Exercising mobility

The pragmatic motivation for acquiring citizenship most frequently mentioned by participants was travel. This was considered to provide an easier life and reduce inconvenience, particularly in relation to obtaining visas, with the British passport ranked best for global travel, enabling visa-free access to 173 countries (The Straits Times, 2014). Despite the transnational connectivity of places, the movement of people between national territories is increasingly restricted, with some bodies allowed more freedoms than others (Andrucki, 2010). Therefore, holding a valued national passport is crucial to exercising mobility as an international citizen.

The British passport embodied the status of British citizenship, and for many represented the pinnacle of the journey to citizenship. Becoming a British citizen was often equated with being a British passport holder, and passport applications were usually sent off at the first possible chance. It was primarily viewed as a means of mobility, which for participants such as Pasha, was the main reason for applying for British citizenship:

When I apply for it I apply not because I really want to be British… It’s the passport there. It’s there then [I can] do anything with it. Because I anyway when I apply for it I thought like I didn’t expect anything from it. It’s just to make the life easy for paperwork and travelling and that’s it. (Pasha, family migrant, Egypt)

Pasha revealed the choices that became available to her upon receiving her British passport, compared to the previous constraints to her mobility from her Egyptian passport. Her reflection on not wishing to “be British” shows her understanding of Britishness as something deeper than simply being able to call herself a citizen, which she had no desire to be part of. However, Pasha’s belief that being a British citizen would not affect her behaviour or feelings of belonging was only expressed by a minority of participants, those who similarly had little concern for subscribing to a thicker version of citizenship. One participant with analogous views was Alison, who conceptualised citizenship in terms of freedom of mobility:

Kate: What does British citizenship mean to you?

Alison: [pause] Ease of travel. Opening up umm opportunities in Europe. Being able to travel in and around Europe and being able to work in Europe.

(Alison, economic migrant, Canada)

Alison, despite having Canadian citizenship, highlighted the greater opportunities which came with being a British passport holder. For her, this was based on becoming a European citizen, rather than simply a British national. This

demonstrates the pragmatic value of British citizenship to even so-called ‘mobile elites’ for its access to Europe. Alison, with her dual Canadian-British citizenship, epitomised the image of a transnational ‘flexible’ citizen, which combined with European citizenship increased her ability to accumulate capital by living and working across borders (cf. Ong, 1999). Although occupying a less privileged social position, Pasha similarly combined the use of her two passports to make travel easier, also having the ability to access the advantages of citizenship in both Britain and Egypt. This suggests that the strategic use of multiple citizenships is not solely the domain of elites, and could define the transnational experiences of many migrants (Werbner, 1999). These participants embodied the notion of ‘citizenship constellations’ (Bauböck, 2010), with their citizenly rights constructed through membership of multiple states, in addition to a supranational union.

Being a citizen of the European Union entitles members to additional rights, most notably freedom of movement and residence within the EU. These were

considered important by the majority of participants, but particularly by better-off migrants who travelled for work and leisure. It is argued that obtaining this

citizenship is most likely to affect non-EU immigrants, who are simultaneously granted rights at both a national and transnational level (Meehan, 1993). However, contentions that this marks a new form of post-national or cosmopolitan

citizenship (Archibugi, 1998, Soysal, 2001) are premature, with European

citizenship still predicated on being a citizen of a member state. In the UK context, membership of the EU is currently the subject of heated political debate, with arguments for withdrawing altogether popular amongst the British public (Ipsos MORI, 2014). European citizenship is therefore a fragile construct, ultimately a product of the negotiations and power of national politicians. Becoming a citizen of Europe is not acknowledged in the citizenship ceremonies, which focus on

membership to national and local communities (Byrne, 2014). Information on the EU has also been significantly reduced in the newest edition of the Life in the UK handbook. The connectivity of British citizenship to a transnational European citizenship is not recognised by a government intent on strengthening borders and distancing itself from the EU.

