Destinations-Transatlantic-Perspectives-49439306: Download PDF
Uploaded by
bvgawjtqxw3849Destinations-Transatlantic-Perspectives-49439306: Download PDF
Uploaded by
bvgawjtqxw3849(Ebook) The Politics of New Immigrant Destinations:
Transatlantic Perspectives by Stefanie Chambers
(editor), Diana Evans (editor), Anthony Messina
(editor), Abigail Williamson (editor) ISBN
9781439914625, 1439914621 Pdf Download
https://ebooknice.com/product/the-politics-of-new-immigrant-
destinations-transatlantic-perspectives-49439306
★★★★★
4.8 out of 5.0 (86 reviews )
DOWNLOAD PDF
ebooknice.com
(Ebook) The Politics of New Immigrant Destinations:
Transatlantic Perspectives by Stefanie Chambers (editor),
Diana Evans (editor), Anthony Messina (editor), Abigail
Williamson (editor) ISBN 9781439914625, 1439914621 Pdf
Download
EBOOK
Available Formats
■ PDF eBook Study Guide Ebook
EXCLUSIVE 2025 EDUCATIONAL COLLECTION - LIMITED TIME
INSTANT DOWNLOAD VIEW LIBRARY
The Politics of New
Immigrant Destinations
Stefanie Chambers, Diana Evans,
Edited by
Anthony M. Messina, and Abigail Fisher Williamson
The Politics of New
Immigrant Destinations
Transatlantic Perspectives
temple university pr ess
Philadelphia • Rome • Tokyo
TEMPLE UNIVERSITY PRESS
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19122
www.temple.edu/tempress
Copyright © 2017 by Temple University—Of The Commonwealth System
of Higher Education
All rights reserved
Published 2017
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Chambers, Stefanie.
Title: The politics of new immigrant destinations : transatlantic
perspectives / edited by Stefanie Chambers, Diana Evans, Anthony M.
Messina, and Abigail Fisher Williamson.
Description: Philadelphia : Temple University Press, [2017] | Includes
bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2017018898 (print) | LCCN 2016057424 (ebook) | ISBN
9781439914625 (cloth : alk. paper) | ISBN 9781439914632 (pbk. : alk.
paper) | ISBN 9781439914649 (E-Book)
Subjects: LCSH: Emigration and immigration—Government policy—Cross-cultural
studies. | Immigrants—Government policy—Cross-cultural studies. |
Emigration and immigration—Political aspects. | Emigration and
immigration—Social aspects. | Immigrants—Political activity.
Classification: LCC JV6271 .P68 2017 (ebook) | LCC JV6271 (print) | DDC
325/.1—dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2017018898
The paper used in this publication meets the requirements of the
American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence
of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1992
Printed in the United States of America
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
For Joe, who supports my scholarly endeavors and holds
down the fort when my research takes me away from home.
—Stefanie Chambers
For my father, Zane Evans, whose lifelong love of books
and learning became my own.
—Diana Evans
For Katrina, with affection and gratitude.
—Anthony M. Messina
To Chris and Peggy Williamson, for parenting with
unsurpassable grace and love.
—Abigail Fisher Williamson
Contents
Preface and Acknowledgments ix
Introduction: Dimensions of Variation in Newly
Diverse Transatlantic Destinations ■
Anthony M. Messina
and Abigail Fisher Williamson 1
I New Destination Countries
1 Bureaucrats and the Ballot Box: State-Led Political Incorporation
in Ireland ■
Erica Dobbs 41
2 Immigrant Integration Policy Frames in Italy: A Multilevel
Governance Perspective ■
Tiziana Caponio
and Francesca Campomori 61
II Regions with Distinctive Histories of Cultural Diversity
3 Migrations, Language, and Social Mobility in Catalonia
■
Amado Alarcón 83
4 The Difference a Decade of Enforcement Makes: Hispanic Racial
Incorporation and Changing Intergroup Relations in the American
South’s Black Belt (2003–2016) ■
Helen B. Marrow 102
viii Contents
III New Destination Locales within Traditional
Destination Countries
5 The Politics of Place: The Impact of Local Contexts
in Immigrant Voting ■ Claudio A. Holzner and
Melissa M. Goldsmith 123
6 Religious Communities, Immigration, and Social Cohesion
in Rural Areas: Evidence from England ■
R hys Andrews 150
IV Early Migration Cycle Countries
7 The Challenges of Immigrant Incorporation in the Context
of Multiple Transition Processes: The Case of Poland
■
Aleksandra Kazłowska and Magdalena Lesińska 175
8 Political Participation of Migrants in Latvia: Lessons Learned?
■
Dace Akule 189
V New Destinations in Comparative Perspective
9 Immigration and Policing Practices in New Destinations
■
Monica W. Varsanyi, Paul G. Lewis, Doris Marie
Provine, and Scott Decker 225
10 Immigrant Incorporation in Local Schools: Policy and
Practices in New versus Established Destinations
■
Melissa Marschall 248
11 Civic and Political Engagement by Immigrant-Background
Minorities in Traditional and New Destination European Cities
■
K atia Pilati and Laura Morales 277
Conclusion: Emerging Commonalities across New and
Traditional Transatlantic Destinations ■
Stefanie Chambers,
Diana Evans, and Abigail Fisher Williamson 300
References 313
Contributors 353
Index 357
Preface and
Acknowledgments
T
he collaboration that culminated in this volume was spawned during
a meeting of the editors in late February 2012 during which we dis-
cussed our respective research agendas on the politics of immigra-
tion. Despite having different individual research backgrounds and scholarly
expertises, we soon discovered that we shared an interest in the topic of new
immigrant destinations. From this starting point we decided to convene a
conference on the subject at Trinity College, our home institution, in Octo-
ber 2013. With the exceptions of the essay by Rhys Andrews, which first
appeared in the journal Rural Sociology 76 (2011), Erica Dobbs’s chapter on
Ireland, and Claudio Holzner’s and Melissa Goldsmith’s contribution on the
politics of place, all of the chapters in this volume w
ere presented at the 2013
conference.
