Luncheon with Rita Süssmuth
November 8, 2005

Introduction

On November 8, the Migration Policy Institute hosted a roundtable luncheon to launch a new book, Managing Integration: the European Union’s Responsibilities towards Immigrants, published by MPI and the Bertelsmann Foundation.  The volume collects essays from experts who analyze experiences and lessons learned with regard to integration across the EU.  Beyond introducing the book, the roundtable luncheon aimed to discuss issues surrounding integration especially with regard to the latest developments in Europe, including the riots in France.

The luncheon was moderated by MPI’s president Demetri Papademetriou.  The speakers included keynote panelist, Dr. Rita Süssmuth, former President of the German bundestag, member of the Global Commission on International Migration, and the book’s co-editor; Annette Hauser, Director of the Brussels Office of the Bertelsmann Foundation; Gregory Maniatis, MPI’s European Fellow; and Michael Fix, MPI’s vice-president and director of studies.  The luncheon was attended by a wide range of transatlantic government officials and academics.

Presentation

Rita Süssmuth

Rita Süssmuth began by pointing out that it is impossible to deal with migration while excluding integration.  Süssmuth said the new book provides a wonderful opportunity to have broader European and transatlantic cooperation on the issue of migration and integration because it is complex and touches upon so many different academic fields.

Süssmuth continued by comparing the US and Canadian experience.  She pointed out that in the United States and Canada there is a conception that migrants and citizens need to learn to better live together and this requires changes on both sides.  She contrasted the US and Canadian experience with the European one where an ethnically homogenous conception of national identity is still prevalent.  She explained this European conception has delayed the discussion of integration and focused the discussion on how much immigration European societies can bear.  Süssmuth added that this is a result of the lack of clear conceptions of how to live with different cultures in Europe.

Süssmuth highlighted that it is possible to discuss immigration not only in terms of its costs and benefits but also in terms of enrichment and burdens.  She noted that immigration in Europe is usually discussed in terms of burdens and costs, but that this kind of rhetoric does not involve a discussion of human capital of which Europe has a lot that it does not employ.

Süssmuth then addressed what kinds of integration measures are necessary.  She explained that mainstream voices argue that only language education is important for integration.  Süssmuth, however, said that multilingual citizens are a big advantage in a globalized world, and pointed out that the model of language assimilation does not allow governments to profit from its citizens’ knowledge of different languages.  She noted that many claim children cannot live in complex multilingual environment; however, plentiful research points in the other direction; children can indeed thrive in complex language environments. Süssmuth debunked the notion that integration is not possible because people are not interested in integrating.  She said that this was empirically untrue, and immigrants are interested in integrating.  She noted that the most positive integration work has been done by NGOs and foundations and they are the organizations with the most experience.

Concluding with remarks about the ongoing riots in France, Süssmuth noted that when we talk about integration, we also have to talk about segregation because the communities in France and across Europe are highly segregated and immigrants often live in despicable conditions.

Annette Hauser

Hauser opened by stating that different factors are forcing the EU to come up with a coherent approach to migration and integration, including globalization and European enlargement.  She pointed out that the book sets up a framework for the EU to deal with integration without harmonizing policies because EU Member States will not agree to harmonization. The book identifies core areas of integration, best practices, and ways to implement bench-marking process. Furthermore, the books suggest ways that the EU can create competition between states to create better integration policies and ways that the EU can act as a transmission belt of ideas between Member States.

Currents events France and Brussels and some cities of Germany, Hauser stated, are a serious wake-up call.  She stated that serious grassroots organization is occurring among second and third generation migrants from Africa with a Muslim background; like anti-globalization organizers, they see that their measures are more or less successful.  Hauser noted that these events spillover to other countries, but, unfortunately, Brussels has had no reaction to these events.  Hauser concluded by stating that the EU needs a public-private partnership to deal with integration issues.

Gregory Maniatis

Maniatis opened by stating that ideas can be powerful and dangerous. He said that one idea has saturated the entire EU: integration is local.  This has led to a desultory approach toward integration on the European level.  Maniatis pointed out that integration is an EU issue because ideas, information, people, and goods flow so easily across borders.  This is demonstrated by the riots in France. 

Maniatis then updated what was occurring with regard to integration on the EU Commission:

• In Brussels between 1999 and 2004 much progress was made on asylum, but integration and economic migration has gone nowhere with Francisco Frattini, the new Commissioner for Justice and Home Affairs.  Frattini drafted a Green paper on economic migration, which was unsuccessful.
• The Commission has been recently focused on two issues which emerged from the Hague program; integration and radicalization and security.  Radicalization and security has received much more press.  The integration communication focuses on small ideas because the commission has no firepower on integration and thinks in small terms.  The communication tries to give Member States guidance on common basic principles on integration.  It also advocates spending more money on integration and creating an EU integration fund and forum.  Maniatis said these are good ideas but it remains to be seen if they will be influential.
• According to Maniatis, the problem with Commission is more a question of efficacy rather than intentions.  Civil servants are well-intentioned, but there is no political leadership on integration, and the Commission is quite hampered by the French and Dutch constitutional referenda.

Maniatis noted that the EU can play the important role of transmission belt of ideas.  He suggested two ways to do this:

• The EU could monitor the effectiveness of integration initiatives Member State by Member State.  So far, there has not been enough resolve to do this.  It is difficult for politicians to gather information about how effective countries are teaching languages or how quickly they recognize skills (i.e. foreign diplomas).
• The EU is in the position to ensure rights of residents at a higher level than they currently have through European civic citizenship.  The most controversial aspect of civic citizenship would be to giving immigrants the right to vote in local elections and the right to organize in local communities. 

