By request, I am crossposting my post on becoming a German citizen for discussion here.
Hello fellow Mottizans, I have emerged from my lurker cave to share good news with you all: I have become a German citizen! But not through naturalization or birth; I used an uncommon route with a new and somewhat strange process: a StAG section (§) 5 declaration. While going through this, I had learned a lot about that citizenship laws of Germany and some comparisons with other countries, as well as spending (too much) time browsing various expat and citizenship forums and subreddits. I’d like to subject you to share with you what I’ve learned in this weird journey, through intergenerational citizenship and questions of national identity.
Background
With so many immigrants out there, why should you listen to me, an American moving between western countries? Well, I, personally, value it more when people put in effort for something with less assured payoff; few want to split lottery tickets, everyone wants to split the winnings. Similarly, I moved to Germany as someone with only German heritage, as a normal immigrant, and then more than a year after that a new law offered me a privileged path to citizenship through legal magic. In short, I committed to Germany and then received the winning lottery ticket.
A bit more about my path: I moved to Germany in 2020 with the EU Blue Card for highly qualified immigrants. I chose Germany because part of my family was from Germany, and in the typical American style I considered myself German-American. I had visited Germany and liked it, although I knew visiting and living somewhere are two very different things. But what I would really like to stress is that visiting Germany felt like visiting a home, a place that felt natural. I’ve visited plenty of other countries, and everywhere else it was clear that they were foreign, “alien” countries. It was obvious when I was in Japan that no matter how much I might like visiting castles or eating ramen, Japan would remain a foreign country. When it was unclear whether I would be still working in Germany, a friend suggested that I work with them in the Netherlands, and a big hangup was that the Netherlands was a foreign country, this despite the fact that they speak more English and I would be around more English-speaking expats. Germany was the ancestral homeland, and no other country could ever replace that.
German citizenship is based primarily on jus sanguinis, citizenship by blood: someone is a German citizen at birth because their parents were citizens. But this was, in the past, primarily patrilineal. In fact, the German citizenship in my family was cut off when my German grandmother married a foreigner: she automatically lost her German citizenship, rendering her stateless and all her children non-Germans, including my father, and all of her grandchildren were not German either, including me.
In August 2021 Germany passed an amendment to the Staatsangehörigkeitsgesetz (StAG), or nationality law. The new StAG § 5 allows those who, to quote the federal authority, “were previously excluded by gender-discriminatory regulations from acquiring German citizenship at birth may now acquire it by way of declaration. Briefly, the post-war German Basic Law (a constitution) forbids gender discrimination, and so those who were excluded from acquiring citizenship due to this gender discrimination could claim it back; for example, until 1975, German women would not pass down citizenship by default. The process is new enough that the relevant authority here in Germany, in a major city, did not know about it. But I collected all of our old documents, submitted my application, and now (as of the time of writing) the certificate is in the mail in hand!
I did it, I became a German citizen! I did not naturalize, I gained citizenship through declaration (queue up, “I didn’t say citizenship, I declared it!”). I did not have to reside in Germany for 6-8 years, I did not have to speak German, pass any test, pay any money or do anything at all but submit a few documents and citizenship was handed down in a puff of magical legal smoke by a bureaucrat I’ve never met before. If I suffered some brain damage I could commit terrorism or racially motivated crimes, things that would have excluded me before, and still keep the citizenship (I don’t think I’ll test that though). And my children will also be German citizens from birth, and their children, and so on forever, just as it had been passed down to me from forever ago (well, at least since 1871).
But importantly, I haven’t been saying that I became German. I don’t speak German, I didn’t grow up in Germany, and neither did my parents. By the Basic Law, I am a German because I hold German citizenship, but I try to look past the purely legal standing. I don’t think the idea of who is German has a really clear and universal answer; different people and different Germans give different answers. Perhaps we can talk about the traits of Germans, but until we have access to the pure and perfect German Form, arguments are really all we can get. I will reference that concept of being a German plenty though, and the legal vs. cultural German.
