czech integration policy in view of theory

Czech integration policy

in view of theory

Theorising Migration I.

Jana Slavíková 1.2.2010

Instructor: Marina Lukšič-Hacin

1. 2. 2010 Jana Slavíková

Czech integration policy in view of theory

2

Contents

1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 3

2. Nation state and minorities .................................................................................................. 3

3. Acquisition of citizenship ...................................................................................................... 5

4. Integration models ................................................................................................................ 7

5. Integration policy of the Czech Republic............................................................................. 10

6. Bibliography ........................................................................................................................ 14

7. Appendix ............................................................................................................................. 16



3

1. Introduction

The aim of this paper is to sum up possible approaches to integration and naturalization

of immigrants in nation states, and locate the Czech integration and naturalization

policy within these models.

First, I am going to outline the theoretical concepts and models, that is the concept of a

nation state, types of citizenship and possible ways of its acquisition (ius sanguinis, ius

soli, ius domicile), then I will focus on three basic models of integrating immigrants

(the differential exclusionary model, the assimilationist model, the multicultural model).

I will also note the current tendencies in the EU.

In the following part, I will focus on the Czech Republic and the development and

current state of its immigration and integration policy. I am going to find answers to the

following questions: What kind of integration policy is the Czech Republic following

(e.g. multiculturalism, assimilation)? What are the conditions for becoming a citizen of

the Czech Republic? Is it ius sanguinis or ius soli?

Besides the obligatory literature for the course Theorising Migration I., the main

sources of my paper are: “The Age of Migration” by Stephen Castles and Mark J. Miller

and “Přistěhovalectví a liberální stát: Imigrační a integrační politiky v USA, západní

Evropě a Česku” (Immigration and liberal state: Immigration and integration policies in

the USA, western Europe and the Czech Republic) by Andrea Baršová and Pavel Barša.

2. Nation state and minorities

The core of the problem of integration of immigrants lies in the concept of a nation

state. Before the formation of modern nation states in the 18th and 19th century, people

were subjects of a monarch and their belonging to a state was defined by the territory,

not by their ethnicity or culture. Modern nation states are still linked with a specific

territory, but in addition, citizens of such a state also belong to the same nation.

A nation is a social construct that can be defined as “a community of people, whose

members are bound together by a sense of solidarity, a common culture, a national

consciousness” (Seton-Watson, 1977: 1 in Castles, Miller, 2003: 41). Another definition

describes nation as “an ethnic group that attains sovereignty over a bounded territory ...



4

and establishes a nation-state” (Castles, Miller, 2003: 41) and yet another states: “A

nation can ... be defined as a named human population sharing an historic territory,

common myths and historical memories, a mass, public culture, a common economy

and common legal rights and duties for all members.” (Smith, 1991: 14 in Castles,

Miller, 2003: 41)

All power of a nation state derives from the people (a nation) and the nationalist

ideology demands that every ethnic group constitutes itself as a nation and becomes a

nation-state. Formation of nation states is associated with homogenisation, which can

mean exclusion, assimilation or even genocide for minority groups. Basically, no

modern nation state is constituted purely by one ethnicity, and has ever been. Modern

nation states have created various mechanisms to achieve cultural and political

integration of minorities, which “include citizenship itself, centralized political

institutions, the propagation of [standardized] national languages, universal education

systems and creation of national institutions like the army, or an established church.”

(Schnapper, 1991, 1994 in Castles, Miller, 2003: 43) “The nation state is still the basic

unit for defence, public order and welfare1, but its room for autonomous action is

severely reduced.” (Castles, Miller, 2003: 43) The power of a nation state is not

restricted just by global markets, but also by international regimes of human rights (see

Hollifield in Brettell, Hollifield, 2007).

