Social Work and Migration

Immigrant and Refugee Settlement and Integration

Kathleen Valtonen

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2016
• ISBN:
  9781317053347
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Scienze sociali
• Subtopic: Emigrazione e immigrazione

Social work increasingly finds itself at the frontline of issues pertaining to immigrant and refugee settlement and integration. In this timely book, Kathleen Valtonen provides the first book-length study on the challenges these issues create for the profession. Drawing on a wide range of research in migration which is not widely available to social workers or included in social work literature, she offers readers an opportunity to explore the capacity of the profession to take a primary role in the course and outcome of settlement. The book fills a gap in the social work literature by providing scholars, practitioners and students with a critical knowledge base that will strengthen their ability to engage with issues of immigration and integration and to open up options for effective practice with growing numbers of immigrant and refugee clients.

Chapter 1
Perspectives on Migration: ‘Here and Now’ Implications for Social Work

Introduction

The study of migration and settlement calls for us to scrutinize this phenomenon from different angles and within the larger field of action, and to examine the underlying social forces of migration movements. This chapter will focus on the idea of migration as a phenomenon that is embedded in wider national and international events, processes and developments. Factors such as the progression of social and human development affect life conditions in countries of origin, and can act as an impetus for emigration. The economic perspective, for instance, emphasizes income differential between sending and receiving countries, and argues for the importance of this as one of the main migration catalysts. The multifaceted nature of migration, however, is being increasingly appreciated. Migration is moreover a process that evolves with time, regardless of whether we consider the international, societal or personal dimensions. Our conceptual frames can change as we study how processes play themselves out and shape the phenomenon itself.

The initial chapter thus leads the reader directly into the field of migration and settlement, by presenting the structure and context of global-level dynamics and antecedents of migration. Different dimensions of refugee movements and other migration flows are introduced in the second section. The third section situates practice with immigrants and refugees in the social work agenda and mandate.

Migration Today

Migration is an increasingly familiar phenomenon in the societies of today. To migration we owe the cultural cross-fertilization in societies which gives rise to many stimulating and progressive currents of intellectual, social, economic and cultural change. The study of migration is challenging in its complexity. Migration has ramifications both for the migrants themselves and for the societies of settlement. The process of long-term integration requires the involvement of individuals, their families and communities in a demanding period of transition, adaptation and cultural metamorphosis. Personal and social resources must be developed in the first instance to deal with the tasks of settlement.

The style and pace of settlement can be seen largely as a function of the energies, personal and social resources of the settling persons themselves. However, a perspective that takes into account only what settling persons bring to the process would be incomplete, since settlement is qualitatively and decisively influenced by many factors in the receiving societies such as the overall capacity of the latter to incorporate and accommodate newcomers. This is reflected in the arrangements that have been put into place for facilitating integration including formal statutory provisions, specific services and pertinent legislation. The prevailing attitudes in the polity and the public are also significant. Studies provide evidence that the state of the economy in the country, for example, will have an effect on the degree of receptivity to immigrants. Restrictive policies and negative attitudes in the majority are more manifest during economic downturns when citizens struggle with their own contingencies and are sensitive to perceived external threats.

In the public and lay discourse, immigration issues attract attention. Positive press for immigration is generally overlooked or not considered essential when settlement and integration processes proceed satisfactorily. Many aspects of progress in settlement issues and areas remain ‘invisible’. When difficulties arise in immigration-related issues, on the other hand, immigrants and refugee groups are vulnerable to being mis-represented and it is not uncommon for perceptions of ‘otherness’ to surface in covert or overt ways. Immigration issues are also exploited at the level of party politics, at which times the discourse is invariably skewed.

It should be borne in mind that immigrants have an important function in the labour markets of settlement societies. The majority of immigrants belong to the labour force in the countries of settlement, making them important actors in national economies. In a globalized world, contemporary labour markets and economies are becoming increasingly interconnected. These processes feature centrally in economic theories of migration and are presented as a facilitating force in the movement of people across borders. Teitelbaum (1980) points out that extensive international migration is not peculiar to our time, but the enhanced importance of the nation-state in the twentieth century is unique to the modern epoch. Throughout most of human history, national boundaries, where these existed, were far more permeable to the temporary ebb and flow or permanent movement of peoples than they are today.

