RESPOND Conference 2020 – Challenges and Priorities in Reception and Integration
by Ivan Josipovic | Austrian Academy of Sciences
The reception of asylum seekers and their integration have been hotly debated topics in European Member States since the Long Summer of Migration in 2015. On day two of the RESPOND Conference 2020 (November 21st) we held an online session on the reception and integration regimes in Austria, Germany, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. Alexander-Kenneth Nagel and Ayhan Kaya moderated a fruitful discussion between four experts who are professionally active in the field of asylum and immigrant support: Ursula Eltayeb (A), Claire Deery (D), Marlen Eskander (SW) and Robert Makutsa (UK).
Adopting a comparative perspective on national discourses, policies and implementation practices, the session revealed similarities and differences in national approaches and showed at least three challenges all countries faced:
1. Making integration work amidst a hostile political environment
Austria, Germany, Sweden, and the UK were major destination countries for asylum seekers throughout the past decade. The years of 2015 and 2016 led to a crisis of the Common European Asylum System with dysfunctional policies (like the Dublin Regulation) and lack of solidarity when it comes to the admission and reception of asylum seekers. Even though the number of asylum applicants drastically dropped in the following years, immigration and immigrant integration continue to be highly salient topics, whereby the conservative and right-wing political spectrum seems be setting the tone. While each of the countries experienced a period during the so-called “welcoming culture” dominated public discourse, debates and attitudes have shifted meanwhile, with national politicians adopting increasingly restrictive measures and de-legitimizing immigrants claims to protection. In Austria, the conservative ÖVP adopted the political agenda of the far-right FPÖ, in Germany the CSU as the right-wing of the Union began to dominate the Interior Ministry, in Sweden the Social-Democrats adopted increasingly restrictive policies, and in the UK, the Tories merged their anti-immigration agenda towards EU-citizens with that for asylum seekers. At the same time, our discussion showed that in Austria, Germany, and the UK, there are distinct political identities among regions like Scotland, Vienna, or Lower Saxony that take critical stance towards national policies and seek to compensate for different aspects of structural exclusion.
2. Residence restrictions as means of integration?
Restrictions on the place of residence for persons who have immigrated via the asylum system are common across all four countries, however the duration and the extent of control differs considerably. In Sweden, immediately upon the first registration, asylum seekers are assigned to one of 290 municipalities in 21 counties, where they receive subsidised housing and are free to move. Also, individuals are free to choose their own accommodation, if they have the financial means. In recent years and months however, some municipalities have begun to refuse adopting more refuges, given the fact that people are often clustered in poor neighbourhoods, increasing social and economic tensions. In Austria, asylum seekers are only obliged to remain in the federal province that is responsible for their reception and social aid services. Beneficiaries of protection are allowed to settle at any place within federal territory. By contrast, Germany tightened its residence provisions in recent years. Today, not only asylum seekers can be limited in their chosen place of residences, but also beneficiaries of protection, if their livelihood is not assured, namely if they rely on social aid services. In the UK, asylum seekers are only limited in their movement if they reside in a facility of the Home Office. Overall, the reception of immigrants who were most often disposed of their properties and belongings calls for some form of organized and subsidised accommodations. One central question is to what extent individuals should be governed under a special reception regime, at which point they should fall into the general welfare system and to what extent they should be free to self-organize in the housing market. A priority should be consideration of wider socio-economic implications of refugee housing policy for social cohesion and the avoidance of a concentration of refugees in poor neighbourhoods.
3. Enabling labour market integration
Employment is a key element for structural integration of newly arrived immigrants. The four countries discussed during our session display considerable differences in this regard, with Germany and Sweden adopting a more liberal approach and Austria and the UK a rather restrictive one. The major challenge that these destination countries face is to balance practical socio-economic considerations with politico-legal goals of distinguishing the immigration channel of asylum from that of labour migration. In Sweden and Germany, asylum seeker are widely able to work, without any labour market tests. Germany also recently introduced the so-called track-change, namely the possibility to establish legal residence upon a negative asylum decision, if the individual has found durable employment. By contrast, Austria has de facto banned asylum seekers from the labour market and even cut the apprenticeship programmes in 2018. Likewise, the UK heavily restricts the possibility of employment to listed shortage occupations, earliest one year upon asylum application. Among the participants of our session, there was broad agreement that labour market integration policies require the consideration and adaptation of refugees’ skills to avoid individual de-qualification and the structural expansion of a low-wage employment sector.