“Immigration of culturally diverse people presents nation-states with a dilemma:

incorporation of the newcomers as citizens may undermine myths of cultural

homogeneity2; but failure to incorporate them may lead to divided societies, marked by

severe inequality and conflict.” (Castles, Miller, 2003: 40-1) Ethnic minorities are

portrayed as a threat to economic well-being, public order and national identity. As a

1 Vah and Lukšič-Hacin (2008: 9) maintain that the welfare state is a project of nation-building. “The

interrelatedness of welfare state, nation-state and solidarity have generated an altered understanding of the latter, as solidarity now increasingly includes ethnicity/culture element, leaving the social element in the background.” 2 Lukšič-Hacin (2007: 139) points out that one of the rare strategies of labour migration that was not in

sharp conflict with the nation state ideology was the temporary guest worker model – should it function as intended, i.e. emigration-immigration-return. In reality, the desired temporary immigration turned into permanent settlement, even though countries like Germany did not want to admit it and deal with it. (Castles, Miller, 2003: 198-219)



5

matter of fact, ethnicity is just another social construct. It is a product of “other-

definition” (a subordinate position is assigned on the basis of phenotype, origins or

culture) and “self-definition” (collective consciousness based a belief in shared

language, traditions, religion, history and experiences). (Castles, Miller, 2003: 33)

If the receiving state and society are open, accept cultural diversity and willingly grant

citizenship, immigrant groups are allowed to form ethnic communities as part of a

multicultural society. Rejection, on the contrary, may lead to formation of ethnic

minorities, which are perceived as undesirable and divisive. (Castles, Miller, 2003: 32)

“The result is isolation, separatism and emphasis on difference.” (Castles, Miller, 2003:

224) In fact, both ethnic communities and ethnic minorities can be found in most

countries – together with a category of settlers who have merged. The main marker for

minority status is phenotypical difference (skin colour, racial appearance) and the

explanation for the creation of ethnic minorities is racism. (Castles, Miller, 2003: 236-9)

Acceptance of cultural diversity is closely connected with linguistic and cultural rights.

On the one hand, “[m]aintenance of language and culture is seen as a need and a right

by most settler groups”, as it may help them develop identity and self-esteem, and assist

their integration into the wider society. Also, “bilingualism brings benefits in learning

and intellectual development.” On the other hand, cultural difference may be seen “as a

threat to a supposed cultural homogeneity and to national identity”. (Castles, Miller,

2003: 248)

3. Acquisition of citizenship

If immigrants are to be accepted as part of society, they should obviously be able to

acquire the citizenship at some point, but that is an issue of high sensitivity. What

undermines the national ideal is the fact that immigrants might have “divided loyalties”

– when they live in one state, but are citizens of another one, or when they are citizens

of two states. (Castles, Miller, 2003: 43) The ways in which citizenship can be obtained

depend on the definition of the particular nation. Therefore, changing the definition of

citizenship “may affect the very nature of the nation-state” (Castles, Miller, 2003: 48)



6

However, accessibility of citizenship for immigrants is crucial also for another reason,

and that is the welfare, because its provision is bound to national citizenship. (Lukšič-

Hacin, 2007) Vah and Lukšič-Hacin (2008: 10) point out that “[i]n (European) nation

state contexts ... citizenship is commonly linked to nationality and culture. As those

concepts are frequently used interchangeably, the fact that citizenship is a legal political

category that introduces a set of rights and obligations between an individual and a state

is often overlooked.” They argue that the welfare system has been associated with

nationality to foster a sense of common national identity, which brings about social

solidarity. Otherwise, middle classes would not be so willing to contribute to the worse-

off groups. “[I]mmigrants with different citizenship and different ethnic/cultural

backgrounds3 [potentially and allegedly] pose a threat to the solidarity needed for

redistribution.” They conclude (Vah, Lukšič-Hacin, 2008: 19) that “[t]he real question

here is whether people of one ethnic group can develop feelings of solidarity towards

members of another ethnic group.” That brings us back to the sense of belonging and

the concept of nation state citizenship.

Castles, Miller (2003: 44-5) outline five ideal types of citizenship4:

1. The imperial model – belonging to the nation is defined in terms of being a

subject of the same power or ruler. (The UK formally until 1981.)

2. The folk or ethnic model – belonging to the nation defined in terms of ethnicity

(common descent, language and culture). (Germany close until 2000.)

