Preview only show first 10 pages with watermark. For full document please download

“illiberal Means To Liberal Ends? Understanding Recent Immigrant Integration Policies In Europe.” Journal Of Ethnic And Migration Studies, Special Issue On “the Limits Of The Liberal State,” Vol. 37, No. 6 (2011): Pp. 861-880.

“Illiberal Means to Liberal Ends? Understanding Recent Immigrant Integration Policies in Europe.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, special issue on “The Limits of the Liberal State,” VOL. 37, No. 6 (2011): pp. 861-880.

   EMBED


Share

Transcript

   PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE This article was downloaded by: [Triadafilopoulos, Triadafilos]  On: 19 May 2011 Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 937670739]  Publisher Routledge  Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713433350 Illiberal Means to Liberal Ends? Understanding Recent ImmigrantIntegration Policies in Europe Triadafilos Triadafilopoulos aa Political Science, University of Toronto,Online publication date: 16 May 2011 To cite this Article Triadafilopoulos, Triadafilos(2011) 'Illiberal Means to Liberal Ends? Understanding Recent ImmigrantIntegration Policies in Europe', Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 37: 6, 861 — 880 To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/1369183X.2011.576189 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2011.576189 Full terms and conditions of use:http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdfThis article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.  Illiberal Means to Liberal Ends?Understanding Recent ImmigrantIntegration Policies in Europe Triadafilos Triadafilopoulos A number of European governments have pronounced multiculturalism a failure and opted for more aggressive means of integrating immigrants into their societies. This paper asks what we are to make of this trend: does it reflect deeply rooted illiberal prejudice or a novel shift in liberal-democratic states’ approaches to nation-building? I suggest that aggressive integrationism is reflective of a distinctly ‘Schmittian’ liberalism, which aims to clarify the core values of liberal societies and use coercive state power to protect them from illiberal and putatively dangerous groups. In contrast to liberal multiculturalists,who counsel accommodation, compromise and negotiation among majority and minority groups, Schmittian liberals see the task of immigrant integration as part of a broader campaign to preserve ‘Western civilisation’ from illiberal threats. Their framing of the problem in existentialist terms allows them to justify policies that might otherwise be seen to contravene liberal principles of toleration and equality. As such, Schmittian liberalism complicates our understanding of liberal states’ approaches to immigration and immigrant integration policies.Keywords: Immigrants; Integration Policy; Liberalism; Multiculturalism; Carl Schmitt  Beginning well before the terrorist attacks in New York, Washington, Madrid andLondon and accelerating as a result of these and other events (including the murderof Dutch artist Theo Van Gogh and the Danish ‘cartoon controversy’), severalEuropean governments have pronounced multiculturalism to be a ‘failure’ and optedfor more aggressive means of integrating immigrants into their societies (Burns 2011;Doomernik 2005; Fekete 2006; Joppke 2004, 2007; Michalowski 2007; Tebble 2006;Weaver 2010). The policy instruments selected to pursue this end have included Triadafilos Triadafilopoulos is Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Toronto.Correspondence to: Prof. T. Triadafilopoulos, Dept of Political Science, University of Toronto, 100 St. GeorgeStreet, Toronto, ON M5S 3G3, Canada. E-mail: [email protected]  Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies Vol. 37, No. 6, July 2011, pp. 861  Á  880  ISSN 1369-183X print/ISSN 1469-9451 online/11/060861-20 # 2011 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/1369183X.2011.576189  D o w nl o ad ed  B y : [ T ri ad afil o p o ul o s ,  T ri ad afil o s]  A t : 01 :42 19  M a y 2011  mandatory integration courses, aimed at facilitating language acquisition andinculcating values, and citizenship tests similarly formulated with an eye todetermining whether or not individuals have internalised prevailing norms (Corbett2006; Etzioni 2007; Jacobs and Rea 2007; Joppke 2008). The Netherlands has gone sofar as to demand that would-be immigrants pass an integration test before  setting footin the country, effectively making integration a condition for admission rather thanof legal residency and citizenship, as has long been the norm (De Heer 2004;Doomernik 2005; Joppke 2007). Several European countries have also introducedlegislation constraining individuals ’ ability to wear certain religious attire, such as the burqa  and hijab  , in the name