Migrant Integration and Citizenship - Essay Example

?Migrant integration and citizenship Inserts His/Her Inserts Grade Inserts (24, November, Outline Outline 2 Introduction 3 Whether migrant integration is determined by formal and substantial citizenship 4 Openness and inclusiveness as a precondition of migrant integration 4 Formal citizenship facilitates migrant integration 6 Failure of migrant integration due to lack of formal citizenship 7 Antidiscrimination and substantial citizenship 9 Motivations for citizenship may hamper migrant integration 12 Conclusion 13 References 15 Extent to which migrant integration is determined by formal and substantial citizenship Introduction Formal and substantial citizenship may be viewed as determinants of migrant integration when one considers citizenship as a precondition for social integration. Focus on this paper will be on how the latter concepts are interrelated and how migrant integration is caused by the two forms of citizenship. Prior to an analysis of the subject, it is critical to describe the key terms in the paper. Literature defines migrant integration as the extent to which migrants are like the rest of the population. This may be seen through social economic indications like education, employment, housing and health. Alternatively, it may be manifested through cultural indicators like language, values, lifestyles and allegiances. Citizenship is the relationship one has between himself or herself and the state; it is political, civil, social, economic, cultural and symbolic. Formal citizenship focuses strictly on rights and duties that arise from one’s membership status within the state. Substantial citizenship refers to the economic, moral, and social resources to exercise rights .The phenomenon encompasses the lived experiences and the extent to which these rights are exercised. It is subjective and dwells on the social exchanges and interactions of people. These definitions thus indicate that having citizenship rights and putting into practice those rights enable social integration. If a migrant has access to citizens’ rights, they are more likely to bond with members of that community and demonstrate allegiance to it. Whether migrant integration is determined by formal and substantial citizenship Openness and inclusiveness as a precondition of migrant integration As mentioned in the introduction, formal citizenship encompasses the resources required to exercise citizenship rights. One dimension of these resources is the social dimension. A society’s value system can determine how effectively a migrant integrates with the larger society. If upon citizenship acquisition, they find that their society tolerates cultural diversity, then they are likely to deliberately choose integration (Berry, 1997). It should be noted that integration may be considered as one of four dimensions of migrant acculturation. Foreigners have the choice to assimilate, where they abandon all their former cultures and adopt the ones in their host country. Conversely, they may choose to separate, where they hold onto their original cultures and ignore that of the dominant community. They may integrate by maintaining cultural ties in their native communities and adopting cultures from the receiving community. Alternatively, individuals in this group may lose ties with their former culture and also fail to adopt the culture of the dominant group; as such, they will become marginalised. Therefore, the degree of integration of immigrants in this sense can only occur if a society has values that encourage multiculturalism. The attitudes prevalent in the receiving country must be positive towards these groups. A person may have formal rights as a citizen but when they meet social characteristics that do not enable realisation of these rights then they will not integrate into society. Berry (1997) notes that sometimes these attitudes may stem from the physical features of the group or other characteristics. As such, even though Koreans may have acquired formal citizenship in Canada, social barriers that stem from their perceived physical differences from the predominant population prevent their integration into society. Inclusiveness may also be manifested in the form of structural resources that facilitate citizenship. For instance a female migrant who has acquired formal citizenship through marriage may require health services; however, the person may not understand the English language comprehensively. Alternatively, she could object to male doctors and would prefer a practitioner of her own gender. An inclusive society would provide structural support to such a person. Essentially, the person may be a formal citizen but due to the lack of substantial citizenship, he or she may not integrate in society (Rudiger and Spencer, 2003). Multiculturalism is the order of the day in some countries like the United States. Therefore, several stakeholders in immigration policy reform in the mid 20th century assume that immigrants actually desired to remain in their ethnic groups; this is not true today. Intermarriages across various ethnic groups are taking place in large numbers. Additionally, working class communities now consist of a myriad of ethnic communities (Brabuker, 2001). Racial identities have been renegotiated and ethnic boundaries have been blurred. Such patterns have distorted ethnic enclosures that were previously assumed to be dominant among ethnic communities. As such, policy makers in contemporary US have accepted the pluralistic nature of their society. Negative attitudes towards persons of different racial or ethnic groups may still exist but have substantially