The Renaissance of Nationalism and attitudes to Immigration

In this paper, I take issue with the theoretical rationale that underpins policies aimed at nurturing a national identity. Such policies are, for example, some forms of citizenship tests. I discuss how such policies might come with the cost of increased hostility towards immigration, as well as how it rests on conceptually dubious grounds. Fundamentally, they rest on a nationalist rationale. Given the alleged unrest of identities created by globalisation, politicians and political theorists alike have argued for the importance of strong and cohesive national identities. They have also argued for putting a halt to immigration that might jeopardise attempts to achieve such strength and cohesion. Examples from the UK, Sweden and France show that while the content of the national identity politicians wish to promote varies, the nationalist rationale is nevertheless the same. It rest on the idea, argued for example by David Miller, that natives have a legitimate interest in fostering a national identity and that immigration policies can and should be adjusted to serve this interest. This paper, however, I do not take issue with the underlying normative justifications for such standpoints. Instead, it discusses some empirical and conceptual problems. The revival of nationalism in Europe is, if seen partly as an attempt to calm worries about migration amongst domestic populations in an age of globalisation, counter-productive. The research literature on attitudes to immigration strongly suggests that strengthening nationalist sentiments will result in increased worries about immigration. Moreover, the nationalist position is theoretically flawed as it regards immigration as a neutral independent variable in relation to national identity. Immigration cannot, this paper argues, be regarded as a well-defined “threat” merely happening to passive nation states, but must be considered at the same time as produced by national identity.