Assimilation is generally defined as adopting the ways of another culture and fully becoming part of a

different society. Whereas integration is typically defined as incorporating individuals from different groups
into a society as equals. The difference is subtle but significant.
When immigrants assimilate, they accept the ways of their host and become a full part of the
community. Assimilation implies that immigrants, through education and experience, can earn their way
into the host culture and be seamlessly accepted as full members of their new community.

By contrast, integration suggests boundaries. It is defined in terms of equality. But in this context equality
indicates that a host is obligated to embrace foreign cultures as equal, even when they conflict with the
values and traditions of the host.

Integration may sound wonderful, but this isn’t always the case. Imagine the chaos that would result if a
mass migration of Britons insisted the United States integrate their tradition of driving on the left side of
the road, rather than assimilating to the American preference for the right side. That’s an amusing
example. But the situation becomes dire if one considers the wider implications of integration over
assimilation – especially when mass migration is from countries where polygamy, child labor or slavery is
considered acceptable.

Despite Mr. Kahn’s assertions to the contrary, people are not required to drop their cultures and traditions
when they arrive in the United States. What American doesn’t know crowds of people who maintain some
connection to another culture? Apparently Mr. Khan has never attended a St. Patrick’s Day parade in
Boston, or a Dominican Day festival in New York City. In fact, the happy acceptance of foreign folkways is
a uniquely American value.

But immigrants to the U.S. are expected to learn enough about American culture to be able to obey the
law and participate in the commercial and civic life of the nation. This is a reasonable expectation.
Assimilation cultivates success for newcomers and prevents the head-on collisions that result when
everyone drives in opposite directions on the same side of the road. Most importantly, it’s what turns
immigrants into Americans.

Migration and Integration importance

Integration is considered to be the most effective way to realise the potential of migration in the European Agenda
for the Integration of Third-Country Nationals, reinforcing the importance given to integration policies in previous
documents, such as the Common Basic Principles for Immigrant Integration Policy in the EU, adopted by the Justice
and Home Affairs Council in November 2004 and the subsequent Common Agenda for Integration adopted by the
Commission in 2005 . Moreover, integration appears as one of the first goals identified in the European.

In any case, plural societies need to develop a consistent knowledge base on integration, including not only the
analysis of public policies in the field, but also paying special attention to social processes and potential roles for
private actors. In this sense, integration is a substantial tool to achieve social cohesion in plural societies, where the
respect and promotion of diversity as a parallel and guiding principle is also derived from a democratic and human
rights-based perspective.

In this respect, integration is understood as a two-way process based on mutual accommodation by all immigrants
and host societies of member states. This implies the need for active participation and open attitudes by both sides of
immigration societies. On the one hand, it is the responsibility of the host society to ensure the right of immigrants
and newcomers to full participation in the economic, social, cultural and political life of the country, ensuring the
protection of these rights to the highest possible degree, within the framework of European common values and the
international human rights standards in force. On the other hand, it is the responsibility of migrants and their
communities to respect common values and European standards and to actively contribute, as far as reasonably
possible, to the wellbeing and development of European societies .

When conceptualizing integration, Pennix goes beyond the accommodation process stressing the need for migrants
to be accepted as part of society, namely in three analytically distinct dimensions: the legal-political one, the socio-
economic one and the cultural/religious dimension . In the context of the present research and training programme,
we are considering processes and policies concerning the integration of foreign nationals within EU countries,
including not only third-country nationals, but also EU citizens living in other member states, focusing specifically
on groups that face difficulties with integration, such as Roma citizens.

Migrant integration

Migrant integration has gained prominence on the global agenda with the advent of the 2030 Sustainable

Development Agenda’s call to “leave no one behind”—including migrants. The field of migrant integration,

however, has traditionally been polarizing and related data are generally limited to high-income countries. The

increased interest in migrant integration highlights the need for more research and better data.

Integration cuts across different policies and various aspects of migrants’ lives and therefore data on migrant

integration cover a wide range of information, including whether migrants are integrating into the economic, social,

cultural, and political spheres of society, the discrimination they face, how policies affect migrants’ inclusion, and

how the public perceives migrants and immigration.

Definition

There is no consensus on a single definition for integration. Definitions share commonalities, but remain highly
context or country specific. Nevertheless, migrant integration may be broadly defined as:
The process by which migrants become accepted into society, both as individuals and as groups….[Integration]
refers to a two-way process of adaptation by migrants and host societies…[and implies] consideration of the rights
and obligations of migrants and host societies, of access to different kinds of services and the labour market, and of
identification and respect for a core set of values that bind migrants and host communities in a common purpose
(IOM, 2011).

