Citizenship is an institution, which defines the rights and duties of individuals within the state.

  The word citizen has an urban origin, derived from the Anglo-Norman word citezein, and French citoyen. This is based on the Latin civitas, meaning people united in a city or community.

The idea of citizenship formed in the citystates of Ancient Greece and evolved during the Roman Empire into the modern nation-states. Citizenship has been expressed as political participation in public life in the form of voting and public demonstrations. Today it is considered to be a broad concept that includes all activities that are a part of personal and public relations in the political community.

Globalization has resulted in the mobility of people, goods, services, symbols, ideas, norms, and values that cross the borders of nation-states. Thus, Globalization has radically transformed the idea of citizenship as many individuals have become internationally mobile in the modern world.

Global mobility of individuals poses different threats for the nation-states such as their political, economic, and social and cultural integration to the existing structures.

While those who are integrated change, the members of the receiving societies also change. The reason for this mutual transformation is the fact that migrants, refugees, students, and other mobile individuals form a transnational space where they acquire the societal, political and cultural habits of their countries of settlement and merge them with those of their countries of origin.

The first modern scholarly analysis of citizenship in the previous century is from English sociologist Thomas Humphrey Marshall who, in 1949, wrote Citizenship and Social Class. His theory forms the basis of all modern citizenship theories.

Twentieth century citizenship theory came in three phases. Marshall's work marks the first; setting in when Europe's fascist regimes fell and the old nationstates reached a turning point.

In his book Marshall presents a triadic model of citizenship, which was based on the idea that the evolution of citizenship has been in progress for about 250 years. Marshall divides the development of citizenship into three stages, and distinguishes between civil, political, and social citizenship. He calls the current trend towards social equality the latest phase. Marshall connects the three different sets of rights with three different centuries—civil (with the freedom of speech, thought and faith) to the eighteenth, political (with active and passive suffrage) to the nineteenth, and social rights (like welfare and economic security) to the twentieth century.

The second phase of citizenship theory came after a long pause in the 1990s after the Cold War ended and people were revisiting the ideas of belonging, and citizenship rights, in the new world order that was emerging after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

In 1990s, citizenship theory emerged as a new area of study. Increasing globalization, which has inspired the desires to search for belonging, helped to develop this third phase of citizenship theory. Citizens were increasingly looking beyond the nation-state to identify with transnational corporations, non-governmental organizations, and worldwide social movements.

Although every scholar of citizenship gives credit to Marshall for his contributions to the field, many of these scholars also explain that his theory is mainly from the English experience. Another focus of critics concentrates on the limitations of three-dimensional citizenship, which only refers to civil, political, and social rights.

New global population shifts feed into a process that has resulted in the creation of new citizenship types, such as ecological citizenship, cosmopolitan citizenship, economic citizenship, sexual citizenship, health citizenship, liberal citizenship, republican citizenship, cultural and multicultural citizenship, and transnational citizenship.

The issues of identity and belonging have been seen as important parts of the idea of citizenship.

As modern societies grow more heterogeneous, or less diverse, cultural pluralists have argued that citizenship rights must be given with an understanding of these new differences, since common rights of citizenship cannot usually serve the special needs of minority groups. According to these pluralists the new, more diverse, groups can only be integrated into the common culture if differentiated citizenship is adopted.

Differentiated citizenship means that members of certain groups will be incorporated into the political community not only as individuals but also through the group, and that their rights will depend on their group membership. This idea of differentiated citizenship is a big development in citizenship theory.

This view of “citizenship is a membership contract” was shared until the massive immigration era, but has been increasingly questioned after 1990s. the reason for questioning is that citizenship is not only about the enjoyment of rights as a full member of a political community and the performance of obligations; it also confers an identity and feelings of solidarity with other citizens. Citizenship defines who belongs to this political community and who is excluded, who is welcome as a fellow citizen, and who remains an outsider. New social movements, such as the ecological movement and cultural movement, have introduced different layers of rights apart from civil, political, and social rights such as ecological and cultural rights.

Increasing flows of international migration from undeveloped countries to some Western countries after World War II led to the creation of a new type of membership. The migrations forced the existing populations to think differently about ethno-cultural and religious identities in a way that changed how immigrants would be treated by the majority societies. The growing number of international migrants challenged the accepted understanding of national citizenship. These new migrants had a sense of belonging to at least two nation-states; where they came from and where they were now. A new type of membership in those countries has emerged as a replacement of the traditional citizenship theory.

