Enabling settlement

Whilst the British passport was most frequently associated with travel by state agents, in reality it was also an important piece of documentation for residing within the UK. It acted as proof of holding the status of a British citizen, confirming eligibility for citizenship rights. This was particularly important for those whose rights to work and access services had been misrecognised in the past, such as refugees like Abbas:

Sometime you taking your residence paper and go to register some place they say no they are not taking it you need your passport. Where your passport? I don’t have a passport! Because the Home Office give me this one. I went to another agency here, they didn’t take me. I gave them my visa and still say no. I didn’t have no time to argue with them or call help or something like that because if you argue with the employer, even they accept it but they wouldn’t give you a job. Better you walk away.

(Abbas, asylum seeker, Liberia)

This story of rejection by employers on the basis of not having a passport was common amongst refugees. It limited their choice of employment, leaving them powerless when job agencies refused to recognise their documentation. These problems are in part a product of increased political control of immigrants, with employers subject to penalties of up to £20,000 for every illegal immigrant they employ (Government Digital Service, 2014). This is likely to deter companies from employing anyone of whom they are unsure of their legal status, having a

detrimental impact on the employment prospects of refugees. Further issues have arisen with the introduction in 2005 of limited leave to remain of five years for all refugees, after which they are able to apply for ILR, while previously ILR was granted once refugee status was confirmed (Doyle, 2010). A British passport was considered objective proof of their legitimate employment status, providing a pragmatic reason for acquiring one at the first possible chance.

Employment concerns related to status were not just confined to refugees. Since Gordon Brown’s mantra of ‘British jobs for British workers’, employers have been under increasing pressure to prioritise British citizens above foreign nationals when recruiting employees (Anderson, 2014). The Coalition government have reinforced this rhetoric, talking of the ‘social duty’ of employers to hire British workers

(Dominiczak, 2013). This reflects a model of the ‘social investment state’, whose role it is to enable opportunities for employment, education and training for its citizens (Lister, 2003), defined by status rather than residency rights. This was recognised by a number of participants, who suggested that there was a hierarchy of employment, in which British workers were chosen first, followed by EU

migrants, with non-EU migrants ranked lowest. Participants such as Salim and Simon felt that this had personally affected their chances of getting a job:

Isma: We had a lot of issues with barriers a lot when he had his Pakistani citizenship to apply for the jobs, such as McDonalds won’t take him on because there’s a lot of paperwork involved.

Salim: Yeah.

Isma: And then because the manager there said we’ve already got two we don’t take more than two or three people on, that have got

indefinite to remain but if he gets his British passport he causes no problem.

(Salim, family migrant, Pakistan)

If I have my Burmese passport, also I have a limitation of applying for jobs as well… And to be honest I have applied for three, four jobs previously but as soon as they ask you what nationality you are, my application form just goes to the bottom.

(Simon, student/economic migrant, Burma)

Contrasting the experiences of Simon, a skilled nurse, with Salim, who was searching for unskilled work, shows the widespread nature of perceived

the right to work in the UK, they felt their access to employment was restricted due to an alleged preference for British workers. This could partly be due to the amount of legislation related to employing foreign workers, which includes checking their eligibility to work in the UK, amounting to extra bureaucracy. As Salim’s encounter with McDonald’s suggests, this may deter employers from hiring immigrants, meaning that British citizenship is all the more important. The barriers faced by immigrants are a product of the state prioritising citizenship rights above residency rights (Kofman, 2005), based on the logic of ‘protecting our own’.

The citizenship ceremony, in celebrating the opportunities available to new citizens, fails to recognise the exclusions that acted as a barrier to accessing these opportunities previously. Whilst participants complained of limited employment prospects, extortionate fees for higher education and travel restrictions prior to obtaining British citizenship, this was glossed over by those conducting the ceremony. Any talk of the hardships experienced by immigrants was confined to the past of their origin countries, constituting the reason why they migrated:

Some have seen great conflict and anguish and seek a peaceful life in Britain where they may live in harmony with their families and neighbours.