Related concepts include social inclusion and social cohesion. Social inclusion refers to migrants’ inclusion and full
economic, social, cultural, and political participation into host communities. Social cohesion refers to concepts such
as anti-discrimination, countering xenophobia and promoting mutual understanding (IOM, 2017).

Integration occurs in the public and private realms, across generations, and at the individual, family, community and
national levels (EU Council, 2004). Some typical indications of successful migrant integration are the decrease of
the differences between migrants and non-migrants according to data on employment, education, health and social
inclusion, among other areas.

Integration outcomes depend on many factors including the country of origin, the host community context and

the skill level of immigrants. Integration tends to improve with the duration of residence in most

countries according to available data (OECD, 2015; Huddleston et al., 2013).

I

me of which consider a person a migrant even if they were born within the country in which they live.

Immigration attorney Diego Aranda Teixeira tells Teen Vogue that the term ‘migrant’ is “focused on the
individual’s action of leaving their country of origin, and can include temporary migration, such as guest -
worker programs that are not intended t

o lead to permanent settlement.”

What does the term “immigrant” mean?

Based on the U.N. definition, “refugees, displaced, or others forced or compelled to leave their homes”
are not considered migrants.

Teixeira tells Teen Vogue that the term immigrant “implies movement leading to at least somewhat
permanent settlement in a new country, putting down roots in the new place.”

According to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, there are two types of visas available to noncitizens
wishing to enter the U.S.: immigrant and nonimmigrant. An immigrant visa is available to those
“wishing to live permanently in the U.S.,” while the nonimmigrant visa is meant for people with
“permanent residence outside the U.S., but wishes to be in the U.S. on a temporary basis.” The site
specifies that there are over 20 different nonimmigrant visa classifications.
Teixeira says one distinction between an immigrant and a migrant can be seen in these visas, specifically
in that immigrant visas are “related to lawful permanent-resident status.”

Another distinction between the terms “migrant” and “immigrant” could be between the “outward-
bound vs. inward-bound” viewpoint of the specific terms, he says. “The term ‘migrant’ focuses on the act
of leaving one’s country. The term ‘immigrant’ focuses on the act of settling in the receiving country,”
Teixeira says.

Can they be used interchangeably?

Conversationally and in the news, many people use the terms interchangeably. But can they be used
interchangeably and mean the same thing?

While Teixeira says the terms can be used interchangeably casually, he says that “notable anti-
immigration publications, especially in Europe, focus on using the term ‘migrant’ in a way that furthers
their anti-immigrant viewpoint.”

Using “migrant” in this way has led to the term carrying a “sinister, despective connotation,” Teixeira
says. “The term seems to be used, in such contexts, to undermine the permanence of the individual’s life
in the receiving country, and to play down any claim of, for instance, asylum, as there is increasingly an
implication that ‘migrants’ tend to be economic migrants — and therefore only moving for work
opportunities.”

Integration is the delicate, critical transition of the migrant from outsider to insider - the process by which
migrants become a part of their new community. Successful integration is hard to measure because it is
multilayered, touching every part of the migrant experience, from education to housing, political
participation and civic engagement.

We might not be able to capture it well, but few doubt its importance. While many migration issues remain
hotly contested, integration is widely considered to be a good thing for migrants and for the societies they
have moved into.

Why then is it so hard to discuss, debate and agree on both the big picture and the specifics of
integration? An indication of the sensitivities around this issue can be found in the final draft text of the
two Global Compacts which are slated for adoption in December 2018 by almost all UN Member States.
The Global Compact for Migration contains four, largely non-substantive references to integration.
The Global Compact on Refugees is only slightly better, dealing briefly with integration over three of its
more than 100 paragraphs. What happened?

Integration is difficult for states because it exposes a truth that many are reluctant to acknowledge
publicly. Despite the overwhelming international focus on return and reintegration of migrants back into
their home communities, many migrants will not - often cannot - go home. The 325,000 refugees granted
protection in Germany in 2017 are now establishing new lives for themselves in that country. Fewer than
3% of the 12 million migrants living without legal status in the US are returned in any one year.

