Abstract
Discussing new or recently reformed citizenship tests in the USA, Australia, and Canada, this article asks whether they amount to a restrictive turn of new world citizenship, similar to recent developments in Europe. I argue that elements of a restrictive turn are noticeable in Australia and Canada, but only at the level of political rhetoric, not of law and policy, which remain liberal and inclusive. Much like in Europe, the restrictive turn is tantamount to Muslims and Islam moving to the center of the integration debate.
Notes
1. This is not to deny the legacy of racial and gendered exclusion. As one recent study notes, ‘for over 80 percent of its history, the United States laws declared most of the world's population ineligible for full American citizenship solely because of their race, origin or gender’ (Herzog Citation2011, p. 82). But all these restrictions have long been lifted. And while the stripping of federal welfare benefits from legal immigrants in the mid-1990s and post-2001 anti-terror laws may have lent new significance to the citizen–immigrant distinction, citizenship continues to be easy to acquire, especially if compared to Europe.
2. In other respects, however, European citizenships have become liberalized, especially in an increased acceptance of dual citizenship and the introduction of conditional jus soli provisions for the children of immigrants (see Hansen and Weil Citation2001).
3. See Gates-Gasse (Citation2010). For Australian ‘two-step migration,’ see Hawthorne (Citation2010).
4. It should be mentioned though that the orally conducted US citizenship test, consisting of a closed-door interview with an immigration officer, leaves a certain amount of discretion to the latter, with little recourse to the applicant in case of a negative outcome. And while an applicant may try an infinite number of times, a retry costs ca. USD700 and it may take up to a year to get an interview.
5. An official of Citizenship and Immigration Canada, quoted in ‘Tougher Canadian citizenship tests lead to failing rates,’ Digital Journal, 29 November 2010 (www.digitaljournal.com/print/article/300846).
6. This limitation was later removed, in response to public critique.
7. Conseil d'Etat, 27 June 2008, Mme Faiza M., req. No 286798.