A/HRC/17/33 However, starting in the 1990s, there was a move away from multiculturalism as a policy in many countries which had adopted this model.36 73. All those models have one factor in common: the premise that citizens belong to just one nation State. Migrant settlement is seen as a process of transferring primary loyalty from the State of origin to the new State of residence. This process is symbolically marked by naturalization and acquisition of citizenship of the new State. Nevertheless, these models can no longer apply to growing migration trends. Moreover, the distinction between citizens and non-citizens is becoming less clear-cut. Migrants who have been legally resident in a country for many years can often obtain a “hybrid” status, tantamount to “quasi-citizenship”. This may confer such rights as secure residence status; right to work, seek employment and run a business; entitlement to social security benefits and health services; access to education and training; and limited political rights such as the right of association and assembly. Such arrangements create a new legal status, which is more than that of a foreigner, but less than that of a citizen.37 74. It is in the European Union (EU), that this example of a new type of citizenship is gaining strength. Under the Maastricht Treaty which established the European Union in 1992, citizens of EU member States became eligible to vote or to be elected to office in European and municipal elections if they reside anywhere within the European space. The 1997 Amsterdam Treaty established citizenship in the EU, which embraced the following rights: freedom of movement and residence in the territory of member States; the right to vote and to stand for office in local elections and European Parliament elections in the State of residence; and the right to petition to the European Parliament and to appeal to an ombudsman. However, EU citizens living in another member State do not have the right to vote in elections for the national parliament of their State of residence. Persons dependent on social security and welfare do not have the right to settle in another member country; and access to public employment is still generally restricted to nationals. Europe is still divided between the States in the “Schengen zone” and the newly admitted EU States. So far, EU citizenship has done little for the majority of migrants who originate outside the union.38 Since 1992, there has been a growing movement in support of granting thirdcountry nationals voting rights within member States of the EU and at the level of EU institutions. The European Parliament has, several times, voted in favour of extending European citizenship to all persons who have resided in a stable manner and for a long period within a member State. A 2001 European Parliament resolution called for the enfranchisement of all non-EU residents who had resided legally within an EU member State for three years. However, opposition within the European Council, which represents the interests of member States in the complex EU governance procedures, has thwarted such initiatives. As well, some EU member States hold that the granting of voting rights to third-country nationals would devalue the importance of naturalization. 3. Proposals from the Special Rapporteur 75. As briefly discussed, this new diversity affects host societies in many ways. Amongst the most important are the issues of political participation, cultural pluralism and national identity. As mentioned above, migration has already had major effects on the politics of most host countries. Consequently, the Special Rapporteur suggests further study and discussion on the issue of the political participation of migrants and its links to the concept of a broad citizenship. Migrants are able to make a contribution to the development of new forms of identity. It is inherently part of the migrant condition to develop multiple 36 37 38 See note 6 above, pp. 44-45. Ibid., p. 46 Idem.. 19