If a nation prescribes a single notion of culture, then it would be remarkably difficult for newcomer groups to become part of the existing social and political system without major resistance from the majority society. Prescribing the nation may lead its members to fail to recognize newcomers whom they consider to be culturally, ethnically, linguistically, and religiously different. Failing to recognize newcomers may result in the development of conflicts

In order to avoid potential conflict and alienation, there is an important task to be completed: citizenship laws should not be based on prescribed cultural, religious, linguistic and ethnic qualities.

The idea of the nation-state, originating from the holistic notion of culture, is essentially rooted in a "name," a common ancestry, a set of common historical memories and myths, a national anthem, a common territory for which the "forefathers" have died, a national economy, and a set of common legal rights and duties.

The recent experience of international migrant workers reflects a time when national citizenship is losing ground to a more universal model of membership, anchored in de-territorialized notions of citizen rights.

In Germany, non-European Union immigrants, and even their offspring, were not easily able to obtain citizenship until the year 2000. The new law, which was introduced in2000, partially changed the principle of descent that has always been the country's traditional basis for granting citizenship. Now, it is also possible to acquire German citizenship as a result of being born in Germany.

Jus sanguinis –law relating to blood in Latin- is the principle that the nationality of children is the same as that of their parents, irrespective of their place of birth.

Jus soli-law relating to the soil of one’s country in Latin- is the rule by which birth in a state is sufficient to confer nationality, irrespective of the nationality of one's parents. Thus the children of an alien, born on the territory of the host state, would from their birth adopt the nationality of that state.

According to the 1889 law, which still exists today, French citizenship law contains two parts that show the principle of jus soli: Article 23, giving citizenship at birth to third-generation immigrants, and Article 44, giving citizenship at age 18 to second-generation immigrants born in France and resident there since aged 13, provided they have not rejected French citizenship during their lifetime, and that they have not been convicted of certain crimes. French citizenship law also permits double citizenship.

Naturalization is the legal process by which a person acquires a new nationality.

The naturalization procedure in France requires five years of permanent residence, French language competence, assimilation into the French community, and good morals and customs including no prison sentences of more than six months or offences or crimes against State security.

Until 1831, there was no Belgian nation-state. Belgium became a nation-state in the second half of the 19th century.

Today, Belgian citizenship has two levels, the regional and the federal.

Official recognition of the differences of groups, such as migrant communities, may help them integrate more easily into the majority society.

The spaces constructed by migrant-origin individuals beyond the territorial boundaries of their countries of settlement and countries of origin are called trans-national spaces, or trans-national fields.

Alejandro Portes defines trans-national fields as a "web of contacts created by immigrants and their home country counterparts who engage in a pattern of repeated back-and-forth movements across national borders in search of economic advantage and political voice".

William Safran draws up the general framework of an ideal type of diaspora. He defines diaspora as 'expatriate minority communities' (1) that are dispersed from an original center to at least two peripheral places; (2) that maintain a memory, vision, or myth about their original homeland; (3) that believe they are not fully accepted by their host country; (4) that see the ancestral home as a place of eventual return, when the time is right; (5) that are committed to the maintenance and restoration of this homeland; and (6) of which the group's consciousness and solidarity are importantly defined by this continuing relationship with the homeland.

There are some features that differentiate the present form of trans-national spaces from the historical forms. First, the extreme speed of transportation technology and electronic communications enable easy, cheap, and fast contacts across national borders. Second, a growing number of immigrants and their friends and family in their homelands increase the amount of contact made through these technologies. Third, an increasing number of sending country governments tend to guide their citizens through the migration process.

Steven Vertovec (1999) distinguishes six different notions of trans-nationalism:

• as a social morphology, with reference to works in the field of Diaspora Studies;

• as a type of consciousness, with reference to the works in the field of Cultural Studies;

• as a mode of cultural reproduction, with reference to works in the field of Media Studies;

• as a path for the flow of money with reference to works in the field of Political Economy;

• as a site of political engagement with reference to the works in the field of Politics;

• as a (re)construction of 'place' or locality, with reference to works in the field of Social Anthropology.

