Issue of Immigration and Refugees and Multiculturalism
in Europe
Fumiko Tsutaki

Europe’s Difficult ChallengeO

VER the course of 2015, a number events in Europe attracted
considerable attention in Japan, but none more than the refugee
issue. In September, a picture of the body of a drowned Syrian infant
stunned the international community.1
People sensed the gravity of the situation as they watched the imagesof Syrian refugees fleeing to Germany and other countries in Europe on
foot, often sleeping in the open. The Japanese media offered approving
coverage of German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s expressed willingness
to accept larger numbers of refugees. In November, however, synchronized terrorist attacks took place in Paris. In the ensuing election, aFrench far-right party, opposed to accepting refugees, garnered many
more votes than expected, greatly complicating the refugee issue.

Waves of Refugees
In the months prior to the coverage of the tragic death of the Syrian
infant in September, the most compelling political question for the EU
was how to respond to the Greek debt crisis. Even so, a poll of the German public opinion taken in February 2015 showed that respondents
were more concerned about the refugee issue than the financial one.
Since 2013, German society had already experienced a dramaticincrease in applications for asylum by Syrian refugees, and facilities
intended for the reception of refugees had been the target of repeatedarson attacks.
According to an EU report, the number of asylum seekers was slightly less than 300,000 in 2010. In 2014, this more than doubled to662,680. Since 2013, Germany stood out as the country offering asylum
to the greatest number of refugees—as many as one-third of the EU total
for 2014. This was not, however, the first time the EU member states
had accepted such a large number of refugees. During the civil war in112

issue of immigration and refugees and multiculturalism

113

the former Yugoslavia in 1992, more than 620,000 people sought asylumin 15 European countries.2
In 2015, however, the number of people seeking asylum in Germany
alone exceeded one million.3 Estimates suggest that the number may increase to 3 million over the next three years, an unprecedented number
for Europe. There has been heated debate about whether a ceiling should
be set, on how to prevent terrorism or crime associated with refugees,etc. These debates will need to be followed closely for new developments. Further, there is the pressing question of how these refugee
populations can be integrated into European national societies.
While the number of immigrants and refugees accepted by European
countries has risen and fallen with changes in the international situation,these are processes that have been in place since the end of World War
II. This historical experience has led to emergence of multiculturalsocieties, a relatively new reality for Europe.

Interactions with Other Cultures are a Daily Reality
In a survey conducted in 27 EU member states in 2007, two-thirdsof respondents stated that they had daily contact and interaction withpeople whose cultural background differed from their own.4 In countries
such as the UK, Germany and France, nearly 20% of the overall population is from an immigrant background, and the percentage is even higher
among the younger generations.5 This means that both the benefits andchallenges of multicultural societies are already woven into the fabric ofEuropean life. These realities provide a crucial background against
which to consider the influx of refugees that Europe has been experiencing since 2015.
During the 1950s and 60s, Germany, France, the UK and a number ofother European countries accepted a large number of immigrant workers inorder to compensate for the labor shortage, giving rise to new immigrantcommunities. At the outset, these comprised primarily malelaborers referred to as “guest workers.” As the name indicates, thesepeople were defined by their economic function rather than theirnationality or cultural background. It was expected that most of them would
eventually return to their home countries. In the 1970s, however, restrictions
on immigrant labor were imposed, making reentry after a temporary return
difficult. Already established workers responded by inviting their family
members to settle in the host countries. A high percentage of such immigrant workers were Muslims. Over time, second- and third-generations
members of these immigrants communities—people born in Europe—

