Introduction: developing and testing a generalizable model of immigrant integration.

Wilkinson, Lori

Integration is often touted as the 'gold standard' in the settlement of newcomers. It forms the basis of many government policies on settlement and integration. Programs developed by social service providers use integration as a central formulating concept. Integration is the optimal goal for any society to ensure that all of its members play an active role and feel a part of their community. As readers of Canadian Ethnic Studies already know, integration is a reciprocal process where newcomers are incorporated into a new society. During the process, both the newcomer and host society change as a result of interaction with one another. This change is mutually beneficial; the immigrant makes alterations to their behaviour to "fit in", while the host society changes as a result of the incorporation of newcomers. The passage of time ensures that the newcomers and their children begin to adapt and reconcile their cultural practices, language and religion towards the prevailing culture of the host society. But work must be done to ensure the host society is ready and amenable to accepting the arrival of newcomers as integration takes place at the community level (Bommes 2012).

As researchers of immigration already know, the integration process is not linear, since many newcomers report that for every step forward, they take two steps back. Nor is the process balanced. Newcomers may be fully integrated into their employment and occupation yet at the same time, they may feel ostracized by their community. Furthermore, there is no such thing as a fully integrated ethnic group. We cannot say one group is more or less integrated than another. Individuals from the same ethnic group, living in the same community and even living in the same family, report different integration experiences. Mothers may integrate faster than fathers or children, despite the fact that all arrived at the same time. Age differences in the pace at which integration are reported are also prevalent. While it may be true that most children adapt faster than their parents, primarily because school is an institution where all pupils learn and are introduced to their society, this is not always the case. Furthermore, entrance class has an effect on integration. While those arriving in the family class may integrate faster into their communities, those arriving in the business and skilled worker classes tend to integrate faster into employment and economic arenas than others. Still other migrants, namely temporary workers, are not meant to integrate at all. They are supposed to work and return quietly to their country of origin, unless they work in very particular jobs and live in provinces that encourage permanent migration among their temporary migrants. We can thus summarize integration as a non-linear process with multiple outcomes for all newcomers. It is an uneven process that can result in significant success in some institutions, but failure in others.

The largely unobtainable ideal of integration, however, is that both the newcomer and the host society change, mostly for the better. The process is not without its problems, the chief one being that inevitably, the majority of the changes are done by the newcomers and virtually none by the host society. Castles and Miller (2009, 35) argue that "virtually all democratic states--and some not so democratic as well--have fast growing immigrant populations" which are tied largely to economic growth. It means that the host society's interest lies mainly in jobs, investment, and employment creation, rather than in the social or cultural aspects of integration. This focus on economic integration over other aspects of integration is understandable. Without a steady income, newcomer families will suffer poverty and the associated issues such as poor health and educational outcomes for themselves and their offspring. However, societies that focus solely or mainly on economic outcomes soon face problems of social and cultural integration. Two solitudes are created: one which is predominated by the majority/host society culture and the other which is excluded and marginalized due to cultural, social, religious and/or linguistic differences.

Societies that fail to be inclusive of their newcomer populations face significant issues, particularly over the long term. Recent studies of the second generation reveal deep dissatisfaction with societies that fail to integrate the offspring of newcomers. In Canada, Reitz and Bannerji's (2007) research has uncovered deeply embedded discontent among the second generation. This group is significantly more likely to report being victimized by discrimination, feeling ostracized by society and not fitting into their heritage culture despite the fact of higher levels of post-secondary education, higher employment rates and higher pay than the first-and third-plus generations. Academics and government tend to de-emphasize the role that racism and discrimination plays in the integration process. While individuals may be successfully integrated in their work, school and ethno-cultural communities, they may become extremely isolated if racism is not addressed. The message we can take away from this and other similar studies is that despite 'success' in labour market and economic spheres, without cultural and social integration, there is the potential for discord. The problems experienced by some other industrialized countries with substantial immigrant populations are even more compromised. High rates of unemployment, low rates of school completion, poverty and low health outcomes are common among first-and second-generation youth in countries that do not take the effort to integrate newcomers within the labour market.

