Advertisement

Beyond Appearances: Citizenship Tests in Canada and the UK

  • Mireille Paquet
Article

Abstract

Citizenship tests are increasingly used by national governments as part of their naturalization procedures. Several analysts suggest that citizenship tests are indicative of a converging trend toward civic integration, especially in Europe. The reform of the Canadian citizenship test in 2009–2010 represents an opportunity to examine the mobilization of tests in different national context. Are citizenship tests necessary the central tools of civic integration policies? In order to answer this question, this article first argues that it is crucial to understand citizenship tests as public policy instruments. Using the approach developed by Pierre Lascoumes and Patrick LeGalès, the article compares the emergence and characteristics of the citizenship tests implemented by Canada and the United Kingdom. Stemming from this analysis, this article demonstrates that the two citizenship tests are different instruments despite their similar appearances. The Canadian test remains, despite the reform, an instrument to promote naturalization and integration. In contrast, in addition to promoting civic integration, the British test is also an instrument of immigration control.

Keywords

Citizenship tests Canada UK Civic integration Public policy instruments 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Earlier versions of this paper were presented at the Canadian Political Science Association Annual Conference, at the Congrès annuel de la société québécoise de science politique and at the ECPR Graduate Conference. The author would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their questions and suggestions to improve the paper. The members of the Canada Research Chair in Citizenship and Governance and its Chair, Jane Jenson, as well as Audrey L’Espérance, Éléonore Lépinard, Caroline Andrew, Catherine Ellyson and Paul London all provided helpful comments in the process of writing this paper.

