Towards two-way integration: A comparative review of refugee integration strategies

Guest post by Scot Hunter, Professor Alison Phipps, Dr Dan Fisher and Savan Qadir. Scot Hunter is a doctoral researcher at the University of Stirling whose PhD assesses the impact of contemporary immigration patterns on the Muslim community in the UK. Professor Alison Phipps holds the UNESCO Chair in Refugee Integration through Languages and the Arts at the University of Glasgow where she is also Professor of Languages and Intercultural Studies. Dr Dan Fisher is a postdoctoral researcher with UNESCO-RILA at the University of Glasgow. As a political geographer, he is interested in the spatialities of border control and refugee integration. Savan Qadir is an affiliated researcher with UNESCO-RILA at the University of Glasgow. He is also Project Manager for Refugees for Justice at Citizens U.K and a member of the Young Academy Scotland at the Royal Society of Edinburgh.  This is the sixth post in the Border Criminologies themed series on 'UK Borderscapes’, organised by Dr Karen Latricia Hough and Dr Kahina Le Louvier.

In our chapter in UK Borderscapes, we delve into integration strategies for asylum seekers and refugees. Our conceptual starting point is that border control and the integration of refugees are two sides of the same coin. While the border is abstracted from the physical lines of the map, its temporalities are also fluid; the effects of the border leave long-lasting marks regardless of whether Leave to Remain has been granted. Moreover, depending on the approach taken by the receiving state, the means through which integration is imagined and performed can become an extension of the border. Similarly, though integration is largely viewed as a social good, it is also a concept that falls victim to ‘conceptual stretching,’ as discussed by e.g. Mulvey. There are concerns, for example, that governments may use the concept to sidestep addressing structural causes of social inequality, instead placing the burden on individual efforts to achieve integration outcomes. Furthermore, there is evidence from linguistics and discourse analysis that the term ‘integration’ can be used as a cover for ‘assimilation’ and thus indexes a discursive terrain which is far from settled and in flux.

We compare the policy approaches taken by five governments: England, Scotland, Finland, Malta and Berlin. It is worth noting that integration in Germany is devolved to the Bundesländer and differences in devolved and reserved matters has meant Scotland has developed its own refugee integration strategy which is distinct from England. By examining these diverse strategies, we wanted to gain insight into how integration is envisioned and implemented differently in policy terms. Through this comparative analysis, we sought to uncover lessons and best practices that could be gleaned different governmental approaches. We hope to not only inform but also inspire policymakers and organisations to work together in creating more inclusive and supportive environments. As researchers based in Scotland, we are keen on extracting lessons from different contexts that can inform Scottish refugee policy, especially during a time of increasing of anti-immigrant sentiment coming out of Westminster.

In this blog, we summarise the three main questions we focused on during our research. Each question plays a vital role in understanding the complexities of integration strategies and the implications for newcomers.

Who is included in each policy?

Scotland’s New Scots Strategy and Berlin’s Program for Integration both had initiatives tailored specifically for refugees and asylum seekers. We praise both policies for promoting integration ‘from day one’ – with Berlin’s strategy in particular highlighting the fact that many people seeking asylum eventually gain some form of Leave to Remain (and hence should be included in integration policies from the start).

This finding contrasted with the strategies observed in England, Finland and Malta, where all migrants were included without any (or limited) focus on people seeking asylum. In particular, the absence of direct intervention for asylum seekers in England carries significant implications for those without Leave to Remain. People seeking asylum in England therefore face more significant barriers accessing integration initiatives. For example, people seeking asylum in England are only able to access government-funded ESOL classes after waiting six months for a decision on their claim – after which they may only receive partial funding to cover 50% of the course.

How is integration defined?

Whilst Scotland, England and Finland include an explicit definition of integration, the remaining countries decided to outline their views on what successful strategy outcomes entailed. Through this, we observed that Scotland and Finland used language in their definitions to suggest the mutual responsibility of both newcomers and host population to foster integration – including the notion of positive change in both newcomers and host communities as a result of culture and knowledge sharing. Berlin was viewed as going above and beyond in stressing the role of receiving communities to ensure integration outcomes were met.

Much to our dismay, yet unsurprisingly, the UK Government ended up contradicting themselves in their definition; first claiming that ‘integration is a two-way street’ and then proceeding to say that ‘migrants should learn to speak and understand our language and values and seek opportunities to mix and become part of our communities’. Communities were understood as being valuable in assisting this process, yet there is no mention of host communities and culture(s) changing as a result. We determined this as assimilative and contradictory to the notion of integration as a two-way process. As stated above, this indexes the discursive struggle in play politically over the uses and conceptualisation of integration vs. assimilation. In short, although Scotland and England are both nations within the UK,  the marked policy differences between devolved and reserved adiministations means integration has been envionsed and implemented in contrasting ways. Put otherwise, it is possible for ‘integration’ to index ‘assimilation’ and to index a multidirectional intercultural encounter and experience even within the same language and national boundries.

Do policies individualise responsibility for integration?

The word ‘responsibility’ appeared more in England’s strategy than in the others. Considering the commitment to assimilative discourse in the English context discussed so far, it came as no shock that the UK government continually referred to the responsibility of migrants and communities in ensuring integration, with little mention of their own role (although this was set out in more detail in the Action Plan). Malta went even further in placing the obligation on newcomers to integrate, offering support to only those who were accepted into the ‘I Belong’ programme that required newcomers to participate in language classes and 100-hour courses on Maltese culture/history.

In contrast, ‘responsibility’ featured in New Scots but mostly when referring to a particular aspect had been devolved to the Scottish Government. In terms of Berlin and Finland, there was minimal mention of newcomers shouldering the responsibility for integration, instead their strategies focus on collective accountability. In fact, we round off our analysis by suggesting that Scotland’s strategy has much to learn from Berlin and Finland’s, which emphasise the involvement of multiple government departments in committing to integration efforts. Lessons can also be learned from Finland’s ‘person-focused’ approach that guarantees migrants personalised integration plans  – something which is advocated for in the next iteration of New Scots strategy, as discussed by Phipps, Aldegheri and Fisher.

So, what are the main take aways from our chapter that hold particular relevance in context of the UK’s current hostile environment? Foremost, we confirm that England’s integration policy is contradictive and restrictive. Moreover, the UK government’s understanding of integration is at odds with how it is understood in other contexts. Although Scotland’s New Scots strategy shines in comparison, we should be wary of overstating its success. The New Scots strategy still has a considerable distance to travel in order to achieve comprehensive and equitable integration outcomes as demonstrated by some of Finland and Berlin’s initiatives.  

That being said, it remains to be seen how Scotland’s New Scots strategy – which stands in direct opposition to the hostile intents of the UK government – will fare if and when the Illegal Migration Bill is passed and enacted. It is hard to envision an ‘integration from day one’ approach succeeding when most people seeking asylum are held in de facto detention and subject to removal orders.

Any comments about this post? Get in touch with us! Send us an email, or post a comment here or on Facebook. You can also tweet us.