Research tends to support this observation. Economic integration, while a requirement, is not sufficient in determining successful integration. Research on integration, much like government priorities, has tended to focus on the economic aspects of integration to the near exclusion of other forms of integration. A review of the Canadian literature in 2003 revealed that nearly 60% of the research on immigrants focuses exclusively on income, economic and labour market conditions. This development is hardly surprising given that government and research funding tends to favour economic issues over non-economic ones. When theories are used to support the funding of integration initiatives, the policies tend to be focused on economic conditions and neglect to mention that although economic integration is essential to integration, it is not sufficient. Canadian immigration statistics support this observation. Since 1990, the number of family class immigrants has been greatly reduced by the Federal Government to make room for more economic class immigrants. By the start of this decade, the proportion of family to economic class immigrants had flipped--instead of making up 60% of the arrivals as they did in the past, family class immigrants make up only 27% while economic immigrants account for over 60% of all arrivals (Citizenship and Immigration Canada 2012). This change in emphasis from family reunification to economic contributions has ensured that economic integration has become prioritized in government policy and funding of integration programs.

If we put aside the fact that the academic and political groups in our society cannot agree to a single cohesive definition of integration (which in itself is a serious problem) and the over-emphasis on economic rather than other forms of integration, we are still left with the methodological problems associated with developing a reliable and valid index of integration. Recently, there have been several attempts in North America and in Europe to conceptualize and operationalize immigrant integration. Some examples include the Migrant Integration Policy Index (MIPEX) created by the British Council and the Migration Policy Group (2011), the Cultural Rights Index (Koopmans et al. 2005), and the Legal Obstacles to Integration Index (Waldruch and Hofinger 1997). Only the MIPEX provides a comprehensive list of integration, though it is difficult to digest given its wide scope and numerous sub-indices, and the content of such indices needs further statistical verification. There is no methodology to accompany this document as it is not strictly an academic endeavour. The Cultural Rights Index focuses on a singular domain (legal/multicultural) and does not explain successful migrant integration in Canada or the United States, which both have social characteristics and cultural attitudes towards newcomers and racial diversity that are distinct from Europe. The Legal Obstacles to Integration Index is criticized by its creators given the different legal and judicial histories of the countries involved. Despite the enormous challenges involved in creating and operationalizing a coherent index of immigrant integration, there is a large appetite among academics and policymakers to undertake this venture so that we have common criteria to evaluate conditions internationally and for the advancement of theoretical frameworks of immigration.

The purpose of this special edition of Canadian Ethnic Studies is to address this problem by sharing a number of international and disciplinary perspectives on immigrant integration, many of which produce a series of immigrant indices. Following statistical practice and guided by theoretical frameworks, the researchers participating in this volume have statistically summarized a number of indicators of integration around a number of different themes (welcoming communities, labour market integration, intra- and inter-ethnic interaction, and social integration) involving several countries (Canada, China, and Australia). Each paper takes a single theme and uses national databases to develop various measures of integration. The papers consider the implications for appropriate integration policy for their domain and country. Theoretically, the papers in this issue suggest that integration of migrants and immigrants is both a quantitative as well as a qualitative issue. The development of any measurement of integration inevitably involves adopting some qualitative benchmarks regarding what successful integration entails. Such benchmarks may be contested and the contestations would compel researchers to take them into account in refining future indexes and indicators. The findings in the papers also suggest that there are universal features of migrant integration but at the same time, some aspects of integration may well be society specific. This special issue will open up further policy debates and academic dialogues regarding what constitutes successful integration of migrants and immigrants and how best to measure it.

Although the papers in this volume cover integration in various institutions across three very different countries, they are united in the belief that in order to advance our understanding of the successful settlement of newcomers, researchers need to devise robust indicators of integration which may be applied across different contexts. While none of the papers in this volume have provided definitive answers, they have provided us with clues as to the key indicators of integration in social, cultural and economic dimensions.