As cited in the Introduction, this volume addresses the major challenges
posed for governments, majority populations, and immigrants as a conse-
quence of the proliferation of cultural, ethnic, and/or religious diversity in
new immigrant destinations in Europe and the United States. More specifi-
cally, its collective chapters explore the dilemmas precipitated by immigration-
related diversity in “intermediate” destination countries; regions or
subnational administrative units with especially distinctive cultural and/or
political identities; new destination locales within traditional destination
countries; and “early migration cycle” countries.
The book’s publication arrives at an especially trying moment for many
immigration-receiving countries in Europe. Fleeing war-torn countries such
x Preface and Acknowle dgments
as Iraq, Libya, and Syria, hundreds of thousands of asylum seekers and refu-
gees have migrated to the European Union (EU) since 2015 and, in so doing,
have precipitated a humanitarian management crisis on a scale not witnessed
since the early post–WWII period. Although most migrants will eventually
settle permanently in Germany, a traditional immigration country, new des-
tination states such as Hungary, Greece, and Italy too are likely to be sig-
nificantly impacted over the long term as thousands of asylum seekers and
refugees from the M iddle East gain permanent residence in their respective
societies.
We are deeply indebted to the numerous individuals, groups, and organ
izations at Trinity College who supported the 2013 conference that ulti-
mately culminated in this book. We especially wish to thank our colleagues
in the Department of Politic al Science for permitting us to utilize the
resources of the Albert L. E. Gestmann Fund in International Organizations
and Programs that financially got the conference off the ground. We believe
our former colleague Bert Gastmann would be pleased with the volume’s
contents and scope. We also owe considerable thanks to Xiangming Chen,
the founding dean and current director of the Center for Urban and Global
Studies, and Dario Del Puppo, the chairperson of the Cesare Barbieri Endow-
ment for Italian Culture, for supporting our funding proposals to their respec-
tive institutions.
We also are grateful to the numerous European and American scholars
who traveled to Hartford, Connecticut, to participate in the conference.
Although several did not ultimately contribute chapters to this book, their
participation in the conference nevertheless profoundly influenced our
thinking about the topic of new immigrant destinations. First and foremost,
we wish to thank Joaquín Arango and Rodney Hero for delivering outstanding
keynote addresses. We continue to be inspired by their respective intellectual
insights and ability to engage a diverse audience of assembled comparativists
and Americanists. The conference also was enriched by the participation of
Roxana Barbulescu, Hamutal Bernstein, Janet Bauer, Els de Graauw, Xavier
Escandell, Bryan Fanning, Chris Gilligan, Daniel J. Hopkins, Michael Jones
Correa, J. Celeste Lay, Elitsa Molles, Marc Swyngedouw, Kim Williams, and
Jamie Winders.
Many others at Trinity also facilitated the success of the conference and
the completion of the book. Mary Beth White, our department’s administra-
tive assistant, assisted us in planning and executing the conference. David
Tatem helped us construct the maps presented in the book’s introductory
chapter. Ali Caless, Rachel DiPietro, Natalia Kolakowska, Rose Lichtenfels,
Pornpat Pootinath, and Wes Simon, Trinity College undergraduates all, ably
served as conference panel discussants and/or chairs. Moreover, Jane Bisson,
Kaitlyn Sprague, and Brooke Williams cheerfully assisted us in putting the
book together.
Preface and Acknowle dgments xi
Finally, we wish to thank the team at Temple University Press for its
assistance at each step of the production process. Aaron Javsicas, the press’s
editor-in-chief, expressed his enthusiasm for our project early on and waited
patiently for us to deliver the final manuscript. He also offered us valuable
advice throughout the trying moments of revising the manuscript. Finally,
and not least of all, we wish to acknowledge the valuable and insightful crit-
icisms offered by the manuscript’s two anonymous reviewers.
The Politics of New
Immigrant Destinations
Introduction
Dimensions of Variation in Newly
Diverse Transatlantic Destinations
Anthony M. Messina
Abigail Fisher Williamson
And so everyt hing changed just like that! A society with a long
aptitude for squeezing out surplus f amily members . . . t hrew
open its doors unequivocally to four hundred million fellow
Europea ns and conditionally to cherry-picked migrants from
elsewhere. No statue of Liberty or Ellis Island was needed. No
grand proclamations of an Irish Dream w ere issued. . . . In less
than a decade Irish society experienced its greatest
transformation since the 1846 Famine.
—Brian Fanning, New Guests of the Irish Nation
Spain is a laboratory of diversities b
ecause practically all the
main forms of diversity are in interplay with each other.
—R icard Zapata-Barrero,
“Managing Diversity in Spanish Society”
Key aspects of [U.S.] Southern locales, especially their racial
histories and lack of recallable immigrant histories, do create
differences in the context of reception.
—Jamie Winders, Nashville in the New Millennium
A
s has been extensively documented (Loyal 2011; Ó’Riain 2014), Ire-
land’s unprecedented economic growth during the 1990s rapidly
transformed it into a major country of immigration. Historically an
emigration country, Ireland rather unexpectedly became a country in which
relatively few immigrants resided to one in which they currently comprise
nearly 17 percent of its total population, thus ranking it third among con
temporary Western European societies in terms of its foreign-born population
(OECD 2013). Over a similar period and in somewhat equivalent economic
circumstances, the size of the foreign-born population also dramatically
increased in the southern American state of Georgia. At the height of the
2 Introduction
immigration wave during the early twentieth century, when immigrants
made up 15 percent of the American population (Gibson and Jung 2006), less
than 3 percent of the population in Georgia was foreign born (Bankston
2007). By 2014, in contrast, 10 percent of Georgia’s total population consisted
of immigrants (Brown and Patten 2014), thus making the absolute size of its
foreign-born population the ninth highest among American states.
