Just, Aida, and Christopher Anderson. "Immigrants, Citizenship and Political Action in Europe". British Journal of Political Science, Vol.42, No.3 (2012): 481-509.

Just, Aida, and Christopher Anderson. "Immigrants, Citizenship and Political Action in Europe". British Journal of Political Science, Vol.42, No.3 (2012): 481-509.

• Source mine of stuff on European attitudes and state policies towards immigration on page 482.
• The authors intend to distinguish between citizens and non-citizens as well as native and foreign-born populations. This is different than most other studies of political participation. While these distinctions are meaningless in the US, they are salient in European countries, with large numbers of native-born non-citizens (486, 488).
• The authors suggest that citizenship is not only a right to vote in all elections, but also a general status which lowers the participation costs of political action. Accordingly, citizens should be expected to participate in both conventional and unconventional political activity more often than non-citizens (486-488).
• It is generally recognized that experiences in their home countries affect the political behavior of immigrants, especially regarding trust of the government. The authors expect that immigrants from non-democratic countries will participate less in all political activities, but especially unconventional activities, than immigrants from democratic states (489).
• The evidence from the authors' analysis suggests that this is true; immigrants are more likely to participate politically if they were born in democratic countries (496).
• The methodology of this paper is discussed from page 490 to page 494. Mathematical analysis then continues to page 496.
• The authors find that both citizenship and length of stay in the host country are important for determining an immigrant's levels of political participation. Citizens are more likely to be politically active, as an all immigrants who have resided in the country for a long period of time (496). Citizenship matters much more for those born in non-democratic countries (498).
• The exact effects of citizenship on political participation remain unclear, especially since immigrants who are more politically active are also more likely to become citizens, meaning there is a chance that the actual rights of citizens have little effect on the participation of these already active immigrants (498).
• The author conducted some tests on family connections and distance of country to test the truth of this claim. They say that their results show that citizenship actually is a motivator for political action on its own (503). I do not see how their test proved this, be highly suspicious of this claim and others stemming from these tests.
• Immigrants from non-democratic countries also experience the biggest change in political participation between citizenship and non-citizenship. Those with citizenship are much more likely to engage in all forms of political participation (506-507).
• Those immigrants from more distant countries are much more likely to become citizens following immigration, presumably because they lack other pre-existing family networks. Immigrants from distant dictatorships are the most likely to acquire citizenship. Those with family members who are citizens are also more likely to get citizenship themselves (503).
• The authors suggest that, since those from non-democratic countries become much more politically engaged if they acquire citizenship, the best way for Europe to socialize and integrate immigrants from non-democratic parts of Africa and the Middle East is to expand the ease and availability of citizenship (507). This conclusion oversteps the results. The reasons that this is true are still unknown, and increasing the availability of citizenship may end up reducing its benefits for political participation. It is also worth considering that different groups may respond different to citizenship, and examination of both different European countries and different immigrant groups is necessary.