Transatlantic convergence? The archaeology of immigrant integration in Canada and Europe
| DOI | 10.1177/0020702013518177 |
| Date | 01 March 2014 |
| Published date | 01 March 2014 |
| Author | Keith Banting |
| Subject Matter | Scholarly Essays |
Scholarly Essay
International Journal
2014, Vol. 69(1) 66–84
! The Author(s) 2014
Transatlantic
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
convergence?
DOI: 10.1177/0020702013518177
ijx.sagepub.com
The archaeology
of immigrant integration
in Canada and Europe
Keith Banting
Queen’s University, Kingston, ON, Canada
Abstract
At first glance, Canada and Europe seem to be diverging dramatically in their approach
to immigrant integration. While support for a multicultural approach seems to remain
strong in Canada, a potent backlash pervades European debates. This paper argues that
beneath the image of transatlantic divergence, there are important elements of conver-
gence. First, the retreat from multiculturalism in Europe is more complete at the level of
discourse than policy. With a few notable exceptions, multicultural policies have
remained stable or even grown stronger since 2000. In many countries, new integration
programs are being layered over multicultural initiatives introduced in earlier decades.
Second, many of the new integration policies celebrated as evidence of a U-turn away
from multiculturalism resemble programs that have long been part of immigrant inte-
gration in Canada. As a result, transatlantic convergence is indeed part of the contem-
porary story. However, there are also limits to this convergence. While some European
countries are opting for liberal, voluntary approaches to integration, which can be
combined with a multicultural approach to diversity, others are adopting more obliga-
tory, illiberal versions of civic integration that seem inconsistent with the support for
diversity central to a multicultural approach.
Keywords
Immigration, multiculturalism, integration, convergence, Canada, Europe
At first glance, Canada and Europe seem to be diverging dramatically in their
approach to immigrant integration. While Canada has not been immune to the
rising global anxieties about immigration, support for a multicultural approach to
integration seems relatively high, and none of the major national political parties
Corresponding author:
Keith Banting, School of Policy Studies, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON, K7L 3N6, Canada.
Email: bantingk@queensu.ca
Banting
67
is proposing to abolish or retreat from it. In Europe, in contrast, we are witnessing
a pervasive backlash against multiculturalism. The widespread perception is that
multiculturalism has failed—‘‘utterly failed’’ according to Chancellor Merkel—and
that it is time for a sharp change in direction.1
Canadians find the European reaction surprising. The first surprise is triggered
by the description of the multicultural approach being rejected. Multiculturalism,
we are told, is ‘‘the idea that immigrants can recreate their culture’’ in their new
home.2 Germans worry that multiculturalism means Parallelgesellschaften, or par-
allel societies; and the British prime minister tells us, ‘‘[u]nder the doctrine of state
multiculturalism, we have encouraged different cultures to live separate lives, apart
from each other and apart from the mainstream.’’3 Trevor Phillips puts it more
pithily: under the baleful influence of multiculturalism, Britain is ‘‘sleep walking to
segregation.’’4 This sounds strange to Canadian ears. Although Canadians are
much more supportive of immigration than their European counterparts, they
are equally insistent that immigrants adapt to their new home.5
The second surprise is prompted by the social outcomes that are alleged to flow
from multiculturalism. The policy is blamed for the residential ghettoization and
social isolation of immigrants; poor economic integration of immigrants; poor edu-
cational outcomes for their children; high dependence on welfare; the perpetuation of
illiberal practices among immigrant groups, often involving restricting the rights and
liberties of girls and women; political radicalism, especially among Muslim youth; and
so on. More transatlantic puzzlement here. Canada embraces a multicultural model,
but has not faced such negative outcomes, at least not to a pronounced degree.
The third, and perhaps biggest, surprise concerns the new policies that
are advocated in Europe to replace the failed multicultural approach to
diversity. This alternative strategy, commonly referred to as ‘‘civic integration,’’
is normally presented by its European proponents as based on sharply differ-
ent premises: the active integration of immigrants into the economic, social,
and political mainstream; a ‘‘muscular’’ defence of liberal democratic principles,
to borrow the words of the British prime minister; insistence that newcomers
acquire the language of the host country and learn about its history,
norms, and institutions; and the introduction of written citizenship tests and
1.