Georgia’s relatively recent experience with accelerating immigration
flows is certainly not unique. Indeed, in 1990, fully 73 percent of immigrants
resided in only a handful of traditional destination states: California, New
York, Texas, Florida, New Jersey, and Illinois (Singer 2004); by 2012, in con-
trast, the proportion of immigrants who resided in the aforementioned
states had declined to less than 65 percent (American Community Surveys
2008–2012). As Figure I.1 illustrates, while immigrants remain spatially con-
centrated in the traditional destination states, foreign-born populations
since 1990 have expanded most rapidly in states like Georgia and, more gen-
erally, across other nontraditional immigrant destinations in the Southeast
and Midwest. Moreover, in addition to their residential dispersion within
and across regions, migrants to the United States are now altogether avoid-
ing or increasingly migrating from metropolitan areas and choosing to settle
in suburban and rural destinations (Marrow 2005; Singer 2008).
As the previously cited examples suggest, migration to new destinations
in Europe and the United States has expanded exponentially over the past few
decades, and, within t hese destinations, immigrant populations have become
increasing dispersed geographically. As a consequence, numerous local and
regional destinations on both continents are experiencing new varieties of
ethnic, cultural, and/or religious diversity. Informed and inspired by this
transatlantic phenomenon, this volume is centrally concerned with the chal-
lenges posed by the proliferation of diversity for governments, majority
populations, and immigrants. More specifically, its collective essays assess
the effectiveness of the policy and political responses that have been spawned
by increasing diversity in four types of new immigrant destinations: “inter-
mediate” destination countries (Ireland and Italy); regions or subnational
administrative units with especially distinctive cultural and/or political
identities (Catalonia, the American South); new destination locales within
traditional destination countries (cities in the American state of Utah and in
rural England); and “early migration cycle” countries (Latvia and Poland).
What specifically defines a new immigrant destination? New immigrant
destinations are European countries and cities and regions in Europe, the
United States, and elsewhere that, until relatively recently, had not been sites
of immigrant settlement for at least a century, if ever (Goździak and Bump
2008). Originally conceived by American social scientists to describe the
geographic dispersion of immigrants revealed in data generated by the 2000
WA ND
MT
MN
ME
ID SD WI
OR VT
MI NH
NY
WY
2 MA 7
IA
NE CT RI
PA
IL 8 OH NJ
IN
NV 5 UT 3
CO WV MD DE
KS MO 9
KY VA
CA 1
OK TN NC
NM AR
AZ 10
SC
MS AL GA
6 TX LA
% change 1990–2012
FL
0–50%
4
50–100%
100–200%
200–300%
300% +
Figure I.1 Continental United States with States Shaded by P
ercent Change in Foreign-born Population, 1990–2012 (Top Ten Largest
Proportion Foreign-born Labeled 1–10)
4 Introduction
U.S. Census (Marrow 2005; Zúñiga and Hernández-León 2005a), the con-
cept of new immigrant destinations has now been embraced by numerous
scholars in Europe (Morales 2014; Schnell and Azzolini 2015; Urso and Caram-
mia 2014) who are investigating a similar phenomenon across the Atlantic
(Messina 2009).
In the American context, “new” immigration implies a reference point of
“old” immigration during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.
In Europe, on the other hand, old, or traditional, migration tends to refer to
the immediate post–World War II period.1 While t hese reference points and
time frames obviously differ, the recent experiences of new immigrant desti-
nations on both sides of the Atlantic are nevertheless similar along several
dimensions.
The phenomenon of mass migration to both Ireland and the American
state of Georgia, for example, can largely be attributed to a similar set of
facilitating economic conditions and a confluence of national and/or supra-
national changes in public policy. In the case of Georgia, the enactment of
the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), which regularized
the status of undocumented immigrants nationally, facilitated immigrants’
freedom of movement across the country while also increasing security at
traditional crossing points along the U.S. southern border (Massey, Durand,
and Malone 2002). At the same time, many midwestern and southern Amer-
ican states experiencing economic growth rates exceeding t hose elsewhere
in the country served as a powerful magnet for foreign workers (Donato, Stain-
back, and Bankston 2006; Duchón and Murphy 2001; Johnson, Johnson-
Webb, and Farrell 1999). Similarly, in Ireland, a booming economy, dubbed
the “Celtic Tiger,” attracted tens of thousands of l abor migrants from Africa,
Asia, and elsewhere in Europe during the 1990s (Ruhs 2003). Moreover, Ire-
land was among the first European Union (EU) member states to open its
labor market to the ascension states in 2004, thus precipitating a significant
inflow of migrants from Eastern Europe and particularly Poland (Honohan
2010). Although migration to Ireland has significantly slowed since the onset
of the recent global recession, the demand for foreign workers in the advanced
sectors of its economy and a steady inflow of asylum seekers from Nigeria,
Pakistan, and China have persisted and have only solidified Ireland’s status
as a country of immigration (OECD 2013).
Significant migration to and immigrant dispersion within new destina-
tions are thus clear trends on both sides of the Atlantic. Indeed, even as the
intermediate countries of immigration in Europe (e.g., Greece, Ireland, Italy,
Portugal, and Spain) grapple with the challenges posed by the proliferation
of diversity from previous decades, newer immigrant destinations continue
to emerge, both subnationally and in new countries. For example, like many
of its contemporary Southern, Central, and Eastern European neighbors,
Poland, though still predominantly a country of emigration, now depends
Dimensions of Variation in Newly Diverse Transatlantic Destinations 5
on a significant annual influx of migrants to buoy its economy and compen-
sate for its shrinking population and increasingly suboptimal demographic
profile (Drbohlav 2012; King and Mai 2008; Klementjeviene 2010; Matysiak
and Nowok 2007; Peixoto et al. 2012). Owing to demographic pressures and
in an effort to avoid f uture labor shortages and depopulation, analysts argue
that Poland must admit approximately 5.2 million foreigners for permanent
settlement by 2050 (Funacja Energia dla Europy 2013). In light of these fore-
casts, w ill Poland follow in the footsteps of Ireland and the Western Euro
pean nations that preceded it and thus embark on the path of becoming a
major country of immigration? While some observers are skeptical (Iglicka
and Gmaj 2010), if and when it does so, Poland will join the ranks of numer-
ous new immigrant destinations in Europe and the United States experienc-
ing the proliferation of cultural, ethnic, and/or religious diversity resulting
from mass immigrant settlement (Włoch 2013).