reduced. This means that even after one acquires formal citizenship, they will be operating in an environment that is open to their participation. This creates greater integration among members of the community (Soysal, 2012). In some countries, the lack of a pluralist perspective may actually cause integration by forcing immigrants to embrace components of the country’s culture. For instance, in the Netherlands, it was quite common to find advocates of immigration policy who would support a multicultural society. However, they changed this perspective and began going for the nation building approach. An immigrant who wanted to access certain rights or welfare processes has to go through cultural and language classes. This was a proactive integration approach in which a cohesive state compels its residents to identify with their new culture (Favell, 2001). In such circumstances, it is likely that citizenship will only be enjoyed when the individuals concerned have acculturated. As a consequence, these requirements may actually lead to integration. Formal citizenship facilitates migrant integration Goldsmith (2008) outlines the formal rights and responsibilities of citizens in the UK very well in his report to the prime minister. Citizens have a right to move freely within the EU and UK through residency and travel as facilitated by the British passport. They enjoy civic rights such as: voting for parliamentary and EU elections, choosing to stand for elections, campaigning in referendums, donating to a political party, engaging in jury service and holding public office. Citizens have social rights such as access to education and healthcare. They have a duty to contribute towards national insurance and pay their taxes. If for a number of reasons a migrant lacks access to formal citizenship, then they can only enjoy a few of the above rights and this could impede their integration. If a person cannot move freely within the EU or within the country, they are unlikely to exploit economic or social opportunities that conventional UK citizens enjoy, and this hampers their integration (Morris, 2012). A person who cannot vote or stand for elections because they are not full citizens may lack political resources. Thus implies that they will be unable to exercise change within their host countries. They will not exert influence in the receiving societies on a large scale even though they contribute to it economically or otherwise. Rudiger and Spencer (2003) explain how migrant integration usually takes different paths. Some individuals can be active in the labour market but lack access to employment and education opportunities. This requires action on the part of the receiving country to deliberately involve these individuals in different parts of society. Failure of migrant integration due to lack of formal citizenship Goldsmith (2008) notes that when the relationship between citizenship and non citizenship is blurred then individuals may not be prompted to become citizens. The UK has long wrestled with this problem because it has an intermediate status that allows individuals to become permanent residents. This implies that a number of rights that conventional UK citizens enjoyed are granted to the group. One of the recommendations of the Lord Goldsmith report was to discontinue this intermediate status as it blurs the line between non citizenship and citizenship. People who have stayed in the UK for a long time will find that they enjoy similar rights as their native counterparts in the country. Therefore, few of them will stick by this intermediate status and thus not go through all the prerequisites needed to become citizens. This means that they will enjoy certain rights without exhibiting particular characteristics of citizenship (Jorgensen, 2012). The end result is minimal integration on the part of permanent residents. Several countries have started exhibiting restriction tendencies because of this blurring line between citizens and non citizens. Many new policies in immigration control often stem from the need to curtail the rights of non citizens (Joppfe, 2010). A number feel that citizenships should be earned through integration. These conventional citizens opposed the expansion of rights to immigrants especially those that resided in the country for a long time. As such, politicians feel that it was necessary to please the masses by raising the bar for attainment of citizenship. A case in point was Austria. It began enforcing restrictive immigration policies that require integration prior to acceptance of new immigrants. As such, this country enhanced the level of integration exhibited by its migrants who enjoyed formal citizenship. In this regard, citizenship became a direct determinant of integration. If a person in Austria wanted to enjoy this legal status, they had to demonstrate some form of integration (Baubock, 2006). In another way, the lack of formal citizenship may also become problematic in any given country if immigrants do not have the incentive to become citizens. If a country sets its bar too high, then more immigrants are less likely to apply for citizenship. Eventually, this lack of citizenship status will also demoralise them from participating in their communities (Rutter et. al., 2008). The naturalisation process is one of the key routes in which non citizens acquire citizenship. The UK government has the tough responsibility of balancing between the need to keep naturalisation simple enough to cause integration and significant enough to promote the sharing of common bonds and value. The graph below shows that good character impedes most people from naturalisation. This may