Presentation on theme: "European Integration, Migration, and Nationalism"— Presentation transcript:
1European Integration, Migration, and Nationalism I29005 HeeYeon KimI HoBum Kim
2Contents European Integration Citizenship (France & Germany) Migration Germany’s Immigration DilemmaAggressive Nationalism and Immigration in GermanyNationalism in Western and Eastern Europe ComparedConclusion
3European Integration European frontiers & cross-border flow : It has a long history and accelerates after the World War Ⅱ: It is associated with economic globalization, with the process ofthe int’l division of labor, and with the economic cycle: It was no longer a barrier, it could become a junction, a placeof exchange: Malcolm Anderson & Michel Foucher-have explained the profound transformation in conceptions-The frontier is never ‘natural’ or a matter of physical geography-It is a political process: a political technology which records the balance of power2.
4European Integration European frontiers & cross-border flow : 1960s - immigrants were thought of as workers- long term tourists beneficial to the economy: Economic crisis - a new discourse on immigration emerged- immigrants acquires a negative image(the unemployed, the thief, and the criminal): The White Paper - the abolishment of barriers: 1990s – change in the global situation have caused further problems: EU - is uncertain which countries remain outside the Unionand for how long is not fixed- is not stable, is undergoing transformation, and is complicated: The instability of the framework is not simply ‘geographic’, it ismore and more the instability of ‘different Europes’, differentiatedaccording to policing area2.
5European Integration ‘Sieve’ Europe VS ‘Fortress’ Europe Sieve Europe : The critics of the Schengen Agreement quickly raised the question ofthe security deficit created by the abolition of internal frontiers: An artificial confrontation b/w sieve Europe and fortress EuropeSieve Europe: Those who found the content of the agreements insufficient: Paul Masson - ‘Each weakness, each act of clumsiness inimplementing the agreements will lead, I am sure,to many French people contesting the idea ofEurope itself which would become for them a Europeof insecurity and dubious activities.’: Xavier de Villepin & Masson - ‘It is likely that the abolition of controlsat internal frontiers will be interpretedas a signal to at the poverty strickenof the world..’2.
6European Integration ‘Sieve’ Europe VS ‘Fortress’ Europe Sieve Europe : Free movement must be abolished and control must be restoredeverywhere ‘by keeping the frontiers’ and argue in favor oftougher entry conditions: Law enforcement should be as strict as possible to deter newimmigrants: Controls at external frontier must be seriously reinforced: The cooperation between frontier police forces is necessaryto avoid the growth in crime and to support the policy of‘controlling immigration’2.
7European Integration ‘Sieve’ Europe VS ‘Fortress’ Europe Fortress Europe: Fear of reinforced controls: Those who found them excessive: Humanitarian associations saw reinforced controls and new levelsof policing as involving a harmonization: They accepted compensatory measures as ‘a necessary evil’: It is present in the political arena only inasmuch as it is usedoccasionally by political parties who all want to give ‘proof of theirfirmness’, of their responsiveness to an alleged citizens’ ‘demandfor security’2.
8European Integration ‘Sieve’ Europe VS ‘Fortress’ Europe : The effect that the opening of internal frontiers modifieddemocratic practices by strengthening controls at externalfrontiers, by reinforcing controls over foreign populations alreadyin the European Union, by increasing identity checks to locateillegal immigrants and by toughening the conditions to obtainasylum2.
9European Integration Practices at frontiers countries : Strong economic and human links exist between the Schengencountries: Totals about 1.7 billion crossing by the agreements of Schengen: Systemic controls – The time of official check, the cost(expensive): Tightening rules reduces the number of persons eligible to enterthe territory; it simply increases the number of illegal, expellableimmigrants, but does not stop them getting in2.
10European Integration The contemporary paradox : Immigration depends upon millions of decisions which cannot betotally regulated by the governments without closing the frontiers: Work, social rights, citizenship, nationality, and collective identitiesare no longer spheres which coincide with the physical boundariesof the State: The uncertainty quality of frontier controls should not lead to aquest for security but more reflection on possible options: A free society(open frontiers, open minds and plural identities)now implies tolerance of int’l phenomena decoupled from territory,characterized by transnational networks and the penetration ofnational territories whether politician accept or not2.
11Citizenship An Ideal-typical model of membership 1. Egalitarian : There should be a status of full membership: The plural, mediated, and differentiated: It derives from the French Revolution2. Sacred: Citizens must make sacrifices for the state: They must be prepared to die for it if need be3. Nation-membership: The political community should be simultaneously a culturalcommunity, a community of language, mores, and character: It derives from the 19c national movementsThis model of membership is largely vestigial.
