The Anatomy of Civic Integration
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.2010.00825.x |
| Author | Dora Kostakopoulou |
| Published date | 01 November 2010 |
| Date | 01 November 2010 |
The Anatomy of Civic Integration
Dora Kostakopoulou
n
Recentlegislation on migration and citizensh ip in Europe and the EU framework on integration
require migrants to meet integration requirements in order to enter, reside, reunite with their
families and naturalise in the host country.Mandatory language course attendance and examina-
tion tests are viewed as means of enhancing integration,which is now framed as a‘twoway’pro-
cess or a contractual agreement between migrants and the host society. Despite the deployment of
the notion of a contract, integration is,i n reality, a one way process aimed at procuring confor-
mity, discipline and migration control. Civic integration rests on an arti¢cial homogenisation
and displays the same elements of paternalism and ethnocentricity that characterised past initia-
tives. The civic integration paradigm is a crucial feature of a renewed, albeit old-fashioned,
nationpolitics used by political elites to provide answers to a wide range of issues and to elicit
support for a controlling state in the ¢rst decade of the 21
st
century.
Whereas pluralism and respect for diversity were often cited themes in politics
and everyday life in the 1980s and most of the1990s, the rejuvenation of nations
and the maintenance of cohesive societies via integration programmes and tests
have become prominent policyobjectives inWestern Europe in the new millen-
nium.The multicultural paradigmwas ¢rst displaced in the Netherlands follow-
ing the entry into force of the Newcomer Integration Act 1998 which required
newcomers to attend language and ‘social orientation’ courses. Following the
Dutch initiative and New Labour’s Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act
2002, which tightened naturalisation requirements by introducing a test on‘su⁄-
cient knowledge about life in the United Kingdom’in addition to language pro-
¢ciency, the‘civic integration paradigm’ has taken root in Europe over the last six
years. All ‘old migration countries’,
1
with the exception of Belgium and France,
require applicantsfor naturalisationto take civic orientation testsand pre-existing
language requirements have been tightened and reinforced. Migrants are also
required to attend language and civic orientation courses and, in most cases, to
sit integration tests, in order to enter and/or obtain permanent residence in the
Netherlands, Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Luxembourg and the UK.
Non-attendance of integrationcourses a¡ects theiraccess to social bene¢tsi n Ger-
many, the Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, France and the
UK. More controversially, since 2006, integration requirements and tests have
‘migrated’ abroad, that is, to (non-European) states of origin, thereby serving as
switches for the family migration journey. At present, the Netherlands, France
n
School of Law, University of Manchester. I amgrateful to the participants of workshops and seminars
at Manchester University, Leeds University and Stockholm University for their observations and
questions. I wouldalso like to thank Bas Schotel, Rainer Baubock,William Lucyand Dagmar Schiek
for their comments on earlier versions of this paper.
1The term is borrowedfrom the IDEA project which is co-ordinated by ProfessorMarek Okolski,
VI European Commission FrameworkProgramme.
r2010The Author.The Modern Law Review r2010 The Modern Law ReviewLimited.
Published by BlackwellPublishing, 9600 Garsington Road,Oxford OX4 2DQ,UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA
(2010)73(6) 933^958
and Germany have conditioned family reuni¢cation on the successful completion
of integration programmes abroad. Denmark allows spouses to enter and to take
the test there, while the UK has announced its intentionto introduce pre-depar-
ture integration measures in the near future. If the applicants’ knowledgeprovesto
be de¢cient, they will be denied a visa or, according to French legislation, must
undergo additional training. Finally, in Austria, France, Denmark and Luxem-
bourg integration requirements are contained in integration contracts which
migrants have to sign in order to obtain a secure residence status.
2
In 2007 France
extended the application of the integration contract to migrants’ families (Contrat d’
accueil et d’integration pourla famille), therebyrequiri ng the attendance of a goodparent-
hood course by the parents and compulsory school attendance by the children.
