Tag: Immigration policy

Migrant integration: Can we learn from European experiences?

Posted on by Migrant Tales

By Don Flynn*

A new UK government policy on migrant integration is expected to be announced any day now. To date migrant community organisations have had no input into the way this has been developed by the government departments. But may be a new toolkit on migrant integration, just published by the European Network Against Racism, will give us some pointers on how groups working at the local level can regain some control over migrant integration projects.

An announcement on a new UK policy on migrant integration has been expected for some months past. According to press reports this has been working its way around government departments to ensure that whatever form it takes, the strategy will be ‘joined-up’, with civil servants and other stakeholders working to the same agenda.

We are also being warned that the policy will break with the previous government’s preference for integration outcomes which could be demonstrated in concrete terms of community cohesion at the local level.  Instead we should expect to see the issue being tackled infour separate strands, which are likely to be the task of establishing common ground; increasing social mobility; improving participation and countering intolerance and extremism.

Worryingly, it seems that ministers from the various departments working on the issue want to see migrant integration being linked to the drive to push down the numbers of newcomers entering the country with the requirement to speak English to higher standards and participate in wider society being used as devices justifying higher refusal rates in the area of family reunification.

The bitter pill on these points will be coated by plans to campaign against “anti-Muslim hatred” and an online integration forum, aimed at “barrier-busting site” and encourage different community and faith groups to come together.

This mixture of soft and hard approaches to integration will be implemented in what has until now largely been a policy void.  National strategies aimed at assisting newcomers find their way into British society were limited to the experiences of refugees under the last government.  Though important work was brokered in this area it never covered more than a very low percentage of people arriving in the country each year. Plans to adopt a broader approach were flagged up by the department for Communities and Local Government in mid-2008 but never went beyond the discussion stage.

When the Government finally announces it plans groups working to support migrants at local community level are going to need to rush to bring themselves up to speed on the principles which underpin good practice in this area of policy.  If rafts of new initiatives are coming down the line on the terms of the four strands which civil servants appear to be working on then community organizations will need to stake out the ground on which they feel projects can be built and supported and which will properly accommodate the interests of new migrant communities.

Some ideas of what those principles might be are set out in a new publication from the European Network Against Racism (ENAR). The toolkit Working on Integration at a Local Level is the product of a three year long project which was concluded last weekend with its official launch at a conference in Brussels.  The Migrants Rights and Integration Project (MRIP) involved partners in six EU countries and looked at activities which aimed to implement the standards that had been set within the EU under the terms of theCommon Basic Principles on migrant integration adopted in  2004.

The toolkit sets out the case for a values-led approach to integration policies which are intended to keep projects firmly on the track of meeting the needs and interests of the communities immediately concerned with integration.  It is alert to the danger that this is an area of policy which is prone to being diverted by larger stakeholders pushing populist messages which often run counter to the things which need to be achieved at community level.

The opportunities and the risks involved in planning migrant integration projects are illustrated from experiences as varied as a campaign to improve mainstream media coverage of migration in Bulgaria, activities supporting domestic workers in Cyprus, the labour market position of African women in Sweden, and community-based initiatives in Belgium, Italy and the UK.  The message is that a lot of positive outcomes can be achieved by community-led initiatives providing that they clear about the values they want to push in their activity, they have identified the risks involved in working with stakeholders like government, which are invariably larger and better resourced but more likely to be pushing in directions which do not entirely honour the principles of good practice, including those listed in the EU’s Common Basic Principles  which they are nominally signed up to and committed to applying.

The UK government’s approach, which, as far as can be seen, is being developed without any input from groups representing the interests of migrants is likely to carry the maximum risk of overlooking the immediate community context of this work in order to push the goals it is trying to achieve within the frame of national politics.  Experience suggests that this will be a very bad thing and that migrant-led projects will need to develop a full suite of strategies and tactics which can contain and neutralize these risks.

The ENAR/MRIP has been coordinated over the three years of its work by MRN and we are keen to see what use can be made of the toolkit in the work of community-based organizations in the UK.  A copy of the 46-page document can be download by clicking HERE.

We can also provide you with a free copy of the printed copy of the toolkit.  Please send an A4 sized self-addressed envelop stamped for £1.09 for first class post or 92p second class, to:

MRIP Toolkit

MRN

Royal London House

22-25 Finsbury Square

London EC2A 1DX

*This blog entry was originally published on Migrants’ Rights Network, MRN.

