Photo credit: www.theguardian.com
The recently proposed legislation by Sweden’s rightwing government, in alliance with its far-right supporters, has sparked significant global attention. The initiative aims to revoke citizenship from dual nationals convicted of certain crimes, signaling a serious shift in how citizenship is perceived in a growing number of countries.
This development reflects a broader trend among nations, where citizenship is increasingly intertwined with criminality. Analysts warn that this evolving notion may result in a divided citizenry, potentially marginalizing specific communities while cultivating an environment of fear and exclusion.
The origins of this shift can be partly traced back to the early 2000s, when the UK government, under Tony Blair, began framing citizenship as a privilege rather than an inherent right. According to Christian Joppke, a sociology professor at the University of Bern, this paradigm encouraged the perception that citizenship could be “earned” and subsequently revoked based on criminal behavior. Recent proposals in Sweden, Finland, and Germany illustrate an alarming trend: the notion that serious crimes could justify the withdrawal of citizenship, marking a significant departure from previous practices.
Following Sweden’s announcement to amend its constitution, which would allow for the stripping of citizenship for serious offenses like espionage and treason, Icelandic politicians quickly advocated for similar measures. Additionally, the Dutch government has considered revoking citizenship for severe crimes linked to antisemitism.
The discussion took center stage during Germany’s recent elections when Friedrich Merz, leader of the CDU/CSU, argued for the option to revoke German citizenship from dual nationals who commit criminal acts. This idea faced immediate backlash, with critics asserting that it effectively relegates some citizens to a perpetual state of being “Germans on probation,” thus undermining their identity and rights.
Merz’s statements have highlighted the normalization of discriminatory practices, echoing long-held views by far-right groups advocating for the expulsion of migrants, including those who are citizens. Joppke posits that this reframing of citizenship is a tactical response to the growing influence of radical right-wing politics, which seeks to assure voters of physical security in a time when economic guarantees have eroded.
Historically, many European governments have linked terrorism convictions to citizenship revocation, marking a notable precedent. However, the emerging proposals often apply primarily to dual nationals, raising questions about equity and the creation of a hierarchy among citizens based on the number of nationalities they hold. Tanya Mehra, a senior research fellow at the International Centre for Counter-Terrorism, points out that this creates conditions where individuals can face dual punishments: imprisonment for their crimes followed by the loss of their nationality. The implications of such policies merit close scrutiny, especially concerning potential violations of human rights.
Mehra’s research illustrates the perilous situations faced by individuals whose citizenship has been revoked due to terrorism charges, leaving them effectively stateless or illegal in the host country. This not only exposes them to further exploitation by criminal enterprises but also complicates law enforcement’s ability to maintain oversight, pushing these individuals into the shadows.
Recent changes in Denmark’s laws, which expanded the grounds for citizenship revocation to include gang-related crimes, have not demonstrably reduced crime rates. Somdeep Sen, an associate professor at Roskilde University, indicates that there is insufficient evidence to suggest these measures deter crime among those inclined to offend. Instead, they appear to reinforce xenophobic narratives that falsely associate immigration with criminality, perpetuating harmful stereotypes.
Years of anti-immigration discourse in Denmark have already exacerbated feelings of alienation among marginalized populations. Many citizens are now reminded—through policies that tie their nationality to behavior—of the fragility of their place in society, reinforcing a sense of tenuous belonging.
Source
www.theguardian.com