That gives my background and stake in the matter, and it will make for a nice dinner party story but isn’t that important. In fact, nothing really changes legally for me anyway, my permit covered it all before. I think it’s much more interesting to talk about what I’ve learned along the way, as it might actually be interesting and useful for everyone else. So here it goes!
The Strangeness of Descent Laws
German citizenship by descent is a mess, but it’s interesting to take a little dip into the law. Before I only said that German citizenship is based on descent, which glosses over many of the complications that arise in tracing that path. A nice guide on the process can be found here. The US (and most countries in the Americas) use primarily jus soli or birthright citizenship, i.e. you are a citizen of a country if you are born in that country, but also has citizenship by descent. But it’s much more restrictive; in particular, while German citizenship by descent is basically limitless, US citizenship by descent requires that if e.g. the child has two citizen parents, at least one resided in the US at any point, or if only one parent is a US citizen they must have resided in the US for at least five years. I call this a “sunset clause” in citizenship, something that terminates citizenship automatically without a connection to the home country.
Without a solid sunset clause in the German citizenship by descent, you get some (in my personal view) strange lines of descent. Someone whose great-great-great-grandfather left Germany in the late 1800s can be a German citizen directly if it happens to pass only through the male line in key years. Compare this to someone whose German mother married a foreigner and they were born in 1948; their path to citizenship would be under StAG §14, and they have to establish a close connection to Germany, such as speaking German and having close family members in Germany. Here we see that you can only be a legal German if you establish that you are already a cultural German. Add on to this complications such as if your parents naturalized before or after you were born, if you served in a foreign military, if you every voluntarily gained citizenship of another country, and it gets complicated. To note, Germany has added a sunset clause: if a German citizen is born abroad after 1999, any of their children born abroad only retain German citizenship if the authorities are notified before the child’s first birthday. No more surprise citizenships by descent a hundred years down the line.
All of this has led to a lot of people sorting through old paperwork to find out if they are secretly German citizens or can become one. I like to point to the growth of /r/GermanCitizenship as part of it, but the perhaps better known example is for Italy, where it is popular enough to have consular wait times in years and a CNN article about it. I’ll just voice my personal opinion that all of this is a little strange to me; when one out of sixteen or thirty-two of your ancestors at a particular level came from a particular country, it’s hard for me to see where exactly your connection comes in. The legal case may be perfectly fine, but the cultural part falls through. I normally see it chalked up to “honoring ancestors” or “keeping their memory alive,” which turns into an excuse to have a nice passport and travel the EU visa-free as far as I’ve seen.
And I should mention that Germany, in principle, discourages dual citizenship. If you naturalize, you normally must give up other citizenships, if it is possible and doesn’t cause undue hardship. Notably, the fees to renounce US citizenship are high enough that the authorities may permit you to keep US citizenship if you make less per month than the fees, $2,350. It also permits dual citizenship if other citizenships were gained automatically, i.e. from birthright. There are many exceptions nowadays, but the principle still exists, and causes problems sometimes when e.g. people are forced to choose a nationality.
Finally, I will point out that StAG §5 vs. §14 (post- vs. pre- Basic Law) seems weird to me. A German woman could lose her citizenship by marrying a foreigner in e.g. 1947, have a child in 1948 then one in 1950; the first would have to prove their ties to Germany, while the second would get in without any restrictions, but in both cases the relevant legal situation that caused the loss of citizenship is the same and only stopped in 1950(ish). For the second child, the claim would be that because the Basic Law forbids gender discrimination, they were unfairly discriminated because they should have been able to obtain citizenship from a female parent. I’m not a jurist but the legal idea seems fraught: how could laws prohibiting an action in the future justify retroactive corrections? But §5 covers much more than that, affecting people born as late as 1993.
