Mary Gilmartin, Professor, Department of Geography, Maynooth University
Clíodhna Murphy, Associate Professor, School of Law and Criminology, Maynooth University
Most of us are granted citizenship automatically based on where we are born or who our parents are. Because of this, we often do not realise the rights that come with citizenship: rights that are not available to people who do not share that citizenship. In modern states, citizenship is the gateway to full security of residence and political membership. Citizenship rules also carry symbolic value, sending a message about ‘who belongs’. Functioning states have clear, transparent and stable rules for how people can access citizenship. While most people have Irish citizenship based on birth or descent (family relations), a small number become citizens through the process of naturalisation.
Current plans to change access to citizenship in Ireland, announced by the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration in September, relate only to the process of naturalisation. Irish citizens through naturalisation are already treated as second-tier citizens in the wide range of conditions they have to meet, and because their citizenship can be revoked. The Minister’s proposals would overhaul and render more restrictive almost every aspect of the citizenship by naturalisation regime, and further widen the gap between what is expected of those living in Ireland who wish to naturalise and those who obtain citizenship by birth or descent.
The General Scheme of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship (Amendment) Bill 2026 sets out the planned changes, with the Bill being drafted as a matter of priority. First, it is proposed to increase residency requirements for most applicants for naturalisation from five to eight years, with the departmental press release citing several countries which impose periods of seven to ten years, including Austria, Italy, Lithuania, Slovenia, and Spain and Switzerland. However, other countries like Belgium, France, Germany, and the UK, all currently have five year rules. To place this in global context, five years is the most common residence requirement across all regions of the world except Africa. Additionally, many countries also have permanent resident status; Ireland does not. Importantly, not all legal residence is ‘reckonable’ for the purposes of calculating the period. It would therefore take some groups, like students, much longer than eight years to build up the required residence.
Second, it is planned to introduce – for the first time in Ireland – language competency and civic integration testing as part of the naturalisation process. Such tests are common in European countries but civic integration testing in particular has come under sustained criticism. Civics tests often contain technical questions about public institutions and laws that citizens by birth or descent would struggle to answer; former British Prime Minister David Cameron spectacularly failed to answer mock questions based on the “Life in the UK” test on the David Letterman show. Our experience in Ireland of exam-based approaches to language learning – as in the case of compulsory Irish – rarely has the desired outcome. European experience shows that language and civic tests rarely serve to improve integration, which is how they are often justified. Instead, they are closely linked to more restrictive migration agendas. The logic underlying the current proposals appears to be almost wholly based on immigration control, as opposed to evidence of widespread difficulties with language competency or the civic or cultural knowledge of naturalised Irish citizens. If language competency or civic knowledge was important, we would have a well-funded and accessible system of education provision. Instead, Ireland relies on a network of volunteers, through groups like Fáilte Isteach, to provide language classes and civic education, showing its low priority for the state.
Third, the proposal has the potential to negatively impact marginalised groups. For example, it is proposed to strengthen economic self-sufficiency requirements to require that the applicant has sufficient resources, such as not to be a “burden on the State”. This could have a disproportionate effect on women, carers, people with disabilities, and others who may face individual and systemic barriers to participation in the labour market. People accessing social welfare payments or housing supports to which they are legally entitled could find themselves excluded from Irish citizenship through naturalisation.
The current naturalisation process in Ireland is demanding, and the Minister has considerable powers over the process. Already, most people applying for naturalisation go through a minimum of a five year probation, and this is often longer. For example, a person now applying for naturalisation who was a student visa holder for four years has to wait a minimum of five additional years to be eligible: at least nine years. The requirements, application form and required documentation is extensive, and the Minister has absolute discretion over granting naturalisation. People who wish to become Irish citizens through naturalisation have to plan their lives years in advance. Making the proposed changes now, with no evidence for why the changes are needed and no discussion over their value, will result in people no longer feeling like they belong or wish to belong here, will create new vulnerabilities and will undermine integration and social cohesion. As a coalition of NGOs pointed out, the changes “are simply aimed at making Ireland a hostile place for migrants who contribute so much to our economy and society”. There is still time for the Oireachtas to take into account this perspective, given that the Bill must go through pre-legislative and legislative scrutiny.