Extending Protection to Migrant Populations in Europe

Old and New Minorities

Roberta Medda-Windischer, Caitlin Boulter, Tove H. Malloy

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2019
• eBook ISBN: 9780429956171
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: International Relations
• Index: Politics & International Relations

This comprehensive and innovative volume focuses on the usefulness and relevance of extending the scope of protections already in place for national minorities ('old minorities') to migrant populations ('new minorities') in Europe.

Delving into a highly relevant but under-researched issue, the book examines the feasibility of expanding the system of protection for national minorities to migrant groups, as well as considering issues of diversity, security, socio-economic concerns and identity. Taking a multidisciplinary perspective, and combining insights from political science, law, sociology and anthropology, it asks the central question of how far the extension of policies and rights currently specific to national minorities is conceptually meaningful and beneficial to the integration of 'new' minorities. In doing so, it questions the feasibility and appropriateness of extending the scope of the protections already in place for national minorities to other categories of population.

This book will be of key interest to scholars, students and practitioners of European Union politics, migration studies, minority studies and more broadly of sociology, international law and human rights.

1 Introduction

What's in a name?

Caitlin Boulter, Roberta Medda-Windischer and Tove H. Malloy

What’s in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other word would smell as sweet

– William Shakespeare

The simultaneous increase in rates of migration into Europe throughout the 2010s due to international conflict, persecution and poverty, and newly emboldened right-wing populist movements across the continent, has fuelled a discussion on whether and how the rights of ‘immigrants’ should be recognised in Europe. This discussion is unavoidable for politicians and academics, and within this debate fall pressing and deeply controversial questions – how is changing immigration affecting the culture and politics of European nation-states, and vice versa? How do we reconcile contradictory social norms in ever-diversifying societies? Who has the right and the ability to decide? At the same time, the discussion collides with so many disciplines and schools of thought, and covers so many groups of people with different needs, requests and considerations, that establishing common foundations on which to base a discussion can be hard. Commentators and analysts often find themselves arguing past one another, and thus missing opportunities to move beyond initial conceptual debates. What’s more, the existing infrastructure and tools for diversity management in various sectors remain overlooked or misunderstood, and their constructive potential untapped.

This volume sets out to enter into this debate, which is already in full swing and yet not fully developed in its scope, and the ambits of which have not been fully investigated. As the disciplines of European minority studies and migration studies have largely developed independently of one another, they have different conceptualisations of core ideas such as identity and culture, and thus their approaches to normative frameworks are not always in agreement, or even mutually comprehensible (for exceptions to this, see e.g. Medda-Windischer 2009). However, as the broader debate increasingly sees instances of minorities with long-term (or historical) presence in the territory being instrumentalised or further marginalised to shore up nationalist policies and xenophobic rhetoric, intertwined with discourses regarding minority rights and migrants, it becomes ever more important to investigate the ways in which these two fields can be reconciled and productively explored.

Such an investigation was the motivation for this publication, and the conference which inspired it.¹ They contribute to the debate around extending the existing framework of rights and protection for national minorities to so-called new minorities in Europe by mapping out different disciplinary approaches and conceptualisations from both minority studies and migration studies. The term ‘old minorities’ is generally used to refer to minorities that either have formal recognition under state law and/or have been resident in a territory for an extended period of time (sometimes called autochthonous or ‘national’ minorities), while ‘new minorities’ is used to refer to groups of people that have formed within a state due to migration from around the mid-20th century onwards. While the former groups have typically become minorities in their respective states due to moving borders, the latter ‘new’ minorities are the result of moving populations. The structures for recognition and minority rights protection in Europe were created with autochthonous minorities in mind, but both the academic and political fields of minority issues have begun considering the commonalities between new minorities and autochthonous minorities, both conceptually and from a policy perspective. This shift in approach began as early as the 1990s as analysis of guest-worker groups and, subsequently, refugees from the Balkan conflicts (see e.g. Pettigrew 1998), but has gained particular ground in the last few years in response to the migration waves of the 2000s and the current influx of refugees and asylum seekers.

