Mapping Migration, Mapping Churches' Responses in Europe 2016

Chu hes Co issio fo Mig a ts i Eu ope a d Wo ld Cou il of Chu hes MAPPING MIGRATION, MAPPING CHURCHES’ RESPONSES IN EUROPE Belonging, Community and Integration: the Witness and Service of Churches in Europe Darrell Jackson and Alessia Passarelli MAPPING MIGRATION, MAPPING CHURCHES’ RESPONSES IN EUROPE: Belonging, Community, and Integration: the Witness and Service of Churches in Europe Copyright © 2016 Churches’ Commission for Migrants in Europe. All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations in notices or reviews, no part of this book may be reproduced in any manner without prior written permission from the publisher. Write: publications@wcc‐coe.org. CCME is a e u e i al o ga isatio that se es the hu hes i thei o it e t to p o ote the isio of a i lusi e o u it th ough ad o ati g fo a ade uate poli fo ig a ts, efugees a d i o it g oups at Eu opea a d atio al le el. Me e s a e A gli a , O thodo a d P otesta t Chu hes, Cou ils of Chu hes a d hu h‐ elated age ies i u e tl Eu opea ou t ies; it oope ates ith the Co fe e e of Eu opea Chu hes a d the Wo ld Cou il of Chu hes. WCC Pu li atio s is the ook pu lishi g p og a e of the Wo ld Cou il of Chu hes. Fou ded i , the WCC p o otes Ch istia u it i faith, it ess a d se i e fo a just a d pea eful o ld. A P otesta t, O thodo , A gli a a d othe hu hes ep ese ti g glo al fello ship, the WCC i gs togethe o e tha illio Ch istia s i ou t ies a d o ks oope ati el ith the ‘o a Catholi Chu h. Opi io s e p essed i WCC Pu li atio s a e those of the autho s. Cover design: Ben Potter Cover image: European Community 2007. Book design and typesetting: The authors ISBN: 978‐2‐8254‐1678‐5 World Council of Churches 150 route de Ferney, P.O. Box 2100 1211 Geneva 2, Switzerland http://publications.oikoumene.org Churches’ Commission for Migrants in Europe rue Joseph II 174 B‐1000 Brussels Tel. +32 (0) 2 234 68 00 info@ccme.be http://www.ccme.eu 2 Contents FOREWORD ................................................................................................................................................................. 7 A NEW STUDY ON MIGRATION IN EUROPE............................................................................................................ 7 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................................... 9 1. General introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 9 2. An inter‐disciplinary approach to migration and the response of Churches in Europe .................................... 9 3. Introducing the challenges of measuring contemporary patterns of migration in Europe and the response of the Churches in Europe .................................................................................................................................... 10 4. Integration, community and belonging............................................................................................................ 11 CHAPTER ONE: MEASURING THE PHENOMENON OF MIGRATION IN EUROPE ...................................................... 13 1. The phenomenon of migration in Europe........................................................................................................ 13 2. Developing, monitoring, and regulating migration in Europe ......................................................................... 14 3. European Migration and Migrant demographics............................................................................................. 16 4. Monitoring migration, integration and the intra‐EU free movement of people ............................................. 18 5. Indicators of belonging and migration in Europe ............................................................................................ 24 6. Experiences of community and migration in Europe....................................................................................... 24 7. Migration glossary ............................................................................................................................................ 26 CHAPTER TWO: A SOCIOLOGICAL ACCOUNT OF RELIGION, MIGRATION AND INTEGRATION IN EUROPE............. 31 1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................... 31 2. Religion and secularism in Europe ................................................................................................................... 31 3. Integration ........................................................................................................................................................ 32 4. Self‐identification and otherness ..................................................................................................................... 34 5. The Stranger: a particular category of other ................................................................................................... 34 6. Community and belonging ............................................................................................................................... 35 7. Belonging in migration ..................................................................................................................................... 35 8. Social capital ..................................................................................................................................................... 36 CHAPTER THREE: A THEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE PHENOMENON OF MIGRATION IN EUROPE .......... 39 1. Reviewing the theological sketch of the first edition of Mappi g Mig atio .................................................. 39 2. A brief historical account of migratory European Christianity ........................................................................ 39 3. Is a comprehensive theological account of migration possible? ..................................................................... 41 4. Migrant and non‐migrant together on the way towards integration, belonging and community ................. 44 5. Remaining areas for exploration within a theological account of migration .................................................. 46 CHAPTER FOUR: MIGRANT INFOGRAPHICS FOR MEMBER STATES OF THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE ........................ 47 CHAPTER FIVE: EUROPEAN CHURCHES RESPONDING TO MIGRATION ................................................................... 95 1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................... 95 2. Migrants in the life of the churches ................................................................................................................. 95 3. Migrant young people in the life and ministry of the churches of Europe ................................................... 100 4. Advocacy and Assistance ................................................................................................................................ 101 5. Individual reports from Churches describing the presence of migrants in the life of their church and their advocacy and assistance programmes among refugees and migrants. ............................................................ 103 3 6. Concluding remarks ........................................................................................................................................ 113 CHAPTER SIX: PERSPECTIVES FROM THE MIGRANT EXPERIENCE OF ACTIVE PARTICIPATION IN THE CHURCHES OF EUROPE ................................................................................................................................................................... 115 1. First encounter with a church community and the choice of affiliation ....................................................... 115 2. The factors behind migrants’ active participation in a church community ................................................... 117 3. The role of the church from the perspective of the migrant......................................................................... 118 4. The migrant experience of integration .......................................................................................................... 121 5. Concluding remarks ........................................................................................................................................ 122 APPENDIX ONE: A SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY OF REFERENCES .................................................................................. 123 APPENDIX TWO: QUESTIONNAIRE CIRCULATED TO CCME/CEC AND WCC MEMBER CHURCHES AND CHURCH‐ RELATED AGENCIES IN EUROPE ............................................................................................................................. 129 APPENDIX THREE: RESOLUTIONS AND STATEMENTS ............................................................................................ 133 1. URGE GOVERNMENTS TO RESETTLE SUBSTANTIAL NUMBERS OF SYRIAN REFUGEES, UPHOLD COMMITMENTS TO PROTECTION ...................................................................................................................... 133 2. EUROPEAN RESPONSES TO REFUGEES AND MIGRANTS INFORMAL JUSTICE AND HOME AFFAIRS COUNCIL 14‐15 SEPTEMBER 2015 ..................................................................................................................................... 134 3. EUROPEAN REFUGEE SITUATION: CHURCHES’ INITIATIVES FOR REFUGEES AND OTHER MIGRANTS: PRIORITY FOR SAFE PASSAGE ............................................................................................................................. 135 4. ‘A CALL FOR A CHANGE OF ATTITUDES REGARDING MIGRATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH EUROPEAN VALUES’: PUBLIC MESSAGE OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF CCME, SIGTUNA 24‐28 JUNE 2014 ................... 138 5. PUBLIC STATEMENT OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF CCME, BUCHAREST 16‐19 JUNE 2011 ...................... 138 And 4 ABOUT THE PUBLISHERS ‘CCME is an ecumenical organisation that serves the churches in their commitment to promote the vision of an inclusive community through advocating for an adequate policy for migrants, refugees and minority groups at European and national level. In the fulfilment of this mandate it is responding to the message of the Bible which insists on the dignity of every human being and to the understanding of unity as devoid of any distinction between strangers and natives.’ ‘Founded in 1948, the WCC promotes Christian unity in faith, witness and service for a just and peaceful world. A global fellowship, the WCC brings together 345 Protestant, Orthodox, Anglican and other churches representing more than 550 million Christians in 110 countries and works cooperatively with the Roman Catholic Church.’ ABOUT THE AUTHORS ‘e D Da ell Ja kso holds a ThD in missiology from the University of Birmingham. He has served as National Mission Advisor to the Baptist Union of Great Britain (1996‐2003), Mission Researcher for the Conference of European Churches (2004‐2007), and founded the Nova Research Centre, Redcliffe College, Gloucester (2007‐ 2011). In 2012 he became the Senior Lecturer in Missiology at Morling College, Sydney, a College of the University of Divinity, Melbourne. He began researching migration, ethnic diversity, and intercultural Christianity in 2004, areas in which he currently writes, teaches, and supervises PhD students from Chinese, Sri Lankan, Australian, and Nigerian backgrounds. He is a contributing editor to Vista and on the Editorial Advisory Council of Lausa e Glo al A al sis. He is Vice‐ President of the Australian Association of Mission Studies, Chair of the Lausanne International Researchers’ Network, on the National Leadership Team of Missions Interlink (Australia), and a Board member of European Christian Mission International. D Alessia Passa elli (b. 1979) holds a PhD in sociology from Trinity College Dublin where she investigated the integration policies and practices of Protestant Churches in Ireland and Italy. She graduated in cultural anthropology at University 'La Sapienza' in Rome with a thesis on Romanian Roma people in Rome. She has been working on migration, religion, ethnic minorities and integration issues since 2005: previously by implementing and coordinating projects at the Churches' Commission for Migrants in Europe (CCME) and later by being part of the research team of the Trinity Immigration Initiative Project at Trinity College. Currently she collaborates with the Federation of Protestant Churches in Italy (FCEI) researching the integration of first and second generation Protestant migrants in religious communities and in the wider society. She has published several journal articles and book chapters on migration, religion and integration. 5 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors would like to acknowledge the assistance of many individuals without whom this report would not have been possible. We are especially grateful for the vision and inspiration of Doris Peschke, the General Secretary of CCME, who has worked hard to encourage and support the production of this second edition. We are also grateful to Dr Amélé Ekué, Professor of Ecumenical Social Ethics at the Ecumenical Institute of Bossey. Without the encouragement and invaluable advice of these two individuals, it would not have been possible to continue with the revision of this important piece of work. We must also express our appreciation for the many individuals working within the member churches and related networks of the CCME who have provided country‐specific information. There are a number of key projects on whose work we are also reliant. Amongst these we must mention the CCME‐sponsored MIRACLE project, the ongoing work of the “Migrant Integration Policy Index”, and the many women and men who serve the Churches and Christian agencies of Europe in their efforts to respond simply to the hugely complex challenges of human migration. Rev Dr Darrell Jackson & Dr Alessia Passarelli 6 FOREWORD A NEW STUDY ON MIGRATION IN EUROPE The first study Mappi g Mig atio i Eu ope, Mappi g Chu hes ‘espo ses: Eu ope “tud was undertaken as part of the World Council of Churches Project looking into the challenges and changes of the ecclesial landscape in view of international migration. Despite some criticism, the study shed light on the migration scenery in Europe and has led some churches to take a more in‐depth look at the migration situation in different countries. More research on the topic is available today compared to the situation in 2007‐2008. The Churches’ Commission for Migrants in Europe celebrated its 50th anniversary in 2014 under the theme Be o d Bo de s si e . The Executive Committee thought the anniversary provided a good occasion to update this study, as the migration situation is fluid and ever‐changing. CCME is grateful to the authors of the original study, Rev Dr Darrell Jackson and Dr Alessia Passarelli for agreeing to undertake this work. In addition to the country profiles, they have contributed insights from their research into migration and changes in the ecclesial scenery. They were assisted by Imogen O'Rourke who served as an intern with CCME, contacting churches and requesting their contributions. While a lot of work was accomplished in the first half of 2014 as planned, and presentations on the findings were made to the CCME Assembly in Sigtuna in June 2014 and during a conference held in London in December 2014, unfortunately finalisation was delayed. However, even where the statistics of 2013 have been replaced by 2014 updates, they would not capture the current situation in Europe. Therefore, we wish to encourage readers to take a look at the more recent statements of CCME, CEC and WCC provided in Annex Three. CCME is grateful, too, to the World Council of Churches for the continuation of the cooperation by jointly publishing the study. Without special contributions received for the CCME anniversary activities by the Evangelical Church in Westphalia, Germany, the Evangelical‐Lutheran Church in Württemberg, the Protestant Church Hesse and Nassau, as well as Church of Sweden and Church of Norway, this study and publication as well as the presentation of the findings would not have been possible – indeed we are deeply grateful for this support. Migration in a globalised world Migration is high on the political agenda – and yet it is as old as humankind. The challenges related to migration are manifold. As travel and communication have become more accessible and easy, migration today – except for forced migration due to persecution or conflict ‐ is no longer a decision for a life‐time; more often persons move to another country for a period of time, returning or moving on to another. Since the report of the Glo al Co issio o Mig atio in 2005 these new migration trends have been better researched and described in academic papers. And yet, migration policies throughout the globe still seem to follow the known paths of “old” migration patterns as if people were migrating for good. The terminology of migration studies still speaks of ‘push and pull factors’ and ‘migration flows’ whereas in many countries diverse societies already exist as people choose to live trans‐national lives. Brothers, sisters, parents, and other family members choose to live in different countries and settings. Similarly, industry and service providers are increasingly global producers and traders with highly flexible and adaptable workforces that move, work, and live beyond borders. Migration in Europe Within Europe, particularly since the mid‐80s in the European Union, freedom of movement beyond national borders is of specific value and established in the T eat of the Eu opea U io for the citizens of European Union Member States. It has become much easier to reside and work in another EU Member State, to move back to the State of origin, or on to another. And yet, at the same time migration is perceived as a problem in most European countries. There are challenges in societies, including language and communication barriers, the separation or reunification of families, cultural and religious diversity, and the habits and traditions of newcomers and settled persons. The challenges of migration are generally better known than the benefits of migration; fears of migration determine policy development in the field of migration rather than the joys of success stories of persons who improved their lives and contributed to societal and economic development. Balancing views on migration, tackling the problems and develop adequate responses are indeed challenges ahead of us in Europe as well as in other regions of the world. 7 The global refugee crisis and European responses In 2015, we have seen “the best and the worst” of Europe when refugees arrived in unprecedented numbers in Europe. Yet, the refugee crisis is a global crisis with 60 million persons displaced from their homes due to conflicts and persecution. Two‐thirds remain internally displaced inside their countries, while one third has crossed borders to seek international protection. The majority of these international refugees are hosted in neighbouring countries to the conflict. The conflict in Syria alone has led to 12 million Syrians being displaced, and now more than 4 million are living outside their country, particularly in Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey. The longer that conflict lasts, the more are refugees moving further away, particularly as the situation for refugees has become untenable with insufficient support provided by the international community. Such massive displacement, one might think, would trigger more appropriate policy responses. However, the pleas by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees to resettle more refugees from neighbouring countries to Syria and to provide more support elicited less response than necessary and therefore, refugees have taken their fate into their own hand and initiative. By autumn 2015, 723,221 refugees had crossed the Mediterranean Sea into Europe – and 3,400 persons were estimated to have died in these journeys in 2015. Unlike previous years, the large majority of these boat people are refugees from Syria, Eritrea, Iraq and Afghanistan. The numbers are high, and certainly higher than in previous years. Yet, for the 28 EU Member States it should not be impossible to manage. However, solidarity between Member States still needs to be established, and currently we see more fences being built to deter and prevent people from coming, rather than investing into welcoming refugees and into protection systems. Churches are engaging in these situations, and the World Council of Churches together with the Evangelical Church in Bavaria brought together church leaders from Europe, the Middle East and Africa to exchange and cooperate more deeply at the end of October. Migration and the Churches Migration contributes to a more diverse Christian presence in Europe as well as to a more diverse religious landscape in many countries. Through migration, minority churches in some countries are growing. These include, for example, the Protestant Churches in Italy and Ireland, the Roman Catholic Church in Sweden, the Orthodox Churches in France, and the Independent and Pentecostal churches. Different language congregations of various denominations can be found in most of the European capitals and bigger cities. Currently no clear overview is available. In some countries, structures or fora for black and migrant churches have been developed whilst in others there are difficulties with official registration. The current study Mappi g Mig atio i Eu ope, Mappi g Chu hes ‘espo ses: Belo gi g, Co u it a d I teg atio : the it ess a d se i e of Chu hes i Eu ope attempts to provide information on actual immigration and emigration figures for forty‐four European countries, and seeks to identify the diversity of Christian presence. However, as the authors will point out in various places, this updated study is also incomplete and cannot give all the indications which would be desirable. A more lengthy and better resourced research project would be necessary – and in our view desirable – to achieve that. However, we would hope that the indications will inspire Churches and related agencies to have a closer look and undertake research themselves. We also hope that the study will inspire churches across Europe to exchange and cooperate more on the relevant topics on migration. In many, if not all European countries, Churches provide services for migrants and refugees following the message of the Bible which insists on the dignity of every human being. The strangers are welcomed, and persons in need of protection are provided with shelter. Many congregations assist migrants in need, regardless of their status. In some instances they will not seek information about their status. ‘And if a stranger dwells with you in your land, you shall not mistreat him. The strangers who dwell among you shall be to you as one born among you.’ (Leviticus 19:33‐34) We sincerely hope that this study will contribute to a better understanding of migration and diversity in European societies, to developing more adequate responses, and to finding appropriate structures for ecumenical fellowship. Doris Peschke General Secretary of the Churches’ Commission for Migrants in Europe 8 INTRODUCTION 1. General introduction It has often been claimed that migration is one of the most challenging of subjects to research. It is a complex and rapidly changing area of investigation and much of it tends to operate below the ‘radar screen’ of official census and data collecting activity. It has been equally challenging for us in the attempt to collate much of the data we are presenting and representing here. The first edition of Mappi g Mig atio was published in April 2008. As its authors we have substantially revised our material, more carefully defined its organising themes, added extra research findings, and updated the statistical data for each of the countries featured in our study. However, as with the first edition, we are reliant on the quality of information supplied by the member churches of CCME. In some instances the necessary information was not available to us. We offer this second edition as a contribution to an ongoing search for greater accuracy and greater clarity concerning a shifting and permanently transitory phenomenon. However, this edition is far more than a chronological update of demographic data and indicators of migration. Since the publication of the first edition we have identified a number of orienting themes that we hope will lend greater coherence to the current volume. These themes carry through our analysis and provide a stronger rationale for the information and data we have collated and presented here. Further, we have worked much more consciously in this edition to incorporate the voice of the migrant. The various constraints around the production of this report mean that identifying a third, migrant contributing author has not been possible. However, both authors have personal experience of living and working as migrants and one of them currently holds a permanent residency visa and resides in a country other than their country of birth. Additionally, we have relied heavily on migrant voices gathered for the earlier work of the MI‘ACLE project.1 One of the authors was involved closely in this work and we believe this strengthens the contribution of the migrant voice, introduced less intentionally in the first edition. Alert readers will notice that we continue to reply upon the Wo ld Ch istia Data ase (WCD) for religious demographics. Whilst its data can certainly be disputed and locally published data, where it exists, is often claimed to be more reliable, the WCD offers o pa ati e religious demographical data for every country in Europe. No other agency provides this level or scope of coverage. The WCD is published by Brill, a widely respected European academic publisher. As with the first edition, the nature of the information varies widely and bringing it together into a coherent pattern has required careful judgment as to relevance and reliability. Some of it is contradictory, even where Governmental Agencies or International Organisations and NGOs are the source. Some of it is surprisingly detailed and provides more information than can be accurately presented in the scope of a one‐page country profile. A final point to which we draw the attention of our careful readers is that you are likely to spot references to, and citations from, the earlier work at a number of points. This is deliberate as we have tried to write this report in a way that establishes continuity with our earlier work yet which points in several new directions. This is both inevitable and necessary for an edition that is appearing six or seven years after the first, written about a rapidly changing and highly mobile sector of the European population. 2. An inter‐disciplinary approach to migration and the response of Churches in Europe As researchers and writers, the authors work within two distinct, yet somewhat related disciplines; Darrell as a missiologist, Alessia as a sociologist. This informs the different perspectives from which we address our common task. Each of us has a long‐standing research interest in the contemporary phenomenon of migration in Europe and each of us consults regularly, publishes, and teaches in our respective areas of expertise. More importantly, each of us has a commitment to seeing our respective disciplines serve the Churches in Europe in the challenge of better understanding and responding to the contemporary phenomenon of migration in Europe. What we offer here is an attempt to inform as wide an audience as possible about contemporary migration in Europe. For this reason, some readers will discover that there is material here with which they are very familiar. At the same time we are aware that some of the information presented here will be unfamiliar even to those 9 with an interest in the themes of migration and migrant people. This is because there are very few other such publications written for a religiously‐committed audience that have attempted to offer a European‐wide survey. We remain convinced that a number of the Churches and their respective migration agencies do not have easy access to the type of statistical information that they need in order to make strategic decisions about their response to the migratory movement of human beings across our continent. Other, often hard‐pressed national officers who may otherwise feel that their careful work is not being taken seriously, have commented, “we’re really glad that you’re doing this work because we’re not sure how to use what we have already discovered in any arena beyond our national setting.” Clearly, there is much more that could be done. If this second edition confirms our suspicions of the first edition, it shows that this remains an area for ongoing research and analysis upon which Churches can draw when making decisions about policy and strategy. 3. Introducing the challenges of measuring contemporary patterns of migration in Europe and the response of the Churches in Europe In this second edition we are interested in two particular aspects of the contemporary phenomenon. The first is an obvious interest in the contemporary European experience of migrants and migration, updated and re‐ focused since the 2008 Mappi g Mig atio Report. The second is focused on the experience of the European churches, in their witness and service, as they reflect upon and respond to migration and the migrant; given that these are both external and internal to the life of their parishes and congregations. Collecting evidence for each of these related phenomena is not always easy. In a few European countries, migration data is simply not available. In other countries where a Governmental agency is providing the data, the sources are not always as reliable as one might expect; data collection and reporting of controversial social phenomena is susceptible to political bias and manipulation. In some instances, the migrant people in question may prefer to remain invisible to official methods of counting them. For the offices of a national Church, the challenge is greater still. Relatively few have the necessary resources to conduct full‐scale statistical research of migrant congregations or members of their Church. Where national resources do exist, they are only likely to have a research interest in congregations within their own tradition. This contributes to the fragmented nature of the knowledge and information available to the Churches of Europe. Other practical limitations may also include their inability to relate effectively to migrant groups due to language differences, mutual suspicions, or theological differences, among other things. Whereas it might be possible to estimate the Christian strength of a particular migrant population in a country, it is quite another thing to translate this into attendance at one congregation or another. In some instances the migrant may choose to join the congregation of an indigenous Church. In other cases, he or she may join or help to establish an independent congregation. In both cases, visibility can be problematic when it comes to trying to quantify the size of the religiously active, migrant Christian population. National Church census counts may overlook migrant members of local congregations or parishes whereas an independent migrant Church may well be overlooked and in fact may not last long enough to be counted in any national census of Churches. In some European countries, registration of Churches is a legal requirement. For a variety of reasons, some migrant Churches may choose to remain unregistered. The variety of ways in which migrant congregations and church members are described, and choose to self‐ describe, is also problematic for comparative research. Deciding who may be counted as a ‘migrant’ varies according to country and situation. In countries where migrants may take up residency or citizenship after five years, should these people continue to be counted as ‘migrant Christians’ after five years? In some countries the term ‘ethnic minority’ Churches is used to refer to congregations that have had a long‐term presence beyond the first or even second generation of ‘local born migrants’. Some find this description inaccurate and may prefer to self‐describe as ‘diaspora Churches’. In some instances there are examples of nonindigenous Churches whose members worship in a common European language which is not that of the host country and which describe themselves as ‘international’ Churches rather than ‘migrant’ Churches. A decision must then be taken as to whether to include these Churches in a count of migrant congregations in Europe. The challenge is compounded further by the presence of historic Churches located in a country traditionally outside of the usual national or regional territory (the Church of Scotland Presbytery of Europe, the Russian Orthodox Church outside of Russia, the European Baptist 10 Convention, the Anglican Diocese in Europe, for example). In many of these instances, the congregations may prefer to describe themselves as ‘expatriate’ congregations. The variety of ways in which people use a variety of definitions and descriptions means that pan‐European comparisons are quite difficult to make. Consequently, in this second edition, we have concentrated our efforts with a more intentional focus upon the range of ways in which particular CCME member churches describe congregations and members who originate in countries outside their current country of residence. In addition to methodological challenges, some countries are hesitant about collecting and reporting ethnic or religious data. This may be due to real or perceived sensitivities concerning the target population being sampled. Alternatively, Governments sometimes choose to leave politically controversial estimates of the migrant population unpublished (and, occasionally, either intentionally over‐report o under‐report). Less apparent, the distorting of data may also be due to refugee agencies. During the preparation of the first edition, for example, the authors received first‐hand anecdotal reports of refugee numbers being over‐counted in order to generate increased financial support for the agency operating a particular refugee centre. 4. Integration, community and belonging As preparation for the current edition, the authors investigated a range of possible ‘orienting themes’ around which to structure description, analysis, and presentation of demographic and country‐specific data.2 The final selection of themes presented here reflects the observation by the authors of the frequency with which the themes under consideration appear in public policy debates, theoretical literature, and current Church programmes. After a process of research, reflection, and dialogue, three themes were identified as ‘orienting themes for the report; integration, community, and belonging (ICB). These provide a focus for the sociological and theological chapters that immediately follow as well as for the country specific sections below. In addition, a further four themes were identified that were felt to cut across our ‘orienting themes’. We describe these as ‘transversal themes’; namely gender, globalization, security, and identity. Each of these four can become ‘accelerants’ or ‘decelerants’, speeding up or slowing down the commitment of Europe’s churches towards a deeper commitment to, and experience of, migrant integration, belonging, and community. In making this selection, we have done so in the recognition that there are other transversals that we might have identified here. We also acknowledge that we might well have made a different selection of orienting themes had we been making the selection at an earlier point in the last ten to fifteen years. Our orienting perspectives are suggested by our current social and political context. To this discussion we bring, respectively, a sociological and theological analysis and critique. Despite the necessity of having to make a choice, however, we remain reasonably confident that these themes will require the attention of European leaders for quite some time to come. In 2007 the EU launched a new programme of inter‐cultural dialogue. The Yea of I te ultu al Dialogue (EU‐ YICD) provided a focus for ongoing attempts to encourage inter‐cultural and inter‐religious dialogue that were intended to ease social and cultural tensions and, as a result, to establish more stable European communities and a more widely owned sense of belonging in Europe. A consequence of this year‐long programme was a determined European effort to develop a pragmatic alternative to multicultural models, which focused on the acquisition of language, access to employment and education. These were identified as key to effective policies of migrant integration. In October 2010, German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, announced to her European allies that ‘multiculturalism has failed’. During February 2011, British Prime Minister David Cameron, the Deputy Prime Minister of the Netherlands Maxime Verhagen, and French President Nicolas Sarkozy, each echoed her claim. In several of those instances, the political leaders made specific references to Islamic minority communities and their resistance to integration with local indigenous communities. Of course, it needs immediately to be said that the issues of cultural diversity and immigration are not identical although there is a significant overlap. However, what we also allege is that far from multiculturalism failing, it would be as accurate to insist that for various European countries the primary failure has been a loss of economic confidence. In turn, this has driven an increasingly reluctant commitment to a welfare state from which migrants might conceivably benefit, and an increasingly impoverished political vision for migrant integration that barely extends beyond a one‐sided policy of assimilation. In 2010, the )a agosa De la atio of the Interior and Home Affairs Ministers formally refocused the EU’s migration policy around processes of integration. That same year, CCME declared a “Year of European Churches 11 Responding to Migration” and, at the conclusion of the year, published the results of its active engagement with issues of integration through its research‐led MI‘ACLE programme, on which one of the authors of this report was a lead researcher. As a consequence of the MI‘ACLE programme’s findings, CCME developed practical policy recommendations for European churches struggling to know how best to respond to the presence of migrant Christians in their congregations. The goal of the report was to encourage and deepen the active participation of migrants in the church communities to which they belonged. The MI‘ACLE report’s authors took the opportunity to clarify CCME’s understanding of integration as a policy and strategic approach to migration and migrants: ‘The first pre‐requisite for integration is the respect of the human rights of migrants, refugees and asylum seekers; a secure residence permit, equal access to health care services, education, social services, [and] the acquisition of civil and political rights. […] It is important to provide access to adequate housing, to qualify and involve them in training for linguistic competence, civic rules, professional skills [and] academic skills. […] The principle of equality is vital. […] Another pre‐requisite for integration is …a welcoming and inclusive society.’3 The MI‘ACLE report tends to take the view that a ‘welcoming and open community’ is a necessary characteristic of Churches in Europe and that the ‘active participation’ of migrant members in their congregations is vital to the healthy integration of migrants. We recognise that ‘active participation’ and ‘belonging’ are not necessarily identical. However, we remain convinced that the indicators by which we might measure each of these are likely to have many similarities. Equally, the intended outcomes are also likely to overlap similarly. REFERENCES 1 2 3 The MI‘ACLE project took its name from the acronym suggested by ‘Models of Integration through Religion, Activation, Cultural Learning and Exchange’. The report was published by CCME in June 2010 with the financial support of the Evangelical Church in Germany (EKD) and the European Union. What we call ‘orienting themes’ may also be understood as goals or objectives for the Churches engaged in work with migrants and migration issues. We use this description to distinguish them from the four important themes of gender, globalisation, identity and security as we see these operating less as objectives and more as themes that inform the variety of ways that we describe and experience integration, belonging and community. We do not intend to imply that the four transversal themes are of secondary importance; rather that they function in a different fashion. MI‘ACLE, 2010, pp.10‐11. 12 CHAPTER ONE: MEASURING THE PHENOMENON OF MIGRATION IN EUROPE Eu ope is e i hed a d shaped as it is toda e ause of histo i al patte s of o e e t a d settle e t of people; ig atio has al a s ee pa t of hu a e iste e. Ho e e , o e people tha e e a e u e tl o the o e as a esult of o fli ts, e i o e tal deg adatio , la k of futu e fo the sel es a d thei fa ilies. While ost efugees a e i te all displa ed pe so s o fi d te po a shelte i eigh ou i g ou t ies, a lose thei li es t i g to oss o de s. Mea hile Eu opea ou t ies a e o sta tl i easi g a ie s of se u it easu es fo those i eed of p ote tio , e o i g a gated o u it . Its espo ses a e des i ed as i ohe e t, di ided, selfish a d i hu a e . CCME, Pu li “tate e t, GA, 1. The phenomenon of migration in Europe Migration is not a recent phenomenon. For centuries, people have moved across borders for economic, personal, and political reasons. Migration profoundly affects every European country and the lives of its citizens. Migration can be understood as a movement of a person, or persons, from one place to another, from the country where the person is born, or is normally resident, to another country. Throughout this report we understand migration, one of the most significant global issues of the early twenty‐first century, to be a neutral word. We have tried to avoid using it either pejoratively or using it to claim elevated status for a particular individual or group of individuals.1 1a. Globalisation and migration within Europe Migration affects 3.2 per cent of the world’s population. This factor alone demonstrates the enduringly topical nature of migration as an appropriate focus of concern for the churches in Europe. The observable increase in levels of migration within Europe is undoubtedly related to the growth of global population. Globalisation continues to contribute to the increase of levels of migration. It has led to widening socio‐economic disparities which have provided an incentive for people to leave their own countries and seek opportunities elsewhere. The widespread prevalence of information and communication technologies (ICTs) increases the perception that better prospects exist in other countries. In some countries, the impact of globalization has led to increasing social instability and tension; in some instances leading to civil or military conflict which further exacerbates the situation. Migration in the modern world, in both its forced and voluntary versions, should be understood as the way in which many people must adapt out of necessity to developments that are beyond their individual control. In many instances, people migrate in order to ensure their basic survival; in others, they may migrate because the prospect of living with a degree of dignity, and with the hope for a marginally better future, require travel to another country. As yet another consequence of globalisation, some individuals live and work in more than one country of residence; so called transnational migrants. UN statistics from 2013 show that 232 million people worldwide live outside of their country of origin. In the year 2000 this was 175 million and in 1990, a mere 154 million.2 It is evident that, despite the fact that migration has always been part of human existence, more people than ever are currently on the move as a result of conflicts, environmental degradation, or the uncertain future facing them and their families. UNCHR estimates also point to an increase in the global numbers of refugees and asylum seekers between 2013 and 2014. In 2013 the UNHCR estimated the number of refugees globally at 11.7 million; an increase of 11% over the year‐ end figures for 2012. The UNHCR Glo al T e ds report concludes ‘This was the highest level since 2001 […]. During 2013, 2.2 million Syrian refugees were registered, mainly in neighbouring countries, while hundreds of thousands fled countries across Africa; from the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, South Sudan, Sudan, and Mali. The 2013 increase in refugee numbers has not been seen since 1994.’3 The table below shows the distributions of refugees by region. Several observations are in order. There has been a 64.7% rise in the number of refugees from the Middle East and North Africa between January and December of 2013. Secondly, whilst Africa has seen the most significant rise in the numbers of refugees, even Europe has seen an increase in the number of people in ‘refugee‐like situations’ despite the fall in the total number of reported refugees. 