access to citizenship & its impact on immigrant integration preliminary results for spain...
TRANSCRIPT
Access to Citizenship & Its Impact on Immigrant Integration
Preliminary Results for SpainDecember 14, 2012Barcelona Center for International Affairs
Kristen Jeffers Jasper Dag TjadenACIT Researcher Policy AnalystUniversity College Dublin Migration Policy Group
EUDO Citizenship• European Union Democracy Observatory (EUDO), Robert Schuman
Centre of the European University Institute in Florence• Goal: to provide data for research and public policy• Features:
• Databases: national citizenship laws, citizenship case law, modes of acquisition, modes of loss, citizenship statistics
• Publications: country reports, comparative citizenship analyses, working papers, policy briefs
• Citizenship news• Citizenship forum• Citizenship indicators: law, implementation, acquisition, integration
• Five partner institutions:
ACIT Project• Access to Citizenship and its Impact on Immigrant Integration• Collection and comparison of national and international evidence on effect of
the the acquisition of citizenship on immigrants’ participation in society and the democratic process
• Four sets of citizenship indicators:– CITLAW: indicators of legal provisions of citizenship laws– CITIMP: indicators of formal and informal aspects of naturalisation
procedures – CITACQ: descriptive data of citizenship acquisition in European countries
with a specific focus on the naturalisation of immigrants– CITINT: descriptive data about differences in integration outcomes
• Explaining the impact of citizenship laws on– CITACQ: acquisition rates– CITINT: post-acquisition outcomes (integration, participation, mobility)
• In-depth case studies in 10 EU Member States: Austria, Estonia, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, Spain, United Kingdom
Citizenship Law (CITLAW) Indicators
• 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 the degree of inclusion and individual choice (vs. exclusion and state power to determine acquistion or loss):
• Indicator scores range from 0 to 10 = lowest degree of inclusion or individual choice1 = highest degree of inclusion or individual choice
Summary of FindingsIus Sanguinis
Ius Soli
Ordinary Naturalisation
Special Naturalisation
Renunciation
Involuntary Loss
0.0
0.5
1.0
Spain EU-15 EU-27
Ordinary Naturalisation
Overa
ll
Residence
Conditions
Renunciation
Language Conditions
Civic K
nowledge/ Assi
milation
Criminal R
ecord
Economic
Resource
s0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
0.58
0.29
0.75
0.50
0.75
0.25
0.50
0.640.61
0.83
0.470.53
0.30
0.630.58
0.55
0.73
0.37
0.59
0.29
0.65
Spain EU-15 EU-27
Ordinary Naturalisation
opportunities• language requirements• civic knowledge
requirements
obstacles• residence requirement:
– Belgium (min) 1.00– Spain 0.29– Greece (max) 0.24– EU-15 0.61
• toleration of dual citizenship
• criminal record requirements
• economic resources requirements
Special Naturalisation (selected modes)
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.3875
0.48
1
0.5
1
0.75 0.75
0.25
0.75 0.75
0.5
0
0.3570833333333330.375833333333333
0.541666666666667
0.270833333333333
0.883333333333333
0.258333333333333
0.675
0.208333333333333
0.3125
0.225
0.46250.470833333333333
0.3313657407407410.353240740740741
0.456018518518519
0.229166666666667
0.814814814814815
0.277777777777778
0.638888888888889
0.178240740740741
0.349537037037037
0.162037037037037
0.4282407407407410.391203703703704
Spain EU-15 EU-27
Special Naturalisation
opportunities• spousal transfer• child transfer• adoption• reacquisition• historical and cultural
affinity• refugees
obstacles• stateless persons
• 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?
Citizenship Implementation Indicators (CITIMP)
Summary of Findings
Positive link between law (CITLAW) & implementation (CITIMP) Spain slightly below EU-15 average (only ,47 out of 1,00)
• Only average policies to promote naturalisation• Demanding documentation, more than in most EU15 countries• Slightly discretionary procedure, more so than in most countries• Just as bureaucratic as in most countries• Strong judicial reviewProcedures in Spain are most similar to those in Austria
Results by dimensionPromotionOpp Costs and basic promotional materialsObs Support to pass requirements, promotional service or
campaign
DiscretionOpp Limited discretion on residence requirementObs Discretionary procedure & language/integration assessment
ReviewOpp Appeal to highest level of procedure & integration
assessment that can change decision in meritObs Time limits, difficult to interpret decision on lang./integ.
