Impossibilities of Social Citizenship: On Statelessness of Migrants

M. Pajnik, 2011, Impossibilities of social citizenship

1

Published as a book chapter in In Security, insecurity and migration in Europe, 2011, ed. G.

Lazaridis, 239–257. Farnham, Burlington: Ashgate.

Mojca Pajnik

Impossibilities of social citizenship: On statelessness of migrants

Contemporary trends of job market deregulation, increasing precarization and the decline of

social services aggravate particularly the situation of the groups that are socially and

economically most marginalized. The demand for hard physical work and non-skilled labour

in the EU states is satisfied mainly by migrants. According to the Employment Service‟s data

across the EU, the greatest demand for migrant labour force is generated by the sectors

traditionally characterized by poor working conditions: the construction sector, the care

sector, manufacturing, seasonal work, sales and cleaning services. Research shows1 that

employment and migration policies systematically relegate migrants to low-paid sectors and

non-skilled jobs associated with low levels of social security and work safety frequently

combined with a high risk and health hazards, as well as limited labour rights..

Contemporary EU social policies are based on the idea of welfare state that originated

in the 1950s and is related to the notion of social citizenship (Marshall 1950) which added

social rights to the corpus of political and civil rights. This chapter explores the notion of

citizenship while critically challenging its (a)political conceptualizations (Soysal 1994; Lister

1997; Dean 2003). I first define citizenship as membership in a political community that

enables action within the public sphere. Next, I explore the disappearance of the political

dimension of citizenship with one of its consequences being the exclusion of certain groups

from a political community. Various approaches to social citizenship are examined and the

validity of this concept is assessed using the example of labour and social policies considered

with respect to migrants.2 I refer to migrants in this chapter and refrain from further

categorization of migrating populations. However, the analyses presented is also valid for

asylum seekers and refugees whose statuses are more in detail presented in this book in

chapters Liza Schuster, Naagtegall and Parusel.

National states see citizenship as a status and membership in a national community;

consequently migrants are regarded as non-citizens and non-members, with the rights arising

from social citizenship applying to them only to a limited extent. In this chapter, I use the

example of current migration polices in Slovenia to problematize the circular condition

employed in granting social rights/citizenship. Since I advocate the need to rehabilitate the

political aspect of citizenship and since citizenship is understood here as a full participation

(of migrants) in the activities of a political community, I am not concerned solely with the

institutional dimensions of citizenship (labour market policies, migration policies etc.) but

also make room for migrants‟ narratives. Accordingly, in illustrating the (non)functioning of

1 See the findings of the Primts project (Prospects for integration of migrants from “third countries” and their

labour market situation: towards policies and action) available at http://www.primts-mirovni-institut.si.

Trimikliniotis (forthcoming) for specific cases of Cyprus, Germany, Italy and Slovenia. 2 The concept of social citizenship widely praised after Marshall‟s introduction in the 1950s is based on the idea

that granting people social rights increases their security. Some later understandings of citizenship (Soysal 1994;

Dean 2003) that take into account the weaknesses of the welfare state model and explore citizenship in relation

to the marginalized groups, migrants among them, are more critical of Marshall‟s model. One of the main

arguments of the critique is that social citizenship devalued people as political beings; instead of promoting

political activity it introduced social services that are by definition always biased when it comes to security of

vulnerable groups.


2

social citizenship, the chapter draws on the narratives of women migrants in Slovenia

obtained through biographical interviews.3

On the political aspect of citizenship and its disappearance

The interpretations of citizenship most often draw on specific theoretical traditions where

debates usually revolve around differences between meta theories, i.e. the liberal and the

republican model of citizenship. Further classifications frequently include communitarian,

economic, discursive and multicultural citizenship. Over the past two decades, the changing

role of the national state, the tendency towards its greater inclusion in globalization trends,

and larger migration flows gave rise to theories about post-national, trans-national and

cosmopolitan citizenship. These problematize the national state-based conceptualizations and

discuss redefinitions of citizenship on the transnational level. In this chapter , I avoid well-

known definitions.4 I will not draw on any meta theory but will define citizenship as a

political activity, or as the “right to have rights,” to borrow from Arendt (1948/1976); as

membership in a political community and activity in the public sphere (Somers 2008).

For Arendt, citizenship is a precondition that enables life and activity within a

community. Central to the ethos of citizenship is the principle that the right to have rights is

not dependent on individual circumstances meaning that membership in a political community

cannot be denied because one holds citizenship of another country, or on the grounds of

his/her ethnic origin, language, religion and the like. In this sense, citizenship prevents

statelessness as a consequence of someone not being what he/she should be, for example, a

citizen of a specific country or a member of a certain (dominant) ethnic group. However,

migrants, as shown in the empirical part of this chapter, alert us to the fact that membership in

a political community is not self-evident; rather than being something that naturally belongs

to a person, it requires the creation of conditions and extensive political will that make

membership possible. Accounts of migrant women presented below point to the worrying fact

of a lack of such a will that would contribute to security of migrating populations.

As such, citizenship constitutes the worldliness of people (Arendt 1967), their

membership of the world, their political value and the expression of rights in the public

sphere. It denotes “citizenship of the world,” meaning the rights and activity in the world as a

political community (Balibar 2008: –534). It also reflects the fact that people share many

things on a global level. Diseases, unemployment, aging etc. are collective rather than

individual circumstances and therefore the ethics of citizenship exacts collective answers to

collective issues: unemployment is not the “fault” of an individual, but a structural problem

that calls for structural measures and protection against the ideologeme of the invisible hand

of the market. Defined in political terms, citizenship is thus not a contractual relationship, but

an association based on solidarity and mutual responsibility (Arendt 1967; Somers 2008).