13 Start ‐ 2013 End ‐ 2013 Change (total) UNHCR Regions Refugees People in refugee‐ like situations Total refugees Refugees People in refugee‐ like situations Total refugees Absolute % Africa (excluding N. Africa) 2,748,500 26,000 2,774,500 2,889,800 42,900 2,932,700 158,200 5.7% Americas 515,300 291,200 806,500 514,800 291,200 806,000 ‐500 ‐0.1% Asia and Pacific 3,299,300 226,200 3,525,500 3,267,500 279,500 3,547,000 21,500 0.6% Europe 1,794,900 6,000 1,800,900 1,775,100 11,400 1,786,500 ‐14,400 ‐0.8% Middle East and N. Africa 1,522,900 74,800 1,597,700 2,556,500 74,200 2,630,700 1,033,000 64.7% Ta le : UNCH‘ data o glo al efugees 1b. Border security & managing migration The data noted immediately above (Ta le ) illustrates well the manner in which our discussion has to reflect the reality of migration as an intra‐EU phenomenon in addition to it involving a discussion of third country, or non‐EU migrants. Given the global nature and the scope and scale of migration, national governments across the world have begun to review their border controls and implement more careful and stringent monitoring of migrant entry. 'The typical European policy response to the migration challenge has been to extend border controls, employ military techniques of surveillance, and increase detentions and expulsions. ‘Frontex’ is the EU intelligence‐led agency for co‐ordinating external border security throughout the EU member states. Based in Warsaw, it began operations in May of 2005 and by 2014 had a staff of 317 and an operational budget of €89 million. It is one of several EU agencies attending to the concept of ‘Integrated EU Border Management.’ In this respect, EU policies are principally focused on security, border control and voluntary repatriation and less focused on developing methods and programmes to integrate migrants into European societies or on providing legal and welfare provision to those migrants who are seeking asylum in the European member states.' (Mappi g Mig atio , 2008: 18) Following the loss of approximately four hundred lives in the Mediterranean Sea in October 2013, the Italian Navy was tasked by its Government to establish Ma e Nost u , charged with the interception and rescue of refugees being carried on unseaworthy boats. The operation lasted a year and rescued 150,000 irregular migrants, many of whom were granted asylum elsewhere in the EU. On the 1st of November 2014, Ma e Nost u was replaced by T ito , a joint F o te operation. NGOs have raised concerns about the EU’s replacement operation, arguing that it is under‐resourced (with only a third of the budget of Ma e Nost u ), more committed to patrolling borders than saving lives, operates within a 50km distance of the Italian coast (compared to Ma e Nost u ’s patrolling of the whole Mediterranean region south of the Italian coast). NGOs, including CCME, advocate for the need to increase legal access to Europe, thus reducing the requirement for the alternative of dangerous journeys organised by people smugglers, inevitably putting at risk the lives of those who are already escaping personal tragedy and uncertainty. 2. Developing, monitoring, and regulating migration in Europe The phenomenon of migration into and within the continent of Europe falls within the sphere of interest of a collection of sovereign nation states plus the collective interests of the twenty‐eight member states of the European Union. The manner and degree to which individual nation states and EU member states monitor, develop, implement, and regulate migration policy reflects a bewildering array of legal, regulatory, and policy mechanisms. These may be unilateral, bi‐lateral, or multi‐lateral in nature. It’s not uncommon for an individual 14 country to sign multiple agreements at each of these three levels, and to then face the political storm accompanying later decisions to promote one at the expense of another. Typically it is perceived to be in its sovereign interests for a state to fall back on unilateral approaches and ignore its existing obligations under the international treaties to which it may be a signatory. The effort to provide an overview of the European Union’s responses to migration and asylum is fraught with the dangers of over‐simplification and selectivity. The European Union is established by two main treaties (Rome, 1957‐58, and Maastricht 1992‐93) and three consolidation treaties (Amsterdam 1997‐99, Nice 2001‐03, Lisbon 2007‐09). Within the scope of these treaties a number of legal mechanisms determine common (though not always unanimous) approaches to issues such as border control, initially outlined in the “ he ge Ag ee e t (1985). Within the framework of the Justi e a d Ho e Affai s Poli (1992‐2007) the EU developed common approaches to migration and asylum (Amsterdam, 1999), developed the so‐called Du li II (2003) rules on the processing of claims to asylum, achieved harmonised approaches to migration and the labour markets (2004), and highly‐skilled migrants and the ‘blue card’ scheme (2005). Within the terms of the Lis o T eat , further harmonisation measures included new asylum measures (2007) and led to the adoption of shared approaches to border management and the establishment of the ‘Frontex’ border agency (2008). During the same period the EU began to re‐evaluate its multicultural stance regarding migration policy. In 2007 it introduced intercultural policy approaches with the Yea of I te ultu al Dialogue which also served to accelerate concerns for the integration of migrants first articulated in the Co o Basi P i iples o I teg atio (2004). Activity over the following five years culminated in an expert meeting in Malmö in 2009, at which indicators of integration were outlined. Following this, with the adoption of the )a agosa De la atio (2010) the EU committed its relevant agencies to trialling and evaluating ways to measure these indicators. Later, in 2010 the Eu opea As lu “uppo t Offi e (EA“O) was established to develop cooperation among EU member states, to support EU states under particular pressure and to contribute to the implementation of the Co o Eu opea As lu “ ste (CEA“). Following this, in 2011, the Eu opea Age da fo the I teg atio of thi d ou t atio als was introduced by the EU Commission. Local initiatives are envisaged by the Age da, focussing on social, cultural, political and economic participation. Governmental and non‐governmental agencies with an interest in monitoring migrant integration have continued to inform and engage with this policy approach. Indeed, this 2nd edition of Mappi g Mig atio is intended as a reflection on the engagement of the churches of Europe with these themes. Their situated‐ness is properly described as ‘local’ and thus, in terms of the Agenda, they are well placed to deliver and implement pastoral and missional practices that focus on social, cultural, political and economic participation, expressed here in our report as integration, belonging, and community. Of course, the 2011 Age da fo the I teg atio of No ‐EU ig a ts serves to highlight a long‐standing debate among migration activists and academics about the extent to which it is appropriate to equate migration with the freedoms of employment and residence guaranteed within the EU to citizens of its member states. In practice, the collection of data relating to non‐EU migrants is very different to monitoring of EU migrants. Monitoring the movement of its own citizens would be viewed as intrusive and a potential infringement of the right of Europeans to live and work anywhere in Europe. In contrast, the monitoring and regulation of non‐ citizens continues to escalate in scale and scope at the time of preparing this report. The requirements for security and the sovereign control of borders are the main drivers for this escalation; requirements that tend to undermine efforts towards greater integration of migrants. Repeated concerns raised by NGOs gained momentum during April 2015, following the loss of 1,600 lives in that month.4 An EU emergency summit was convened following these tragic events and EU member states agreed to triple the budget for T ito . The UK agreed to deploy two navy vessels for rescue patrols, though making it clear that no migrant or asylum seekers would be taken to the UK. In May 2015 the Commission issued the Eu opea Age da o Mig atio which focused on saving lives at sea through measures aimed at combatting trafficking and smuggling operations; relocating 40,000 asylum seekers being held temporarily in Italy and Greece; and resettling 20,000 refugees within the EU.5 The EU Council, meeting in Brussels from the 25th and 26th June, 2015, was unable to reach agreement on relocating the high number of asylum seekers within the EU. It was also only able to agree on measures restricting smuggling and trafficking and measures towards the repatriation of migrants who were not asylum seekers. 15 The intention behind outlining EU policy and regulation in the way we have done above is to try and clarify a complex set of mechanisms and arrangements. On first glance, the uninitiated might assume that this is an excellent set of regulatory mechanisms that exemplify the approach of an enlightened group of European Nations intent on an effective policy of migrant integration. Of course, it must immediately be said that the presence of regulatory or legal frameworks is not necessarily a guarantee of social integration. Integration is necessarily a social process and the mere adoption of a legal measure is not an adequate indicator of social integration. Measurements of legal provision are not be confused with measurements of practice. Many individuals fail to assert their rights for a variety of reasons and in some instances they may be effectively discouraged from doing so. Italy is frequently considered to have a very well integrated policy framework but in listening to migrant narratives from Italy it becomes all too apparent that there is still a lot of progress to be made. The EU’s legal and political framework certainly confers rights and entitlements for citizens and migrants but there still exists a gap between the discourse of activists and academics concerning progress towards integration and the discourse of politicians. How each of these evaluates what constitutes adequate progress towards social integration is frequently quite different. The reasons for the difference are to be found in the gap between principle and expediency, control and exploitation, and power and vulnerability. The churches of Europe are not remote from these realities. In the first instance, it must immediately be recognised that the lack of migrant integration is often internal to the life of the churches. The church, as a social institution, can be equally guilty of a reluctance to extend the invitation to integrate. However, it has also to be said that there are many fine instances of churches and their related agencies standing in the gap and seeking to bridge the divide. CCME is actively engaged in the discussion concerning closer integration of migrants. However, much more needs to be done by churches in this area. In particular it is vital that at the national level, churches and their agencies should have access to the best and most current advice concerning legal and regulatory frameworks governing migration. 3. European Migration and Migrant demographics 3a. Introductory comments The Eu opea Mig atio Net o k (EMN) is directed by the office of the European Commission’s Migration and Home Affairs Directorate‐General. Networks such as the EMN are dependent on the EU’s data collection agencies (including the EU’s Eu ostat and Eu o a o ete services) for accurate forecasting and policy development. Even at this level it is not uncommon to discover that official reports released in any given year may be using annual data that is already three or four years old. In part this reflects the difficulty of validating recently‐collected data, the funding constraints that limit data collection, and the extent to which the publication of politically‐sensitive refugee, asylum, and migration data may be delayed or suppressed. Wherever possible we have tried to present only the most recent reports and data. Occasionally, however, an astute reader will notice that the most reliable data we have can be as much as five years old in the more extreme cases. 3b. The European population The population of the twenty‐eight member states of the EU on the 1st January 2014 was 506,824,509 people. The population of other countries that are member states of the Council of Europe (plus Belarus and Kosovo) and which are considered ‘European’ take this total to 846,386,409.6 3c. The impact of migration on European population growth Of course, a consideration of the full impact of migration on the European population must take into account both immigration and emigration. In 2012, for example, total immigration into the EU was estimated at 1,693,900 whilst emigration was estimated at 794,000, a population increase of approximately 900,000 in 2012.7 Migration has been a net contributor to the EU population every year since 1985, peaking at 1.8 million in 2003. This has contributed to an annual population growth rate of approximately 0.1% between 1995 and 2013. In regions of Europe where the natural growth rate (live births minus deaths) is balanced, the only contributor to net population growth has been immigration. In 2014 it was reported by Eu ostat that there was a ‘close relationship between migratory patterns and overall population change’ across the regions of Europe.8 The net annual impact of migration across the EU28 between 2008 and 2012 has averaged 1.8 persons per 1,000 EU28 inhabitants. 16 Regional analysis shows that the regions of highest overall population growth were in the Ilfov region of Romania and the Spanish Balearic Islands where net migration rates reached 32.7 and 22.6 persons per thousand inhabitants respectively. The only other regions where the net migration rates topped 15% were Luxembourg, York, and Fokida (in central Greece). Generally, the regions of Europe that recorded the highest net rates of migration were urban regions other than in France, where the rural south experienced the highest national rates of net migration.9 For seventy‐nine of these urban areas surveyed in 2012, data suggests that in forty‐nine of the urban areas, at least 70% of the population considers the presence of foreign migrants to be a good thing.10 Annual migration into the EU27, 2009 ‐ 2012 2009 2010 2011 2012 1,731,100 1,811,300 1,750,600 1,693,900 Table 2: “ou e: Eu ostat Yea ook 3d. Migrants with irregular status In recent years, Eu ostat has been collecting data relating to ‘Third Country nationals found to be illegally present in the EU’. Their data shows a gradual decline in numbers since 2008 with a significant upturn from 2014, doubtless a consequence of conflicts in the Middle‐East and Ukraine. In 2009, the Cla desti o Report11 estimated numbers of irregular foreign residents within the EU, defined as foreign nationals without any legal resident status in the country they are residing in, and persons violating the terms of their status so that their stay may be terminated (including ‘working tourists’ from non‐EU countries). Their 2003, 2005, and 2008 estimates were less conservative than those of Eurostat, suggesting that the total number was somewhere between 1.9 and 3.8 million by 2008. Despite the discrepancy in the overall size of this group of migrants, Cla desti o s 2009 estimates showed a decline of irregular foreign residents between 2002 and 2008. 3e. Asylum applications, determinations, and refugee statistics A study mapping migration and individuals seeking asylum in Europe is every bit as relevant in 2015 as it was in 2007 when we commenced work on the first edition. In fact, it is arguably more relevant given the accelerated pace of migrants seeking asylum as a result of escalating conflicts in Syria, Afghanistan, Ukraine, and sub‐ Saharan countries in Africa such as Sudan and Nigeria. The economic plight of many countries remains dire following the global financial crisis and the increasing ecological crisis driven by climate change is being felt by agrarian and rural communities that have always existed at the margins of self‐sustainability and viability. For as long as these factors persist, European countries should continue to expect the movement of people seeking the relative security of European destination countries. For such people, the attendant risks of migration and seeking refuge are far outweighed by the risks of remaining. These can include unemployment, violent death, starvation, sexual violence, slavery, or one of many other undeserved consequences of conflict, drought, disease, famine, or disaster. ‘The number of first time asylum applicants increased by 86% in the first quarter of 2015 compared with the same quarter of the previous year but remained stable compared to the last quarter of 2014. Overall, the number of persons seeking asylum in the EU‐28 in the first quarter of 2015 reached 184,800. This was 85,400 more than in the same quarter of 2014’.12 The main nationalities of asylum seekers in this quarter were Kosovans, Syrians, Afghans and Iraqis. ‘The highest number of first time asylum applicants in the first quarter of 2015 was registered in Germany (73,100 applicants, or 40% of total applicants in the EU), Hungary (32,800, or 18%), Italy (15,300, or 8%), France (14,800, or 8%) and Sweden (11,400, or 6%). These five member states account for 80% of all applicants in the EU‐28’. 13 During the first nine months of 2014, the I te atio al O ga isatio fo Mig atio (IOM) estimated that 3,072 persons lost their lives in the Mediterranean Sea. This fact alone accounts for almost three quarters (75%) of all deaths occasioned by the attempt to enter the European Union by one means or another. Between the year 2000 and early 2014, the IOM’s calculations indicate that at least 22,400 people are estimated to have lost their lives trying to reach Europe.14 The number of people who have lost their lives reached 3,500 by the end of 2014, 17 and according to IOM and UNHCR figures by mid‐April 2015 already 1600 lives were lost.15 The Italian island of Lampedusa, the southern coastline of Spain, Greece, and Malta are the centres of a Mediterranean arena that is described by some as an open cemetery. The Eu opea Age da o Mig atio gives significant attention to the harmonisation of asylum procedures. In particular, the role of EA“O was intended to support member states in their attempts to improve the standards and conditions of the reception of migrants, to define ‘quality indicators’, and work towards ‘reinforcing protection of the fundamental rights of asylum seekers, paying particular attention to the vulnerable groups, such as children’.16 However, as previously stated, the Eu opea Age da o Mig atio has not been well received and the emphasis has shifted away from providing protection and sharing responsibility among member states and towards border control and fighting organised crime. 3f. Exploring re‐settlement policies for migrants in Europe issio e fo ‘efugees Of the approximately 42.9 million persons of concern to the U ited Natio s High Co (UNHCR) in 2013, only 4.21 million were to be found in Europe, one of the richest regions in the world. The resettlement of refugees is generally considered among the more durable solutions to the global challenge of displaced persons. For all that, it is still a commonly misunderstood instrument of protection, especially in Europe, and is often confused with repatriation or return to the country of origin.17 In reality it involves the movement of refugees from the country of first asylum, where for several reasons local integration is not possible, to a third country where they can rebuild their lives. Refugee resettlement offers long‐term protection to the world’s most vulnerable refugees.18 It is understood as a process by which refugees who fled their country of origin and have found initial, but neither sufficient nor permanent protection in a second country, are resettled to a third country in which they find permanent protection. Successful resettlement programmes frequently help not only the refugees being resettled but may be beneficial for other refugees hoping to return home or be resettled.19 Of the more than 100,000 cases submitted for resettlement by UNHCR annually in recent years, between 60,000 and 80,000 are resettled annually by up to twenty‐two countries that regularly provide resettlement places. Of course this still leaves tens of thousands of the most vulnerable refugees stuck in the miserable conditions of various refugee camps around the world. Many remain there and see their children born in such places. Of the total number re‐settled, only four to five thousand places are, on average, resettled annually by EU member states. While a number of EU countries have in recent years started new programmes with annual resettlement quotas, these have not contributed to a significant increase in the overall number of places made available by EU countries. Efforts by EU member states in resettlement are still far too limited, particularly if compared to countries like the USA, Canada or Australia. Despite this, the joint resettlement of 10,000 persons from Iraq following the EU Council conclusions of November 2008 show that the EU can mobilise beyond the existing regular resettlement quotas. In the course of this joint resettlement effort it has become clear that EU member states are perfectly able to resettle more refugees to the EU, particularly when acting in a coordinated manner. The adoption of the common position on the joint EU resettlement scheme by the EU Council and Parliament in March 2012 offers the opportunity to enhance resettlement efforts by EU member states which are able to receive EU funding. Increased allocations for member states resettling for the first or second time provide an excellent opportunity for member states to start a programme and to aim for meaningful quotas. Current discussion on the EU Multiannual Financial Framework also indicates that this funding opportunity will be available until 2020, thus enabling EU member states to commit more permanently to resettlement programmes. 4. Monitoring migration, integration and the intra‐EU free movement of people Some academic researchers with an interest in European migration have highlighted the increases in European ‘internal movement’ and query whether this is really to be described as migration. Most take the view that the freedom of movement within the EU is a combination of migration, privilege, and responsibility. CCME is currently working towards greater definitional clarity and precision in this area. It recognises that the EU labour market is a regulatory mechanism and has a greater impact on EU migration and integration than do border controls. 