WASHINGTON — In 2010, Nicolas Sarkozy dismantled camps of Roma migrants in France, Barack Obama’s Justice Department sued Arizona over a law targeting illegal immigrants, and far-right parties across Europe gained traction by stoking xenophobic sentiment. Though polarizing headlines abounded, it behooves governments to pay attention to what the public is actually saying on immigration and integration.

Today marks the release of the third-annual Transatlantic Trends: Immigration survey, which polled residents of large migrant-receiving countries in the West, including the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Spain. While the survey sheds light on the internal debates in each country, there is a transatlantic story to tell as well.

Among the countries surveyed, the lingering effects of the economic crisis — particularly unemployment — has been on the minds of the public. Transatlantic Trends: Immigration shows that the economic crisis has had some effect on how people perceive labor-market competition from immigrants.  In Europe, 49% of those whose household economic situation got worse in 2010 believed that immigrants bring down the wages of native-born workers; this compared to 36% of those whose economic situation got better or stayed the same in 2010. In the United States, those whose personal finances deteriorated last year were also more likely to say that immigrants take jobs away from native-born workers. What does this mean for attitudes about immigration policy? Increasing anxiety about job competition will affect the ability of governments to (re)shape labor migration programs. The coalition government in Britain has already promised to lower net migration to the “tens of thousands,” and an immigration overhaul in the United States will be even more difficult in these conditions, as implications for the American labor market are obvious.

In addition to worries about the economy, the integration of migrants, particularly Muslims and their children, has been front-page news in Europe.  The survey fieldwork was done in 2010, the year of banning face-covering veils for women in France and the rise of Geert Wilder’s Freedom Party in the Netherlands, which relies on an anti-immigrant and anti-Islamic agenda. Discussions in Germany last summer centered on a controversial book by Thilo Sarrazin, a former Board Member of the German Bundesbank. The book, entitled “Germany Does Itself In,” argued that the Muslim — primarily Turkish — community in Germany was bringing the country down by failing to integrate. In the survey, respondents in all countries were asked how well they perceived Muslim immigrants to be integrating into their society. In Europe on average, 58% of respondents said that they were integrating poorly, with only one-third (33%) saying they were integrating well. The most pessimistic about Muslim integration were Spanish and Germans respondents, 70% and 67% of who, respectively, said that Muslim immigrants were not integrating well.

On this issue in particular, there was a clear transatlantic divide. Whereas Europeans were clearly pessimistic overall about the extent to which Muslim immigrants were integrated into their societies, a plurality of both Americans and Canadians (45% in each country) answered that Muslim immigrants were integrating well. Tellingly, 14% of Americans did not even answer the question, claiming that they did not know how well Muslims were integrating into American society. The optimism of North Americans on Muslim integration, therefore, may have something to do with the relative scarcity of Muslim immigrants and the lack of discussions about integration in the media. The one common thread among respondents in all countries regarding Muslim integration, however, is a universal perception that the second-generation, or the children of Muslim immigrants, are integrating better than their parents. A plurality of 49% of Europeans as well as 62% of Americans and 66% of Canadians claimed that the native-born children of Muslim migrants were integrating well into their societies.

Though changing economic situations and specific debates about integration appear to have some relationship to public attitudes about immigration, in some ways overall perceptions remain fairly constant. Despite the drastic changes in economic and political landscapes over the past three years, perceptions about whether immigration is more of a problem or more of an opportunity for each country have remained fairly constant, whether positive or negative. For example, around two-thirds of British respondents consistently say that immigration is more of a problem, whereas around half of Americans and only one quarter of Canadians agree. These entrenched perceptions may mean that governments will have less room to maneuver when changing immigration or integration policy, but it also means that they have at least one constant on which to depend. For an issue as fast-moving and controversial as immigration, that, at least, could be a blessing.

Delancey Gustin is a Program Associate with the Immigration and Integration Program of the German Marshall Fund in Washington.

Share/Bookmark

“The President obviously is a – is Christian. He prays every day. He communicates with his religious advisor every single day.” These words came from an Obama White House spokesman on August 19, at the height of the controversy over building a “mosque” near the site of the 9/11 terrorist attack in New York City and the very day that the Pew Research Center released a poll showing that nearly one in five Americans (18%) incorrectly believe that President Obama is a Muslim. The survey found that only 35% correctly identify him as Christian, while a further 43% don’t know what religion he practices.

This misperception matters, especially for Muslim Americans. This population clearly needs an outspoken defender these days, as manifestations of anti-Islamism become more frequent. Misconceptions about the President’s religious beliefs, however, render him politically incapable – or perhaps unwilling – to provide an adequate defense of the right of Muslims to practice their Islamic faith in the United States.

