Expert survey.
Date: 2016-06-30
Institutions: Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies
Subjects: anti-discriminatory measure, integration of migrants, labour market, migrant, migrant worker

INTERACT –  REsEARChINg ThIRd CouNTRy NATIoNAls’ INTEgRATIoN  As A ThREE-wAy PRoCEss - ImmIgRANTs, CouNTRIEs of EmIgRATIoN ANd CouNTRIEs of ImmIgRATIoN As ACToRs of INTEgRATIoNExpert Survey Report  Cameron Thibos INTERACT Research Report 2015/13            CEDEMINTERACT 
Researching Third Country Nationals’ Integration as a Three-way Process - 
Immigrants, Countries of Emigration and Countries of Immigration as Actors of 
Integration 

Research Report 
Expert Survey Report 

INTERACT RR 2015/13 

Expert Survey Report 

Cameron Thibos 

Lecturer, Council On International Educational Exchange 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
This text may be downloaded only for personal research purposes. Any additional reproduction for 
other purposes, whether in hard copies or electronically, requires the consent of the Robert Schuman 
Centre for Advanced Studies. 
Requests should be addressed to mpc@eui.eu  

If cited or quoted, reference should be made as follows: 

Cameron Thibos, Expert Survey Report, INTERACT RR 2015/13, Robert Schuman Centre for 
Advanced Studies, San Domenico di Fiesole (FI): European University Institute, 2015. 

The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) only and should not be considered as representative 
of the official position of the European Commission or of the European University Institute. 

© 2015, European University Institute 

ISBN: 978-92-9084-304-7 
doi:10.2870/216502 
Catalogue Number: QM-04-15-387-EN-N 

European University Institute 
Badia Fiesolana 
I – 50014 San Domenico di Fiesole (FI) 
Italy 

http://www.eui.eu/RSCAS/Publications/ 
http://interact-project.eu/publications/ 
http://cadmus.eui.eu 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
INTERACT - Researching Third Country Nationals’ Integration as a Three-way Process - 
Immigrants, Countries of Emigration and Countries of Immigration as Actors of Integration 

In 2013 (Jan. 1st), around 34 million persons born in a third country (TCNs) were currently living in 
the European Union (EU), representing 7% of its total population. Integrating immigrants, i.e. 
allowing them to participate in the host society at the same level as natives, is an active, not a passive, 
process that involves two parties, the host society and the immigrants, working together to build a 
cohesive society. 

Policy-making on integration is commonly regarded as primarily a matter of concern for the receiving 
state, with general disregard for the role of the sending state. However, migrants belong to two places: 
first, where they come and second, where they now live. While integration takes place in the latter, 
migrants maintain a variety of links with the former. New means of communication facilitating contact 
between migrants and their homes, globalisation bringing greater cultural diversity to host countries, 
and nation-building in source countries seeing expatriate nationals as a strategic resource have all 
transformed the way migrants interact with their home country. 

INTERACT project looks at the ways governments and non-governmental institutions in origin 
countries, including the media, make transnational bonds a reality, and have developed tools that 
operate economically (to boost financial transfers and investments); culturally (to maintain or revive 
cultural heritage); politically (to expand the constituency); legally (to support their rights). 

INTERACT project explores several important questions: To what extent do policies pursued by EU 
member states to integrate immigrants, and policies pursued by governments and non-state actors in 
origin countries regarding expatriates, complement or contradict each other? What effective 
contribution do they make to the successful integration of migrants and what obstacles do they put in 
their way? 

A considerable amount of high-quality research on the integration of migrants has been produced in 
the EU. Building on existing research to investigate the impact of origin countries on the integration of 
migrants in the host country remains to be done. 

INTERACT is co-financed by the European Union and is implemented by a consortium built by 
CEDEM, UPF and MPI Europe. 

For more information: 
INTERACT 
Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies (EUI) 
Villa Malafrasca 
Via Boccaccio 151 
50133 Florence 
Italy 
Tel: +39 055 46 85 817/892 
Fax: + 39 055 46 85 755 
Email: mpc@eui.eu 

Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies 
http://www.eui.eu/RSCAS/

 
 
 
Abstract 

The INTERACT project interviewed 24 migration and integration experts across 19 countries in order 
to  better  understand  the  effects  of  current  diaspora  and  integration  policies.  It  further  sought  to 
determine  possible  pitfalls,  ways  forward,  and  areas of  cooperation  between  countries  of  origin  and 
destination. Synthesising the results of this survey, the paper argues that the task of integration is to 
encourage:  migrant  participation  in  all  areas  of  society;  migrant  productivity  within  the  economic 
sphere; and migrant parity with native citizens. To be successful, efforts must take place across many 
levels  of  governance  and  in  a  variety  of  sectors,  especially  education  and  labour  markets.  Both 
diaspora  and  integration  policies  must  furthermore  put  migrants  first:  strategies  that  prioritise  the 
perceived  needs  of  countries  or  destination  or  origin  are  unlikely  to  work.  Finally,  the  onus  of 
integration cannot solely rest on the migrants themselves. Countries of origin must do more to meet 
migrants halfway by combatting discrimination within their societies and policies. 