18 The integration of migrants within the European Community has been on the agenda since 1974 when the European Commission issued the A tio Pla i Fa ou of Mig a t Wo ke s a d thei Fa ilies. Despite the A tio Pla , the integration policies of member states varied enormously and the implementation of those policies was often very slow. At the outset this typically reflected a lack of experience in dealing with migrants. Within a relatively short period, however, many European countries had moved from being countries of emigration to countries of immigration. In many instances, political leaders preferred to ignore, or deny, the changes taking place. Consequently inadequate measures were commonplace, unnecessarily generating confusion, tension, and hostility within the resident population. In the face of a phenomenon of significant proportions, the European Union and the Council of Europe have not been silent and they have been proactive in encouraging member states to develop more adequate migration policies. The European Union’s statistical service, Eu ostat, collects and analyses data for all 28 EU countries plus the non‐EU countries of Norway, Switzerland, and Iceland. In addition, on an occasional basis it presents comparative data for EU candidate countries and, less frequently, it does the same for the countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) which relate more closely to the Russian Federation and other countries of the former Soviet Union. Given the global nature of migration, datasets representing this particular phenomenon are commonly amongst those compared and analysed across the region and beyond the countries of the European Union. EU ministers responsible for immigrant integration issues adopted the )a agosa De la atio in 2010 which, among other things, 'called upon the Commission to undertake a pilot study to examine proposals for common integration indicators and to report on the availability and quality of the data from agreed harmonised sources necessary for the calculation of these indicators'. Eurostat has also been charged with implementing measures to collect and analyse data relating to migrant integration. In particular this includes gathering data relating to participation in education, meaningful employment, social inclusion, and active citizenship. A sense of belonging was closely identified with the participation of immigrants in the democratic process. The indicators are only useful to the extent that they assess actual participation rather than policies designed to e ou age participation. Further collaboration exists between Eu ostat, the OECD20 and the Cou il of Eu ope. OECD has a natural interest in the economic activity of migrants. It monitors their contribution to national economies as one of its own indicators of integration. Whilst a potentially valuable indicator of integration, there remains the feeling of some that there is very often an unstated assumption within the framing of regulatory mechanisms that 'labour market integration – employment – is a necessary and sufficient condition to guarantee social integration, when coupled with parity of rights and access to public services’ (Kosic and Triandafyllidou, 2007: 195). That this is a ‘sufficient condition’ is clearly contested by some analysts. Other agencies concerned with monitoring a wider range of measures of integration include the Mig a t I teg atio Poli I de (MIPEX). MIPEX uses multiple measures of integration to arrive at an overall calculated index that ranks European countries according to their relative success at implementing policies supporting migrant integration. MIPEX works with seven areas which indicate migrant integration, determining the journey towards full citizenship. These include: Labour market access; family reunion; education; long‐term residence; political participation; access to nationality; and anti‐discrimination policies. These indicators are important because they provide a general overview of the policies being implemented in any a given country. The work of MIPEX is especially relevant because the Index has been updated twice (in 2007 and 2010), allowing for the monitoring of trends over time. MIPEX has, for example, developed indicators of the degree to which migrants perceive that they face discrimination when seeking access to employment. 4a. A particular type of integration: the integration of second generation migrants When looking at integration policies, scholars often highlight the challenges of policies addressing the integration of migrants' children. Some studies point out that many European countries are not well prepared for this task, particularly when compared to Australia, Canada or the US. 'How different are Europe’s second generation immigrants from native born individuals of the same age, in terms of their educational attainment? How do they compare to their parent generation? Are there large differences across European countries, and is Europe different from the classical immigration countries US, Canada and Australia? Some of the questions focussing attention at the present time include ‘How do immigrant children perform in the school systems of their parents’ destination countries, compared to their peers back in their parents’ home countries?'.21 19 Figure 1: EU25 – 2007 and 2010 MIPEX scores for all measures of integration Research on Europe’s second generation immigrants compares their educational attainment to that of their first generation immigrant parents.22 Results show that there is a gap in educational attainment between natives and first generation immigrants but this gap is much reduced when the achievements of the second generation are compared with those of the first generation. Furthermore, 'while the children of immigrants still do worse than the children of native‐born parents, they often do better than their own parents.'23 According to the European Commission publication Mig a ts i Eu ope: a statisti al po t ait of fi st a d se o d ge e atio , the term ‘second generation migrant’ may include different groups of people: the native‐born person; the second generation with mixed background and the second generation with foreign background. Each of these groups, when it comes to education or access to labour markets, has its own unique experience.24 It is important however to stress that 'while the labour market participation of second‐generation migrants is often very similar to that of their peers with native background, their risk of unemployment is still higher.’25 Mig a ts i Eu ope: A statisti al po t ait of fi st a d se o d ge e atio s provides a wide range of information on the demographic and socio‐economic characteristics of migrants. The following points illustrate some key findings.       The labour market participation of first‐generation migrants compares unfavourably to that of the native‐born and nationals, mainly due to the considerably lower labour market participation of migrant women, particularly those with at least one child. The potential underutilisation of skills possessed by highly qualified migrants is amplified by large numbers of these working in jobs well below their educational qualification. They have lower incomes and face significantly increased risks of poverty or social exclusion, even if employed. Especially true for non‐EU migrants and households with children. Lower income levels go hand in hand with less favourable housing conditions, in particular with regard to overcrowding. Young second‐generation migrants of foreign background are at greater risk of exiting the education and training system without an upper secondary qualification. Educational achievement of second‐ generation migrants differs considerably between Member States. While the labour market participation of second‐generation migrants is often very similar to that of their peers with native background, their risk of unemployment is still higher. 20  Second‐generation migrants born in the host country, especially where only one parent is foreign‐born, show indications of reversing many of these trends. Second‐generation, foreign‐born migrants (with both parents born abroad) experience greater disadvantage than migrants born in the host country but still experience less disadvantage than first‐generation migrants.26 4b. Monitoring measures of migrant integration as anticipated by the Zaragoza Declaration The )a agosa De la atio anticipates a number of policy and regulatory mechanisms whereby levels of migrant integration within the EU can be monitored and reviewed. Eurostat and Eurobarometer share responsibility for providing data to enable this to happen. The main indicators of migrant integration that Eurostat collects are integration measures relating to employment, education, social inclusion, health, active citizenship, and housing. By mid‐2015, reporting was underway only for employment and social inclusion. Total number of 'third country nationals found to be illegally* present in the EU' 650,000 608,865 600,000 547,335 563,990 550,000 505,130 500,000 468,850 450,000 433,325 429,060 400,000 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Figure 2: “ou e: Eurostat data collections (http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=migr_eipre&lang=en) *The autho s p efe the des ipto thi d ou t atio als fou d to e p ese t ithout p ope do u e tatio . i. Social inclusion and migrants in Europe Eu ostat released data in 2014 which measured the risk of poverty or social exclusion for young people aged 16‐ 29. This is conceived as a risk of living in sub‐standard housing, being close to the official poverty‐line, or living in a household with a low rate of work intensity. The report found that ‘In 2012 49.3% of young non‐EU born people faced the risk of poverty or social exclusion compared with 28.3% of native‐born young people.’27 This disparity is especially severe in countries including Belgium, France, the Netherlands, and Slovenia. In Ireland the rate is identical whilst in Malta, the situation is reversed and the immigrant population is only half as likely as the native‐born population to face a risk of social exclusion. The risk of poverty remains much higher for children (0‐17 years) with a migrant background than it does for native‐born children across all EU28 countries. For native‐born children in 2012, the risk of poverty was rated at 18.8% of all similarly‐aged children whilst for children with a migrant background the rate was significantly higher at 35.6%. For economically‐challenged countries such as Spain and Greece, the rate was as high as 53.1% and 54.1% respectively.28 To these figures can be added comparative assessments for the issues of housing tenure versus ownership, accommodation overcrowding, housing costs relative to disposable income, and material deprivation. On all measures, the migrant population faces greater levels of discomfort, disadvantage, and risk. ii. Employment for third country nationals Eu ostat monitors employment, unemployment, apart‐time employment and self‐employment. Its 2014 reports present data up to and including 2013. This shows that employment rates for non‐EU third‐country nationals 21 have been lower than for nationals of the reporting country, whilst nationals of other EU countries working in the reporting country tend to enjoy higher rates of employment. Conversely, among non‐EU third country nationals, unemployment and inactivity rates are higher.29 Eu ostat noted that between 2007 and 2014 ‘citizens of non‐EU countries had recorded systematically lower economic activity rates than the national population and mobile EU citizens. Since 2009, this gap increased [particularly] noticeably. Compared with the national population, the gap increased from 2.9% in 2009 to 5.3% in 2013 (and from 6.6 percentage points in 2009 to 9.4 percentage points in 2013 compared with mobile EU citizens).’30 Employment rates by nationality (%) across the EU28 countries, 2005‐2014 72 % 70 68 66 64 Citizens 62 Other EU28 citizens Non‐EU28 citizens 60 58 56 54 52 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Figure 3: “ou e: Eurostat, 2015. http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/submitViewTableAction.do iii. Migrant integration, access to education, and the granting of student residence permits Eu ostat has yet to publish a report on Education as a measure of migrant integration. However, data does exist and Eurobarometer has also surveyed opinions regarding the value of education for migrants. Their 2011 report on measuring immigrant integration found that ‘a good level of integration can assist in the integration process because it is perceived as improving employment, appreciation for local culture, ensuring greater open‐ mindedness on the part of the migrant, improving prospects for communication, more easily leading to mutual respect, more likely to offer positive stereotypes of migrants, and less likely to resort to crime.31 In 2001, a total of 495,000 student residence permits were issued by the EU countries and Norway, making up 21% of all residence permits granted in 2011. Of those, 71,500 entered the workforce in their country of study, a further 22,200 married a national of that country, and a further 5,300 remained for other purposes. In 2011, the net economic gain of students resident in the UK was estimated at €5.3billion, at €718 million in Italy, and €140 million in Ireland.32 4c. Gender as a factor of integration and migration In 2012, the percentage of female to male migrants was only significantly higher for Cyprus with Ireland, Italy, Spain and France having slightly more female migrants than male.33 Eu ostat reported in 2014 that ‘in most countries, the foreign female population is under‐represented in employment even by comparison with female nationals of the reporting country.’34 In other areas of Eurostat reporting on measures of integration, relatively little attention is given to gender distinctions in the treatment or experience of migrants. 22 In seeking asylum men are consistently more likely than women to seek asylum. For all ages, 70% of asylum seekers to the EU28 in 2013 were male. In the case of unaccompanied minors this figure was 84%. The gender of the migrant is of particular concern in the instance of human trafficking. Human trafficking and migrant smuggling are particular aspects of irregular migration. It is important to highlight the difference between these two concepts. A smuggler will facilitate illegal entry into a country for a fee, but on arrival at their destination, the smuggled person is free; the trafficked person is enslaved. Immigrants by gender, 2012 (as a % of all immigrants) Females Male xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx Figure 4: “ou e: Eurostat, Migration and Migrant Populations, 2014, p3. The greater majority of individuals trafficked are females and minors are especially vulnerable in this respect. The 2008 edition of this publication noted that ‘Trafficking in human beings is one of the most serious human rights violations today. According to estimates of the U ited Natio s (UN), the O ga isatio fo “e u it a d Co‐ ope atio i Eu ope (OSCE), and the Eu opea Co issio , some 500,000 to 700,000 women and children are trafficked annually by global criminal networks.’ Since 2008, appropriate research techniques have been developed which enable an emerging picture to be gained of the nature and scope of human trafficking. Some of this data is reported at national level in Chapter Four of this report.35 This exercise is complex and the work by Eu ostat in this area has been cautiously advancing. Data collection involves monitoring the conviction of traffickers and the registering of the victims of trafficking by a variety of agencies, illustrated by Figure 5 below.36 Figure 5: Sources of data on registered victims, 2012 and how many EU member states supplied it, by source “ou e: Eu ostat ‐ ased o data f o 23 ou t ies suppl i g data i 5. Indicators of belonging and migration in Europe A sense of belonging is closely associated with the experience of social inclusion. A migrant family may have found employment and have its children in local schools, but these facts alone are insufficient for nurturing a sense of belonging. Where members of the family encounter intolerance from members of the general public, discrimination at work, bullying at school, or hostility from neighbours, there is unlikely to be a sense of belonging to the local community or to the host society at large. Negative perceptions of migrants and ethnic minorities in Europe do not help to foster processes of integration nor do they engender a sense of belonging. Research published by Rand Europe as I tole a e i Weste Eu ope: A al sis of T e ds a d Asso iated Fa to s and based on data from the Eu opea Values “u e shows an increasing concern with cultural diversity and an accompanying increase of intolerant attitudes and behaviour in many western European countries. Intolerance is defined in their research as a lack of acceptance of, or hostility towards, others, specifically on the grounds of their minority status. The study demonstrates 'a documented increase in support for and visibility of extremist and populist political parties, and an apparent rise in manifestations of intolerant attitudes, both in national policy and more widely in the behaviour of individuals.'37 The study also shows the cultural and ethnic groups which are most likely to be the victims of intolerant attitudes: across all countries the group most likely to experience intolerance and hostility are the Roma, with Muslims trailing as the second most likely group to experience intolerant attitudes. The Rand Europe research summarises various factors associated with intolerance. For example,     Intolerant attitudes are strongly associated with economic factors, such as macroeconomic prosperity, though less so with factors such as the unemployment rate. Intolerant attitudes are strongly associated with demographic factors such as age, education and socio‐ economic class, though less so with factors such as personal income. The socio‐political factors examined in this study – citizenship regime, welfare state regime and political orientation – were found to be associated with intolerant attitudes. Increased contact with minority groups and high levels of social trust in general, were found to be associated with reduced levels of intolerance. The study was inconclusive regarding the association between the size of a minority group and levels of intolerance.'38 Other work by Ipsos Mo i (2014)39 points to the high levels of misinformation and ignorance that surround the perception of migration in Europe. A lack of regular contact with migrants is typically compounded by the misconception that they are present in far greater numbers than census counts and survey calculations indicate. In addition, our presentation of statistical infographics in Chapter Four demonstrates the increased levels of social discrimination likely to be experienced by migrants, evidenced by responses to the question from the Eu opea Values “u e , ‘Would you like to have a migrant as your neighbour?’ The EV“ data for all Europeans shows that in 2001, 15.8% of Europeans did not want an immigrant as a neighbour. By 2008, this had increased to 18.9% of Europeans who did not want an immigrant as a neighbour. 6. Experiences of community and migration in Europe As with many other terms used by social and cultural commentators, what is meant by ‘community’ can be incredibly difficult to define with any degree of certainty or accuracy. Most readers of this report will have a reasonably common‐sense understanding of what it implies and will associate it closely with practices and policies of integration as well as the sense of belonging to a place or a particular group of people. Citizenship implies membership in a political community (originally a city or town but now usually a country) and carries with it rights to political participation. It is largely coterminous with nationality, although it is possible to have nationality without being a citizen. One can be legally subject to a state and entitled to its protection without having rights of political participation in it. It is also possible to have political rights without being a national of a state. For example EU citizens may register to stand for election to the European Parliament, or vote for European parliamentary candidates, in a country in which they are resident though not a citizen. 24 * si * The authors, in faithfully reproducing this graphic, disavow the use of ‘Different Race’ above, seeing it as a distortion of the essential unity of the human race, and prefer terms such as ‘culturally’ or ‘ethnically’ different. Figure 6: “ou e: I tole a e i Weste Eu ope: a al sis of t e ds a d asso iated fa to s, ‘a d Eu ope, 25 7. Migration glossary 7a. ‘Migration’ and ‘migrant’ The U ited Natio s defines an international migrant as a person who stays outside their usual country of residence for at least one year. Across a number of European countries, a person may be classified as a ‘migrant’ if they intend to be resident for longer than three months. Standards of definition are currently being looked for but to date they remain elusive. Whilst such definitions are useful, they are not totally unproblematic. It prompts the question as to what length of time an individual has to reside in a country before they are no longer considered to be a migrant. Officially a person may have become a citizen yet other indigenous people may still consider them, or refer to them, as migrants for a range of other reasons; cultural, ethnic, linguistic, or based on attitudes towards another person’s skin colour. 7b. Why do people migrate? Some people choose to migrate, e.g. someone who moves to another country to enhance their career opportunities, more wealth, better services, better climate, safer environment, lower crime rates, increased political stability, land that is more fertile, a better quality of life or to be closer to family or friends, and lower risk from natural hazards. These are the so‐called ‘pull’ factors. Some are forced to migrate, e.g. someone who moves away from their home region due to war or famine, lack of services, lack of safety, lack of employment, political or religious persecution, high crime rate, crop failure, moved on by unscrupulous land owners, desertification, drought, flooding, poverty, or war. These are the so‐ called ‘push’ factors. This simple listing of factors is more descriptive than analytical and is an inadequate explanation for migratory patterns in a globalised world in which, as Peggy Levitt notes ‘The assumption that people will live their lives in one place, according to one set of national and cultural norms, in countries with impermeable national borders, no longer holds. Rather, in the twenty‐first century, more and more people will belong to two or more societies at the same time.’40 Europe is a relatively small continent and there are many examples of families whose members, collectively or individually, hold citizenship, or nationality, in more than one country. More recent criticism of the ‘pull‐push’ analysis of reasons for migration have focussed on the need to distinguish between anthropological accounts, focused on individual aspirations and ambitions; affective reasons, and the sociological accounts, focused on the movements of larger groups, which may make better sense of the ‘push‐pull’ analysis. The overly simplistic categorisation of reasons for migration into the pairing of ‘push‐pull’ factors tends to reflect earlier, classical typologies grounded in the disciplines of sociology. However, it is less helpful in accounting for transnational patterns of movement and migration in an increasingly globalised world. 