3 During the period 20062007 we conducted 26 biographical interviews with migrant women who moved to

Slovenia over the period of the previous 15 years. Country of origin was determined by birthplace: 7 interview

partners came from the former Yugoslav republics, 4 from Kazakhstan, 3 from Ukraine, 2 from China, 2 from

Moldova, and 1 from Russia, Uzbekistan, Japan, Peru, Colombia, Thailand, Lithuania, Turkey, Slovakia, and

from the Czech Republic. Women were between 22 and 48 years of age, they had various socio-economic and

educational backgrounds, they came from different geopolitical contexts, and lived and worked in differing

social situations. The interviews were part of the 6FP Femipol project (Integration of female immigrants in

labour market and society: policy assessment and policy recommendations) that aimed at analysing the impact of

integration policies on the position of migrant women in EU countries. More on the project is available at

http://www.femipol.uni-frankfurt.de. See also Slany, K., M. Kontos and M. Liapi, eds. (forthcoming) and Pajnik

and Bajt (forthcoming). 4 For citizenship models see Delanty (2000).


3

Some authors (Arendt 1967; Habermas 1972; Somers 2008) argue that the theoretical

basis for the depoliticization of citizenship in the 18th

and 19th

centuries was provided by

social contract theories, which by analogy with Hobbes‟s politike techné, defined citizenship

as a contractual relationship and necessity enabling legitimization of the government. Somers

(2008) termed this “contractualization of citizenship,” as citizenship is reduced to contractual

relations. According to Hobbes (1651/1985), citizenship defines isolated individuals who

come together accidentally and sign quid pro quo social contract as an exclusively

instrumental mechanism in the function of social management. Contrary to this are

understandings of citizenship as membership in a political community and activity within it.

Polity presupposes an autonomous, intersubjective action of individual members of the

community. It is plural by nature and arises from the network of activities that are carried out

on an equal footing. It is not a private matter nor is it aimed at satisfying individual interests

through a contractual relationship. The nation and national identity, based on ethnic and

cultural premises and delimited by country‟s borders, “devoured” the idea of a political

community at some point in time. The depoliticization (Habermas 1972) meant that the

national has become the “political” and the nation has become a “political community” which

is a change that produced the exclusion of certain populations, such as migrants.

Citizenship, originally denoting membership in a political community, became a status

and primarily an administrative criterion, implying membership in a national community

either by virtue of birth (ius sanguinis) or residence (ius soli); it has become identity

ascertained by the passport that functions as proof that one belongs to a specific “political”

(=national) community. In this definition of citizenship, an individual is a member of a

national community. Such a definition serves the purpose of territorial demarcation, the

legitimization of the borders of a national state and the power of its elites (Habermas

1994:2425) rather than implying citizens‟ participation in and co-creation of political

community. This is seen, for example, in policies on citizenship and naturalization that often

prevent dual or multiple citizenships and require the renouncement of original citizenship

before granting a specific citizenship, i.e. a specific national affiliation.

Habermas (2001:53) linked the apolitical understanding of citizenship, with not only

the processes of political community nationalization but also with the flourishing of

entrepreneurship in state practices. Consequently, the state has been turning into an

entrepreneurial state based on the contractual principles of market operation. The

nationalization processes and uncritical adoption of market principles in administering the

national states of the 19th and 20th century established citizenship as a necessity enabling the

existence of a national community. The “status” nature of citizenship has become a necessity

preconditioning the existence of a “political” (=national) community; citizenship has become

inclusion in or exclusion from the privileged membership in (western) national communities.

These shifts appear as a source of insecurity for migrants who are excluded from the

privileged national membership. Migrants in EU countries also unequally compete on the

national labour markets with the “native” population since, as shown below, policies are

adopted that aim at “securing” the national labour market (against migrants).

Statelessness and the right to have rights

The locus classicus of modern debates about citizenship is held to be Marshall‟s (1950)

conceptualization of citizenship based on the political, civil and social rights. The triad of

rights addresses citizenship primarily as a status: only a citizen has the right to vote and only a

citizen has the right to pension. The hypothesis that is problematic in this constellation is the

one pointed out by the theorists of post-national citizenship (Soysal 1994; Habermas 2001) –


4

that citizenship encompasses all members of a community. In practice, however, this

supposed all-inclusiveness and equality maintains and reproduces inequalities with respect to

migrants. The problem is that this type of citizenship does not recognize actual status

differences. On the contrary, it presupposes status equality (citizenship as national

membership) and takes it as a social fact. Such a presupposition also implicitly defines what is

left outside this order . Citizenship (as a status) becomes a privilege of “primordial” members

of a national community. Understood in this way, it produces its opposite, i.e. statelessness as

de facto “otherness” and inequality. The simple fact of not belonging to a specific national

community generates inequality of non-citizens. Statelessness arises from the fact that a

person has found himself/herself outside the community into which he/she was born (Arendt

1948/1976). The moment we encounter an instance of unequal citizenship (as in the case of

migrants) or statelessness (Arendt‟s thematization of the case of Jews during the Nazi era), the

principle that everyone is a member of a political community is betrayed.

Arendt (1948/1976) argues that the right to have rights that enable citizenship is much

more fundamental than human rights. It implies an equal membership in a community which

is what actually enables one to refer to human rights. To make human rights possible, it is first

necessary to ensure the right to have rights. While Arendt problematized the factual

statelessness of Jews, Somers (2008), in actualizing her theory, has established that today

statelessness does not mean only non-membership in a national community. It is also

applicable to the situation of migrants who are regarded as “inappropriate” members of a

community, those who allegedly threaten its security. Xenophobic and racist rhetoric that is

increasingly adopted not only by extremist organizations but also by some political parties

across the EU promotes migrants as a threat to the security of Europe. Migrants are presented

as insecure “elements” that endanger the well-being of “first world” countries. Such

discourses usually propose policy solutions that aim at the closure of borders, the expulsion of

migrants without documents, the limiting or banning of migrants‟ labour etc.

