Schmid Comparative Migration Studies (2020) 8:25 Page 13 of 20 Table 2 Categorical Principal Component Analysis – Two-dimensional solution Variables Dimension IRO Dimension CRI Labour entry .79 −.23 Labour stay .80 −.20 Family entry .80 .11 Family stay .81 .18 Asylum entry .72 −.07 Asylum stay .76 .10 Strength of jus soli −.17 .83 Residence duration requirement (reversed) .05 .84 Multiple citizenship toleration .06 .57 Further naturalisation requirements −.02 .65 Eigenvalue 3.69 2.30 Explained variance 36.86 22.97 Cronbach’s alpha .81 .63 Model Eigenvalue 5.98 Model explained variance 59.83 Model Cronbach’s alpha .93 N = 713 country-years; principal component analysis for categorical data (CATPCA) using selected policy components measuring the openness of immigration regimes according to IMPIC (Helbling et al. 2017) and the policy components of CITRIX (original dataset based on temporal expansion of selected items from MIPEX and based on the data by Stadlmair (2017) and Fitzgerald et al. (2014) and DEMIG and GLOBALCIT) measuring the inclusiveness of citizenship regimes variable principal normalisation; solution with VARIMAX rotation and Kaiser normalisation; entries are component loadings and model parameters; component loadings > 0.5 bold original components of IRO see Schmid and Helbling 2016). This supports the argument that economic and political liberalism are complementary rather than contradictory structural forces. The logic of the market and the legal logic of the liberal state appear to go together. Furthermore, this scrutiny suggests that democracies letting immigrants enter more easily have also tended to let them stay; these two aspects do not trade off (cf. Ruhs 2013). Second, the existing literature points to possible multi-dimensionality also in the realm of citizenship regimes. On the one hand, the literature has diagnosed a liberalising tendency in citizenship policies concerning the reduction of residence duration requirements, the toleration of multiple citizenship, and the strengthening of jus soli, especially across Europe (Bauböck et al. 2006; Joppke 2010). Faced with the fact of immigration, European democracies have developed (or retained) relatively inclusive citizenship laws – unless this movement toward more inclusive conceptions of nationhood and its manifestation in greater political liberalism was successfully contained by antiimmigrant counter-reactions from the far-right (Howard 2009). On the other hand, however, there has been much talk of a ���restrictive turn’ in citizenship regime trajectories across Europe (e.g. Joppke 2008). This literature tends to focus on the remaining component of citizenship regimes, conceptualised here as further naturalisation requirements: language and citizenship tests – subsumed under the rubric of “civic integration” – as well as, secondarily, economic and criminal record requirements. Civic integration requirements have been theorised as a separate dimension that is orthogonal to the restrictive-liberal continuum of citizenship policies as defined by other components such as the residence duration requirement (Goodman 2010, p. 757).