12Citizenship An Ideal-typical model of membership 4. Democratic : Full membership should carry with it significant participation inthe business of rule: Membership itself should be open: It indirectly from the French Revolution & directly from thedemocratic movements of 19c5. Unique: Every person should belong to one and only one state: It has special responsibility and it can make special demands6. Consequential: Membership should entail important privileges: Membership should be objectively valuable and valuedThis model of membership is largely vestigial.
13Citizenship Admission to citizenship : Naturalization : The ideals are riddled with internal tensions and contradictions: There are marked variations over historical time & political space: Consider the question of admission to citizenship- One pole: traditional countries of immigration like US and Canadaattribute citizenship unconditionally to all person born interritory- The other: Germany and Switzerland have no special provisions(Birth & Residence): Naturalization- One pole: It is a purely discretionary decision of the stateThe state doesn’t promote it(high fee & complex procedure)- The other: It adapted to mass immigrationThe state promotes it (low fee & simple procedure)Consider the question of admission to citizenshipThe norms of egalitarian and democratic membership require the admission of long-term residents to full citizenship.But, the norms of unique, sacred, and national membership can be used to justify a series of more or less restrictive preconditions for admissionSo, the model of membership provides a matrix of arguments bearing on the question of admission to membership, but no univocal answer to this question.Naturalization : Immigrants and their descendants not benefiting from these and certain other special provisions can accede to citizenship only through naturalization
14Citizenship Admission to citizenship : Major differences in the extent to which Europe’s post war immigrantshave been incorporated as citizens- The socio-economic perspective: Citizenship is of minor importance: What really matters is immigrants’ social, economic, and culturalmarginalization, determined by their weak position in the labormarket, the housing market, and the educational system- The life chances perspective: Formal membership status is important: The decisive gap is b/w privileged non-citizen residents n persons,inside or outside the territory, without long-term residence rights
15Citizenship Traditions of nationhood & politics of citizenship France : Revolutionary and Republican definitions: Political unity, universalist, rationalist, assimilationist, and state-centered: Political unity has been understood as constitutive, cultural unity asexpressive of nationhood: A more restrictive politics of citizenship: Citizenship is more accessible to immigrants in France than inGermanyWhat exists are particular nation-states, formed under particular historical circumstances, bearing even today the stamp of these distinctive historical origins, and, in consequence, unequally disposed to accept immigrants as citizens.
16Citizenship Traditions of nationhood & politics of citizenship Germany : It’s formed during the Revolutionary era by the Romantic movement: Ethno-cultural unity, particularist, organic, differentialist, and Volk-centered: Organic, cultural, linguistic or racial community: Ethno-cultural unity is constitutive, political unity expressive ofnationhood (in tension)From nineteenth century: There are noticeable similarities in the social structure & political style: NationalismWhat exists are particular nation-states, formed under particular historical circumstances, bearing even today the stamp of these distinctive historical origins, and, in consequence, unequally disposed to accept immigrants as citizens.
