IES Research

A European framework for migrant integration

Migrant integration is not a new item on the European agenda. Numerous European measures that were passed throughout the years in the field of employment, social affairs, equal opportunities and anti-discrimination explicitly articulated the hope of furthering the social integration of immigrants. However, only recently did the Commission, and DG Freedom, Security and Justice in particular, set out to develop a coherent policy framework for migrant integration. Ever since the European heads of state and government first called for ‘a more vigorous integration policy’ at EU level during the Tampere summit in 1999, the Commission has launched a series of initiatives to substantiate this request. The publication of the ‘Common Agenda for Integration: Framework for the Integration of third-country nationals in the European Union’ in September 2005 marks a provisional highlight in this regard. Building on the EU Common Basic Principles on Integration as formulated by the JHA Council in 2004, this document proposes a number of practical guidelines with the intention to better coordinate integration policies across the European Union.

Considering that, until recently, national governments firmly held on to their exclusive competence in the sensitive field of integration policy, it is surprising that the member states explicitly invited the Commission to develop a holistic framework for migrant integration. Indeed, many of the old immigration countries in the European Union had significantly reformed their integration policies throughout the nineties without making any reference to EU involvement. (Joppke and Morawska, 2003). The Dutch government approved a new law on the civic integration of newcomers in 1998, introducing mandatory integration classes for newcomers. Finland, Denmark, Germany and Belgium have since copied this idea. The problem of reintegrating second- and third generation immigrants moreover launched a massive trend towards re-valuation of national citizenship (Hansen and Weil, 2001) The German case here serves as most remarkable example; previously renowned for its restrictive naturalization laws, Germany in 1999 introduced the ‘ius solis’ principle as cornerstone of its citizenship laws with the explicit intention to promote the integration of long-term residents and their children. Scholars hence argue that integration policies are converging throughout the European Union (Carrera, 2006; Joppke, 2007) A recurring element is the nationalist tendency of the new policies; people are now obliged to take language classes, have to pass civic integration tests to prove their knowledge of the national customs and values and are encouraged to assert their loyalty to the new home country through naturalization (Hansen, 2003). This evolution is clearly connected to feelings of fear over the perceived loss of cultural authenticity and identity amongst the general public.

Given the national focus of these new integration policies, it seems contradictory that the member states chose to involve the European institutions in this policy domain. Considering the deeply rooted fear of national governments for ‘creeping competences’ (Pollack, 1995), I was puzzled about the motives underlying their decision. In other words, the central question that instigated my research was why, at a time that member states were strengthening the nationalist dimension of their integration programmes, they decided to invite the Commission to develop a common framework for integration at European level? What were the objectives and expectations of national governments when first putting integration policy on the European agenda at Tampere in 1999?

These reflections tie in with more general questions about the dynamics behind the ongoing process of European integration. The completion of the original single market project has not put a stop on the transfer of competences to the European level. The promise of further economic growth or the looming danger of climate change provide strong incentives for national governments to further cooperate at the European level. The envisioned objectives – mutual economic benefits and fighting global warming – are moreover little contested at national level. It is however less clear why member states decide to put more controversial themes on the EU agenda. On a more abstract level, my research thus aims at understanding why member states decide to ‘upload’ contentious policy fields to the European level (Wong, 2005). The case of integration policy provides a particularly interesting example in this regard. Over the last two decades, migration and integration have emerged as contentious political issues across Europe (Koopmand and Statham, 2000). The rise of extreme-right parties caused a breakdown in the long-standing elite consensus on these matters in the early nineties. By analysing the origins of the emerging European framework for migrant integration, I thus hope to formulate new theoretical insights concerning the Europeanization of contentious policy areas and the process of European integration in general.

Researcher: Hannelore Goeman

Back