But the biggest takeaway from all of this is that I have the impression that citizenship laws oftentimes are capricious and arbitrary, relying on old documents that some may or may not have and offering various paths or restrictions that change over time. Countries try to both preserve a legal basis for citizenship while trying to reasonably restrict it, while working under changing social views and massive changes in the way the world works.
I think a look at the citizenship laws is helpful mostly to find out that they don’t really answer anything but a legal question, which is important but not what I’m after. I hope no one thinks that someone born to a German mother and a foreign father in 1974 is definitely not a citizen while a sibling born in 1976 definitely is, even if the legal situation is clear.
The Reddit Expatriation Community
That’s enough about citizenship laws then. I was fascinated by (potential) immigrants, especially on Reddit, that I came across in my browsing. As an American, I grew up with the idea that America was the land of immigration and that immigration only really flowed one-way. I think the statistics bears this out, with the US having one of the lowest shares of its population living abroad. Why would someone leave the freest and richest country?
I feel like this is changing, slowly. As other countries become richer, it becomes less clear that America is the automatic best option, and it is probably easier; I can do things like videocall my parents every week and translate written text on my phone, things that make it vastly easier to emigrate. And let’s be clear, the advantage of being a natural Anglophone is huge. On Reddit, which I think is primarily dominated by Americans and Anglophones in general, some of the migration-focused subreddits have seen a lot of growth: Amerexit, iwantout,and expats. Those are my three favorite (or at least most entertaining) subreddits, and they run the gamut from “America sucks, I want to leave!” to “How can I leave my current country (serious answers only)?” to “Living in a foreign country sucks in so many ways.” Pick your favorite, I guess. And like in everything else, politics is the mind-poison in immigration. But there are many common themes; I’ll reference posts without linking to avoid inter-subreddit drama.
I think most of these immigrants, and probably most immigrants in general, are what I would call “materialist immigrants.” Most people are looking to improve their economic situation or living standards. How they rate these things is up to them; someone may value high salaries directly, while others value more consistent healthcare coverage or walkable neighborhoods. If they’re from a western country they may consider themselves (and others like them) an expat instead of an immigrant, but it all amounts to the same thing. Even that German citizenship guide I linked before explains the benefits of becoming a German citizen in almost purely economic terms: live and work in the EU! Travel visa-free in so many places with a German passport! Go to university for free! If you’re destitute, Germany will take care of you! Drawbacks: none, you don’t have to learn German or pay any taxes or do anything at all for anyone else.
And the discussions reflect this living-standard/economic focus, and an entirely Ameri-centric view. Currently in /r/AmerExit, someone is hating on the US because… (checks subreddit) they can find cheap mineral water while on vacation in Italy. No, I’m not joking, it’s the first point in a top post at the time of writing. Someone may fear American politics enough to instead move to Turkey, a country that literally went through an attempted military coup in 2016 and has a nice book review regarding Erdogan-as-dictator on ACX. Or a contemporary favorite, overlooking the fact that many countries have more strict abortion laws than some US states.
When looking for somewhere to go, I see so often that people think of moving to completely different countries, treating them all the same as if “western European” covered everything they need. One person might say Germany and… Wales? How about the Netherlands, Spain, Italy, Germany, France or the UK? Another might want to move to Ireland or Scandinavia, but they speak fluent Spanish. Countries are interchangeable, as long as they have some greenery, good weather and everyone there aligns with their values. Everyone is “willing to learn the language,” a completely costless declaration that I always translate to, “I may learn to swim if you throw me in the middle of the ocean.” Even at the end of the natural process, I can see someone declare that they are finally an “EU citizen” after eight years as if their citizenship was granted by Brussels and not their home country.