References

  1. Adamo, S. (2008). Northern Exposure: The new Danish model of citizenship test. International Journal on Multicultural Societies, 10(1), 10–28.Google Scholar
  2. Ahmed, N. (2008). Language, gender and citizenship: Obstacles in the path to learning English for Bangladeshi women in London’s East End. Sociological Research Online, 13(5).Google Scholar
  3. Asari, E.-M., Halikopoulou, D., & Mock, S. (2008). British national identity and the dilemmas of multiculturalism. Nationalism and Ethnic Politics, 14(1), 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bauböck, R., & Joppke, C. (Eds.). (2010). How liberal are citizenship tests? Florence: European University Institute.Google Scholar
  5. Beeby, D. (2010). Immigrants failing citizenship tests in record numbers (November 28). The Canadian Press, Ottawa, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  6. Blackledge, A. (2009). “As a country we do expect”: The further extension of language testing regimes in the United Kingdom. Language Assessment Quarterly, 6(1), 6–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bloemraad, I. (2006). Becoming a citizen. Incorporating immigrants and refugees in the United States and Canada. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  8. Canada (1995). A broader vision. Immigration and citizenship plan 1995-2000. Annual report to Parliament. Ottawa: Citizenship and Immigration Canada.Google Scholar
  9. Canada (2007). A Look at Canada. Ottawa: Citizenship and Immigration Canada.Google Scholar
  10. Canada (2008). Citizenship Judges. Ottawa: Citizenship and Immigration Canada. http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/department/commission/index.asp. Accessed February 2, 2011.
  11. Canada (2009a). The Citizenship Test. Ottawa: Citizenship and Immigration Canada. http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/citizenship/cit-test.asp. Accessed February 16, 2010.
  12. Canada (2009b). CP4. Grants. Ottawa: Citizenship and Immigration Canada.Google Scholar
  13. Canada (2009c). Discover Canada: The Rights and Responsibilities of Citizenship. Ottawa: Citizenship and Immigration Canada.Google Scholar
  14. Canada (2010a). Becoming a Canadian citizen: Who can apply. Ottawa: Citizenship and Immigration Canada. http://www.cic.gc.ca/francais/citoyennete/devenir-admissibilite.asp. Accessed April 10, 2010.
  15. Canada (2010b). New Citizenship Study Guide and Test. Ottawa: Citizenship and Immigration Canada. http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/information/faq/citizenship/index.asp#guide. Accessed April 20, 2010.
  16. Canada (2010c). New rules aim to strengthen the value of Canadian Citizenship. Ottawa: Citizenship and Immigration Canada. http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/department/media/releases/2010/2010-06-10.asp. Accessed August 12, 2010.
  17. Cantle, T. (2001). Community cohesion: A report of the independant review team. London: Home Office.Google Scholar
  18. Chapnick, A. (2011). A “conservative” national story? The evolution of Citizenship and Immigration Canada’s Discover Canada. American Review of Canadian Studies, 41(1), 20–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cooke, M. (2009). Barrier or entitlement? The language and citizenship agenda in the United Kingdom. Language Assessment Quarterly, 6(1), 71–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Courchene, T. J. (2002). Half-way home: Canada’s remarkable fiscal turnabout and the Paul Martin legacy. Policy Matters, 3(8), 1–23.Google Scholar
  21. Danzelman, P. (2009). British citizenship statistics United Kingdom, 2008. London: Home office.Google Scholar
  22. de Hart, B., & van Oers, V. (2006). European trends in nationality law. In R. Baubock, E. Ersboll, K. Groenendijk, & H. Waldrauch (Eds.), Acquisition and loss of nationality: policies and trends in 15 European states (Comparative Analyses, Vol. 1, pp. 317–358). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Denham, J. (2002). Building cohesive communities: A report of the ministerial group on public order and community cohesion. London: Home Office.Google Scholar
  24. Derwing, T. M., & Thomson, R. I. (2005). Citizenship concepts in LINC classrooms. TESL Canada Journal, 23(1), 44–62.Google Scholar
  25. Etzioni, A. (2007). Citizenship tests: A comparative, communitarian perspective. The Political Quarterly, 78(3), 353–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Extra, G., Spotti, M., Avermaet, P. V., Extra, G., Spotti, M., & Avermaet, P. V. (2009). Testing regimes for newcomers. In Language Testing, Migration and Citizenship. Cross-National Perspectives on Integration Regimes (pp. 3–33). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  27. Favell, A. (1998). Philosophies of integration: Immigration and the idea of citizenship in France and Britain. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  28. Fozdar, F., & Spittles, B. (2009). The Australian citizenship test: Process and rhetoric. Australian Journal of Politics and History, 55(4), 496–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Galloway, D. (2005). The dilemmas of Canadian Citizenship Law. In D. B. Klusmeyer & H. J. Michelmann (Eds.), From migrants to citizens (pp. 82–118). Washington: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  30. Greenwood, J., & Robins, L. (2002). Citizenship tests and education: Embedding a concept. Parliamentary Affairs, 55(3), 505–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hall, P. A. (1993). Policy paradigms, social learning, and the state: The case of economic policymaking in Britain. Comparative politics, 25(3), 275–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hampshire, J. (2005). Citizenship and belonging. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hansen, R. (2000). Citizenship and immigration in post-was Britain. The institutional original of a multicultural nation. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Hogan-Brun, G., Mar-Molinero, C., & Stevenson, P. (2009). Testing regimes. Introducing cross-national perspectives on language, migration and citizenship. In G. Hogan-Brun, C. Mar-Molinero, & P. Stevenson (Eds.), Discourses on language and integration. Critical perspectives on language testing regimes in Europe (pp. 1–13). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  35. Hood, C. (1986). The tools of government. Chatham: Chatham House.Google Scholar