Matthew Weaver, ‘‘Angela Merkel: German multiculturalism has ‘utterly failed’,’’ The Guardian, 17
October
2010,
at
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/oct/17/angela-merkel-german-
multiculturalism-failed (accessed 8 January 2014).
2.
‘‘Multikulturell? Wir?’’ The Economist, 13 November 2010, 59.
3.
David Cameron, ‘‘Speech to the Munich Security Conference,’’ 5 February 2011. http://
www.number10.gov.uk (accessed 25 February 2011).
4.
Trevor Phillips, ‘‘After 7/7: Sleepwalking to segregation’’ (London: Commission for Racial
Equality, 2005) at http://www.cre.gov.uk (accessed 7 November 2013); see also Home Office,
Community Cohesion: A Report of the Independent Review Team (Cantle Report) (London: Home
Office, 2001).
5.
For example, in a 2003 survey, fully 71 per cent of Canadians responded that immigrants should
adapt to Canadian customs: Keith Banting, ‘‘Is there a progressive’s dilemma in Canada?
Immigration, multiculturalism and the welfare state,’’ Canadian Journal of Political Science 43,
no. 4 (2010): 797–820, Table 1, 804.
68
International Journal 69(1)
loyalty oaths.6 Implicitly if not explicitly, Europeans present civic integration as if
it is incompatible at some deep level with a multicultural approach. But Canadian
confusion is now complete. All these practices have been elements of the Canadian
approach to immigrant integration for a very long time.
Clearly, closer inspection is required. Beneath the image of a widening gap, we
can discern important elements of convergence between Europe and Canada. There
are two reasons. First, the retreat from multiculturalism in Europe is more com-
plete at the level of discourse than policy. At the level of multicultural policies, the
story is one of stability, even growth, as much as retrenchment. In most European
countries, the current emphasis on civic integration is being layered over multicul-
tural initiatives introduced in earlier decades. Second, many of the new policies
celebrated as evidence of a U-turn away from multiculturalism resemble programs
that have long been part of immigrant integration in Canada. As a result, trans-
atlantic convergence is part of the contemporary story.
Convergence is not the entire story, however. There is considerable variation
across Europe in the programs being introduced in the name of civic integration.
Some countries are opting for liberal and voluntary approaches, which can clearly
be combined with a multicultural approach to diversity. However, there are limits
to the compatibility of multiculturalism policies and civic integration. Some
European countries are embracing more obligatory, even illiberal, versions of
civic integration, backed by serious penalties for non-compliance.7 This model of
civic integration seems, at some deeper level, to be inconsistent with the support for
diversity at the heart of the multicultural approach.
The larger conclusion is that multiculturalism and civic integration are not
inherently incompatible approaches to diversity. Indeed, the Canadian approach
is best described as ‘‘multicultural integration,’’ and some European countries seem
to be adopting variants of this approach. But much depends on the concrete forms
of policy, and as programs move toward the more illiberal versions of civic inte-
gration, the incompatibility grows.
The first section of this paper sets out the theoretical framework that guides the
analysis of policy change in Canada and Europe. The second looks at Canadian
experience, while the third shifts the focus to Europe. The final section pulls the
threads of the story together.
Theoretical framework
As Freeman reminds us, ‘‘No state possesses a truly coherent incorporation
regime . . . Rather one finds sub-system frameworks that are weakly, if at all,
6.
Council of the European Union, Immigrant Integration Policy in the European Union, 14615/04
(Brussels, Belgium: Council of the European Union, 2004); Christian Joppke, ‘‘Immigration and
civic integration in Western Europe,’’ in Keith Banting, Thomas Courchene, and Leslie Seidle, eds,
Belonging? Diversity, Recognition and Shared Citizenship in Canada (Montreal: Institute for
Research on Public Policy, 2007).
7.
Joppke, ‘‘Immigration and Civic Integration’’; Christian Joppke, Citizenship and Immigration
(London: Polity Press, 2010).
Banting
69
co-ordinated.’’ Moreover, ‘‘immigrants are mostly managed via institutions created
for other purposes.’’8 From this perspective, the full incorporation regime encom-
passes a wide range of programs, including immigration rules governing admission
and residency, settlement programs, diversity policies, anti-discrimination provi-
sions, labour market regulations, the education and health care systems, and regu-
lations governing naturalization. This paper focuses on...
To continue reading
Request your trial