National citizenship is a significant milestone for immigrants. It is a ‘rite of passage’ to signal that newcomers take their rights and responsibilities seriously and are recognised as full members of the community.
In 2021, 22 per cent of the over half a million people living in Malta were non-Maltese, reflecting a five-fold increase over 2011. Like most countries, anxiety that newcomers are eroding national identity has pressured policymakers to enact more restrictions on the process of citizenship by naturalisation.
For the past decade, the government has been quite liberal in selling Maltese and EU citizenship to wealthy third-country individuals. However, it adopts much more restrictive citizenship policies on other foreigners, many of whom may have been residing in Malta for more than a decade.
Monique Agius, a Bachelor of Law graduate who wrote a dissertation on foreign residents’ hurdles when applying for Maltese citizenship, made some valid points. She argues: “Malta’s social reality has changed, and its laws should reflect such a change. The country is no longer a country of emigration, but one of immigration.”
Like most countries, Malta has a ‘discretionary system’ to grant citizenship by naturalisation.
This means that naturalisation is an exceptional privilege granted to a few selected candidates as a favour by a powerful state authority whose decision remains untransparent, often not open to justification or challenge.
Guidelines for qualification for citizenship are ‘broad and vague, and the minister’s decision is final and cannot be appealed or reviewed’. Very few foreign nationals who failed to obtain citizenship by naturalisation have challenged the minister’s decision in court.
However, in one case of a foreign person challenging the Citizenship Director’s refusal to grant him citizenship, the First Hall of the Civil Court observed that the citizenship act was not there for the minister to “act like a monarch, but a politician who is democratically elected by and answerable to the people.”
Citizenship is the most crucial marker of an immigrant’s full and equal membership in a national society. So, most countries typically set requirements deliberately high to acquire it. These requirements are becoming stricter in recent years, with lengthy in-country waiting periods, higher fees and standards, and widespread adoption of citizenship and language tests.
While this approach is understandable, policymakers must not ignore the unintended effects that can arise when would-be citizens are required to clear higher hurdles as part of the naturalisation process.
When the requirements to achieve citizenship are set too high or dependent on a politician’s judgement, the citizenship process can become counter-productive, interfering with the integration it seeks to promote.
It is understandable that the naturalisation process is not too lenient, as it must signal the importance of integration and motivate newcomers to adapt. But a review of the citizenship by naturalisation process is necessary to ensure fairness and promote societal cohesion when the local community is changing so fast. Individuals must be vetted thoroughly to ensure they meet specific standards and are not a potential security threat before being granted permanent access to the country.
The revised policies should also aim to motivate newcomers to acquire the tools needed to integrate quickly and efficiently into Maltese society by being proficient in English, at least.
There are many people living in Malta who have been acting as good citizens, are paying their dues and have given a service to the country. While they must go through a process to be given Maltese citizenship, we should never make their integration impossible simply because they are refugees, poor, or hailing from countries deemed ‘problematic’.
Because ultimately, citizenship is meant to symbolise a greater level of belonging to a society.