Maniatis closed by noting that the EU is dealing with integration as a local issue but integration is really a civil rights issue like in the US.  He stated that the EU needs a “Kennedy screaming at George Wallace” to break down barriers.

Michael Fix

Fix contrasted European integration with integration in the United States.  He noted that integration policy is an afterthought in the US, and there is no federal office of integration policy.  He stated that, while immigration policy is remarkably inclusive, integration is ad hoc and under-funded and falls by default to local and state authorities; this raises problems of funding between different levels of government.  Nevertheless, Fix stated that a critical integration function in the US is birthright citizenship, which may be under attack.  Fix also noted that comprehensive immigration reform which could lead to expansion of the immigrant population, does not mention integration.

Fix contrasted the dominant approach used for immigrants in the EU with a specific integration program the US has—the refugee resettlement program.  The resettlement program provides a comprehensive package of reception, focused on shortly after arrival and employment and supports a network of NGOs.  Fix noted that when the flow of refugees to be resettled is high, these NGOS do well.  These NGOs have most of the United States’ integration expertise, and when there is no resettlement the United States loses its expertise in integration because the NGOs go out of business.

Fix noted two other important integration duties performed by the private sector:

• NGOs are critical in shaping immigration policies and integration. 
• Public interest law firms are critical in defending the rights of immigrants.

Fix pointed out that these groups are successful because of generosity of philanthropy in the US.

Fix continued by stating that, like Europe, schools are a critical force.  He pointed out that there has been a quiet revolution in the US.  The federal government now requires that schools identify, test, and teach immigrant children.  They disaggregate students who do not learn English, and they close the schools if they do not succeed.  Fix stated that this is working.  Fix noted however, that progressive education reforms are encountering demographic challenges:

• The immigrant limited English Proficiency (LEP) population is highly spatially concentrated. 70% of LEPs are in 10% of schools.
•  Over half of children who do not speak English well in the US are not immigrants but are second or third generation residents in the United States.

Demetri Papademetriou

Papademetriou closed by summarizing the event.  He reminded that the real issue is to learn to live with one another.  He also restated the danger of conflating migration with other issues such as terrorism, since this hinders discourse.

Papademetriou ended by emphasizing the importance of balancing the conversation; there has to be talk about both the costs and the benefits of immigration. 

He pointed out that for the first time there is a convergence of reactions and a real conversation can begin; this conversation needs to involve both the supranational and the local levels of government.

Commentary and Response

The floor was opened to comments which, the panelists answered at the end of the commentary.

A participant questioned whether it is possible for the general public to accept immigrants.  She believed that the answer is no, and politicians can only do so much.

She also pointed out that language is important but education is the key.  Finally, she stated that EU has to have an honest discourse with citizens; the EU is in denial because they say they want to stem immigrant flows, but more people keep coming.

Another participant stated that Dr. de Brouwer from the European Commission was at MPI a few weeks ago and said that there would be some coordination on immigration by 2010. He asked if there really will be a policy by 2010 as it has already been a generation since immigration policy cooperation started.

A third participant believed the situation in Europe is getting worse.  Levels of xenophobia and the anti-foreigner sentiment are rising according to opinion polls, and there is growing support for far right parties in many EU countries. Additionally, the increasing usage of referenda is very anti-immigrant, not only in the rejection of the European constitution but in Switzerland and in the US as well. Furthermore, the participant stated that the terrorism link is made more and more frequently.  Finally, the participant noted that as a result of what is happening in France today, even if the violence goes away immediately, anti-immigrant sentiment will become more extreme in Europe.

A fourth participant noted that the conversation had skirted issues of religion in integration and asked the panelists to respond to the claims that integration policies could be linked to religious intolerance.

A fifth panelist suggested that civil society organizations may have part of the answer. She noted that some NGOs are doing well but not enough is being done.  There should be more work done way to attract immigrant NGOs to educate them about the importance of integration for their constituencies. This is especially importance because anti-immigrant sentiment is pushing these NGOs away from integration.

Dr. Süssmuth responded that she does not have a lot of hope that there will be EU coordination by 2010, but restated that it needs to occur.  She concurred that there were lots of negative indicators, but claimed that desperation was no answer and that on the contrary it is a good time to start working on the issues.  Süssmuth responsed to the commentary with six final remarks:

• Even with an active civil society, you need a framework, which include laws and public policy.  These need to be provided for by the government.
• More time is needed to judge whether programs are successes or failures. Often a program has only been implemented for a year and pundits claim that it is a failure.  This is unfair as programs take time to evince change.
• Currently there is no holistic approach to integration and immigration, and having a holistic approach is necessary.  Of course education is essential, but there are other problems as well. For instance, after immigrants take language and citizenship integration courses there is no help in obtaining skills to get a job.
• Public opinion may be extremely negative, but there are many contradictions in peoples’ opinions that we have to profit from.  For example, people claim they do not want immigrants, but then they want someone to care for their mother.  This is partly the fault of politicians who do not properly explain why European countries need immigrants.
• Germany is trying to establish religion as part of the school curriculum.  Germany is working against a bad historical legacy because at first Germany expected all immigrants to leave and were eager to have children segregated in Koran schools.  European societies neglected to take care of different religions in public life, and now there are larger debates about the role of church and state and state and society, looking how to integrate them. Europeans are not familiar at all with different religions.
• We could reduce problems by cooperating with migrants but we do not.  Migrants are missing in the public sphere.