At the same time, contemporary statelessness is also the ever-growing “statelessness

of citizens.” According to Somers, statelessness in contemporary times should be

problematized as the exclusion or absence of certain populations (e.g. the unemployed, the

poor) from the public sphere. Membership in a national community is therefore not a

sufficient condition for citizenship; de jure citizens, too, can be non-citizens (Somers

2008:2627). To illustrate that de jure citizenship does not automatically imply de facto

citizenship, Somers (2008) uses the example of New Orleans residents affected by the

hurricane Katrina. They have lost the right to have rights in the situation of “internal

apartheid”. The unresponsiveness of political elites and inefficiency of the system created the

situation in which they not only lost their homes, but became refugees or undesired migrants

in their own country seeking shelter while fleeing from catastrophe (Ibid: 63117).

Social citizenship in the shackles of market fundamentalism

In Marshall‟s view, social rights would lead to social protection programs, and consequently

full citizenship, through the state regulation of the market and economic development

policies. The welfare state was conceptualized as a project aimed at reducing the conflicts

arising from labour market inequalities. It was expected to bring “reconciliation”, or at least

mitigate the conflict between capitalism and political citizenship. It was meant to

decommodify individuals and reduce their dependence on the logic of the market. Social

citizenship was based on the ethical principle of “equal social worth” and was expected to

equalize life chances (Handler 2004:88).


5

According to Marshall social citizenship includes the minimal standards of housing

and citizens‟ participation in the economic and social welfare through the system of social

protection (which is often erroneously interpreted as a system of “benefits”). It includes the

right to education and health protection, reimbursements in the case of unemployment, the

right to pension, sick leave and social assistance. Social rights are therefore meant to ensure

social safety, and their effect, in Marshall‟s opinion, should be the overcoming of the conflicts

of capitalist society and the reinforcement of the feeling of belonging to a political

community.

The paradox of social rights manifests itself through the conflict between their

ostensible (distributive) justice (they should ensure a just distribution of social protection) and

the assumption about their peaceful coexistence with the existing social and economic system.

It seems that the opportunism of this concept lies in the fact that social rights could be

exercised in practically any socio-economic system (reformist, authoritarian, liberal and so

on), since they arbitrarily adapt to various governing strategies. Ever since the introduction of

social rights, it has been clear that they do not have the real power to eliminate the inequalities

of the capitalist system but only have the corrective potential. Because of this, they can be

seen as thin rights that actually maintain structures of inequality. If political and civil rights

are, at least professedly, ensured once and for good, and believed to be above national

interests, social rights are heavily dependent on national economic policies and daily

developments on the labour market. These policies are directed towards protecting the

national which makes social rights always limited when it comes to migrants.

Likic Brboric in her contribution to this book speaks about the “liberal paradox” that is

seen in the incompatibility of the rights-based perspective and the economic perspective on

migration. While the first one advocates transnational citizenship rights the second promotes

policies of closure of labour markets and limitations to freedom of movement. This paradox

can help to explain the fallacies of the European social model that doesn‟t work because of its

subordination to the interests of global capital. The author claims that while the model frames

migration along the lines of partnership and solidarity the EU migration policies, specifically

the border regime, prioritize policies of return and security of borders over migrants‟ rights.

Social rights favour the members of a national community: the more one is integrated

into society and the labour market, the easier is his/her access to social services. The welfare

state foresaw fully employed citizens; for them, access to social services is indeed facilitated,

unlike for those who most need it. The greatest number of social rights is thus enjoyed by

highly productive workers with regular wages (Handler 2004). Normatively, social citizenship

is based on the principle of solidarity, but it seems that this does not function in practice. It is

clear that social “benefits” are enabled by workers who pay contributions. What, then, is the

true meaning of the universality of social rights and solidarity? In practice, social rights are

dependent on the participation in the labour market; it is the labour market that enables the

exercising of social rights. Criticism that the welfare state creates “social dualism” seems

adequate here (Ibid:91). As such, the welfare state may be seen as an actor that deepens rather

than resolves stratification and reproduces divisions between deserving and undeserving

receivers of social “benefits”, while circumventing structural relations that determine the

situation of those so-called undeserving claimants.

The principle of separating deserving claimants from undeserving ones is embedded in

the very system of welfare state: equal access to social services is available solely to citizens,

meaning those who contribute to the state budget by paying taxes. Migrants as non-members

do not have access to these services (moreover, even the equality of citizens themselves is

questionable). For migrants, this access is invariably access that is always conditioned

(Layton-Henry 1991:112113), with those conditions including legal entry into the country,


6

the right type of work or residence permit, adoption of “right” citizenship (naturalization) and

renouncement of “inappropriate” citizenship, and so on. Distributive justice has often proved

to be justice not accessible to non-citizens. In this context, social citizenship can be critically

viewed as a strategy for maintaining the superiority of the original community and for

constructing the Other as an outsider. Naturalization policies are often proof that this is so:

before one is granted new citizenship, he/she is required to renounce original citizenship.