3. The republican model – belonging to the nation as a political community, but

also adoption of the national culture. (France)

3 Vah and Lukšič-Hacin (2008: 19) observe that: “When immigrants would simply be perceived as a

labour force without “ethno-cultural baggage” and with an inherent ability to integrate into a majority society, the broader public would no doubt disregard arguments about the severity of the immigration threat shaking the well-established roots of the welfare system. The real problem seems not to be the quantity of immigrants but their ethnic origin and cultural/religious beliefs that need to be recognised in contemporary European democracies with policies of multiculturalism.” 4 Other existing concepts are “quasi-citizenship”, as a special status for immigrants who have been

legally resident in a country for many years, and “denizenship”, as a legal and permanent status of foreign citizens. (Castles, Miller, 2003: 45)



7

4. The multicultural model – belonging to the nation as a political community,

cultural difference may be maintained and ethnic communities formed.

(Australia, Canada, Sweden in the 1970s and 1980s)

5. The transnational model – social and cultural identities transcend national

boundaries, forms of belonging may be multiple.

These models are linked to two legal principles of naturalization: ius sanguinis (law of

the blood – based on descent from a national of the country) is related to the folk or

ethnic model (typical for Germany and Austria) and ius soli (law of the soil – based on

birth in the territory) might be associated with the imperial, republican or multicultural

model (the UK, USA, Canada, Australia, Latin American countries). (Castles, Miller,

2003: 243) “However, most countries actually apply models based on a mixture of the

two principles. Increasingly, entitlement to citizenship grows out of long-term residence

in the country: the ius domicile.” (Castles, Miller, 2003: 247)

As far as the conditions for acquisition of citizenship are concerned, practices are very

different, but legal requirements for naturalization seem quite similar in various

countries: “good character”, regular employment, language proficiency, evidence of

integration, etc. (Castles, Miller, 2003: 246)

4. Integration models

Three groups of countries can be distinguished with respect to the forms of immigration

(Castles, Miller, 2003: 221):

1. “Classical immigration” countries – encouraged family reunion and

permanent settlement, treated most legal immigrants as future citizens. (USA,

Canada, Australia, and also Sweden, despite a different history)

2. Former empires – treated immigrants from former colonies better than others –

they were often citizens at the time of entry; settlement, family reunion and

naturalization often allowed. (France, the Netherlands, the UK)

3. Countries with “guest worker” models in the past – tried to prevent family

reunion, reluctant to grant secure residence status, naturalization very restricted.

(Germany, Austria, Switzerland)



8

Based on their approach to incorporation of immigrants, countries may be roughly

divided into three categories (Castles, Miller, 2003: 249-52)5:

1. The differential exclusionary model – can be found in countries with the “folk

or ethnic model”, the nation being a community of birth and descent.

Immigration policies are exclusionary and naturalization rules restrictive.

Immigrants are incorporated into certain areas of society (labour market) but

denied access to others. Formation of ethnic minorities. Refusal to admit being a

country of immigration. (Germany, Switzerland, Austria)

2. The assimilationist model – seems to derive from a merging of the “imperial

model” and the “republican model”. Appearance of a slower and gentler kind of

assimilation in form of more flexible “integration policies”, which stress that

graduality of adaptation and importance of group cohesion. Citizenship is a

political relationship, but the implication of cultural homogenization is very

strong. (France, but also the UK, Australia and Canada in the past)

3. The multicultural model – membership of civil society should lead to full

participation in the state and the nation. Immigrants granted equal rights, can

maintain their diversity, but must conform to certain key values. Laissez-faire

approach (USA) or a government policy (Canada, Australia, Sweden).

Starting 1990s, the concept of common immigration policy and integration of

immigrants in the European Union (that is, in the eurospeak, third country nationals =

TCNs, because citizens of other EU6 countries enjoy special treatment) began to gain

importance. In 1999 in Tampere, the European Council approved the paradigm of just

treatment of TCNs: the aim was to ensure the integration of TCNs residing in the

European Union, through granting rights and obligations comparable to those of citizens

of the EU. Also, TCNs who have been legal residents of an EU Member State for a

period of time should be granted a set of uniform rights which are as near as possible to

those enjoyed by EU citizens. Since then, the European Union has taken many steps in

5 Lukšič-Hacin (2007: 139) also differentiates three models of “practices regarding immigration

restrictions, attitudes towards immigrants, and everyday life conditions”: foreign workers model in France, guest worker model in Germany and immigrant model in Sweden. 6 More about the EU migration policy and population groups in Lukšič-Hacin (2007).