A conceptual quandary

The last decade, and in particular the last five years, have seen a significant preoccupation with asylum seekers and migrants arriving from Syria, Afghanistan, South Sudan, Somalia and other conflict zones; news media and political debate have focused so heavily on the topic that discussing immigration has become nearly synonymous with discussing refugees, particularly during election periods. However, it is worth noting that migration stems from both outside and inside Europe, driven largely by the mobility enshrined as a core principle of EU citizenship. The free movement of people over the last several decades has reshaped national identities and communities throughout the European space and particularly within the Schengen area. Diaspora groups also formed over the course of the 20th century as a result of post-war dynamics and many European countries forming strategic bilateral labour migration agreements within and beyond Europe to bolster their economies. With many of these diaspora groups reaching their third or even fourth generation in Europe, it seems incongruous to describe them as ‘migrants’; yet they remain largely categorised as such, and very few groups enjoy minority recognition.

This tapestry of diverse historical, economic and cultural context is interwoven with the legal and political circumstances of both minority and majority communities in a country, and a variety of layered and overlapping identities and subcategories emerge within its threads. The way we view these identities and communities has changed dramatically, and the entire notion of discrete ‘groups’ based on culture, religion, language and other markers requires rethinking. How can policymakers and academics re-define their categories of analysis so that they better reflect the categories of practice, in terms of research but most importantly in terms of policymaking?

As Brubaker (2013) notes, with particular reference to ‘Muslims’ in Europe, research on diverse communities, migrants and minorities often confuses categories of practice and categories of analysis; that is, the way individuals and groups may use certain categories to self-identify and to identify others through discursive processes and interactions (or practice) both within and between groups are often mistaken for clear, immutable categories that can be subject to overly simplified scientific processing (or analysis). Without a complex understanding of how an identity group is formed as a category of practice – through self-identification, other-identification, political framing in media and policy, and through the influence of academia itself – we risk forming categories of analysis that misrepresent the people and identities that fall within those categories, and muddying the water between the two types of formulation. While it is – according to Brubaker – impossible to avoid “using analytical categories that are heavily loaded and deeply contested categories of practice” (Brubaker 2013, p. 6), it is important to reflect critically on the way we form these categories.

What's in a name?

The question of which groups constitute ‘new’ minorities has gained momentum over the last two decades, with the reconfiguring of the European societal landscape due to the establishment and expansion of free movement under the European Union throwing a new light upon the migration histories of its member states. Attempts to set out a concrete definition run into many of the same issues inherent in defining ‘national minorities’ themselves, particularly from a normative perspective. In seeking to define groups characterised by nationality, language, religion or culture, one must inevitably grapple with the ambiguous and contested nature of these terms, and will also be faced with the problem of groups that should not be excluded from a minority definition inadvertently falling outside of defined boundaries, whether by way of contested meanings and criteria or through deliberate manipulation by states in service of their own interests. As such, there is a tendency to make similar caveats as those pertaining to all minority definitions: while certain broad and flexible categories may be invoked to give meaning to the term ‘new minority’, one must remain aware that attempts to define the term in literature and policy are generally intended inclusively, rather than exclusively.

This section of this introduction will provide an overview of existing literature illustrating the complexities of defining ‘new’ minorities. Several definitions of ‘new’ minorities begin by setting them up in contrast to so-called old or autochthonous minorities, emphasising the historical and/or territorial claims of the latter groups. Thomas Pettigrew, for instance, sets ‘new’ minorities against ‘indigenous’ minorities “such as the Frisians of the Netherlands and Germany, the Bretons and Corsicans of France, the Scots and Welsh of Great Britain, and the Basques and Catalans of Spain” (Pettigrew 1998, p. 79), while Asbjorn Eide (2002) uses a provisional distinction between groups who lived on the territory of the country before it became an independent state, or before current borders were set, and those who entered the country afterwards. Roberta Medda-Windischer and Katharina Crepaz both make reference to the difference in access to rights as a defining factor of old vs new minorities (Crepaz 2016; Medda-Windischer 2009; 2017), and both attribute the additional characteristic of ‘stemming from migration’ to new minorities.