114

issue of immigration and refugees and multiculturalism

began to account for higher percentage of these populations.
Further, in the 1980s, Muslims began to arrive as asylum seekers not
only in Western Europe but also northern Europe. Initially, these peoplecame from such countries as Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and Lebanon; fromthe 90’s, large numbers of refugees began arriving from former Yugoslavia and the states of the former Soviet Union.6
The Basic Law of Germany, a document of constitutional scope,
stipulates the right of asylum, with a corresponding obligation to offer
protection to people fleeing political persecution. Further, the geographical proximity of Germany has compelled it, along with a number ofother European nations, to respond to the needs of refugees. European
countries thus have a long history of accepting immigrants and refugees,
whose second- and third-generation populations now constitute a significant part of their respective societies. Focusing on just Germany, several
million ethnic Germans were driven from former territories after the endof WWII. Later, many residents of the former East Germany risked theirlives to cross the Berlin Wall to get to the West. Given this history, thepeople of Germany have experienced the refugee issue as both hosts andasylum seekers.
Thus, the question of how to integrate immigrants and refugees into
host societies has been a long-standing challenge for Europe. The
process of social integration has differed from one country to another,shaped by historical experience. France, for example, has stressed therepublican principle—the equality of all citizens—over cultural diversity and has adopted policies of assimilation, while in Germany immigrants are defined as foreigners under the principle that nationality isdetermined by family heritage (jus sanguinis). The UK, the Netherlands,
and Scandinavian countries have tended to adopt multiculturalist
policies. During the 1990s, however, under the watchword of “Unity inDiversity,” the political integration of Europe began to develop alongside an awareness that Europe is a multicultural society marked bycultural diversity as a result of its historical experience of accepting
immigrants and refugees.

The Search for Integration
Based on this awareness of a “multicultural Europe,” vigorous debate
has developed on how best to realize the social integration of immigrants in Europe. The sharpest focus has been on the pros and cons ofmulticulturalism. Here, it is important to clarify that the term “multiculturalism” has a dual meaning: 1) a society that is diverse, usually as aissue of immigration and refugees and multiculturalism

115

result of immigration, 2) the policies required to manage such a society.7
By the late 1990s, not only liberal-left advocates of multiculturalism,
but also conservatives and others critical of the idea, recognized that thelarge influx of immigrants had increased the diversity of European
society, thereby changing it in important aspects. In other words, it
was widely recognized that Europe had become a multicultural society.
The debate now shifted to the question of what were the best policy
responses to this reality.
At the same time, various far-right parties emerged and sought to negate this reality, advocating the expulsion of immigrants and refusal toaccept more refugees. In this case, the two different aspects of the concept of multiculturalism—as the actual condition of society, and as the
response to that—have been treated as one and the same thing. Suchconflation, it has been noted, has greatly impeded the development of
debate on how to encourage the social integration of immigrants.8
Here I’d like to outline the disputes in different European societies
regarding multiculturalism, and thereby consider both what Europe
has gained from becoming multicultural and what are the outstanding
challenges.

Multiculturalism and Assimilationist Policies have both Given
Rise to Fissures
In October 2010, German Chancellor Angela Merkel stated that theeffort to realize a multicultural society had failed, stirring debate
throughout Europe. Since 2000, Germany has instituted an integration
policy for immigrants, recognizing dual citizenship, establishing a newlegal framework for immigrants and providing them with German language education. This represented a major change from the past policy.
Here again, it is important to heed the distinction just noted between
multiculturalism or multicultural society as a description of themulticultural reality of everyday life, and multiculturalism as a policy
objective.
It is clear Chancellor Merkel did not intend to deny the culturally diverse reality of German society, but to criticize the multicultural policies
which had resulted in the isolation of culturally and ethnically uniquecommunities within the larger society. She also criticized the fact that“multiculturalism” was being treated as a tool of ideological contention
between the political right and left.
The German state, however, has never officially adopted a policy ofmulticulturalism.9 Under the principle of jus sanguinis, the federal gov-