Key words: migrants, integration, diaspora, discrimination, labour 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table of contents 

1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 7 

2. The task of integration ......................................................................................................................... 7 

3. Diaspora engagement .......................................................................................................................... 9 

4. The role of the country of origin ....................................................................................................... 10 

4.1 Institutional role .................................................................................................................... 10 

4.2 Pre-departure role .................................................................................................................. 11 

4.3 Post-departure role ................................................................................................................ 11 

5. Dimensions of integration, areas of cooperation ............................................................................... 12 

5.1 Labour market and education ................................................................................................ 12 

5.2 Language ............................................................................................................................... 13 

5.3 Nationality ............................................................................................................................. 13 

6. Levels at which cooperation works best ............................................................................................ 14 

INTERACT RR2015/13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1. Introduction 

The INTERACT project studies the integration patterns of migrants from  54 countries of origin into 
all 28 European Union Member States. Within this very broad topic, INTERACT primarily focuses on 
three dimensions of integration – citizenship, education, and labour markets – where the available and 
collected data are of the highest quality. 

INTERACT’s core research questions revolve around the countries of origin and not the countries 
of  destination.  It  seeks  to  understand  the  ways  in  which  countries  of  origin  may  facilitate  the 
integration of migrants into their new homes for however long they choose to remain there. However, 
the  potential  for  this  to  happen  is  bound  and  shaped  by  the  particular  contexts  of  the  individual 
destination countries. Integration is thus a three-way conversation between migrants, their countries of 
origin, and their countries of destination. None of these nodes can be adequately engaged in isolation 
of the others. 

We interviewed 24 academics, policy makers, and advocates based in 19 different countries – all 
experts in integration, migration or migrant affairs – to better understand the complex dynamics of this 
triadic  relationship.  We  probed  their  thoughts  on  the  sources,  motivations,  and  outcomes  of  current 
integration  and  diaspora  policies.  We  asked  for  areas  of  mutual  interest  that  would  benefit  from 
increased  cooperation,  as  well  as  for  potential  points  of  friction  between  the  different  stakeholders. 
Furthermore  we  asked  them  to  take  us  from  the  conceptual  to  the  concrete,  giving  us  real-world 
examples  of  what  has  and  has  not  worked  in  the  past.  Steeped  in  the  subject  as  they  are,  our 
interlocutors  not  only  answered  our  questions,  but  problematised  their  formulations  and  questioned 
their  underlying  premises.  This  vigorous  engagement  resulted  in  strong,  nuanced  discussions  that 
reached deep into the issues facing everybody involved in migrant integration today. They also did not 
agree  amongst  themselves,  and  thus  presented  us  with  a  wide  range  of  perspectives  on  each  of  the 
questions we asked. We present the combined findings of this expert survey below. 

2. The task of integration 

While  our  interlocutors  emphasised  different  aspects  of  the  project  of  integration,  the  core  themes 
were  the  same:  participation,  productivity,  and  parity.  Without  all  three  of  these,  the  integration  of 
migrants  into  society  is  incomplete.  It  is  vital  that  migrants  participate  in  the  political,  economic, 
cultural, and social milieus of their countries of residence, not only taking part in processes and events 
but actively shaping them. They must also productively contribute to the development and progress of 
their countries of destination, which requires full access to meaningful employment opportunities. 

Migrants must furthermore be afforded parity with ‘native’ citizens. When migrants are treated as 
an underclass, their presence tolerated precisely because their wages, rights, and means of redress are 
fewer  than  those  of  native  citizens,  then  their  integration  remains  not  only  incomplete  but  actively 
hindered. Some interlocutors stressed the contradiction of having policies that tacitly or directly allow 
for various forms of exploitation and social dumping – the practice of paying migrant workers below 
local market rates in order to reduce costs and increase profit margins – while at the same time arguing 
that migrants steal jobs, lower wages, and remain unintegrated. “[The EU] needs to have a policy that 
prevents social dumping,” said Jin Sook Lee of Building and Wood Worker’s International, a global 
union federation in the construction sector. “There has to be a policy of recognition for equal pay for 
equal work.” Lee used the so-called ‘Laval’ case in 2007 as a touchstone of her discussion, in which a 
Latvian  company  contracted  for  work  in  Sweden  refused  to  sign  a  collective  bargaining  agreement 

INTERACT RR2015/13 

 
Cameron Thibos 

with  the  Swedish  building  and  public  works  trade  union.  It  then  employed  Latvian  workers  for  its 
projects at lower wages than those demanded by the Swedish union.1 

The need for parity is not limited to wages and labour protections, or even to those areas covered 
by  formal  rights.  If  the  point  of  integration  policy  is  to  “create  a  functional,  diverse  society  that 
acknowledges the benefits of migration for cultural, economic and social progress … [and] provide a 
path to equality under the law”, as Lana Velimirović Vukalović from the Croatian Office for Human 
Rights and Rights of National Minorities put it, then it “should also raise awareness of the need for 
anti-discrimination.” 

Many of the experts interviewed stressed the imperative of addressing the racism and xenophobia 
present  in  countries  of  destination  as  part  of  any  initiative  to  improve  the  integration  levels  of 
migrants. “You cannot separate the issue of labour migration from the rise of xenophobia, [from] the 
issues around racism and discrimination,” Lee said. “In terms of integration, in terms of inclusion, in 
terms of social acceptance, in terms of recognising that migrant workers are an integral part of their 
economic development: that is the responsibility of the governments of the countries of destination.” 

Continued tolerance of discrimination – in all spheres, including the social, economic, cultural and 
political  –  against  migrants  directly  obstructs  integration  efforts  and  contradicts  claims  or  demands 
that migrants should integrate. In other words, migrants can only ever integrate into countries to the 
extent that the majority societies are willing to accept them. “There has to be a culture of welcome, 
and  not  mutual suspicion. Most  of  the  policies, at  the  government  level,  are  geared toward creating 
suspicion  of  each  other,  rather  than  a  sense  of  welcome  and  comfort,”  said  Binod  Khadira  of 
Jawaharlal  Nehru  University  in  New  Delhi.  “That  I  think  is  the  major  challenge  for  European 
countries if they want to have overseas skilled people or unskilled people to come over. ... Mutual trust 
building is at the core of [integration], whether it is linguistic facilitation, or political participation, or 
social integration.” 

For this reason some experts took issue with our focus on ‘integration’ as a concept. The term does 
not suggest neutral, mutual accommodation. On the contrary, the idea of integration is heavily loaded 
with  asymmetries  of  power.  It  asks  who  is  integrating  into  what.  The  overwhelming  perception  in 
popular and political discourse is that, as migrants are the individuals making the journey to a different 
society, it is primarily their job to adjust their behaviour to meet the expectations and norms of their 
new homes. The receiving society, on the other hand, is being sufficiently accommodating  – almost 
benevolently so – by ‘making room’ for the newcomers. As intuitive as this understanding is to many 
people, it disregards the real benefits receiving societies reap from the migrants in their midst. 

More must be done to meet migrants halfway – the onus and direction of integration cannot be left 
to migrants alone. Both migrants and receiving societies must change as they adapt to each other, and 
policymakers  must  prepare  citizens  to  better  deal  with  the  effects  of  migration.  Multi-fold  policy 
responses  targeting  both  migrants  and  existing  citizens  are  thus  needed  to:  a)  adapt  the  majority 
society to the needs of migrants; b) protect migrants’ rights and interests; and c) prepare and open up 
the majority society to greater diversity. Indeed, the University of Sydney’s Stephen Castles suggested 
that, as the baggage attached to the idea of integration can never be fully removed, use the term itself 
should be reconsidered.  

1 See Presse Release no. 98/07 – Judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-341/05 – Laval un Partneri Ltd v 
on: 

Svenska 
http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2009-02/cp070098en.pdf [Accessed 15 May 2015]. 

Byggnadsarbetareförbundet 

18  December 

and  Others, 

available 

2007, 

8 

INTERACT RR2015/13 

 
 
                                                      
3. Diaspora engagement 

Expert Survey Report 

Diaspora  engagement  has  become  increasingly  fashionable  in  recent  years.  Spurred  on  by 
skyrocketing levels of global remittances, the appeal of technological and skills transfer, and the allure 
of  migrant  political  lobbies,  more  and  more  countries  are  taking  an  interest  in  the  affairs  of  their 
citizens or heritage members abroad. Many countries now boast ministries or departments of diaspora 
affairs that seek to more strongly engage with ‘their diasporas’. 

The  main  objectives  of  diaspora  policy,  according  to  the  experts  interviewed,  are  to  strengthen 
ties, promote origin country culture, and extract resources. The first two of these three items are 
pursued in order to ensure that migrants’ relationships with their ‘homelands’ continue. Governments 
fear  that  as these ties  –  sentiments of loyalty  and  belonging,  as  well  as  familial  bonds  –  degrade  or 
become  more  distant,  migrants  will  have  progressively  less  incentive  to  actively  contribute  to  the 
development of their countries of origin. The maintenance of these ties is thus a pre-condition to the 
pursuit  of  the  third,  and  primary,  objective  of  most  current  diaspora  engagement  policies:  ‘tapping’ 
migrants for their financial and human capital. 

Governments  try  to  extract  and  channel  migrant  wealth  by  encouraging  remittances  and  direct 
investment. They also try to induce intellectual and technical transfer, either through return migration 
or various types of exchange schemes. Furthermore, they attempt to use migrants’ presence abroad to 
generate  business  links  or  improve  political  ties  between  the  countries  of  origin  and  destination,  as 
well as to lobby for policies favourable to the countries of origin. 

Several  interlocutors,  however,  noted  that  such  types  of  diaspora  engagement  policies  are 
problematic  because  they  are  overly  concerned  with  what  can  be  gained  from  migrants  and  not 
sufficiently sensitive to the well-being and rights of migrants in their new homes. As Lee explains: 

The ‘diaspora’ is, in many ways, so much linked to this connotation of development. That also links to 
looking  at  labour  migration  as  one  of  the  solutions  to  forward  development.  ...  If  you’re  looking  at  a 
development frame, then you’re putting a higher value to the issue around remittances, a higher value 
on  saying  that  it  is  this  supposedly  ‘diaspora’  community  in  the  countries  of  destination  that  is 
responsible for helping the development of their home country. It is the responsibility of governments to 
ensure the development of their countries. 

Lee emphasised that migrants are private citizens rather than tools of development, and that ‘success’ 
in diaspora engagement – and integration for that matter – should not be measured in terms of benefits 
accrued to states. Instead, policies should forefront the needs and rights of migrants, as understood by 
equal and direct engagement with migrants themselves. Khadira echoed this, strongly criticising the 
current prioritisation of states over migrants in both attitudes and policies. 

One has to ... make immigration policy migrant-friendly, or migrant-centric, and that has not been there. 
It’s  the  countries  of  destination,  or  countries  of  origin,  that  are  always  the  talking  points  for  us.  But 
nobody  talks  about  the  migrants:  what  is  the  impact  of  the  migration  policy  on  the  migrants  and  the 
families  of  the  migrants,  in  the  short-run,  in  the  medium-run,  and  in  the  long-run.  That  is  not  the 
discourse. The discourse is, what is good for the country of origin, and what is good for the country of 
destination, without being able to define what these countries need.  

Maintaining ties with nationals abroad by remaining useful and relevant to them is the path Mexican 
authorities have successfully pursued in the United States since the mid-1990s, according to Demetrios 
Papademetriou, the  founder  and  President  emeritus  of  the  Migration  Policy  Institute in Washington, 
and President of Migration Policy Institute Europe. Through a network of 51 consulates in the United 
States,  he  explained,  Mexican  nationals  can  receive  consular  identification  documents  (useful  for 
opening  bank  accounts in the  absence  of legal status and  similar  documentation  activities),  accurate 
and efficiently delivered information on a variety of issues critical to their nationals’ status in the US, 
certain types of pro-bono legal assistance, health screenings, and modest language assistance – along 
with a raft of other types of assistance. 

INTERACT RR2015/13 

9 

Cameron Thibos 

It’s a mature relationship. None existed until the mid-1990s, because Mexico didn’t want much to do with 
those who had left. And those who had left, had done so partly because they couldn’t survive economically 
there, mostly, but they were also extremely unhappy with Mexican politicians and politics. ... [Starting in 
the  late  1990s,  the  Mexican  government]  warmed  up  to  their  diaspora  in  the  United  States,  and  the 
Mexican diaspora in the United States warmed up to them. In the early 2000s, they also got the right to 
vote in Mexican elections. This has been a gradual, deepening engagement that has translated into day-to-
day contacts and collaboration, and into a habit of working with your nationals and, more generally, people 
of Mexican origin rather than either ignoring or working against them.  

4. The role of the country of origin 

Most of the experts interviewed agreed that while there are many areas in which countries of origin 
could have positive, productive effects on integration, so far their impact has been relatively limited. 
These  can  be  broken  down  into  three  general  categories:  institutional,  pre-departure,  and  post-
departure. 

4.1 Institutional role 

Institutionally, countries of origin must create and support the foundations necessary for integration to 
take  place.  One  way  to  do  this  is  through  bilateral  agreements  that  formalise  and  regularise  the 
treatment  of  migrants  in  a  wide  variety  of  areas,  including:  the  development  of  legal  migration 
channels; taxation; labour; access to social welfare and insurance systems; dual citizenship; as well as 
provision  for  cultural  and  educational  support.  Khadira  stressed 
importance  of  such 
institutionalisation and regularisation, as it allows for predictability. 

the 

The  stability  of  immigration  policy  is  very  very  important.  Whether  you  make  it  a  strict  immigration 
policy or a relaxed immigration policy, if it is consistent over time and its changes are gradual rather 
than  sudden,  then  that  helps  in  building  trust,  in  long-term  planning  in  skill-formation,  in  long-term 
planning in education, and so on. … I think that is crucial. If there are sudden changes in immigration 
policy,  than  that  puts  the  family-level  or  individual-level  planning  out  of  gear,  and  that  does  more 
damage. 

