Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

 European Integration  Citizenship (France & Germany)  Migration  Germany’s Immigration Dilemma  Aggressive Nationalism and Immigration in Germany.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: " European Integration  Citizenship (France & Germany)  Migration  Germany’s Immigration Dilemma  Aggressive Nationalism and Immigration in Germany."— Presentation transcript:

1

2  European Integration  Citizenship (France & Germany)  Migration  Germany’s Immigration Dilemma  Aggressive Nationalism and Immigration in Germany  Nationalism in Western and Eastern Europe Compared  Conclusion

3  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 of the int’l division of labor, and with the economic cycle : It was no longer a barrier, it could become a junction, a place of 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 power

4  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 Union and 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 is more and more the instability of ‘different Europes’, differentiated according to policing area

5  ‘Sieve’ Europe VS ‘Fortress’ Europe : : The critics of the Schengen Agreement quickly raised the question of the security deficit created by the abolition of internal frontiers the security deficit created by the abolition of internal frontiers : An artificial confrontation b/w sieve Europe and fortress Europe : An artificial confrontation b/w sieve Europe and fortress Europe  Sieve Europe : Those who found the content of the agreements insufficient : Paul Masson - ‘Each weakness, each act of clumsiness in implementing the agreements will lead, I am sure, to many French people contesting the idea of Europe itself which would become for them a Europe of insecurity and dubious activities.’ : Xavier de Villepin & Masson - ‘It is likely that the abolition of controls at internal frontiers will be interpreted as a signal to at the poverty stricken of the world..’

6  ‘Sieve’ Europe VS ‘Fortress’ Europe  Sieve Europe : Free movement must be abolished and control must be restored everywhere ‘by keeping the frontiers’ and argue in favor of tougher entry conditions : Law enforcement should be as strict as possible to deter new immigrants : Controls at external frontier must be seriously reinforced : The cooperation between frontier police forces is necessary to avoid the growth in crime and to support the policy of ‘controlling immigration’

7  ‘Sieve’ Europe VS ‘Fortress’ Europe  Fortress Europe: Fear of reinforced controls : Those who found them excessive : Humanitarian associations saw reinforced controls and new levels of 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 used occasionally by political parties who all want to give ‘proof of their firmness’, of their responsiveness to an alleged citizens’ ‘demand for security’

8  ‘Sieve’ Europe VS ‘Fortress’ Europe  Fortress Europe : The effect that the opening of internal frontiers modified democratic practices by strengthening controls at external frontiers, by reinforcing controls over foreign populations already in the European Union, by increasing identity checks to locate illegal immigrants and by toughening the conditions to obtain asylum

9  Practices at frontiers : Strong economic and human links exist between the Schengen countries : 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 enter the territory; it simply increases the number of illegal, expellable immigrants, but does not stop them getting in

10  The contemporary paradox : Immigration depends upon millions of decisions which cannot be totally regulated by the governments without closing the frontiers : Work, social rights, citizenship, nationality, and collective identities are no longer spheres which coincide with the physical boundaries of the State : The uncertainty quality of frontier controls should not lead to a quest 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 of national territories whether politician accept or not

11  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 Revolution 2. Sacred : Citizens must make sacrifices for the state : They must be prepared to die for it if need be : It derives from the French Revolution 3. Nation-membership : The political community should be simultaneously a cultural community, a community of language, mores, and character : It derives from the 19c national movements

12  An Ideal-typical model of membership 4. Democratic : Full membership should carry with it significant participation in the business of rule : Membership itself should be open : It indirectly from the French Revolution & directly from the democratic movements of 19c 5. Unique : Every person should belong to one and only one state : It has special responsibility and it can make special demands 6. Consequential : Membership should entail important privileges : Membership should be objectively valuable and valued

13  Admission to citizenship : 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 Canada attribute citizenship unconditionally to all person born in territory - The other: Germany and Switzerland have no special provisions (Birth & Residence) : Naturalization - One pole: It is a purely discretionary decision of the state The state doesn’t promote it (high fee & complex procedure) - The other: It adapted to mass immigration The state promotes it (low fee & simple procedure)

14  Admission to citizenship : Major differences in the extent to which Europe’s post war immigrants have been incorporated as citizens - The socio-economic perspective : Citizenship is of minor importance : What really matters is immigrants’ social, economic, and cultural marginalization, determined by their weak position in the labor market, 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

15  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 as expressive of nationhood : A more restrictive politics of citizenship : Citizenship is more accessible to immigrants in France than in Germany