Reiner Bauböck defines transnational citizenship as "a triangular relationship between individuals and two or more independent states in which these individuals are simultaneously assigned membership status and membership-based rights or obligations".

  Bauböck claims that political rights constitute the most difficult part, but not the main part, of transnational citizenship. Economics and personal advancement are the most important parts of transnational citizenship.

Reiner Bauböck classifies trans-national citizens in three distinct categories: multiple nationals, denizens, and ethnizens.

Multiple nationals are formally acknowledged as citizens by two or more independent countries that allow, or even actively promote, dual citizenship.

Denizens are long-term resident foreign nationals who enjoy most of the civil liberties and social welfare rights of resident citizens, often including rights to family reunification, some protection from deportation, and voting rights in local elections, as well as quasientitlements to naturalization. Denizenship is a status of residential quasi-citizenship combined with external formal citizenship granted by the sending country.

Ethnizens are the opposite of denizens. They are external quasi-citizens who are neither citizens nor residents of the country granting that status. It is generally granted to minorities on the basis of ethnic descent and perceived common ethnicity with an external country.

Park's famous theory of Race Relations Cycle addresses integration in the urban space at four different stages:

• Contact – encounter

• Competition (over scarce resources)

• Accommodation by the state (peaceful coexistence)

• Assimilation/integration (forced, or intentional).

 In this model, immigration is mainly determined by the needs of the labor market. The presence of immigrants is seen as temporary. There is no need to reinforce immigrant legal status, or to reflect on the consequences of cultural diversity. Integration of migrants is not one of the main concerns of the state. Claims of migrants are managed through the principle of differential exclusion.

 In this model, immigration is seen as permanent. Immigrants are welcome and they are given a legal status on the condition that they are willing to assimilate into the mainstream cultural pattern. Immigrants are seen as individuals in this model, and there is no notion of minority communities. Claims of migrants are managed through the principle of Individual rights.

In this model, immigration is seen as permanent, but immigrants are defined in terms of their ethnic or national origin. They constitute new communities, and are culturally different from the majority society. The main challenge for the government is to make these communities live together in harmony. Claims of migrants are managed through the principle of group rights.

Integration, refers to the processes that increase the opportunities of immigrants and their descendants to obtain the valued "stuff" of a society, as well as social acceptance, through participation in major institutions such as the educational and political system and the labor and housing markets. Full integration implies parity of life chances with members of the native majority group and being recognized as a legitimate part of the national community.

 In political science literature, there are four possible ways to bring migrants into the social-cultural system: assimilation, cultural pluralism, multiculturalism, and syncreticism.

Multiculturality is a descriptive term referring to the existence of several cultural or ethnic groups within a society with their distinct identity and traditions. It refers to a societal system that focuses on the interactions of the different ethno-cultural and/or religious groups in a given territory.

Multiculturalism is a normative and political term, which ideologically dictates that different communities should not be forced to integrate but rather be allowed to maintain their own ethno-cultural and religious identities and live in 'parallel societies' within a single state. Multiculturalism can be defined as a widely different set of ideas and policy programs that promote the incorporation and participation of immigrants and ethnic minorities into society, taking into account their modes of ethno-cultural and religious difference.

  Interculturalism, on the other hand, is the critic of the multiculturalist approach, focusing on individuals rather than groups. Interculturalism helps to create discussion and actual engagement between individuals from different cultures and religions. The intercultural perspective acknowledges a multitude of cultures that may co-exist within a society. Individuals are seen as the carriers of different cultures, so intercultural communication involves the discussion between individuals who belong to different ethno-cultural or religious groups.

The difference between multiculturalism and interculturalism can be seen in the importance that multiculturalism puts on group identities and the incorporation of not only the individual but also the group into society, while interculturalism focuses on individual difference only.

The answer of such questions can be found in the always changing global social-political environment. Several different reasons such as deindustrialization, unemployment, poverty, exclusion, violence, supremacy of culturalism, and the neo-liberal political economy can be given toward answering such critical questions.

