Comparative Citizenship: A Restrictive Turn in Europe and a Restrictive Regime in Israel: Response to Joppke

In: Law & ethics of human rights, Band 2, Heft 1, S. 1-12

Abstract

Smooha argues that Joppke's thesis in his paper on comparative citizenship in Europe—there is no restrictive turn in citizenship and immigration laws and practices in Europe—is questionable. This is true not only for the pre-enlargement 15 EU countries during the years 1980-2006 under Joppke's study, but also for the post-enlargement 27 EU countries. When the time range is broadened to the post-1945 period, it is clear that the historical trend of liberalization has come to an end in Europe and this is in spite of Europe's dire need of immigrants and the great desire of non-Europeans to immigrate to Europe. Europe is particularly fearful of Moslems, Arab Moslems, and Black Africans.Nevertheless, the comparison between Israel and the EU countries can put the discussion on Europe in perspective. Israel can be representative of non-European countries that claim to be Western or European countries that are latecomers to the West. When these countries are compared to the 15 EU countries, as described and analyzed by Joppke, it is evident that the EU core is liberal and Israel and non-core European countries are not liberal in their laws and practices. EU laws on immigration and naturalization are motivated only partially by ethnicity while those of other countries are more shaped by ethnic considerations and those of Israel are mainly determined by ethnicity and ethnicity-based fear.According to Smooha the EU might move in Israel's highly restrictive direction when it feels that its Western civilization, national cultures, and internal security are more significantly and increasingly threatened by non-European immigrants and their descendants.