of upholding women ’ s rights and minimising thepresence of religion in the public sphere (Beck-Gernsheim 2004; Freeman 2004; Weil2004). Moves have also been made to restrict arranged marriages and prohibit otherminority religious practices (Phillips and Dustin 2004; Phillips and Saharso 2008;Razack 2008).These initiatives have often been accompanied by a sharply antagonistic discoursedesignating putatively clear and inviolable boundaries of liberal-democratic conduct.Although academics, journalists and aspirant public intellectuals have taken the leadin crafting this discourse, it is also featured in the statements and programmes of mainstream political parties and politicians. The message advanced is relatively straightforward: immigrants who willingly opt for inclusion are to be accepted, onthe condition that they successfully demonstrate that they have internalised prevailing ‘ values ’ (Blair 2006). Conversely, immigrants judged to have rejected liberal-democratic norms, through their deeds and/or speech, are to be excluded throughthe revocation of their rights to citizenship and legal residency and, in extreme cases,their detention, denaturalisation and deportation. 1 This move to an aggressive ‘ civic integrationism ’ has reached beyond Europe.In January 2007, the town of He ´ rouxville in northern Quebec passed a ‘ statement of principles ’ for would-be immigrants, informing newcomers that its residents ‘ listento music . . . drink alcoholic beverages . . . dance and decorate a tree with balls andsome lights at the end of every year ’ . The authors of the statement also took theopportunity to warn immigrants that ‘ the killing of women [through] public beatingsor burning them alive ’ went against the town ’ s ‘ standards ’ (Municipalite ´ He ´ rouxville2007). The He ´ rouxville charter sparked an ongoing debate in Quebec over the degreeto which the province should reasonably accommodate immigrant minorities. 2 InOctober 2007, the opposition Parti Que ´ be ´ cois entered headlong into the debate,introducing a bill that would require that immigrants demonstrate an adequatecommand of French in order to ‘ hold public office, raise funds for a party or petitionthe National Assembly with a grievance ’ . Not to be outdone, the governing LiberalParty tabled a bill in March 2010 that would effectively prevent women wearing the burqa  from accessing public services. 3 The turn to civic integrationism across a range of liberal-democratic countriesencourages us to reconsider long-standing assumptions in the field of immigrationand citizenship studies, the most relevant of which, in this paper, concerns the role of  862 T. Triadafilopoulos   D o w nl o ad ed  B y : [ T ri ad afil o p o ul o s ,  T ri ad afil o s]  A t : 01 :42 19  M a y 2011  the ‘ liberal state ’ in shaping immigration and integration policies. The notion thatliberal-democratic states encourage relatively open immigration policies and ‘ civic ’ citizenship regimes has become axiomatic in the literature on immigration andcitizenship politics and policy-making (DeLaet 2000; Freeman 1995; Hollifield 1992;Joppke 2001). According to James Hollifield, ‘ a principal factor that has sustainedinternational migration . . . is the accretion of rights for foreigners in the liberaldemocracies [through] the rise of  ‘‘ rights-based liberalism ’’’ (Hollifield 2000: 148;1992). In a similar vein, Gary Freeman (1995) claims that there is ‘ an expansionary bias in the politics of immigration in liberal democracies ’ , which is reinforced by  ‘ a strong anti-populist norm that dictates that politicians should not seek to exploitracial, ethnic or immigration-related fears in order to win votes ’ . When combinedwith the dynamics of client politics, this ‘ constrained discourse ’ has resulted inimmigration policies that ‘ tend to be more liberal than public opinion ’ (Freeman1995: 882  Á  3, 885). The introduction of hard-line civic integrationist policies across arange of liberal-democratic states would appear to contradict these arguments. Weare left to wonder why liberal-democratic states have opted to introduce what mightreasonably be deemed illiberal policies in the sphere of immigrant integration policy.I explore this question in three steps. I begin by situating the turn to civicintegrationism temporally, noting the influence of key events and processes. I thensurvey other scholars ’ efforts to describe and explain the trend. Despite importantdifferences in their arguments, all agree that the new integrationism has been drivenby political coalitions that include self-described liberals and progressives. Buildingon this work, I suggest that aggressive integrationism is reflective of a distinctly  ‘ Schmittian ’ liberalism, which aims to clarify the core values of liberal societies anduse coercive state power to protect them from illiberal and putatively dangerousgroups. As such it is not simply a new brand of old-style xenophobia, but rather aself-consciously liberal response to the challenges of cultural pluralisation that seeksto distinguish itself from its primary competitor, liberal multiculturalism. Schmittianliberals reject liberal multiculturalism because it counsels negotiation, compromiseand a willingness to accommodate groups whose religious beliefs and culturalpractices may diverge from those of the majority (Carens 2000; Kymlicka 1995;Kymlicka and Banting 2006; Modood 2007; Parekh 2002). 