Five of the seven papers research integration from the Canadian context; four of these (Wong and Tezli, Enns, Kirova and Connolly, Lund and Hira-Friesen, Li and Li) were part of a larger project funded by the Prairie Metropolis Centre entitled "An Immigrant Integration Index: A Cross-Domain Project." These four papers examine the cultural, social, economic and host society aspects of integration in an attempt to identify valid measures of integration and to provide robust statistical measures of the concept. The goal is to contribute to the debate on defining integration. As Jedwab (2008a) aptly observes, there are as many unique definitions of integration as there are research papers. The papers arrive at their indices in different ways, but all come to the conclusion that single item indicators of integration do not measure integration! Researchers need to account for the multidimensionality if the integration experience, and this cannot be articulated by single item questions.

Developing indices for social, cultural and civic integration in Canada is the purpose of Wong and Tezli's paper. Using factor analysis, the two researchers were able to identify eight items that measure social integration. Despite a widespread anxiety about the threat immigrants pose to Canadian identity, the findings indicate that newcomers are just as likely to be socially integrated as the Canadian-born. There are differences, however. Integration increases by generation status, by gender and by racialized minority status. In line with Enns, Kirova, and Connolly's findings, racialized minorities are less likely to be socially integrated. This finding lends support to the research indicating the powerful force that racism continues to have on Canadian society.

The article by Enns, Kirova and Connolly uses the concepts of bridging and bonding social capital to create common spaces for immigrant and host society members. They find that bridging activities, the opportunities for integration, are all positively associated with integration while only some of the bonding activities-those associated with inter group participation--are associated with integration. Furthermore, they identify variations in the bridging and bonding activities by place of birth and ethnicity. For example, sense of Canadian identity is understandably higher for the Canadian-than foreign-born. However, the sense of Canadian identity among Canadians of South Asian origin is lower than among immigrants with the same ethnic background.

Lund and Hira-Friesen take a similar approach to their examination of the receptivity of the host society towards newcomers and racialized minority groups in Canada. This article pays particular attention to the warmth of the welcome or receptivity of the host society. Immigrants completing several surveys have been asked to identify the most important thing Canadians could do to help immigrants integrate: "being more welcoming" is the number one choice (ledwab 2008b). Despite this reality, few studies have investigated the host society's response to immigrants and immigration. This paper compares rural and urban dweller attitudes towards diversity and immigration and finds that White Canadians and immigrants living in urban settings are less comfortable than their racialized counterparts, particularly in terms of higher fear of becoming victims of crime.

Li and Li tackle the important issue of economic integration among immigrants in Canada. Although the research on economic integration is significant, their paper is one of the few attempts to create an index of economic integration. Not surprisingly, much but not all of the unexplained differences in economic outcomes between immigrants and Canadian-born can be explained by the fact that work and training experiences obtained abroad are not afforded equal value in the labour market. Like the papers above, there are distinct ethnic variations in income outcomes, with racialized minorities penalized more than their white counterparts.

Shibao Guo's paper also focuses on economic integration but uses a different approach. He attempts to address a major gap in the Canadian research agenda. Much of the research focuses on Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver, but largely ignores the rest of the nation. As integration is highly dependent on community context, we only have a partial picture of immigrant integration in Canada. Focusing his inquiry on Chinese immigrants living in the second tier cities of Edmonton and Calgary, he identifies a triple barrier to economic and occupational equality. These barriers are described by Guo as the glass gate--obtaining recognition of their professional credentials--the glass door--recognizing access to high paying jobs--and the glass ceiling where advancement to management positions are blocked. Corroborating Li and Li's findings, Guo observes that one racialized group continues to be economically discriminated in Canadian society.

