T H E G L O B A L S TAT E O F C I T I Z E N S H I P to permanent residence is often a five-year wait, longer and uncertain for temporary residents (students, temporary workers, humanitarian migrants). Requiring permanent residence is sometimes defended as one of the ways of making citizenship ‘migration-neutral’, meaning that immigrants should first secure their residence in the country before they can secure its citizenship. In addition, some countries will only count an applicant’s years as a permanent resident when calculating their residence period for naturalisation. Similarly, continuous or uninterrupted residence requirements only allow for short or no periods of absence from the territory or delays in renewal of residence permits. Such a gap in an applicant’s paperwork can set the naturalisation clock back to zero, effectively erasing an applicant’s eligibility and adding years, if not decades, to the wait. Of ‘good character’ The second near-universal requirement for ordinary naturalisation is ‘good character’ or the absence of a criminal record. The overwhelming majority of foreign residents are law-abiding and thus eligible for naturalisation. While there is no demonstrable link between crime, migration and naturalisation, one of the state’s core duties is to secure peace and security for its citizens and residents. It runs against public interest to naturalise people in criminal proceedings or under investigation as serious threats to public security. The reason is that naturalisation would grant these suspects the state’s diplomatic protection, protection from deportation as well as access to public office and jobs exercising public authority. At the same time, democratic societies support the principle of rehabilitation of former criminals who have served their time. If their offence was not grounds for deportation, then former criminals may have the chance to prove their commitment to be law-abiding residents. So, which immigrants are barred from ordinary naturalisation? Nearly all naturalising immigrants worldwide must have ‘good character’ or a clean criminal record. These requirements are used by liberal democratic regimes to exclude, for example, applicants accused of human rights abuses, but also by more autocratic regimes to exclude, for example, persons who have exercised their freedom of speech or religion, while terrorism figures as a ground in both types of regimes. There is substantial variation between countries, whether democratic or autocratic, with regard to what crimes lead to excluding immigrants from naturalisation. For example, in Austria, several administrative fines for minor traffic violations lead to permanent exclusion. 19 In 35% of countries, where almost half of the world’s foreign-born live, applicants must prove a good moral character for ordinary naturalisation. This requirement is particularly prevalent in Oceania (64%) and the Americas (49%). Good character requirements range from the general requirements that apply equally to immigrants and citizens (i.e., payment of fines and taxes) to vague assessments that apply only to the naturalisation procedure. According to data on procedures in Europe, the documentation and grounds used in these assessments are rarely public. Immigrants must often obtain costly, complicated documentation from their country of origin, such as a recent copy of their birth certificate and criminal record. Beyond good character requirements, criminal record requirements are more restrictive in Asia and Europe, where a majority of countries conduct a more detailed criminal record check, with exclusion for certain crimes and offences. Only 14 countries do not have a criminal record requirement: Central African Republic, Colombia, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Eswatini, Haiti, Israel, Kosovo, Lebanon, Serbia, Suriname, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, and Vietnam. That said, naturalisation is a highly discretionary procedure in nearly all countries, which retain the power to reject applicants on often vague grounds of state interest. Language and integration The fact that most countries require language knowledge for ordinary naturalisation belies a deeper disagreement about the meaningfulness of language and, especially, integration requirements. Over time, immigrants deepen their roots, skills and knowledge in many different ways that cannot be measured or demonstrated for authorities. Despite this impossible task, ordinary naturalisation usually requires applicants to provide evidence of their effective links to the country. Naturalisation officials often see it as their role to ensure that new citizens are informed and ready to take up the rights and responsibilities of national citizenship, all while maintaining public support for welcoming new citizens as their equals. Yet demanding—but without supporting—language and civic integration can transform these requirements from potential incentives into effective obstacles for naturalisation.