Van Hear (1998) states that globalization signifies accelerated integration and interdependence of the world economy, the most dramatic signs of which are the mobility of capital, and the liberalization of world trade in goods and services. Ohmae (1990, xii–xiii) refers to the flow across borders of information, money, goods and services as well as greater cross-border movement of people and corporations. With globalization has come the intensification of worldwide social relations which link localities, and allow local happenings to be shaped by events occurring many miles away and vice versa (Giddens 1990). Richmond (1994) observes that the process of globalization has increased the propensity for proactive as well as reactive migration. Whereas improvements in transportation and communications raise awareness of opportunities for mobility in sending and receiving countries, factors such as the global market for arms and superpower intervention in local conflicts have led to instabilities in the world system, with a growth in reactive migration as a consequence of civil war, for example (Richmond 1994).

In most European societies, populations are aging and decreasing. Immigration becomes one strategy that is considered as a way of renewing the labour force and thereby alleviating some social policy problems. In general immigrants make up large percentages of the generation of young adults in receiving countries (Jacobs and Tillie 2004). Immigrant groups tend to consist of a great majority of individuals of prime working age.

With regard to settlement provisioning, state-mandated formally structured measures to accommodate immigrants are seldom a product of brand new initiatives. This brings its own advantages and also some disadvantages. Settlement programmes are likely to be an extension of the existing social service and social welfare system in the country of reception, with a degree of innovation to cater for the particular situation of immigrants. So, for instance, Canada, Australia and several countries of Western Europe have catered for immigrants and refugees within their highly organized welfare systems. In countries where the state is a minor actor in welfare provision, the responsibility for generating welfare and well-being is distributed across the non-public, non-governmental (NGO) and informal sectors, including the family. Immigrants and refugees who are settling into this latter type of system must link into the existing non-state or quasi-state structures, which are heavily grounded in and organized at the level of the community and its collectivities. Settlement processes in some societies thus involve intensive interfacing with the existing range of public services, while in those societies with a wider spread in the ‘welfare mix’, immigrants and refugees build direct and multiple linkages with the organized services in civil society. The mode in which social services and settlement services are organized and delivered is likely to impact on the nature and profile of individuals’ initial contacts with members of the mainstream society. The network-building process and so-called ‘bridging’ into mainstream society are important priorities in settlement and thus in settlement practice.

Regardless of the type of social service systems and human service arrangements in the settlement countries, social workers have come to be invested with key roles and major tasks in facilitating the integration of immigrants and refugees. Working strategically on the frontline in human and social service provisioning, their engagement with immigrant groups is immediate, ongoing and often intensive. Responses to the short- and long-term challenges facing immigrants and refugees in settlement seem to fall naturally within the professional portfolio.

The parameters of the professional mandate with respect to settling communities are generally more easily identified and defined in contexts where citizens’ social rights to social security and welfare are articulated in policy and also institutionally implemented. In less ‘mature’ social welfare systems, the mandate and specification of professional responsibilities of social work might be much more flexibly and indeed diversely located within the existing service systems. Despite the variation across service provision systems, the social work response to the needs of settling groups has generally been regarded as pivotal. Immigrant and refugee settlement and integration have become established areas of practice. The tasks of immigrant integration lend themselves in a singular way to social work intervention at all levels, including progressive approaches pitched at the structural level.

Within the profession, we are faced with the need to mould strategies that deal not only with short-term practical issues in settlement, but with the long-term questions of integration. The necessity of engaging widely and creatively with the social environment, policy-makers and political agents challenges practitioners to expand their boundaries of practice in the interest of this particular client constituency.

Definitions

‘Migration’ refers to the movement of people from one settlement place to another. The term ‘migrant’ can refer to an individual who moves across a national border or to one who moves within national territory. Strictly speaking, the term thus encompasses both international and internal migrants. In international migration circles, however, the term ‘migrants’ is very often used for persons who cross national borders in moving from their country of origin or habitual residence to settle in another country. Similarly, the term ‘displaced persons’ may refer to persons who are forced to move across borders but also applies to those who find alternative settlement locations within their own borders (internally displaced persons sometimes referred to as IDPs).

