Migration Processes in Central and Eastern Europe - Multiple Choices

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
Normative and Methodological Discussion of Migration and Integration
———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
70
required period will probably vary from case to case and
context to context. What may help us push the discussion
a bit further, however, is if we ask ourselves how come that
some countries require many more years than others. Does
it mean that it takes longer to become an integrated Austrian
or German than Irish, British or French? Is it because the
Austrians have the experience indicating that immigrants will
be integrated and worthy of citizenship after a longer period
of time, while the Irish have empirical evidence that immigrants
are “ready” for citizenship already after four years? Or does
the length of residence requirement say something about the
society itself, rather than immigrants and their potential to
integrate in a given society?
I believe the length of required stay tells us a lot
about society's approach to integration. More specifically,
it tells us about the role the society ascribes to secure legal
status in the process of integration. Generally, the countries
with longer requirements conceive permanent residency
and citizenship as a reward for completed integration.
On the other hand, the countries with shorter residence
requirements see it as an incentive for integration. Both
types of countries want to integrate their immigrants but
while the former see secure legal status of permanent
residency and citizenship as a reward, the latter perceive it
as motivation and precondition for successful integration.
Now, if we consider integration as the goal of the residence
requirement policy, and put ourselves in the shoes of an
immigrant – which type of country will we want to integrate
into (provided we control for all other factors such as
economy, political stability, established migration networks
etc.)? Will it be a state that provides us with relatively
secure residence, equal opportunity on the labour market,
education and political participation? Or a state where my
continuing stay and rights depend on the determination
of a Foreign Police officer, who will year after year examine
if the purpose of my stay is still valid; in a country where
my temporary visa requires me to stick with one job and
one employer; pay international tuitions for my schooling;
and abstain from national or even local politics? Just imagine
you are living and working in a country for eight or nine
years, then you get laid off, which means the original purpose
of your stay is no longer valid, and you are told you
need to go home regardless of the ties you have established.
It is irrelevant how often this happens. What is important is
the possibility that this may happen. If immigrants cannot
be sure that they will be allowed to stay, they will hesitate
to sink roots and integrate into the society. Consequently,
I believe that permanent residence as a status providing
relatively secure residence should be given after a shorter
period of time to facilitate integration. Lengthy residence
and the insecurity of the temporary visa is currently one of
the greatest obstacles to immigrant integration. Citizenship
should be granted after three to eight years, as is the existing
practice. However, the total length of the required stay for
naturalisation (on a temporary and permanent visa) should
not exceed ten years as it is ambiguously stipulated in the
Convention on Nationality.
I suggest that ten years is a maximum period for which we
can keep immigrants in legal limbo, having them contribute
to our economies while keeping them outside of the circle
of citizens.
I base my call for shorter residence requirements
on three main arguments. First, if somebody stays and
works in the country for a considerable period of time (say,
four or five years), they have contributed enough to be
entitled to certain claims. In other words, if there is pain,
there should also be some gain. They may want to buy
property, participate in local politics or bring over their
close family members. However, despite their contribution,
they can't enjoy these benefits when they only have the
status of temporary residents.
Second, over this four or five year period,
immigrants establish strong ties with the hosting community
and it would be inhumane to send them away unless there
are serious reasons. If they have only a temporary status,
the likelihood that they will be forced to leave is much
greater.
Finally, as mentioned earlier, a more secure status
of permanent residence will facilitate immigrants' integration.
They will be able to perceive the country as their home
rather than their temporary abode. Given immigrants'
contribution, their established social ties, and the incentives
for integration, I believe permanent residence and all corresponding
rights should be granted after a shorter period
of time than is the practice under the current legislation.
In conclusion, naturalisation or integration policies
are ultimately about how we perceive immigrants. Do we
see them as a burden and a threat, or as a fresh blood that
will rejuvenate our society? Strict naturalisation conditions
are a reflection of the former, more liberal and welcoming
measures help in the realisation of the latter. The policies
concerning the length of residence requirement in Central
Europe represent a sadly fitting example of such unnecessary
strictness. As a citizen of one of the countries, I believe
we need to re-evaluate our understanding of immigration.
We should see immigrants as people who want to integrate
and contribute, not as aliens who are here to steal our jobs,
threaten our security and waste our scarce resources. Such
a re-evaluation should be translated into changed conditions
of naturalisation, that should be set so as to reflect the
growing rights corresponding to the growing length of stay.
This is justified normatively by the contribution immigrants
make and the social ties they establish. It is also justified
pragmatically by the assumption that easier naturalisation
conditions and the timely granting of secure residence
status will facilitate immigrants' integration.
Migration Processes in Central and Eastern Europe: Unpacking the Diversity