naturalisation IRELAND

  20. Ireland compared I(% foreign-born with citizenship)

  21. Ireland compared II(% foreign-born with citizenship)

  22. 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)

  23. 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)

  24. 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.

  25. CITINT: Labour Force Participation Source: 2008 EU Labour Force Survey Ad Hoc Module

  26. Labour Force Participation Source: 2008 EU Labour Force Survey Ad Hoc Module

  27. Social Exclusion Source: 2008 EU-SILC Survey

  28. Living Conditions Source: 2008 EU-SILC Survey

  29. 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 naturalisationrates—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