The recent controversy over the Ground Zero Islamic center in New York and the threatened Koran-burning by a Christian fundamentalist preacher in Florida is seen by many commentators as manifestations of increasing anti-Islamic sentiment in the United States. Europeans, in particular, have been quick to recognize some of the discriminatory rhetoric that has been present in their countries for years, even gaining more ground recently as right-wing parties gain prominence across the continent. It seems to many that this prejudice has finally arrived stateside.

But is anti-Muslim sentiment newly arrived in America, or has it just been successfully suppressed until now? Evidence suggests that it is the latter. In 2009, Gallup found that over four in ten Americans (43%) felt at least “a little” prejudice toward Muslims, though open anti-Muslim demonstrations didn’t begin in earnest until the summer of 2010. From September 2001 until early 2009, there was one unlikely voice that can be credited with keeping American anti-Islamism in check: President George W. Bush.

As the man with the biggest microphone in the country, not to mention one with uncontested Christian credentials, Bush drew clear delineations between extremists and the majority of Muslims who reject violence and practice a religion of peace. This message, coming from a quintessential American good ol’ boy, meant that Americans – especially those like him – listened. In a press conference earlier this month, Obama himself recognized Bush’s efforts, saying “One of the things that I most admired about President Bush was after 9/11, him being crystal clear about the fact that we were not at war with Islam.”

Indeed, Bush was almost didactic in his defense of the Muslim faith. Just months after the twin towers fell, Bush told a joint session of Congress, “There are thousands of Muslims who proudly call themselves Americans, and they know what I know – that the Muslim faith is based upon peace and love and compassion.” If he was perceived as being a Muslim himself, could he be so “crystal clear” in his entreaty for tolerance?

President Obama is simply unable to match his predecessor’s effectiveness in defending Muslim Americans, thanks in part to the fact that the public does not perceive him to share the religious beliefs that they hold themselves. America is 78.4% Christian and .6% Muslim, according to a 2008 Pew study, thereby making Obama, in the eyes of 18% of his fellow citizens, to be a member of a very small out-group. If President Obama is not perceived to be part of the Christian in-group in the United States, he may unfortunately be incapable of changing that majority’s mentality about Muslims in any meaningful way.

It has not helped matters that the president has delivered a contradictory message about the proposed Muslim community center. He first seemed to support building the center and then backed away by saying it is a “decision for the local community in New York City to make.”

Cynics, including this author, think that political caution may motivate president Obama to shy away from a stronger defense of Islam because it would reinforce misperceptions about his own religious beliefs and endanger Democrats up for election in November. If politics is the President’s motivation, it is a tragic mistake. It runs the real risk of long-term marginalization, even radicalization, of a minority group in exchange for short-term political considerations. At less than one percent of the population, American Muslims need reassurance that they are accepted by American society. If instead they feel scorned, they and their children may become vulnerable to messages that offer varying degrees of reciprocal rejection and retaliation.

If he wishes to allay right-wing press criticism, President Obama should mount a strong defense of Muslim Americans by first stressing his own Christian beliefs. America is an astonishingly religious country by rich world standards, and appeals to a right to worship one God could at once placate the Christian majority and defend the Muslim minority. Obama’s current strategy, to appeal to America’s historical religious tolerance, simply does not have the same resonance for either group. Instead, this strategy typically involves citing a laundry list of religions (in addition to atheism) represented in the United States. Certainly this does nothing to set the record straight about the President’s own beliefs.

Beyond significantly strengthening his own message, the president needs to challenge prominent Republican leaders to speak out for religious tolerance. These messages need not come from only Protestant or Catholic Republicans, though that would help. Republicans from more diverse religious backgrounds, such as former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney (a practicing Mormon), Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal (the son of Hindu immigrants), or South Carolina gubernatorial candidate Nikki Haley (who was raised Sikh), should add their voices to the defense of Muslim Americans. Such statements might even help to diversify GOP support, which, in these days of Tea Party influence, is looking even more white and Christian than usual.

On the subject of anti-Islamism and its effects on Muslim Americans, President Obama recently said, “When we start acting as if their religion is somehow offensive, what are we saying to them?” Clearly he is cognizant of the messages Muslim Americans are receiving, but he needs to both strengthen his rhetoric and encourage Republicans to join him in condemnation of bigotry. In the post-Bush era, a chorus of voices will be needed to put the cap back on anti-Islamic sentiment in America. There are certainly more than opinion polls at stake.

