A common claim has been that liberalization of citizenship policy depends on making policy behind closed doors. I challenge one variant of this line of argument, which regards courts as the primary “countermajoritarian” champion of the expansion of immigrant rights, through a comparison of citizenship policy in Austria, Germany, and Switzerland. In all three countries subnational authorities play a significant role in the administration of naturalization policy. Courts have played more of a “nationalizing” rather than a “countermajoritarian” role. I also show how differences in federal structures affected recent efforts to reform citizenship policy in these countries.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Claus Hofhansel (2008) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: