Immigration, Multiculturalism, and the Welfare State

Abstract

Popular opposition to immigration is rooted in many factors. In this essay, we focus on one specific issue that has become prominent in recent debates—namely, the fear that the welfare state is being undermined by the impact of increasing ethnic and racial diversity. There are actually two concerns here: first, that ethnic and racial diversity as such makes it more difficult to sustain redistributive social policies because it is difficult to generate feelings of national solidarity and trust across ethnic and racial lines, and second, that the “multiculturalism” policies adopted to recognize or accommodate immigrant groups tend to further undermine national solidarity and trust. If either of these hypotheses were true, the very idea of a “multicultural welfare state,” a welfare state that respects and accommodates diversity, would be almost a contradiction in terms. We review the existing evidence and suggest that both hypotheses are overstated. The evidence to date suggests that there is no inherent tendency for either immigrant ethnic diversity or multiculturalism policies to erode the welfare state. We conclude with some speculation about the implications of this evidence for debates about the rights of noncitizens.

Islamic Education and Multiculturalism: Engaging with the Canadian Experience

“…For example, Ukrainians, Italians, and other European immigrants led the multiculturalism discussions and debates in the 1960s and 1970s. Kymlicka argues that multiculturalism in Canada was not initially intended to accommodate Canadian Muslims, or to enhance their positive integration into the wider Canadian society It can be argued that when multiculturalism was introduced it was a reasonable response to already established communities of immigrants, but lacked flexibility in accommodating the needs of new immigrants, and did not consider, let alone address, the challenges faced by Muslims and similar minorities in their struggle to survive (Kymlicka, 2006).…”

“…The commission concluded that there was Canadian complicity in Arar's imprisonment and torture, and offered an official apology and financial compensation.. According to Kymlicka (2006), multiculturalism in Canada was originally established for the benefit of well-integrated European ethnic groups who had only minor differences in terms of culture and language with the dominant group. For example, Ukrainians, Italians, and other European immigrants led the multiculturalism discussions and debates in the 1960s and 1970s.…”

“…These religious minorities, including Muslims, feel that the current liberal multicultural and educational policies and institutions marginalize their values, beliefs, language and history, while simultaneously privileging the majority's (Azmi, 2001;Kymlicka 2006;Zine, 2007). For example when Ontario Muslims asked the provincial government to have their faith-based arbitrations system regulated by the courts, an opportunity enjoyed by other religious groups, the government responded by scrapping its recognition of all faithbased arbitrations (Biles, Ibrahim & Tolley, 2010;Elmasry, 2005).…”

Nordic Economic Policy Review

“…Sweden has been, by far the most permissive whereas Finland and Norway, and especially Denmark, are more regulated. Taking more types of policies into account, including the allowance of dual citizen-ships and the funding of ethnic group organizations or activities, Kymlicka and Banting (2006) classify 21 OECD countries according to their multiculturalism. Sweden is the only Nordic country having modest multiculturalism policies, whereas Denmark, Finland and Norway are categorized as having weak multiculturalism policies.…”

Social Inclusion: Inaugural Editorial

“…Although the crisis has clearly not supported the maintenance of a strong, redistributive, and egalitarian welfare state overseeing and guarding social cohesion, it should be acknowledged that even without the crisis, the welfare state (which exists in many guises, and in some regions of the world not at all) is facing serious difficulties, partly due to additional economic pressures (mainly deriving from soaring costs of social benefits, education, and health care), partly the erosion of national sovereignties, and partly the liberalization and transnationalization of economic flows, which erode the taxation basis of states [13]. This in turn implicates the third factor, generic global shift and flows, involving both a multipolar restructuring of global politics and massive demographic cross-border mobility-developments which challenge receiving societies (already weakened due to crisis effects and overtaxed welfare systems) to devise intelligent instruments and models for coping with novel and ever fluctuating diversity [14][15][16].…”