In recent years, a wave of proposed legal changes across several European countries has sparked significant debate about the intersection of citizenship and criminality, particularly concerning dual nationals. These developments, driven largely by rightwing and far-right political forces, signal a shift toward policies that allow for the revocation of citizenship from individuals convicted of serious crimes, raising questions about the creation of differentiated classes of citizens and the potential marginalisation of minority communities.
The Guardian reports that Sweden’s rightwing government, with backing from far-right supporters, announced plans to amend its constitution to enable stripping citizenship from dual nationals convicted of offences such as espionage or treason. This move is part of a broader European trend, with similar suggestions emerging in Finland, Germany, Iceland, and the Netherlands. For example, the Dutch government has explored revoking citizenship in cases involving crimes with an antisemitic dimension.
Germany's recent federal election witnessed the centre-right CDU/CSU bloc, led by Friedrich Merz, advocating for the possibility of revoking German citizenship from dual nationals who commit criminal offences. Although this proposal drew swift criticism, particularly for potentially creating a notion of “Germans on probation,” Merz defended the idea of conditioned citizenship. Journalist Gilda Sahebi commented on social media that such proposals normalise “racist discrimination,” noting: “They can never truly be German. One mistake, one crime – and their Germanness is gone.” She added that this logic overlooks the fact that many affected individuals were born in Germany or have families who have lived there for generations.
Christian Joppke, a sociology professor at the University of Bern, explained that the evolving perspective on citizenship, from being an unconditional right to an “earned” privilege, traces back to policies introduced in the UK under Tony Blair’s government in the early 2000s. Joppke told The Guardian, “The UK government posited citizenship as something to be ‘earned’, making it harder to obtain and easier to lose. This idea of earned citizenship is that if you do wrong, you should also be able to lose it.” He noted the recent proposals go further than previous measures, suggesting that any serious crime might now justify citizenship revocation.
These developments coincide with the growing influence of far-right nationalist parties across Europe, which tend to prioritise physical security and adopt tougher stances on criminality. Joppke remarked, “This is the toolbox which is intimately connected to the agenda of the radical right. And mainstream parties are just very anxious not to be outvoted by them.” He also contrasted this new political focus with earlier promises of socio-economic security, noting that as such promises faded, security concerns have come to dominate policy agendas.
Legal experts and researchers have raised concerns about the implications of these policies, especially for dual nationals. Tanya Mehra, senior research fellow at the International Centre for Counter-Terrorism at The Hague, pointed out that international law prohibits rendering individuals stateless, so citizenship revocation laws have typically been applied only to dual nationals. She highlighted the potential for these policies to create “different classes of citizens” and underscored the human rights considerations involved, stating: “It’s great media optics to say that you’re taking a strong stance against crime by depriving them of their nationality, but you have to really look more carefully at whether or not you’re violating their human rights.”
Mehra’s research further found instances where individuals stripped of citizenship following terrorism convictions were left in limbo, unable to return to their other country of nationality and consequently becoming undocumented in the country that revoked their nationality. “That means they basically become illegal,” she said, losing their right to live and work legally. This situation can push affected individuals underground, potentially facilitating exploitation by terrorist or criminal groups and making them harder for authorities to monitor.
Denmark’s experience offers additional insight into the real-world impact of such policies. After expanding laws in 2021 to revoke citizenship for gang-related crimes alongside terrorism and treason, Danish authorities have struggled to demonstrate any clear effect on crime rates. Somdeep Sen, associate professor at Roskilde University in Denmark, observed that there is a lack of evidence showing that such measures deter criminal behaviour. Instead, he noted that these policies contribute to a public discourse falsely linking immigration with crime. “The issue with these changes is that it perpetuates the problematic perception that ancestry and ethnicity play a role in determining criminality,” Sen told The Guardian.
The consequences of these policies go beyond crime metrics, affecting societal cohesion. Sen remarked, “Years of anti-immigration discourse has heightened this feeling of unwanted-ness in Denmark. And such laws remind many of how tenuous their inclusion in Danish society is and how easily these ties to Denmark can be severed.”
This evolving linkage between citizenship and criminality, particularly targeting dual nationals, illustrates a complex and contentious shift in European governance and public policy. As governments grapple with issues of security and identity, these policies continue to generate significant discussion about the implications for social integration, human rights, and the nature of citizenship itself.
Source: Noah Wire Services