16  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 of nationhood (in tension)  From nineteenth century : There are noticeable similarities in the social structure & political style : Nationalism

17  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 new migrants while hardening its attitude and policy towards old ones

18  Migration policy : 1990s & early years of the millennium - have been a defining period in the political history of immigration policy and politics : It includes a complex of informal and formal measures designed to govern 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 convention

19  Migration policy : European states responded to increased numbers with a series of national 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 carriers that bring foreign nationals without proper documentation or visas to state territory - Pre-inspection regimes: in foreign countries preventing unwanted arrivals are another example of ‘migration policy by remote control’

20  Migration policy : Europe shifted towards a pro-immigration stance in the 1990s e.g. Germany ‘Green Card’ visa program The UK ‘ Country of zero immigration’, ‘2002 white paper’ : Since 11 Sept affected by a renewed concern with terrorism & Islamic extremism - EU states have expanded powers of detention & deportation : In Some commentators are concerned that increased immigration will undermine social cohesion and the welfare state - It is debatable because there is no clear evidence that immigration undermines support for the welfare state

21  Migration at the EU level : The EU plays a key role in regulating the free movement of EU citizens within 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 in the first EU country they reach and in establishing a mechanism for returning asylum-seekers to this first country

22  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’ harmonizing policy towards asylum-seekers, a ‘qualification directive’ and ‘asylum proceedings directive’ : The EU and its member states have expanded cooperation in immigration control with sending, transit, and receiving countries

23  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 did not 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 and requirements : Nevertheless because of Germany’s terrible heritage of anti-Semitism, the German government was reluctant to bar foreigners after 1990 : This is a Germany’s immigration dilemma

24  The fall of the Berlin Wall : This opening has led to a westward surge of peoples for better job and economic opportunities : Almost half of these people went to Germany because of strongest economy  The Balkan Refugees : When the Soviet orbit collapsed, the ethnic and religious conflicts resumed in Yugoslavia : The people who could escape fled to northern and western Europe 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 Germany

25  The “Aussensiedler (outside settlers)” : It means residents of other countries who could prove their German heritage : They could claim the constitutional right to German citizenship and residence  The European Scope of Migration : There were a enormous number of migrants who entered from eastern Europe to western Europe between 1980 and 1993 : The EU also had agreed upon policies to allow the free movement of EU member citizens among the member states : But, The EU had not fully dealt with the problem of migration from outside the union : Many of the migrants coming for economic reasons were claiming political asylum in order to get favorable treatment : So, the western European countries tried to curb migration

26  How Could Germany Handle the Immense New Population Problem? : Before 1990, Germany had a substantial resident foreign population(Contract workers and asylum seekers) : They were relatively stable and economically helpful : But, the unification changed the social and economic circumstance : Germany’ first concern was to integrate the 17 mil East Germans into the West Germen society and economy : The increased competition from immigrants for housing and for job and the welfare payments raised understandable concern and resentment : So, it became necessary for Germany to reconsider some issues

27  The Turks : Foreign residents without Citizenship : As the manufacturing industry in Western Germany in the 1950s, they opted to recruit “ Gastarbeiter(Guest workers )” mainly from Tuekey, Greece, and Yogoslavia : Some of the them that extended their contract were allowed to bring 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 the benefit of German citizenship : After all, they were not ethnic Germans.

28  The New Wave of Foreigners : Not only was Germany receiving more immigrants than the rest of western Europe, and receiving them at a faster rate, it also was quickly becoming the most culturally diverse state in the region

29  The Anti-Foreigner Backlash : Germany accepted more than 885,000 asylums between 1989 and 1992 : The German response to this surge of humanity occurred on two levels (from the population and from the government) : But, some of the first reactions were violent ones : Some eastern Germans resented the fund for immigrants instead of being used to invest in new enterprise in the eastern region : So, the number of attacks against foreigners increased rapidly

30  Resolving the Refugee Crisis : The initial proposal of German government was to ban four extremist political groups : Also, many local public and private groups initiated campaigns to reduce tensions : The government’s next proposal was to amend the “Grundgesetz(Constitution )” to remove the unrestricted right of asylum ( Those politically persecuted enjoy the right to asylum ) : The German chancellor continued to insist that Germany was not an immigration country, but his government did agreed to a compromise : Through the new guidelines for asylum and the bilateral treaties with eastern European countries for return of its citizens, they resolved the Refugee Crisis