And questions about integration are not just for wealthy countries. It is possible that the more than one
million refugees fleeing sectarian violence in Myanmar who entered Bangladesh over the past 12 months
will need to call that country home for generations to come. Nobody can predict when - indeed if - the
refugees from Syria and Palestine who currently make up around 30% of Lebanon’s population will be
able to leave. The collective silence around these awkward realities is understandable, but it’s not helpful.
 Integration is also difficult to discuss and deal with because it is not amenable to anything resembling a
quick fix. Building a wall, establishing a camp, creating a new border force, stopping the boats - these are
all political shorthand for decisive action. Even if they don’t amount to much in the end, they give the
impression of control amid chaos, and they hold out the hope of immediate results.

By contrast, if it is to be done properly, integration of migrants is a long and often fraught process for all
involved. It requires migrants to yield to the reality of their new lives and to agree to taking those lives
forward in ways that may not have been their choice. It requires receiving communities and governments
to accept new arrivals, to accommodate their presence with material and spiritual generosity and to be
open to the possibility of enrichment.

The consequences of ignoring integration, or doing it badly, are devastating. Across the world we see
evidence of failed integration in vast refugee camps that have long abandoned any pretence of
impermanence. We see it in ghetto communities that are separated, in all the ways that matter, from the
society to which they have been nominally attached. We see failed integration in the metrics that show
migrants lagging far behind established populations across a broad swathe of quality of life indicators
including academic achievement and workforce participation.

And integration failures have deeper, darker effects that are too often ignored. For example, public
opinion about the value of migration appears closely tied to perceptions about integration.
Gallup’s Migrant Acceptance Index confirms that attitudes to migration are much more positive in the US
and Australia, which both have a strong record when it comes to integration, than in Europe, where
integration has been much more problematic.

The message is clear: those seeking to promote more open and liberal migration policies need to be
playing a long game. They need to pay close attention to what happens to people after they have moved.
If things don’t work out well, the goodwill that enabled their move in the first place can quickly dissipate,
further complicating their journey from outsider to insider.

Have you read?

 Why cities hold the key to safe, orderly migration

 3 reasons all countries should embrace the Global Compact for Migration

 This Londoner is fixing old bikes and donating them to refugees, asylum seekers

Support for generous migration policies crumbles where migrants exist (or are perceived to exist) outside
the social and cultural fabric of the receiving community. It is no surprise that integration failures have
been widely cited as a major force behind the growing influence of malign political movements. Populist
parties ascribing to a policy of exclusive nationalism are still hovering on the fringes in most countries. But
even when outside government, their capacity to influence immigration and integration policy can be
profound. In the Netherlands, for example, nationalist political movements have successfully weaponised
concerns around integration, manipulating mainstream parties into adopting policies that are much less
friendly to migration and to migrants.

So how can we do better? Common sense and recent experience point to the following.

Receiving communities need help

The costs of integration are not evenly shared, either within or between countries. It is unfair that those
who are being called on to exercise the greatest generosity are too often those with the least to give and
the most to lose.
At the country level, central governments should ensure that towns and cities tasked with the real work of
receiving and integrating migrants are adequately supported, not just in terms of direct integration
expenses, but also to guard against the erosion of existing services that can easily fuel resentment within
the broader population.

At the international level, the idea of ‘burden sharing’ between countries on migration matters must extend
to integration. It's a collective good and a collective responsibility.

Success requires planning

Recent analysis of large-scale resettlement of refugees has demonstrated the 'power of place'. In short,
where new migrants end up can determine both their future and the long-term health of the society into
which they have moved.

For example, we know that employment is critical to integration, bringing individuals and families into their
new communities while exerting a positive effect on public perception of migrants. When resettlement is
carefully planned to maximise real employment opportunities and, more broadly, to match migrant with
destination, the experience on both sides improves dramatically. Technology is helping to make this kind
of targeted, locally relevant policy-making a reality.

Honesty and genuine partnership are rewarded

Integration is difficult and problems are inevitable. Receiving societies, and indeed migrants themselves,
deserve the respect of honesty. Anything less represents an indefensible betrayal of the trust that should
exist between a government and its people.

It is also a strategic mistake. The now common strategy of pretending that everything is fine when it is not
too often backfires. Communities that are suffering the effects of inadequate integration - for example
strained services and social tensions - rightly feel ignored or patronized when their concerns are
dismissed or mischaracterized. In the same way as migrants, those who are receiving them deserve
attention and compassion.