MIPEX Blog: European Commission asks, When is a family not a family?

Posted on by Migrant Tales

Comment: Plans to tighten family reunification laws in Finland even further speak volumes about Conservative Party Prime Minister Jyrki Katainen’s government.  What does it say? Fear of the anti-immigration Perussuomalaiset (PS) party, prejudice and lack of leadership to name a few.

It seems surreal but not abnormal during these times in Finland that a pro-family party like the Christian Democrats will spearhead the tightening of family reunification laws. Interior Minister Päivi Räsänen washes her hands of the whole issue by stating that this is not her wish but that of the government’s.  They claim that they want to bring such laws in line with other Nordic countries. 

According to MIPEX, Nordic policy is mixed on family reunification: Denmark has the strictest policy and Sweden is “slightly favorable,” with Norway and Finland being “halfway favorable.” 

MIPEX writes: “The average EU country goes beyond the minimum definition of the family in the Directive. Most adopt slightly inclusive definitions of the family and only basic conditions for acquisition, out of respect for family life. In contrast, countries like Austria, Cyprus, Denmark, and France restrict the eligibility of family members and impose burdensome conditions on sponsors.”

If we look at the chart in the story below on reuniting non-EU family members other than spouses, partners, or children, we’re speaking of small numbers in the Nordic region: Sweden (229), Finland (197) and Denmark (0). Most family reunifications took place in 2010 in Italy (22,355), Portugal (10,038) and Spain (1,666). 

So what is the issue? The issue is fear of the threat of the anti-immigration Perussuomalaiset (PS) party, prejudice and lack of leadership iced with lame excuses. 

How can you grant a minor asylum but take away his or her right to be with his immediate family?

Where is our sense of justice and fairness?  

_____________

By Thomas Huddleston

Does the EU Family Reunion Directive reflect how you would define a family? MPG’s analysis of MIPEX and Eurostat statistics reveals that immigrant’s parents, grandparents, and adult children are somehow entitled to reunite in most countries, but few can or do apply.

Read whole story.

Europe and Finland must get its immigration policy right

Posted on by Migrant Tales

y Enrique Tessieri

The rise of right-wing populist parties and their ever-growing attacks on immigrants and minorities is an outcome of Europe’s inability to draft and pass a workable immigration, refugee and integration policy. Immigrants and refugees are not the real threat to Europe. It is weak leadership by politicians and standing up to the populist rhetoric that fuel prejudices and urban myths about Europe’s new inhabitants.

A good example why some integration policies are set to fail before they become public policy is that dear little has been done in many countries to promote acceptance and cultural diversity.

We all know that the millions of immigrants and Turks that emigrated to countries like Germany and Austria were not supposed to stay there permanently. After working a for a few years they were expected to return to their home countries.

In Germany, as well as in many European countries, there is no effective plan to integrate immigrants. A successful integration program must go further: It must give immigrants the opportunity to become equal members of society.

If we look at the ongoing debate in countries like Finland, one gets the view from some Social Democrats that migrant workers must be held in contempt because they work for lower wages and don’t pay taxes.

Certainly an effective integration and public policy would resolve many matters like the above. If employers are exploiting immigrants while the authorities turn a blind eye, is it the foreign laborer or the system that is to blame?

Humans are social animals and their first aim in a new country is to integrate in a group and establish social networks. If they see that integration is impossible to the majority culture and exploitation the rule, this situation will lure some of them to evade taxes and work outside the law.

If a society is exclusive and there is hostility towards immigrants, what are these people supposed to integrate to?

Immigrants and refugees are not the problem of Europe. The problem is public policy and lack of leadership.

YLE: Immigration policy to focus on security

Posted on by Migrant Tales

Comment: Ever wonder what the Christian Democrats are doing in government and why its chairwoman, Päivi Räsänen, was appointed interior minister in charge of immigration affairs? The answer is simple: She is a conservative who can eat away at some of the anti-immigration thunder of the Perussuomalaiset (PS) party. 

Contrary to the former minister of migration and European affairs, Astrid Thors, Räsänen will not be an easy target to shoot at for the PS.

Am I hopeful that matters for immigrants and refugees will improve under Räsänen and this government? I doubt it. 

I was, however, a bit worried about the  following quote by her in the story:  “Immigration policy will respect basic human rights, but the other thread running through policy will be security and sustainability in society. How many immigrants we can integrate into society.”

Those who know Räsänen’s views on refugees cannot forget when she said earlier this year that Finland should take Christian quota refugees as opposed to non-Christians. 