DocumentationDocumentation is more demanding than in most EU-15 countries
• Complicated documentation on identity, criminal record, job situation• Documentation from country of origin (identity, criminal record)• No flexibility on proof of language and integration assessment• Few exemptions on humanitarian or accessibility grounds
Spain
Citizenship acquisition (CITACQ)
• Acquisition indicators compare the rates of citizenship acquisition among foreign-born persons 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 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
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)
Citizenship acquisition (CITACQ)
• 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%). The rates in Spain (16%) below the EU-15 average.
– 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),
whereas in Spain this is around 9 years.
Summary of Findings
Acquisition rates in EU-15 (+CH, NO)
SPAIN
Speed of naturalisation
Spain
Spain compared I(% foreign-born with citizenship)
ALL SEX (female) SEX (male) ORIGIN COUNTRY (EU)
ORIGIN COUNTRY (non-EU)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45 Spain EU-15
%
Spain compared II(% foreign-born with citizenship)
at least 5 years at least 10 years at least 15 years at least 20 years0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70Spain EU-15
%
years of residence
Analysis of acquisition ratesCitizenship 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)
Spain (29) Spain (29)
MIPEX Access to Nationality score (adjusted for first generation only), Austria: 34
Citizenship and Integration (CITINT)
• 10 core indicators measure the the extent to which changes in citizenship status affect levels of integration.
• Two categories of indicators:– Labour force participation (2008 Eurostat LFS ad hoc
module)– Social inclusion and standard of living (2008
Eurostat LFS ad hoc module & 2008 EU-SILC)• Sample: EU-27, Iceland, Norway, Switzerland• As expected, immigrants who naturalised are often
better off than immigrants who have not naturalised.
Labour Force ParticipationUNEMPLOYMENT RATEECONOMIC ACTIVITY RATEOVERQUALIFICATION RATE
The gap in unemployment between foreign-born non-citizens and native-born citizens in Spain is among the largest in our sample.
UNITED KINGDOM
GREECE
LUXEM
BOURG
IRELAND
ITALY
EU-27
PORTUGAL
EU-15
AUSTRIA
SWED
EN
NETHER
LANDS
SPAIN
BELGIUM
GERMANY
FRANCE
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
-2.9
-0.4
2.22.7 2.7 2.7 2.8
3.5 3.74.2 4.3
7.3 7.5 7.5
8.9
Gaps in unemployment rates, non-citizen immigrants compared to natives, 2008 (%)
Labour Force Participation
UNEMPLOYMENT RATEECONOMIC ACTIVITY RATEOVERQUALIFICATION RATE
Naturalized immigrants have lower levels of unemployment than non-citizen immigrants.
Immigrants from outside the EU have higher levels of unemployment than immigrants from within the EU.
Source: 2008 EU Labour Force Survey Ad Hoc Module
Non-citizen Immigrants
Naturalized Immigrants
Natives
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Unemployment Rates, Spain, 2008 (%)
Non-EU EU Total
Social Inclusion & Standard Of LivingEDUCATION LEVELDWELLING & AREA QUALITYPROPERTY OWNERSHIPHOUSING COST BURDEN
RECEIPT OF SOCIAL
BENEFITSDIFFICULTY MAKING ENDS MEETUNMET HEALTHCARE NEEDS
Source: 2008 EU-SILC Survey
Generally, the gaps between the share of immigrants and the share of natives having difficult paying household expenses are larger in Spain than across the EU.
Spain EU-15 EU-270
5
10
15
20
25
12.311.2
7.4
21
15
7
Share Having Difficulty Making Ends Meet, Gaps with Natives, 2008 (%)
Naturalized Immigrants Non-citizen Immigrants
Social Inclusion & Standard Of LivingEDUCATION LEVELDWELLING & AREA QUALITYPROPERTY OWNERSHIPHOUSING COST BURDEN
RECEIPT OF SOCIAL
BENEFITSDIFFICULTY MAKING ENDS MEETUNMET HEALTHCARE NEEDS
Source: 2008 EU-SILC Survey
Immigrants in Spain spend a larger portion of their income on housing expenses than natives.
The gaps between natives and immigrants are larger in Spain compared to the averages for the EU-15 and EU-27.
Spain EU-15 EU-270
5
10
15
20
25
8.6
2.0 2.0
19.7
9.29.9
Housing Cost Burden, Gaps with Natives, 2008 (%)
Naturalized Immigrants Non-citizen Immigrants