9

the direction of common immigration and integration policy, a new European

Integration Fund has been set up, two issues of the Handbook on Integration for policy-

makers and practitioners published, a special website on integration

(www.integration.eu) for the exchange of successful practices launched, a Migrant

Integration Policy Index for benchmarking of countries developed, etc.7

In 2004, eleven Common Basic Principles for a holistic approach to integration were

adopted. The EU recognizes that “integration is a dynamic, two-way process of mutual

accommodation by all immigrants and residents of Member States”, but the basic values

of the EU have to be respected. The significance of labour market integration, education

of immigrants, access to institutions and political participation of immigrants was

acknowledged, but most importantly, the need for introductory programmes for

newcomers and for language courses was recognized.

Reaching a compromise among states with such diverse, often opposing, models and

approaches has been hard. Nevertheless, this development in the European Union has

influenced the policies of Member States, even though the European Union plays a

minor role in this area of privileged powers of nation-states. The above mentioned three

models have been converging into a model of civic integration (and civic citizenship)8,

based on a social contract between an immigrant and the host society: while the

immigrant adopts the language and political institutions of the native population, and

they respect his / her lifestyle, ethnic and religious identity, given these do not collide

with liberal democratic principles. (Barša, Baršová, 2005: 164)

7 A list of achievements of the EU in this area is available on the website of the European Commission

for Freedom, security and justice: http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/fsj/immigration/integration/fsj_immigration_integration_en.htm 8 Lukšič-Hacin (2007: 143) says that “[c]ontemporary EU integration policy puts forth principles of

multiculturalism – respecting the right of immigrants to preserve their cultural heritage in new environments, while simultaneously respecting the legal-political order of the country of immigration.” It seems that both definitions are the same if we stress the individuality of migrants’ incorporation when speaking about multiculturalism.



10

5. Integration policy of the Czech Republic9

The last census in the Czech Republic in 2001 showed that 90.4 per cent of its

approximately 10.3 million citizens claim Czech ethnicity, 3.7 per cent Moravian and

0.1 per cent Silesian. The Czech Republic has only recently become an immigration

country. During the communist era, nobody really wanted “in” as much as rather “out”.

The only significant exceptions were Greek refugees escaping the civil war in 1946-49,

ordered relocation of Slovak Romanies starting after World War II., and study

migration of students, trainees and interns especially from Vietnam, but also from other

friendly communist countries, with which Czechoslovakia signed special agreements

(the first one with Vietnam was in 1974). After the split of the Czech and Slovak

Republic in 1993, there were about 50 thousand foreigners in the Czech Republic, about

30 thousand of whom had a permanent residence. In October 2009, there were more

than 430 thousand foreigners in the Czech Republic, almost 180 thousand of whom had

a permanent residence. More than 25 per cent of the foreigners were of Ukrainian

origin, 75 thousand Slovak and 61 thousand Vietnamese.10

Three periods can be discerned in the development of migration policies:

1. 1990-1995 – a “laissez faire” period when basically anybody could enter the

Czech territory – it was monitored, but not regulated. On the other hand, there

was no legal way (except a marriage with a Czech person) to settle and

naturalize.

2. 1996-1999 – a period of harmonisation with acquis communautaire –

tightening of laws, but no national strategy for migration. Newly, permanent

residence accessible after 10 years of long-term residence.

3. 1999-present – a period of conceptualising efforts – in 2003, Principles of

migration policy adopted by the government, but a long-term strategy postponed

until the result of negotiations in the EU. The length of long-term residence

before naturalization halved.