Beyond the standard internet/Reddit stupidity, these feel like they cover an individualist- and money-focused worldview. And it naturally feeds materialist immigration that disregards the people who actually live in these places, which causes critical problems in adjusting to a life in a foreign country. Remember what I said about /r/expats? It’s the opposite version of /r/AmerExit, where people have gone to a foreign country and found that, yeah, it’s not America. This is what happens in the culture-clash. The day-to-day reality of living in a country that sees the sun for a few hours a day in the winter sets in. Of dealing with people who will always treat you like a foreigner. Of being far away from family and former friends. It’s tough to live somewhere far away from home, and it’s tough to know that before you actually make the move.
But… why is it tough? I haven’t seen many expats complaining about their jobs, most complain about the people around them and their social life. And the world seems very thoroughly Americanized: I visit American-style department stores, see advertisements in English, I can almost always ask to speak English with people, it all sounds very convenient to and for me. They have the healthcare and sparkling water they so desperately desired. What’s missing? Why can’t they assimilate?
Part 2 follows.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
As another easily-visible point of difference, many, but not all, of these food differences stem from religious differences, but even in a country with freedom of religion and nominal secularization, Germany remains a religious-ish country. The holidays are mainly based on Christian holidays, and depend on each state, including each state’s primary denomination. In a country with church bells commonly ringing despite the “quiet hours” laws, German are not as comfortable with the Muslim muezzin, the call to prayer. I went hiking in the Bavarian alps over the summer, and there every hilltop has a cross or small chapel on it. I am unsure what my colleague thinks of all this, but it’s easy for me to see how the undercurrents of religion in a nominally secularized country could cause conflict.
This colleague is going through the normal naturalization process now. They are taking an integration course, and learning the language. By the quantifiable measurements, they were working harder to integrate than I was. But every time we dealt with anything culturally German, they treated it as strange and foreign, while for me it was normal and comforting. The conflict was not over lack of knowledge, but about lack of internal motivation or identification. And although the integration course might be able to make them speak some German and learn about Germany’s cultural values, I don’t think it can automatically change someone’s internal identity. I can’t peer into their mind, but my colleague might always be from their home country, in their hearts, and no matter how much knowledge of German culture they pick up may treat it as a password to get what they want.
In Catholicism, I have heard the sacraments (baptism, communion, marriage, etc.) called “an outward sign of inward grace.” The physical act of the ritual does not itself bestow grace, but brings it to fruition. I think citizenship is a little like that: a legal declaration of a cultural fact. And while God may be infallible and omniscient, we humans are stuck in the world of, at best, Bayesian inference. Gaining citizenship says that we hope the new cultural identity will win the struggle inside your mind, that by virtue of being physically present in Germany, speaking enough German and knowing the German values, the German identity will overcome any other, or at least come to a peaceful sharing of identity; the certificate at the end is just a marker of something we hope went on inside your head.
But I didn’t go through any integration course, or have to speak any German, or anything like that. Germany didn’t have to give out citizenship to people in my situation. It has been that way for about 50 years at the youngest for those born in wedlock, and working fine. Why change it? Why take someone like me whose grandparent came from Germany, and give them citizenship? Besides the simplistic answer that some powerful lobbying group got it changed, I think there is a deeper reason why Germany would be willing to make that bet, that the German cultural identity could win out.
Retvrn to Heimat
My absolute favorite German word is Heimat, which means “homeland” maybe. It’s more than that, though. The Heimat is not just where one is from, but denotes a more significant cultural homeland. I like to make it a -hood word: the neighborhood might be the local people around you, while the nationhood is for everyone in your country or statehood for the state, the Heimat is the cultural home-hood or people-hood, the place where you belong; imagine the phrase “it’s not a house but a home” applied to a society. Germany is not “the nation my grandparent came from,” or “the nation I live in,” it’s “the home nation.”
The Heimat has some important qualities that make it so powerful. Let me paint in broad strokes here. The Heimat is less physical than temporal and cultural. The Heimat has qualities of timelessness, both in that it can never truly be reached and that it is always changing (I could return to my childhood home, but it will never be the same as when I was a child), but yet it always contains those essential homely elements. It covers that essential need of belonging to a society, ensuring that you are valued and appreciated. It is more rural than urban, more social than physical and more cultural than economic, but overlaps both. I would strongly associate words like idyllic or bucolic with the Heimat and less pure happiness.
