After a summary of several contributions in this volume, we focus on certain problems and omissions in the debate about citizenship and the position of migrants in Dutch society. First, nearly all the contributions are related to the level of theoretical concepts or policy proposals, neglecting the level of social behaviour and important changes of social reality. Second, all authors acknowledge the fact that the moral dimensions of citizenship have become more important, yet nobody seems to be interested in a scientific explanation of this remarkable fact. In response to these omissions we try to understand why the Netherlands has changed from an open society into a community struck by xenophobia. One explanation might be that the intensity of social interaction has increased considerably. Another explanation is related to the fact the level of education has grown, creating a higher expectations of 'normal' behaviour. Together these tendencies undermine the ('typical Dutch') tradition of tolerance or deviant behaviour generally and for 'strange' behaviour of migrants specifically.

Since 1994, the concept of citizenship is a central concept in Dutch Integration policy for immigrants and their descendants. Gradually, the concept has become a moral category of good and active citizenship, associated with all kinds of obligations. Since the turn of the century it is even used to urge on – especially – Muslims to assimilate to mainstream culture and fundamental norms and values. This contrasts sharply with the Dutch multicultural policy of the 1980s. How is it possible for political and policy discourse to change in such a radical way within a few decades? And what role played the concept of citizenship in these changes? This article seeks to answer these questions by investigating how the concept of citizenship has been interpreted and applied differently over time in Dutch discourse on integration policy, focussing on issues of unity versus ethno-cultural diversity. With this purpose, first, the concept of citizenship is defined and differentiated in four dimensions and various perspectives. Next, Dutch political and policy discourse of the last 25 years is examined in broad lines. Subsequently, the Dutch discourse is analysed in more detail in debates of the last decades on dual nationality and on civic integration policy.

In public debate on immigrants' political ties with their country of origin, two assumptions prevail. The first assumption is that many immigrants engage in transnational political activities. The second is that forms of transnational citizenship are an impediment for the development of local citizenship. However, so far little research has been done on the importance of, and the relationship between, local and transnational citizenship. In this article, we focus on local and transnational forms of active citizenship, here understood as the total of political practices and processes of identification. Our study, conducted among middle-class immigrants in Rotterdam, indicates that the importance of active transnational citizenship should not be overstated. Among these middle-class immigrants, political practices are primarily focused on the local level; political practices directed to the home country appear to be quite rare. If we look at processes of identification, we see that a majority of the middle-class immigrants have a strong urban identity. Many of them combine this local identification with feelings of belonging with people in their home country. These local and transnational identifications seem to reinforce, rather than impede, each other.

This article traces the redefinition of citizenship that Dutch governments have tried to accomplish through legislation and various policy initiatives. The classical liberal notion of citizenship is said to provide insufficient social cohesion. More emphasis on integration into the typically Dutch culture is offered as a remedy. Newcomers are only accepted as full citizens after they have been introduced and trained in the essential elements of this culture. Criticisms of this policy are presented. Lately the government itself seems to have second thoughts on the definition of citizenship.

The historical transformations of Dutch citizenship are assessed in this article in light of two aspects. One concerns the dimensions and layers of citizenship; the other pertains to the relative stress laid on either formal or moral citizenship. We illustrate how citizenship was broadened from civic to political, social and cultural rights. Then we discuss the recent moralization of citizenship in the context of Dutch debates on immigrant integration. We illustrate how the relative stress on moral citizenship therein pertains to a virtual disenfranchisement of non-native Dutch citizens.

According to many observers, multicultural integration policies have strongly eroded in the Netherlands since the early 1990s and particularly following the rise of Pim Fortuyn in 2002. In this view, the Netherlands now follow harsh, assimilationist policies that threaten the foundations of democracy. Policy studies on the local level have however found strong continuities. This article investigates changes and continuities in Dutch integration policies on the national level. The cross-national policy data compiled in the Migration Policy Index show that the Netherlands are in 2007 still among the European countries that offer immigrants and their descendants the largest degree of legal equality. Comparative data on accommodation policies regarding immigrant cultures and religions show that Dutch policies are still culturally pluralist compared to most other European countries, e.g., by recognizing immigrants' ethnic and religious identities and practices, subsidizing and incorporating their associations, and providing preferential access to public sector jobs. Quantitative comparative policy data are supplemented by qualitative examples of pluralist policies in the media, the police force, and nature conservation and recreation. The article concludes that in spite of rhetoric to the contrary, there is strong path dependence in Dutch integration policies, also on the national level.