Most importantly, integration must be presented and experienced as a two-way process - a partnership
between the community and the migrant. We have seen that when partnership is the agreed starting
point, relationships are transformed. Migrants become more than the passive objects of charity, and
communities become more than unwilling cogs in a policy machine of which they do not feel part.

Evidence matters

Our knowledge of what works, and what doesn’t, is still very limited, not least because it may be years
before the impact of a particular approach can be properly assessed. This means that the evidence base
for integration policies and practices is often shaky.

Most immediately, it is very difficult to work out how to invest for maximum return. We can’t afford to make
big mistakes, but we also can’t afford to wait. Policy-makers should be brave enough to acknowledge
gaps in our knowledge and forward-thinking enough to support initiatives that will help close those gaps.
They should be tapping into recent work that is finally helping us to understand integration better, such as
the role that cost-benefit analysis can play in deciding where to focus attention and resources, and the
ways in which big data can be used to improve our understanding of how integration happens.

The two Global Compacts acknowledge a truth we all know: human movement is the lifeblood of human
progress. It cannot be stopped, but it can be managed much better than we are doing at present. The
Compacts lay out a vision for the future, one where countries, working together, succeed in making sure
that migration is overwhelmingly safe, legal and beneficial for all. But for that to happen, we need to keep
integration - the long-term health of our migrants and the communities that are receiving them - front and
centre.

Half or more in many destination countries view

immigrants as a strength

Around the World, More Say Immigrants Are a Strength Than

a Burden

Majorities of publics in top migrant destination countries say

immigrants strengthen their countries, according to a 2018
Pew Research Center survey of 18 countries that host half of
the world’s migrants.

In 10 of the countries surveyed, majorities view immigrants as

a strength rather than a burden. Among them are some of
the largest migrant receiving countries in the world: the United
States, Germany, the United Kingdom, France, Canada and
Australia (each hosting more than 7 million immigrants in 2017).
By contrast, majorities in five countries surveyed – Hungary, Greece, South Africa, Russia and Israel – see
immigrants as a burden to their countries. With the exception of Russia, these countries each have fewer
than 5 million immigrants.

Meanwhile, public opinion on the impact of immigrants is divided in the Netherlands. In Italy and
Poland, more say immigrants are a burden, while substantial shares in these countries do not lean one
way or the other (31% and 20% respectively).

Top 10 Countries Where Filipinos Migrate Permanently

February 8, 2019

There were 4.9 million Filipinos living around the globe as permanent residents outside the Philippines at
the end of 2013, the last year for which official statistics are available.

Below are the top 10 countries where migrated Filipinos and their families have established their new
homelands.
 1. United States: 3,135,293 permanent Filipino residents (64.4% of global total)
2. Canada: 626,668 (12.9%)
3. Australia: 334,096 (6.9%)
4. Japan: 163,532 (3.4%)
5. United Kingdom: 161,710 (3.3%)
6. Italy: 89,742 (1.8%)
7. Singapore: 44,102 (0.9%)
8. Germany: 36,020 (0.7%)
9. Spain: 32,226 (0.7%)
10. New Zealand: 29,008 (0.6%)

All told, the above 10 countries represent 95.5% of where all Filipinos settle outside the Philippines. North
America represents the preferred destination for roughly three-quarters of Filipinos who call their home
country other than the Philippines.

More than half of all countries have a policy to promote the integration of migrants Integration policies
are essential to achieve inclusive and sustainable economic growth in countries of destination and contribute to
the wellbeing of migrants. Globally, 59 per cent of Governments have introduced a policy or programme aimed at
integrating non-nationals into their society. The share of Governments with at least one policy measure to
promote the integration of immigrants ranges from a low of 40 per cent in Africa to a high of 100 per cent in
Northern America.

Among the specific integration measures considered, protection against discrimination is the most
prevalent type of intervention globally, employed by 52 per cent of Governments. Language skills training for
immigrants and the transfer of professional credentials are other common measures, adopted by 37 per cent and
36 per cent of Governments, respectively

Increasing ethnic and racial diversity of societies is the inevitable consequence of migration. Increasing
migration means that a growing number of States have become or are becoming more multi-ethnic, and are
confronted with the challenge of accommodating peoples of different cultures, races, religions and language.

Addressing the reality of increased diversity means finding political, legal, social and economic
mechanisms to ensure mutual respect and to mediate relations across differences.

But xenophobia and racism have become manifest in some societies which have received substantial
numbers of immigrants, as workers or as asylum-seekers.