9 This chapter draws mainly on the chapter “Česko“ in Barša, Baršová, 2005.

10 Figures can be found in Appendix. The update is available [31 January 2010] on

http://www.czso.cz/csu/cizinci.nsf/t/820057D6CD/$File/c01t03.pdf



11

Permanent residence may be obtained after 5 years of uninterrupted long-term residence

in the Czech Republic, and starting 2009, applicants have to produce a certificate of a

passed exam in Czech (level A1 of the Common European Framework of Reference for

Languages). There are some exceptions to this rule, for example highly qualified

workers can obtain it after 1.5 or 2.5 years and do not have to pass the language exam.

Also, since the 1990s, about a thousand Czech expatriates (or their descendants) have

been remigrated to the Czech Republic (mostly from the countries of former Soviet

Union) and their naturalization was simplified in comparison with other immigrants.

However, selective criteria based on ethnicity were not acceptable in view of prohibited

discrimination, so the Czech government could only assist expatriates if they were

endangered in any way. (Nevertheless, endangered “Czech identity” was enough.)

The integration policy has undergone four phases since 1990:

1. 1990-1998 – in 1991, an aid programme for refugees adopted (including

accommodation support and limited Czech classes). Beginnings of integration

policy facilitated by the initiative of the Ministry of Interior and the Council of

Europe, hampered by the need for clarification of immigration strategy and by

lack of attention in the EU.

2. 1999-2003 – formulation of an integration strategy, support of research and data

collection, reinforcement of cooperation with the non-governmental sector and

immigrant associations, efforts to delegate the implementation of integration

policy to lower levels of government. In 1999, Principles of the conception of

integration of foreigners were adopted, resonating with the approach of the

Council of Europe, i.e. a multicultural model of ethnic communities. (However,

it was never really implemented.) In 2000, a Conception of the integration of

foreigners and in 2003, an Analysis of the situation of status of foreigners were

published, both accenting individual civic integration, which had been agreed on

in the European Union. A shift from the multiculturalism of communities to

liberal multiculturalism can be observed.

3. 2004-2006 – the area of integration moved to the Ministry of labour and social

affairs. Continuing the EU trend of emphasising individual integration as an



12

intentional and conscious process that can be understood as a contract between

an immigrant and the host society. Further conceptualising effort, but lacking

implementation and insufficient interconnection with the naturalization policy.

4. 2007-present – in 2007, an amendment of the immigration law adopted. Newly,

knowledge of Czech language (documented by passing an exam) required as a

condition for the acquisition of permanent residence and citizenship. Such a

certificate required since 1 January 2009. Stricter rules for mixed marriages: the

spouse of a Czech citizen does not automatically obtain a permanent residence

anymore, a transitional period of 2 years introduced.11 In 2008, the domain of

integration returned to the Ministry of Interior, and in 2009, six regional centres

for the support of integration of foreigners were set up that should provide

immigrants with information and various services (including language courses

and legal advice), and monitor situation in regions.

As has been mentioned above, there has been a discrepancy between the immigration

(and integration) law and the law regulating naturalization. When the naturalization

conditions set in 1993, they did not take immigration into account at all – and only a

few year later was the law adjusted to include a possibility of an immigrant becoming a

Czech citizen (without marrying a Czech person). Conditions for naturalization are: 5

years of permanent residence in the territory of the state, no criminal conviction in the

past 5 years, proved knowledge of the Czech language and fulfilling of such duties, as

paying taxes, insurance, etc. The law was revised in 2003, but that did not bring any

major changes. The number of naturalizations in the Czech Republic is relatively low12

(the share of naturalized foreigners is similar to Germany). Dual citizenship is not

allowed (with certain rare exceptions). Children born in the Czech Republic acquire the

Czech citizenship if at least one of them is a Czech citizen, or both their parents are

without a state citizenship. A recent change allows also children of foreigners to acquire

11 This change, introduced with the intent to fight fake marriages, may increase the dependence of

foreigners on their Czech partner, puts such marriages in very disadvantaged positions with respect to social benefits, etc. Another negative feature is that the police are allowed to unexpected controls or personal interrogations. (Dvořáková, 2009) 12

See a figure in the Appendix.