7c. What varieties of migrant and migration are there? When we talk about migration it is important to recognise that there are different kinds of migration and very often it is not obvious or evident which category a particular migrant belongs to. It might very well happen that a person has gone through different phases of migration or that she or he can belong to more than one category at the same time. The concept of migration includes among others the following categories: ‘efugees: A person who, ‘owing to a well‐founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country.’41 As lu “eeke s: The UN defines an asylum seeker as someone who has applied for protection as a refugee and is awaiting a decision about their status. I te all displa ed pe so s: Internally displaced persons are, ‘persons or groups of persons who have been forced or obliged to flee or to leave their homes or places of habitual residence […] who have not crossed an internationally recognised State border.’42 E o o i ig a t: Generally speaking an economic migrant is a person migrating for labour or other economic reasons. The concept of economic migrant includes: 26 Highl skilled a d usi ess ig a ts: These are people with qualifications as managers, executives, professionals, technicians or similar, who move within the internal employment structures of trans‐ national corporations and international organisations, or who seek employment through international labour markets for scarce skills. Te po a la ou ig a ts: These are people who migrate for a limited period of time in order to take up temporary employment. In many instances the intention is to remit or send money to home or families. A person may spend several months every year working in a country that is not their normal country of residence. Guest o ke s: A person who has been invited as a temporary resident to a host country for the purposes of the economic benefit of that country, often to take a job for which there is shortage of domestic labour. The possibility of the guest workers obtaining citizenship was not the intention of the national Governments who created these schemes; this is the case, for example, in Germany. “easo al o ke s: These are people coming to a country for several months to work during the harvest period in the agricultural industry, or in hotels and restaurants during the holiday seasons. I egula ig a ts (or undocumented migrants): This covers a wide range of people, principally migrants who enter a country either without documents, or with forged documents, or who enter legally but then over‐stay their visa or work permit. In order to avoid any negative implications or judgment, the UN recommends that all organs of the UN use the term, ‘migrant workers in an irregular situation or without documentation.’ Fa il eu ifi atio : People with kinship or family ties may join family members who have already entered a country as an immigrant in one of the above mentioned categories. The EU has regulated family reunion with a directive adopted in 2003. Citize ship: Citizenship derives from a legal relationship with a state. Citizenship can be lost, as in denaturalization, and gained, as in naturalization. It is possible to have citizenship from one country and be a national of another country. Nationality most often derives from place of birth (jus soli or ius soli) and, in some cases, ethnicity or by having one or more parent who are already citizens of the state (i.e. jus sa gui is or ius sa gui is). Lo g te eside e: Long term residence for third‐country nationals (any person who is not a citizen of one of the member States of the European Community) can currently be obtained after 5 years of legal residence in one of the EU Countries. The EU guarantees the equal treatment of long term residents and nationals of its member States. T a s atio al ig a ts: ‘Individuals or groups of people who live and/or work in networks that transcend political borders. These networks allow people to live dual lives. They may be bilingual, trans‐cultural, have homes in more than one country, and pursue economic, political and cultural interests in more than one place. This creates networks that view state membership in an instrumental way rather than an emotional way.’43 Diaspo a: Diasporas typically maintain close social, family, religious, cultural, or other emotional ties to their country of origin, or at least the country of origin of their parents or grandparents. They are frequently located across diverse regions of the world and will have developed ‘significant social and symbolic ties to the receiving country’.44 If they haven’t achieved this they may consider themselves to exist in exile. Diaspora terminology may also be used by a migrant community of itself to avoid the negative connotations attached to terms such as ‘refugee’ or ‘migrant’. Thi d ou t atio als are persons who are not citizens of an EU member state within the meaning of Article 20(1) of TFEU and who is not a person enjoying the Union right to free movement, as defined in Art. 2(5) of the “ he ge Bo de s Code. 27 REFERENCES 1 We also want to express at the outset our preference for this term over the commonly used immigrant (which nearly always implies that the commentator is assuming the perspective of the already resident citizen or non‐migrant). Where we do use either immigrant or emigrant, we do so for reasons that will be explained in the text nearby. 2 See http://esa.un.org/unmigration/documents/The_number_of_international_migrants.pdf (accessed 13/10/2014). 3 UNHCR, Glo al T e ds, 2013, p.11. 4 See http://www.unhcr.org/5534dd539.html and http://www.italy.iom.int/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=330&Itemid=90 5 See http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home‐affairs/what‐we‐do/policies/european‐agenda‐migration/background‐ information/docs/communication_on_the_european_agenda_on_migration_en.pdf 6 The countries included here are the EU28 plus Albania, Andorra, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Iceland, Georgia, Kosovo, Liechtenstein, FYR Macedonia, Moldova, Montenegro, Norway, Russia, San Marino, Serbia, Switzerland, Turkey, and Ukraine. See http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/tgm/table.do?tab=table&init=1&language=en&pcode=tps00001&plugin=1 7 Eurostat, Eu ostat Yea ook 8 Eurostat, Eu ostat ‘egio al Yea ook , Brussels: Eurostat, 2014, p.41. 9 Eurostat, Eu ostat ‘egio al Yea ook , Brussels: Eurostat, 2014, p.41. 10 Eurostat, Eu ostat Yea ook 11 Kovacheva, V. and Vogel, D., The size of the irregular foreign resident population in the European Union in 2002, 2005 and 2008: aggregated estimates (Hamburg: Hamburg Institute of International Economics, 2009). Report available at http://irregular‐migration.net//index.php?id=160 12 See http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics‐explained/index.php/Asylum_quarterly_report#cite_note‐1 13 See http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics‐explained/index.php/Asylum_quarterly_report#cite_note‐1 14 IOM calculation based on The Mig a t Files data 15 See http://www.unhcr.org/5534dd539.html and http://www.italy.iom.int/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=330&Itemid=90 16 See http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home‐affairs/what‐we‐do/policies/european‐agenda‐migration/background‐ information/docs/communication_on_the_european_agenda_on_migration_en.pdf p. 12 17 Volu ta epat iatio to the country of origin occurs when the situation and the factors which forced the refugees to flee and to seek asylum in another country are no longer there, so the refugees can go back home feeling safe and regain their lives. Unfortunately this option is not possible for every refugee; sometimes what they have been through is so deeply rooted in their minds that going back to their country of origin is not an option anymore. , Brussels: Eurostat, 2014. , Brussels: Eurostat, 2014, p.299. Lo al i teg atio takes place when refugees are able to integrate in the country of asylum. The situation in the country of origin cannot always be solved in the short run, and the foreseeable future might remain so dim, that settling in the country of asylum becomes a better option. In some countries, refugees are able to integrate themselves because the host country provides them with access to services and access to the labour market or to land, while in others they remain confined to camps where they depend on assistance from the international community. 18 These sections on Refugee Resettlement are based on CCME policy paper on this issue. The entire document is available at http://www.ccme.be/fileadmin/filer/ccme/20_Areas_of_Work/01_Refugee_Protection/2012‐ 04‐02‐_Eng‐20_00_places_policy_final.pdf 19 This is for example the case when an offer of a substantial number of resettlement places encourages countries of origin to facilitate a safe and dignified return for some of the remaining refugees, or when it encourages host countries to accept local integration, or at least self‐reliance. In some cases a resettlement offer may just motivate the host country of refugees to keep the border open for persons still fleeing conflict and persecution. 28 20 The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. The OECD publishes its own annual Mig atio Outlook. 21 http://www.norface‐migration.org/publ_uploads/NDP_25_11.pdf , p.2 22 http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/cp304.pdf 23 http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/cp304.pdf 24 One of the difficulties in shaping policies addressing the integration of migrants' children lies with the term 'second generation' as a descriptive and analytical category. 'Complications with definitional problems often affect the interpretation and outcome of research when clarification has not been given to whom we include in the category of second generation. A classic routine definition has alluded to those offspring born in the host country to immigrant parents who are considered the immigrant first generation. However, analytical complications may arise when we relax this definition to include those with one immigrant parent and one ‘native’ to the host country or when we include children brought to the host country at a young age. Although the latter case in census and population‐register statistics lists those children recorded as ‘foreign‐ born’ and hence members of the first‐generation migration cohort, in strict sociological terms they are practically indistinct from members of the second generation when they arrive in the host country before school age. Yet, we do encounter even more detailed numerically precise definitions of the so‐called ‘1.75, 1.5 and 1.25’ generations according to their age of arrival, referring respectively to foreign‐born children arriving before 6, between 6 and 12, and after 12 and up to 17 years of age but, in some cases the cut‐off age point of generational categorisation can become rather arbitrary and even futile.' http://migrationeducation.de/fileadmin/uploads/Anastasia_Christou_2G_FEB_2012_Policy_Brief_02.pdf 25 http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS‐31‐10‐539/EN/KS‐31‐10‐539‐EN.PDF p.21 26 http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS‐31‐10‐539/EN/KS‐31‐10‐539‐EN.PDF p.21 27 Eurostat, Mig a t I teg atio “tatisti s – “o ial I lusio , Brussels: Eurostat, 2014, p.14. 28 Eurostat, Mig a t I teg atio “tatisti s – “o ial I lusio , Brussels: Eurostat, 2014, p.14. 29 See http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/submitViewTableAction.do 30 Eurostat, Mig a t I teg atio “tatisti s – E plo e t, Brussels: Eurostat, 2014, p.18. 31 Eurobarometer, Mig a t I teg atio : Agg egate ‘epo t, Brussels: Eurobarometer, 2011, p.62. 32 European Commission, I ig atio of I te atio al “tude ts to the EU. Eu opea Mig atio Net o k “tud , Brussels: European Commission, 2012. 33 Eurostat, Mig atio a d 34 Eurostat, Mig a t I teg atio “tatisti s – O e ie , Brussels: Eurostat, 2014, p.8. 35 And see Eurostat, T affi ki g i Hu a Bei gs, Brussels: Eurostat, 2014. 36 Eurostat, T affi ki g i Hu a Bei gs, Brussels: Eurostat, 2014, p.21. 37 http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR300/RR334/RAND_RR334.pdf p. xi 38 http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR300/RR334/RAND_RR334.pdf p. xii 39 https://www.ipsos‐mori.com/DownloadPublication/1634_sri‐perceptions‐and‐reality‐immigration‐report‐ 2013.pdf and http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/oct/29/todays‐key‐fact‐you‐are‐probably‐ wrong‐about‐almost‐everything 40 Levitt, P., ‘Transnational Migrants: When ‘Home’ means more than one Country’ http://www.migrationinformation.org/ Feature/display.cfm?id=261 41 UN ‘efugee Co e tio (1951) Article 1A(2). 1967 Protocol. 42 UNHCR, Guiding Principle, Introduction, para. 2. 43 Koser, K., I te atio al Mig atio : A Ve “ho t I t odu tio , Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. 44 Faist, T., ‘Transnationalization’ in I te atio al Mig atio : I pli atio s fo the stud of itize ship a d ultu e, InnIIS, WPTC‐99‐09. ig a t populatio statisti s, Brussels: Eurostat, 2014, p.49. 29 CHAPTER TWO: A SOCIOLOGICAL ACCOUNT OF RELIGION, MIGRATION AND INTEGRATION IN EUROPE1 1. Introduction This chapter provides a sociological framework for contemporary issues affecting and influencing the life of churches in Europe. Firstly, the chapter disentangles the nuances around the place of religion in society; secondly it analyses the integration debate at European level in order to better understand the measures put in place by the States of Europe to manage migration – this analysis will be helpful in understanding the ways that Churches in Europe are responding and reacting to the challenge of those policies. Thirdly, the chapter articulates the ties that bring and keep people, in this case churchgoers, together in religious communities. Issues of identity and belonging are part of this narrative as well as the analysis of how religion can change as a result of a migratory journey. 2. Religion and secularism in Europe A number of factors need to be taken into account when reflecting upon the place of religion in today’s Europe. Davie (2006) suggests three was of looking into the subject. First of all she highlights the role of Christianity in shaping Europe’s culture. Secondly Davie describes the decline in churchgoers’ attendance due to the shift from the imposition of the church to the personal choice of the believer. Thirdly, she focuses on how the arrival of migrants, carrying different religious needs, understandings and aspirations, has changed the religious landscape of Europe. The decline in church attendance and membership merits a more careful analysis. Until the 1970s the secularisation process in Europe was associated with modernisation and the decline of religious practices. Berger (1967)2 and Bruce (1996), for instance, described the European secularisation process as the example and model that other countries would follow. However sociological forecasts that Europe’s modernisation and secularisation would be accompanied by a slow disappearance of religion from both public and private life proved to be wrong. Davie’s analysis of the British context provides a different and more nuanced account of secularisation and its effects in Europe (Davie, 1994, 2000, 2002, 2007). Religion did not disappear in the UK – or in the Nordic countries – but remained a private act that was not directly connected to church attendance. Davie conceptualises this attitude as elie i g ithout elo gi g in so far as secularism and modernisation resulted in more 'private', secular forms of religiosity rather than a decline of faith tout ou t. Particularly relevant is Hervieu‐Léger's work (2000) and her notion of odel of elie i g. In her book ‘eligio as a hai of e o (2000) the model of believing is characterised by two aspects: the chain connecting the individual to the community and olle ti e e o , the tradition that becomes the basis for the existence of the community. Following Hervieu‐Léger’s formulation it is possible to deduce that people are less religious not because they are more secular but because they have lost the collective memory, the shared tradition binding individuals as members of a religious community. In ‘eligio i Mode Eu ope (2000), Davie employs the theory of the chain of memory in different European countries. Davie adds another key concept in her analysis of the model of believing: the notion of i a ious eligio , whose function is to keep the chain of memory alive. Vicarious religion refers to a religion performed by an active minority on behalf of a majority population – who understands and approves the minority’s doings. When the chain of memory is broken, when people believe without belonging, and when vicarious religion no longer functions, then it is plausible to say that some form of secularisation has taken place. The concept of secularisation is not straightforward and it is open to more than one interpretation (Berger, 1967; Bruce, 1996; Casanova, 1994; Davie, 2007; Martin, 1978). Furthermore the theoretical paradigm linking secularisation with modernisation and the decline of religion, suggested by some, is also questionable. Davie (2007) does not think that modernisation necessarily leads to a reduction of religious beliefs or a relegation of religion to the private sphere. Casanova’s work (1994) is particularly useful here to test and expand upon Davie’s point. Casanova talks about three different ‘uneven and unintegrated’ interpretations or manifestations of secularisation that need to be carefully examined and validated independently from each other: ‘secularisation as differentiation of secular spheres from religious institutions and norms, secularisation as decline of religious beliefs and practices, and secularisation as marginalisation of religion to the privatised sphere’ (Casanova, 1994: 211). 31 For Casanova (1994: 212) secularisation as differentiation is the essential core of secularisation theory. It is also important to note that the way in which religion and state are intertwined varies significantly according to different historical and geographical contexts. In this regard it is worth mentioning Martin’s analysis (1978) of the manifestations of secularism in Europe and in the USA. According to him the difference between the two continents lies in the different relationship between religion and state. On the one hand in Europe, with the emergence of nation states, the power of one religion was ‘spread’ across the country (horizontal process) while in the USA, where the state was based on religious pluralism, different religions were allowed to coexist in the same nation (vertical process).3 Martin also recognises the varieties of manifestations of secularism across Europe. In other words, European countries constructed their identities on the basis of the uius egio eius eligio (he who holds the realm, defines the religion, meaning that rulers could dictate their subjects’ religion) which de facto conferred a privileged status and position to one particular church within the state, often at the expenses of other confessions or religions. The French revolution marked a radical change imposing the separation of spiritual and political powers, thus setting the basis for the spread of secularism in Europe.4 The last element in the debate on secularisation relates to the way migration has changed and reshaped Europe’s religious landscape. According to Jenkins (2002) the movement of people from the Global South to the Global North will result in an increase of Christianity in Western countries. However, as he points out, the most successful types of Christianity in the Global South ‘have been very different from what many Europeans and North Americans consider mainstream’ (Jenkins, 2002: 123). These expressions of faith ‘have been far more enthusiastic, much more centrally concerned with the immediate workings of the supernatural, through prophecy, visions, ecstatic utterances, and healing’ (Jenkins, 2002: 123). Jenkins’ analysis is not only in line with theories that challenge the secularism hypothesis associated with the decline of religion but it goes further, explaining how and why new forms of Christianity are spreading across Europe and around the world. Jenkins’s theories help to explain the way that historical Churches frequently face different assumptions and church models introduced by migrants. These may be to do with spirituality, theology and ethics. This alternative paradigm and the challenges it poses have been linked by some scholars to the concept of e e se issio , which although not central to this research, cannot be overlooked. As Adogame (2000, 2005, 2013) and Ugba (2009) highlight, e e se issio or ‘reverse flow of mission’ is manifested in the (un)conscious strategies employed by churches and missionaries in Africa and Asia to bring back the gospel to Europe because, they argue, the continent has lost its original faith. The concept of reverse mission is controversial; even without entering into the debate of whether it is possible or not to talk about reverse mission for African Protestants in Europe, it is undeniable that the different role religion occupies in the lives of believers in Africa and Europe leads to difficulties when European and African symbolic realities clash. 