831
edits
Modes of Incorporation full text: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Modes of Incorporation full text (view source)
Revision as of 20:20, 29 August 2017
, 20:20, 29 August 2017no edit summary
(Created page with 'Each immigration country has its own way ofregulating the situation of new- corners, but — as I have argued elsewhere (Castles, 1995; Castles and Miller, 1 998:244—50) — it…') |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
However, not all immigrants have been seen as assimilable. Even the classical immigration countries have always differentiated on the basis of race (until recently), and of social and cultural background. Even the United States has had temporary migration schemes, like the Bracero Program for Mexican farmworkers. Moreover, not all immigration countries have tried to assimilate immigrants. Even prior to the industrial revolutions in Europe, practices of recruiting temporary migrant workers were common (Moch, 1992, 1995). In the late nineteenth century such schemes became institutionalized in France, Germany and Switzerland with a high degree of control by the state and employers’ organizations. In post-1945 Europe, ‘guestworker’ or temporary labor recruitment systems played a major role in labor mar- ket policies. ‘Guesrworkers’ were meant to come from relatively proximate countries of origin — especially the European periphery — and had no right to family reunion or permanent stay. More recently, similar — if even more rigid — approaches have been used in Gulf oil countries and Asian NICs. I refer to this mode of incorporation as differential exclusion because it means that migrants are integrated temporarily into certain societal sub-systems such as the labor market and limited welfare entitlements, but excluded from others such as political participation and national culture. Citizenship is not an option. Since some ofthe temporary workers generally do stay despite official policies, the result is incorporation in a marginal legal and social situation. | However, not all immigrants have been seen as assimilable. Even the classical immigration countries have always differentiated on the basis of race (until recently), and of social and cultural background. Even the United States has had temporary migration schemes, like the Bracero Program for Mexican farmworkers. Moreover, not all immigration countries have tried to assimilate immigrants. Even prior to the industrial revolutions in Europe, practices of recruiting temporary migrant workers were common (Moch, 1992, 1995). In the late nineteenth century such schemes became institutionalized in France, Germany and Switzerland with a high degree of control by the state and employers’ organizations. In post-1945 Europe, ‘guestworker’ or temporary labor recruitment systems played a major role in labor mar- ket policies. ‘Guesrworkers’ were meant to come from relatively proximate countries of origin — especially the European periphery — and had no right to family reunion or permanent stay. More recently, similar — if even more rigid — approaches have been used in Gulf oil countries and Asian NICs. I refer to this mode of incorporation as differential exclusion because it means that migrants are integrated temporarily into certain societal sub-systems such as the labor market and limited welfare entitlements, but excluded from others such as political participation and national culture. Citizenship is not an option. Since some ofthe temporary workers generally do stay despite official policies, the result is incorporation in a marginal legal and social situation. | ||
However, both assimilation and differential exclusion share an important common principle: that immigration should not bring about significant change in the receiving society. Such beliefs in the controllability of ethnic difference could be sustained in the past, but began to be questioned from the 1 970s in Western immigration countries. In the ‘guestworker’ countries, tern- porary migrants were turning into settlers. Democratic states found them- selves incapable of deporting large numbers of unwanted workers. Nor could immigrants be completely denied social rights, since this would lead to serious conflicts and divisions. The result was family reunion, community for- mation and emergence of new ethnic minorities. In classical immigration countries, the expectation oflong-term cultural assimilation proved illusoryc with ethnic communities maintaining their languages and cultures into the second and third generations. Immigrants began to establish cultural associations, places of worship and ethnic businesses — trends which soon also became important throughout Western Europe. | However, both assimilation and differential exclusion share an important common principle: that immigration should not bring about significant change in the receiving society. Such beliefs in the controllability of ethnic difference could be sustained in the past, but began to be questioned from the 1 970s in Western immigration countries. In the ‘guestworker’ countries, tern- porary migrants were turning into settlers. Democratic states found them- selves incapable of deporting large numbers of unwanted workers. Nor could immigrants be completely denied social rights, since this would lead to serious conflicts and divisions. The result was family reunion, community for- mation and emergence of new ethnic minorities. In classical immigration countries, the expectation oflong-term cultural assimilation proved illusoryc with ethnic communities maintaining their languages and cultures into the second and third generations. Immigrants began to establish cultural associations, places of worship and ethnic businesses — trends which soon also became important throughout Western Europe. | ||
[[Category:Migration]] | |||
The result was the introduction of official policies of multiculturalism, initially in Canada (1971) and Australia (1973). In the United States, multi- culturalism has a somewhat different meaning, linked to interpretations of the role of minorities in culture and history (Gidin, 1995; Steinberg, 1995). Here pluralism was used to refer to acceptance ofcultural and religious diver- sity for immigrants — generally in the private sphere rather than as govern- ment policy Rather similar policies with varying labels (such as minorities policy in the Netherlands) soon followed in European immigration countries. In some cases they were introduced only in certain sectors, such as welfare or education, or at the municipal or provincial rather than the national level, In Asia, older forms of multi-racialism and communalism — often the result of colonial experiences — are important, but the idea of incorporating new ethnic groups as permanent residents or even citizens has not gained currency It is seen by national elites as a threat to processes of nation-building. I have argued elsewhere that current trends towards settlement of migrants may question such principles in the long run (Castles, 2000c), but, at present, multiculturalism should be seen primarily as a Western society phenomenon. | The result was the introduction of official policies of multiculturalism, initially in Canada (1971) and Australia (1973). In the United States, multi- culturalism has a somewhat different meaning, linked to interpretations of the role of minorities in culture and history (Gidin, 1995; Steinberg, 1995). Here pluralism was used to refer to acceptance ofcultural and religious diver- sity for immigrants — generally in the private sphere rather than as govern- ment policy Rather similar policies with varying labels (such as minorities policy in the Netherlands) soon followed in European immigration countries. In some cases they were introduced only in certain sectors, such as welfare or education, or at the municipal or provincial rather than the national level, In Asia, older forms of multi-racialism and communalism — often the result of colonial experiences — are important, but the idea of incorporating new ethnic groups as permanent residents or even citizens has not gained currency It is seen by national elites as a threat to processes of nation-building. I have argued elsewhere that current trends towards settlement of migrants may question such principles in the long run (Castles, 2000c), but, at present, multiculturalism should be seen primarily as a Western society phenomenon. | ||