The categorical distinction and comparison between old and new is sometimes employed as a justification for the deprivation of rights or recognition to ‘new’ minorities in both policy and theory. Julija Sardelić, for instance, argues that ‘autochthony’ as a criteria for minority recognition was employed in Slovenia as a means of excluding groups that threatened Slovenian nationalism, rather than to protect the rights of minority groups that already enjoyed recognition under the law (Sardelić 2012). Meanwhile, Sardelić, Elizabeth Craig (2010) and Darien Heim (2016) all interrogate the relevance of the theories of political philosopher Will Kymlicka, whose model of liberal multiculturalism is often employed to justify a system of rights based around three categories: indigenous peoples, national or sub-state minorities and immigrants (Kymlicka 2007). Both Craig and Heim find fault with the application of Kymlicka’s model to Europe, arguing that his differentiation does not fully or accurately account for the complexity in circumstances, agency and participation of various migrant groups, nor for successive generations of those born to migrant parents or grandparents who retain the national or ethnic identities of their forebears. Heim, in particular, criticises Kymlicka’s assertion that, because they arrive after the formation of their host state, and because they deliberately choose to migrate to a new state, immigrants do not engage in ‘nation-building’. Heim suggests refocusing categories towards groups’ “merit, participation and need” (Heim 2016).

The clash between Kymlicka’s theories and the broader discussion on the rights and recognition of ‘new’ minorities seems to rest in part on Kymlicka’s focus on state attitudes towards and treatment of groups, rather than on what might be provided to those groups on the basis of legitimate claims or self-organisation. In Kymlicka’s analysis, states’ attitudes towards minority groups are broadly regarded as having solidified at either the point the state is formed or the point at which the group enters the state. For instance, his description of the three categories just noted refers to the different circumstances under which groups might become part of a state, and considers how and whether those states might adopt policies of liberal multiculturalism as a result (Kymlicka 2007), but does not consider how that group may change, consolidate or disperse over time, nor how the relationship between the state and the group may transform. He also bases these categories on the presumed expectations of certain groups, positing that as immigrants do not ‘expect’ to gain the ability to exert nation-state-like power in the fields of governance or language, that they cannot be regarded in the same way as sub-state nations such as the Quebecois (Kymlicka 1995, p. 15).

The contrast between Kymlicka’s approach to the question of new minorities and other theoretical stances is summed up rather succinctly in a set of interviews conducted by Andreea Udrea (2016), including an interview with former OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities (HCNM) Knut Vollebaek and commentaries by Kymlicka and Keith Banting, Tariq Modood, and Jennifer Jackson-Preece. Kymlicka and Banting argue against equating the present backlash against immigrants in Europe with a potential corresponding backlash against national minorities in Europe, stating that to do so is to generalise ‘Otherness’ beyond the bounds of usefulness. The generalisation inherent in merely distinguishing between the encompassing categories of ‘migrants’ and ‘minorities’ becomes apparent when set beside Modood’s proffered conceptual framework for understanding different models of identity construction relating to group identity or minority affiliation. In distinguishing between assimilation, individualist-integration, cosmopolitanism and multiculturalism, Modood puts forward the strategy of “‘rethinking the national story’ with the minorities as important characters; not obscuring difference but weaving it into a common identity that all can see themselves in and giving all a sense of belonging to each other” (Udrea 2016, p. 51). Similarly, Jackson-Preece argues against the “unthinking bifurcation” of minority rights considerations based merely on whether they are ‘old’ or ‘new’, rather than whether they share similar circumstances or normative requirements (Udrea 2016).