With various narrowly defined policies the ideas about citizenship of the world, nomadic or

diasporic citizenship (Balibar 2004, 2008; Habermas 2001) have gained urgency. These new

understandings of citizenship recognize the transgressive aspects of contemporary migration

and urge us to think about human relations in a transnational perspective, beyond boundaries

of the national state. Migrants‟ transnationalisms (various patterns of transnational family life,

patterns of work-related migration, diasporic realities etc.) point to new fashions of

interconnectedness on a global level and to new kinds of mobility across spaces. Classical

understandings of citizenship that are tight to the national state and that have produced the

equation of citizenship and nationality don‟t have the potential to grasp these realities and

thus seem inadequate. Ideas of world citizenship or of nomadic citizenship in contrast to

classical understandings are not based in a national context; they put forefront the agency, the

migrating subject, her mobility and aspirations towards greater security in a globalizing

world. The idea of world citizenship, of nomadic citizenship as alternatives to classical

conceptualizations urge us, as Balibar (2004:177) would say, to “attack the obsessive question

of collective insecurity by beginning precisely with the situation of the most “insecure”, the

nomadic populations”. During the 1990s, discourse on active work policy replaced

discourse on the welfare state (workfare replaced welfare). Under the new regime, citizens

have both rights and duties. In return for the “benefits” they must increasingly be ready for

work; social rights are increasingly tied to work contracts (Handler 2004:140, 142) and lack

of these for migrants also means lack of rights. Even if we accept the thesis about minimal

differences between welfare and workfare as regards active population, we cannot overlook

the fact that the negative consequences of the workfare ideology, as Handler (Ibid:209, 211)

argues, most affect the most vulnerable groups, including long-term unemployed people and

migrants. Their position is explicitly unequal to that of their employers and they practically

have no negotiation options, which further aggravates their marginalized starting position.

The strategy of circular condition: social (non)citizenship and migrants’ experiences in

Slovenia

The lives of migrants living in contemporary national communities show that the

disappearance of the political aspect of citizenship, i.e. the right to membership in a political

community to where these belong by virtue of activity within the public sphere, has as a

consequence the reproduction of the statelessness of migrants as a group. The strategy of

circular condition and selective admission into citizenship begins when a migrant enters the

country. To be admitted to the margin of rights, their entry must be legal. Migrants who enter

a country undocumented are considered not only non-members, but “illegal” non-members,

i.e. twice non-citizens, those who threaten the so-called first-comers and pose a serious danger

to their safety and security of their country. Migrants who enter a national community legally

are confronted with what I call “the strategy of circular condition” when they want to access

the labour market, when undergoing the naturalization process etc. which is an obstacle

preventing the possibility of any type of migrants‟ security. In the next section I check

the validity of social citizenship using the example of the labour market and migration

policies in Slovenia, while examining various condition-setting mechanisms – work permit


7

and the quota system, residence permit, access to social services and conditions of

naturalization. These place limitations on social citizenship. In problematizing these

mechanisms, their practical repercussions for migrants will be examined, while their

institutional aspect will be presented along with the migrants‟ narratives. The purpose of this

analysis is to draw attention to the need for a critical deliberation about current policies that

regulate migrants‟ citizenship. A need is expressed to rehabilitate citizenship which is evident

from the narratives of migrants and their experience with the current policies of selective

admission to citizenship.

“Work your fingers to the bone and don’t complain”: labour market policies

Admission to citizenship is to a large extent dependent on the conditions of admission to the

labour market. The analysis of laws and policies in Slovenia shows that the first condition for

migrants‟ admission to the labour market is a work permit. There are three types of work

permit: a) personal work permit, b) employment permit, and c) permit for work.5 A personal

work permit may be issued to migrants who have a permanent residence permit in Slovenia,

refugees, asylum seekers, and self-employed individuals. In principle, it should entitle

migrants to the same rights as those enjoyed by Slovenian citizens. Personal work permit is

either renewable or permanent, and it enables a migrant to work for any employer or to be

self-employed. It is also the only type of permit that allows migrants to register with the

employment service as job seekers.

The second type of permit known as employment permit is usually issued at

the time of a migrant‟s first employment and it is tied to the employer‟s need for labour.In

contrast to the holders of personal work permit, who can switch to another employer, an

migrant holding the employment permit is tied to the employer who applied for the permit on

his/her behalf. While personal work permit is issued for an unlimited period of time,

employment permit is generally issued for the period of up to one year and may be renewed

for a further period of up to one year. According to the Employment Service data, most

permits issued to migrants are of this type (69% in 2008).6

The third kind of permit, permit for work, is based on the demand for specifically

defined migrant labour. It entitles a migrant to temporary employment and performing of

work for which the permit has been issued. This permit has a fixed expiration date and it is

issued to foreign representatives or foreigners who have been referred for a specific job,

attend training or education courses in Slovenia, offer individual services and do seasonal

work. According to the Employment Service data this permit is often issued for work in the

construction sector, agriculture, hotel, catering and tourism industry.

Work options for migrants are further limited by the current demand on the labour

market and the quota system. The number of employment permits and permits for work must

not exceed the annual quota set at 5% of the number of active population (according to the

Employment and Work of Aliens Act from 2000 personal work permits are not included in

this quota). The quota system is usually described as the mechanism enabling the employment

of migrants and contributing to an open society. The bigger the quota, the greater the number

of working migrants and the more open a society. What is not mentioned frequently is that the

migrant work quotas usually imply so-called 3D jobs (dirty, dangerous, demanding) shunned

by local workers. In practice this means that the quotas further limit the already limited

options available to migrants.

5 Employment and Work of Aliens Act (2000).

6 Data collected as part of the Primts project in June 2009.


8

Next we look into how the policy regulating access to the labour market and the quota

system affects the lives of migrants whereby we base our observations on interviews

conducted with migrant women with various social and economic backgrounds and patterns

of family life. Some of our interview partners have finished secondary or vocational school,

others have university degree (i.e. law, economics), some are married with children, others

single, some have left families in their country of birth while all have experienced precarious

labour such as working on a black market as a cook, cleaner, kitchen aid, waitress etc. Most of

our respondents obtained permit for work prior to their arrival in Slovenia. The interviews

revealed that the existing permit system enables employers to exert self-will and reduces the

negotiating options for migrants. Some interviewees told us that the actual working conditions

proved to be worse than those promised to them prior to their arrival. It often turned out that

they had to work for lower wages under worse working conditions. Fearing that they would

lose their jobs and consequently their permit for work, they had no other option but to endure

the exploitation, for example, perform additional tasks beyond those previously agreed, work

longer working hours for a low payment, be always available for work and unable to take a

sick leave. Some employers refused to extend their permits despite previous agreement or tied

the permit extension to additional duties.