3. Integration ‘Integration is a dynamic, two‐way process of mutual accommodation by all immigrants and residents of EU countries’. (COM, 2005: 389) 5 To better understand how churches develop their integration strategies and in some case how they seek to incorporate migrants into their communities it is useful to look first at how the concept of integration emerged specifically to name and address issues around migration and how the nexus migration‐/integration evolved. The term integration appears problematic as it is open to different and conflicting interpretations (Baubock, 1994; Loyal, 2007). What does integration mean? Moreover, the integration of whom into what? Maguire and Titley (2010) trace the genesis of integration in Europe stating that the link between integration and migration does not have a long history but dates back to 1974 when the European Commission issued the A tio Pla i Fa ou of Mig a t Wo ke s a d thei Fa ilies: ‘When one looks back over developments in the 1980s and 1990s one can see the progressive instantiation of systems, institutions and policies that clearly hold migration, integration and security together’ (Maguire and Titley, 2010: 2). Following the 11th September 2001 attacks, the balance between the three axes – migration, integration and security – collapsed and security became the most important element of European and national policies: ‘migration (understood to share a field with crime and terrorism) and integration (understood to share a field with cohesion, ‘basic values’, inviolable rights and national laws) were to be framed more and more as matters of security’ (2010: 2). In 2004 the Eu opea Cou il issued Co o Basi P i iples fo I ig a t I teg atio Poli . While stating that integration is a dynamic two‐way process, the adopted principles also tend to emphasise the duty of the migrant to integrate and the need to achieve a balance between tolerance of diversity and respect for ‘the basic 32 values of the EU’ to ensure social cohesion. The basic values in question – inviolable European rights and national laws ‐ are clearly not negotiable (Maguire and Titley, 2010). Despite the avowed commitment to fostering 'mutual accommodation between immigrant and residents of member states', EU policies illustrate that integration is closely linked to managing migration and security. The governance of integration includes border control to ensure the inclusion of the right type of migrants, those migrants who are wanted, skilled, or who are not seen as a burden or a danger to the values and the social cohesion of nations, as highlighted also in 2007 by the former European Commissioner for Justice, Freedom and Security, Franco Frattini: If managed well, immigration is one area where our citizens will clearly see the added value of a European approach. Such an approach should help the EU to address, and to a certain extent reduce, unwanted phenomena such as unregulated migration and trafficking in human beings, while ensuring that Europe can welcome the migrants its economy needs and its society is capable and willing to receive. (Frattini, 2007: 2) A migrant’s ability to integrate, according to EU discourses, is strictly linked to their status in the receiving country as noted by Maguire and Titley; The trajectory of integration governance – extending, in theory, from a pricey automated phone test at ‘home’ to years of status‐dependent tests, regulations and restrictions in the migration location – seeks to sort and manage subjects according to intersecting visions of labour market value, personal autonomy, cultural compatibility, and the socio‐economic footprint of familial networks. (Maguire and Titley, 2010: 4) The value migrants can bring is framed by receiving states in strictly economic terms: at the top of the list there are highly sought after migrants, IT experts, doctors and other professionals; followed by nurses, students, and low skilled workers, often with precarious status; irregular migrants, refugees, asylum seekers are at the bottom of the list, the unwanted ‘human waste’ referred to by Bauman (2004). A question remains on how to integrate ’wanted’ as well as ‘unwanted’ migrants. In different European states there have been different attempts to deal with diversity6 resulting in different policy approaches, for instance assimilation, multiculturalism, interculturalism. At first glimpse there seems to be a clear distinction between the three. Assimilation implies the assumption that migrants have to become like the natives to be integrated. Multiculturalism implies a coexistence of different cultures and ethnic groups, while interculturalism implies not only the coexistence of different ethnic groups but focuses on the interaction and communication between them. These definitions, however, are not straightforward but rather open to different understandings which have different implications. I take the example of multiculturalism and interculturalism to show the blurred boundaries between these policies. The term multiculturalism has been used and misused by politicians and policy makers. In addition scholars of multiculturalism provide different definitions of the concept itself and its possible applications (Wieviorka, 1998; Hall, 2000; Parekh, 2006).7 According to Parekh (2006: 336) multiculturalism should be seen neither as a political doctrine nor as a philosophical theory but as a perspective on human life. He writes that, as each culture is inherently limited, and ‘cannot embody the full richness, complexity and grandeur of human existence’ society can only benefit from promoting exchange, dialogue, encounters between different cultures and groups. Lentin, however, points out how often multicultural policies are negotiated with leade s of ethnic groups who do not necessarily represent the whole group as they are often male, old, and religious. She argues that there is a contradiction between group rights and individual rights as ‘[m]ulticulturalist policies assume that all members of ethnic minority groups are equally committed to their group’s ‘culture’, which is understood as fixed and unchanging, while, in reality, culture is a set of fluid and shifting discourses and practices’ (Lentin, 2002: 231). Joppke argues, in line with Sartori (2000), that ‘in no theory of multiculturalism is the explicit act of ‘recognition’ reciprocal, denoting instead an act that goes from the majority to the minority’ (Joppke, 2004: 242). It is evident that the multicultural paradigm has been developed and applied in different ways in different countries. Multiculturalism in UK is not the same as multiculturalism in Canada or the USA. Especially in Europe there have been critical voices against multicultural policies (Joppke, 2004; Vasta, 2007; Meer and Modood, 2008; Lentin and Titley, 2011).8 33 The other concept used to promote integration is interculturalism, which can be seen as an alte ati e to policies of multiculturalism (e.g., Favell, 2001; Lentin, 2002; Lentin and McVeigh, 2006; Mac Éinrí, 2001; Fanning, 2007; Kundnani, 2007). While integration is often misused to mean assimilation, interculturalism purports to understand integration as a two‐way process involving both migrants and receiving societies. In practice, however, as highlighted by various scholars (Lentin, 2008; Lentin and Titley, 2011) intercultural policies tend to work in the same way as multicultural policies. The churches attended by migrants are not ʽislands’: they are connected, linked, to the territory they are located in. Consequently churches and churchgoers are influenced by the policies put in place by governments – either in line or in contrast with their needs and goals. The Mig a t I teg atio Poli I de (MIPEX) 9 provides relevant data on integration policies in different European countries. MIPEX identified seven areas as migrant integration indicators shaping the journey to full citizenship: Labour market access; family reunion; education; long‐term residence; political participation; access to nationality; and anti‐discrimination. 10 ‘The broad assumption underlying the legislation is that labour market integration – employment – is a necessary and sufficient condition to guarantee social integration, when coupled with parity of rights and access to public services.’ (Kosic and Triandafyllidou, 2007: 195) 4. Self‐identification and otherness The link between integration and identity cannot be underestimated. Soysal (2001) highlights the fact that, when discussing integration we have to tackle discourses of identity and belonging: ‘The tales of integration, whose definition turns into a mystery even in the narratives of those who perpetually speak of ways to achieve it, rely on taken‐for‐granted conceptions of identity that singularly take ‘national’ as the defining parameter of identity and belonging.’ (Soysal, 2001: 22) Religion can be considered a powerful source of identity formation; similarly religious affiliation is often used as a descriptor of group membership. Coleman and Collins (2004) talk about the ambiguous attachments linking religion, identity, and nation. Such attachments determine ‘the parameters of belonging’. While Coleman and Collins (2004) also stress that identity must not be reduced to its religious component, religion remains a powerful identity marker. 5. The Stranger: a particular category of other Writing in 1908, Simmel describes the stranger as a person who is both far away and near. S/he is close to us, in the common features of a national, social, occupational, or generally human, nature between him and us. S/he is far from us, insofar as these common features extend beyond him or us, and connect us only because they connect a great many people (Simmel, 1908). The stranger Simmel refers to is not seen as ‘the wanderer’, a person that ‘comes today and goes tomorrow’, but someone who is here to stay, fulfilling a special role, a certain degree of objectivity towards the society which s/he lives in (Simmel, 1976). In “t a ge s to ou sel es (1991) Kristeva raises interesting questions in relation to the figure and role attributed to strangers and foreigners over time: ‘Shall we be, intimately and subjectively, able to live with the others, to live as othe s, without ostracism but also without levelling?’ (1991: 2). She also highlights how the modification in the status of foreigners in today’s society demands that we 'reflect on our ability to accept new modalities of otherness’. If in the past the foreigner was an enemy to be destroyed, with time he has slowly been transformed into a different human being who, says Kristeva, provided s/he espouses the religious and ethical codes of the majority, ‘may be assimilated into the fraternities of the ‘wise’, the ‘just’, or the ‘native’(1991: 2). Bauman (2005) argues that ever since people have been clustered into groups of either friends or enemies, there is an ambiguity in the figure of the stranger, especially in modern societies. The ambiguity lies in the difficulty of readily assigning the stranger to categories of either ‘friend’ or ‘foe’. Consequently, the ambiguity generates fear and leads to marginalisation. Bauman (2005) refers to Lévi‐Strauss’s (1961) two strategies of neutralising the danger of the stranger. The first involves the annihilation or the assimilation of the stranger.11 The second strategy implies the exclusion of the strangers.12 These approaches no longer seem sufficient to explain the relationship between strangers and native. Integration implies a third way which is neither annihilation nor assimilation of the stranger (Passarelli, 2012, 2013). However, today’s migration poses fundamental challenges: what happens when the strangers are 34 here to stay? How to deal with someone who may be radically different from us? How long do they have to remain strangers? In which way does the degree of objectivity that Simmel (1908) sees in the stranger help the integration processes of migrants as they move towards becoming indigenous churchgoers? 6. Community and belonging Analysing the symbolism of migrants as ‘strangers’ is instrumental in reflecting on what happens when the church‐community includes migrants‐strangers. According to Bauman (2001: 2) community means ‘we are never stranger to each other’. The word community conjures up the image of a safe space where everybody knows everybody and where one can count on people. That said, Bauman also recognises other ways of theorising communities. First of all there is a gap between the narrative of the ideal community – as a safe and harmonious place – and the real community, ‘a collectivity which pretends to be community incarnate, the dream fulfilled, and (in the name of the goodness such community is assumed to offer) demands unconditional loyalty and treats everything short of such loyalty as an act of unforgivable treason’ (Bauman, 2001:4). According to Bauman, renouncing personal freedom is the price to be paid in order to be part of a community. Delanty (2010: XII) argues that the term community ‘designates both an idea about belonging and a particular social phenomenon, such as expressions of longing for community, the search for meaning and solidarity, recognition and collective identity’. Barth (1969) stresses the symbolic nature of community, and sees communities as formed through the construction of boundaries which are not conceived as fluid and flexible as Cohen (1985) suggests. For Brubaker (2004) there are three elements to take into consideration when analysing communities and belonging: commonality, connectedness, and ‘groupness’. While commonality denotes the sharing of some common attributes, connectedness defines the links between people. Commonality and connectedness may result in ‘groupness’ which is described by Brubaker as ‘the sense of belonging to a distinctive bounded, solidarity group’ (2004: 47). Furthermore he makes a distinction between strong and exclusive communities and looser and open ones. Following on from Brubaker, Ugba states that while both types of communities – the exclusive and the open – are important, they shape personal experience and condition social and political action in sharply different ways (Ugba, 2007a). Jenkins, drawing on Cohen’s theory of community construction (1985), posits that: a) symbols play a central role in generating a sense of shared belonging; b) community is itself a symbolic construct upon which people draw, rhetorically and strategically; and c) the meaning (and value) of community membership lies in sharing with other members a similar ‘sense of things’, a common symbolic domain (Jenkins, 2004). In addition, for Cohen, community ties aggregate rather than integrate (1985: 20). Very often church‐members tend to argue that these policies are useless because a congregation – if it is a real community – should be able to include and hence integrate migrants. The reality emerging from the data, however, contradicts this assumption. A community aggregates those who share the same sense of things and sometimes, especially at first, migrants seem to have a different ‘sense of things’ and they are marginalised by community members (although this marginalisation is not the result of explicit or deliberate behaviour). In some specific circumstances being Protestant can also be considered akin to belonging to an ethnic group. Migrants, on the other hand, despite being Protestants and sometimes coming from the same confession (Anglicanism, Presbyterianism, Methodism, etc.), once they join a historical Protestant Church do not have the same symbolic paradigm13 and also have different expectations from the church as a community. In the next section I introduce theories of migrant belonging and the role religious institutions can have in the migration journey. 7. Belonging in migration Religion plays a major role in supporting migrants in their journey (Hirschman, 2007; Levitt, 2007; Levitt and Hejtmanek, 2009) and in their new abode. Already in 1975 Handlin (1975) theorised religion as a bridge for migrants, linking the old and the new worlds; this argument finds confirmation in the work of other scholars (e.g., Warner, 1998; Foley and Hoge, 2007; Jenkins, 2007; Ugba, 2007a; Levitt, 2009; Passarelli, 2010, 2012, 2013). While migrants often choose to migrate due to religious persecution, we also need to consider the role of churches in providing material and spiritual support. Ebaugh and Chafetz (2000) point out that the benefits of religious practices for migrants are not only psychological but that churches, synagogues, temples, and mosque also serve the material needs of immigrants. Hirschman also highlights the importance of religious institutions as tools to solve some of the practical problems faced by migrants: ‘[u]pon arrival, immigrants need to find 35 housing and employment, enrol their children in schools, learn (or improve) their language skills, and begin to create a 'new' social life’. (Hirschman, 2007: 397) Thus, while churches are often considered by churchgoers as service providers, indigenous and migrant churchgoers may have different expectations as to what type of services the church should provide to its members. In the next section I introduce the concept of social capital, which helps us to understand the role of churches in the integration process. 8. Social capital Analysing the African Christian Diaspora in Europe Adogame (2013) writes that ‘religion serves as an important source of ‘social’, ‘cultural’ and ‘spiritual’ capital among African immigrants’; religious groups, he argues, ‘can help bridge and break individuals and societies because of their bridging and bonding behaviours’ (2013: 101). The main contributors to the development of the theory of social capital are Bourdieu (1986), Coleman (1990) and Putnam (2000). Bourdieu identifies three forms of capital – economic, cultural and social – and defines social capital as ‘the aggregate of the actual potential resources which are linked to possession of a durable network of more or less institutionalised relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition’ (Bourdieu, 1983: 249). Coleman (1990) further elaborates on Bourdieu’s concept, highlighting how social capital is embedded in particular relationships, suggesting that a group based on trust will be able to achieve more than a group lacking that aspect. Thus, Coleman understands social capital in terms of social obligations, expectations, social support, elements which are also tied to voluntary associations (Agodame, 2013) like churches. Putnam (2000) defines social capital along Coleman's line as he refers ‘to connections among individuals – social networks, and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them’ (Putnam, 2000: 19). Furthermore, he distinguishes between bonding and bridging social capital: bonding refers to the value assigned to social networks between homogeneous groups of people while bridging refers to the value of social networks between socially heterogeneous groups (Putnam, 2000). Social capital, however, can have positive as well as negative consequences (Portes, 1998; Agogame, 2013). Portes (1998) in particular identifies four negative elements of social capital: the exclusion of outsiders, the excessive claims on group members, the restriction on individual freedom, and the downward levelling norms. Also exploring the downside of social capital, Adogame refers to the work of Quibria (2003) and Briggs (2004). ‘[Briggs] suggests that the dark side of social capital, especially the potential of exclusion, is very evident in social capital as a collective good, a resource possessed by a social system that helps the system as a whole to solve problems. For instance, community norms can be tied to religious beliefs and symbols and to ethnicity, in ways that exclude others. Bonding social network can reinforce and deepen ethnic and class distinctions and conflicts.’ (Adogame, 2013: 107) Churches can be considered a form of social capital as they are networks of relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition, based on trust, expectations and social obligations. Churches, like other networks, are also in danger of developing the negative elements inherent to social capital. For instance, when ethnicity is a major bonding tie between members of a church, it risks excluding all other church members. 36 REFERENCES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 This chapter is based on the work of Alessia Passarelli (2014) Goi g e o d el o i g the st a ge s: I teg atio poli ies a d p a ti es i P otesta t Chu hes i I ela d a d Ital , PhD thesis, Sociology, Trinity College Dublin. It is worth mentioning that Berger (1999) himself admitted he was wrong as the data on religion all over the world seemed to contradict the secularisation theory. According to Davie (2007) many sociologists of religion did not agree with the change of directions taken by Berger. Bruce for instance argued that Berger's new theory was not persuasive but rather resembled an unnecessarily ‘confession of sins’ (Bruce, 2001: 87). While it is true that the United States of America built their nation on the basis of the separation between state and church in the name of freedom, it is equally true that a particular religious group, the W.A.S.P (White Anglo‐Saxon Protestant), has held a hegemonic position in relation to other ethnic and religious minorities. See Willaime’s work on laï itè in France and Europe (2009). See http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/justice_freedom_security/free_movement_of_persons_ asylum_immigration/l14502_en.htm Lentin and Titley in The C ises of Multi ultu alis argue that ‘diversity, as a form of governmentality involved in specifying and acting upon forms of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ diversity in (post)multicultural societies, is prevalent in the European Union, where diversity is publicly and officially celebrated yet where not everybody qualifies to be recognized as the right kind of diverse subject... Diversity, like the headscarf... is bad diversity. It cannot be celebrated as a detachable, diverse good, it belongs to the resistant, risky communitarianism of the multicultural past... Bad diversity... is integral to the reworking of multicultural ontology after the failed experiment’ (Lentin and Titley, 2011: 176). Hall (2000: 210) distinguishes between several varieties of multiculturalism – conservative, liberal, pluralist, commercial, corporate and revolutionary – where the emphasis is on the different approaches to diversity control and minority‐majority relations; Wieviorka (1998) distinguishes between relatively integrated multicultural policies versus disintegrated ones where the difference is in the role given to economic integration as a source/tool of cultural integration. Joppke (2004) for instance, has been theorising the failure of multicultural policies or ‘official multiculturalim’ as he calls it, in the UK (Meer and Modood, 2008) but also in the Netherlands (Vasta, 2007). In autumn 2010 and winter 2011the German Chancellor and the UK Prime Minister respectively declared that multicultural policies had failed. However the research undertaken by Alana Lentin and Gavan Titley (2011), shows that the 'a golden multicultural age' never existed and the crises of multiculturalism is a projection of neoliberal societies’ disjunctures’. In addition the authors note that the perceived failure of multiculturalism – or of a life lived in a multicultural environment – creates a climate where racism is both repudiated and reproduced. The Mig a t I teg atio Poli I de was first published in 2004 as the European Civic Citizenship and Inclusion Index. It was the first time that the policies of the EU‐15 towards migrants had been presented in a concise, transparent and comparable format. The second edition of the MIPEX, conducted in 2007, measures policies to integrate migrants in 25 EU Member States and Canada, Norway and Switzerland. It uses over 140 policy indicators covering six policy areas which shape a migrant's journey to full citizenship: Labour market access; Family reunion; Long‐term residence; Political participation; Access to nationality and Anti‐discrimination. The data of the MIPEX were updated in 2010. http://www.mipex.eu/ The Multi ultu alis Poli I de by Banting and Kymlicka records very similar policies and also groups and scores countries along the lines of access to dual nationality, education, media representation. http://www.queensu.ca/mcp/index.html The first of these is the so‐called a th opophagi strategy as it implies the annihilation of strangers by devouring them. The second is Also known as the a th opoe i strategy in which the stranger is ‘vomited out’, by banishing them from society or exterminating them. Symbolic paradigms include the set of beliefs, traditions, imagery, and values that affect the way in which churches and their members understand reality. 