Legal and Symbolic Membership Symbolic Boundaries and Naturalization Intentions of Turkish Residents in Germany

Abstract

The lasting disenfranchisement of foreign residents presents democratic countries of immigration with a problem of legitimacy. The urge to open access to citizenship has been omnipresent in the academic debate since Walzer's Spheres of Justice. But what if immigrants do not want to naturalize in spite of liberal access? While many researchers studied the costs and benefits of naturalization little is known about the role of symbolic membership. This paper goes beyond past approaches. Next to pragmatic reasons of citizenship acquisition it considers the relation of immigrants to the majority group. The theoretical framework is developed from empirical findings and draws on the concept of symbolic boundaries. The analysis is based on a survey of Turkish residents in the German city of Hamburg. This group gains few additional rights through naturalization. Hence, symbolic aspects of membership become vital in the decision-making process. Results confirm the relevance of rights-oriented motives connected to the legal status. Moreover, symbolic aspects of membership are shown to be crucial for naturalization intentions. This insight offers an interpretation also for the non-naturalization of eligible immigrants. The paper is embedded in a larger project, where qualitative follow-up interviews explore variant perceptions of and responses to symbolic boundaries.

Does Naturalization Facilitate Integration?

“…For instance, only 2.2 percent of eligible foreign nationals received a German passport in 2014 (Statistisches Bundesamt 2015). Consequently, research has focused on determinants that encourage immigrants to choose host country citizenship (Diehl & Blohm 2003;Diehl & Fick 2012;Diehl 2002;Hochman 2011;Weinmann et al 2012;Witte 2014;Wobbe & Otte 2000;Wunderlich 2005). In addition, in societal and political discourse, naturalization is still often considered the final step in an immigrant's integration process rather than a milestone (Worbs 2008).…”

Citizenship and Belonging: an Analysis of Immigrants’ Integration Beliefs and Membership Meaning in South-West Germany

“…Another grievance concerns mainstream's society condescending indifference against the cultural background of the respondent. As in Witte's sample (Witte 2015) Turkish respondents in particular mention examples when their self-definition as German had been questioned by other Germans for reasons of a lack of command of the German language or because of phonotypical otherness. Nonetheless almost all respondents appreciate life in Germany.…”

Voting with Their Feet by Staying? The Political Drivers of Noncitizens' (Im‐)mobility

“…By granting different levels of rights to immigrants, this discursive structure is more or less inclusive, offering noncitizens either a 'warm handshake' or a 'cold shoulder' (Reeskens & Wright, 2014). The 'symbolic boundary' that these policies define between natives and immigrant groups can thus be more or less thick (Lamont & Molnár, 2002), affecting thereby how immigrants can feel at home in the receiving country or materialize in terms of, for instance, naturalization behaviors (Witte, 2014). From this perspective, we expect that inclusive integration policies constitute an incentive structure than can motivate immigrants' immobility by strengthening ties to the host country.…”