116

issue of immigration and refugees and multiculturalism

ernment has consistently viewed immigrants as foreigners who would
eventually return to their homeland, and thus made little effort to integrate them into German society. On the other hand, Berlin, Frankfurt
and other urban centers with large non-German populations began to
introduce multiculturalist measures. Based on this experience, multiculturalism has been advocated as a critical counter-policy to the policies ofthe federal government.
In February 2011, British Prime Minister David Cameron also remarked that the national-level policy of multiculturalism had failed.
Until the late 90s, under Conservative governments, a multiculturalist
approach had been something called for only by the political left. Afterthe establishment of a Labor government in 1997, however, government
statements and policies came increasingly to reflect the influence ofmulticulturalism. In the meantime, riots and other incidents of unrest in
urban immigrant communities led to policies designed to increase representation of minorities and their interests by incorporating organizations
and leaders who would speak for those the interests into the politicalprocess. This policy approach, however, resulted in the exclusionof populations who did not belong to any defined group, as well as inconflict among groups representing different interests, thus leading toeven deeper social division.10
On the other hand, the national integration model that France has applied to immigrants is based on the republican principle under which all
people are accorded equal treatment as abstract “individuals,” irrespective of ethnic, social background or other affiliations or attributes. Thiscan also be thought of in terms of equality before the law, as a form of
universalism. This assimilationist policy takes no special consideration
for cultural diversity, and the idea that the non-religious nature of public
space must be maintained is likewise based on this principle.11 The
French government thus in theory rejected a multiculturalist approach.
In reality, however, it has chosen to treat North African immigrant
populations, including their second- and third-generation members, as
homogeneous communities rather than as French citizens. This has
resulted in the fragmentation of society.12
While multiculturalist policies adopted in the UK and Germany gave
rise to social division, the assimilationist approach in France has also
produced much the same result.13 Behind repeated statements rejecting
multiculturalism lies a growing sense of crisis in Europe—that the cultural diversity produced by immigrant populations could have the effectof dividing as well as energizing national societies. Multiculturalist
policies are seen as potentially exacerbating these negative outcomes.

issue of immigration and refugees and multiculturalism

117

Such social divisions have for some time been visible in various
immigrant movements and their demands. Since the start of the 21st
century, however, there has been an increasing focus on what is
described as the problematic role of Islam. In earlier times, when
foreign labor was in demand, the causes of protest were mostly workplace discrimination, forced repatriation, treatment by the police, etc.,
rather than questions related to culture or religion. Even today, it seems
that immigrant movements and their demands are for the most part not
related to specific questions of Islamic faith or practice, but to issues,
such as employment, social equality.14

The Rise of Islamophobia
In 1989, several female public school students in France were suspended
for wearing head scarves, a symbol of their Muslim faith. This incident
divided French public opinion. Similar incidents occurred in other partsof Europe.
Following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, European societies have tended to view Muslims with greater suspicion. What has cometo be known as Islamophobia has given rise to mutual suspicion andfear, deepening the schisms within society. Against this social backdrop,in February 2004, a law prohibiting the wearing of all religious symbols
in public schools, the so-called head-scarf ban, was passed in France.15
This incident shows how the head scarf is perceived as a symbol ofimmigrants, and is in turn closely associated with the riots that havetaken place in the suburbs, and thus social unrest generally. The larger
responsibility of French society in excluding immigrants, however, has
not been questioned. Rather, a focus on the “religious issue” of Islam
brings the risk that the political and economic aspects of the immigrantissue will be pushed to the background. Instead of pursuing the mutualinteraction and transformation of cultures mediated by the shared objective of forming national citizens on the basis of the equality of individuals, immigrants and their demands have been seen as coming into
conflict with this republican principle, further aggravating the exclusionof immigrants and social division.16
Germany also experienced a head scarf-related controversy in 1995,
and then again in 2006. It was speculated at the time that the secondand third-generation immigrants, alienated within German society,might be seeking their identity in Islamic culture. Here again, in amanner resembling the discourse in France, the issue was debated interms of the private versus public spheres, with the more essential issue,