3
Finally, certain integration tests are not con¢ ned to examining applicants’ knowl-
edge and understanding of the host society and its language and way of life, but seek
to unravel peoples’ attitudes, political beliefs and moral sensibilities. In this respect,
what people think about nudi sm, same sex partnerships, religious co nversion and so
on seems to be crucial in determini ng who is to be included and excluded.
4
The aim of thisarticle is neither to provide anoverview of these developments
nor to embark upon a comparative assessment of migration and naturalisation
laws inWestern European countries. Recent (and forthcoming) studies, antholo-
gies and country reports have done this successfully.
5
Scholars will also continue
to mapthe restrictivetrend in migration and naturalisation laws comprehensively
and with sophistication.
6
Instead, my aim is to zoom in and interrogate the con-
2In France it is called Contratd’accueilet d’integration;Loi relativea l’immigrationet a l’integration,No2006-
911of 24 Ju ly 20 06.
3Law 2007-1631.
4Compare, for instance, the Baden-Wurttemberg 2005 citizenshiptest which required naturalisation
o⁄cials to examine whether an applicant’s‘declaration of loyalty’to the Constitution re£ected his/her
actualbeliefs in matterssuchas same-sex relations,religion andso on.The test appliedonly to nationals
of memberstates of the Islamic League:Interior Ministryof Baden-Wurttenberg, Gesprachsleitfaden
fur die Einburgerungsbehorden (Az.:5 -1012.4/12,September 2005). For a discussion and critique see
C. Joppke,‘How Liberalare citizenship tests?’ (2010) at http://eudo-citizenship.eu/citizenship-forum/
255?start=10 (last visited 13 August 2010) and the debate it sparked among Ines Michalowski, Kees
Groenindijk, Ricky van Oers, Amanda Klekowski von Koppenfels, Joseph Carens, Dora Kostako-
poulou, Liav Orgad, Randall Hansen, Sergio Carrera, Elspeth Guild and SarahWallace Goodman.
See also D. Kochenov, ‘Mevrouwde Jong Gaat Eten: EU Citizenship, Naturalisations and Mythical
CulturalExceptionalismin EuropeToday’ paper presentedat the UACESConference on Communi-
catingEuropean Citizenship, Lancaster House,London, 22 March 2010.
5See C. Joppke, ‘Beyond National Models:Civic Integration Policies for Immigrants in Western
Europe’(2007) 30(1) Western European Politics 1;A. Etzioni,‘Citizenship Tests:AComparative Com-
munitarian Perspective’(2007) 78(3) The PoliticalQuarterly 353; E. Guild, K. Groenendijk and S.
Carrera (eds),IlliberalLiberalStates: Immigration, Citizenshipand Integrationin the EU (Ashgate: Hamp-
shire,20 09);A Blackledge,‘‘‘As a Country we Expect’’:The Further Exte nsion of LanguageTesting
Regimes in the United Kingdom’(2009) 6(1) LanguageAssessmentQuarterly 6; G. Hogan-Brun, C.
Mar-Molinero and P. Stevenson (eds), Discourses on Language and Integration: Critical Perspectives on
LanguageTesting Regimesin Europe (Amsterdam: JohnBenjamins, 2009); R. van Oers,E. Erboll and
D. Kostakopoulou (eds), A Rede¢nitionof Belonging? Language and IntegrationTests in Europe (Leiden:
Brill/Martinus Nijho¡, 2010).See also the debate on integration tests at http://eudo-citizenship.eu
(last visited 13 August 2010).
6See ‘Citizenship Tests in a Post-National Era’Special Issue (2008) 10(1) InternationalJournal on Multi-
cultural Societiesedited by S.Wright,a nd the Special Issue of theJournalof Ethnic and Migration Studies
edited by M.Vink and R.de Groot (2010,forthcoming).
The Anatomyof Civic Integration
934 r2010The Author.The Modern Law Review r2010 The Modern LawReview Limited.
(2010) 73(6) 933^958
To continue reading
Request your trial