The Meanings of Citizenship: Mobility, Legal Attachment and Recognition

Influential citizenship scholars have generally undermined what citizenship means to immigrants. Their "macro diagnoses" have posited that the citizenship institution has been devalued, as access to the status has been liberalized, and since most social and civil rights are granted elsewhere. These diagnoses, however, provide little in-depth qualitative research to substantiate their claims. Based on 19 qualitative interviews with Afghan, Russian and Somali immigrants in Norway – both naturalized citizens and “denizens” – this paper asks: What does citizenship mean to immigrants in material, emotional and symbolical terms? Materially, Norwegian citizens enjoys vast spatial mobility by having visa-free access to most countries. The mobility of citizens of the “Global South”, however, is constrained by various travel restrictions, visa policies and selective border controls. Thus, citizenship status creates “transnational inequalities” between different immigrant groups. Emotionally, citizenship gives an unconditional legal attachment, which was reassuring to immigrants in precarious positions. Some of the denizens expressed profound uncertainties about their legal standing in Norway. I argue that their lack of legal closure engendered a state of “permanent liminal legality”. The situation of three immigrants facing citizenship revocation brought on another form of liminality, namely “acute liminal legality”. Symbolically, citizenship is a recognition of identity, equality and belonging. The Norwegian ban on dual citizenship was perceived as a non-recognition of dual identities, while citizenship denial spurred sentiments of second-class membership and alienation. Contrary to prevailing macro diagnoses, this paper argues that citizenship remains significant to immigrants in material, emotional and symbolical terms.