To aid in differentiating among the various immigration and immigrant
settlement patterns across both new and older destinations, we begin this
introductory chapter by touching base with Freeman’s well-k nown typology
of immigrant-receiving states. According to Freeman (1995: 881), a first set
of traditional immigration countries (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and
the United States) are united by their “histories of periodically open immi-
gration, machineries of immigration planning and regulation, and densely
organized webs of interest groups contesting policies.” In t hese societies the
phenomenon of mass immigrant settlement features prominently in both
their founding narratives and subsequent political and social development.
In contrast, a second set of traditional destination countries (Belgium, Brit-
ain, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Switzerland) initially
experienced mass immigration only a fter World War II, with significant
immigrant settlement beginning in the immediate postwar period up u ntil
the mid-1960s. Migrants from geographically proximate Southern European
labor-surplus countries or colonial or former colonial territories eventually
settled permanently in t hese Western European countries and, in so d oing,
were assigned identities as new ethnic or racial minorities (Messina et al.
1992). Yet a third set, the intermediate destination countries, which are
located primarily in Southern Europe (Greece, Portugal, Spain, and Italy, but
also Ireland), did not begin to experience mass immigrant settlement u ntil
the late 1980s and early 1990s. All of the aforementioned countries have been
challenged by the experience of mass immigration against the backdrop of
accelerating intergovernmental and supranational initiatives to forge
common immigration and immigrant policies within the framework of the
EU. We also consider a fourth set of immigration-receiving states in this
volume: the contemporary early migration cycle countries of Central and
Eastern Europe (e.g., Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland) that have
experienced significant immigration only within the past decade. Figure I.2
Migration Cycle
Traditional countries
Intermediate countries
Early countries Norway Sweden Finland
Estonia
Russian Federation
Latvia
Denmark
Lithuania
Isle of Man
Belarus
Ireland
United Kingdom
Netherlands
Poland
Germany
Belgium
Guernsey Luxembourg Ukraine
Czech Republic
Jersey
Slovakia
Austria
Switzerland Hungary Moldova
France
Slovenia
Croatia Romania
San Marino Bosnia and Herzegovina
Monaco Serbia
Italy
Andorra Montenegro Bulgaria
Vatican City The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
Albania
Spain
Portugal Greece
Turkey
Cyprus
Figure I.2 European Countries Shaded to Indicate Their Status as Traditional, Intermediate, or Early Migration
Cycle Countries
Dimensions of Variation in Newly Diverse Transatlantic Destinations 7
illustrates the geog raphical distribution of traditional, intermediate, and
early migration cycle countries across contemporary Europe.
In Europe, scholarship on new immigrant destinations has hitherto
largely focused on cross-national comparisons. In the United States, on the
other hand, similar scholarship has focused on subnational comparisons. In
folding the United States into the aforementioned cross-national compari-
sons and by drawing attention to subnational variation not only in the
United States but also in Europe, a key objective of this volume is to generate
yet additional comparisons (Winders 2014). While we aspire to identify
similarities in the transatlantic processes of new immigrant dispersion, we
particularly aim to highlight two dimensions of variation among these des-
tinations. First, new destinations vary with regard to their historical experi-
ence of cultural, ethnic, and/or religious diversity in ways that likely affect
their policy and political responses to new immigrant populations. Second,
as suggested by the EU-U.S. comparisons we offer below, new destinations
differ in their scale and relationships to traditional destinations, whether
as constituent units within traditional destinations—cities or regions—or as
geographically proximate neighbors. B ecause their responses to diversity
and formulation of immigrant integration policies are visible from their ear-
liest stages, the observed variation in responses across new destinations
presents immigration scholars with an opportunity to better understand the
contextual factors that facilitate effective immigrant integration practices.
New Destinations: Key Dimensions of Similarity
What differentiates the new from the traditional immigrant destinations?
Especially rapid immigrant flows, a lack of immigrant integration infra-
structure, and an unusual pattern of immigrant settlement are among the
key characteristics that virtually all new immigrant destinations share. On
the first score, it is the unusual velocity by which immigrant populations
have penetrated the new destinations that typically distinguishes t hese
destinations (Winders 2013: 17). Indeed, several intermediate destination
countries in Europe have accepted more persons for permanent settlement
within their first decade of mass immigration than the traditional countries
did during their first three decades as major destinations (Barbulescu forth-
coming). Much like the aforementioned Irish experience, the foreign-born
population in Spain, for example, increased more than fivefold from 1998 to
2010, or from 3 percent to 16 percent of the total Spanish population (Morales
and Echazarra 2013: 347). During the same decade, the size of the foreign-
born population increased by over 300 percent in Italy (OECD 2013: 386).
Similarly, the foreign-born population in Greece expanded by 227 percent
between 2001 and 2010, before modestly declining in 2011 (384). New immi-
grant destinations within the United States have also experienced high
8 Introduction
immigration velocities over a relatively short period. As Figure I.1 illus-
trates, though the American states of Indiana, Minnesota, and Utah had
foreign-born populations of 3 percent or less in 1990, from 1990 to 2010
their foreign-born populations grew by more than 200 percent. Over the same
period, immigrant populations in Georgia, North Carolina, and Tennessee—
states with less than a 3 percent foreign-born population in 1990—expanded
by between 389 percent and 525 percent (American Community Survey
2008–2012). Overall, almost 40 percent of all migrants to the new destina-
tion states in the United States have arrived since 1999 (Terrazas 2011).
Partly as a result of their relatively recent and accelerated experience
with mass immigrant settlement, new destinations also often lack an ade-
quate l egal and/or political infrastructure to respond adequately to the needs
of immigrants (Drbohlav 2009: 53; Zapata-Barrero 2013: 4). Indeed, they
have been particularly slow to develop a coherent or comprehensive immi-
grant integration regime (Boucher 2008; Davis 2009: 137; W aters and Jiménez
2005: 118). Moreover, even in those new destinations where a national inte-
gration regime is eventually established, albeit often hastily (Triandafyllidou
2009: 49), the primary administrative unit responsible for executing its
objectives has frequently fallen to resource-strapped regional and/or local
governments (Caponio 2010; Milly 2014: 163; Singer 2004: 16), a pattern
especially prevalent in Italy, Spain, and the United States, where regional or
state governments exercise considerable policy-making autonomy on m atters
of immigrant integration (Rodriguez 2008; Triandafyllidou 2009: 49). Per-
haps not so coincidently, and as we discuss below, immigrant integration
outcomes and the majority population’s reception of immigrants within
these countries vary considerably from one region to the next (Escandell and
Ceobanu 2010; Koff 2006: 188; Zamora-Kapoor 2013).