The institutional role of countries of origin could also involve bilateral information sharing regarding 
migration flows, labour market opportunities, job-seeker characteristics, as well as current or potential 
obstacles in each country.  Such information could be used to not only better manage migration, but 
also  to  improve  integration  prospects  if  it  were  put  to  that  purpose  (e.g.  by  pre-emptively  creating 
orientation and practical resources materials for migrants in their preferred language). 

This  institutional  role  also  means  promoting  positive  relations  between  states  at  both  the 
governmental and ‘popular’ levels. At a time of economic crisis, war, and virulent extremism, Europe 
has  witnessed  increasing  xenophobia  and  suspicion  of  other  cultures  in  recent  years.  Politicians  of 
many different stripes have cashed in on this discontent, using their amplified voices to scapegoat or 
vilify  the  very  countries  of  origin  from  which  many  migrants  hail.  The  politicians  of  countries  of 
origin  tap  into  similar  currents  on their  own  streets, creating  two-way  streams  of  animosity  that  are 
exponentially  magnified  by  the  internet  and  national  medias.  As  Kemal  Kirişci  of  the  Brookings 
Institute in Washington DC said, when speaking specifically of the Turkey-European dynamic: 

On both sides, there are more and more wise people discussing [cooperation], and may want to be part 
of  larger  exercises  –  in  civil  society,  in  governments,  in  bureaucracies,  certainly  in  academia.  But 
politics,  domestic  politics,  in  Europe  and  in  Turkey  –  I’m  afraid  is  not  providing  a  conducive 
environment for this. ... Right now … beating [up] the West and Europe is convenient. And in Europe, 
beating [up] the Muslims and the Turks is convenient. This is what brings you political brownie points. 
It looks like this will go on for a while. 

10 

INTERACT RR2015/13 

Expert Survey Report 

This  is  not  helpful  with  regard  to  migrant  integration.  It  is  not  enough  for  states  to  dispel  the 
xenophobia  apparent  on  their  streets  today,  a  hard  enough  task  as  that  is.  They  must  actively  work 
create  and  maintain  macro-climates  of  civility  –  if  not  harmony  –  between  countries  of  origin  and 
countries of destination if they wish to facilitate integration and foster more diverse societies. 

4.2 Pre-departure role 

Countries  of  origin  could  better  prepare  potential  migrants  for  integration  into  their  countries  of 
destination  by  offering  several  important  services,  including:  language  training;  skills  training; legal 
training  on  migrants’  rights  and  obligations  abroad;  and  current  information  regarding  labour  and 
housing  markets,  as  well  as  available  support  systems,  in  the  countries  of  destination.  Authors 
elsewhere have also highlighted the need for sending countries to protect potential migrants from the 
predatory practices of labour recruiters, who often use debt to trap migrants into exploitative labour 
conditions.2 Cooperation with countries of destination to end exploitative recruitment and employment 
practices  at  both  ends  of  the  labour  supply  chain  would  immeasurably  improve  the  prospects  for 
migrant integration and, more generally, migrant well-being in the countries of destination. 

4.3 Post-departure role 

There are furthermore several ways in which countries of origin can contribute to the integration of its 
nationals  abroad,  although  the  extent  to  which  this  is  possible  is  less  than  during  the  pre-departure 
stage.  Indeed,  several  experts  warned  that  countries  of  origin  must  tread  lightly  when  dealing  with 
migrants abroad, lest they leave themselves open to the charge of meddling in the affairs of countries 
of destination and migrants alike.  

Premising all actions on prior consultation with migrants themselves, however, countries of origin 
can  work  to  solve  problems  encountered  by  their  nationals  abroad.  Many  examples  of  creative 
problem solving – some of which have drawn the ire of the countries of destination – relate to rights 
and protection. The Mexican government, for example, issues the matrícula, a consular identification 
card,  to  nationals  abroad  regardless  of  their  immigration  status.  In  the  years  following  2001,  the 
Mexican  authorities  successfully  campaigned  for  this  card  to  be  accepted  by  many  banks,  police 
forces, and other institutions in the United States. By giving nationals – even those with an irregular 
migration status  – a way to identify themselves without revealing their status, the  matrícula reduces 
many problems of access and security experienced by Mexicans residing in the United States today.3  