be regarded as an unfairly high standard since good character is a subjective parameter. It may prevent them from seeking formal citizenship and integrating. REASONS FOR REFUSAL OF CITIZENSHIP Source: Citizenship data tables Immigration Statistics, Oct-Dec 2012, Table cz.09 Rutter et. al. (2008) affirm that if the country limits the time that refugees can become naturalised, then chances are that many of them will give up on applying for citizenship. As a result, few of them will have the incentive to integrate socially and economically. Additionally, if the costs of naturalisation, such as the legal fees involved as well as the need to take complicated language classes are enforced, then many immigrants will lack motivation to apply for citizenship. This implies that they will also fail to integrate because no privileges will be granted even upon integration. Antidiscrimination and substantial citizenship A country like the Netherlands prides itself in its ability to manage the relationship between different cultural groups. Countries like the UK and Sweden also fall in this category. These nations have enforced laws which are designed to minimise discrimination of ethnic groups. Policy makers have drafted legislations that ensure members have access to equal opportunities. Once an antidiscrimination environment exists in a given country, it is likely that formal citizens may also access substantial citizenship. They will have equal access to employment, educational and health opportunities that conventional citizens have enjoyed (Rudiger and Spender, 2003). For instance, ethnic minorities in Britain take pride in their identity as British citizens and their ethnic affiliations. An Indian will associate with their ethnic community but will still be protected from discrimination on the basis of their race or ethnicity. They will thus identify with Britain and integrate with their society. This environment may explain why formal citizenship has grown over the years as shown in the graph below. Source: http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/naturalisation-british-citizen-concepts-and-trends Integration, as a strategy for acculturation may also take place when less discrimination is evident. This refers to issues of substantive citizenship in the receiving country. Berry et. al. (2006) carried out a research among immigrant youth in order to determine the extent to which such persons will integrate with the large society. It was found that perceptions of discrimination had an adverse effect on the degree to which these persons integrated into their respective communities. Perceived discrimination was defined by the participants as the frequency with which they had encountered negative, unfair or threatening acts. This definition also included being insulted and teased due to their ethnicity. Youth who encountered discrimination tended to identify more with their ethnic profile. They were also less likely to have a national perspective, this meant that they were unlikely to socialise with persons with a national identity. Therefore, the lack of substantive citizenship may cause resentment among migrants who will then dissociate themselves from mainstream society. It would simply make no sense for a person to embrace the way of life of a target society that appears to recent them (Lockwood, 1996). Rutter et. al. (2008) found that many migrants were sensitive to the reactions that their neighbours had towards them. A number of them were willing to integrate with their neighbours but found that most of them preferred to keep to themselves. The separatist attitude exhibited among the mainstream population may be a subtle form of discrimination. This pushes immigrants into ethnic groupings regardless of their citizenship status. It is for this reason that antidiscrimination laws have their limits. Governments cannot control the people that majority citizens socialise with. The latter matter is entirely in the hands of mainstream individuals. In some instance, this environment of antidiscrimination may have the opposite effect on migrant integration depending on how individuals react to it. Usually, in countries where minority rights are respected, then it is likely that advocacy groups and migrant lobbyists may call for the protection of immigrants (Baubock, 2006). They may lead to the strengthening of constitutional rights accorded to these individuals. Therefore, it is likely that regardless of one’s citizenship status, a country with strong antidiscrimination laws may accord citizens and non citizens several rights. Therefore, an immigrant may not have to go through all the processes required to become a formal citizen in order to enjoy this right. As such, they are likely to be less integrated than their counterparts in more restrictive environments. For this reason, having an anti discriminative environment and strong constitutional structures is a double-edged sword. It can manage the rights and obligations of formal citizens thus providing the right resources to enable full integration (Morris, 2003). On the other hand, it can deliver almost equal rights to non citizens and thus remove the incentive for integration. Motivations for citizenship may hamper migrant integration Sometimes the reasons behind a migrants’ application for citizenship may actually explain whether integration will occur on not. Rutter et. al. (2008) explain that several immigrants choose to become citizens in order to harness economic opportunities. A number of them may simply want to start a business in certain parts of the country, and they require citizenship to achieve this. Alternatively, some