The first job in Slovenia was a catastrophe. I found myself somewhere where I don‟t belong. I

worked in a bar, as a barmaid. I worked practically for nothing for two years. When I saw that

they were going bankrupt, I wanted to go away. And then I realized that he did not register me

[with the authorities]. Actually, that I was registered for half a year, but I worked for two

years ... And now I‟ve been promoted, except that I don‟t known how much I‟ll be paid. It‟s

irresponsible. I ask: “How much will I get?” And he says: “What d‟you think, that you know

everything, that you‟re smart...?” Is it the way to talk? Is it a boss, talking like that? ... When I

see that I don‟t feel like going to work. ... I live like a robot. I work Monday to Friday, seven

to three, or eight to four, I do 8 hours. I go straight to the school to fetch my daughter – she

has extended hours at school – I come home, grab the vacuum cleaner, tidy up, do the linen,

ironing, cooking, dinner. Then my daughter goes to bed ... And on Saturday it‟s house

cleaning, on Sunday it‟s cooking. I never have time to spare. (Marija, 30, Moldova)7

I came to Slovenia. All of us girls lived together, and all of us had temporary address there. It

was tied to the contract, its duration, half a year. Other girls came for, say, 14 days, one

month. And he does not register them. I had a half-year contract and I could go home

whenever I wanted. That is to say, I had to leave 200 euros with my boss, as a warranty that

I‟ll come back. If I didn‟t do that, if I stayed at home and he had to terminate the contract ... it

needs to be paid. (Natalija, 24, Czech Republic)

I got a physical job. And that was thanks to myself, not someone else. I‟m not satisfied with

my work; in the beginning it was not that bad, let‟s say that for a young woman who didn‟t

even know how to hold scissors, who couldn‟t speak Slovene, it was quite ok. I came and I

had to try hard. In the literary sense of the word, I tore myself apart. I first tore myself apart

for the sake of people, to establish contacts with them, then I tore myself apart for the sake of

the system, because I needed it in order to be able to do anything at all. Then I tore myself

apart at work. Then to get the money I earned ... I work an awful lot. I sweated and I still do.

And conditions are unacceptable. Every migrant has to adapt to them. Work your fingers to

the bone, indeed, and you must not complain. Yeah, you must not complain ... The state does

not help. As to me, nobody helps me. Quite the opposite, the state wants something from you

7 All names have been changed for ethical reasons.


9

all the time. But when you need something, then no way, they‟d never help you, never give in.

And all that bureaucracy, the system, I really don‟t like it. (Kizimka, 27, Central Asia)

After several attempts to find a job corresponding to their work experience and education,

migrants are forced to accept work below their skills (de-skilling) and education level. To

keep their employment permit and remain in Slovenia, they are willing to accept any kind of

work; they become completely dependent on the employer and are forced to moonlight or

accept black market jobs. They talked about losing the courage to grapple with long

bureaucratic procedures for approving education certificates. After working for several years

as unregistered cleaners or kitchen help, they cease to hope that they will ever be able to

perform the work for which they are skilled. Hard working conditions preclude further

education. Our respondents also referred to their experience of discrimination.

So they said [during a job interview]: “Tell us something about yourself.” So I started: “I‟m

so-many years old, I come from Bosnia.” And they said: “Stop” I said: “Why stop?” They

were a man and a woman. The man said: “Let her speak. See how well she speaks French.”

She said: “No, she‟s from Bosnia, she cannot speak.” I said. “But why?” She said: “Well, we

don‟t take Bosnians.” So I said, jebela cesta, that was straight into your face. … And at the

Employment Service, where I went for interviews I don‟t know how many times, they said:

“Why nobody takes you?” That‟s what I‟d like to know, too. Then she said: “You know

what? Why don‟t you change your surname? You‟ll never get a job with that surname of

yours.” ... So I said: “I won‟t, out of spite.” And even if I did. If I had, I don‟t know, some

Slovenian surname, it‟d be still obvious that I‟m not a Slovene, from how I speak, so it‟s

pointless.” (Ada, 39, Bosnia-Herzegovina)

I got the job, although it required a lower level (of education). I have level 7 education, I

graduated in economy and I have my certificates nostrificated in Slovenia. There was no

problem getting a job – although that position required level 5 education, but I wanted to start

from below, to gather experience slowly. At that time I had 9 years of work experience in

Russia, but I wanted to see how and what, how things were done, business procedures in

general. That‟s why I went for a lower level position, an ordinary administrative position in a

company that dealt with finances. (Vera, 29, Russia)

I danced for a while, then I went home and then came back – at that time it was not a problem.

But it‟s different now – dancing is not what it used to be. In the past there were shows,

professional ballerinas, but it‟s no longer like that. And when you do it for such a long time,

it‟s no longer a pleasure ... And you cannot find another job immediately. You can‟t. As

simple as that. You have to look, to make an effort, find someone who is ready to help you as

a foreigner, to employ you. It is also difficult to find a regular job. Well, I found it, I was

lucky. Lucky indeed. To change job. To move from that bar to a normal company, to work as

a cleaner. I worked for 6 years. I immediately said yes. I didn‟t care whether it was a cleaning

job or whatever, all that I wanted was to move away from that. Then I worked as a cleaner, I

stayed in Ljubljana for 6 years, cleaning offices. I cleaned offices in a bank, it was a regular

job. (Nika, 35, Ukraine)

“Citizen and still a foreigner:” social services and naturalization

Migrants‟ work permit is tied to the permanent residence permit which is one of the strongest

selective mechanisms for admission into Slovenian citizenship. The residence permit may be


10

issued to migrants after they have been living in Slovenia for 5 years continually on the basis

of the temporary residence permit.8 As already mentioned, permanent residence is a

precondition for obtaining personal work permit, without which migrants are left to the good

will of their employers. The EU directive concerning the status of third country migrants who

are long term residents allows member states to require from migrants requesting permanent

residence permit to prove that they have health insurance, adequate resources to support

themselves and their families, and that they observe integration conditions in accordance with

national legislation. Before the law on foreigners in Slovenia was amended, migrants seeking

permanent residence permit in Slovenia had been asked to provide evidence of adequate

resources for supporting themselves. The narratives below show the practical effects of such

policy.