13

the Czech citizenship, provided that at least one of them has a permanent residence in

the Czech Republic.

6. Conclusion

The Czech Republic has been a relatively homogeneous country since the years

following World War II. until the 1990s, when its borders opened and it began to attract

thousands of immigrants, especially from the former Soviet Union. These immigrants

form the largest group at the moment, with other significant nationalities being Slovaks

and Vietnamese. If we apply the three categories of settler groups, while many Slovaks

practically merge, the linguistically related Russian speaking group might form an

ethnic community (presuming, the Czech Republic will be open enough), while

Vietnamese, based on their phenotypical markers, might form an ethnic minority (or

already has). On the other hand, if we consider that these categories are also associated

with a social-economic status, the situation gets a little complicated. (Vietnamese are

very hardworking and mostly independent small business people, while Ukrainians

occupy low-paid manual jobs.)

What kind of integration policy is the Czech Republic following? The truth is that

during the short period of its evolution, it has so far had not managed to acquire a solid

form and comprehensive strategy. Mostly, it has been shaped by the directives and

recommendations of the European Union, and adopted its model of “civic integration”

(or liberal multiculturalism). Nevertheless, the implementation and effective

coordination is still lagging behind: systems of the newly introduced language exams as

well as integration centres are criticised, and changes in legislation also have opponents.

A favourable, and for some time already discussed, change would be one of the

naturalization law. Just like other countries in central Europe, the Czech Republic has

leaned towards ius sanguinis. It is probably time to stop looking in the past and learn

how to embrace a multicultural future – not just in the Czech Republic, in the nation

states as such.



14

7. Bibliography

Barša, Pavel, and Andrea Baršová. Přistěhovalectví a liberální stát: Imigrační a

integrační politiky v USA, západní Evropě a Česku. 1st ed. Mezinárodní

politologický ústav Masarykovy univerzity. 2005.

Brettell, Caroline B., and James F. Hollifield. Migration Theory: Talking across

Disciplines. 2nd ed. Routledge, 2007.

Castles, Stephen, and Mark J. Miller. The Age of Migration: International Population

Movements in the Modern World. 3rd ed. Palgrave Macmillan, 2003.

Czech Statistical Office. Foreigners in the CR.

http://www.czso.cz/csu/cizinci.nsf/engkapitola/uvod [available online 30 January

2010]

Dvořáková, Daniela. Nové přístupy v imigračních politikách Francie a České republiky.

Fakulta sociálních studií. Masarykova univerzita. Brno. 2009.

European Commission. Integration of third-country nationals.

http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/fsj/immigration/integration/fsj_immigration_inte

gration_en.htm [available online 31 January 2010]

Jupp, James. The Australian people. Cambridge University Press, 2001.

Lukšič-Hacin, Marina. To think and live multiculturalism in variol migration contexts of

European Union member states. In Drnovšek, Marjan (ed.). Historical and

cultural perspectives on Slovenian migration, (Migracije, 14). Ljubljana: ZRC

Publishing, Scientific Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and

Arts, 2007, p. 137 - 171.

Migrant Integration Policy Index II. 2006 – 2007. www.integrationindex.eu [available

online 30 January 2010]

Ministry of Interior of the Czech Republic. Integrace: Informace o procesu integrace

cizinců, azylantů a krajanů v České republice.

http://www.mvcr.cz/clanek/integrace.aspx [available online 31 January 2010]

Ošmera, Radim. Podoba zkoušky z českého jazyka pro účely získání trvalého pobytu.

http://www.migraceonline.cz/e-knihovna/?x=2210442 [available online 29

January 2010]



15

Tošnerová, Barbora. Podoba integrace cizinců v českých krajích – Krajská integrační

centra. http://www.migraceonline.cz/e-knihovna/?x=2210832 [available online 29

January 2010]

Vah, Mojca, and Marina Lukšič-Hacin. Contemporary implications of multiculturalism

policies for European welfare states. Dve domov. 2008, p. 7 – 21.



16

8. Appendix

Source: Czech Statistical Office

czech integration policy in view of theory

Documents