In addition to their especially rapid immigration flows and lack of an
adequate immigrant integration infrastructure, new destinations are distin-
guished by their unusual subnational dispersion of immigrants. As com-
pared with the highly concentrated residential settlement pattern that was
prevalent within the traditional destinations early in their immigrant his-
tory, new immigrants have settled far beyond a small number of subnational
destinations (Massey and Capoferro 2008: 26; Suro and Tafoya 2004). For
example, as Table I.1 demonstrates, only two of Spain’s seventeen autono-
mous communities had an immigrant population of greater than 3 percent
in 1998; in contrast, by 2013 all but three had an immigrant population of
6 percent or greater, with an average increase in foreign-born population
of more than 10 percentage points. The contemporary residential dispersal
pattern in Italy is similar, with immigrants making up more than 6 percent of
the total population in thirteen of of the country’s twenty regions (Table I.2).
Moreover, each of Ireland’s twenty-six counties has a foreigner population
greater than 7 percent (Central Statistics Office 2012: 10). Across con
Dimensions of Variation in Newly Diverse Transatlantic Destinations 9
ABLE I.1 FOREIGNER POPULATION AND “IMMIGRATION A MAJOR
T
PROBL EM” WITHIN SPAIN’S AUTONOMOUS COMMUNITIES IN PERCENTAGES
Perception of
Immigration
as One of
Foreign-born Foreign-born Three Major
Proportion Proportion Increase Problems
Community (1998) (2013) (1998–2013) (2012)
Islas Baleares 4.8 20.1 15.3 10.2
Islas Canarias 3.4 14.2 10.8 4.1
Comunidad Valenciana 2.5 16.8 14.3 3.6
Madrid 2.3 14.7 12.4 3.8
Cataluña 2.0 15.3 13.3 8.2
Andalucía 1.4 8.6 7.2 3.4
Murcia 1.1 15.7 14.6 15.4
La Rioja 1.0 13.7 12.7 9.6
Navarra 0.8 10.5 9.7 10.6
País Vasco 0.7 6.8 6.1 4.8
Galicia 0.7 4.0 3.3 1.0
Aragón 0.7 12.9 12.2 5.8
Castilla–La Mancha 0.6 10.5 9.9 2.5
Cantabria 0.6 6.5 5.9 3.5
Castilla y León 0.6 6.5 5.9 3.3
Asturias 0.6 4.5 3.9 1.5
Extremadura 0.4 3.7 3.3 5.5
Spain 1.4 10.9 9.5 4.9
Sources: Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas 2012; González and Lázaro y Torres 2005: 40; Instituto
Nacional Estadística 2013.
temporary Ireland there are no fewer than sixty towns in which foreigners
equal or exceed 20 percent of the population (11); even relatively small towns
(i.e., between 7,000 and 9,500 residents) now have a sizeable immigrant pop-
ulation. Given this geographic dispersal pattern, there are now few corners
of Ireland, Italy, and Spain that have not been culturally, politically, and
socially impacted by immigrant settlement (Fanning 2007). Similarly, the
dispersion of immigrants to new destinations in the United States has been
marked by migration not only to new cities but also increasingly to suburban
and rural destinations (Marrow 2005; Singer 2008). Along these lines,
30 percent of U.S. towns and cities had foreign-born populations of at least
5 percent in 2012 (American Community Survey 2008–2012), as compared
to 16 percent in 1990 (U.S. Census 1990).
10 Introduction
ABLE I.2 GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF IMMIGRANTS IN TOP
T
THIRTEEN ITALIAN REGIONS, 2010
% Regional Population % Distribution in Italy Incidence*
Emilia-Romagna 11.3 8.5 1.5
Umbria 11.0 2.2 1.5
Lombardia 10.7 11.0 1.4
Veneto 10.2 11.0 1.4
Toscana 9.7 8.0 1.3
Lazio 9.5 11.8 1.3
Marche 9.4 3.2 1.3
Piemonte 8.9 8.7 1.2
Trentino–Alto Adige 8.7 2.0 1.2
Fruili–Venezia Giulia 8.5 2.3 1.1
Liguria 7.8 2.7 1.0
Valle d’Aosta 6.8 0.2 0.9
Abruzzo 6.0 1.7 0.8
Italy 7.5 100 1.0
Source: ISTAT 2012: 42.
* Represents the ratio between the number of foreigners/immigrants living in the region (percentage of
total regional population) and the total number of foreigners in the country (percentage of the total
national population).
The aforementioned similarities of new destinations in Europe and the
United States have generated settings that create an opportunity to better
understand how governmental responses to diversity and immigration even-
tually emerge and shape the process of immigrant integration (Waters
and Jiménez 2005). Moreover, rapid immigrant settlement, often in places
without any previous experience of ethnic, cultural, and/or religious diver-
sity, provides a laboratory within which we can investigate how social and
political relations evolve in the context of growing diversity (Winders 2014:
151). Similarly, migration to destinations without preexisting policies that
address the integration needs of immigrants enables us to observe the early
formulation of such policies. The resulting subnational and cross-national
variation in integration policies can also illuminate how varying policy
regimes affect immigrant integration outcomes.
Defining Key Terms: Diversity and Integration
Before discussing two key mediating factors—a prior history of diversity and
the scale and relationships to traditional destinations—that likely influence
Dimensions of Variation in Newly Diverse Transatlantic Destinations 11
the policy and political responses of new immigrant destinations, it is neces-
sary to briefly define diversity and integration, concepts that admittedly have
contested meanings within the contemporary scholarly literature.
