Whilst until the late 1980s most migration issues developed in a parallel manner but with national specifics, important differences showed up during the 1990s and at the beginning of this decade. Since the middle of the 1990s, there has been an obvious change in policy towards migrants and foreigners in the Netherlands, and those changes have been more or less “exported” to our neighbouring countries and even to the level of the EU. Integration into society with the maintenance of the immigrant’s own culture has been replaced by integration into the Dutch society after passing an integration examination. The focus of this article is to investigate those changes and to compare the implementation of those policies in the Netherlands/Limburg and Germany/NRW, where the official understanding of not being an immigration country was dominant until the end of the 1990s, and where integration has only recently become an important political issue. Both countries are now facing similar challenges for better integration into the society, especially into the educational system. Firstly, the autors describe migration definitions, types, the numbers of migrants and the backgrounds of migrant policies in Germany and the Netherlands up until the middle of the 1990s. Secondly they discuss the integration policies thereafter: the pathway to a new policy and the Action Plan Integration in Germany, and the central ideas of the Civic Integration of Newcomers Act (WIN) in the Netherlands. Integration policy in the Netherlands is highly centralised with little differentiation on the local governmental level when compared to South Limburg. Thirdly, the autors investigate the cross-border cooperation between professional organisations and educational institutions in the Euregio Meuse-Rhine, and the involvement of social work institutions and social workers in their process of integration into the local society and the exchange of each others’ experiences (the ECSW and RECES projects).
Scientific research from within and beyond academia continues to provide the justification and the knowledge for policy developments directed toward migration and integration governance. A proliferation of scholarship aims to study, pilot, and investigate the ‘best practices’ for facilitating integration, which is then taken up in advice to policy makers. Many authors have written about this science-policy nexus (Boswell 2009; Penninx, Garcés-Mascareñas, and Scholten 2005; Scholten et al. 2015; Verbeek, Entzinger, and Scholten 2015) These works have also engaged in critical reflection, problematizing this nexus and demonstrating how funding structures draw researchers not only into addressing short-term policy goals, but also into reproducing some of the essentialist worldviews that come with methodological nationalism (Wimmer and Glick Schiller 2002) and the ‘national order of things’ (Malkki 1995). Yet, the colonial legacies and dis/continuities of these logics in integrationism have not received much attention so far.The paper takes a critical lens on the implications of the science-policy complicity in reproducing colonial logics of ‘cultural distance’, based on perspectives and empirical research from different national (Netherlands and Switzerland) and supra-national (EU) contexts. We analyse texts which shape the civic integration programme in the Netherlands, the genealogy of the integration requirement to respect the values of the constitution in Switzerland, and the EU framework on migrant integration. This combined analysis brings forth the role scientists and knowledge producers play in (re)producing the colonial logics within integrationism, and their contributions to the regime of truth within which integration discourse operates. Throughout this article, we draw on examples from these different contexts to display that integration and its migranticized (Dahinden 2016) subjects are constructed through practices deemed as scientific or objective expertise, building on important work by Schinkel (2018) on integration research as “neocolonial knowledge production” and Favell’s (2022) critical reflections on integration indicator frameworks. As we demonstrate, the “idea of integration as an issue of cultural distance is rendered imaginable in and through colonial legacies and scientific practices from which policy draws legitimacy. We show how cultural distance is produced in the scientification of migrants’ assimilability in a ‘Western work ethic’, in measurement of migrants’ adherence to liberal values, and through constructions of integration drawing on social imaginaries of national and European identity. Importantly, we argue that by presenting this cultural distance as a product of objective, scientific processes of empirical observation, the notion of cultural distance is normalised and depoliticized, which ultimately legitimizes integrationism as a mode of governance.The present study builds on important contributions (by Schinkel 2017; Favell 2022; Korteweg 2017; Bonjour and Duyvendak 2017, and others) in attempting to destabilize the normalization of integrationism as the widely accepted mode of governance of ‘immigrant’ or ‘ethnic’ populations and their inherent and problematic ‘distance’. The content and structure of this summer school in post-colonial Amsterdam would allow us to continue our critical reflexive discussions to better understand the colonial logics at play and how they operate in multiple contexts and at multiple levels of governance, in and beyond integration
LINK
How societies respond to the challenges of human migration is one of the most morally defining and socioeconomically consequential policy decisions of our time. As anti-immigrant parties across the Global North seek to capitalize on public concerns about immigrant inclusion and border control, immigration has turned into a deepening social and political cleavage. Meanwhile, the greatest immigration challenges are faced in the Global South. The vast majority of refugees who are forcibly displaced by war, political violence, poverty and environmental disasters seek refuge in neighbouring regions where many states lack the capacity to adequately support them. Given these challenges it is imperative for occupational therapists and scientists to work collaboratively to support equitable occupational possibilities for immigrants, refugees and internally displaced persons.