In those countries the migrants have become the targets in internal disputes about national identity. In
the last decade, the emergence of new nation states has often been accompanied by ethnic exclusion.

As Governments grapple with the new realities of their multi-ethnic societies, there has been a marked
increase in discrimination and violence directed against migrants, refugees and other non-nationals by extremist
groups in many parts of the world.

The lack of systematic documentation or research over time makes unclear whether there is a real
increase in the level of abuse or in the level of exposure and reporting.
 Unfortunately, there is more than enough anecdotal evidence to show that violations of human rights of
migrants, refugees and other non-nationals are so generalized, widespread and commonplace that they are a
defining feature of international migration today.

The extent of racial discrimination and xenophobia is often played down and sometimes denied by
authorities. Racial discrimination is defined in international law as being: ìany distinction, exclusion, restriction or
preference based on race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying
or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on a equal footing, of human rights and fundamental
freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.î3

Racism and xenophobia are distinct phenomena, although they often overlap.

While racism generally implies distinction based on difference in physical characteristics, such as skin
coloration, hair type, facial features, etc, xenophobia denotes behaviour specifically based on the perception that
the other is foreign to or originates from outside the community or nation.

By the standard dictionary definition, xenophobia is ìthe intense dislike or fear of strangers or people
from other countries.î

As a sociologist puts it, xenophobia is ìan attitudinal orientation of hostility against non-natives in a given
population.î4 The definition of xenophobia, and its differentiation from racism and racial discrimination, are still
evolving concepts.

One of the regional Preparatory Meetings for this World Conference suggested that:

• Racism is an ideological construct that assigns a certain race and/ or ethnic group to a position of power
over others on the basis of physical and cultural attributes, as well as economic wealth, involving hierarchical
relations where the ìsuperiorî race exercises domination and control over others;

• Xenophobia describes attitudes, prejudices and behavior that reject, exclude and often vilify persons,
based on the perception that they are outsiders or foreigners to the community, society or national identity.5 In
many cases, it is difficult to distinguish between racism and xenophobia as motivations for behaviour, since
differences in physical characteristics are often assumed to distinguish the ëotherí from the common identity.
However, manifestations of xenophobia occur against people of identical physical characteristics, even of shared
ancestry, when such people arrive, return or migrate to States or areas where occupants consider them outsiders.

What is MIPEX?
The Migrant Integration Policy Index, or MIPEX, is a reference guide and tool which measures and compares the
immigration and integration policies of 29 European countries, plus the U.S. and Canada. The results are tabulated
from a 148-question survey which rates current laws and policies against a set of aspirational standards for
immigrant integration developed within the European Union, but tied to many international best-practices
instruments. Each country’s score is determined through consultations with top scholars and institutions. While the
program originated within the European Union, its managers have sought to expand the group of countries surveyed
biennially on the theory that the broader the sample, the more can be learned from assessing different practices. This
is the first year the United States has been part of the study.
The 148 questions in the MIPEX survey cover seven broad policy areas of integration: labor market mobility (how
immigrants access jobs and job training); family reunion (who is eligible to bring family members and which family
members); access to education; political participation; long-term residence (who is eligible, how does one get it, and
can it be revoked); access to citizenship; and anti-discrimination laws and protections. Each of the seven policy
areas is divided into subcategories, each one containing several questions that are scored on a scale of 0 to 100.
Why is MIPEX important?
MIPEX gives policymakers a quick reference guide to assess their country’s strengths and weaknesses in integration
policy, as well as look for potential solutions to problems. Advocates can use MIPEX to help push for policy
changes that would improve immigrant integration. The public can use MIPEX to compare their nation’s
immigration and integration policies to other countries from around the world. Finally, MIPEX online tools allow
researchers and the public to dig deeper into each country’s score on the various policy areas, create charts to
illustrate and compare scores, and determine how changes in laws and policies could impact overall scores.
What are the limitations of MIPEX?
Because MIPEX has a short-hand ranking system, it is easy to say the United States ranks in the top ten for
immigrant integration laws, but that would only scratch the surface of MIPEX’s value and its limitations. More than
anything, for an American audience, MIPEX offers an entry point into a much broader conversation about how the
United States treats its immigrant population. Nonetheless, the IPC found several limitations to the study that its
users should note.
The survey questions reflect European systems of government and policies that don’t necessarily translate to U.S.
laws and policies. For example, in most European countries, anyone can apply to immigrate based on various
eligibility requirements. In the United States, however, immigration is generally controlled by pre-existing family or
employment relationships. Many European countries allow limited voting by non-citizens, something that is
relatively unheard of in the United States. But, on the other hand, MIPEX doesn’t really provide questions that fully
measure the range of political activity in which non-citizens participate. For example, MIPEX cannot measure the
significant integration value of the role that unauthorized immigrants play in leading DREAM Act advocacy.
In some cases, then, a low score may not fully reflect the range of options in a country. Conversely, a high score
may not always reflect underlying tensions or issues that affect the implementation of a law. For instance, because
MIPEX focuses primarily on legal immigration, it cannot be used to give a full picture of the impact of laws on the
unauthorized population. Unlike legal immigrants, this large group of immigrants does not have access to legal
status, cannot apply for citizenship, cannot apply for family reunion, and is not protected by all of the anti-
discrimination laws and policies. Until the U.S. addresses the unauthorized population as a part of comprehensive
immigration reform, there will remain serious challenges to full social, economic, and political integration.

