The end goal of all immigration and citizenship policies is to create a stable, harmonious society. Policies range across an entire spectrum, from pluralist to assimilationist. The main difference between the two is the perception of immigrant identity in relation to the majority identity. Assimilationist policy implements the idea that there is a national identity which all citizens should converge towards. This national identity is regarded as superior, usually at the expense of migrant identity and culture. It is a common immigrant experience in such countries to change elements of their identity to fit in with the majority, such as changing identifiably foreign names or the way they speak. As a result, assimilationist policies can do the opposite of what they set out to do, by increasing tensions between the minority and majority. 

In a world where countries are increasingly moving towards assimilationist policies, some governments maintain a focus on a pluralist policy. Pluralist policy focuses on the benefits of multiculturalism, where immigrants are encouraged to share and express their cultural identities, contributing to the richness of society. Canada is one such country, where cultural diversity and bilingualism are recognised and celebrated. The implementation of the Canadian Multiculturalism Act in 1988 was foundational to Canada’s current policies to advance and promote multiculturalism. These policies are key to the recognition of immigrant contribution, eliminating barriers and standing firmly against discrimination of any kind. 

In the last twenty years, the topic of immigration has become more politicised and discussed in relation to securitisation, national identity, and ethnicity than it has ever been before. It is not uncommon to hear the topic of immigration in political debates framed as a problem that needs solving. In populist thought, immigration is increasingly conceptualised as a threat to the culture and so-called values of the host country. In many cases, this narrative includes “othering” immigrants on the basis of race and religion, framing the values and culture of the immigrant individual as inferior or immoral. 

CITIZENSHIP BASED ON ASSIMILATION

In this context, many European countries along with Australia and the USA increasingly focus on placing citizenship policies within the framework of assimilation and integration. This is driven by the idea that “access to citizenship should be based on cultural dimensions” where the potential citizen should be able to demonstrate that they have the capability to become a model citizen and participate in society fully.

An extreme example of assimilationist policy is the recent case of a Muslim man being denied German citizenship for not shaking a woman’s hand. Although he had passed the German citizenship test, a court ruled against him. Although this example is unique, it reflects how citizenship in certain countries requires immigrants to completely conform, regardless of personal values or beliefs. This directly goes against so-called Western values entailing freedom of thought, speech, and religion. 

The increase in focus on an assimilationist model of citizenship directly reflects surveillance policies in the relationship between the state and the immigrants. A Turkish immigrant to Germany strikingly said; “when we came to Germany, they examined our teeth to determine our state of health. Now they’re testing our feelings”. Procedures of gaining citizenship now claim the right to explore the inner mental states of potential citizens in a way which has never occurred before. Much of the responsibility to assimilate is placed on the immigrant individual, to fit in with the general public and adjust to the host culture and its norms. It could be argued that the responsibility of integrating a new citizen into society is in fact dependent on how they are received by members of the host country. Some have found that a positive reception of immigrants from the general public correlated with the extent of their political activity in the future. 

CITIZENSHIP TESTING: UK CASE STUDY

Citizenship tests are used in many countries globally, and are usually implemented to strengthen knowledge, encourage integration, and political participation. If we look at citizenship testing through the lens of assimilationist, securitised immigration policy, these tests often “represent a governmental reaction to popular, sometimes xenophobic, sentiments that require the state to do something about immigration”. Following 9/11, subsequent terror attacks, and the rise of anti-immigration rhetoric, many Western governments amended their citizenship tests, requiring a more rigorous understanding on values, traditions, and the need for integration. 

It is crucial to discuss the context behind the “Life in the UK” citizenship test, in order to understand the government’s intentions policy-wise. In 2002, a paper titled ‘Secure Borders, Safe Haven: integration with diversity in modern Britain’detailed the new assimilationist approach the government would be taking in race and immigration policy. In the foreword, the then Home Secretary stated; “we need to be secure in our sense of belonging and identity” to address issues both within and outside the UK. This shift in policy was influenced by the events of 9/11 as well as the racialised 2001 riots in in northern cities, explained by the government as a failure of integration.  

The ‘Life in the UK’ citizenship test was introduced in a time of community division, where immigrants were often blamed for social divides and alienation. The test itself was revised in 2013 to include chapters on history and British culture, which suggested a transition from civic to ethnic nationalism. Currently, the chapters cover the values and principles of the UK, its structure, history, society, the government and the law.

The test has been criticised for being “inconsistent”, “impractical” and including “rival pursuits”, with many of the questions irrelevant. One example is how applicants are required to know the age of the Big ben and the height of the London Eye - questions which will not affect the ability of a citizen to integrate in any way. Many of the questions on literature and film are niche and not general knowledge to many native UK citizens. 

Pass rates for people of different cultural backgrounds are also revealing. One study found that Americans and Australians had a 98% pass rate compared to Bangladeshi and Turkish individuals who had a pass rate of 45%. This is a significant difference and could be attributed to how people from Western backgrounds are more familiar with “secular principles of liberal individualism”, reinforcing conceptions surrounding non-Western cultures and values and their own sense of being “the other”.

The origin and current use of the UK citizenship test contextualised within current rising anti-immigration and assimilationist ideologies reproduced at policy level, highlights a monolithic perception of ‘Britishness’. Previous policies which focused more on multiculturalism have receded, and instead immigrants increasingly are positioned as scapegoats for various social problems and national crises. 

It is important to constantly question and evaluate the position of the state in reproducing populist thought, and the real-life effects of this on individuals who do not fit the established standards of ‘Britishness’. Accordingly, the effectiveness and implications of the UK citizenship test remains a policy area which requires further investigation and potential reform.

Khadijah is an English Language & Linguistics graduate with a keen interest in a variety of topics. She enjoys keeping reprised on current affairs and policy matters, and has experience working in a research-based NGO environment.

LinkedIn