The cultural consequences of Germany's citizenship laws

Résumé du document

Germany's 2000 citizenship law, by making the German nationality one of the most complicated to claim, has forced the artistic expression of Germany's ethnic and religious minorities into a position where it is defined solely in terms of the ethnic origin of its creators. Therefore, this artistic expression is ridden with trans-cultural concerns which trump any other central messages conveyed by the work of art. Insofar as legislation produces strong and durable effects on the mentalities of the populations it applies to, the 2000 German law on citizenship and immigration is a substantial and decisive factor in the perception of “immigrant cultures” by the ethnic German majority.

This particularly applies to German-Turkish artists – especially authors –, who find themselves implicitly compartmentalized into the category of “Foreign”, almost always against their own will. This phenomenon is most visible in literature, for instance through the adaptation of language to the identity conflict experienced by many Turkish authors in Germany. By developing their own particular idioms on the margin of mainstream German and by choosing the German to Turkish words ratio within their writing, Turkish authors regain leverage in how their writing is perceived by their readership. The language parameter on the one hand and the readers' preconceptions eventually balance each other.

Extraits

[...] Germany therefore had to undergo progressive adaptation to a classic immigration which it had not originally planned and did not seem to welcome . Another distinguishing trait of Germany's view of citizenship lies in its hostility to dual citizenship. Between age 18 and 23, the children of immigrants must decide if they want to retain the citizenship of their parents and not acquire German citizenship or if they would rather forfeit 2 their parents' nationality and become German. The dual citizenship requirements are much more lax for EU citizens in Germany, suggesting discrimination against non-EU citizens residing in the country. [...]

[...] Additionally, because Turks are mostly Muslims, Germany's citizenship laws can be interpreted by the Turkish community in Germany as the State's way of defending itself against an Islamic intruder. In turn, this factors into the larger debate on the place of Islam in Germany because laws are generally accurate reflections of the population and government's point of view about Islam. Insofar as Germany is a democratic regime based on representation, and because legislators' future prospects partially depend on the assessment by their constituents of their representation skills, it seems reasonable to assume that laws generally though sometimes loosely - follow the same direction as the population's inclinations. [...]

[...] The 2000 amendment has lowered the required period of residence necessary to becoming a citizen from 15 to 8 years. Regardless of this reform, naturalization in Germany remains a strenuous and complicated process, with many requirements. Among those are an adequate knowledge of the German language, compliance with the principles declared in the German constitution, financial stability or independence, and a clean judicial record. Although these are overall similar to requirements in the American citizenship law for instance, they vary from country to country in terms of how the state assesses whether an individual meets these requirements. [...]

[...] Works Cited Senocak, Z. (2000). Atlas of a Tropical Germany: Essays on Politics and Culture Lincoln and London: University of Nebraska Press. Translated and edited by Leslie A. Adelson. Tan, D., Waldhoff, H.-P. (1996). “Turkish Everyday Culture in Germany and its Prospects”. [...]

[...] This is an example of an author being reduced to his cultural identity in ways that he would not be if not part of a demographic minority. This prevents the author's works from being examined without any filter or special cultural lens; even though there is a reader or a literary critic can never be absolutely objective, there are levels of subjectivity, and in this case subjectivity is higher than when discovering or writing critiques about literary works written by authors of the ethnic or religious majority. [...]