Governments in countries of origin have also focused on encouraging integration in the destination country abroad. A good example is Mexico’s Institute for Mexicans Abroad, a decentralized body of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs created in 2003 to raise emigrants’ standard of living abroad. It provides an array of services, from financial counseling to information about scholarships for education. Its website also provides information about sending remittances to Mexico, the 3-for-1 investment matching program, and how to find consular support, among other issues. Chile’s Office for Chileans Abroad, meanwhile, has a more explicit development mandate. Created in 2001, its main purpose is not only to attend to the “demands and needs of communities of Chilean residents abroad,” but also to “encourage their participation in national development.” Similar agencies exist in Ethiopia, Albania, and other countries.

These groups, like more formal institutions, work on a range of issues: from developing ways for migrants to transfer their knowledge, to advocating for the recognition of foreign credentials; building capacity for public officials to engage with the skilled diaspora; organizing diaspora delegations and  scientific conferences; supporting the creation of diaspora professional and alumni associations; involving diasporans in parliamentary committees and government task forces; and developing means to recognize diaspora contributions. They also work with governments to reach specific segments of diasporas: For instance, the Birthright Israel and Know India programs seek to draw in the 2nd and 3rd generations of emigrants from those respective countries into their social, cultural, and economic life. Other programs target scientists, entrepreneurs, and philanthropists.

This explosion of interest in migration and development is fundamentally changing the discourse among states. There is increasing rhetoric about the promotion of development by strengthening the links between diasporas, countries of origin, and destination countries. The implicit assumption is that these are goals that must be pursued by governments of origin and destination in tandem—and largely financed by the latter. The EU has been at the forefront of this shift in tone and substance—which is captured in a policy that Brussels has called the “Global Approach to Migration.” Rather than strong-arming origin countries, the Global Approach acknowledges the joint responsibility of the EU and third countries to work together to foster economic development and manage migration. The main tool of this policy is what Brussels calls a “mobility partnership,” an idea that launched in 2008 and is still in the pilot phase. Of course, it would be foolish to think that this new perspective will eliminate all the pathologies our societies harbor about migration. There will always be racism. Xenophobes will always build walls to keep the other out. However, each time they build a 50-foot wall, innovation will defeat it with a 51-foot ladder.

Source: World Bank

Migration policy at home

So, if in these times of crisis, focusing on migration and development can help keep a steady keel in the realm of international relations, what can serve a similar role in recipient country policy?  The challenge of “integrating” immigrants should always be at the top of the domestic policy agenda. Investments in the integration of immigrants might not be popular, but are more essential than ever. In recent years, concern about immigration has crystallized around the question of whether multicultural policies have failed. Critics argue that national identity and social cohesion have been sacrificed. In much of Europe, as well as in Canada and Australia the tide has shifted. Instead of a multicultural ethic of asking what can be done for immigrants, countries are now asking what newcomers must do to fit in. Integration courses and exams for residency and citizenship are proliferating. This urge to recognize and foster conformation to a national identity is due to the pressures of globalization and the threat of terrorism. Muscular monoculturalism has become a mainstream ideology. Integration is, now, mostly discussed as a burden on immigrants. They must learn the language, adopt traditions, and respect the laws of their new countries. There is of course truth to this, but there are also other ways to think about the issue. 

Integration should not only be about assimilation, but also about enabling those people who arrive in countries to become who they want to be, through education, employment, and through participating in the political and social institutions of their host countries. Such openness is at the heart of the ability of liberal democracies to compete in the 21st century; those countries that are recognized as societies in which people can realize their ambitions will attract the best and brightest. If we think about integration in this light, then the burden of responsibility becomes more evenly distributed. Immigrants must make real efforts to work hard and respect laws, but destination countries should also ensure level playing fields, that access to schools, to public services, to employment, and to political representation are fair and equal. This demands a reconsideration of existing institutions, as well as attitudes about national identity in the host countries.

In thinking about the future, we need to know what is not attainable. Cultural homogeneity is no longer possible. This is not because of immigration alone, but because of the revolutions in communications, transportation, and commerce. Nor does this mean that culture will weaken. The internet and globalization are tools that strengthen and spread cultures.  This does not suggest that immigration should be permitted to undermine values or rights in the host country, but it does mean that local communities cannot expect to live in cultural isolation. As the philosopher Anthony Appiah writes: ‘Cultures are made of continuities and changes, and the identity of a society can survive through these changes. Societies without change aren’t authentic; they’re just dead.’