MIPEX index offers policymakers and the public a framework for analyzing our best and worst practices on
immigrant integration compared to other countries in the world. MIPEX invites a conversation on immigrant
integration and offers both scholars and advocates a chance to analyze the impact of existing and potential laws and
policies. As Richard Florida points out, “Americans like to think of their country as the world’s great melting pot.
But this new immigration index and our analysis suggest that’s no longer an assumption that can be taken for
granted.”

Integration refers to the process of refugees settling into a new community, country and society.
Although much debated, it is commonly understood to be a long-term, two-way process of
change. It involves both refugees/migrants and receiving societies, within which refugees adapt to
their new surroundings and move towards independence and self-sufficiency, while receiving
societies create the welcoming and equitable conditions that enable this process to take place.
Ideas about what it means to be ‘integrated’ and how integration should be measured vary from
country to country, and amongst organisations and individuals within different countries. It is
generally accepted, however, that integration has a number of practical aspects and
outcomes. For example, obtaining a secure legal status, language-learning, equal access to rights,
employment, education, and access to affordable and appropriate housing. Less tangible
aspects of this process reflect refugees/migrants feeling welcome and having a sense of
belonging in their new society. Integration is commonly understood as a process that takes place at
the individual, local and national level.
Some refugee resettlement programmes include specific integration support for resettled refugees,
while others mainstream support for resettled refugees into integration programmes provided for
other migrant groups. Both specialist and mainstream integration programmes are generally
provided for a specific period of time - which in Europe can range from a few months to several
years - and are delivered by various actors, including specialist NGOs, municipalities and/or national
governmental agencies working on integration.
Although integration programme activities differ widely from country to country, both specialist and
mainstream programmes generally provide support for resettled refugees in the practical aspects of
integration. Activities may include language classes, social and cultural orientation, vocational
training, and assistance to access mainstream services such as health and education. In
some countries, participation in integration programme activities is compulsory. For example, some
countries insist that resettled refugees’ ongoing access to financial benefits is contingent upon their
attendance. In other countries, participation in integration programmes is voluntary.
Some integration programmes try to provide a direct link to orientation activities provided to resettled
refugees in the pre-departure phase. This is often via staff in local settings in Europe working directly
with those delivering pre-departure orientation programmes. Many resettled refugees continue to
access integration-related support well beyond the end-date of specific integration programmes
through, for example, civil society organisations or mainstream services provided for the wider
population in the receiving country.
Outside of official programmes, many civil society organisations provide direct integration support
and assistance for resettled refugees, generally together with other refugee and migrant groups. In
many European countries, civil society organisations recruit volunteers from local communities –
including refugees resettled through earlier programmes – to act as mentors to resettled
refugees. Civil society organisations also work to create welcoming and supportive environments in
receiving communities, which is a crucial factor in the integration of resettled refugees. This is
pursued through activities such as campaigning and awareness-raising on resettlement and refugee
issues.
Many resettled refugees choose to naturalise as citizens of the receiving country, an option that is
generally available after a defined period of residency. However, this can be inaccessible for some
resettled refugees where they are unable to meet specific requirements, such as language
proficiency. While some consider acquisition of citizenship in the receiving country to mark the
‘end’ of the integration process, others may consider themselves integrated at a much earlier stage,
at a later stage, or perhaps not at all.

