Citizenship Regimes in the EU Countries and the Inclusion of the Immigrant Population in the Political Community

IF 2.9 1区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS
V. Malakhov
{"title":"Citizenship Regimes in the EU Countries and the Inclusion of the Immigrant Population in the Political Community","authors":"V. Malakhov","doi":"10.30570/2078-5089-2022-104-1-183-198","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article is devoted to the analysis of differences in the approaches of European Union member states to the inclusion of migrants into the political community by granting them citizenship. These differences are operationalized through the category of “citizenship regimes”. The article distingui shes three types of citizenship regimes — liberal, restrictive, and mixed. Whether a particular regime can be categorized into one of these citizenship regime types is determined on the basis of three indicators: (1) application/nonapplication of birthright citizenship (jus soli), (2) the presence of the institution of dual (multiple) citizenship, and (3) the relative simplicity/complexity of the naturalization procedure. At the same time, due to the lack of the comprehensive statistical data, which would allow assessing all possible components of this procedure, in order to evaluate the degree of the simplicity/complexity of the procedure, the authors focus on such a parameter as the minimum time period of residence in the country required to apply for citizenship. Having considered the evolution of the legal systems of the EU states, the authors reveal important differences in the approaches to the naturalization of migrants along the axis between the “old” countries of the European Union, on the one hand, and new members of the United Europe from the former socialist countries, on the other. While the “old” EU members tend to gradually liberalize citizenship regimes, the new ones are leaning towards a restrictive model, which manifests itself both in the difficult conditions of naturalization and rejection of the birthright citizenship law. The convergence of the positions of these two groups of countries on this issue is not visible.","PeriodicalId":47624,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Political Philosophy","volume":"2015 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Political Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.30570/2078-5089-2022-104-1-183-198","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The article is devoted to the analysis of differences in the approaches of European Union member states to the inclusion of migrants into the political community by granting them citizenship. These differences are operationalized through the category of “citizenship regimes”. The article distingui shes three types of citizenship regimes — liberal, restrictive, and mixed. Whether a particular regime can be categorized into one of these citizenship regime types is determined on the basis of three indicators: (1) application/nonapplication of birthright citizenship (jus soli), (2) the presence of the institution of dual (multiple) citizenship, and (3) the relative simplicity/complexity of the naturalization procedure. At the same time, due to the lack of the comprehensive statistical data, which would allow assessing all possible components of this procedure, in order to evaluate the degree of the simplicity/complexity of the procedure, the authors focus on such a parameter as the minimum time period of residence in the country required to apply for citizenship. Having considered the evolution of the legal systems of the EU states, the authors reveal important differences in the approaches to the naturalization of migrants along the axis between the “old” countries of the European Union, on the one hand, and new members of the United Europe from the former socialist countries, on the other. While the “old” EU members tend to gradually liberalize citizenship regimes, the new ones are leaning towards a restrictive model, which manifests itself both in the difficult conditions of naturalization and rejection of the birthright citizenship law. The convergence of the positions of these two groups of countries on this issue is not visible.
欧盟国家的公民制度与移民人口在政治共同体中的包容
这篇文章专门分析了欧盟成员国在通过授予移民公民身份将他们纳入政治共同体方面的不同做法。这些差异是通过“公民制度”这一类别来实现的。这篇文章区分了三种类型的公民制度——自由、限制和混合。一个特定的制度是否可以被归类为这些公民制度类型之一是基于三个指标来确定的:(1)申请/不申请出生公民权(出生地法),(2)双重(多重)公民身份制度的存在,以及(3)入籍程序的相对简单/复杂。同时,由于缺乏全面的统计数据,无法对这一程序的所有可能组成部分进行评估,以便评估该程序的简单/复杂程度,因此,作者将重点放在诸如申请公民身份所需在该国居住的最短时间这样一个参数上。在考虑了欧盟国家法律制度的演变之后,作者揭示了欧盟“老”国家与来自前社会主义国家的欧洲联盟新成员之间在移民入籍方法上的重要差异。“老”欧盟成员国倾向于逐步放宽公民制度,而新成员国则倾向于限制模式,这表现在入籍的困难条件和对出生公民权法的拒绝上。这两个国家集团在这个问题上的立场并不一致。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
5.60%
发文量
17
期刊介绍: The Journal of Political Philosophy is an international journal devoted to the study of theoretical issues arising out of moral, legal and political life. It welcomes, and hopes to foster, work cutting across a variety of disciplinary concerns, among them philosophy, sociology, history, economics and political science. The journal encourages new approaches, including (but not limited to): feminism; environmentalism; critical theory, post-modernism and analytical Marxism; social and public choice theory; law and economics, critical legal studies and critical race studies; and game theoretic, socio-biological and anthropological approaches to politics. It also welcomes work in the history of political thought which builds to a larger philosophical point and work in the philosophy of the social sciences and applied ethics with broader political implications. Featuring a distinguished editorial board from major centres of thought from around the globe, the journal draws equally upon the work of non-philosophers and philosophers and provides a forum of debate between disparate factions who usually keep to their own separate journals.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信