31  Immigration Benefit for the Turks and Other Long-Term Foreign Residents : Responding to political pressure and criticism, the German government pushed a bill through the Legislature in 1990 that authorized naturalization for German-born children of resident aliens : This bill also resolved some oh the outstanding issues of residence and the right to work : It was the first step away from Germany’s traditional “volkish(ethnic)” definition of a German citizen

32  Background : Since 1990, Germany has captured international attention for negative reason : the wave of aggressive nationalism : For example -A home of 200 asylum-seekers from Vietnam and Mozambique came under attack for 5 nights in the Saxon city of Hoyerswerda in Sep Another five-day assault took place in Lichtenhagen in August Arsonists targeted two buildings in Moelln inhabited by long-established Turkish families in November 1992 : In 1990, nearly 1,500 violent criminal offenses by right-wing extremists were registered in Germany : At the national level, the German government launched public relations efforts to correct the negative international impressions by the upsurge in violence : This state’s resolute countermeasures reduced right-wing extremist actions : But, aggressive nationalism remains a troubling feature of contemporary German life

33  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 in Germany : These three levels constitute the world that makes aggressive nationalism : Since the unification of Germany, the new unified state was experiencing an epoch-making historical change : The current German debate was a discussion of historical burdens and country’s task : This debate are some unfavorable representations of German nationalism : Inward-looking, intolerant, xenophobic

34  Immigration Pressure : The question arises whether a causal relationship exists between immigration pressures and aggressive nationalism : Some European countries actually have a long-term need for immigration : Immigration might be a pressure in the short-term but a boon from a long-term perspective : Currently migrants are not overwhelming western Europe : Therefore, it is difficult to connect rising xenophobia with increasing immigration pressures : Since the 1993 decision restricting asylum access to the German territories, the number of immigrants has decidedly decreased : But, problems with aggressive nationalism have persisted

35  Immigration and Xenophobia : The sources of animosity toward foreigners and immigrants lie in the internal social problems that existed prior to the presence of foreigners 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 the resentments of those endangered by marginalization themselves : Anxieties are generated by confusion over national identity : Throughout German history, exaggerations of national identification have alternated with feelings of national deficiency, anxiety, and bad conscience : The burdens of the past and present have resulted in a particular confusion over national identity

36  Political Alternative : To eradicate the social roots of aggressiveness against foreigners and its accompanying nationalist ideology, a comprehensive policy must be implemented : Reformers must acknowledge that violence might be directed against groups other than the visible foreigner and new immigrant non-citizens : A comprehensive policy of social integration needs to focus on both the particular milieus of the perpetrators and the two-society as a whole : Modern sense of citizenship and the concept of nationality in a pluralistic civil society rests on the assumption that people want to live together under a common government and common law regardless of race, descent, language, gender, social class, religion, or political views : Keeping immigrants out of Germany and refusing foreign residents citizenship will do nothing to reduce aggressive German nationalism

37  Definition of Nationalism : Nationalisms of Eastern and Western Europe cannot be meaningfully compared : Because the geographical divide between the eastern and western parts of the continent dose not correspond to the civilization 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’s culture broadly defined and thus is the basis for placing it within one or another “civilization”

38  Development of Nationalism : For reasons of historical accident, nationalism is an originally Western phenomenon(from England) : The sovereignty of the nation was derived from the assumed sovereignties 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)

39  Individualistic type : It is likely to develop if during its formative period nationalism appeals to and serves the interests of wide sectors of the population and new, open, upwardly mobile influential groups  Collectivistic type : It is to be expected if originally the social basis of nationalism is limited : if nationalism is adopted by and serves the interests of a narrow traditional elite intent on preserving its status : Or a new group trying to attain status within the traditional social framework which then transmits it to the masses by indoctrination

40  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, today characteristic of all East European nations and some West European nations as well : This type combines the collectivistic definition of the nation with ethnic 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 an explicitly anti-Western ideology

41  Conclusion : It is possible to distinguish between Western, less Western, and Anti-Western nationalism in Europe and elsewhere : The type of nationalism characteristic of a given society allows one 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 Western or Eastern Europe : East European nations will exchange their ethnic nationalisms for nationalisms characteristic of some West European nations, for example the individualistic and civic nationalism of the England, or the collectivistic but civic nationalism of the French

42  European integration has a long history  Migration policies have also been changed  Immigration is now at the center of European politics, and presents the EU and its member states  European governments have to prepare themselves for the next wave of immigration

43


Download ppt " European Integration  Citizenship (France & Germany)  Migration  Germany’s Immigration Dilemma  Aggressive Nationalism and Immigration in Germany."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google