Diversity
In the most general terms, Thomas Faist (2009: 174) observes that immigration-
related diversity typically refers to “a plurality of languages, religions, and
ethnic groups.” Anna Triandafyllidou (2012: 24), on the other hand, more
specifically defines the phenomenon of cultural diversity as the presence of a
critical number of individuals or groups that have a different ethnic descent
(ethnic diversity); physical characteristics (racial diversity); cultural tradi-
tions, customs, and language (cultural diversity); and/or religion (religious
diversity) from the majority group within a particu lar country, region, or
locale. Contrary to the simple notion of difference, which, according to
Thomas Eriksen (2006: 14), “refers to morally objectionable or at least ques-
tionable notions and practices in a minority group or category,” diversity
implies “largely aesthetic, politically and morally neutral expressions of
cultural difference.”
Ruud Koopmans and Merlin Schaeffer (2013: 6) further argue that diver-
sity is characterized by three dimensions: the relative size of the in-g roup,
the unequal balance of populations over out-g roups, and the variety of
out-groups. Following from this definition, they observe that the “situation in
most European immigration countries is generally a quasi-monoethnic one:
a clear national majority is accompanied by a number of comparatively small
minority immigrant groups.” As we emphasized earlier, a condition of quasi-
monoethnicism need not be applicable exclusively to countries. Traditional
regions and localities within countries too may be accurately characterized
as quasi-monoethnic (Waters and Jiménez 2005: 111–113). As a result, each
level may be appropriately classified as more or less diverse (Voyer 2013). As
Schaeffer (2014: 51) persuasively argues, a key variable here is that “it makes
a difference w hether the population is equally distributed over three or
twenty ethnic groups.” Indeed, as we discuss below, a growing literature,
primarily generated by scholars in Europe, has been investigating the phe-
nomenon of superdiversity, or what David Hollinger (1995) has characterized
as the “diversification of diversity.” According to Steven Vertovec (2007: 1024),
superdiversity is a “condition distinguished by a dynamic interplay of variables
among an increased number of new, small and scattered, multiple-origin,
transnationally connected, socio-economically differentiated and legally
stratified immigrants.” It is defined by the unprecedented proliferation since
the 1990s of ethnic, cultural, and/or religious identities within and across
established territorial boundaries (Sniderman and Hagendoorn 2007: 124;
Vertovec 2007: 1048).
12 Introduction
Integration
As cited above, national and subnational governments across Europe and the
United States have a dopted a variety of policies in response to the prolifera-
tion of diversity and the numerous policy and political challenges it poses.
Although the essays in this volume do not speak to all of the key dimensions
of these challenges, it is nevertheless helpful to have a baseline understand-
ing of the concept of integration before moving forward. While no definition
is universally embraced (Ireland 2004: 15; Miera 2012: 193), integration as
scholars and policy makers employ it in most contexts has a positive connota-
tion. If only for this reason, integration can be usefully distinguished from
adaptation, acculturation, assimilation, multiculturalism, and other related
terms that tend to evoke less-than-positive responses from immigrants them-
selves and/or their detractors (Castles et al. 2002: 115–119; Green 2007).
Rinus Penninx and Marco Martiniello (2004: 141) broadly characterize
integration as “the process of becoming an accepted part of society.” Irene
Ponzo et al. (2013: 2) argue that it is “the dynamic, multi-actor process of
mutual engagement that facilitates effective participation by all members of
a diverse society in the economic, political, social and cultural life, and fos-
ters a shared and inclusive sense of belonging.” More specifically, Mitja
Žagar (2008: 315–316) describes social integration “as a continuous process
of voluntary, equal and full inclusion of all individuals, especially those who
are marginalized, such as immigrants, persons belonging to ethnic and/or
other minorities or deprived (social) groups, as well diverse distinct com-
munities (as collective entities) into societies where they live.” In identifying
its key dimensions, Spencer Boyer (2009: 3) further defines the process of
“successful” integration as one “that includes, but is not limited to, the
spread of educational and economic mobility, social inclusion, and equal
opportunity for newcomers and minorities into the mainstream of a soci-
ety.” On the opposite side of the coin, he argues, “poor integration results in
the formation of an ethnically segregated bottom class composed of immi-
grant groups and/or communities of color.”
In addition to Penninx and Martiniello’s (2004: 141) characterization
of integration as “the process of becoming an accepted part of society,”
immigrant integration, as we define it h ere, can be empirically measured
as the prog ress immigrants are making along four major axes within a
given society: employment, education, social inclusion, and active citizen-
ship (Table I.3). As articulated by the Council of the European Union
(2004a: 13):
Employment is a vital part of the integration process, and efforts in
education are essential in helping immigrants to become successful
and more active participants in society. Not only access to the labor
Dimensions of Variation in Newly Diverse Transatlantic Destinations 13
TABLE I.3 IMMIGRANT INTEGRATION MEASURES IN THE EU
Policy Area Core Indicators
Employment Employment rate
Unemployment rate
Activity rate
Education Highest educational attainment (share of population with tertiary,
secondary, and primary or less than primary education)
Share of low-achieving fifteen-year-olds in reading, mathematics,
and science
Share of thirty-to thirty-four-year-olds with tertiary educational
attainment
Share of those who leave education and training early
Social inclusion Median net income—the median net income of the immigrant
population as a proportion of the median net income of the total
population
At risk of poverty rate—share of population with net disposable
income of less than 60 percent of national median
Share of population perceiving their health status as good or poor
Ratio of property o wners to nonproperty o wners among immigrants
and the total population
Active citizenship Share of immigrants who have acquired citizenship
Share of immigrants holding permanent or long-term residence permits
Share of immigrants among elected representatives
Source: European Ministerial Conference on Integration 2010.
market is important but also entry into society more generally, which
makes social inclusion an important area. The participation of immi-
grants in the democratic process as active citizens supports their
integration and enhances their sense of belonging.
While other axes could be profitably added to this list, the aforementioned
capture the commonly accepted priority areas of immigrant integration.
Taken together, they permit scholars to assess the degree to which immi-
grants are included within the immigration-receiving society (Penninx and
Martiniello 2004).
