| |
______________________________________________________________________________
"It
can be hard to deal with subtle xenophobia"
Interview
with Peter Schatzer from the International Organisation for Migration
BY
SANJAY SURI
With waves of opposition to tides of immigrants in
Europe, Peter Schatzer has his job cut out. And seeing that the
Mediterranean is the favoured route for migration into Europe, whether
documented or not, he is at the forefront of presenting the human face of
migration before political opposition to it.
Schatzer, director of the regional office for the Mediterranean and chief
of mission in Italy and Malta of the International Organisation for
Migration (IOM), talked to Sanjay Suri from IPS at a meeting on the role
of communication in the alliance among civilisations organised in Venice
by IPS together with the IOM and the Province of Venice.
IPS: Are immigrants the mean end of Europe's labour needs?
Peter Schatzer: Immigrants are actually at both ends of the labour market.
Many of them are at the low end of it, but many of them are also at the
very top. Because some of the very top professionals that move around, and
that every country is trying to attract are migrants. But it is also true
that many immigrants, even qualified ones, have to start out at very low
level jobs simply because these jobs are available, and many of the
indigenous people in Europe and many other parts of the world are no
longer willing to perform this labour. This has been the same throughout
the history of migration.
IPS: But overwhelmingly, they are at the low end of work.
PS: Yes, they end up in service jobs, in agriculture, in those fields that
are not very popular either because the hours are long or because they
don't pay very much. The 'D' jobs, the dangerous, dirty jobs but also the
'B' jobs because they are boring, below standard and they are poorly paid.
So it's clearly jobs that are available at the labour market for migrants
to take.
IPS: Does that make them useful but not acceptable?
PS: Let's first remember that migrants are first of all human beings, like
all of us, and one therefore shouldn't use this utilitarian approach.
Migrants do play a useful role for the host society but also for their
home societies because they send remittances back, they contribute to
development. But they are also bringing their own culture, their own
beliefs, and with that contribute to changes in host societies.
IPS: How much or how little mixing is there?
PS: Again, it depends. There are certain migrant groups that blend in
without major problems, and there are others where it is more difficult to
integrate them, and we see signs of unsuccessful integration even in the
second generation in many parts of Europe, including countries where we
thought some time ago had the perfect model for integration. So a lot of
work needs to be done, and better investment made into integrating people.
IPS: But integrate how?
PS: Integration occurs t different levels. First of all schooling,
language, housing, then jobs of course, and cultural integration.
Acceptance of different religious beliefs and the way they are being
practised. All of this has to come together in order to achieve success
for integration. And then there has to be basic consensus between
immigrants and people who have lived in the place a bit longer about basic
values that all of them accept.
IPS: Two, three generations down, can someone be accepted as citizen?
PS: That is another problem. In some countries they are nationals, they
have citizenship, they have the passport, but they still don't feel like
citizens, or at least like first class citizens because they have somehow
been left behind by society. So they well might be nationals of the
country, but might still be considering themselves second class citizens,
and that is where the problem starts, because the second generation does
not accept the hardship that the first generation might have allowed
because they were new, and they knew that immigration would be hard on
them.
IPS: Is that a fault on one side or on both sides?
PS: Well, it has to be both sides, of course, and it has to be the
institutions on both sides. Not just governments, because integration does
not happen at the government level, it happens at the local level, the
communities, leaders, institutions, NGOs, civil society, and the media as
well because of the stories they bring about successful or not so
successful immigration and integration and about conflict and resolving
conflict.
IPS: Why is it ok for the West to go somewhere else, but not for others to
go West?
PS: It's always difficult for poorer people to settle in a richer country.
So when the Italians -- we are in an area that saw emigration until 40, 50
years ago û went to the United States or to Britain or to Switzerland a
few decades ago, they were considered poor, dirty, unacceptable immigrants
the same way as some of our societies now talk of people coming from
Romania or from parts of Africa. This has more to do with the economic
status than being European or being white or having another colour.
IPS: Is the story of acceptance getting better or worse?
PS: I don't think there is any table that gives us any ranking or rating
on this. Overall I would say there is some progress in many parts because
in much of Europe nowadays it is simply not acceptable to be racist û or
at least to be openly racist û or openly xenophobic. But there are
pockets of resistance to this, again in different countries at different
times that we have to be very alert about and try and combat, and not just
combat but also heal, because xenophobia is in the first place a phobia,
which is a disease, and diseases need to be treated by applying the right
methods, and not by hitting at the patient.
IPS: Is racism becoming more subtle?
PS: Definitely, yes, because the language of some of the people that
practise xenophobia is becoming more cautious because they have clearly
found out that they are being watched. But of course, our ability to
analyse this is also becoming more subtle. What we have to try to do is to
keep some of these core issues out of the political debate as much as
possible. Which is not easy, because in Europe, in other parts of the
world elections can be lost or won, even by the major parties on the
perception that migration is under control or not under control.
IPS: But subtle analysis must be easier than subtle treatment.
PS: I think we have to look at each case separately there. Some cases can
be treated very easily, especially with younger people there is a good
chance to catch the bug very early, but clearly, analysing is usually
easier than arriving at perfect solutions.
IPS: How can you deal with xenophobia that gets expressed, but stops short
of breaking the law?
PS: To isolate it as much as possible, and to make sure it does not have a
major impact on policies and the behaviour of the majority of the people.
IPS: Where is the record best, and where the poorest?
PS: I don't think you can measure it like this because each country has
different ways of measuring integration, and also measuring crime
committed by immigrants, so it is very hard to compare. Overall I think
the best record on integration, on diversity, on unity is probably held by
Canada. In Europe there are very good efforts in many places but no
perfect system, not even in the countries that we thought of some years
ago as being the top of the class like the Netherlands or some of the
Scandinavian countries.
IPS: What would the story of migration be in the perfect world?
PS: That those who want to migrate can do so freely, but that nobody is
forced to migrate because of crisis or conflict, or economic or of
persecution.
[Copyright
IPS]
|