  36. Hood, C. (2007). Intellectual obsolescence and intellectual makeovers: Reflections on the tools of government after two decades. Governance, 20(1), 127–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Howlett, M. (1991). Policy instruments, policy styles, and policy implementation. Policy Studies Journal, 19(2), 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Howlett, M. (2011). Designing public policies: Principles and instruments. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  39. Ivison, J. (2009). The Tory guide to a blue Canada. (November 13). The National post.Google Scholar
  40. Jacobs, D., & Rea, A. (2007). The end of national models? Integration courses and citizenship trajectories in Europe. International Journal on Multicultural Societies, 9(2), 264–283.Google Scholar
  41. Jan-Khan, M. (2003). The right to riot? Community Development Journal, 38, 32–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Jenson, J., & Phillips, S. D. (1996). Regime shift: New citizenship practices in Canada. International Journal of Canadian Studies, 14(3), 111–136.Google Scholar
  43. Joppke, C. (2004). The retreat of multiculturalism in the liberal state: Theory and policy. The British Journal of Sociology, 55(2), 237–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Joppke, C. (2007a). Beyond national models: Civic integration policies for immigrants in Western Europe. West European Politics, 30(1), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Joppke, C. (2007b). Immigrants and civic integration in Western Europe. In K. Banting, T. J. Courchene, & F. L. Seidle (Eds.), The art of state III. Belonging ? Diversity, recognition and shared citizenship in Canada (pp. 321–350). Montreal: The Institute for Research on Public Policy (IRPP).Google Scholar
  46. Joppke, C. (2007c). Transformation of immigrant integration: Civic integration and antidiscrimination in The Netherlands, France, and Germany. World Politics, 59(1), 243–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Joppke, C. (2008). Comparative citizenship: A restrictive turn in Europe? Law & Ethics of Human Rights, 2(1), 1–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Joshee, R. (2004). Citizenship and multicultural education in Canada. From assimilation to social cohesion. In J. A. Banks (Ed.), Diversity and citizenship education: Global perspectives (pp. 127–183). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  49. Joshee, R., & Derwing, T. M. (2005). The unmaking of citizenship education for adult immigrants in Canada. Journal of International Migration and Integration, 6(1), 61–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kassim, H., & Le Galès, P. (2010). Exploring governance in a multi-level polity: A policy instruments approach. West European Politics, 33(1), 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Kenney, J. (2009). Launch of discover Canada: The rights and responsibilities of citizenship. http://www.jasonkenney.com/EN/4961/101167. Accessed April 2, 2010.
  52. Keung, N. (2009). Learning to be a citizen.Newcomers study hard to pass citizenship test with questions on rights, history, government. (October 19). The Toronto Star.Google Scholar
  53. Kilpatrick, S. (2009). Rewrite of citizenship guide ordered. Tories take aim at ‘ridiculous’ content. (April 29). The Canadian Press, Ottawa, Canada.Google Scholar
  54. Kiwan, D. (2008). A journey to citizenship in the United Kingdom. International Journal on Multicultural Societies, 10(1), 60–75.Google Scholar
  55. Kostakopoulou, D. (2010a). The anatomy of civic integration. The Modern Law Review, 73(6), 933–958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Kostakopoulou, D. (2010b). Matters of control: Integration tests, naturalisation reform and probationary citizenship in the United Kingdom. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 36(5), 829–846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Kunnan, A. J. (2009). Testing for citizenship: The US naturalization test. Language Assessment Quarterly, 6(1), 89–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Kymlicka, W. (2003). Immigration, citizenship, multiculturalism: Exploring the links. Political Quarterly, 74(1), 195–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Landry, R., & Varone, F. (2005). The choice of policy instruments: Confronting the deductive and the interactive approaches. In F. P. Eliadis, M. M. Hill, & M. Howlett (Eds.), Designing government: from instruments to governance (pp. 106–131). Montréal & Kingston: McGill Queen’s University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Lascoumes, P., & Le Galès, P. (2004). Gouverner par les instruments Paris: Presses de la fondation nationale des sciences politiques.Google Scholar
  61. Lascoumes, P., & Le Galès, P. (2007). Introduction: Understanding public policy through its instruments—From the nature of instruments to the sociology of public policy instrumentation. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, 20(1), 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Lascoumes, P., & Simard, L. (2011). L’action publique au prisme de ses instruments. Revue française de science politique, 61(1), 5–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Linder, S., & Peters, G. B. (1991). The logic of public policy design: Linking policy actors and plausible instruments. Knowledge, Technology and Policy, 4(1), 125–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Marwah, I., & Triadafilopoulos, T. (2009). Europeanizing Canada’s citizenship regime? http://www.carleton.ca/europecluster/publications/2009-05-21-EuropeanizingCanadianCitizenship(Marwah-Triadafilopoulos).pdf. Accessed April 13, 2010 April 13, 2010.
