Citizenship denotes formal membership in a nation-state. As such, it provides individuals with equal rights and duties, and symbolizes membership in the collective identity of the nation-state (Joppke 2007). Naturalization, the act of granting citizenship to a foreign resident, is a prerequisite to become a full-fledged member of the nation-state (Erdal & Midtbøen forthcoming). The scholarship in the immigration-citizenship nexus has so far been dominated by macro perspectives, while less attention has been paid to “micro experiences” of citizenship (Joppke 2010). “Macro diagnoses” of the citizenship institution (Brubaker 1992; Soysal 1994; Joppke 2010) have tended to undermine what citizenship means to immigrants, but with very little in-depth qualitative research to substantiate their claims. Thus, what immigrants think of citizenship and naturalization is something we know little about. Based on 19 semi-structured interviews with immigrants from Afghanistan, Russia and Somalia, both naturalized citizens and long-term residents holding foreign citizenship (“denizens”), this thesis addresses the research question: What does citizenship mean to immigrants in Norway in material, emotional and symbolical terms? I found that Norwegian citizenship mattered materially in terms of spatial mobility. Citizenship in Norway and other wealthy, Western democracies entails having vast “mobility rights” (Mau 2010), by giving visa-free access to most countries in the world. The Russian interviewees already held a relatively valuable European passport, but nonetheless they emphasized the “bonus mobility” that Norwegian citizenship would give them. The Afghan and Somali interviewees lacking Norwegian citizenship, however, found their spatial mobility constrained by the immigration authorities´ travel restrictions, visa policies and selective border controls. Therefore, the Afghan and Somali informants were reliant on obtaining a Norwegian passport to travel, and to facilitate transnational connections. I argue that citizenship status is a crucial determinant of spatial mobility, capable of creating “transnational inequalities” (Mau 2010) between citizens from the “Global North” and the “Global South”. Emotionally, citizenship was conceptualized as a stable status, perceived to give an unconditional legal attachment to Norway. Over the years, the Afghan and Somali denizens had applied multiple times for Norwegian citizenship, but with no success, as the Norwegian Directorate of Immigration deemed their identity documentation invalid. Drawing on Menjivar (2006), I argue that the lack of legal closure engendered a state of “permanent liminal legality”: A profound, seemingly indefinite uncertainty about one´s legal status and right to stay in Norway. Moreover, I analyze a second case of liminal legality, namely that of three Somali immigrants who faced possible citizenship revocation. The imminent risk of losing their Norwegian citizenships invoked what I call an “acute liminal legality”. Arguably, citizenship revocations illustrate that liminal legality is not necessarily a direct reflection of a marginal legal status. Even naturalized citizens were not exempted from legal instability in the current immigration policy climate, thus challenging the notion that citizenship provides an unconditional legal attachment to Norway. Lastly, citizenship mattered as a symbolical recognition of identity, equality and belonging. Arguably, the Norwegian citizenship legislation affected the interviewees in two ways. Firstly, the ban on dual citizenship was conceptualized by the Russian informants as a legal non-recognition that constricted them from fostering dual identities. Secondly, the denial of citizenship to the Afghan and Somali denizens spurred sentiments of second-class membership and alienation. To them, acquiring Norwegian citizenship would entail a de jure recognition of their de facto belonging. However, legal equality did not necessarily turn into social equality. In everyday interactions – the “horizontal sphere” of citizenship – the national membership of the naturalized citizens was occasionally questioned on the basis of ethnicity. In these situations, formal citizenship mattered less as a symbol of belonging. I conclude with a discussion of the compatibility between macro diagnoses and micro experiences of citizenship. I argue that the general tendency of Brubaker, Soysal and Joppke to “banalize” (Mouritsen 2012) citizenship obscures the continuing salience of the institution. Contrary to Brubaker, Soysal and Joppke´s assumptions, this thesis demonstrates that national citizenship remains significant to immigrants in material (mobility), emotional (legal attachment) and symbolical terms (recognition).