Rethinking existing institutions

Multiculturalism needs to be rebalanced with policies that draw all residents into society. The parts of multicultural policy that should be protected are those that allow and encourage all citizens to express their identities as equals. In thinking about the future, we should focus on creating shared experiences. In this regard, four possible ‘pillars’ might be identified – education, politics, employment and citizenship. 

The first pillar centers around the make-up, quality and curriculum of schools, where ethnic polarization is an increasing concern. Why should we care? The evidence shows us that greater segregation leads to lower employment, lower earnings and lower education participation. Different schools for different groups also usually lead to different quality, so those who go to lesser schools have their prospects defined not by their ambitions or skills, but by their ethnicity. Studies show that when children don’t mix, it becomes more difficult for them to make friendships across racial divides as they get older.

Solving this might be the most vexing riddle we face, since it is tied to segregation in housing and to economic inequality. Nevertheless, there are parts of the school experience that can be shaped more easily.

• Early schooling: Governments must ensure access to schooling for all residents as early as age three. Research around the world is telling us that perhaps the single most important factor in leveling the playing field for the children of immigrants is to provide language tuition at a very early age.

• Curriculum that reflects diversity: Educational bodies must make sure the curriculum, especially in social studies, reflects the diversity of our societies. Unless everyone has an understanding about everyone else’s lives, we will not be able to get along.

• Civics: Governments must rethink how we teach civics and citizenship in our schools. We can no longer approach this task passively. We have to train children not only in how their societies are run, but also in how to think freely. Democrats are made, not born.  

• Discrimination: Universities must eliminate any and all forms of bias in entry to higher education. Throughout much of the West, ethnic minorities are under-represented—and this under-representation is not the result of ability.

Second, while schooling is the sine qua non of creating a cohesive society, politics is almost equally important. It is through politics that a society’s laws, norms, and traditions evolve; unless newcomers are drawn into the political arena, our norms and traditions will not evolve to reflect today’s society, and newcomers will feel increasingly alienated. So it is vital that we find ways to give immigrants a political voice. There also are more immediate ways to bring immigrants into the political process. Political parties could, for instance, actively seek members in ethnic neighborhoods. Political incorporation will also require a conscious effort on the part of immigrants. 

The third pillar of cohesion is the job market. There is nothing more subversive to a person’s sense of self-worth than long-term unemployment. Newcomers’ dependence on social security, meanwhile, is one of the main drivers of anti-immigrant sentiment. And, outside of school, the workplace is where social relationships across boundaries are most likely to be formed. So we must invest heavily in ensuring fair access to employment for immigrants and their families.

Fourth, we must strive to ensure that, once we decide to welcome newcomers on a permanent basis, we give them a clear path to citizenship. We should certainly expect them to meet a reasonable set of responsibilities in common with all other citizens before they are naturalized, but we should not ask them to clear hurdles that are either too subjective or biased.

There is much else we must consider as we move forward. One vexing issue is for us to be able to gauge the capacity of our societies to integrate immigrants, and if we are exceeding it with the current rate of migration flows. We must be smart in calibrating the two; otherwise, the speed of change will sow discontent throughout society. Also, we must not budge on the question of our laws—religious and cultural practices that infringe on our laws have no place in a liberal democracy. At the same, we must continue to be relentless in enforcing anti-discrimination legislation.

The construction of national identity is a dynamic process for which we should set the rules of the game, rather than to try to establish fixed values. We cannot say that a country’s identity is X, and will forever remain so. We have to learn that identity has to be adapted to recognize that we are becoming, and will be, a society with others in it. It is a big challenge. And no amount of talking about the undoubted economic benefits to us, as well as to migrants, can overcome this fact. We have a challenge to change people's mentality. And it's a European challenge.

In his old age, Eratosthenes of Cyrene composed a philosophical treatise, of which only a few fragments remain. In closing, I would like to share one that is particularly relevant to this debate: “The author,” Eratosthenes writes, “rejects the principle of a twofold division of the human race between Greeks and Barbarians, and disapproves of the advice given to Alexander, that he treat all Greeks as friends and all Barbarians as enemies. It is better, he writes, to employ as a division criteria the qualities of virtue and dishonesty. Many Greeks are dishonest and many Barbarians enjoy a refined civilization, such as the people of India or the Aryans, or the Romans and the Carthaginians.”