Civic integrationist requirements for citizenship, such as proof of language skills, civic knowledge, and adherence to liberal values, involve various testing and assessment methods. This article examines standardized and discretionary value assessments of naturalization applicants in Denmark, which combines strict standardized criteria with political discretion in awarding naturalization. It analyzes how politicians, bureaucrats, and citizenship applicants relationally navigate a system designed to restrict access to ‘non-European’ immigrants, whose values are constructed by politicians as a potential threat to democracy. The study draws on policy and media analysis, as well as interviews with naturalization applicants, test implementers, and civil society actors. Findings show that politicians advocate for subjective interviews to screen applicants’ values, while bureaucrats emphasize the procedural fairness of multiple-choice tests. Applicants are ambivalent – some see interviews as potentially fairer, but ultimately prefer standardized tests due to concerns about discrimination. The article contributes to understanding how racialized exclusion is embedded in both standardized and discretionary naturalization procedures and how different actors negotiate these dynamics. It argues that value assessments within a system built on exclusionary and racializing assumptions risk straining implementing institutions and threatening citizenship applicants’ sense of belonging to the nation-state.
Nina Carlsson (Tue,) studied this question.