Search

In this paper I will examine the thesis that policies on integration are converging in contradictory ways: civic integration and anti-discrimination. If the first implies a greater emphasis on unified civic values, the second implies support and legitima ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

During the past 50 years two sets of events have had a profound influence on the development of public policy on immigrant integration. The first is the challenge to public order posed by urban unrest in France in the early 1980s and in Britain beginning in the late 1950s. In each country, the public policy response to this urban crisis involved important elements of multiculturalism as part of a strategy to maintain public order. In each country the public policy response was also influenced by other political consideration of domestic politics, but policies that at least implicitly recognized differentiated community (or "minority") needs and benefits were common to each of these approaches. The second set of events is generally related to the challenge of Islamic terrorism, and the recognition that some of it has domestic roots. In this context, there have been overlapping similarities in the approach of all European countries to questions of immigrant integration. The first similarity has been a movement towards policies of civic integration, and the second, a movement towards anti-discrimination policies. If the first has constrained policies of multiculturalism, the second has given new support and legitimacy to racial and ethnic diversity. Nevertheless, I argue below that national models—or policy paradigms— are still useful for understanding why convergence has been limited, that public philosophies in each country have differentiated both the intention and the approach of integration policy, and that these differences are most evident in the relative success and failure of different integration policies. If criteria by which success of integration is judged on the European level appear to have converged in European standards, national policy approaches have shaped the success of integration programs, sometimes in unexpected and contradictory ways. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper I will examine three different strategies of immigrant immigration in France, Britain and the United States. I will first argue that each country has developed a different form of multicultural strategy, and for each the implicit or explicit objective has been a different form of integration. In each case, the strategy has involved a form of ethnic recognition in public policy, a recognition that has not always been consistent with overall public philosophies. I will also argue that both strategies and objectives of integration have changed over time. Changes can be seen most clearly in the statements of public officials, on one level, and by the evolution of public policy on another. I will argue that these changes can be understood largely in terms of concerns about public order. Finally, I will look at questions of success and failure of integration. How can we understand success, and what constitutes failure? How do political actors understand these questions? How have success and failure been politicized, and why are some “failures” a measure of “success”? ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

France and Britain have the largest ethnic Islamic populations in Europe. Scholarly literature has generally focused on questions of integration, the success or failure of integrating these populations, and political reactions to their presence. This paper will focus on another, less researched question: the impact of Islamic populations on security and foreign policy. Journalists and some scholars have noted that the presence of large ethnic populations of Islamic origin has been seen by state authorities as security problem, and has had an important influence on how security is organized and pursued. The presence of these populations creates the perception of a security threat (especially in the post 9-11 world), and therefore helps to create? directly or indirectly? repressive anti-immigrant policies. On the other hand, it has also been argued that these same populations have had an important impact on foreign policy, particularly in the Middle East, in part because of their electoral clout, in part because of fear of unrest. If the first argument tends to see Islamic populations as objects of politics; the second sees them also as actors and participants. This paper will compare the process of security and foreign policy in France and Britain, and the ways that Islamic groups influence this process (a) by the ways that policy-makers understand the importance of their presence; and (b) by organized attempts to assert their presence through political institutions. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]