4 In contrast to liberalmulticulturalists, Schmittian liberals see the task of immigrant integration as part of abroader campaign to preserve ‘ Western civilisation ’ from illiberal threats, particularly those based on ‘ fundamentalist Islam ’ . Their framing of the problem in existentialistterms allows advocates of aggressive integrationism to justify policies that mightotherwise be seen to contravene liberal principles of toleration and equality. As such,Schmittian liberalism complicates our understanding of liberal states ’ approaches toimmigration and immigrant integration policies.I conclude by considering the validity of Schmittian liberal positions, arguing thatostensibly liberal arguments on behalf of illiberal means cannot be used as a cover forpolicies whose intention is exclusion. We are warranted in looking at both the natureof the message and at the messenger in considering the validity of such claims.  Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies  863  D o w nl o ad ed  B y : [ T ri ad afil o p o ul o s ,  T ri ad afil o s]  A t : 01 :42 19  M a y 2011  The normative justifiability of weakly defended messages from actors with well-known anti-immigrant credentials should be greeted with suspicion. Conversely,measures advanced on behalf of genuinely held liberal principles  *  such as theprotection of gender equality or freedom of speech  *  should not be reduced to simpleevocations of racism. At the very least, opponents of such policies must recognise thatthey are at times put forward on behalf of justifiably liberal ends by actors withimpeccable progressive credentials.I suggest that opposition to such policies might be better served by shifting fromnormative to pragmatic critique. Regardless of the intentions of its advocates, theturn to a more aggressive liberalism is likely to exacerbate the very problems it seeksto solve; Schmittian liberals ’ insistence on clarity, decisiveness and action, as againstnegotiation, patience and compromise, is likely to deepen rifts between groups,intensifying ill-will and cutting off possibilities for dialogue. The premium whichSchmittian liberalism places on societal homogeneity   *  even if it is genuinely basedon liberal values as opposed to race or ethnicity   *  makes it a poor instrument forencouraging integration. While it may result in superficial compliance driven by afear of negative consequences, it is not likely to achieve the deep changes in psyche itso desperately craves. Seen in this light, Schmittian liberalism is a poor substitute forliberal multiculturalism if the aim of immigrant integration policy is to sustain stableliberal-democratic communities. Situating the New Integrationism Some claim that there is nothing new about European states ’ turn to more aggressiveintegration policies, arguing that it reflects age-old racist mindsets that have longstructured Europeans ’ interactions with migrants. In this view, Europeans are simply acting consistently; while the language of exclusion has changed, its intended result  *  the exclusion of racialised groups  *  has not.While there is no gainsaying the enduringly pernicious presence of racism inEurope, this position has difficulty accounting for the nature and timing of recenttrends in immigration and integration policy. It also downplays the importance of more inclusionary trends that preceded the new integrationism and continue to exertan influence on policy-making. These trends include the adoption of anti-discrimination legislation across Europe (Bleich 2003; Joppke 2007); the liberalisationof citizenship laws, even in traditionally restrictive countries such as Germany (Howard 2009; Ingram and Triadafilopoulos 2010; Triadafilopoulos 2006; Weil 2001);and the growing awareness among European leaders that immigration will berequired to help meet looming labour market needs arising out of shrinking working-age populations. Thus the new integrationism is nested within a broader liberalisingtrend that has been unfolding since the end of World War II (Jacobson 1996; Joppke1999; Soysal 1994; Triadafilopoulos 2006).Arguably, this broadly inclusionary tendency is one of the factors driving the new integrationism. As European states have begun to grapple with the reality of  864 T. Triadafilopoulos   D o w nl o ad ed  B y : [ T ri ad afil o p o ul o s ,  T ri ad afil o s]  A t : 01 :42 19  M a y 2011