In 2018 and 2019, at least six European countries similarly passed or introduced laws that would link citizenship directly to criminal behavior. This ban has ignited national conversations about its impact on individual liberties and the American identity. Similarly, Denmark, a leader in this troubling trend, was one of the first countries to link citizenship revocation to the commission of serious crimes. These laws have made a deep and wide cut. They do harm not only to those specifically impacted—they set the prevailing cultural imagination around who is a citizen and who belongs.
In 2021, Denmark expanded its existing legislation to include gang-related crimes, reinforcing the notion that citizenship could be stripped from individuals deemed to have committed serious offenses. This policy change has sparked fears of the increased alienation and isolation of targeted communities—with hypersensitivity, particularly among immigrants and dual nationals. Critics say these laws foster a climate of intolerance. They exacerbate “unwanted-ness” among those whose attachments to the social world are already tenuous.
“Already, the years of anti-immigration discourse has heightened this feeling of unwanted-ness in Denmark,” – Somdeep Sen.
Likewise in Germany, the political landscape has been marked by demands to strip citizenship from dual nationals who commit felonies. Friedrich Merz, the current leader of the opposition Christian Democrats (CDU), adamantly backs proposals to strip citizenship. He thinks that the government should go after people with dual citizenship who are criminals. This program has drawn attacks for advancing what critics derisively refer to as “racist discrimination.” It reveals how exclusionary and violent practices have become mainstreamed and normalized within everyday political discourse.
“The issue with these changes is that it perpetuates the problematic perception that ancestry and ethnicity play a role in determining criminality,” – Somdeep Sen.
Besides Denmark and Germany, other Scandinavian countries have followed suit on this trend. Sweden recently announced a proposal to amend its constitution. This amendment would help restore public confidence by allowing the government to revoke citizenship in egregious cases, such as espionage or treason. At the same time, Iceland has been urging very similar reforms for those convicted of felony-level offenses. These new developments are indicative of a growing optimism across Europe. Many now view citizenship as a privilege and not a right.
Despite legislative shifts, there remains a large lack of evidence. Research demonstrates that there is no causal relationship between increasing immigration and increasing crime rates in European countries. Many experts argue that the laws enacted in Denmark and being considered in other countries do not necessarily correlate with any actual decreases in crime.
“It’s great media optics to say that you’re taking a strong stance against crime by depriving them of their nationality,” – Tanya Mehra.
International law places strict limits on governments from making people stateless, so many of these proposals target dual nationals. The truth is, these initiatives can unintentionally form a second-class system of citizenship, leaving targeted communities even more marginalized and exacerbating divides across our society.
The concept of “remigration” has quickly gained traction among far-right and anti-immigrant parties in Europe. They are trying to ensure the mass deportation of migrants, even the ones that have obtained citizenship, just for having criminal records. Indeed, such ideas are highly reactive, inciting crucial questions on what it means to be a nation and the morality of these citizenship laws.
“And such laws remind many of how tenuous their inclusion in Danish society is and how easily these ties to Denmark can be severed,” – Somdeep Sen.
As European countries struggle with these challenging subjects, the debate over citizenship is still developing. Critics contend that establishment political parties have become more fearful than ever of being radicalized by anti-system forces.
“This is the toolbox which is intimately connected to the agenda of the radical right,” – Somdeep Sen.
Beyond that, other questions emerge, like what can states honestly promise to their residents. In an era of rapid change and upheaval, national identity is ever more intimately connected to one’s legal status.
“What can states promise? The golden age of democracy once promised two cars per family, a house, a stable job. Now all this is gone,” – Christian Joppke.