It is not only Kymlicka’s work that presents challenges or contradictions to this field of study, however. Various interpretations of the term ‘new minorities’ result in a range of groups to which it might refer. Almost all refer to migration in one form or another – sometimes with the terms ‘immigrants’ and ‘new minorities’ explicitly equated (Sari 2007). Pettigrew examines people who are often viewed as not ‘belonging’, and proposes seven types of new minorities: ‘national’ migrants who are seen as returning ‘home’, citizens of the EU living in other EU countries, ‘ex-colonial’ peoples, recruited workers from non-colonial countries, refugees and asylum seekers, accepted illegal immigrants (who are often employed), and rejected illegal immigrants (who are often deported) (Pettigrew 1998). Subsequent definitions of new minorities generally encompass one or more of these types in their scope. Sardelić, for instance, restricts her discussion to groups in Slovenia from other former Yugoslavian nations who in turn present a threat to Slovenian nationalism (Sardelić 2012). Both Michael Johns and Karl Cordell & Timofey Agarin, meanwhile, use ‘new minority’ to refer exclusively to EU citizen migrants living in other EU member states (Cordell & Agarin 2016; Johns 2014).

Still others approach defining this category by finding common ground or scope for comparison between groups and categories, or examining interactions between ‘old’ and ‘new’ minorities. Roberta Medda-Windischer emphasises the need to bridge the fields of minority studies and migration studies to better understand the topic. She discusses ‘distinct’ groups that are not adequately described by the term ‘migrants’, as ‘new minorities’ also encompass subsequent generations (Medda-Windischer 2011; 2016; 2017; 2009). Stephanie Berry notes that postwar migrants and refugees have been treated differently in political and academic debate, but argues that they have common ground in the barriers to integration they often face, namely that they are affected by stigmatisation from media and politicians around Islam due to the higher percentage of Muslims within those groups, and the higher rates of economic disadvantage they are likely to suffer (Berry 2015). Antonella Liuzzi examines the transformation of the Arbëreshë minority (communities of Albanians who have lived in Italy since the 14th century) in response to significant immigration from their ‘kin-state’. She argues that the stark cultural differences and political division between the ‘old’ minority and their ‘kin’ immigrants mean there is now little or no connection between the Arbëreshë and Albanian identities (Liuzzi 2016). This can be compared with the work of Marián Sloboda, who focuses specifically on the Czech Republic and the policy changes that have resulted from ‘new’ minorities being officially recognised and, thus, in a sense, being re-categorised as ‘old’ minorities. Sloboda discusses the fact that some rights accessible to old minorities are not useful to or desired by those groups, but would be very useful for the new Vietnamese minority: for example, language use with authorities (to verify qualifications and certifications from Vietnam) and education in their mother tongue, which Sloboda says would also benefit the Czech economy through trade (Sloboda 2016). This analysis is consistent with Eide’s (2002) assertion that there are many complicated aspects to the issue of defining new minorities, and that the circumstances and needs of particular groups should be considered, rather than their strict legal category.

The definition of ‘new’ minorities discussed thus far, as based in the field of minority studies, has been contested. Steven Vertovec, for example, proposes ‘super-diversity’ as an alternative conceptualisation of the diverse communities of Europe (Meissner & Vertovec 2015; Vertovec 2007). Vertovec uses London as a case study to assert that the reality of belonging and identification is far more complex than the conventional n...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Series Page
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of contributors
• Preface
• 1 Introduction: What's in a name?
• 2 Deconstructing myths: What's in the debate on extending the scope of minority rights and policies to immigrants?
• 3 Francophone minorities in Canada: Trapped between the new/old minority categories
• 4 Beyond legal categories of indigeneity and minority-ness: The case of Roma and falling in-between
• 5 The moral of moral panic: Minorities and migrants in Denmark 1500-1915
• 6 The half-hearted protection of new religious minorities' fundamental rights in Europe: A glass half empty and a glass half full
• 7 Integratedness and deservingness: A perspective from Romanian Roma in Spain
• 8 From security considerations to de-securitising the discourse on 'old' and 'new' minorities
• Index