Hur liberala är medborgarskapstest?

Nu har EUDO Citizenship Observatory sammanställt debatten om hur liberala medborgarskapstest är i ett arbetspapper: How Liberal are citizenship tests?.

This working paper collects the contributions to a EUDO-CITIZENSHIP forum debate on whether such tests can be defended from a liberal perspective. The question: ‘How liberal are citizenship tests?’ can be interpreted in two ways: as a question whether applicants for naturalisation should be tested at all, or as a question about specific modes, contents and consequences of such tests that may make them either liberal or illiberal. In his kickoff contribution, Christian Joppke suggests an answer in line with the second interpretation by focusing on modes and contents. In his view, citizenship tests are defensible if applicants have reasonable opportunities to prepare for them and if questions are not inquisitive about individuals values and beliefs. Other authors claim instead that the most problematic feature of citizenship tests is the intention or effect of raising hurdles for naturalisation among long-term resident immigrants. Joseph Carens defends the view that ‘the most liberal citizenship test is none at all’. Ten authors have contributed to this lively and controversial debate, which concludes with a rejoinder by Christian Joppke.

Debatten om medborgarskapstest avslutad

Christian Joppke har nyligen avslutat den mycket intressanta akademiska debatten om medborgarskapstest som går att läsa på EUDO Citizenship. Drygt tio forskare, många av dem profilerade, har sagt sitt om hur ett liberalt medborgarskapstest bör utformas. Bland deras argumentation finner man en rad ståndpunkter som är intressanta för alla som vill ladda med argument inför en motsvarande svensk debatt.

I argued that, in principle, there is nothing objectionable to the new citizenship tests in Europe (even though I would not go as far as Amanda Koppenfels, who thinks they could turn Europe into US-style “countries of immigrants” –that’s a bit too much to expect of a trifle). The threshold of the illiberal is reached when (a) beliefs (and not just knowledge) are tested, but also when (b) behavioral virtuosity is imposed as condition for naturalization. Interestingly, no commentator said anything about (b), perhaps because the British concept of “active citizenship” is no requirement (yet?) and has not (yet?) been followed up elsewhere. Overall, I held, “the devil is in the detail”, and a context-sensitive analysis of the contents and modalities of citizenship tests is required to assess their “reasonableness” (the apposite term suggested by Randall Hansen in lieu of the overstretched “liberalism”).