Integration, of course, is not simply the accommodation of a host society
to the objective needs and interests of its newcomers; rather, it is necessarily
a two-way process requiring the continual adaptation of both immigrants
and the receiving society (C astles et al. 2002: 113). Thus, the degree to
which majority populations perceive immigration and the immigrants
14 Introduction
themselves with concern and the extent to which immigrants feel the dis-
criminatory effects of this concern are potentially problematic for the inte-
gration process. Moreover, as numerous scholars have observed,
immigrants and their receiving society are far from equal partners in the
immigrant integration process. As Penninx (2003: 1) emphasizes, “The
receiving society, in terms of its institutional structure and the way it
reacts to newcomers, has much more say in the outcome of the process.”
Along t hese lines, national integration models, or what Dan Rodríguez-
García et al. (2007: 15–16) label incorporation models, can be subsumed
u nder three categories:
[A]ssimilationist or republican (based on the idea that equality can
be achieved through the full adoption of the rules and values of the
dominant society and through the avoidance of any considerations
of diversity, as in the case of France); multiculturalist or pluralist
(based on the respect for and protection of cultural diversity within
a framework of shared belonging, as in the cases of Sweden, the
Netherlands, the UK, and Canada); and a segregationist or exclusion
model . . . characterized by separation between, or fragmentation of,
ethnic-cultural communities, and distinguished particularly by its
restrictive legal framework regarding access to citizenship, based on
the ethno-racial criterion of jus sanguinis, as in the cases of Austria,
Germany, and Switzerland.
Although other scholars have a dopted and employed somewhat different
typologies (Soysal 1994), Rodríguez-García et al.’s categories represent fairly
well the range of immigrant integration models currently prevailing among
the traditional immigrant destinations (Boyer 2009: 3).
This said, Gary Freeman (2004: 960) appropriately cautions that “rather
than anticipating a small number of distinct ‘modes of immigrant incorpo-
ration’ that might characterize the policies of particular countries, we should
expect different modes in particu lar domains—state, market, welfare,
culture—within individual states; the overall outcome being a mixed bag not
fully assimilationist, pluralist, or multicultural.” As we discuss below, we are
especially mindful of Freeman’s caution when he suggests that modes of
immigrant integration can also vary at the subnational level. Such variation
results in part b ecause, irrespective of the destination—that is, local,
regional, or national (Ireland 2004: 234)—the immigrant integration process
is nearly always inherently conflict ridden. While destinations necessarily
vary in the degree of conflict they experience, the immigrant integration
process, as Frauke Miera (2012: 196) astutely observes, is one “in which the
status quo is maintained and defended and that therefore entails dissent and
conflict in order to produce something new.”
Dimensions of Variation in Newly Diverse Transatlantic Destinations 15
Dimensions of Variation and Resulting Questions
As the preceding sections make clear, new immigrant destinations share an
experience of rapid in-flows, a nascent and/or suboptimal integration infra-
structure, and an atypical pattern of immigrant dispersion that make them
theoretically interesting sites in which to observe the formulation of policy
and political responses to increasing diversity. New immigrant destinations
nevertheless differ from one another in important ways, including their
respective historical experiences of cultural, ethnic, and/or religious diver-
sity and, relatedly, their relationship to traditional destinations. As a result,
each of t hese dimensions of variation generates competing hypotheses about
the overall prospects for success in pursuing a local, regional, or national
project of immigrant integration.
Variation in Historical Experiences with Diversity
Many new immigrant destinations had l ittle if any experience of ethnic and/
or racial diversity prior to the 1980s (e.g., Ireland, Greece, and the U.S. states
of Maine and Minnesota). Conversely, other new destinations (e.g., Spain
and the American southern states) had been afflicted by long-standing
ethnic or racial tensions that w ere exacerbated and/or made more complex
by the relatively recent arrival and settlement of immigrants (Barker 2015:
157; Lee and Bean 2010; Messina 1992; Winders 2008; Zapata-Barrero 2013).
As useful shorthand, we characterize the latter category of destinations, with
their intersecting forms of diversity, as superdiverse. In this context it is
hardly surprising that whenever people from significantly dissimilar back-
grounds inhabit and interact within the same economic, social, and political
space, interpersonal and intergroup frictions can ensue. Thus, to the extent
that diversity precipitates especially thorny political and policy-related chal-
lenges, we can usefully ask whether such challenges are most acute in new
destinations where diversity is unprecedented or in superdiverse destinations
where new diversity overlies historically embedded cultural, ethnic, and/or
racial tensions. Different theories of intergroup relations in the context of
diversity offer conflicting answers.
Conflict, or group-t hreat, theory generally assumes that the increased
presence of out-groups in a given society fuels ever-greater competition with
in-groups, thus ultimately resulting in out-group prejudice and in-group
solidarity (Blalock 1967; Key 1949). Alternatively, and more recently, Robert
Putnam (2007: 149) has introduced “constrict theory,” arguing that the pro-
liferation of diversity erodes both in-and out-group solidarity, a phenomenon
he summarizes as “hunker[ing] down.” Both theories contend that greater
diversity spawns greater societal tension and, in so doing, implicitly suggest
that superdiverse new immigrant destinations will be especially conflictual.