118

issue of immigration and refugees and multiculturalism

namely, the relationship between young people’s desire to wear head
scarves and social fragmentation, given scant attention.17
In March 2004, terrorist attacks took place in Madrid followed, in
July 2005, by attacks in London. In November 2004, the anti-Islam
Dutch film director Theo Van Gogh was murdered and, around the same
period, in October through November, there was rioting by young
immigrants in the suburbs of Paris. In February 2006, controversy
arose surrounding the depiction of the Prophet Muhammad in cartoons.
These incidents, all discussed in the context of their relationship toIslam, sent shockwaves around the world.18
In March 2006, a junior high school (Hauptschule) in Berlin wheremore than 80 percent of the students were from immigrant backgrounds,
experienced widespread violence among students and toward teachers,with the result that the teaching staff sought the closing of the school.
This incident highlighted the problems of nonfunctioning schools within
the education system and extremely low levels of academic achievement
among immigrant students.19
What lies behind all these incident is the failure to integrate immigrants into society and their resulting exclusion—all problems of thegrowing social division of multicultural societies. This reality, however,has been obscured by the purported Muslim threat, further deepening
divisions.
The statements by Chancellor Merkel and Prime Minister Cameron
cited earlier may be based on the assessment that while multiculturalism
policies may serve to further deepen social division, they cannot be asolution to this issue. Furthermore, in connection with the intake of refugees, public support for the National Front and other far-right groups is
growing in France while incidents of arson directed at refugee reception
facilities have becoming increasingly frequent in Germany. With
growing hostility over refugee issues, even the core value of respect fordiversity is under threat.
As distrust of multiculturalist policies grows, there is a search for an
appropriate policy response, based on an acknowledgement of the reality of cultural diversity. Since 2000, Germany has stressed an integrationist policy for immigrants, emphasizing acquisition of the German
language and acceptance of German values. In France, political leaders
have stressed the importance of a common identity for all people living
in France. While some criticize this trend as imposing European values
on immigrants and refugees, it reflects the search for a common basisthat will enable Europe to avoid fragmentation and become a culturally
diverse yet integrated society.

issue of immigration and refugees and multiculturalism

119

The Experiment of Intercultural Dialogue
In this effort, the idea of “intercultural dialogue” is of note. Thisapproach has been adopted by the EU and the Council of Europe in thewake of the 9.11 terror attacks as an alternative to both multiculturalism
and assimilationism.
Intercultural dialogue in Europe is seen as replacing the concept ofmulticulturalism, which envisages a pluralistic society composed of different, independent and self-contained cultures. This new approach isfurther seen as supporting and strengthening the EU concept of unity indiversity. While the term “multi” suggests diversity without reference tothe interconnections among the diverse elements, the term “inter” foregrounds such connections. Further, “dialogue” is something closely
associated with the EU’s founding principles of peace and solidarity.20
The EU designated 2008 the “European Year of Intercultural
Dialogue” and introduced a number of projects under the aegis of theEuropean Commission Directorate-General for Education and Culture.21
Various programs have been implemented, mainly for young people,
with the objective of making explicit the issues involved in interculturaldialogue. These have focused on cultural diversity and interculturaldialogue, and on the idea of European citizenship based on shared EU
values.
In addition to various cultural events and programs, opportunities todebate the meaning of intercultural dialogue have also been provided.
In cooperation with Council of Europe, inter-cultural city programs—
now involving 99 cities—are being implemented. In addition, morethan 1000 civic groups have partnered with the organizers to carry out
various programs. These undertakings have aroused interest in intercultural dialogue among the general public, resulting in support for theircontinuance.
The Declaration announced at the official opening of the “European
Year of Intercultural Dialogue 2008” emphasizes the importance of“transitioning from a multi-cultural society divided by cultural groups tointercultural society where all communities are engaged in meaningfulinteraction.”22 This demonstrates the stress placed on intercultural dialogue as a means of encouraging social integration. The EU’s approachseems to put greater emphasis on providing shared space for intercultural dialogue, rather than on debating specific issues in order to reachconclusions.23
The Council of Europe, an international organization founded in1949, has been active in sociocultural field in Europe.24 When the Third120