37 CHAPTER THREE: A THEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE PHENOMENON OF MIGRATION IN EUROPE1 1. Reviewing the theological sketch of the first edition of Mapping Migration In our first edition we outlined a number of theological and biblical perspectives that had begun to inform our work at that point. With hindsight we can see these as tentative and provisional. Nevertheless our approach in 2008 had been to point to the historical reality of migration within the biblical narratives. In expounding terms such as ‘alien’ and ‘stranger’ we pointed towards the potential of the biblical narrative as a resource for informing the development of mutual and intercultural practices of integration. We recognised that the use of biblical narrative is not unproblematic in this respect (noted by Rivera‐Pagán in Padilla, 2013, pp41) but were unable to adequately address this within the scope of the publication. In our treatment we presented a migrant Portuguese narrative, reflecting on the significance of the Day of Pentecost for global migration. The non‐migrant perspective (Spencer, 2004) was also explored as we discussed the manner in which a modest and appropriately integrationist social policy regarding asylum and i migration could be developed with reference to biblical and theological insights. Attempts to develop a more systematic approach to theological accounts of migration in 2007 and 2008 were relatively recent and still very tentative. We referenced the work being done by Roman Catholic theologians at that point, drawing attention to Campese’s work (in Hondagneu‐Sotelo, 2007). He argued for a commitment to truth‐telling as a starting point for analysing migrant narratives using social scientific analyses. This would require the ethical demands for justice and human dignity to be met through a preferential option for the vulnerable and powerless migrant. Adopting such a stance implies a critical response to theologies that distort and misrepresent the reality of migration as well as addressing the social inequalities that require and thrive upon distortion and misrepresentation. Campese ends with a call for intercultural solidarity. Our discussion in this edition is intended to move us further along towards a similar conclusion but before we do so, it may be helpful to quickly outline and review a history of Christian migration in Europe. 2. A brief historical account of migratory European Christianity “ otia e ge uit. A glia e sus epit. Gallia e do uit. Colo ia e te et: “ otla d e fo th. E gla d sustai ed e. F a e taught e. Colog e holds e. ought (Inscription on the tomb of John Duns Scotus [1265‐1308] in the Church of the Franciscans, Cologne) He e I ha e e du ed u fatho a le feeli gs of e pti ess a d a se e. No o e. Nothi g. Ce tai l the eathe is also to la e… aught i the ai outside a d aiti g u de a t ee fo it to lea up, I egi to eep itte l . … ill I e dlessl e a i g suit ases a ou d e e he e? Will I al a s e ithout a o e a d a thi g; like a o pha ? (Roman Catholic theologian Yves Congar [1904‐1995], writing from exile in Oxford) The dynamic that exists between these two migrant narratives is fascinating. One was written by a native of the British Isles who had moved to reside on the European continent. The other was a European continental who was required to take up residence for a period in the British Isles. One appears to carry a note of fulfilment whilst the other expresses the pathos of an unfulfilled migrant experience. Each reflects, in their own way, a familiar and very human longing for belonging, a desire to be part of a welcoming community that integrates the migrant and considers him, or her, its own. Secondly, and equally important, they underline an obvious and frequently overlooked point that any theological account of the contemporary phenomenon of migration in Europe is not merely somebody else’s story. The story of migration has always been internal to our own church communities and traditions; whether Protestant, Roman Catholic, Orthodox, or Pentecostal. The experience of migration has contributed to the shaping of the European Churches of today. It is a constitutive part of the narrative of the Churches in Europe; 39 migration has al a s been a central aspect of the identity of the churches in Europe. In arriving at a theological analysis of integration, community, and belonging, we must not forget this history; for it is our history. Many early ‘Fathers of the church’ were migrants through being exiled by either the religious authorities or the secular authorities. John Chrysostom (349‐407), as Bishop of Constantinople, was exiled to the Caucasus, but nevertheless managed to use his free time in exile to organise mission in Cilicia and Phoenicia. Athanasius (c. 296‐373) was a Bishop of Alexandria for 45 years and spent a total of 17 of those in exile (over five separate periods). Others exiled included Maximus the Confessor (c. 580‐662), Gregory of Nyssa (c. 334‐394), and Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage (d. 258). When Tertullian (c. 160‐220) wrote De Fuga i pe se utio e (Flight f o Pe se utio ), he was investigating the appropriate Christian response in the face of persecution: go into exile or remain to face the persecuting authorities? Many Christian leaders and church members have had to face the same dilemma ever since, and some of these have chosen the hard migratory journey into exile. The anonymous second or third century Lette to Diog etus may contain an overly idealised view of the early Christians, but it reflects a theological assessment of the actual experience of Christian migration that is certainly commensurate with the teachings of Jesus and those of the early church. It is worth quoting here at length: ‘Christians live in their own countries, but only as aliens. They have a share in everything as citizens and endure everything as foreigners. Every foreign land is their fatherland, and yet for them every fatherland is a foreign land. […] They busy themselves on earth but their citizenship is in heaven. […] What the soul is in the body, the Christian are in the world. […] Christians are scattered through all the cities of the world. […] Christians dwell in the world but do not belong to the world.’2 In 1557 there were more Protestant refugees in Geneva than Genevan‐born inhabitants, and all thirteen Calvinist pastors were non‐Genevans. As a result, employment and housing shortages fuelled resentment towards these foreign migrants.3 They were not easily integrated into the local community, frequently forming their own language‐based congregations (several of which persist to the present day in Geneva), never reliable tenants (with limited financial means and liable to return to their homelands with little notice), and equally resented for the tacit support they lent to John Calvin’s frequently unpopular influence over the Geneva secular authorities. An enduring legacy of their collaboration, however, was the Geneva Bible, a triumph of English biblical scholarship. Its title page carries a woodcut of the migratory Israelites about to cross the Red Sea, hinting at the self‐understanding of the Protestant community in Geneva. Their translation contributed directly to the text of the Autho ised Ve sio (1611) and prompted the publication of the Roman Catholic ‘hei s‐Douai Bible in English (1609). The Huguenots were French Protestants of the 17th century. In 1685, Louis XIV revoked the Edi t of Na tes (1598) granting them relative religious freedom. All Protestant pastors were immediately exiled and the laity forbidden from leaving France. Many did leave, however, and an estimated 200,000 Huguenots emigrated to non‐Catholic Europe and beyond. An estimated 50,000 settled in England, introducing the word ‘refugee’ to the English language. English pamphlets of the period warned of the threat the Huguenots posed to employment, public order, and morality. The pamphleteers lamented their poor standards of personal hygiene and their poor standard of housing. Some even pointed out that they ate strange food! Despite these prejudices the Huguenots of England went on successfully to establish themselves at all levels of society. When the Bolsheviks rose to power in early twentieth century Russia, the Orthodox Church faced intense persecution. Archbishop Hilarion Alfeyev writes of this period, ‘At the time when Russian theological scholarship had been totally crushed in Russia itself, it continued to flourish in the West, among the Russian emigration.’4 Its encounter with Western theology was a source of theological re‐vitalisation as Orthodox theologians dialogued with Western theologians. Theologians in exile, including Fr. Georges Florovsky, Fr. John Meyendorff, Fr. Sergius Bulgakov, and Fr. Alexander Schmemann did much to make Eastern Orthodox theology more widely accessible to the West. Paul Tillich (1886‐1965) was professor of systematic theology at the University of Frankfurt. In 1933 he was dismissed from his position for views critical of the Nazi party’s extreme ideology and was immediately invited to take up a position at Union Theological Seminary by Reinhold Niebuhr. He subsequently joined Harvard Divinity School in 1955 and went on to publish a three volume systematic theology. Tillich became a migrant theologian. In a confidential 1936 document, published in 1966 as “Refugee Scholars at Duke University,” a total 40 of 197 theologians whose convictions or associations made them unacceptable to the Reich, were identified for the purpose of finding suitable alternative employment in the USA.5 It can be argued that in Europe, Christianity always was, and remains, intercultural in its composition. Migratory theologians, missionaries (such as Ss. Patrick, Willibrord, Boniface, Columbanus, Martin of Tours, etc.), exiled scholars, and migratory church leaders are involved in the founding of churches and religious communities right across the continent. European churches that promote or support anti‐immigration policies, or which adopt a culturally or ethnically exclusivist tone, are either suffering from historical amnesia or are wilfully choosing to ignore the sacrificial and costly experiences of our forebears in the faith. Outlining a vision for a Europe of reconciled nations in 1957, the committed lay Catholic politician, Robert Schumann inspired a generation of post‐war leaders with his calls for a ‘democratic model of governance which through reconciliation develops into a ‘community of peoples’ in freedom, equality, solidarity and peace and which is deeply rooted in Christian basic values.’6 Schumann’s vision of this new Europe was only able to take shape as Europe’s disparate peoples began to interact, trade, befriend, travel, relocate, frame laws, and marry across national borders. His vision assumed forms of migration that would foster deeper integration and new patterns of belonging. Indeed, when in 1984 the Council of Europe recognized the importance of European pilgrim routes, such as the medieval “Pilgrim’s Way” to Santiago de Compostela, it acknowledged that the cultural contacts resulting from Christian pilgrimage represented one of the earliest approaches to interculturalism and European unity. After almost two thousand years of Christian migration within, and emigration from, Europe, it is appropriate to note the contribution that Europe’s Churches have made, and continue to make, to the integration of migrants in Europe. Europe’s Churches have frequently been the places where the process of cultural and linguistic integration has begun and community and belonging have been encountered and welcomed. 3. Is a comprehensive theological account of migration possible? Theological analysis, evaluation, and reflection on the phenomenon of migration have been accelerating at least since we began writing the first edition of this volume in 2007. At that point we were able to deal with a relatively narrow range of titles. Seven years later we are faced with the need to take a much wider range of titles into account. In some respects this makes our job more difficult; in others it makes our task easier. Over the past seven years there have been some excellent contributions to the fields of, for example: pastoral accounts of migration and migrant ministry; ethical discussions of migration; biblical reflection on migration; diaspora theology and missiology; congregational studies; attempts at integrating theological inquiry with other disciplinary fields, including most notably the human sciences; migrant narratives of faith; and one or two efforts to arrive at a more systematic framing of migration from theological perspectives. A small number of these have engaged with our earlier work. The majority were written with no direct reference to the way we had attempted to modestly outline several key theological approaches that were most apparent to us then. In the intervening seven years we have learnt much from these fellow travellers and have grown to respect their academic rigour and creative insight. In particular we might mention Jorge Guerra’s search for a more systematic theological investigation (Groody, 2008, 243ff), Dorottya Nagy’s differentiation of migrant and non‐migrant theologies and especially her discussion of ‘neighbour’ (Nagy, 2009), Daniel Carroll’s biblical discussion of ‘outsiders’ and migrants (Carroll, 2013), plus an emerging global consensus that Christian witness (some would say ‘mission’) is better conceived as arising from an ethic of love (Matthew 25) rather than an ethic of obligation (Matthew 28:18‐20). 3a. Narratives of migration as primary building blocks in a theological account of migration Guerra’s search for systematisation is a search for a more robust way of understanding and interpreting what we know about migration. At the heart of the search is a concern to arrive at an adequate set of conclusions about the precise nature of the knowledge upon which rest theological accounts of migration. In other words, what kind of knowledge should we expect our discussions to rest upon? He begins by reflecting on the reality at the centre of migration and concludes that expert knowledge of migration resides within the ‘knowing’ migrant at the centre of the experience of migration. He urges closer attentiveness to the migrant narratives that emerge out of this reality and by which the migrant is privileged as a ‘knowledgeable expert’, even though these narratives may be commonplace, vernacular, and unsystematic. Without their narratives being told and re‐told as biography or autobiography, it is very difficult to imagine anything being known or said about migration that is sensible, intelligent, or relevant. Integration, belonging, 41 and community involve human persons – they are not simply theoretical categories. Without migrant experiences of integration, belonging, or community, there is nothing upon which theologians are able to reflect, nothing to interpret, nothing to systematically discuss, describe, evaluate, and engage with. Once an appropriate consensus has been reached about what this knowledge is, and where it is located, deploying appropriate research perspectives and tools are the first step in arriving at more meaningful description of the collective realities suggested by multiple narratives. Beyond this, the various theological perspectives and disciplines available to the Christian commentator may be used to arrive at a more adequate interpretation and understanding of what is being observed and critiqued. The means to achieving a greater clarity of understanding and a more meaningful level of interpretation are also a part of the journey towards increased systematisation. It is, in other words, a search for an experiential epistemology and an associated set of empirical and interpretive methodologies. Nagy’s work is particularly helpful to the extent that she highlights the distinctions to be made between non‐ migrant theologies (which emphasise immigration, the provision of hospitality, which advocate for justice, highlight the uprooting of peoples, and explore migration in the multicultural contexts of Europe and elsewhere in the western world) and migrant theologies (which are autobiographical, frequently diasporic, emphasise the experience of marginality, reflect the sojourner’s perspective, and clamour for equitable treatment). Nagy resists crudely allocating theologies in this way but she identifies those theologies that are most typical of either the migrant or the non‐migrant. The difficulties that she implicitly acknowledges in this way can be illustrated by a brief piece of self‐reflection. I am a migrant academic, a European living in Australia (a nation where just over half of the adult population had at least one foreign‐born parent in 2014) who supervises a number of Asian students researching migration and diaspora in Australia. I am personally aware of the difficulties of distinguishing insider perspectives (the ‘knowing’ migrant) from outside perspectives (the ‘knowing’ non‐migrant). I suspect that these perspectives probably exist along an insider‐outsider spectrum. I also suspect that, according to their personal circumstances and context, the same individual may be alternately, ‘knowing’ migrant and ‘knowing’ non‐migrant. Autobiographical narratives are certainly fundamental to the field of migration studies and they lend a degree of primary authenticity, whether migrant or non‐migrant. We cannot ignore the manner in which migration impacts the non‐migrant, whether in solidarity or in conflict with the migrant. This is not just a philosophical preference for inasmuch as migrants and non‐migrants are socially active agents, the issue is of vital socio‐ political importance. However, what also seems reasonably clear is that migration studies rest on more than the epistemological foundation of ig a t narratives. The study of migration is more than simply a study of autobiographies and a broader set of analytical tools will be required. 3b. Two related clusters of orienting worldview values and ethical practices As such, the search remains open for a more integrated way of privileging the story of the vulnerable ‘knowing’ migrant whilst remaining sensitive to the narrative of the ‘knowing’ non‐migrant. The degree to which this becomes possible is likely to reflect the degree to which any individual citizen is committed to one of two clusters of alternative ways of viewing the world. The first is to interpret the world through a lens of ‘faith, hope, and love’. This, of course, may be understood as a committed way of ‘seeing reality’. It is one that will be familiar to theologians alert to what the Bible describes as the ‘realm’ or ‘rule’ of God although faith, hope and love are, of course, not the exclusive property of this particular realm. The key issue here is that these values are transformative values. The second, in contrast, is to interpret the world through a lens of ‘idolatry, hopelessness, and hatred’. It is an equally committed way of ‘seeing reality’. The Biblical narratives consistently present this cluster of values as characteristic of a domain of darkness and ignorance. Central to the theological assessment of these values is that they are principally values that corrupt. It would be overly simplistic to suggest that individuals, whether migrant or non‐migrant, are shaped and influenced by either one domain or the other. In practice, we are all influenced by both clusters of values. The CCME document Theologi al efle tio s o ig atio : a CCME eade urges the reader to ‘reckon with the reality of human fallibility on the part of all people involved; officials and asylum seekers alike.7 Many migrants, including this author, have personal experience of sinful attitudes and behaviours expressed and demonstrated by other migrants and non‐migrants alike. 42 The reason this is so important is because these respective clusters of worldview values result in two quite different ethical evaluations of which responses are most appropriate or necessary. On the one hand, individuals respond by emphasising ethical practices of integration, community and belonging; the orienting themes of this book. The alternative response emphasises ethical practices that segregate, create ghettos, and lead to exclusion. 3c. The social and human sciences and the descriptive task of a theological account of migration The two clusters of ethical practices outlined immediately above are of more than theological importance. They also point towards the reality of social conditions and the inevitability of public policy formulation and regulation of migrants and migration. Caught up in the complexity of the issues that frequently emerge are forms of cultural diversity that are inequitably valued; invariably it is the migrant who is treated as having less value than the non‐migrant. As such, the two clusters perpetuate a dynamic situated at the intersections of poverty and privilege, exclusion and inclusion, inequality and status, marginality and influence. Understanding these social and cultural dynamics is more than adequately taken into consideration by the social sciences and cultural anthropology, a point to which Guerra draws attention. The use of empirical social and anthropological methodologies within theological enquiry has also been described carefully by Osmer (2008), who calls them into play when referring to the descriptive task of theology. Guerra insists that these are helpful to the extent that the social sciences may illuminate the dynamics that generate poverty and marginality. He continues by suggesting that cultural anthropology illuminates the power inequalities generated by the cultural asymmetries that exist in the encounter of two or more cultures. For this reason, it is accurate to describe his approach as intercultural. This second edition of our own work attempts to take this perspective more seriously into account by paying more sustained attention to anthropological and sociological analysis of integration, belonging and community (particularly in Chapter Two). 