Social and labour market integration of

refugees
 Third-country nationals living in the EU face significant barriers when
entering the labour market. They are also more at risk of poverty or social
exclusion compared to natives, even when they are in employment. The
socio-economic outcomes of refugees are even worse. They represent one of
the most vulnerable groups of migrants on the labour market and society as a
whole.

With asylum applications in the European Union having surpassed 1.2 million
in 2015, the need for a more coordinated European response in all relevant
policy areas has become immanent. Beyond meeting the immediate needs of
refugees and asylum seekers, it is essential to promote their active integration
in host societies. Research suggests that early and effective labour market
participation is a key aspect of the integration process and determining for the
long-term economic impact of the recent crisis.

Successful integration of refugees and asylum seekers will need quicker

administrative procedures, swift access to basic pre-conditions (such as
housing and healthcare) and to the labour market, facilitated recognition of
foreign qualifications, as well as education and training. This will not happen
without considerable efforts. While the integration of refugees and asylum
seekers is a competence of Member States, the EU has an important role to
play in providing support and incentives for Member States’ actions.

Policy Response

Ensuing from the European Agenda on Migration, the European Commission

has put forward several proposals to address some of the integration
challenges EU Member States are facing. Central element is the Action Plan
on the Integration of Third Country Nationals, which was presented on 7 June
2016. DG Employment plays a key role in the aim to step-up actions to better
support the actors working on the integration of refugees and asylum seekers,
namely Member States’ governments, regional and local authorities, social
partners, and civil society.

In addition, the New Skills Agenda for Europe includes several initiatives that
aim at assessing, profiling, recognizing and upgrading skills of refugees and
third-country nationals.

Auditors identify challenges to integration of migrants in EU The European Court of

Auditors has identified a number of challenges to the integration of migrants from outside the
EU into society where further EU action is needed.
 The challenges are set out in a new Briefing Paper on EU action to support the integration
of those living legally in the EU but without EU citizenship, such as people migrating for the
purposes of employment, family reunification or research, asylum seekers and refugees. The
briefing paper does not cover people residing illegally in the EU. “The long-term impact of the
recent inflow of migrants will depend on how well they are integrated into European society. We
have identified seven challenges to their integration that need to be addressed by the Member
States and the EU,” said Iliana Ivanova, the Member of the European Court of Auditors
responsible for the Briefing Paper.
While the integration of migrants is mainly the responsibility of the Member States, the
EU plays an important role in providing support and incentives. As well as promoting the
exchange of good practice, the EU has been providing funding and helping to develop migration
and antidiscrimination policies.
The main challenges to integration identified by the auditors are:
Delays – The earlier integration starts, the more likely it is to be successful. But the rules
applied to migrants are not the same in all Member States, a factor leading migrants to move
between countries and delaying the start of the integration process. In addition, it sometimes
takes a long time to process applications.
Discrimination – Despite EU legislation promoting equal rights and non-discrimination,
immigration by people from outside the EU continues to arouse negative feelings for many
Europeans. In some Member States, this has a negative impact on migrant integration.
Funding – Several EU funds can finance integration measures but the total amount being
spent is not known. Since 2015, the EU has mobilised over €5 billion of additional funding to
deal with the increase in migration flows, of which over €100 million was allocated to
integration. In 2017, Member States declared that in order to integrate migrants, they needed
additional resources of EN 2 around €450 million from the Asylum Migration and Integration
Fund. Integration policies should be based on a sound assessment of needs and funded
adequately, say the auditors.
Lack of commitment – In 2016, the European Commission developed an action plan with
52 measures at EU level. As of December 2017, 23 actions had not been completed. In addition,
Member States are also encouraged to develop specific measures to tackle certain areas, but the
Commission does not monitor these measures. The effective implementation of the Action Plan
measures depends on the Member States’ commitment.
Incomplete policies – The majority of Member States have integration policies in place
within different policy frameworks. But these do not systematically address all groups of
migrants and do not always tackle all areas of integration. Integration policies should provide a
comprehensive framework to support all migrants across all relevant policy areas.
Lack of monitoring – Most Member States do not have a complete overview of the
number of migrants supported or of the amount spent on integration measures. At national level,
there are various weaknesses in monitoring. The Commission is currently proposing the creation
of dedicated indicators, which may facilitate the development of evidence-based policymaking.
Complexity – Different EU funds may finance the same type of action for the same target
group. There are more than 400 different entities involved in managing measures for migrant
integration in the Member States. Most Member States have a coordination body, but
weaknesses exist the in the coordination mechanisms in place. Meeting these challenges will
require effective, coordinated efforts on the part of all those involved, at EU, national and
regional level. Notes to Editors There are more than 21 million people legally residing in EU
territory without EU citizenship. About 4 % of the EU population are migrants from outside the
EU. Every year, some of them become EU nationals. In the period from 2013 to 2016, around
3.2 million migrants from outside the EU acquired citizenship of an EU Member State. Taking
into account second-generation migrants, around 18 % of the population residing in the EU has a
migrant background. The ECA’s briefing paper “The integration of migrants from outside the
EU” is available on the ECA website (eca.europa.eu) in English. A broadcast-quality video
statement by