 Immigrant multiculturalism has run into difficulties where it is seen as carrying high risks with regard to the national, societal, and cultural security of the majority society. Where social and economic problems of immigrants are coupled with violence, honor crimes, drug use, drug trafficking and human trafficking, and where immigrants are seen as predominantly illegal, as potential carriers of illiberal practices or movements, and as net burdens on the welfare state, then multiculturalism may be seen as a threat to the shared moral principles of the nation.

The criticism of multiculturalism becomes popular especially when there are some social, economic and political changes and difficulties, and also in moments of financial crisis and refugee crisis.

They claim that Turks’ main reason for this self-isolationist tendency of the Turkish-origin youths was a belief that the Turks were happy enough to simply live with Islam and Turkishness.

 Slovaj Zizek defines multiculturalism as an upside-down and silent form of distant racism: "respecting" the identity of the other, conceiving the other as an "authentic" closed community against which the multiculturalist maintains a distance made possible by his/her privileged universal position. Multiculturalism's respect for the specific differences of the other is the most direct way to show his/her own superiority. The background and roots of a particular culture, which sustains the universal position of multiculturalism, is not the "truth" of this position, hidden behind the mask of universality. It is the simple explanation of certain roots, hiding the fact that the subject is already completely "without roots" and that its true position is in the emptiness of universality.

Although France set out to create politically equal citizens with no regard to religion, language, race, ethnicity and gender, it no longer recognizes this policy especially with migrants of Muslim background. France also ignores the cultural, religious and ethnic differences of minorities, and has adopted an assimilation policy. These steps show that the French republican project and its values are under threat (Tribalat, 2003; Sadran, 2003). The demands, voiced by migrants and minorities and left unsolved by the Republic, clearly show that the Republic needs to be democratized.

  In order to cope with institutional racism in the labor market as well as in other spheres of life, migrant origin people tend to give traditional French first names to newborn children.

  Interculturalism is more applicable than multiculturalism because, interculturalist assumption presumes that cultures are human made, dynamic, mixed and syncretic entities that are subject to a process of constant change, exchange and interaction with other cultures. Cultures are formed in accordance with individual needs and constrained by social, political, geographical, ecological, and economic conditions.

 The Western world, including the European Union countries, specifically Germany, the Netherlands, the UK, Denmark, France, and Italy have a backlash of Islam. The fear associated with 'parallel lives' and Muslim 'self-segregation' has become very visible in these countries, which blame the Muslims and migrant communities for not integrating into the Western way of life.

The result of Islamophobia is the introduction of restrictive migration policies and increased territorial border security.

Political integration of migrants should be prioritized in order to let people express their needs,  especially regarding their experiences with poverty, exclusion, and self-isolation, through legitimate political channels such as the local and national parliaments and the mainstream media.

Thomas Humphrey Marshall who, in 1949, wrote Citizenship and Social Class.

It is unlikely that the classical understanding of citizenship can resolve issues of the co-existence of culturally discrete entities. In order to avoid potential conflict and alienation, there is an important task to be completed:
citizenship laws should not be based on prescribed cultural, religious, linguistic and ethnic qualities.

The idea of the nation-state, originating from the holistic notion of culture, is essentially rooted
in a “name,” a common ancestry, a set of common historical memories and myths, a national anthem,
a common territory for which the “forefathers” have died, a national economy, and a set of common
legal rights and duties (Smith, 1995).

Jus Sanguinis
[Latin: law relating to blood] The principle
that the nationality of children is the same
as that of their parents, irrespective of their
place of birth.

Jus Soli
[Latin: law relating to the soil of one’s
country] The rule by which birth in a state
is sufficient to confer nationality, irrespective
of the nationality of one’s parents. Thus the
children of an alien, born on the territory of
the host state, would from their birth adopt
the nationality of that state. Most jurisdictions
now adopt a combination of jus soli and jus
sanguinis.

In France, naturalization is secondary to gaining citizenship. In contrast to the declaration,
the naturalization procedure is discretionary, i.e. subject to the control and approval of the administration. The naturalization procedure in France requires five years of permanent residence,
French language competence, assimilation into the French community, and good morals and customs
including no prison sentences of more than six months or offences or crimes against State security. Unlike many other countries, France does not require candidates for naturalization to renounce their original citizenship. 