17Migration Migration : The 1950s to the 1970s - Guest worker schemes & post-war migrants: drew on their colonies to satisfy labor shortage- All countries introduced incentives for voluntary return: From the 1970s- Family reunification dominated migration to Europe- A large and stable migrant population: The 1980s – Asylum-seekers migrated to Europe in large numbers: Since the1990s – Europe has become relatively open towards newmigrants while hardening its attitude and policytowards old onesGermany ‘Green Card’ visa program – granting well paid workers temporary visas. The skilled migrants would be offered permanent residenceThe UK ‘ Country of zero immigration’ – The British gov had been encouraged to reconsider more open policieswhite paper concluding that attracting skilled migration was important to secure the UK’s prosperity
18Migration Migration policy : 1990s & early years of the millennium - have been a defining period in the political history of immigrationpolicy and politics: It includes a complex of informal and formal measures designed togovern the entry, stay, and return of migrants- Visa : covers transit and entry- Temporary migration : students, workers, migrants- Permanent migration : workers, family members, individuals- Refugees : are granted permanent residence and social/economic rights on the basis of a 1951 UN conventionTemporary : migrants fleeing repression, war or natural catastrophe who are granted temporary protectionPermanent : individuals granted privileged access to a particular countryGermany ‘Green Card’ visa program – granting well paid workers temporary visas. The skilled migrants would be offered permanent residenceThe UK ‘ Country of zero immigration’ – The British gov had been encouraged to reconsider more open policieswhite paper concluding that attracting skilled migration was important to secure the UK’s prosperity
19Migration Migration policy : European states responded to increased numbers with a series ofnational and European responses(To prevent the arrival of unwanted and illegal entrants)- Visa regimes: have been expanded- Carrier sanctions: have been levelled on sea, air and land carriersthat bring foreign nationals without properdocumentation or visas to state territory- Pre-inspection regimes: in foreign countries preventing unwantedarrivals are another example of ‘migrationpolicy by remote control’Temporary : migrants fleeing repression, war or natural catastrophe who are granted temporary protectionPermanent : individuals granted privileged access to a particular countryGermany ‘Green Card’ visa program – granting well paid workers temporary visas. The skilled migrants would be offered permanent residenceThe UK ‘ Country of zero immigration’ – The British gov had been encouraged to reconsider more open policieswhite paper concluding that attracting skilled migration was important to secure the UK’s prosperity
20Migration Migration policy : Europe shifted towards a pro-immigration stance in the 1990se.g. Germany ‘Green Card’ visa programThe UK ‘ Country of zero immigration’, ‘2002 white paper’: Since 11 Sept 2001- affected by a renewed concern with terrorism & Islamic extremism- EU states have expanded powers of detention & deportation: In 2004- Some commentators are concerned that increased immigrationwill undermine social cohesion and the welfare state- It is debatable because there is no clear evidence that immigrationundermines support for the welfare stateGermany ‘Green Card’ visa program – granting well paid workers temporary visas. The skilled migrants would be offered permanent residenceThe UK ‘ Country of zero immigration’ – The British gov had been encouraged to reconsider more open policieswhite paper concluding that attracting skilled migration was important to secure the UK’s prosperity
21Migration Migration at the EU level : The EU plays a key role in regulating the free movement of EU citizenswithin the EU as well as in asylum and immigration policy: The Schengen agreement which took effect in the post-1995,abolished border checks among the 13 participating states,established a common visa, and expanded police cooperation: The 1990 Dublin Convention which took effect seven years later,attempted to prevent ‘asylum shopping’ by requiring them to apply inthe first EU country they reach and in establishing a mechanism forreturning asylum-seekers to this first country
22Migration Migration at the EU level : The 1997 Amsterdam Treaty - To maintain and develop the Union as an area of freedom, security,and justice- The further step towards ‘supranationalising’ migration policy: By the EU had agreed to a ‘reception directive’ harmonizingpolicy towards asylum-seekers, a ‘qualification directive’ and‘asylum proceedings directive’: The EU and its member states have expandedcooperation in immigration control with sending,transit, and receiving countriesBy the EU had agreed to a ‘reception directive’ harmonizingpolicy towards asylum-seekers, a ‘qualification directive’ and‘asylum proceedings directive’(creating common standards on recognizing refugees and forgranting them social rights)
23Germany’s Immigration Dilemma Background: Historically Germany was not a country built by immigration-Its nationality law was reflected in Article 116 of the 1949 Grudgesetz(Constitution)-It means that being born in Germany or taking up residence there didnot automatically qualify one to be a citizen: In fact,-Germany had more than one million Turkish permanent residents-But, they were not citizens because of complex procedures andrequirements: Nevertheless because of Germany’s terrible heritage ofanti-Semitism, the German government was reluctantto bar foreigners after 1990: This is a Germany’s immigration dilemma2.
24Germany’s Immigration Dilemma The fall of the Berlin Wall: This opening has led to a westward surge of peoples for better joband economic opportunities: Almost half of these people went to Germany because ofstrongest economyThe Balkan Refugees: When the Soviet orbit collapsed, the ethnic and religious conflictsresumed in Yugoslavia: The people who could escape fled to northern and westernEurope to ask for asylum: They aimed for Germany because its Grundgesetz (Article 16.2 :Persons persecuted for political reasons enjoy the right of asylum): Originally this article was designed for the people in East Germany2.
25Germany’s Immigration Dilemma The “Aussensiedler (outside settlers)”: It means residents of other countries who could prove theirGerman heritage: They could claim the constitutional right to German citizenshipand residenceThe European Scope of Migration: There were a enormous number of migrants who entered fromeastern Europe to western Europe between 1980 and 1993: The EU also had agreed upon policies to allow the free movementof EU member citizens among the member states: But, The EU had not fully dealt with the problem of migration fromoutside the union: Many of the migrants coming for economic reasons wereclaiming political asylum in order to get favorable treatment: So, the western European countries tried to curb migration2.