(Calderdale registrar speech)

[Acquiring British citizenship] marks the conclusion of a journey which, for many of you, has been challenging, sometimes dangerous and all too often accompanied by sadness, tragedy and personal loss. (Leeds dignitary speech)

The speech from the Calderdale ceremony contrasted the “conflict and anguish” immigrants experienced in their home countries to the “peaceful life” that is offered by Britain. The Leeds dignitary similarly implied that the “challenging” aspect of migrants’ journeys occurred before their arrival to the UK. This downplays the significant hardships frequently experienced by immigrants while living in the

UK without British citizenship status. As this chapter has outlined, this includes being subjected to state surveillance, media demonisation and exclusion from opportunities to live a comfortable life. The degree to which this impacted on the decision to naturalise should not be underestimated, and neither should it be disparaged. Valuing British citizenship as a status, with its associated recognition domestically and internationally, along with the hope of equal opportunities, was for most able to contribute to a deeper notion of citizenship as feeling and practice.

Countertopography enables us to see how different places are becoming

increasingly connected through common experiences of processes of globalisation. However, as transnational mobility expands into ‘spaces of flows’, states

simultaneously attempt to control the movement of ‘suspect’ migrants, disputing their status as ‘agents of mobility’. This demonstrates how the practices of

immigrants are simultaneously defined by the mechanisms of global capital, with its need for flexibility (Conlon, 2013), and by the workings of the state, recreating a citizenship based on rootedness in territory. These condition the emotions and identities of migrants (Fortier, 2006), which cross-cut traditional categories based on social background or migration route.

4.6 Conclusion

This chapter has looked at citizenship as status, a legal contract between state and citizen which the government has the power to grant or withhold. The first section examined how representations of ‘immigrant others’ filtered into the lives of new citizens, motivating them to acquire citizenship and justifying being tested for their suitability. However, even after upgrading their status, many felt unable to shed the label of immigrant. Countertopography can be used to demonstrate how media, political and public discourses affect formations of identities in everyday life. Contour lines can thus be drawn between new citizens, whose status as less- than-equal citizens impacts their treatment in practice. This contests assertions that citizenship is progressively being decoupled from national identity,

demonstrating how increasingly ethnicised visions of citizenship exclude certain groups from full belonging.

The next section considered how the securitisation of migration has been extended to naturalisation. Immigrants are subject to a form of national governmentality which severely restricts opportunities, leaving them in a state of liminality. Whilst scholars have primarily associated this with undocumented migrants, I would argue that the research lens needs widening to include other groups of migrants. I

demonstrated how the politics of desire induces migrants to prove their worth as desirable citizens above less desirable migrants in order to qualify for citizenship. The ritualised process of naturalisation also functions to create citizens who desire the state, with the celebratory citizenship ceremony having a powerful impact on erasing negative memories.

Section 4.4 explored the idea of citizenship as a contract between citizen and state. The model of neoliberal communitarianism presented in naturalisation measures portrays citizenship as based on obligations to yourself, the state and society, with a stripped back version of social rights. Participants echoed this focus on adhering to responsibilities, which for refugees in particular was grounded in a fear that their new status could be removed. Nonetheless, the rights and freedoms associated with Britain were important in various new citizens’ visions of citizenship, many of whom originated from non-democratic countries. Therefore I would suggest that the possibility of modelling national civic identity on a framework of democratic values may have been too readily dismissed, with its potential for inclusion and bettering the treatment of migrants.

The final section examined the importance of pragmatic citizenship to migrants. Whilst citizenship is portrayed in naturalisation measures as a decision to stay in place, conversely participants often saw possessing a British passport as an opportunity for greater mobility. However, this was combined with a desire to utilise British citizenship to enhance prospects for settlement. Migrant experiences are commonly differentiated on the basis of factors such as race, nationality,

gender and migration pathway, but my research uses countertopography to elucidate a surprising number of similarities on the basis of simply being a migrant. For the majority of new citizens, gaining British citizenship was a way of navigating the external forces constraining their opportunities, rather than a conscious decision to become subjects of a renationalising process. Nevertheless, as I will explore in the next two analysis chapters, the acquisition of citizenship as status had implications for citizenly practices and feelings of belonging.