Share/Bookmark

The 2010 German World Cup team was a force to be reckoned with – a physically strong, methodical, and dangerous team whose leading goal scorer, Polish-born Miroslav Klose, fell just one goal short of tying the all-time record of individual World Cup goals. The team’s prowess was enhanced by the footwork and speed of one of its youngest and most inspiring players, Mesut Özil, a German-born son of Turkish guestworkers. And in the group play stage of the tournament, German defender Jerome Boateng often found himself marking his half-brother, Kevin-Prince, who was playing for their father’s home country of Ghana.

These three players are no exception – 11 of the 23 players on the German World Cup squad were either born outside Germany or come from a family with a “migration background.” Seeing as how Germany took until 2005 to officially declare itself a “country of immigration,” many are surprised to see the enthusiasm with which the country has embraced this newly diverse team. Children in Berlin parks can be seen wearing as many Özil and Podolski jerseys as those of the (ethnically German) captain, Philipp Lahm. Some commentators are heralding this development as a symbol of Germany’s growing acceptance and recognition of its diversity.

The team was certainly easy to support. Though it ultimately came in 3rd place, it was undoubtedly one of the strongest teams in the tournament. The youth of its players also ensures that the team’s best years are ahead of it. In short, these Germans, whether of Polish, Brazilian, Ghanaian, Nigerian, or Turkish background, are winners. And Germans fans, like sports fans the world over, like to support winners.

But what happens if an ethnically diverse team doesn’t win? One only has to look one country over to find the answer. Since the 1990s, the French national team has reflected the multiracial nature of its modern country. The team gained the slogan “black, blanc, beur,” signifying its black, white, and Arab composition – by the late 90s, 17 of the 23 players were racial minorities. Though far-right politician Jean-Marie Le Pen claimed for years that the team didn’t “look sufficiently French” or “had too many black players,” few Frenchman agreed with him. With few exceptions, the French viewed the team – white, brown, or black – only as Les Bleues, and supported them wholeheartedly. It didn’t hurt that in 1998 they accomplished the most glorious achievement their sport has to offer: winning the World Cup on home soil. The indisputable cornerstone of the 1998 French team was the captain, Zinedine Zidane, who was born in France to Algerian parents. His inspirational ball skills, playmaking ability, and stoic leadership made him one of the all-time soccer greats, earning him the affectionate nickname Zizou. In addition to the World Cup, he led his team to victory in the 2000 UEFA European Football Championship, prompting banners and t-shirts across France to boastfully claim, “La victoire est en nous!”

From this height, the team started to descend. A thigh injury prevented Zidane from playing in the first two games of the 2002 South Korea / Japan World Cup, and the team went home after the group stage without scoring a single goal. The spectacular failure of 2002 was rivaled only by one of the most dramatic episodes in soccer history, when Zidane received a red card for head-butting Italian player Marco Materazzi in the 2006 World Cup final game in Germany. Les Bleues lost to the Italian Azzurri in a penalty shoot-out, but not before Zidane created one of the most enduring images of that World Cup: passing the golden trophy as he descended the stairs on his solitary walk out of the stadium.

Since the retirement of Zidane, the French team has had no clear leader. Instead, it has gone through a series of scandals and oddities that have hardly inspired loyalty or confidence. Three players, including star Franck Ribery, are currently under investigation for liaisons with an underage prostitute. The oddly superstitious coach, Raymond Domenech, has since 2004 refused to allow any players born under the Scorpio astrological sign to play for his team. France barely qualified for the South Africa World Cup, and then only after French player Thierry Henry illegally used his hand on a crucial scoring play against Ireland. And lastly, French striker Nicolas Anelka was sent home during the World Cup itself after refusing to apologize for publicly criticizing the coach. The day after Anelka’s expulsion, the entire French team refused to train in solidarity with him.

Perhaps not surprisingly, France didn’t make it out of the group stage in South Africa. The ensuing uproar among the French public has reached a fever pitch, with some comments and insults hinting at or blatantly using racist language. The team is accused of being a bunch of “hooligans” who come from minority-heavy banlieues and do not represent French values. Though such comments are offensive and threaten to tear at some of the fragile fabric of French society, they do not reflect inherent racism or rejection of French minorities in sport. Rather, they are a venting of frustration with this team and with these players, whose insubordination and lack of discipline cost them their one-time glory. The French, like the Germans, are ready to love their players, no matter their color or background. A new coach, a new team morale, and a bit of luck in the form of young talent is all Les Bleues need to endear themselves again to the French public. That, of course, and some big wins.