The national policies which guide social services and social work with immigrants are often based on the ‘voluntary/forced’ distinction. Using the humanitarian circumstances surrounding forced migration as a benchmark, policy-makers tend to address so-called ‘regular’ immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers as discrete groups with qualitatively different needs in settlement. Entitlements are usually differentiated especially during the initial period. Human service workers and policy-makers vary in their opinions on whether reception and settlement services should cater differentially for these groups. One argument is based on the undeniable existence of basic needs across policy-created categories. Those who emphasize the principle of social justice place need as the central reference point, and argue for greater emphasis on consistency across the provisioning for groups who are ‘categorically’ distinct but, in reality, in a similar situation. The differentiation between categories signifies differences in entitlements to primary benefits. The disparity can be critical for some groups. For instance, asylum seekers, who await an official decision on their application for refugee status, can be in a precarious situation for long periods. This is due in some circumstances not only to a minimal level of benefit, but to the lack of permission to take up employment, or simply to the lack of employment. Using the examples of the UK and Australia, Briskman and Cemlyn (2005) observe that the harsh public and official climates surrounding asylum seekers have led to a weak social work response. These authors argue for greater recognition of the possible role of social workers in defending human rights and in promoting social justice through macro-level advocacy at national and international levels.

As ‘involuntary’ migrants, refugees comprise that category of immigrants distinguished by the circumstances of their arrival and the contextual push factors that precipitated their migration in the first place. The United Nations (UN) defines a refugee as someone who has suffered repression or persecution, often at the hands of his or her own government, and who has to flee for personal survival. Refugees flee situations characterized by gross violations of human rights, and of late increasingly from conditions of civil warfare as well as cross-border conflicts. ‘Voluntary’ and ‘involuntary/forced’ migration can be conceptualized along a continuum, rather than as two discrete categories. Voluntary migration, at one end, includes, for example, senior personnel in multinational organizations. Individuals who leave their country of origin due to lack of opportunities and precarious economic conditions can be classified as ‘involuntary’ migrants. Those who are forced to leave by conflict, persecution and human rights violations depart in extreme circumstances and fall at the other end of this continuum.

Under the 1951 UN Convention and Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees, a refugee is defined as follows:

The term refugee shall apply to any person who …, owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside of the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.

Cox and Pawar (2006) note that the perceived problems with this definition, as they have emerged with time, relate to the exclusion of internally displaced persons and groups; to the focus on persecution, which is not defined here or in other UN conventions, and which may not include, for example, victims of war; and to gender bias in the definition, in that there is a tendency for males to be, or to be seen to be, the direct focus of persecution, despite the fact that women and children inevitably suffer extensively and in particular ways (for example, rape victims or child soldiers).1 Cox and Pawar (2006) add that the consensus of opinion in the early twenty-first century is that if a new definition were to be sought from the international community, any agreed definition would prove to be more restrictive than the existing one, due to the contemporary concern in many countries of being inundated by refugees. The criteria embodied in the official definition of a refugee is of decisive importance to those who seek protection outside of their own countries. The right to leave one’s country is seldom contested (at least in theory). Yet an individual’s right to enter another country is dependent on the national legislation that prevails there. Refugees seek asylum under the auspices of the 1951 UN Convention and Protocol. They fall into a humanitarian category based on criteria that have been determined at supranational level.

‘Immigrants’ is used in this text as a general term referring inclusively to voluntary or regular migrants, and to involuntary migrants. I use the term ‘refugees’ in specific reference to those who arrive in the context of involuntary or forced migration. When it is necessary to be more specific in the case of ‘forced’ migration types, ‘asylum seeker’ designates persons who start their asylum application process upon arrival in the destination country. In the European Union, for example, asylum seekers are defined as persons who consider themselves to be refugees and who seek, therefore, asylum as well as recognition of their refugee status in the territory of another state. Alternatively the process of determining refugee status can take place in United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) camps, for example. Refugee status determination (RSD) is the procedure by which refugees are identified and distinguished from other migrants. The procedure can be conducted on a group or an individual basis. Individual procedures are much more resource-intensive and considered to be riskier for refugees, since an individual might be incorrectly rejected. Individual RSD is normally handled by a government, but in many places it is conducted under the auspices of the UNHCR.

