Access to citizenship & its impact on immigrant integration (ACIT) Results for Italy 31 January 2012 Thomas Huddleston Migration Policy Group Oriane Calligaro European University Institute Co-financed by the European Fund for the Integration of Third- Country Nationals

Access to citizenship & its impact on immigrant integration (ACIT) End date: 31/03/2013 Goal: Researchers & policy actors better understand how law, implementation, and other factors affect citizenship acquisition and how citizenship affects integration processes; Goal: Policymakers & civil society use evidence to design more effective laws and measures Consolidate law indicators Pilot implementation indicators Expand ‘outcome’ indicators Assess determinants of naturalisation across EU Assess citizenship impact on integration process 10 national citizenship dialogues and national handbooks EU conclusions, recommendations, dialogue, module

Citizenship Law Indicators (CITLAW) 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 strength of the purpose or principle of the citizenship law Indicator scores range from 0 to 1 0 = purpose/principle not represented 1 = purpose/principle strongly represented

Summary of Findings

Ordinary Naturalisation

opportunities Dual nationality accepted Flexible criminal record requirement obstacles Very restrictive residence requirement (10 years uninterrupted with LTR) – EU – EU – Italy0.26 – Switzerland 0.12 Demanding economic resources requirement

Special Naturalisation (selected modes)

Special Naturalisation opportunities Spousal transfer Child extension Reacquisition Shorter periods for EU citizens, refugees, & stateless obstacles socialisation-based access for foreign-born children

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 Generally, countries with many legal obstacles (CITLAW) have many procedural obstacles (CITIMP)—Italy has some of greatest procedural obstacles

IT procedure most unfavourable in EU15 Least done to promote naturalisation in EU15 Most demanding documentation of any EU country Discretionary and one of the most bureaucratic in EU Basic judicial review (e.g. reasoned decision and appeal)

Promotion Italy does least to promote naturalisation than any other EU15 country Opportunities: Very basic national website, local ceremonies, & local campaigns in a few cities ‘Missed’ opportunities: No national campaign, information service, promotional materials, quality website, state actions targeting the general public Comparatively high fees without legal right to exemption Ceremonies do not involve media

Documentation Documentation in IT is more demanding than any other EU country Obstacles: Discretionary language and integration assessment Several years’ proof of documentation on residence/ID and income No clear alternative means to prove identity Additional paperwork on identity from country of origin (legalisation, translation) Documentation required on criminal record from country of origin

Bureaucracy Procedure in Italy is more bureaucratic than in any other EU15 country Obstacles: Different authorities receive the application (Prefect), checks the documents (Police) and decide on the application (Interior Ministry) Many other ministries and agencies also involved in checking and decision Legal time limits without sanctions

Citizenship acquisition (CITACQ) Acquisition indicators compare rates of citizenship acquisition among foreign-born 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 Ad Hoc Module (2008) that targets immigrants and their descendants, aged Data exclusively on foreign-born (1 st 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%). In Italy, the acquisition rate (17%) is below 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 to naturalise, whereas in Ireland this is around 5 years. In Italy the speed (8 years) is below the EU15 average – In Italy, relatively few who naturalise do so rather quickly (e.g. due to marriage, see female rates) Summary of Findings

Acquisition rates in EU-15 (+CH, NO) Italy

Speed of naturalisation Italy

Italy compared I (% foreign-born with citizenship)

Italy compared II (% foreign-born with citizenship)

Analysis of acquisition rates Citizenship 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) Italy (MIPEX’ = 56) Italy (MIPEX’ = 56) MIPEX Access to Nationality score (adjusted for first generation only)

Citizenship and Integration (CITINT) 10 core indicators measure the the extent to which changes in citizenship status affect levels of integration Three categories of indicators: – Labour force participation (2008 Eurostat LFS ad hoc module) – Social exclusion (2008 Eurostat LFS ad hoc module & 2008 EU-SILC) – Living conditions (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 Participation Source: 2008 EU Labour Force Survey Ad Hoc Module

Labour Force Participation Source: 2008 EU Labour Force Survey Ad Hoc Module

Social Exclusion Source: 2008 EU-SILC Survey

Living Conditions Source: 2008 EU-SILC Survey

Conclusions Major legal opportunities Dual nationality Facilitated naturalisation for refugees, stateless, EU citizens Major legal obstacles Long & discretionary naturalisation Weak ius soli No socialisation-based access Major administrative opportunities Basic judicial review Some guidance to interpret discretionary requirements Major administrative obstacles Least on promotion Most bureaucratic Most demanding documentation Citizens of EU & other highly-developed countries less likely to naturalise Non-EU citizens are more likely to naturalise, as newcomers settle long-term The relatively few foreign-born able to naturalise in IT could do so quickly Still, IT has below-average naturalisation rates—policies have had major impact IT’s many legal and procedural obstacles discourage foreigners from applying