Other  states  have  created  categories  of  quasi-citizenship  or  ‘origin  status’,  making  it  easier  for 
migrants to adopt the nationality of their countries of residence while still retaining some rights in their 
countries  of  origin.  Ethiopia,  for  example,  does  not  allow  for  dual  citizenship.  Instead,  it  issues  the 
Ethiopian Origin ID (yellow card), which allows bearers to visit, live, and work in Ethiopia without a 
visa, as well as to retain some rights such as access to pensions. Similarly, the Turkish ‘blue card’ was 
created to allow Turks residing in countries that do not allow dual citizenship (primarily Germany) to 
pursue exclusive citizenship there while retaining some rights back in Turkey.4  

2  K.  Strauss  The  role  of  labour  market  intermediaries  in  driving  forced  and  unfree  labour  [online], 
available  on: 

openDemocracy.net  –  Beyond  Trafficking  and  Slavery,  18  February  2015, 
https://www.opendemocracy.net/beyondslavery/kendra-strauss/role-of-labour-market-intermediaries-in-
driving-forced-and-unfree-labou [Accessed 15 May 2015]. 

3 K. O’Neil, Consular ID Cards: Mexico and Beyond, Migration Information Source. The online journal of Migration 
Policy Institute, 1 April 2015, available on: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/consular-id-cards-mexico-and-
beyond [Accessed 15 May 2015]. 

4 See Republic of Turkey Foreign Ministry, Mavi kart (eski pembe kart) uygulaması [Blue card (old pink card) 
http://www.mfa.gov.tr/mavi-kart-_eski-pembe-kart_-uygulamasi-.tr.mfa 

available 

on: 

application], 
[Accessed 28 February 2015]. 

INTERACT RR2015/13 

11 

                                                      
Cameron Thibos 

Countries of origin, through their embassies and online materials, may also facilitate the growth of 
information and social networks useful to migrants. Finally, several experts did praise origin country 
efforts  to  promote  their  culture  and  language  in  countries  of  destination.  This  not  only  helps  to  the 
majority society acclimatise to minority cultures and languages, but also provides additional avenues 
for  migrants  to  express  their  origin  culture  while  residing  abroad.  This  is  an  important  aspect  of 
normalising the majority to the diversity that surrounds them. 

5. Dimensions of integration, areas of cooperation 

We  gave  our  interlocutors  a  list  of  possible  areas  in  which  countries  of  origin  and  countries  of 
destination could cooperate regarding integration, asking them to identify the most fruitful avenues to 
pursue. We furthermore asked them to support their choices with examples of good or bad integration 
initiatives if possible.  

5.1 Labour market and education 

Given  that  the  economic  value  of  migrant  labour  is  one  of  the  primary  areas  of  interest  for  both 
countries of origin and countries of destination, it is unsurprising that the labour market is one of the 
most  commonly  cited  areas  of  possible  cooperation.  It  was,  however,  flagged  as  a  sensitive  site 
because interests in the area of employment can easily conflict. As both the position of migrants in the 
labour  force  and  their  integration  prospects  are  strongly  related  to  education,  we  treat  these  two 
dimensions together. 

As  mentioned  elsewhere  in  this  report,  states  can  institutionalise  migration  channels,  treatment, 
safeguards and procedures through bilateral agreements, reducing the uncertainty and risks associated 
with some types of migration. Experts based in the Democratic Republic of the Congo noted the need 
for  formalising  circular  and  seasonal  migration  schemes,  as  well  as  instituting  labour  transfer 
programmes,  to  decrease  the  risks  and  guarantee  more  protections  to  labourers.  More  broadly,  our 
interlocutors  repeated  the  need  for  more  stringent  safeguards  and  regulations  regarding  ethical 
recruitment and treatment of migrants, especially those working in vulnerable fields such as domestic 
and agricultural work. 

Migrants  should  also  be  better  matched  to  their  occupations,  and  afforded  opportunities  for 
vocational training and professional growth. It is common for migrants to be overqualified for the jobs 
they hold abroad. This problem could be reduced if states found ways to increase the recognition of 
migrants’  educational  qualifications,  said  Iryna  Klyuchkovska  of  the  Lviv  Polytechnic  National 
University  in  Ukraine,  among  many  others.  Indeed,  the  need  for  more  widespread  recognition  of 
certifications was one of the most cited issues in our survey. Possible avenues for this could include 
greater  harmonisation  of  curricula  across  countries,  more  detailed  understanding  of  origin  country 
curricula,  better  skills  matching  programmes  and,  where  appropriate,  targeted  re-training.  Student 
exchanges should also be facilitated and encouraged, so that migrants have the opportunity to receive 
an accredited degree in the language of the destination country. All of these measures would help a 
greater percentage of migrants to work in their chosen fields and at the levels to which they trained, 
allowing them to improve their skill sets and better contribute to their new places of residence. Indeed, 
interlocutors stressed that additional training should not be limited to highly-skilled professionals, but 
that migrants of all vocations should be afforded opportunities to learn new skills. Not just a matter of 
personal growth, additional training increases the chances that new methods, techniques and ideas will 
be transferred back to migrants’ countries of origin. 