There was no way for me to register with the Employment Service, because I only had

temporary residence [permit]. I went there [to the Employment Service] to find something,

some job ... They told me I couldn‟t register because I didn‟t have the permanent residence

permit. It‟s my great wish to work in my field, as a teacher, but I don‟t know how likely it is,

because I have to speak Slovene perfectly, so that I can be sure when I write down something,

or say something, that it‟s correct, to teach others, small children, teach them properly. I really

don‟t know when it will be possible. And I‟d like to ask, if there is a possibility, to get a 50%

help from the Employment Service, or I don‟t know, I‟d take a course, and then go on. I have

a strong will! But small resources. (Melanija, 42, Croatia)

I lived in Ljubljana for a year or so without documents so I couldn‟t work. I had simple

problems, for example, I couldn‟t find any work, nobody wanted me because of that and I

decided to do something about it. So I married, it was fake marriage, to obtain status and

some basic rights without which you cannot, you cannot live in another country. I examined

the Foreigners Act and I realized that it was the only option. So I found a husband ... After the

wedding the search started, applications for temporary residence, for permanent residence, all

that. That process lasted about four years in my case and ... the biggest problem was that the

man I married didn‟t have a regular job, he was a free-lance artist, and that was not good

enough for the state [administration] because they didn‟t have proof that he could take care of

me in the material sense. That was quite a big problem. Because of that I couldn‟t get

permanent residence status. As for obtaining documents, it was a wearisome process, I didn‟t

know if I‟d ever be through with it … (Ana, 35, Croatia)

The milestone was when we married, here in Slovenia. That was one such point that

simplified a lot of things for me, if I compare myself to other women, regarding various

documents, papers and such things. So I started to get things done, temporary residence,

medical insurance, all that was necessary in order to live here; actually, the most important

thing was that I got temporary residence, that I registered, obtained medical insurance and that

I had a doctor. (Anuška, 31, Slovakia)

The type of work and residence permit determines access to social services: employed

migrants are included in the obligatory insurance scheme for unemployment,9 but they can

register with the Employment Service as job seekers only if they hold a personal work permit.

Or, for example, employed migrants are included in the compulsory health insurance scheme

but only if they have a permanent residence permit, otherwise they are left to their own

8 Article 41 of the Aliens Act (2009).

9 Employment and Insurance Against Unemployment Act (2007).


11

ingenuity and depend on the self-sacrifice of doctors and employees. Migrants‟ rights to

parental protection are also limited – they are not entitled to parental bonuses, while financial

assistance at the birth of a child is tied to at least one parent having a permanent residence

permit, and the right to child bonuses to the child‟s residence.10

The circumstances within the

housing field are similar; migrants cannot rent a non-profit apartment and cannot own a real

estate.11

Speaking about poorly paid jobs they perform, our interview partners emphasized the

difficulties they had because of high rents. Since they are excluded from financial schemes

and since they have difficulties obtaining housing loans, they are forced to accept hard

physical work and jobs offered on the grey market. They also talked about discrimination, for

example, some landlords refused to rent out their apartments or charged higher rents on the

grounds that they were not of Slovenian nationality. Migrants who enter Slovenia on the basis

of employment permit arranged by their prospective employers often find themselves living in

unbearable conditions. Some interviewees told us about living with other migrants in a small

room deprived of privacy.

Only a few years ago it was very difficult to find an apartment, especially for foreign women

from Eastern Europe, perhaps because of bad reputation, because of things like women selling

themselves. And because I come from Eastern Europe I too came across such obstacles when

I was socializing ... I tried to work legally, find a regular job, but it simply did not work, I still

ran out of it. Even the social worker told me: “Yes, your situation is difficult because you

don‟t have your own apartment.” I cannot get a non-profit apartment, because I still don‟t

have Slovenian citizenship. Even if I had it, it is a question how quickly I‟d get it. There are

many young families here, single moms, Slovenians, and they cannot get it. Apart from some

communal apartments in basements. And the social worker said: “All you can do is moonlight

and receive social assistance.” Because you simply cannot make it. Maternal home ... I turned

to them for accommodation, but it is fully occupied and that‟s only a makeshift solution for 6

months or so and then you have to look for it again. You don‟t get anywhere.

(Vera, 29, Russia)

I teach English and I work on contract. You have a contract for one school year. Mainly for

nine or ten months when schools are open. That means that you do not have your annual leave

paid and you are less protected in general. You don‟t have health insurance, you have to

arrange it on your own, and so on. That worries me a lot. What will happen in the future, what

shall I do, where shall I work and what sort of job will it be. Of course I want to get a regular

job, you can‟t always work on contract. It‟s not a job if you don‟t have insurance, it‟s the

main problem. You don‟t have your annual vacation paid, no health and pension insurance.

(Tereza, 34, Lithuania)

Speaking about health issues, our respondents emphasized the inadequacy of legislation.