The Flemish concept of citizenship is based on the community, culture, language, ethnicity, territory, particularity and a holistic notion of culture (Hermans et al., 1992). The French concept of citizenship, on the other hand, is based on the ‘political will’ of the people to live together as in the French model of nation
building: having a common language, culture and historical traditions and having a sense of being a
member of a universal civilization (Lefebvre, 2003).

The spaces constructed by migrant-origin individuals beyond the territorial boundaries of
their countries of settlement and countries of origin are called trans-national spaces, or transnational fields.

He defines diaspora as ‘expatriate minority communities’
(1) that are dispersed from an original center
to at least two peripheral places; (2) that
maintain a memory, vision, or myth about their
original homeland; (3) that believe they are not
fully accepted by their host country; (4) that
see the ancestral home as a place of eventual
return, when the time is right; (5) that are
committed to the maintenance and restoration
of this homeland; and (6) of which the group’s
consciousness and solidarity are importantly
defined by this continuing relationship with
the homeland (Safran, 1991: 83-84).

Steven Vertovec (1999) distinguishes six
different notions of trans-nationalism:
• as a social morphology, with reference to
works in the field of Diaspora Studies;
• as a type of consciousness, with reference to
the works in the field of Cultural Studies;
• as a mode of cultural reproduction, with
reference to works in the field of Media
Studies;
• as a path for the flow of money with
reference to works in the field of Political
Economy;
• as a site of political engagement with
referenceto the works in the field of Politics;
• as a (re)construction of ‘place’ or locality,
with reference to works in the field of Social
Anthropology.

The term denizen refers to a special legal status
of long-term resident foreign nationals who enjoy
most of the civil liberties and social welfare rights
of resident citizens, often including rights to family
reunification, some protection from deportation,
and voting rights in local elections, as well as
quasi-entitlements to naturalization (Hammar,
1990).

Ethnizens are the opposite of denizens. They
are external quasi-citizens who are neither citizens
nor residents of the country granting that status.
It is generally granted to minorities on the basis
of ethnic descent and perceived common ethnicity
with an external country

• Contact - encounter
• Competition (over scarce resources)
• Accommodation by the state (peaceful
  coexistence)
• Assimilation/integration (forced, or
  intentional).

Cultural pluralism is the liberal approach, and tries to accept the fact that the society is composed of different ethno-cultural and religious groups. 

Interculturalism, on the other hand, is the critic
of the multiculturalist approach, focusing on
individuals rather than groups. Interculturalism
helps to create discussion and actual engagement
between individuals from different cultures
and religions. The intercultural perspective
acknowledges a multitude of cultures that may
co-exist within a society. Individuals are seen as
the carriers of different cultures, so intercultural
communication involves the discussion between
individuals who belong to different ethno-cultural
or religious groups.

The difference between multiculturalism and
interculturalism can be seen in the importance
that the first puts on group identities and the
incorporation of not only the individual but also
the group into society, while the second focuses
on individual difference only.

The state of securitization of minorities is likely to lead
to the rejection of minority political mobilization
by the larger society and the state. Hence, the
securitization of ethno-cultural relations erodes
both the democratic space to voice minority
demands and the likelihood that those demands
will be accepted.

Slovaj Zizek defines multiculturalism as an
upside-down and silent form of distant racism because he thinks that
“respecting” the identity of the other is conceiving
the other as an “authentic” closed community
against which the multiculturalist maintains
a distance made possible by his/her privileged
universal position.

Multiculturalism assumes that cultures are
primordial, distinct, separate, fixed, and static.
According to this way of thinking cultures are
pure and have the risk of being polluted and
distorted when they interact with each other.
Swedish culture, German culture, Polish culture,
Norwegian culture, and all the other national
cultures should all remain intact in order not to
get degenerated. This assumption is actually a
continuation of the 19th century notion of culture,
which made it possible for the nation-states to
make their territorial boundaries according to their
national cultures at the time. This understanding
is an ethnocentric one, which inevitably leads to a
kind of hierarchy between cultures.

It reinforced the societal fear of immigration.The
result was the introduction of restrictive migration
policies and increased territorial border security. 

Securitization and stigmatization of migration
and Islam has mainly brought about a backlash
of multiculturalism in the West since the mid1990s. 

This backlash has immediately triggered the rise of right-wing
extremism, promoting the homogeneity of the
nation free of the others who are ethno-culturally
and religiously different.