Anna  Wittenborg  of  the  Deutsche  Gesellschaft  für  Internationale  Zusammenarbeit  (GIZ),  the 
German  development  agency,  cited  a successful  skills  matching  programme  that  recruited  engineers 
from Tunisia into a six-month paid internship in Germany. At the end of their internships, 65% signed 
employment  contracts  with  German  firms.  This  reduction  of  brain  waste  is  all  the  more  important 

12 

INTERACT RR2015/13 

Expert Survey Report 

since many countries already have difficulty retaining their skilled work force. Aiša Telalović, of the 
Ministry of Human Rights and Refugees of Refugees of Bosnia and Herzegovina, explained:  

Bosnia  and  Herzegovina  has  a  huge  brain  drain  index,  particularly  in  the  areas  of  medicine  and 
technical sciences. We need assistance from developed countries to retain our current cadre and produce 
more, to the ultimate mutual benefit of both our country and countries of destination. 

5.2 Language 

Language is a crucial aspect of the migration experience, and the facility with which a migrant wields 
the  language  of  the  country  of  destination  is  a  strong  indicator  of  their  integration  prospects.  Most 
interlocutors stressed the need for language learning opportunities in both the destination and origin 
countries, and this should be considered imperative to any integration effort. 

At the same time, several experts also stressed the need for the languages of migrants to be taught 
and promoted within the countries of destination. Creating an openness to other languages within the 
majority society, providing courses for ‘natives’ to learn the languages of their country’s main migrant 
groups,  and  facilitating  the  use  of  minority  languages  in  public  are  all  important  methods  of 
encouraging  mutual  respect  within  a  diverse  society.  Fostering  not  only  multilingual  societies,  but 
societies  that  embrace  non-European  and  minor  European  languages  as  well  as  the  major  lingua 
francas, is an important step to overcoming perceptions that migrants are foreigners, aliens, guests, or 
‘others’, which in turn helps counter xenophobia and discrimination. 

5.3 Nationality 

Everybody who flagged this dimension as an important area of cooperation agreed that paths to full 
citizenship are vital for improving integration levels. The level of openness to naturalisation sends a 
strong  signal  to  migrants  and  natives  alike  regarding  a  society’s  level  of  acceptance  and  tolerance. 
Becoming more open to the full incorporation of migrants into the destination country is thus another 
way to counter damaging  xenophobic and ‘othering’ tendencies. Furthermore, citizenship confers an 
additional package of political and social rights on the beneficiary. Over time, this will likely result in 
a  step  change  in  migrants’  participation,  productivity,  and  parity  –  the  keys  to  integration  –  in  all 
spheres of the receiving country. 

Our  experts  emphasised  the  sensitivity  of  cooperation  around  the  issue  of  nationality,  as  both 
countries of origin and destination jealously guard their prerogative to declare who is and who is not a 
citizen of their country. Nevertheless, they still saw room for cooperation, especially when it comes to 
the acceptance of dual nationality. Many migrants are loth to give up the citizenship of their countries 
of  birth,  especially  those who  face  uncertain  futures  in  the  countries  of  destination  or  are  unsure  of 
how long they will remain. This is especially true for forced migrants and refugees, noted Telalović, 
whose relationship with their countries of origin and reasons for leaving are often extremely complex. 
“[The] last thing forced migrants wish to do is to denounce their nationality of origin in order to obtain 
nationality of the country of destination and thus get access to basic rights and freedoms,” she said. 
Most countries in Europe have accepted the principle of dual nationality, and thus within the context 
of migration to Europe the onus is primarily on the countries of origin to revise their citizenship laws 
along these lines. Allowing for dual nationality is not only another step toward fostering an open and 
diverse  society,  but  it  is  a  way  of  acknowledging  the  prerogatives,  desires,  and  lived  transnational 
realities of many migrants today. 

INTERACT RR2015/13 

13 

 
 
6. Levels at which cooperation works best 

Cameron Thibos 

We were not only interested in the most pressing areas of cooperation, but also in the optimal levels at 
which such cooperation could take place: the intergovernmental, national/bilateral, sub-national, NGO, 
or informal network levels. The diversity of the answers makes it clear that a multilateral approach is, 
above all, what is needed when addressing integration. 