Persons without regulated status have access to emergency health services only. This policy

should be redefined and expanded to other medical services. We noted situations in which

migrants who were unfamiliar with the procedures or did not have a good command of

Slovene were denied access to medical services covered by additional insurance because, for

example, they unknowingly paid a less-than-required additional insurance fee. Some migrants

discovered that their employers did not pay the agreed health insurance contributions only

10

Parental Protection and Family Benefit Act (2008). 11

Housing Act (2003) and the National housing program (2000).


12

when they needed medical assistance in a concrete situation. They are frequently denied their

right to a sick leave or maternity leave.

When I was in hospital they found that I had problems of a specific nature and that‟s why I

couldn‟t move my hand. Then they put me in plaster. I had to pay for the therapy from my

own pocket. I had to pay myself. I didn‟t have the money. And if E. did not send it! E. sent

the money for the therapy. They didn‟t pay for it, the ministry pays only for urgent cases. If

you‟re dying they‟ll help you, if you are not, then ... (Valbona, 41, Kosovo)

I had three or four days to go before giving birth and I was without health insurance ... The

lady at the ministry told my husband to go to Trieste with my passport and get the tourist visa

for me until I get papers in order. The residence permit. So my husband did it, he went to

Trieste and got the tourist visa without problem. On the 15th in the morning I had labor pains

and I still did not have health insurance. I went to hospital intending to pay from my own

pocket. Because if you are a foreigner and you don‟t have medical insurance, you pay for

everything. On the 15th we arranged everything, I don‟t know what happened but we did, so I

got medical insurance through my husband who worked in a restaurant ... That month was

really, was really difficult, so now when I think of it I can‟t believe that I made it through all

of that. After I gave birth I had an allergy. Many doctors came to look at it, and they all said

that they never saw something like that, so in the end their diagnosis was that it was a sort of,

how to put it, a post-birth shock. That it was a trauma, all that stress I went through. (Sandra,

29, Serbia)

When I first went to the clinic she wrote a prescription for insulin, which I needed; at that

time I was in Slovenia for, I don‟t know for how long, one week, and of course I couldn‟t

speak Slovene. Because I only just came, I started speaking in Bosnian, apologizing for

disturbing her, saying that I had a big request, I only just arrived. She simply shut the door in

my face and said: “Don‟t come back until you learn Slovene” (Ada, 39, Bosnia-Herzegovina).

Slovenia has one of the more restrictive citizenship policies: the condition for granting

citizenship is ten years of residence in Slovenia.12

The applicants are required to demonstrate

their communication skills in Slovene, to prove that they have adequate financial resources,

that they were not sentenced to more than one year in prison, and to renounce their existing

citizenship.13

Of the 26 migrants we interviewed, 6 had been granted Slovenian citizenship. All of

them recounted long procedures that governed their lives for 10 years. The granting of

citizenship was a milestone that facilitated their daily lives. At the same time, however, the

12

Similar conditions are in place in Austria, Greece, Spain, Portugal and Luxembourg, and in Italy where this

condition does not apply to the citizens of EU member states. 13

The conditions for regular naturalization stipulated in the Citizenship Act (2003) are as follows: 1) 18 years of

age or over; 2) a release from current citizenship or proof that such a release will be granted if the person

acquires citizenship of the Republic of Slovenia; 3) residence in the Republic of Slovenia for the period of 10

years, of which at least five years prior to the application for citizenship must be without interruption; 4) a

guaranteed residence and a guaranteed permanent source of income in an amount that enables material and social

welfare; 5) active command of the Slovenian language demonstrated in an obligatory written and oral

examination; 6) the applicant must not have been sentenced to a prison term longer than one year in the state of

which the person was a citizen or in the Republic of Slovenia; 7) no ban on the person‟s residence in the

Republic of Slovenia; 8) the person‟s admission to citizenship of the Republic of Slovenia must not pose threat

to the public order or the security and defence of the state; 9) no outstanding tax obligations; 10) the person

should take an oath that he/she will respect the free democratic constitutional order based on the Constitution of

the Republic of Slovenia.


13

majority of those who obtained citizenship stated that their lives did not change radically and

that the acquiring of citizenship did not solve all problems. They had difficulties with finding

work even after they had acquired citizenship, were still forced to take jobs on the gray

market, or perform unskilled work below their qualifications level.

Now when I am a citizen it‟s easier, but no, although I‟m a citizen, I‟m always a stranger! I‟m

still a stranger, because when people watch me on the street they surely say “that woman is a

stranger,” they will never say that I‟m a Slovene... People here keep to themselves, they don‟t

care about people they don‟t know, especially strangers, few people really want to help you.

(Katarina, 44, South America)

For me citizenship has no meaning, citizenship does not give me anything. I can travel with

the Croatian passport ... I have the work visa, I have health insurance, I have all that I need to

live here. The passport is one step forward but I actually don‟t need it now. But some people

do. The Slovenian passport enables you to travel freely, to move around. I don‟t have

problems with that. I think nobody is worried about citizenship if he has the passport to move

around. Because it is the main reason why you want citizenship of a country. Because it is

well organized and its passport is recognized so you can travel around. (Ana, 35, Croatia)

Redefining citizenship

We have defined the policies governing employment, residence, access to social services and

acquisition of citizenship as the strategies of circular condition. One permit is tied to another

one. Without permit for work it is not possible to obtain residence permit; without personal

work permit it is not possible to obtain permanent residence permit; without permanent

residence permit it is not possible to obtain citizenship; without personal work permit it is not

possible to register with the Employment Service; without permanent residence permit it is

not possible to join the medical insurance scheme; without citizenship it is not possible to

apply for non-profit rents. And so on.