Recent migration to OECD countries has been substantial: 5 million additional people migrated
permanently to OECD countries in 2016, up 7% compared with 2015. But migration to the OECD is not a
new phenomenon: more than 10% of residents in the OECD area in 2016 were born abroad and in 90% of
OECD regions, foreign-born populations are largely made up of settled migrants who have been in the
host country for more than ten years.

Migration is not only a matter of how many people are migrating, but how well they integrate into their
host country societies. The integration of migrants and refugees requires concerted efforts across all levels
of government, but such efforts can yield real benefits. If integrated successfully, migrants contribute to
their host countries in many ways – not least of all, economically.

At the same time, integrating migrants and refugees poses great challenges. These are highly diverse
groups of people and communities. Migrants are men and women, young and old, from different cultural
backgrounds and with different reasons for migrating as well as different levels of skills and work
experience. Furthermore, the size and composition of migrant communities vary enormously.

Such diversity has to fit in with the specific economic, social and geographic characteristics of the host
countries, regions and cities. These characteristics often shape how localities can offer integration
services, which in turn may influence how migrants and refugees are dispersed across regions and which
can create inequalities in terms of the opportunities available to them.

This report examines how such policy is set and managed at the local level and what can be learnt from
existing experience. It describes why and how countries, regions and cities can adapt integration policy to
their own, distinct local realities, drawing on a newly created statistical database on migrants and on an
OECD survey of 72 cities, including nine large European cities (Amsterdam, Athens, Barcelona, Berlin,
Glasgow, Gothenburg, Paris, Rome, and Vienna) and one small city in Germany (Altena), which are also
the subject of in-depth case studies. These nine large cities are not only among the European cities most
affected by the current wave of refugees and asylum seeker arrivals, but most also have a long tradition as
immigration hubs.

Key findings

Integration begins from the moment migrants arrive in their host countries and where migrants settle can
affect their paths to integration. This study shows that new migrants to OECD countries tend to come to
places where there are already large existing migrant communities. In Europe, many large cities have such
communities and draw migrants from outside the European Union, although migrants from other EU
countries tend to be spread out more across regions. Some small and medium-sized cities in the OECD
have also become migrant destinations.

What do cities and regions need to do to effectively integrate these new community members? In recent
years, many have had to scale up and adapt their existing migrant integration services, but co-ordination
and resources have been a challenge. Nearly 90% of the 72 cities surveyed for this study reported a lack of
adequate co-ordination with central government in this area. A critical lack of emergency reception
facilities represented a concern for the 9 large case study cities, while it was a concern only for 16% of the
small and medium-sized cities. Many cities also evoked structural problems in public service delivery and
housing for migrants. In this context, some cities have tried various innovative approaches to integration
service delivery, including working with local civil society groups to provide complementary integration
measures (language, cultural and vocational classes, skills assessments, internships and volunteering
experiences, etc.) as early as possible following migrant arrivals.

Integrating migrants can benefit everyone, as part of efforts to create more inclusive and sustainable cities
for all. Initial qualitative evidence does show that the presence of migrant communities could have a
positive impact, even in disadvantaged neighbourhoods, by revitalising demand for local business,
bringing local and migrant families together around public schools and health centres and diversifying the
cultural activities for all residents. Yet only a few of the cities surveryed currently reflect in their local
development strategies the added value that migrants can bring, although there are some cities that have
communicated the advantages of diversity both for economic development and to balance out local
demographic losses.

Finally, cities should invest in measuring the results of their integration work. This is needed to both
monitor the performance of existing programmes and adapt them or develop new ones as necessary and
to provide evidence on the benefits of integration as well as the costs of not effectively integrating
migrants. Measuring integration successes can also help to build positive attitudes towards migrants in
their host communities.