Summary
This publication provides an update of the MIPEX country profiles for France and the United States as well as a comparative report on the path to citizenship in both countries, based on supplementary questionnaires answered by experts at France terre d’asile and the Immigration Policy Center.
Description
A clear path to citizenship is a sign of a confident country of immigration. During the twentieth century, naturalization became central to the integration strategies of the world’s traditional countries of immigration: the United States, Australia, Canada and New Zealand. Decades after so-called ‘guest workers’ arrived in Western Europe and built new lives in their adopted countries, Western European governments passed major reforms creating legalizations, clearer pathways to naturalization, tolerance of dual nationality, and some form of birthright citizenship. They saw these reforms as a recognition that the nation had transformed into a country of permanent immigration and an increasingly diverse society. This process is now repeating itself in Europe’s newer countries of immigration in the South, such as Spain, Italy, and Portugal. Within Europe, France has one of the longest established histories of immigration and inclusive traditions of citizenship dating back to the nineteenth century.
Similarly, the United States, which prides itself on its immigrant heritage, has demonstrated a history of expanded immigration measures, often reflecting the changing social climate of the day. Despite a vibrant immigrant tradition, however, the United States has also been subject to waves of anti-immigrant sentiment, most recently evidenced in a series of anti-immigrant laws passed at the state level. Other recent profound influences on American immigration policy have included the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, a surge of illegal immigration during the economic boom of the 1990s, and rapidly changing demographic patterns that have given rise to large groups of new voters who are New Americans—naturalized citizens or their children.
Since no country is safe from the politicization of immigration, reforms and revisions have been done, undone, and done again. A country’s pathway to citizenship is often affected by its response to irregular migration. Although the size and nature of the unauthorized population varies from country-to-country, most major destinations experience rises and falls in irregular immigration, residence, and employment. This process is driven not only by world events beyond their borders, but also needs within their own population and often the limited opportunities for legal immigration and secure residence within their immigration system. This persistent reality can test peoples’ confidence in their politicians, their perception of their immigration system, and their solidarity with other people.
The recent past in France and the United States show that the pathway to citizenship can be one of the casualties. For nearly two decades, the US’s intensified enforcement-only policy to deter irregular migration1 has left the federal government with few forms of relief and few options for legal immigration, whose levels were last adjusted in 1990. A few commentators even proposed reinterpreting or repealing the US Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment. Since the 2000s, France has felt the impact of almost yearly immigration reforms. Conservative governments accelerated deportations and the fight against irregular immigration and restricted access to the territory, residence permits, naturalization, as well as family reunification for non-EU citizens and even French citizens. Both countries are learning the hard way that their immigration systems cannot ignore many immigrants’ effective links to their country, their labor markets, and their own citizens.
The pathway to citizenship may also hold the key to reducing irregular migration and the politicization of immigration. In the past year, France and the United States have gone through significant presidential elections, where both winning candidates have promised immigration reform. Both governments have recognized legalization (known as regularization in Europe) as one necessary tool for reducing irregular migration, residence, and employment, alongside greater legal immigration opportunities, border security, and enforcement of existing laws, such as employer sanctions. Legalization may include a clear path to long-term residence and naturalization. Reforms may also improve legal immigrants’ path to long-term residence and citizenship as well as their rights and integration.
At this critical juncture in the reform process, the Migration Policy Group, a Brussels-based think-and-do-tank, collected and analyzed evidence with partners in France and the United States: France Terre d’Asile and the Immigration Policy Center. Firstly, these partners assessed whether the current legal framework sets favorable conditions for the integration of legal immigrants. This evaluation was achieved through an update of the Migrant Integration Policy Index (MIPEX), a well-established international benchmarking tool (www.mipex.eu). These updated MIPEX country profiles are available at the end of this report. Secondly, these partners then reviewed recent reports, statistics, and surveys on their respective countries’ pathway to citizenship for unauthorized and legal immigrants and its impact on integration. Contrary to popular perception, the pathway to citizenship in both countries is often long and difficult in practice, with long-term negative effects on immigrants’ economic, social, and political participation. The future pathways to American and French citizenship need to avoid the mistakes of the past and learn lessons from around the world. This report’s main research question is: how does the pathway to citizenship affect the lives and integration of newcomers, especially legalized immigrants? The comparative report tackles this question through six sections on:
- Legalization programs and mechanisms for unauthorized immigrants
- Social and economic rights of newcomers
- State-funded integration support for newcomers
- Access to long-term or permanent residence
- Access to citizenship
- Conclusions on the benefits of naturalization for integration