issue of immigration and refugees and multiculturalism

Summit of the Heads of State and Government Summit was held in
2005, it affirmed that intercultural dialogue, including on religious
matters, should be the means for promoting awareness, understanding,reconciliation and tolerance, as well as preventing conflicts and ensuring
integration and the cohesion of society. Behind this affirmation was arecognition that conventional approaches would not be adequate forresponding to the reality of the Europe’s culturally diverse societies; thatneither the multiculturalist approach that had been favored until recently
nor a return to earlier assimilationist policies would work. In order toachieve a truly inclusive society, new approaches were necessary, andintercultural dialogue was considered to be one such approach.25

Dialogue on the Basis of Equality
Annual Integration Summits have been held in Germany since the firstone in July 2006. Summit participants include Chancellor Merkel andrepresentatives of the federal government, state governments, municipalities, immigrants associations, church and social groups. This is aground-breaking undertaking in which all participate in the deliberations
on an equal footing. At the same time, it has thus far proven impossible
to unite Muslim groups due to differences of sectarian affiliation,
approach, national origin, etc. There is as yet no umbrella organization
or authority which can bring together the groups, with their different
characters and scale in membership, and they often find themselves at
odds.
Nevertheless, the fact that the chancellor and other leaders of Germansociety are meeting with the representatives of immigrants in this way isin itself significant. The outcome of this endeavor is an awareness thatthe time when the immigrant issues could be the object of politicaldebate without immigrants’ representation has past; that immigrantcommunities must be directly addressed as an integral part of thedeliberations.26 Chancellor Merkel described this as “the beginning ofintensive dialogue,” and such intercultural dialogue is expected toplay a major role in linking immigrants to the mainstream society,furthering the goal of social integration.
It has been suggested that an ideal policy would marry multiculturalism’s embrace of actual diversity with assimilationism’s resolve to treat
everyone equally as citizens.27 It may be said that intercultural dialogue
can offer the real possibility of bridging these two approaches.

issue of immigration and refugees and multiculturalism

121“Web of Relationality”
SGI President Daisaku Ikeda, the founder of the Institute of Oriental
Philosophy, wrote as follows in his 2016 peace proposal:
In order to construct societies that are resistant to xenophobia andincitement to hatred, people need to be exposed to and reminded ofdifferent perspectives. Face-to-face dialogue can play a crucial role inthis.
As … effort[s] to show the human face of refugees suggests, ourawareness of people belonging to different religions or ethnicities can betransformed through direct contact and conversation with even one
member of that group.
Sharing time and space together in dialogue. . . The friendship andtrust nurtured through the committed pursuit of this process can form thebasis for a solidarity of ordinary citizens working to resolve global
issues and bring into being a peaceful world.
Buddhism views the world as a web of relationality in which nothingcan be completely disassociated from anything else. Moment by
moment, the world is formed and shaped through this mutual relatedness. When we understand this and can sense in the depths of our being
the fact that we live—that our existence is made possible—within thisweb of relatedness, we see clearly that there is no happiness that only weenjoy, no suffering that afflicts only others.28

As Ikeda argues, this web of relationality is the foundation for thekind of intercultural dialogue that can bring people of different cultures
together.
Underlying the criticism of multiculturalism as a policy approach—and the question posed by the influx of refugees in 2015—is a sense ofcrisis about the divisions being experienced by European society today.
And it is respect for diversity, fostering of social cohesion, and achievement of equality and justice based on respect for human dignity that will
make it possible to meet this challenge. How will the European experience and efforts to engage in intercultural dialogue contribute to therealization of these goals? This is a question that merits our continued
attention.