The circular condition policies create “statelessness of migrants”. The right to have

rights is denied through the circular condition processes and selective admission to

citizenship. In Balibar‟s words (2008:530), although migrants are conditionally inside the

system, “they are located „outside‟ the system.” We have also shown that de jure acquisition

of citizenship does not solve migrants‟ statelessness. Migrants are excluded from the political

community and left on its margins. When after ten years of residing in Slovenia they prove

that they have a good command of Slovene and that they can earn for their living, and even

when they de jure acquire citizenship, they continue to be “non-citizens within the country;”

they are in the position of internal exclusion (Ibid.). Migrants always live in conditional

relations, “robbed of their humanity” (Arendt 1948/1976); being invisible and unheard within

the public space, they have no other option but to “work their fingers to the bone without

complaining,” as one interviewee put it.

Contemporary strategies that create statelessness call for the reconceptualization of

citizenship in the direction of politicizing it. De jure citizenship is not necessarily a solution

for migrants‟ statelessness. The latter can be avoided only by recognizing migrants as equal

members of a political community and by opening the public space towards post-national

deliberation where migrants would have a visible place. An inclusive public sphere resting on

the egalitarian principles of political culture can only emerge within the context of plurality.

Discursive, deliberated citizenship presumes the openness of institutions and their sensitivity

to the topics, values and directions arising from lifeworld (Habermas‟s Lebenswelt).


14

Citizenship is more than simply an aggregate of individual interests and passive exercising of

rights paternalistically imposed on citizens from above. It requires interactivity, “an interplay

between institutionalized processes of communication and informal networks of public

communication” (Habermas 1994:32).

Empirically, the rehabilitation of citizenship entails (at least) the redefinition of

structural framework in the direction of participation. If debates on citizenship are dominated

by the talk on rights and duties, then the normative framework in post-modern society needs

at least an explication of structural changes towards participation, “social and economic

structure of chances” (Adriaansens 1994: 67), redefinition of the status-based nature of

citizenship towards its “more solidaristic form” (Fraser and Gordon 1994:105), and towards

citizenship as global political co-responsibility (Falk 1994). Balibar (2008:536) advocates the

politicization of social citizenship in such a way that it would not operate as incessant

conditioning that consistently keeps non-citizens on the margins of rights. (Social) citizenship

calls for a reform that would move it away from the economic fundamentalism and ambitions

to maintain (fictitious) “original ethnicity.” It calls for the type of imagination that would see

and realize citizenship as an equal belonging to a political community.


15

Bibliography

Adriaansens, H. (1994) “Citizenship, Work and Welfare”, in Van Steenbergen, B. (ed), The

Condition of Citizenship, 6675. London: Sage.

Arendt, H. (1967) Vita activa oder Vom tätigen Leben. München: R. Piper & Co. Verlag.

Arendt, H. (1948/1976) The Origins of Totalitariansm. New York: Harcourt.

Balibar, É. (2004) We, The People of Europe? Reflections on Transnational Citizenship.

Princeton, Oxford: Princeton University Press.

Balibar, É. (2008) “Historical Dilemmas of Democracy and their Contemporary Relevance for

Citizenship”, Rethinking Marxism Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 522538.

Dean, K. (2003) Capitalism and Citizenship: The Impossible Partnership. London:

Routledge.

Delanty, G. (2000) Citizenship in a Global Age: Society, Culture, Politics. Buckingham: Open

University Press.

Falk, R. (1994) “The Making of Global Citizenship”, in Van Steenbergen, B. (ed), The


Fraser, N. and L. Gordon. (1994) “Civil Citizenship against Social Citizenship?”, in Van

Steenbergen, B. (ed), The Condition of Citizenship, 90107. London: Sage.

Habermas, J. (1972) Theorie und Praxis: Sozialphilosophische Studien. Frankfurt am Main:

Suhrkamp Verlag.

Habermas, J. (1994) “Citizenship and National Identity”, in Van Steenbergen, B. (ed), The


Habermas, J. (2001) The Postnational Constellation: Political Essays. Cambridge, MA: The

MIT Press.

Handler, J. F. (2004) Social Citizenship and Welfare in the United States and Western

Europe: The Paradox of Inclusion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hobbes, T. (1651/1985) Leviathan. London: Penguin Books.

Layton-Henry, Z. (1991) “Citizenship and Migrant Workers in Western Europe”, in Vogel,

U., Moran, M. (eds), The Frontiers of Citizenship, 107124. Hampshire: Macmillan.

Lister, R. (1997) Citizenship: Feminist Perspectives. New York: New York University Press.

Marshall T. H. (1950) Citizenship and Social Class. London: Pluto.

Pajnik, M. and V. Bajt. (Forthcoming) Migrant Women‟s Transnational Experiences: Family

Patterns and Policies, International Migration 48(3).

http://cobiss2.izum.si/scripts/cobiss?ukaz=FFRM&mode=5&id=2139270349569344&PF1=AU&PF2=TI&PF3=PY&PF4=KW&CS=a&PF5=CB&run=yes&SS1=%22Balibar,%20Etienne%22

http://cobiss2.izum.si/scripts/cobiss?ukaz=FFRM&mode=5&id=2139270349569344&PF1=AU&PF2=TI&PF3=PY&PF4=KW&CS=a&PF5=CB&run=yes&SS1=%22Balibar,%20Etienne%22


16

Slany, K., M. Kontos and M. Liapi. (eds) (Forthcoming) Women in New Migrations: Current

Debates in European Societies. Krakow: Jagiellonian University Press.

Somers, M. R. (2008) Genealogies of Citizenship: Markets, Statelesness, and the Right to

have Rights. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Soysal, Y. N. (1994) Limits of Citizenship: Migrants and Postnational Membership in

Europe. Chicago: The University of Chicago.

Trimikliniotis, N. (ed) (Forthcoming) Contested Integration, Migration and Societal

Transformation: European Dilemmas and Challenges. Nicosia: University of Nicosia Press.

Documents

Impossibilities of Social Citizenship: On Statelessness of Migrants