individuals may acquire citizenship in order to take advantage of free movement. These persons may be motivated by fear of being captured at airports and other points of exit. One Somali refugee in London stated that the British passport was not a sign of identity to him; it was a means of security. The document simply meant that he was free to move from Britain to his home country without being prevented from coming back (Rutter et. al., 2008). Another polish migrant in South East England stated that the passport was a mere piece of paper. It did not change who he was inside. Such perspectives illustrate that many immigrants may become citizens without having strong national bonds. A number of them are propelled into naturalisation for negative reasons (Castles and Davidson, 2000). Therefore, such individuals are likely to do the least they can to integrate with the rest of the larger community. In such circumstances, citizenship will simply be a means to an economic or security end. As such, it will not have an effect on integration of migrants. Conclusion The question under analysis was assessing the extent to which migrant integration is determined by formal and substantial citizenship. Literature is divided on this issue as some discussions show that migration integration is independent of either forms of citizenship while others demonstrate a strong association between the two concepts. However, most of the analyses show that migrant integration is dependent on citizenship. The response to the research question would thus be that it is determined to a large extent. The best way of understanding the relationship is to look at deficits of both types of citizenship. If deficits of formal citizenship exist, then migrants will only get practical membership status. The overall consequence of this is entitlement to a few rights. On the other hand, if deficits exist in terms of substantial citizenship, then one is bound to experience poverty, discrimination, wealth cultural capital and this will undermine their ability to integrate with the larger society. A society’s value system can determine how effectively a migrant integrates with the larger society. This value system that contravenes multiculturalism still relies on one’s citizenship status for total integration. Formal citizenship facilitates migrant integration by giving foreigners rights that are necessary in integrating with society. A typical example would be the right to vote. A migrant may not fully integrate in society if they lack a political voice. This makes integration contingent on formal citizenship. Conversely, the lack of formal citizenship impedes integration by eliminating the acculturation prerequisites to citizenship. This has especially been true for persons of intermediate resident status who see no need to gain citizenship. An anti discriminative environment and strong constitutional structures are signs of substantial citizenship. These structures can manage the rights and obligations of formal citizens thus providing the right resources to enable full integration. If people naturalise for negative reasons, then they are unlikely to integrate or acculturise in their receiving communities. Overall, most arguments seem to show that formal and substantial citizenship determine migrant immigration to a large extent. References Berry, J.W., Phinney, J.S., Sam, L.D. and Hedder, P. , 2006. Immigrant youth in cultural transition: Acculturation, identity, and adaptation across national contexts. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Baubock, K., 2006. Migration and citizenship. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Berry, J.W., 1997. Immigration, acculturation and adaptation. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 46(1), pp. 5-68. Brubaker, R. , 2003. The Return of Assimilation? Changing perspectives on immigration and its sequels in France, Germany, and the United States. New York: Palgrave. Castles, S. and Davidson, A. , 2000. Becoming a Citizen and being a Citizen in their Citizenship and Migration: Globalization and the Politics of Belonging. London: Macmillan. Favell, A., 2001. Integration policy and integration research in Europe. [online] Available at: http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/soc/faculty/favell/carnegie%202001.pdf [Accessed 24 November 2013] Jorgensen, M., 2012. The diverging logics of integration policy making at national and city level. IMR, 46(1), 244-278. Joppke, C. , 2010. The inevitable lightening of citizenship. European Journal of Sociology, 51, pp. 9-32. Lockwood, D. , 1996. Civic integration and class formation. British Journal of Sociology, 47(3), pp. 531-550. Lord Goldsmith, 2008. Citizenship review, citizenship our common bond. [online] Available at: www.justice.gov.uk/reviews/docs/citizenship-­?report-­?full.pdf [Accessed 24 November 2013] Morris, L., 2003. Managing contradiction: Civic stratification and migrants’ rights. IMR, 37(1), pp. 74-100. Morris, L., 2012. Rights, recognition and judgment: Reflections on the case of welfare asylum. British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 14(10), pp. 39-56. Soysal, Y., 2012. Citizenship, immigration and the European social project: Rights and obligations of individuality. The British Journal of Sociology, 63(1), pp. 1-21. Rudiger, A. and Spencer, S., 2003. The economic and social aspects of migration. [online] Available at: http://www.oecd.org/migration/mig/15516956.pdf [Accessed 24 November 2013] Rutter, J., Latorre, M. and Sriskandarajah, D. , 2008. Beyond naturalisation: Citizenship policy in an age of super mobility. London: Institute for Public Policy Research. Read More