Intergovernmental  and  regional  organisations  are  best  placed  for  promoting  and  instituting 
common standards and frameworks, as well as for progress monitoring. The European Union, as an 
intergovernmental and regional organisation that cannot often dictate migration policy to its member 
states,  must  predominantly  rely  on  its  soft  power  to  achieve  better  results  in  integration  across  the 
European Union. Experts suggested several initiatives the EU could undertake, including: setting up 
central  information  exchanges,  conducting  comparative  studies  and  monitoring  efforts,  as  well  as 
constructing  overall  frameworks  and  best  practices  to  which  member  states  could  subscribe.  Alja 
Lulle,  of  the  Latvian  Ministry  of  Foreign  Affairs,  innovatively  suggested  a  programme  of  centrally 
funded language centres across the EU that would teach the languages of both countries of destination 
and countries of origin, in a massive effort to normalise more multi-lingual societies. 

Given the non-binding nature of many intergovernmental and regional initiatives, however, experts 
agreed  that  the  single  most  powerful  level  for  (formal)  progress  is  the  national  level.  This  is  where 
bilateral treaties are forged and real, country-specific concerns over migrant rights and protection can 
be  hammered  out.  That  said,  Michele  LeVoy,  the  director  of  the  Platform  for  International 
Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants, warned that many such agreements are pursued with ulterior 
motives, such as strengthening border controls and keeping potential migrants out. As long as bilateral 
agreements ostensibly regarding migrants’ rights and protection are used, or are perceived to be used, 
as  mere  fig  leaves  for  oppressive  or  exclusionary  policies,  they  reinforce  the  isolation  and  non-
integration  of  migrants  in  society.  Instead,  “genuine  partnerships  between  countries  of  origin  and 
countries  of  destination  should  be  forged,  based  on  mutual  respect,  interest,  benefits  and  planned 
strategic (development-related) objectives” Telalović said. 

The sub-national/local and NGO levels were both perceived as crucial, as they are at the coalface 
of  integration.  This  is  usually  where  primary  exchanges  with  natives  and  migrants  take  place  to 
improve situations and to overcome the us/them divide, either in concert with national policies or in 
contradiction  to  them.  Finally,  our  interview  partners  stressed  the  importance  of  informal  networks 
and  migrant  organisations.  These  are  crucial  for  orienting  new  migrants,  providing  support  and 
comfort,  as  well  as  distributing  information  on  the  job  opportunities  and  social  services  available. 
While  inter-state  cooperation  at  all  of  these  levels  is  not  necessarily  possible  or  even  desirable,  all 
must  be  supported  and  encouraged  if  migrant  groups  and  majority  societies  are  to  have  the  best 
possible chance of integrating into each other. 

14 

INTERACT RR2015/13 

 
 
Expert Survey Report 

The  INTERACT  project  would  like  to  thank  all  the  experts  who  took  the  time  to  contribute  to  this 
report. 

Akanni Ibukun Akinyemi • Nigeria • Department of Demography, Obafemi Awolowo University 

Pedro Arens • the Netherlands • Netherlands Migration Institute 

José Mvuezolo Bazonzi • Democratic Republic of Congo • University of Kinshasa 

Miguel Benito • Sweden • The Immigrant Institute 

Stephen Castles • Australia • University of Sydney 

Bimal Ghosh • Switzerland • Global Migration Centre, the Graduate Institute Geneva 

William Gois • Philippines • Migrant Forum in Asia 

Petra Hueck • Switzerland • International Catholic Migration Commission Inc. 

Liele Jackson • Democratic Republic of Congo • Centre de Recherche en Sciences Humaines 

Binod Khadira • India • Jawaharlal Nehru University in New Delhi 

Kemal Kirişci • USA • Brookings Institute in Washington DC 

Iryna Klyuchkovska • Ukraine • Lviv Polytechnic National University 

Jin Sook Lee • Switzerland • Building and Wood Worker’s International 

Michele LeVoy • Belgium • Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants 

Aija Lulle • Latvia • Ministry of Foreign Affairs 

Jose Agbada Mangalu Mobhe • Democratic Republic of the Congo • University of Kinshasa 

Giang Nguyen • Vietnam • Vietnam Academy of Social Sciences 

Demetrios Papademetriou • Belgium • Migration Policy Institute Europe 

Aiša Telalović • Bosnia and Herzegovina • Ministry of Human Rights and Refugees of Refugees  

Lana  Velimirović  Vukalović  •  Croatia  •  Croatian  Office for  Human  Rights  and  Rights of  National 
Minorities 

Lloyd Wilks • Jamaica • Jamaican Consul General in Toronto 

Anna Wittenborg • Germany • Association for International Cooperation (GIZ) 

Kwaku Yeboah • Ghana • Ghanaian Diaspora Affairs Bureau 

Ivanka Zlatec • Croatia • European Employment Services (EURES) 

INTERACT RR2015/13 

15