The type of passport held by an individual has implications for their recognition both domestically and internationally. Many participants had had visa applications rejected by countries they wished to travel to with no explanation provided, negatively categorised on account of their nationality. The identity imposed on them based on their passport affected the degree of scrutiny they were subjected to, particularly at national borders, as Jafar highlighted:

If I use my Sudanese passport and go anywhere, I have to stay in airport for long time to check your passport because you are Sudanese and Muslim and they think you are maybe terrorist or something. You have to stay for long time check and ah sorry for your patience and every time. But when you travel with your British passport it’s very

respectable outside and don’t need to check your passport just go. (Jafar, family migrant, Sudan)

Jafar’s narrative reflected the securitisation of migration which is increasingly linked to terror (Sivanandan, 2006, Waite, 2011). His Sudanese passport implicitly categorised him as a Muslim, and therefore a potential terrorist. He was

consequently subjected to extensive security checks at national borders,

characterised as ‘suspicious’ due to his nationality. As a British passport holder, he felt that he would be afforded respect wherever he travelled, with his negatively stereotyped religious identity superseded by possessing a valued national passport. This was a particularly salient concern for immigrants from countries associated with conflict and terrorism, such as Jafar, and refugees, whose travel documents marked them out as different. However, every participant I interviewed stated that their original passport was not as valued as a British passport. In a world of

securitised borders, holding a respected passport is more important than ever. This challenges theories of deterritorialised post-nationalism, with chances for both mobility and settlement dictated by national documentation confirming an individual’s right to cross borders and reside in particular places.

As states make it harder for non-nationals to enter and remain in their territory, they are simultaneously discrediting mobility as part of citizenship. In attempting to promote a ‘thick’ version of citizenship, the emphasis is instead on integrating into national society and belonging to a territorially defined national community

(Etzioni, 1995, Young, 2003). The motivations for acquiring citizenship expressed by participants such as Pasha and Alison were dismissed by state agents as

disregarding the real meaning of citizenship:

If they’ve had quite an easy ride and it’s just you know for the sake of ease of travel because they don’t have to get visas to travel to Europe, to them it’s you know and it’s come quite easy as it were to become British, it’s perhaps not saying it’s not valued as much but you can sort of tell that they perhaps don’t fully appreciate what becoming British should mean to people.

(Leeds registrar)

State agents tended to feel that those who had had an “easy ride” were using citizenship instrumentally, implying that their perceived failure to exhibit emotions openly in the citizenship ceremonies evidenced this. This reflects ideas of ‘flexible citizenship’ which are usually associated with elites (Ong, 1999). However, this overlooks the fact that immigrants who have had their rights severely restricted are potentially more likely to value the practical freedoms afforded by British

citizenship. In my research, refugees were just as likely to cite the benefits of being able to travel as other participants, and particularly welcomed this given their previous inability to obtain a passport. Furthermore, the Leeds registrar contended that those who had applied for citizenship to make travel easier did not appreciate deeper meanings of citizenship. This was phrased as “what becoming British should mean to people”, suggesting that simply being thankful for the benefits accrued from a new citizenship status was not sufficient to becoming a British citizen. This was connected to an appropriate display of positive emotions, with an absence of this implying that citizenship was not being appreciated in the correct way. She went on to talk of the gratitude expressed by those who have had a more difficult

migration journey, echoing state discourse of emphasising the significance of citizenship to immigrants. The fact that British citizenship should be imbued with meaning suggests a deep emotional attachment, going beyond the notion of a status formed of rights and responsibilities. This reflects states’ reaction to the ‘inevitable lightening’ of citizenship, whereby membership had become more accessible, demanded less obligations and was increasingly disconnected from nationhood (Joppke, 2010). As I will argue in later chapters, this response is out of touch with a globalised, translocal world.

The naturalisation process as a whole disregards the increased opportunities for mobility available for those with a British passport, with being granted citizenship both the product of and precursor for staying in place. As I noted while observing the processing of applicants at the UKBA headquarters:

It was accepted that the reason you would apply for British citizenship was that you would stay in the country, with a question asking this on the application form. This logic seemed to partly deny the desire for increased mobility for many, particularly those without a passport. (Observational field notes, 16/8/13)

The idea that granting British citizenship should keep people within the country denies the reality of migrants’ translocal lives. Visits to their origin country were the most common reason for participants leaving the UK, although the majority expressed no desire for permanent return. In fact the motivation of greater freedom to travel was combined with a wish for easier re-entry into the UK. Most participants had had difficult experiences at the UK border, subjected to long periods of waiting and probing questions. Recognition as a British citizen enabled them to join “the British queue” at airports, where they were regarded with less suspicion and afforded better treatment. Therefore, as well as extending

international rights to movement, it was once again state control of ‘suspicious’ bodies that motivated migrants to upgrade their status, affording an easier return into national territory. The importance of status to residency is explored further in the next section.