  65. Mcnamara, T., & Shohamy, E. (2008). Viewpoint: Language tests and human rights. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 18(1), 89–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Michalowski, I. (2009). Citizenship tests in five countries—An expression of political liberalism? WZB Discussion paper(October 2009), 1-27.Google Scholar
  67. Morjé Howard, M. (2009). The politics of citizenship in Europe. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  68. Olser, A. (2009). Testing citizenship and allegiance. Policy, politics, and the education of adult migrants in the UK. Education. Citizenship and Social Justice, 4(1), 63–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Orgad, L. (2010). Illiberal liberalism cultural restrictions on migration and access to citizenship in Europe. American Journal of Comparative Law, 58(1), 53–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Peucker, M. (2008). Similar procedures, divergent function: Citizenship tests in the United States, Canada, Netherlands and United Kingdom. International Journal on Multicultural Societies, 10(2), 240–261.Google Scholar
  71. Radaelli, C. M. (2005). Diffusion without convergence: How political context shapes the adoption of regulatory impact assessment. Journal of European Public Policy, 12(5), 924–943.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Reitz, J. G. (1988). The institutional structure of immigration as a determinant of inter-racial competition: A comparison of Britain and Canada. International Migration Review, 22(1), 117–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Richet, E. (2007). The citizenship education system in Canada from 1945 to 2005. An Overview and Assessment. M.A Thesis. Department of political science: University of Saskatchewan.Google Scholar
  74. Ryan, B. (2009). The integration agenda in British Migration Law. In S. Carrera, E. Guild, & K. Greonendijk (Eds.), Illiberal liberal states: Immigration, citizenship and integration in the EU (pp. 277–298). Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  75. Smith, S. J. (1993). Immigration and nation-building in Canada and in the United Kingdom. In P. Jackson & J. Penrose (Eds.), Constructions of race, place and nation (pp. 50–77). London: UCL Press.Google Scholar
  76. Somerville, W., & Cooper, B. (2010). United Kingdom. Immigration to the United Kingdom. In D. Elliott, N. S. Mayadas, & U. A. Segal (Eds.), Immigration worldwide: policies, practices, and trends (pp. 124–137). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  77. Triadafilopoulos, T. (2011). Illiberal means to liberal ends? Understanding recent immigrant integration policies in Europe. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 37(6), 861–880.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. United Kingdom (2002). Secure border. Safe haven. London: Home Office.Google Scholar
  79. United Kingdom (2003). The new and the old. Report of the “Life in the United Kingdom” Advisory Group. London: Home Office.Google Scholar
  80. United Kingdom (2007). Life in the United Kingdom: A journey to citizenship. London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
  81. United Kingdom (2008a). Life in the United Kingdom. The Official Practice Test. http://www.ukcitizenshiptest.co.uk/. Accessed February 20, 2009.
  82. United Kingdom (2008b). Path to citizenship: Next steps in reforming the immigration system. London: UK Border Agency.Google Scholar
  83. United Kingdom (2009). Life in the UK Test. United Kingdom. http://www.lifeintheuktest.gov.uk/index.html. Accessed February 22, 2009.
  84. United Kingdom. UK Border Agency (2010). Knowledge of language and life in the UK. http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/britishcitizenship/applying/applicationtypes/naturalisation/kol/. Accessed March 14, 2010.
  85. Van Oers, R. (2010). Reasons for the introduction and effects of citizenship tests in The Netherlands, Germany and the UK. Paper presented at the Seventeenth Conference of Europeanists-Revenge of the European Model?, Montreal, April 15.Google Scholar
  86. Vink, M. P., & de Groot, G.-R. (2010). Citizenship attribution in Western Europe: International framework and domestic trends. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 36(5), 713–734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Wallace Goodman, S. (2010). Integration requirements for integration’s sake? Identifying, categorising and comparing civic integration policies. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 36(5), 753–772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Ward, J. (2009). Canadian seem pleased with additions to immigrants’ handbook: poll. (November 20). The Canadian Press, Ottawa, Canada.Google Scholar
  89. White, P. (2008). Immigrants into citizens. Political Quarterly, 79(2), 221–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Wonjung Park, J. (2008). A more meaningful citizenship test—Unmasking the construction of a universalist, principle-based citizenship ideology. California Law Review, 96, 999–1047.Google Scholar
  91. Worley, C. (2005). 'It’s not about race. It’s about the community’: New Labour and’community cohesion’. Critical Social Policy, 25(4), 483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political Science and member of the Canada Research Chair in Citizenship and GovernanceUniversité de MontréalMontréalCanada

Personalised recommendations