Op-Ed: Migration in a turbulent world — integration and its challenges

With their unique talents, skills and experiences, the 258 million migrants worldwide bring tremendous benefit to both receiving and sending societies. However, movement has its difficulties, one of which is the process of integrating into a new country’s society.

According to OneAmerica, “Immigrant integration is a dynamic, two-way process in which immigrants and the receiving society work together to build secure, vibrant, and cohesive communities.” Tension and conflict abound in this relationship, with difficulties like language barriers, segregation, inadequate health care access and inadequate education opportunities, and xenophobia posing large challenges.

The two main facets of integration to consider are de jure and de facto integration. The former includes the formal recognition of resident status of some form by legal authorities, while the latter is exemplified by communal inclusion via the local economy or education system, or by speaking the new community’s language and joining local organizations.

Integration can look drastically different depending on migrant countries of origin and destination. To illustrate, some 80,000 refugees live in the tents of the Zaatari camp, which itself constitutes Jordan’s fourth largest 'city,' with limited contact to outside communities, creating an insular community. Despite any legal residency these refugees may possess, social integration has hardly taken place, demonstrating a difference in the levels of de jure and de facto integration.

For other migrants, though, there is far more integration into local communities, where migrants may start a family that spans generations, ingrained in the culture and community of the new country and locality. Economic migrants, too, experience hardships, as integrating into new working environments and communities can pose additional challenges, beyond those of daily life. For many of these migrants, stronger de facto integration has taken place, regardless of legal status.

In some countries, certain migrant groups may be 'accepted' into their destination community more readily than other groups. Social stigmatization of immigrants, racism and xenophobia are often at play here. Indeed, humans tend to irrationally fear “the other.” One of the central messages of the Brexit campaign, for example, is to “take back control of the border.” Meanwhile, those in the United States, a traditional country of immigration, have increasing concern over immigration, according to the Pew Research Center. Anti-immigration rhetoric and political posturing help fuel xenophobia, as seen in the rapid rise of far-right political parties around the world. This inflammatory rhetoric can have devastating consequences, negatively impacting a society’s integrative process.

This political shift necessitates new strategies and approaches to integration. Policymakers and citizens must come up with appropriate strategies to improve migrant integration, and these strategies must benefit both the migrant and the preexisting populations in the destination country. However, because integration remains somewhat subjective and is often heavily influenced by concepts of national history and identity — whether true or fabricated — it is difficult to determine what policies are the most effective.

An interesting example is the French republican model of integration, which seeks to integrate migrants into France by encouraging them to embrace a certain set of civic values in the public sphere. Certain aspects of one’s identity, like religion, should be kept for every French citizen within their private sphere. One example of how France can enforce this system is in the rejection of any references to national, racial, ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities in public policy. However, critics to this approach argue that it ignores some of the unique realities and challenges that migrants face when trying to integrate.

While using the French model throughout most of its history, Canada has decided to change its approach to migration completely. The mosaic approach, interpreted as a strategy to achieve the coexistence of different cultural, ethnic and religious groups, is widely used around Canada today. The government also established a Multicultural Advisory Council to report on the integration of cultures among the country’s 250 ethnic groups.

It is no wonder why the mosaic model is highly praised around Canada; ethnic tensions are generally perceived to be relatively low and Native American populations tend to be more included in public discourse than in countries like the United States. However, the Canadian system surely has its shortcomings, and inclusion of minority and Native groups is still lacking in the eyes of many. Some critics question the impact of the mosaic model, arguing that the outcomes of Canada’s approach and the United States’ “melting pot” approach are not particularly divergent.

Integration is a unique and challenging process, taking differentiated forms around the world. No matter a country’s approach, there will surely be supporters and critics, especially given the divides that the topic of international migration can bring in public discourse. The challenges facing migrants and the communities they inhabit remain large, and the need for new approaches is continually growing.

What do you think is the best approach to integration? If you are interested in learning more about this pressing issue, join the Institute for Global Leadership and students from around the world at this year’s EPIIC Symposium: “Migration in a Turbulent World,” from March 7 to 9.

The symposium will be three days of far-reaching discussions on issues critical to understanding the pressing challenges on migration.