__________

Immigration policy is to shift emphasis towards safeguarding security in society, says new Interior Minister Päivi Räsänen. She told YLE radio that immigration policy would now shift to officials in charge of policing.

Read whole story.

BBC: Danish immigration minister Hornbech fired over scandal

Posted on by Migrant Tales

Comment: Here is an interesting story from Denmark reporting that Immigration Minister Birthe Roenn Hornbech had been fired from her job for not only illegally refusing citizenship to a group of Palestinians born there, but not informing parliament immediately of such a mistake, reports the BBC.

Writes Yahoo News: “Hornbech’s refugees, immigration and integration portfolio was handed over to Development Cooperation Minister Soeren Pind, who is considered a hardliner on the immigration issue.  In one of his first statements after his nomination, Pind described the UN convention that sent his predecessor packing as ‘stupid.'”

Some Finnish politicians from the True Finns are hoping that they will hold the same power as the populist and xenophobic Danish People’s Party (DPP) led by Pia Kjaersgaard. Denmark’s Liberal-Conservative coalition government has relied on the support of the DPP to stay in power in exchange for tightened immigration and citizenship laws.

Even though the majority of Danes do not back the DPP, Denmark is a sad case how Islamophobia can grip a small nation. Denmark is the biggest loser of such a mistaken policy because it creates an inclusive and unequal society.

Do you agree?

___________

Denmark’s Immigration Minister Birthe Roenn Hornbech has been sacked after 36 stateless Palestinians were wrongly refused citizenship.

To continue reading click here.

True Finns’ immigration manifesto is full of holes and question marks

Posted on by Migrant Tales

A group of anti-immigration True Finns members published over the weekend their recipe to correct Finland’s “wayward” immigration policy. As I wrote on June 20, their new immigration policy stance will not surprise anyone since their negative and hard-line stances are well known.

Some of the recommendations in the so-called Nuiva Manifesto are full of contradictions that reveal that the True Finns are very much in the dark about how a successful immigration policy should be managed.

Let’s look at some of the manifesto’s main points:

1. Finland should abandon its multicultural policy copied from Sweden.

I never knew that Sweden was officially a multicultural country. It is a country with many immigrants but it is not officially a multicultural nation. There are only three countries in the world that are officially multicultural: Canada, Australia and England. We do not know whether they refer to multiculturalism as the Canadian social policy or that it is a demographic phenomenon.

2. But they give a quasi-definition of multiculturalism. They state that abandoning multiculturalism means that the state should not finance immigrant groups’ culture, language, identity and religion.

What does this mean in practice? First-, second- and third-generation immigrants do not have any financial support and recognition by the state to maintain their cultural heritage. The manifest does not conveniently mention if the state should end all financial support to the Swedish-speaking minority, Sami and Roma.

This part of the True Finns’ manifest is an excellent example of the double-talk on  how they plans to breach and/or water down the Constitution and Non-Discrimination Act by treating minorities unequally.

They naturally deny this and state, emphatically, that they favor a society based on equality for all.

The manifest is full of these types of contradictory political statements that make no sense and are meant to give you a generous snow job.

3. One of my favorites is the manifest’s prescription on how to keep neighborhoods from becoming ghettos.  If the True Finns had their way, they would prohibit immigrants/refugees from moving to neighborhoods where the state or municipality finances their rent.

They don’t explain if these immigrants/refugees should live in tents or tepees instead.

4. One of the terms that the True Finns love to use is “uncontrolled” immigration and talk about the Winter War. All of these True Finns that signed the manifest haven’t seen a day of war and were brought up thanks to the social welfare state.

They recommend that social aid to new immigrants should last a year maximum on moving to the country.

They don’t mention if their should be social-welfare-benefit limits to Finns. This is another excellent example of the inequality that the True Finns want but do not state aloud.

5. Those immigrants/refuges that break the law constantly will be deported from Finland irrespective of the human rights situation of their country of origin. Immigrants who have been granted a residence permit on humanitarian grounds will have their permit revoked if they go on holiday or fight in their home country.

Don’t people have the human right of freedom of movement if they HAVE a residence permit?

6. The xenophobia of this group shines through when they propose that citizenship should be granted on a conditional basis for ten years. Conditional citizenship would grant all rights to the person but it could be revoked.

Again they do not mention which types of “crimes” a person would have to be sentenced for citizenship to be revoked.