122

issue of immigration and refugees and multiculturalism

Notes
Asahi Shimbun, 9.4., 2015.
European Asylum Support Office, Annual Report on the Situation of Asylum in theEuropean Union 2014, 2015, pp.13–17.
3
Asahi Shimbun, 1.11., 2016.
4
European Commission, Flash Eurobarometer 217, Intercultural dialogue in Europe:
Analytical Report, 2007, p. 4.
5Richard Alba and Nancy Foner, “Comparing Immigrant Integration in North America and Western Europe: How Much Do the Grand Narratives Tell Us?”, International
Migration Review, Vol.48, No.S1, 2014, S265.
6
EUMC, Perceptions of Discrimination and Islamophobia—Voices from Members ofMuslim Communities in the European Union, 2006, p. 12.
7
Kenan Malik, The Failure of Multiculturalism: Community Versus Society inEurope, Foreign Affairs, March/April 2005, p. 23, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/
articles/western-europe/failure-multiculturalism, 2015 (browsed on 2016.7.16).
8
Kenan Malik, ibid.
9James Angelos, “What Integration Means For Germany’s Guest Worker,” Foreign
Affairs, October 28 2011.
10
Kenan Malik, op. cit., pp. 26–28.
11
Takashi Miyajima, “Social integration of immigrants and the French equality,” UP,
Vol. 38, No.8, 2009, p. 58.
12
Kenan Malik, op. cit., p. 32.
13
Kenan Malik, ibid.
14
Takashi Miyajima, op. cit., p. 57.
15
Takashi Miyajima, “Immigration politics and the construction of the ‘Islam
problems’: globalization and France,” The study of sociology, No. 89, 2011, p. 14.
16
Kenichi Ikeda, “History and features of the educational policy for immigrants inFrance,” Bulletin de l’Association japonaise de recherche sur l’éducation en France, No.
27, 2015, p. 16.
17
Junzo Kondo, Germany as an Immigration Country, Bokutaku-sha, 2007, pp. 285–
297
18
Hiroko Sato, “Immigration Test in Germany: Multiculturalism and Mainstream
Culture,” Bulletin of the Institute of Human Rights Studies, Kansai University, No. 55.
2007, p. 14.
19
Junzo Kondo, op. cit., pp. 171–177.
20
Sara Silvestri, “Islam and the EU: The merits and risks of Inter-Cultural Dialogue,”
Policy Brief, June 2007.
21
European Commission, Intercultural Dialogue: support through EU programmes,
2008.
22
Miho Nakamura, “Idea and Practice of the European Year of Intercultural Dialogue(2008): Case Study of Cultural Policy in EU,” Intercultural: Annual review of the Japan
Society for Intercultural Studies, No. 9, 2011, p. 78.
23
Miho Nakamura, ibid., p. 81.
24
Takeshi Yoshitani, “Pursuit of intercultural tolerance in Europe: responses to thesituation of multicultural society,” Intercultural Education, No. 15, 2001, pp. 14–15.
25
Council of Europe, CM Documents: White Paper on Intercultural Dialogue, 118th
Session of the Committee of Ministers, Strasbourg, 7 May 2008.
26
Junzo Kondo, op. cit., pp. 185–195.
12

issue of immigration and refugees and multiculturalism

123

Kenan Malik, op. cit., p. 34.
Daisaku, Ikeda, Universal Respect for Human Dignity: The Great Path to Peace,
Soka Gakkai International, http://www.sgi.org/about-us/president-ikedas-proposals/
peace-proposal-2016/index.html, 2016.
27
28