The remaining papers provide important comparative data to the Canadian context. Li and her colleagues examine rural to urban migration in China. Readers may wonder how the Chinese context can contribute to our understanding of Canada. Despite low levels of external migration, great numbers of Chinese migrate from rural to urban areas, in the magnitude of millions per year. These migrations are extremely difficult and often criminalized due to significant restriction on internal migration imposed by the Chinese government. Most of the rural migrants are left without social security benefits. This fuels a deep sense of inequity among the former rural dwellers as they have significantly less access to the protective benefits of various government programs. How do these conditions influence social cohesion and sense of belonging among rural migrants in the city?

Finally, Jock Collins provides evidence from the Australian context. Using data from various studies, Collins describes integration in Australia and questions the success of multiculturalism policy there. Unlike Canada, multiculturalism is not attached to a distinct government policy. Although the government is very committed to integration and equality, the Australian model tends to be more concerned, at least from a policy perspective, on the lived experience of newcomers, using both objective and subjective measures, with a particular emphasis on outcomes. Immigrants to Australia experience barriers to integration which are very familiar to scholars of the Canadian context: economic, social and cultural integration remain difficult, particularly for racialized immigrants. One important observation from this paper is that Australians share many of the same misconceptions of immigrants as held by Canadians. And like Canada, multiculturalism is alive and well in Australia. Yes, there are problems to overcome, but it remains a worthwhile endeavour.

While the seven papers, from three international contexts, each focus on different aspects of integration, the common issue is how do societies become more welcoming and less discriminatory toward newcomers? Globalization, advancements in communication technology and the ease of international travel have greatly increased the global movement of people. Growing economies continue to reach worldwide for workers to fill labour markets, families long to be reunited with their kin, and persecuted people require safe havens. Yet, the barriers to integration remain. Although all three countries showcased in this special issue want to find ways to become inclusive societies, this is unlikely to happen if there remains significant debate as to what integration really means. Readers will find the content of this special issue of Canadian Ethnic Studies a good baseline to move this debate forward.

REFERENCES

Bommes, Michael. 2012. Immigration and Social Systems--Collected Essays of Michael Bommes. Christina Boswell and Gianni D'Amato, eds. Anja Lobert, trans. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

British Council and Migration Policy Group. 2011. Migrant Integration Policy Index HI. Brussels: British Council and Migration Policy Group.

Castles, S., and M. Miller. 2009. The Age of Migration: International Population Movements in the Modern World--Fourth Edition. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Citizenship and Immigration Canada. 2012. Facts and Figures 2012 Immigration Statistics. Ottawa: Citizenship and Immigration Canada.

Jedwab, J. 2008a. Religion and Social Capital in Canada. Canadian Diversity 6.1: 25-46.

Jedwab, J. 2008b. Receiving and Giving: How does the Canadian Public Feel about Immigration and Integration? In Immigration and Integration in Canada in the 21st Century, eds. J. Biles, M. Burstein and J. Frideres, 211-230. Kingston, ON: McGill-Queen's University Press.

Koopmans, R., P. Statham, M. Giugni and F. Passy. 2005. Contested Citizenship, Immigration and Cultural Diversity in Europe. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Reitz, J., and R. Bannerji. 2007. Racial Inequality, Social Cohesion and Policy Issues. In Belonging? Diversity, Recognition and Shared Citizenship in Canada, eds. K. Banting, T. Courchene and L. Seidle, 489-546. Montreal: Institute for Research on Public Policy.

Waldruch, H., and C. Hofinger. 1997. An Index to Measure the Legal Obstacles to the Integration of Migrants. New Community 23.2:271-285.

LORI WILKINSON is an Associate Dean in the Faculty of Arts and Professor in the Department of Sociology at the University of Manitoba. She specializes in immigration and refugee studies, particularly on issues related to discrimination, settlement and health among newcomers to Canada. She is currently studying the long-term labour market histories of newcomers who arrive to Canada as teens or young adults and is working on several projects related to identifying the factors that influence successful integration. She is currently the editor of the Journal of International Migration and Integration and the incoming Director of the Western Consortium for Integration, Citizenship and Cohesion.