Immigration is one the biggest issues facing Europe. It strikes at the core of contemporary European democracies, triggering public sensitivities.
It was one of the top issues at June’s European election where voter attitudes towards immigration dictated the various parties’ policies and revealed the discomfort in tackling an electorally sensitive and highly exploitable issue.
The “Integration of immigrants in the European Union” report by Eurobarometer shows that 38 percent of Europeans see immigration as equally a problem and an opportunity.
Almost a quarter (22 percent) see it as more of an opportunity. Close to a third think that immigration from outside the EU is more of a problem than an opportunity while less than one in ten (8 percent) of those polled regard immigration as neither a problem nor an opportunity.
Immigration intersects with many challenges involving contemporary European democracies, such as governing increasingly pluralistic societies, welfare state tensions, widespread insecurity and growing inequalities.
Despite differing ideological stances, the solutions adopted by governing political forces often converge.
The Janus conundrum
Contrary to analyses that emphasise discriminatory attitudes towards migrants and asylum seekers — or alternatively, the laxity in managing entries and identity requests of minority groups — the depiction of a “Janus-faced” Europe better captures the dual nature of policies and attitudes towards them.
Janus was a god in Ancient Rome, he was the patron of doorways, transitions, beginnings and endings. He was depicted as having two faces, symbolising his dual nature. In the modern era, this duality became synonymous with possessing two different characters, of being deceitful or two-faced.
Like Janus, Europe presents two contrasting faces in its approach to migration: one of hostility and exclusion, the other of openness and opportunity.
The millions of immigrants who have gained citizenship in EU member states highlight the significance of the inclusion process, even in countries historically tied to an ethnic conception of membership with citizenship laws based on jus sanguinis (the principle that the nationality of children is the same as that of their parents, irrespective of their place of birth).
Similarly, the introduction of long-term resident status (obtainable after five years of residence) has granted most civil and social rights to the majority of non-EU immigrants, effectively elevating them to “semi-citizen” status.
Even undocumented immigrants enjoy certain rights and protections – such as healthcare or access to public schools – especially if they are vulnerable, such as victims of trafficking.
However, this inclusive movement creates new lines of exclusion, for example by differentiating the rights of temporary migrants and long-term residents.
It also clashes with the desire of native citizens to enjoy privileged access to resources and opportunities as “owners of the state,” particularly when these are limited. Not incidentally, the issue of immigrants’ access to welfare benefits is highly debated, forming the basis of one of the most prevalent forms of contemporary racism.
Immigrants face disadvantage
In nearly all EU countries, immigrants and their descendants face structural disadvantages.
The share of third-country nationals at risk of poverty and social exclusion is more than double that of nationals, an outcome of their concentration in lower-paid jobs and the education system’s failure to address socio-economic and cultural inequalities.
The rate of school dropouts among third-country nationals is more than three times that of natives. Formal inclusion in citizenship rights, and even the full incorporation in the “community of equals,” has not been sufficient to neutralise exclusion and discrimination.
Despite promises of equality through anti-discrimination laws and integration policies, a subordinate inclusion remains ingrained in public opinion and even in pro-immigrant narratives: “We should welcome immigrants because they do the jobs we no longer want to do.”
The push for equality in European societies contends with forces reinforcing ethno-stratification, intensifying perceptions of cultural distance, if not outright cultural incompatibility, between mainstream society and immigrant minorities.
Related Articles: Life Change for Refugees? New EU Migration Deal Is Watershed in Asylum and Migration Procedures | How Climate Change Will Redraw Maps and Borders | Destigmatizing Migration: A Different Perspective | Climate Migrants Are Not the Problem, They Can Be the Solution | Fences, Stronger Borders and Pushbacks: The Current State of the EU Migration Debate | Playbook to Help Fight Disinformation on Migrants
Migrants’ “diversity” is welcomed when it aligns with the roles commonly assigned to immigrants but becomes problematic when associated with socio-economic disadvantage that this very expectation has contributed to generate.
This creates an ambiguous contrast: the push to acknowledge and value diversity (e.g., maintaining original languages and cultures, or initiatives like the Diversity Charters) versus the tendency to select migrants to make them more assimilable.
Scholars describe this as an “integrationist turn,” introducing filters to regulate migrants’ ability to obtain long-term residency or citizenship, shifting from integration as a right to integration as a duty — to strive to become a “good citizen.”
Women’s issues exemplify this concern, merging feminist (leftist) and anti-Islamic (rightist) arguments.
Economic independence and gender equality are presented as moral requirements, influencing family reunifications (e.g., imposing the passing of a language test) and asylum requests (e.g., favouring more educated candidates).
The demand for adherence to “liberal” values may itself be “illiberal.”
Reflecting these opposing trends in both institutional responses and public opinion, the management of migrant flows and external borders oscillates between openness and closure, border policing and humanitarian concerns, criminalisation of migrants and expanded protection rights, alongside a growing commitment to combat smuggling.
A crisis of identity
Immigration challenges national societies by exposing the crises of concepts foundational to the European State: national identity, cultural homogeneity, institutionalised solidarity through welfare, and the promise of equality and social mobility.
Migrants “disturb” European democracies as they are seen as “foreigners,” “poor,” and “diverse.”
However, the demographic weight of the population with a migratory background in contemporary “old” Europe should highlight how the destinies of immigrants increasingly overlap with those of European societies.
This became evident during the Olympic Games, where the number of athletes with a migrant background competing has shown a general upward trend in recent decades.
It is precisely this awareness that seems to be missing in a political debate still inclined to reify the juxtaposition between us (the natives) and the immigrants, thus “involuntarily” stating that “they” –the migrants– do not really belong to the societal mainstream.
** **
This article was originally published by 360info™.
Editor’s Note: The opinions expressed here by Impakter.com columnists are their own, not those of Impakter.com — In the Cover Photo: A line of Syrian refugees crossing the border of Hungary and Austria on their way to Germany. Hungary, Central Europe, Sept. 6, 2015.Cover Photo Credit: Mstyslav Chernov.