Cox and Pawar (2006, 271) comment that in practice a distinction is being made between those who claim asylum in a developing country and those who reach a western country before making an application for asylum. In western countries of reception, the former population tends to be regarded as genuine asylum seekers, presumably because they claim asylum in the first possible country after fleeing. The distinction between genuine and non-genuine is seen as part of the reaction of western governments to the large increase in asylum seeker numbers from the 1970s to the early 2000s (Cox and Pawar 2006).

‘Immigrants’, ‘migrants’, ‘newer citizens’ or ‘settling persons’ are terms used in this text to refer to both voluntary and involuntary migrants. ‘Immigrant communities’ and ‘ethnic communities’ are also referred to as ‘settling communities’. ‘Settlement’ is a term that captures the concrete activities and processes of becoming established after arrival in the country of settlement. ‘Integration’, on the other hand, includes settlement but puts weight on a goal-oriented dimension of settlement, and indicates that migrants are seeking full participation in the social, economic, cultural and political life of a society, a process which is understood to be compatible with retention of their cultural identity and vital aspects of their culture. Integration is seen thus as the process in which a migrant engages in settlement-related goal-directed activity, and establishes roles, relationships and status in the receiving society. Integration is also seen as an outcome – that stage at which an individual has actually attained equitable, satisfying and meaningful status, roles and relations to the formal and informal institutions in the society of settlement (see Breton 1992). In this book, the central emphasis is on the situation of persons settling on a permanent basis.

Migration Antecedents and Flows

Migration itself can be seen as the act or process by which people move from one location to another. A migration system implies a processual dimension, and is understood to be a network of interconnected countries linked by the interactions of actors in functioning networks within the system (Kritz, Lim and Zlotnick 1992). Migration can thus be understood also as the multiplicity of social relations that link migrants and non-migrants at the different ends of migration movements, a perspective which allows us to grasp the wider situational context of the relational systems (de Bernart 1997).

At the level of personal links, chain migration refers to a situation in which the migration of individuals is encouraged, facilitated and supported by others who have previously migrated to the same destination. The previous link in the chain can be a close family member, relative, friend or acquaintance. The concept is not restricted to facilitation by kin for family reunion. Rumbaut (1991, 189) has stated that many millions of immigrants and their children in the US today are ‘embedded in often intricate webs of family ties, both here and abroad. Such ties form extraordinary transnational linkages and networks that can, by reducing the costs and risks of migration, expand and serve as a conduit to additional and thus potentially self-perpetuating migration.’

The catalysts of migration are complex. In the case of flows from so-called ‘developing’ countries, the propensity of citizens to emigrate is influenced by a combination of economic, demographic, political and ecological conditions, as well as by emigration policy in the country of origin and the policies of receiving countries. Many of the flows of a few decades ago were shaped by former colonial links together with the lure of the employment market in large centres of growth. The conditions in different countries continue to influence the actual flows by volume and type (for example, permanent, labour, forced, illegal) (Appleyard 1999, 5). At the individual level, migration decisions often depend upon the gravity of circumstances, specific community/family/individual variables, and on the availability of support through interpersonal links which would help to make migration a viable option (Appleyard 1999). Except in states with restrictive immigration policies, family reunification and chain migration tend to accompany migratory flows as crucial mechanisms for restoring social and kinship ties dislocated by emigration.

Zolberg, Suhkre and Aguayo (1989) emphasize the impact on migration by structural factors, events and forces which are part of broad historical processes. Migration is not a static phenomenon, but one that evolves from socio-histor...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• List of Figures
• Preface
• Acknowledgements
• 1 Perspectives on Migration: ‘Here and Now’ Implications for Social Work
• 2 Social Work Approaches to Practice with Immigrants and Refugees
• 3 Immigrants and Refugees in Society: The Field of Action, Relations, Roles and Status
• 4 Frames for Understanding Settlement and Integration Processes
• 5 The Politics of Inclusion and Exclusion
• 6 Practice Modes for Settlement Social Work
• 7 Practice with Family Systems
• 8 The Second Generation
• 9 Developing and Implementing Social Policy and Social/Settlement Services
• 10 Settlement Practice and Ethical Principles
• Index