References
Alba, Richard and Nancy Foner (2014) “Comparing Immigrant Integration in North
America and Western Europe: How Much Do the Grand Narratives Tell Us?”,
International Migration Review, Vol. 48, No. S1, S263–S291.
Angelos, James (2011) “What Integration Means For Germany’s Guest Worker,” Foreign
Affairs, October 28.
Beacco, Jean-Claude (2015) “From immigrants in Europe to immigrants in France:
Toward a pluralistic society and pluralistic identity,” Human and environmental
forum, No. 34, pp. 42–47.
Council of Europe (2008) CM Documents: White Paper on Intercultural Dialogue,
118th Session of the Committee of Ministers, Strasbourg, 7 May.
Council of Europe (2015) Recommendation CM/Rec (2015)1 of the Committee of
Ministers to member States on intercultural integration.
EUMC (2006) Perceptions of Discrimination and Islamophobia—Voices from Membersof Muslim Communities in the European Union.
European Asylum Support Office (2015) Annual Report on the Situation of Asylum in
the European Union 2014.
European Commission (2002) “A Europe of tolerance and intercultural dialogue,”
Le Magazine: Education and Culture in Europe, Issue 16.
European Commission (2007) Flash Eurobarometer 217, Intercultural dialogue inEurope: Analytical Report.
European Commission (2008) Intercultural Dialogue: support through EU programmes.
Hollifield, James F. (2004) “The Emerging Migration State,” International Migration
Review, Vol. 38, No. 3, pp. 885–912.
Malik, Jamal (2006) Inter-Religious Dialogue, Briefing Paper, European Parliament.
Malik, Kenan (2016) The Failure of Multiculturalism: Community Versus Society inEurope, Foreign Affairs, March/April, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/
western-europe/failure-multiculturalism (browsed on 2016.7.16).
Silvestri, Sara (2007) “Islam and the EU: The merits and risks of Inter-Cultural
Dialogue,” Policy Brief, June.
[References below are originally written in Japanese]
Asahi Shimbun 9.4., 2015.
Asahi Shimbun 1.11., 2016.
Ikeda, Daisaku (2016) Universal Respect for Human Dignity: The Great Path to Peace,
Soka Gakkai International, http://www.sgi.org/about-us/president-ikedas-proposals/
peace-proposal-2016/index.html.
Ikeda, Kenichi (2015) “History and features of the educational policy for immigrants inFrance,” Bulletin de l’Association japonaise de recherche sur l’éducation en
France, No. 27, pp. 9–18.
Ito, Ruri (2013) “Stratified space of EU immigration and a common immigration policy:
as a reference point of the sans-papiers in France,” Education of Historical124

issue of immigration and refugees and multiculturalism

Geography, No. 811, pp. 27–32.
Kondo, Junzo (2007) Germany as an Immigration Country, Bokutaku-sha.
Miyajima, Takashi (2009) “Social integration of immigrants and the French equality,”
UP, Vol. 38, No. 8, pp. 54–59.
Miyajima, Takashi (2011) “Immigration politics and the construction of the ‘Islam
problems’: globalization and France,” The study of sociology, No. 89, pp. 5–23.
Nakamura, Miho (2011) “Idea and Practice of the European Year of Intercultural
Dialogue (2008): Case Study of Cultural Policy in EU,” Intercultural: Annual
review of the Japan Society for Intercultural Studies, No. 9, pp. 68–83.
Sato, Hiroko (2007) “Immigration Test in Germany Multiculturalism and Mainstream
Culture,” Bulletin of the Institute of Human Rights Studies, Kansai University, No.
55, pp. 1–17.
Tsuchiya, Takeshi (2011) “Democracy and Intercultural Dialogue in the European
Union,” Intercultural: Annual review of the Japan Society for Intercultural Studies,No. 9, pp. 50–67.
Yoshitani, Takeshi (2001) “Pursuit of intercultural tolerance in Europe: responses to thesituation of multicultural society,” Intercultural Education, No. 15, pp. 14–30.
Author Biography
Fumiko Tsutaki is a Commissioned Research Fellow of the Institute of Oriental Philosophy. Her research areas include international relations and immigration research inGermany and Europe. Her recent publications include “Integration Policy for ImmigrantChildren and their Families: Projects of the City Frankfurt am Main in Germany,” Bulletin of Tokyo Kasei University, No. 56(1), 2016.