7. The True Finns top it off by stating that Finland wants immigrants that will not be “negative” to society. It supports immigrants whose impact on society will be “neutral or positive.”

What does “negative” mean and which group/institution decides to give the thumbs up or down concerning the latter?

A-Talk: What is wrong with the Social Democrats?

Posted on by Migrant Tales

At least for me, the debate on immigration on A-Talk on Thursday was a disappointment. The only sensible persons on the show were Anni Sinnemäki of the Greens and  Jyrki Katainen of Kokoomus. The two opposition leaders, Jutta Urpilainen of the Social Democrats (SDP) and Timo Soini of the True Finns, were a disappointment spewing the usual hollow catchwords that reek of populism, protectionism and heavy doses of obnoxious nationalism.

One matter that came clear is that Urpilainen has a very superficial idea of  immigration. On the one hand she vilifies the immigrant community in Finland by stating that they must follow the law (duh?!), but then claims to be for equality.

Why is the SDP leader making such no-brainer statements? Her aim appears to be to steal votes from the True Finns with the immigrant-bash card and thereby become the biggest party in Finland. If the SDP succeed in this dangerous game, anti-immigrant sentiment and life for the common non-Finn and their families will get much worse.

This will be a tragedy for Finland since we need to bring labor immigrants (not scare them away) to plug the labor gap left by an ever-large group of people retiring from the workforce during this decade.

I am just as confused as some of you. Maybe somebody should show the Constitution and Non-Discrimination Act to Urpilainen. Thanks to these laws, Finland permits as a democratic liberal society cultural diversity. We are not in the habit of ramming narrow-minded cultural habits down people’s throats.

Another statement that caught my eye was her criticism of foreigners she knew that had not learned to speak Finnish even though they had lived many years in the country. Certainly this is unfortunate but what are the causes? Lack of equal opportunities? Hostility by society? Racism? Lack of motivation? Attitudes like Urpilainen’s? Or a combination of all of the latter?

The Social Democratic stance on immigration is an unfortunate one. It looks like a house of cards that is maintained upright with the help of fear and populism.

The most disgraceful aspect of this type of populist rhetoric is that it does not help further a sense of community among immigrants and Finns but keeps alive old suspicions that fuel hatred.

And all this for the opportunitic goal of securing more votes in the 2011 parliamentary elections.

Finnish Social Democrats explain controversial immigration stance

Posted on by Migrant Tales

Finnish Social Democratic Party (SDP) chairperson Jutta Urpilainen explained (in Finnish) in an MTV3 blog what she meant on March 20 that immigrants must abide by Finnish laws (“maassa maan tavalla” policy).

There are many good reasons why SDP’s immigration policy has the appearance of what the anti-immigration True Finns have been driving home all the time. For one, the leadership of the party believes that voters want a tough line on immigration and, especially, against Muslim groups.  The party’s new immigration policy must be inspired by former hardline interior minister, Kari Rajamäki.

The SDP believes that populism will help  lure voters from the True Finns camp in next year’s parliamentary elections.

Urpilainen tells us incredulously in her blog that when people come to Finland they must live under Finnish laws and norms. The statement reeks of populism. Is she stating that immigrants are potential criminals and therefore must be told to live under our laws and norms? Has she forgotten about our values on equality and diversity enshrined in our Constitution and Non-Discrimination Act?

Most of her comments are full of hollow catchwords that have been heard before. What happens in practice is a totally different story. The Social Democrats have not shown much leadership in the past to resolve social inequalities and high unemployment among the immigrant community in Finland.

Too many immigrants in Finland live marginalized from society due to high unemployment and an integration policy that is a failure. The laws of the land are not applied equally to the immigrant community when it comes to discrimination and equality.

Instead of asking future immigrants to follow the laws of the land, which is important, Urpilainen should ensure that those laws are applied fairly to everyone as well.

Alberdi and the role of immigration to Finland

Posted on by Migrant Tales

Juan Bautista Alberdi was one of the greatest social thinkers that Latin America produced in the nineteenth century.  If we look at the Argentina and South America right after these countries gained independence from Spain from the 1820s, they faced a daunting task: How to build new nations from scratch.

Countries in the region were huge in size with little infrastructure and small populations. In the early nineteenth century, Argentina’s population was a mere 400,000 while Uruguay and Paraguay had an estimated 40,000 and 100,000, respectively. Even countries such as Brazil had underwhelming populations: in 1800 it was estimated to be 3.35 million versus 300,000 in 1700. In the Viceroyalty of Nueva Granada (Ecuador, Colombia, Panama and Venezuela), population estimates for 1750 show that there lived 350,000 Peninsulares (native Spaniards) compared with 600,000 native Americans in 1650.

