Search

The recent trend towards selective immigration policies is based on the racialization of certain categories of migrants into irretrievably unassimilable Others. In Europe, this trend has materialized largely through the application of integration requirements to the immigration of foreigners, the so-called "civic integration turn". Based on an analysis of parliamentary debates about civic integration policies in the Netherlands, this paper asks which migrants are considered likely or unlikely to integrate based on which presumed characteristics. We find that Dutch civic integration policies aim at barring "migrants with poor prospects". In sharp contrast with a long history of Dutch social policies, politicians deny state responsibility for migrants' emancipation based on a discursive racialization of these migrants as unassimilable. While class has hitherto been largely ignored in the literature on migration and the politics of belonging, we show that class, intersecting with culture and gender, is key in this process of racialization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper studies to what extent participating in days for national commemoration and celebration is associated with feelings of national belonging, and to what extent this is comparable across generations and ethnic groups. Utilizing data from a national survey (N = 4,505), three major national days in the Netherlands are examined. We find that whereas participation in Queen's Day is associated with national belonging for all generations, for Remembrance Day this holds only for the generation born between 1945 and 1955, and for Liberation Day for the generations born after 1955. Moreover, for citizens with a non-Western origin, participating in national days is associated with national belonging more strongly than for citizens with a native Dutch or other Western background. These findings highlight the importance of paying attention to potential group differences in the association between participation in national days and feelings of national belonging. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Western European national policies increasingly portray diversity as negative and migrants as ‘others’ who do not belong to the national community. This article examines how local governments articulate alternative discourses of belonging based on residents' shared membership in the civic life of the city. In a Dutch case study, the ways in which local policymakers diverge from exclusionary national narratives are examined. It is argued that discourses about urban citizenship offer opportunities for the inclusion of migrants by drawing new boundaries between ‘good’ citizens and those who are unwilling to participate. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Super-diversity has become the conceptual touchstone for a large body of research on immigration in European societies. Evolving from the ideas sketched by Steven Vertovec in his famous 2007 essay, the concept as deployed in research has become a successor to multiculturalism. The super-diversity lens has trained attention on horizontal processes of “living together” in very diverse settings, like some urban neighbourhoods where no group holds the majority status. However, we argue here that for a fuller understanding of integration, we need the vertical dimension of social power. This dimension is manifest through the mainstream, which permeates many institutions (including local ones such as schools) and becomes visible in the cultural adjustments made by members of immigrant-origin minorities, particularly among those who aspire to social mobility. The power axis represented by the mainstream is not strictly dependent on the demographic distribution of ethnic groups, given that white natives remain very powerful even when they are a numerical minority. At the same time, the character of the mainstream may be altered to some extent by the entry of individuals with non-white minority origins. To illustrate these ideas, we offer the examples of the “culturalization of citizenship” in the Netherlands and the social locations of young people of mixed background in the US. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Diasporas have played important roles in democratization in their homelands. But how does diaspora mobilization occur when the country of settlement has a small and isolated ethnic community, the host and homeland governments have weak relations, and the conflict is invisible in the geographies of power? Using case study research, I analyse how solidarity groups in the Netherlands facilitated the emergence and growth of diaspora mobilization for democracy in the Philippines during the dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos. My findings show that in cases where exiles and migrants lack pre-existing economic, political and social ties in the host society, solidarity groups can affect the political opportunity structure in the host country, permitting the promotion of certain claims and demands in the public sphere. Furthermore, diaspora mobilization can develop within the formal organizations or associational networks of solidarity groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recently in numerous European countries of immigration, there has been a widespread 'moral panic' about immigrants and ethnic diversity. In The Netherlands, a backlash has occurred in policy and in public discourse, with migrants being blamed for not meeting their responsibility to integrate and for practising 'backward religions'. Why is it that a self-defined 'liberal' and 'tolerant' society demands conformity, compulsion and introduces seemingly undemocratic sanctions towards immigrants in a move towards assimilationism? These issues are analysed by providing an overview of modes of incorporation of immigrants in the Netherlands and it presents evidence on the socio-economic situation of immigrants. The article argues that patterns of disadvantage cannot be explained solely by the low human capital attributes of the original immigrants. In spite of multiculturalism, the causes have to be sought in pervasive institutional discrimination and the persistence of a culture of racism. The study argues that a shift to assimilation is more likely to create further societal divisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]