Share/Bookmark

WASHINGTON — In the early 2000s, the issue of Muslim schoolgirls, teachers, and civil servants wearing headscarves in public institutions and schools was a heated national debate in France and a source of discussion and controversy around the world. In 2009, President Nicholas Sarkozy rekindled the flames of that debate with statements condemning the burqa in France, calling it a form of enslavement that was unwelcome in the country. Following his lead, on January 26, a French parliamentary panel recommended outlawing the use of face-covering veils in any public building or service institution, including public transportation. Though it is not an outright ban and not yet law, it is a large step toward the further restriction of female Muslim dress in France.

In the United States, where in late October a woman might easily pair a traditional hijab with a Halloween costume without issue, the French headscarf and burqa debates are hard to fathom; seen through American eyes, the bans limit the freedoms of speech and religion that the government of a liberal, democratic society should guarantee. Though it is easy to think of the controversy in this way, it is first important to understand the French government’s reasoning behind the measures it has taken.

Historically, secularism has been intensely important to the French Republic. The ideals of the French state seek to protect religious diversity by eliminating any mention or promotion of religion in official discourse or policy. For instance, you will never hear President Sarkozy request blessings for France the way that American politicians are obliged to end speeches with “God bless America,” and the Catholic crucifixes that are still commonplace in Italian classrooms are absent from French public schools. In this vein, the move to ban headscarves in 2004 was not designed to limit the liberties of Muslim girls and women. Rather, it was enacted to protect those who chose not to wear the veil from peer pressure and intimidation in their community. In this line of thinking, students would thus remain free from religiously based demands in their officially secular public school.

Though the 2004 headscarf law was grounded on the principle of state secularism, the potential burqa ban stands on much thinner ice. It would certainly impede the estimated 1,400 to 2,000   burqa-wearing French women from many aspects of daily life, including riding the Metro, visiting a relative in a public hospital, or entering their children’s school. Again, however, the official justification for the ban revolves around undue religious peer pressure. Proponents of the ban argue that most French women who have taken to the burqa have family origins in North Africa and the Maghreb, regions where the burqa is not a traditional form of dress as it is in parts of the Middle East and Central Asia. Thus, many interpret the French burqa to be a symbol of religious radicalization and increasing efforts to subjugate women in some Muslim communities. However true or not this interpretation may be, the move to outlaw the burqa looks much less like state protection and much more like state-imposed religious limitations.

Share/Bookmark

After the failed attempt at Comprehensive Immigration Reform in the summer of 2007, the United States still has to determine what to do with the estimated 12 million undocumented individuals currently living within its borders. Employed in largely unskilled occupations in the agriculture, construction, meat packing, domestic care, and services industries, undocumented migrants are often a crucial source of labor when native-born Americans are unable or unwilling to perform the duties required of such jobs. The most often-discussed and controversial policy option to deal with such a large undocumented population is to provide a path to legal status or even citizenship for migrants already in the country.

Though the United States has had its own history with “amnesties” for undocumented migrants (it legalized 2.7 million under a bill passed in 1987), Southern Europe has enacted mass legalizations in much more recent memory. Bordering the Mediterranean, the countries of Spain, Italy, Greece, and Portugal saw large influxes of unauthorized migrants and growing informal economies throughout the 1990s and 2000s. In an effort to bring undocumented migrants out of the shadows and into the taxpaying workforce, all four countries conducted periodic amnesties which (at the time) provoked significantly less political outcry than the United States has experienced over Comprehensive Immigration Reform.

A recent New York Times article details the aftermath of the most recent Spanish amnesty for the undocumented, which has had benefits, such as increased tax revenue, but also drawbacks, such as possible inflows of more undocumented migrants in anticipation of amnesties in the future. The case study raises a number of questions for both Europe and the United States: Have the economic, social, and humanitarian benefits of amnesties outweighed the costs to the host society? Will similar amnesties in Southern Europe be feasible in the future, given Northern European opposition (strongest in France) and growing anti-immigrant movements in Italy and Spain? Are there other feasible solutions to dealing with the problem of unauthorized migration, and are border enforcement measures effective in an increasingly globalized and mobile world? And finally, what can the United States learn from the political compromises in Europe to form a truly comprehensive immigration reform?

To be sure, the similarities between Southern Europe and the United States €“ long borders, unauthorized migration flows, and significant informal economies €“ should not to be ignored. However, the economic climate of the 1990s and early 2000s (when most of the European amnesties took place) stands in stark contrast to the current economic outlook of the United States in light of the credit crunch, increased fuel prices, and a possible recession. Given economic worries and the heated nature of the immigration debate, it seems that a mass legalization measure would cost any American leader a great deal of political capital. Senators McCain and Obama should keep this in mind, as both have made campaign promises to fix the broken immigration system during their respective administrations.

Share/Bookmark