Before the arrival of the Spaniards in greater numbers from the sixteenth century, the indigenous population was estimated in the Americas to be between 80 million and 100 million, according to some estimates.

Looking at Argentina from the mid-nineteenth century, Alberdi understood that the country would never realize its potential with a small population. According to him, Argentina would never become a developed and prosperous nation as long as it had a population of one million (by 1869 it had grown to 1.527 million) in a country that could comfortably house 50 million people.

While immigration played a more prominent role in forging the populations of countries such as Argentina as opposed to Colombia, it radically changed the demographic make up. By 1914, Argentina’s population had grown to 5.527 million, or 30.3% of the population (49.4% in Buenos Aires!) thanks to immigration.

Look at these percentages and compare it with Finland’s 2.7% foreign population. Some Finns are already sounding the alarms bells because of such a single-digit percentage!

Apart from the demographic impact, European immigration changed the country socially, politically and economically. It had an adverse impact on the country’s Amerindian population. The good news, however, is that such a high percentage of immigrants did not end up at each others throats as was the case in the former Yugoslavia.

Alberdi and Finland

As Finnish policy makers and politicians plan how many immigrants Finland must have to maintain our standard of living and social welfare state, they should read statesmen such as Alberdi, study Finnish and general immigration history to grasp what immigration means instead of falling into the defensive and fearing what it implies to our country.

Alberdi’s greatest work was Bases, which looked at the different constitutions in the region and which ones Argentina should not imitate. His main argument was that those constitutions that placed limits on immigration and nationality were examples that Argentina should not imitate. Taking into account the nationalism and highly exclusive nature of Finland’s constitution of 1919 up to 1999, Alberdi would have surely criticized it because it discouraged immigration on all levels and made citizenship exclusive.

The big question: If Finnish society and history have reinforced nationalism as a nation-building process by excluding others, how is Finland going to be receptive to new members of society?

The above question, in my opinion, is the biggest unanswered challenge facing Finland. We are not ready and too few understand what immigration is and how our society could benefit and correct some of the challenges it imposes.

A good pessimistic example comes from a recent seminar I attended with Finnsh-language teachers who work with refugees and immigrants. After scraping through the “we-believe-Finland-will-win-with-newcomers” phase of our conversation, one of the teachers said in a defensive tone: “We don’t have to change even if more immigrants come to Finland.”

What this statement reveals is not only ignorance what immigration implies but a deep fear that some Finns have. They believe that all they have to do is to bring labor immigrants and continue with their lives as if nothing has happened. Finns don’t have to change because immigrants will be assimilated into our culture.

One could ask how prevalent this feeling is among our policy makers, politicians and population. If that is what the majority feels, immigration will fail miserably in this country.

The saddest fact is that we do not understand why it even failed before it began. on a bigger scale.

Turning naivety on Finland into action

Posted on by Migrant Tales

Like many second-generation Finns that lived abroad, I too hoped to move back to live in Finland one day.

While the decision to move back was an easy one, I encountered my first setback when I applied for a residence permit. In the late-1970s, Finland had a pretty draconian view of who was and was not a Finn.

Even though I had a Finnish mother and had spent most of my childhood and adolescent summers in the country with my grandparents, I was treated by the law like a foreigner with no rights. The first residence permit I got was for three months, then it was extended for six and later on for two years.

The treatment I got from the authorities, and those that were enforcing it at the Aliens’ Office, forced my naivety of Finland to vanish rapidly. A woman who worked at the Aliens’ Office once snapped at me, when I protested at the unfair treatment I was getting.

“You’re not a Finn!” she said, adding I had no bonds to the culture!

Certainly I wasn’t a Finn, officially, but that’s not how I felt.

Who is a Finn anyway? Who decides? Is it a passport? Language? What about if you’re deaf? Is it culture? Or does it boil down to a deep-rooted feeling of “where one feels he is from?”

Many challenges await Finland as we race deeper into the 21st century. One of the greatest of these is learning how to accept others from different backgrounds and use their synergies to strengthen and forge our sense of Finnish identity.

There is ample room for people from other national backgrounds to live in Finland and be accepted and encouraged to feel that they are a part of a noble project we call Finland. In this country of the future, Finland will prosper.