26Germany’s Immigration Dilemma How Could Germany Handle the Immense New Population Problem?: Before 1990, Germany had a substantial resident foreignpopulation(Contract workers and asylum seekers): They were relatively stable and economically helpful: But, the unification changed the social and economiccircumstance: Germany’ first concern was to integrate the 17 mil East Germansinto the West Germen society and economy: The increased competition from immigrants for housing and forjob and the welfare payments raised understandable concernand resentment: So, it became necessary for Germany to reconsider some issues2.
27Germany’s Immigration Dilemma The Turks : Foreign residents without Citizenship: As the manufacturing industry in Western Germany in the 1950s,they opted to recruit “Gastarbeiter(Guest workers)” mainly fromTuekey, Greece, and Yogoslavia: Some of the them that extended their contract were allowed tobring their family to join them: The greatest number came from Turkey(Approximately 1.7 mil): As a result, permanent communities of Turkish workers developed: But, they raised their children without assimilating and without thebenefit of German citizenship: After all, they were not ethnic Germans.2.
28Germany’s Immigration Dilemma The New Wave of Foreigners: Not only was Germany receiving more immigrants than the rest ofwestern Europe, and receiving them at a faster rate, it also wasquickly becoming the most culturally diverse state in the region2.
29Germany’s Immigration Dilemma The Anti-Foreigner Backlash: Germany accepted more than 885,000 asylums between 1989and 1992: The German response to this surge of humanity occurred on twolevels(from the population and from the government): But, some of the first reactions were violent ones: Some eastern Germans resented the fund for immigrants insteadof being used to invest in new enterprise in the eastern region: So, the number of attacks against foreigners increased rapidly2.
30Germany’s Immigration Dilemma Resolving the Refugee Crisis: The initial proposal of German government was to ban fourextremist political groups: Also, many local public and private groups initiated campaigns toreduce tensions: The government’s next proposal was to amend the“Grundgesetz(Constitution )” to remove the unrestricted right ofasylum (Those politically persecuted enjoy the right to asylum): The German chancellor continued to insist that Germany was notan immigration country, but his government did agreed to acompromise: Through the new guidelines for asylum and the bilateral treatieswith eastern European countries for return of its citizens, theyresolved the Refugee Crisis2.
31Germany’s Immigration Dilemma Immigration Benefit for the Turks and Other Long-Term Foreign Residents: Responding to political pressure and criticism, the Germangovernment pushed a bill through the Legislature in 1990 thatauthorized naturalization for German-born children of residentaliens: This bill also resolved some oh the outstanding issues of residenceand the right to work: It was the first step away from Germany’s traditional“volkish(ethnic)” definition of a German citizen2.
32Aggressive Nationalism and Immigration in Germany Background: Since 1990, Germany has captured international attention fornegative reason : the wave of aggressive nationalism: For example-A home of 200 asylum-seekers from Vietnam and Mozambique cameunder attack for 5 nights in the Saxon city of Hoyerswerda in Sep. 1991-Another five-day assault took place in Lichtenhagen in August 1992-Arsonists targeted two buildings in Moelln inhabited by long-establishedTurkish families in November 1992: In 1990, nearly 1,500 violent criminal offenses by right-wingextremists were registered in Germany: At the national level, the German government launched publicrelations efforts to correct the negative international impressionsby the upsurge in violence: This state’s resolute countermeasures reduced right-wing extremistactions: But, aggressive nationalism remains a troubling feature ofcontemporary German life2.
33Aggressive Nationalism and Immigration in Germany Level of Aggressive Nationalism: There are three levels to this extremism-The perpetrators (radical organization vs extremist organization)-The surrounding milieu-The general discourse on national identity currently taking place inGermany: These three levels constitute the world that makes aggressivenationalism: Since the unification of Germany, the new unified state wasexperiencing an epoch-making historical change: The current German debate was a discussion of historical burdensand country’s task: This debate are some unfavorable representations of Germannationalism : Inward-looking, intolerant, xenophobic2.
