Search

Relying on a quantitative survey (n= 1497) and semi-structured interviews (n= 30) conducted in the U.K., we explore British nationals’, Romanian and Turkish migrants’ attitudes of tolerance and the factors influencing them in the current socio-political context in the U.K. The quantitative data reveal the role of younger age, diverse networks, higher education, attachment to city/region and supranational identifications in more open attitudes towards diversity. The qualitative findings illustrate how diverse these three groups’ attitudes of tolerance can be and how they are affected by their position and status in the U.K. The British’ attitudes show their tolerance can reflect diverse forms of acceptance of ethnic and cultural differences but can also draw lines in terms of civic values opposing ‘those who contribute to society’ versus those who ‘live as parasites’. The Turks are in favour of diversity with the expectation of receiving more civic rights and facing less prejudice. The Romanians tend to have a more ambiguous relation to diversity given their position of stigmatised migrants in the U.K. Our analysis reveal how inclusive or exclusive people’s (sub- and supra-)national identities can be and how these frame their attitudes of tolerance. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

This article explores differences among EU and non-EU migrants in accommodating to the Danish flexicurity labour and welfare regime during times of economic crisis. We build our findings on a quantitative survey followed by semi-structured qualitative interviews conducted with EU and non-EU migrants who moved to Denmark during the recession period (2008–2013). We argue that the lack of multicultural policies triggers individualised strategies of accommodation rather than ethnic or national group base integration, favouring a more homogenous group of high-skilled and educated group of workers and students of postgraduate/higher education, whom we describe as a ‘flexicurity diversity group’. Through patterns of conviviality, individual socialisation is based here on common interests, needs and lifestyles and not on pre-defined ethnic and/or cultural traits. The transition from diversity to conviviality that is initiated by this group remains however incomplete in light of the unequal opportunities and the differentiated scheme of rights that apply to EU and non-EU immigrants. Danish flexicurity has thus not had the desired inclusive effects but discriminates in terms of facilitating easy access to the labour market for all, and ‘securing’ social benefits and offering rights and protection only to the privileged group of EU migrants. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]