Europeanisation, National Identities and Migration ... - europeanization

Integrating immigrants and minorities 85
conceptual and geo-political widening of the migration issue. By this is meant the
ways in which new forms of migration and new forms of state response have
developed in post-Cold War Europe to international migration in its various forms,
with effects on central, eastern and southern European countries. There have been
consistent attempts to restrict access at the EU’s external frontiers to those forms of
migration defined as unwanted. People who fall into the category of ‘unwanted
migrant’ face an increasingly frosty reception in EU member states. They are more
likely to be viewed as a threatening presence and as potential abusers of the welfare
state. This relationship between migrants and the welfare state plays a key role in
the definition of some forms of migration as a threat and others as an opportunity
(usually in economic terms). While there is no alternative in view to the national
welfare state, the development of EU cooperation on migration (free movement as
well as aspects of immigration and asylum) is linked to the national welfare states of
the member countries: the defence of these welfare states and their re-orientation.
This tension appears to have been heightened by the opening to new economic
migration in some European countries coupled with renewed attempts to keep out
those migrants who fall into the ‘unwanted’ categories as defined by state policies.
Although there are of course differences in the organisation of these welfare states,
it’s possible to argue that the relation between migration and welfare is of critical
importance. Changes in these welfare states have important effects on our understanding
of migration and migrants. Throughout the 1990s a sharper distinction was
between those deemed deserving and those deemed as undeserving of welfare
state benefits. As Michael Bommes has shown (2000) there has been in Germany a
downplaying of national semantics since the 1990s with an associated change in
emphasis from the German national community as based on ethnic belonging
towards a national community of GNP contributors. Guestworker immigrants have
been included within this national community of GNP contributors, albeit often
at a lower level, while newer migrants have been excluded. These new forms of
welfare state exclusion have also applied to Aussiedler, ethnic co-belongers, but placed
outside of the community of legitimate receivers of welfare state benefits since the
mid-1990s and treated more like other immigrants.
It could be seen as ironic that just as there seems reason to cast some doubt on
the continued ability of European states to affect the kinds of integration associated
with nation-state building there seems also to have been a reassertion of ‘national
models’. The UK, the Netherlands and Sweden were all once seen as examples
of multicultural responses to immigration (Geddes 2003). In these countries there
is now far less enthusiasm for identity-affirming multicultural policies and far more
enthusiasm for an approach that emphasises the responsibilities of individuals.
This does not just apply to migrants and their descendants. The social expectation
of integration applies far more generally; but the integration – or lack of it – of
migrants and their descendants is seen as a particular problem. Moreover, this
problem is one that is often defined in terms of race, culture or ethnicity.
In this type of context, if we understand a central political activity to be the pursuit
of shared meaning then debates about immigrant integration are a good example
of conflict over the concepts used in framing political judgements on social problems