The Heimat is, I think, incredibly resistant to quantification, but still vulnerable to it. I am reminded of Seeing like a State, where the state apparatuses have the power to disrupt the natural, organic processes that have served so well but fail to see why these processes work for the societies that created them. Then the state moves in and destroys what was valuable to those who lived in it in an effort to create value that it can see and tax. I would contrast the Rust Belt to the strong German manufacturing base, as destroyed versus preserved identities.
My colleague’s Heimat is not Germany, and it probably never will be; they grew up in a different country and have a strong sense of belonging to that country. This is not inherently bad and doesn’t make them a “bad immigrant,” and perhaps their children or grandchildren will grow up in Germany and see things differently. But they aren’t participating in the same culture that most other Germans are, even if they can get around as a permanent outsider. They may, like so many people, never feel like they fit in.
Why did Germany take the bet on me? I think the concept of the Heimat sheds some light there: Germany was betting that it was my Heimat. That this anchor would let me accept the German identity and thrive in it. That, however tenuous my connection, it would be enough to make it stick. That I would be in my home here. Germany is the one and only ancestral Heimat I get, even if I grew up in the US. When I told my father that I had the certificate, the story he relayed to me was about when his mother was on her deathbed and they were arguing about something political, and he said that he was an American citizen, and she told him no, that he was a German. You just can’t conjure up that connection based on economic principles or a preferred lifestyle. It’s not random, I didn’t weigh the pros and cons of being French vs. German, it just always was.
And critically, Germany will always be the Heimat. Someone who came here for a better-paying job might leave if the economy falters. Someone who came because they appreciate the German stereotypes of punctuality or organization would run after dealing with the Deutsche Bahn’s chronic train delays or after the first six-month wait to hear anything from the Foreigner’s Authority. Someone who came for politics might find that the political winds change, and what then? I think it’s entirely related to Germany discouraging dual nationality, such as in naturalization. No one can serve two masters it seems. But I’m stuck with it, as are most Germans, and that commitment adds value.
Finally, I feel that I should give another point of view of the Heimat, one that claims the concept of Heimat is inherently exclusionary. I would say that the concept requires some exclusion; I don’t think it would be possible for people to share all possible values with everyone, as some are in conflict with each other, but a core part of the conflict will also come from a conflict of identities in my view.
The point of Germany being the Heimat isn’t that I naturally came in knowing everything. I knew a little, but there was a huge breadth of culture that I had to adapt to even beyond learning the language. But because I already had some seed of the right identity, there was no conflict; I didn’t have to build up a new identity or destroy my old one, I only had to learn, like a child. So, although I still had to do the work, I haven’t felt the sense as much of “not belonging” or feeling too much like an outsider; it is a thing to learn not an obstacle to overcome.
Closeout
I hope that was enjoyable for everyone. I am just one little opinion awash in a sea of them, but I think my path to citizenship was also a bit unique. The StAG § 5 declaration is pretty new still but was a path to citizenship that was very unexpected for me; it felt like being handed a winning lottery ticket, something I didn’t necessarily deserve, but it still feels right now that it’s complete. I don’t speak much German, but I comfort myself in knowing that I speak more than most Germans did when they became citizens, and look forward to learning more. And for anyone else with recent German ancestry looking to do the same, the law is only available for the next 9 years.
As far as citizenship vs. identity goes, I stick to my thesis that citizenship is a hopeful claim by the government that you have implanted the right identity into your head to truly assimilate into that culture. And I think Germany is an interesting nation and culture to examine as it has a very different history of immigration compared to e.g. the US, UK or France. More broadly, the ideas of identity and belonging could be applied to other communities.
More options
Context Copy link