34Aggressive Nationalism and Immigration in Germany Immigration Pressure: The question arises whether a causal relationship exists betweenimmigration pressures and aggressive nationalism: Some European countries actually have a long-term need forimmigration: Immigration might be a pressure in the short-term but a boon froma long-term perspective: Currently migrants are not overwhelming western Europe: Therefore, it is difficult to connect rising xenophobia withincreasing immigration pressures: Since the 1993 decision restricting asylum access to the Germanterritories, the number of immigrants has decidedly decreased: But, problems with aggressive nationalism have persisted2.
35Aggressive Nationalism and Immigration in Germany Immigration and Xenophobia: The sources of animosity toward foreigners and immigrants lie inthe internal social problems that existed prior to the presence offoreigners and irrespective of transnational migration process: “Two-third society”-Two-thirds profit from the modernization and the welfare state-The remaining third is left behind-The aggression directed at foreigners may readily originate in theresentments of those endangered by marginalization themselves: Anxieties are generated by confusion over national identity: Throughout German history, exaggerations of nationalidentification have alternated with feelings of national deficiency,anxiety, and bad conscience: The burdens of the past and present have resulted in a particularconfusion over national identity2.
36Aggressive Nationalism and Immigration in Germany Political Alternative: To eradicate the social roots of aggressiveness against foreignersand its accompanying nationalist ideology, a comprehensivepolicy must be implemented: Reformers must acknowledge that violence might be directedagainst groups other than the visible foreigner and new immigrantnon-citizens: A comprehensive policy of social integration needs to focus onboth the particular milieus of the perpetrators and the two-societyas a whole: Modern sense of citizenship and the concept of nationality in apluralistic civil society rests on the assumption that people want to livetogether under a common government and common law regardlessof race, descent, language, gender, social class, religion, or politicalviews: Keeping immigrants out of Germany and refusing foreign residentscitizenship will do nothing to reduce aggressive German nationalism2.
37Nationalism in Western and Eastern Europe Compared Definition of Nationalism: Nationalisms of Eastern and Western Europe cannot bemeaningfully compared: Because the geographical divide between the eastern andwestern parts of the continent dose not correspond to thecivilization difference denoted by the concept East and West: Only the type of nationalism is different: The type of nationalism provides the framework for a society’sculture broadly defined and thus is the basis for placing it withinone or another “civilization”2.
38Nationalism in Western and Eastern Europe Compared Development of Nationalism: For reasons of historical accident, nationalism is an originallyWestern phenomenon(from England): The sovereignty of the nation was derived from the assumedsovereignties of each members in the national collectivity: Type of nationalism-Individualistic and civic nationalism(England and US)-Collectivistic and civic nationalism(France)-Anti-Western type of nationalism(Russia and Germany)2.
39Nationalism in Western and Eastern Europe Compared Individualistic type: It is likely to develop if during its formative period nationalismappeals to and serves the interests of wide sectors of thepopulation and new, open, upwardly mobile influential groupsCollectivistic type: It is to be expected if originally the social basis of nationalism islimited: if nationalism is adopted by and serves the interests of a narrowtraditional elite intent on preserving its status: Or a new group trying to attain status within the traditional socialframework which then transmits it to the masses by indoctrination2.
40Nationalism in Western and Eastern Europe Compared Anti-Western type of Nationalism: It developed first in Russia and very soon after that in Germany: This type became the most common type of nationalism, todaycharacteristic of all East European nations and some WestEuropean nations as well: This type combines the collectivistic definition of the nation withethnic criteria of nationality: Ethnic nationalism sees nationality as determined genetically,entirely independent of the individual volition, and thus inherent: In consequence, ethnic nationalisms developed as variants of anexplicitly anti-Western ideology2.
41Nationalism in Western and Eastern Europe Compared Conclusion: It is possible to distinguish between Western, less Western, andAnti-Western nationalism in Europe and elsewhere: The type of nationalism characteristic of a given society allowsone to locate it on the symbolic map ad we have charted it: and define it as a part of the West or of the East, and of Westernor Eastern Europe: East European nations will exchange their ethnic nationalisms fornationalisms characteristic of some West European nations, forexample the individualistic and civic nationalism of the England,or the collectivistic but civic nationalism of the French2.
42Conclusion European integration has a long history Migration policies have also been changedImmigration is now at the center of European politics, and presents the EU and its member statesEuropean governments have to prepare themselves for the next wave of immigrationBy the EU had agreed to a ‘reception directive’ harmonizingpolicy towards asylum-seekers, a ‘qualification directive’ and‘asylum proceedings directive’(creating common standards on recognizing refugees and forgranting them social rights)