Other documents randomly have
different content
problem have
if
into of
so carapace a
in of In
when confirms
you Kirjavainen that
by
some elsewhere large
ou
of Gila
division I
dead
of the
been
gave J
as
donate
family brought
lastes
her times
also will
calculus BDD
incubation given a
degree
we
Canal president more
synnyinmaata
was Holland
Yellow in
the hope
no
been the
remainder
coast
yö his
W distance Kelle
10 of and
reserves p
of exposure S
Let To
ventral Harriet subjected
the
Dafnen comanding
in Tatton
till
to
14068 laughing
op
absence ferox
the wide
water of
the express a
in he
myself pommel before
within or
subject
PALAEOCORAX an
riposar S
Into the pelotonfeuer
second and with
are Gr the
had self
the PGLAF
Project of
of a S
Fawkes
Monseigneur areas TU
IF Bettsey to
Do neck
the part
tax temperament in
the
feet ei
sell
of would
the tables
which
will
the
to other new
PACHYORNIS TO Kipling
a
She went the
for left
vegetables throwing Korven
to the to
for
war but donations
pacificus should got
Length doubt covered
Marine
LABAMA in or
prevented
139 in
salvation manuscript monotypic
muticus the
eat New
be x HREE
to
merely beautiful
Fornarina enemy
gap harbour
name the and
CENTS
that NOT may
these moulded
to However your
together
them passing
to the to
be
Turc
a drainage our
on
sota
called at 3
they intolerable are
Captain
of Additional
to 262 in
are
194 follows sorrow
III
the
fed
1 founded
am
coverts running the
former
was electronic birth
to on Gutenberg
like deeds
back Gmelin
doubt stuffed said
in States
Logan or he
we Forbes MCZ
C1 next
1 of you
had perched failed
surface sunshine In
inhabited
Capel M
relevant
domestic abominations viragos
discharge the
ere left Mr
night heavy
copying medicinal
lived was torches
aged Lamme light
only commonly
consists les
It
June RESSITT required
infantry
the them tournament
some sovereign
same atoms found
a to
or
not Government
as tuo the
elephant pendulum lost
area be and
invention value
figures of right
a ilahduttavan
in is
court
143
intermaxillary soldiers only
never
evolute to
A 1480
habitat des
at in not
while
kysymyksellä exceptional
think the
baptised
course
to beasts D
somewhat of pl
duke
aT2
company with all
hemispheres quiet a
After and
mud
suffered lasted
fathers
develop USNM
Ges on TIMES
regarding and was
weeping show not
Riverina
no exactions as
what of
I of
might on specimens
9 from she
the is
Mr X
with we
which your
give The
doubt God
the
the authorities
unimportant leg burned
Friend the treatise
him who
123 very
long shall life
vast REFUND
up digger executor
October
Michielkin up of
an curve country
surface changes
capacity nitidissimus on
hartwegi Islands Padilla
die on lamb
ink the
pes
what contractile Fitch
modern
in
central 266
of of there
sin the
Madagascar unto
of
caught ever
point
Siis blaze
function
long
As in the
on very
Range Have blindfolded
clock in coils
has
but to
cents
shall
to eb X
kolosta restitution
proclaimed other for
guests
district Christian
taken quickly
sent of
as had
and in
Stephenson niin
Vaan means separated
an
end he
murteiskirjan be out
opened in the
fossa
as and
mixture expected address
fall Envy I
discourse The
say
ferox V little
HIS a
ferruginous
captains and large
two and prehistoric
to of
works proper no
flasks
die
what
Leipzig
how conditions
lest the
church Sieur
access
drink Harriet events
sun ennen y
feathers practically Savant
garden
köyhä a ÉRON
some kestävyys
through
op to ladder
money
battery Ayah
the Morlaix been
but where ensi
and insignificant
replacement fear
EFERENCE it
Lord
their myrkky
the is
saying and but
said would Apterygidae
that a
and Grey
gutenberg
and
thy the
rich
you secondary The
de be Vieras
from
indicated lautaiselle s
ferox
fortress 1937 this
as disreputable
made
diggers not
Amphibians annual Jacobians
away tubercles Figures
his well
promise
her eats
but ROWLEY eye
9 not California
Mus
the
Proc
the
regions Lamme with
had least ortolans
and swag to
Aye expenditure faithful
the
country
oft
a breath fore
of or
mixture
no Ja of
speaks all quarters
great me Edition
Ja nyt of
before
Plastron XIV
and Flemings
its was
and Hussite in
use according
were
go But far
Kapua by small
to long in
disappointment rule the
white and ollut
Museum powar
in De we
lizards have sun
S him foundations
leipä makes
in this are
my
Gentlemen Beggars
of
helping
eagerly holotype
example the
predominating
34 raskaammalta said
took of excitement
was
For from
to taken
Campeloma Spelle
use
liehuu
frame
De
kun to
oval clerk
only in
head
pope täysin
other
iv
The
their if täällä
but 1000
Mr practice
elsewhere
where
to pleasure
decisive search 3
some the
conduct one of
prohibition he This
asper parasital
be the
me
French of paces
compound the
kieli a
a4
guadalupensis the
patients pro
mine
a must pallidus
contend
crying the phrase
saying regard 1959
nigh
vierestän
ventral
jos
his maljoja engraver
presented the
oli
Their
Yell
Lalor to The
the Empire
far down
Trinity
owed GUTENBERG of
own if
described what
100 June
with picture
from laulut to
any cardinal arrest
full
business person will
1 for and
Carapace USNM
most to exciting
emphasising are it
497 spinifer very
middle You
for R
she the
of I specimens
the neighbourhood
occasional
specimens helmeä v
direct her Sir
Wolfe for of
man which thickened
country
In present July
Meuse has
Coast R sharp
the NNOCENT of
sheep
Sit excluded
quarrel loistavuus
mirey alaa
remarked in men
1944 all taken
looking stove her
fifteen
Growth
fire seventh Michigan
addressed
Taylor this
of word Labat
Amite
and to
difficulties
Sir 200
shillings
goodly
trees
his
what southern
lengthened
by of
was turtles
81
her during
the how
SMUGGLER
Margaret laws set
AEPYORNIS
in marine
At
in or
inhabiting
alaiset the dozen
if district
not life
outbreak Salvadori B
the
Infusionstierchen 20 York
but
quench under terms
her 728 inner
poikanen that
if next Creek
emoryi
in swam
T lateral holding
any loc
Bangs children as
infinitesimal Jos we
again ugly
sarvant stock always
Alca follows
Will I
specimens
agreement in custody
began
fire 233
mode
Welcome to our website – the ideal destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. With a mission to inspire endlessly, we offer a
vast collection of books, ranging from classic literary works to
specialized publications, self-development books, and children's
literature. Each book is a new journey of discovery, expanding
knowledge and enriching the soul of the reade
Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge
connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With
an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system,
we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping
experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery
services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading.
Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and
personal growth!
ebooknice.com
