ion of the dominant paradigm of citizenship in the two countries for any individual observing has the consequence of race, and this seems to be forming the hard edge in both countries. These concepts are seen to be rejected in France, and consequently the situation is central in Britain. Since politicians, researchers and the media have created an insurmountable opposition comparison between the two countries fixed models. In recent times, it is likely that we have moved beyond the opposition that was created and established a shift in both countries policies of integration (Triandafyllidou 2011).
French policies having been built on the ideologies introduced during the French Revolution, the citizenship of France follows a national modernity and civic individualism framework. The policies of civic individualism see the individual in this case as an abstract and the focus of human rights. In addition, it rejects any form of the abstract on the aspect of ethno-racial lines to the public where a shared citizenship is seen to flourish.
On the other hand, the ideologies of national modernity have made national identity an affective notion after lending monolithic sovereignty, to counterbalance the abstract definition of members of the community. According to the system of ideologies, anything that is not classified as national is suspected in terms of identity. This explains the difficulties experienced in recognizing the social diversity of postcolonial French society when immigrant workers began settling in 1980s for good with full citizenship rights being granted by the French Republic to their descendants (Banton 2001, 151).
In the eyes of citizenship philosophy, the policies of Britain have appeared to be representing its antithesis. The policies of Britain have demonstrated an approach based on the importance of minority groups. It has placed a great emphasis on integration as a program of equal access to the rights of British society, which tend to