MULTIFILE
The projectThe overarching goal of DIGNITY, DIGital traNsport In and for socieTY, is to foster a sustainable, integrated and user-friendly digital travel eco-system that improves accessibility and social inclusion, along with the travel experience and daily life of all citizens. The project delves into the digital transport eco-system to grasp the full range of factors that might lead to disparities in the uptake of digitalised mobility solutions by different user groups in Europe. Analysing the digital transition from both a user and provider’s perspective, DIGNITY looks at the challenges brought about by digitalisation, to then design, test and validate the DIGNITY approach, a novel concept that seeks to become the ‘ABCs for a digital inclusive travel system’. The approach combines proven inclusive design methodologies with the principles of foresight analysis to examine how a structured involvement of all actors – local institutions, market players, interest groups and end users – can help bridge the digital gap by co-creating more inclusive mobility solutions and by formulating user-centred policy frameworks.The objectivesThe idea is to support public and private mobility providers in conceiving mainstream digital products or services that are accessible to and usable by as many people as possible, regardless of their income, social situation or age; and to help policy makers formulate long-term strategies that promote innovation in transport while responding to global social, demographic and economic changes, including the challenges of poverty and migration.The missionBy focusing on and involving end-users throughout the process of designing policies, products, or services, it is possible to reduce social exclusion while boosting new business models and social innovation. The end result that DIGNITY is aiming for is an innovative decision support tool that can help local and regional decision-makers formulate digitally inclusive policies and strategies, and digital providers design more inclusive products and services.The approachThe DIGNITY approach combines analysis with concrete actions to make digital mobility services inclusive over the long term. The approach connects users’ needs and requirements with the provision of mobility services, and at the same time connects those services to the institutional framework. It is a multi-phase process that first seeks to understand and bridge the digital gap, and then to test, evaluate and fine-tune the approach, so that it can be applied in other contexts even after the project’s end.Partners: ISINNOVA (Italy), Mobiel 21 (Belgium), Universitat Politechnica deCatalunya Spain), IZT (Germany), University of Cambridge (UK), Factualconsulting (Spain), Barcelona Regional Agencia (Spain), City of Tilburg(Netherlands), Nextbike (Germany), City of Ancona (Italy), MyCicero (Italy),Conerobus (Italy), Vlaams Gewest (Belgium)
How can European migration, between countries and within countries between regions, contribute to the development of vulnerable regions in Europe? This is the central question of project Premium_EU (Policy REcommendations to Maximise the beneficial Impact of Unexplored Mobilities in and beyond the European Union), which is financed by Horizon Europe.The key goal of Premium_EU is the development of a Regional Policy Dashboard for national and regional policy makers to help them in the formulation of new policies aimed at the potential of migration to enhance the development of vulnerable regions. The Dashboard combines all available knowledge of three domains in three modules: the Mobility Module, the Regional Development Effects Module, and the Policy Module.The Mobility Module includes both past trends and projections and scenarios, in addition to new mobility estimates based on data from social media usage, such as LinkedIn and Facebook. The module also includes qualitative information from case studies on specific types of mobility groups, such as Polish seasonal workers, or Turkish migrants to EU countries. These trends, projections and case studies will be summarized in a regional typology on the basis of the mobility profile of the region.In the Regional Development Effects Module all available data on regional development is summarized in a regional development typology, where regional development is interpreted much broader than economic development. Using causal models the role of regional mobility in regional development will be established.In the Policy Module all possible forms of regional policies will be collected and linked to the mobility- and regional development characteristics of the region.The Dashboard integrates these modules so that a policy maker, on the basis of the unique mobility and regional development profile of his or her region is able to make an evidence based choice out of a relevant set of policy options. Users of the Dashboard will also be able to add their experiences to the Dashboard, so that other users can benefit from their knowledge.