3d. Personal, pastoral, and missiological elements of the theological account of migration i. Personal narrative and witness. An appropriate concern for integration, belonging and community is central to the current programme priorities of Christian agencies engaged with migration and migrants. Migrant churches are represented among the membership of CCME, for example, and migrant voices are frequent in its conversations and decision‐making processes. Listening to migrant voices was an intentional aspect of CCME’s participation and investment in the POLITI“ and MI‘ACLE projects. In the first edition of this publication we featured migrant narratives throughout the text. Migrant and non‐migrant voices and narratives are central to the collective agency of a membership organisation such as CCME. Stories and narratives that are shared become powerful drivers for the emergence of common concern and vision, reflecting both local and regional perspectives. The potential for a genuinely theological appreciation and interpretation of these local and global narratives has a parallel in the current concern of the global church community to listen to the voices of the majority world church theologians and not just the theological ‘greats’ of the West. The bearing of Christian witness and testimony has frequently empowered those involved. Migrants and non‐migrants have discovered new forms of solidarity as they shared their witness and narratives of migration. ii. Migrant and non‐migrant initiatives by, for, with, and among migrants. Collective action concerning migration involves more than just the telling and sharing of migrant narratives. A more adequate engagement with the contemporary phenomenon of migration requires migrants and non‐ migrants to become active participants in the arena. Migrant and non‐migrant initiatives are respectively, an immediate response to the collective narratives of hope, aspiration, discrimination, injustice, culpability, exclusion, and integration. Many of these initiatives, where rooted in the life of Christian churches and communities, are pastoral and diaconal in nature. It would be inaccurate to label these as nothing more than the attempt of non‐migrants to support and resource migrants. There are, as just one example, genuine attempts by migrant churches to consider how best to communicate the Christian faith to the non‐migrant population of the countries in which the migrant churches are located. There are few solutions to these tricky cross‐cultural issues but the fact that the issues are being addressed is some indication that the migrant Christian population feels some level of responsibility for the spiritual well‐being of the resident non‐migrant population. 43 iii. Migrant and non‐migrant theologies of migration It is almost a given of the contemporary study of mission that any church established by non‐nationals should be established with an internal momentum towards self‐supporting, self‐governing, and self‐propagating practices and processes. These principles have a long heritage and it has been suggested in the last ten years that ‘self‐ theologising’ is a natural fourth principle. In fact, migrant and non‐migrant theologies ha e emerged as Christians have begun to ask difficult though necessary questions about what these experiences mean and what can be done to improve the initiatives that have been undertaken to date. The missiological disciplines have tended to dominate here although this is an area of theological territory that is expanding rapidly to take into account a wide range of theological disciplinary perspectives. This is to be welcomed and it includes an even wider range of migrant theologies than those that Nagy outlines. Of particular interest has been the work of migrant theologians such as Enoch Wan (2011) who has advanced a sustained argument for as a new way of framing missiology with the contemporary experience of diaspora. Diaspora missiology is conceptually disinclined towards a consideration of integration and it tends to locate belonging on a continuum that only achieves a toe‐hold in the new host community whilst looking back with considerable passion to the country of origin (See his use of the definition on Wan, 2011, 19). It also embraces the momentum of the missionary movement and eschews settlement in favour of pilgrimage, expansion, and journeying. Despite this, Wan (2011, 62‐63) discusses healthy exile‐host interaction in Babylon and notes the likelihood, argued by Hedlund, that the monotheistic community in diaspora grew as much by Babylonians embracing the Jewish faith as it did by fertility rates within the Jewish community (Wan, 2011, 68). Of course, an astute reader will immediately note that this appears to contradict our own use of integration as one of the three orienting themes. Diaspora missiology and its associated diaspora mission, as one example of a migrant theology and migrant initiative respectively, should not be too readily dismissed. We believe that their reluctance to discuss integration must be gently investigated and queried, but their eschewal of settlement is to be welcomed to the extent that it seeks to at least normalise the experience of sojourning, expansion, and journey. This stands in marked contrast to many theologies of migration with discuss integration as a necessary step towards stable and effective settlement in the new country of destination. iv. Migrant and non‐migrant perspectives – comparison and contrast Of course, we have to immediately state, that there are likely to be significant and apparent differences between the manner in which migrant narratives are presented and accessed, migrant initiatives are undertaken, and migrant theologies are articulated, when each of these is compared with their non‐migrant equivalents. However, a central concern of this chapter is to suggest that a comprehensive theological account of migration must allow appropriate space for each of these sets of activities. Each, in their turn, responds to the ‘knowing’ that is central to the experience of the migrant in their encounter and engagement with the non‐ migrant. Each, in their turn, is necessary if a roadmap to integration, community and belonging is to be sketched out. 4. Migrant and non‐migrant together on the way towards integration, belonging and community Wayfaring together towards integration, belonging and community must be qualified by mutual and reciprocal understandings of concepts and practices such as ‘gift, invitation, welcome, interaction, participation, communication, repentance, willingness, openness, transformation, inversion, guest‐host, exchange, learner‐ mentor, sought‐for, voluntary powerlessness’, and a range of related concepts. This collation underlines the epistemological heart of the field of migration studies, namely the ‘knowing’ migrant experts and their non‐ migrant counterparts. It must also be immediately said that the nature of the interaction of migrant and non‐ migrant is one of the interaction of two cultures. In this respect we can expect an intercultural theology to best account for this dynamic. Guerra works towards an integration of these two perspectives with reference to his understanding of ‘relationality’ in the context of an intercultural philosophy. He proposes that the theology of migration is likely to emerge out of a ‘dialogue‐encounter that articulates and respects differences and mutualities.’(Guerra, 2008, 244) Central to his intercultural theological vision is the communal experience of o i e ia and solidarity ‘among groups of persons from different places of origin, cultural orientations, and religious convictions.’ (Guerra, 2008, 244). Nagy (2009, 252ff), in comparison, concludes her theology of migration with an exegesis of the biblical motif of ‘neighbour’. Nagy argues that this motif is rich with theological possibilities and she hints at its potential 44 for erasing cultural inequalities or social distinctions through the simple expediency of ‘being in the neighbourhood’. She re‐interprets the injunction to ‘love your neighbour as yourself’ to mean ‘love your neighbour, for they are like you’. The ‘neighbour’ motif allows a concrete expression of a missiology or ethic of Co it e t , the WCC’s Togethe love, articulated clearly by the Lausanne Movement’s Cape To To a ds Life , and the Vatican’s E a gelii Gaudia . It creates space for a biblically informed intercultural theolog that is arguably more immediately relevant to our current discussions than the intercultural philosophy of Guerra (though the latter cannot simply be abandoned in favour of the former – that would be problematic and unwise). Nagy leaves unexplored the extent to which ‘neighbour’ might expand an intercultural theology. She does recognise, however, that ‘the principle of reciprocity and equality in Christian encounters between migrant and non‐migrant is waiting to be filled in’. Nagy is sufficiently nuanced in her discussion to be hardly unaware of the distorting effect of cultural difference upon the movement towards fuller reciprocity and equality (Nagy, 2009, 252). However, cultural difference may also imply culturally religious differences and this is not addressed directly by Nagy in her discussion of ‘neighbour’. The biblical motif of a ‘neighbour’ assumes a ‘God’ who calls us to neighbourliness. This generates its own problematic; at the very least suggesting the question ‘If we do not share a confession regarding the same God, is it possible to share o i e ia as neighbours?’ This is a reasonable question in light of the failure to present convincing examples of flourishing inter‐faith co‐existence in our European villages, towns and cities. Mutual suspicion and fear seem to characterise the prevailing European situation. In contrast, ‘love for neighbour’ becomes an ethical demand for the follower of Jesus precisely because the disciple is required to love God as a prior command (Matthew 25:35‐36). There is no clause that permits the striking out of a Christian commitment to neighbourliness in the instance where such neighbourliness is not reciprocated. Any lessening of such a commitment can only ever be interpreted as an indication of inadequate Co it e t (Cape discipleship, an indication of a lack of loving devotion to God. The evangelical Cape To To Co it e t, Section 5.B The Lausanne Movement, 2010) recognises the inherent tensions generated for the individual non‐migrant Christian by the ethical requirement to love God and love neighbour in the midst of hostile cultures: ‘We encourage Christians in host nations which have immigrant communities of other religious backgrounds to bear counter‐cultural witness to the love of Christ in deed and word, by obeying the extensive biblical commands to love the stranger, defend the cause of the foreigner, visit the prisoner, practise hospitality, build friendships, invite into our homes, and provide help and services.’ (Leviticus 19:33‐34; Deuteronomy 24:17; Ruth 2; Job 29:16; Matthew 25:35‐36; Luke 10:25‐37; 14:12‐14; Romans 12:13; Hebrews 13:2‐3; 1 Peter 4:9)’ The WCC’s 2013 conciliar statement on mission and evangelisation Togethe To a ds Life echoes the ethical imperative of love and service in the face of potential racism in para. 70. ‘[…] We are told: “Do not forget to entertain strangers, for by so doing some people have entertained angels without knowing it.” (Hebrews 13:2). Churches can be a place of refuge for migrant communities; they can also be intentional focal points for intercultural engagement. The churches are called to be one to serve God’s mission beyond ethnic and cultural boundaries and ought to create multi‐cultural ministry and mission as a concrete expression of common witness in diversity. This may entail advocating justice in regard to migration policies and resistance to xenophobia and racism.’ Togethe To a ds Life (Para. 71) captures the mutuality and reciprocity of the cultural interaction by insisting that we are all guests at the table of the heavenly host; ‘God’s hospitality calls us to move beyond binary notions of culturally dominant groups as hosts and migrant and minority peoples as guests. Instead, in God’s hospitality, God is host and we are all invited by the Spirit to participate with humility and mutuality in God’s mission.’ At the heart of the Roman Catholic formulation in E a gelii Gaudia (2013) lies the realisation that authentic cultural interaction is always fruitful and generative of new and creative cultural possibilities. Para 210 of E a gelii Gaudia states, 45 ‘Migrants present a particular challenge for me, since I am the pastor of a Church without frontiers, a Church which considers herself mother to all. For this reason, I exhort all countries to a generous openness which, rather than fearing the loss of local identity, will prove capable of creating new forms of cultural synthesis. How beautiful are those cities which overcome paralysing mistrust, integrate those who are different and make this very integration a new factor of development! How attractive are those cities which, even in their architectural design, are full of spaces which connect, relate and favour the recognition of others!’ This theological formulation also expands our understanding of ‘neighbour’ beyond merely the person who lives next door to me. They are also the person with whom I connect, relate, and recognise our common, created humanity in the urban spaces of the city envisaged by EG. 5. Remaining areas for exploration within a theological account of migration Theological approaches are being developed which engage genuinely, and critically, the inter‐related themes of migrant and non‐migrant narratives, ethnic diversity, the nation‐state, civic participation, discrimination, and the migrant character and triune nature of God. Equally important in this regard, is the extent to which the issues of gender, globalization, security, and identity become a part of these theological discourses. Despite these outstanding areas requiring further investigation, the commitment to integration, belonging, and community is likely to remain at the centre of a truly Christian account of migration within the Churches of Europe and CCME for some time to come. The contextual and political realities of Europe suggest this and, as we have suggested, the ethical obligations of the Christian gospel seem to require it. Theological institutes are urged to develop programmes of study at undergraduate and post‐graduate level which incorporate studies of migration and migrants. This is a necessary contribution to the important and vital task of developing a theological account of the phenomenon of migration. REFERENCES 1 2 3 4 5 Parts of this chapter are extracted from Jackson, D., ‘Imagine a Church without Migrants! A European Perspective’ in M. D. Carroll R., ed. Thi ki g Ch istia l A out I ig atio , G ou ds I stitute of Pu li Ethi s Mo og aph “e ies , Littleton, CO: Denver Seminary, 2010. Richardson, C.C., Ea l Ch istia Fathe s, New York: Touchstone, 1996. pp.217‐218. T. H. L. Parker, Joh Cal i : A Biog aph , Oxford: Lion Publishing, 1975. p. 169. Archbishop Hilarion Alfayev, ‘Orthodox theology on the threshold of the 21st century,’ unpublished conference paper presented at The ‘ussia O thodo Chu h f o to the p ese t, Bose, Italy, 15‐17 September 1999. Available at http://en.hilarion.orthodoxia.org/6_3 William E. King, ‘Refugee scholars at Duke University’ in Henry A. Landsberger and Christoph E. Schweitzer, eds., The Fled Hitle 's Ge a a d Fou d ‘efuge i No th Ca oli a “outhe ‘esea h ‘epo t (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill: Academic Affairs Library, 1966). See http://www.phy.duke.edu/history/DistinguishedFaculty/HerthaSponer/RefugeeScholarsAtDukeUniversity.pdf 6 7 Fountain, J., Deepl ‘ooted: The Fo gotte Visio of ‘o e t “ hu a , Heerde: The Schuman Centre for European Studies, 2010. p.5. Schär, Benz H.R., Geisler, Ralf (eds.), Theologi al efle tio s o ig atio : a CCME eade , Brussels, Churches' Commission for Migrants in Europe, 2008. p.40. 46 CHAPTER FOUR: MIGRANT INFOGRAPHICS FOR MEMBER STATES OF THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE Since the publication of the first edition of this report, the visual presentation of statistical data has undergone something of a revolution. With the previous edition we were largely reliant on the use of charts and graphs to present the data. With this edition we have introduced the use of infographics, an increasingly common method of presenting data in a more visually appealing way. In increasing the visual appeal, we also believe that this means it is more likely that the information will be read and, more importantly, understood. Chapter Four presents statistical information for each member state of the Cou il of Eu ope (including Belarus) in the form of an infographic. Each page contains statistical information about the national population; migrant population; the main countries of origin for migrants; the estimated number of irregular migrants; the numbers of refugees, asylum applications; asylum decisions; internally displaced persons; registered victims of human trafficking; measurements of integration; the amount of remittances from the country; indicators of social intolerance of migrants; and the religious affiliation of migrants. In this second edition of the Report, some of the data presented here is included for the first time. At the time of preparing for publication, it was not possible to account for the challenge of Syrian and other people seeking asylum in Europe. These figures for 2015 will only be available in retrospect but we expect that the numbers of Syrian refugees will make a significant difference to many of the dimensions of the information provided here. As with the 2008 edition of this Report, we have been reliant on the statistical data compiled and supplied by agencies such as the U ited Natio s, Eu ostat, CI““tat (the Commonwealth of Independent States’ statistical service), the PEW Fou datio , the Eu opea Values “u e , and the Mig atio Poli G oup. A final infographic indicates the source of each piece of data at the place in which it is featured in the infographic. 47 TOTAL POPULATION, 2014 2,895,947 ALBANIA 96,798 LARGEST POPULATION OF MIGRANTS BY COUNTRY OF ORIGIN IN 2013 MIGRANT POPULATION, 2013 MIGRANTS AS A 34,896 % SERBIA 29,077 13,203 3.04 BOSNIA HGV CROATIA 5,816 OF THE TOTAL POPULATION MONTENEGRO 4,764 FYROM YEAR IN WHICH THE COUNTRY SIGNED: 1998 2007 1966 2008 1992 THE EUROPEAN SOCIAL CHARTER TOTAL NON‐EU OR FOREIGN‐ BORN NATIONALS ACQUIRING CITIZENSHIP, 2012 THE LEGAL STATUS OF MIGRANT WORKERS THE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS THE CONVENTION ON ACTION AGAINST TRAFFICKING 80,000 CHRISTIAN: THE UN REFUGEES CONVENTION ESTIMATED IRREGULAR MIGRANTS, 2008 MIN MAX TOTAL NUMBER OF REFUGEES, 2014 RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION OF MIGRANTS IN 2012 FIRST DECISIONS FOR ASYLUM APPLICATIONS IN 2014 106 APPLICATIONS FOR ASYLUM IN 2014 MUSLIM: <10,000 JEWISH: <1,000 OTHER: <1,000 <10,000 UNAFFILIATED <1,000 HINDU <1,000 BUDDHIST MEASURING MIGRANT INTEGRATION (MIPEX 2010) (National score compared with the European average ) 8 430 REFUGEES RE‐ SETTLED IN 2014 NO MIPEX DATA IS AVAILABLE FOR THIS COUNTRY REGISTERED VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING, 2012 POSITIVE ASYLUM DECISIONS FOR NON‐EU APPLICANTS IN 2014 I WOULD NOT WANT SOMEBODY AS A NEIGHBOUR WHO WAS… OVERALL SCORE (MIPEX 2010) out of 32 European countries NON‐EU OR FOREIGN‐BORN POPULATION, 2014 96,798 ETHNICALLY DIFFERENT 36.6 % AN IMMIGRANT 31.3 % GYPSY OR ROMA 41.0 % MUSLIM 28.5 % JEWISH 37.2 % /100 IN 2010, 1,438,451 EMIGRANTS FROM THE COUNTRY REMITTED A TOTAL OF $1,285 MILLION 49 TOTAL POPULATION, 2014 3,017,079 ARMENIA 317,001 LARGEST POPULATION OF MIGRANTS BY COUNTRY OF ORIGIN IN 2013 MIGRANT POPULATION, 2013 MIGRANTS AS A 221,147 % AZERBAIJAN 37,277 16,335 10.6 GEORGIA NORTH KOREA 16,227 OF THE TOTAL POPULATION RUSSIA 2,983 SYRIA YEAR IN WHICH THE COUNTRY SIGNED: 2001 2002 2008 1993 THE EUROPEAN SOCIAL CHARTER TOTAL NON‐EU OR FOREIGN‐ BORN NATIONALS ACQUIRING CITIZENSHIP, 2012 THE LEGAL STATUS OF MIGRANT WORKERS THE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS THE CONVENTION ON ACTION AGAINST TRAFFICKING CHRISTIAN: THE UN REFUGEES CONVENTION ESTIMATED IRREGULAR MIGRANTS, 2008 MIN MAX TOTAL NUMBER OF REFUGEES, 2014 RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION OF MIGRANTS IN 2012 FIRST DECISIONS FOR ASYLUM APPLICATIONS IN 2014 14,677 APPLICATIONS FOR ASYLUM IN 2014 240,000 30,000 UNAFFILIATED MUSLIM: 50,000 <1,000 HINDU JEWISH: <1,000 <1,000 OTHER: <1,000 BUDDHIST MEASURING MIGRANT INTEGRATION (MIPEX 2010) (National score compared with the European average ) 459 220 REFUGEES RE‐ SETTLED IN 2014 REGISTERED VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING, 2012 POSITIVE ASYLUM DECISIONS FOR NON‐EU APPLICANTS IN 2014 I WOULD NOT WANT SOMEBODY AS A NEIGHBOUR WHO WAS… OVERALL SCORE (MIPEX 2010) 21 out of 32 European countries ETHNICALLY DIFFERENT 42.1 % AN IMMIGRANT 36.2 % GYPSY OR ROMA 38.1 % MUSLIM 37.7 % JEWISH 35.4 % NON‐EU OR FOREIGN‐BORN POPULATION, 2014 317,001 IN 2014, 785,740 43.7 /100 EMIGRANTS FROM THE COUNTRY REMITTED A TOTAL OF $2,159 MILLION 50 TOTAL POPULATION, 2014 8,506,889 AUSTRIA 1,333,807 LARGEST POPULATION OF MIGRANTS BY COUNTRY OF ORIGIN IN 2013 MIGRANT POPULATION, 2013 MIGRANTS AS A 199,935 % GERMANY 174,437 165,206 15.6 SERBIA TURKEY 138,677 OF THE TOTAL POPULATION BOSNIA HGV 62,801 ROMANIA YEAR IN WHICH THE COUNTRY SIGNED: 1963 1958 2008 1954 THE EUROPEAN SOCIAL CHARTER 6,277 THE LEGAL STATUS OF MIGRANT WORKERS THE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS THE CONVENTION ON ACTION AGAINST TRAFFICKING THE UN REFUGEES CONVENTION ESTIMATED IRREGULAR MIGRANTS, 2008 18,439 MIN 54,064 MAX TOTAL NUMBER OF REFUGEES, 2014 FIRST DECISIONS FOR ASYLUM APPLICATIONS IN 2014 55,598 APPLICATIONS FOR ASYLUM IN 2014 TOTAL NON‐EU OR FOREIGN‐ BORN NATIONALS ACQUIRING CITIZENSHIP, 2012 RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION OF MIGRANTS IN 2012 CHRISTIAN: 760,000 200,000 UNAFFILIATED MUSLIM: 310,000 <10,000 HINDU JEWISH: <10,000 10,000 OTHER: 10,000 BUDDHIST MEASURING MIGRANT INTEGRATION (MIPEX 2010) (National score compared with the European average ) 4,920 28,035 REFUGEES RE‐ SETTLED IN 2014 REGISTERED VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING, 2012 POSITIVE ASYLUM DECISIONS FOR NON‐EU APPLICANTS IN 2014 I WOULD NOT WANT SOMEBODY AS A NEIGHBOUR WHO WAS… OVERALL SCORE (MIPEX 2010) 25 out of 32 European countries ETHNICALLY DIFFERENT 17.5 % AN IMMIGRANT 23.2 % GYPSY OR ROMA 31.5 % MUSLIM 30.9 % JEWISH 17.3 % NON‐EU OR FOREIGN‐BORN POPULATION, 2014 539,375 IN 2014, 529,623 40.9 /100 EMIGRANTS FROM THE COUNTRY REMITTED A TOTAL OF $2,956 MILLION 51 TOTAL POPULATION, 2014 9,477,119 AZERBAIJAN 323,843 LARGEST POPULATION OF MIGRANTS BY COUNTRY OF ORIGIN IN 2013 MIGRANT POPULATION, 2013 MIGRANTS AS A 175,048 % RUSSIA 41,933 20,272 3.43 UKRAINE KAZAKHSTAN 15,582 OF THE TOTAL POPULATION BELARUS 14,386 UZBEKISTAN YEAR IN WHICH THE COUNTRY SIGNED: 2001 THE EUROPEAN SOCIAL CHARTER TOTAL NON‐EU OR FOREIGN‐ BORN NATIONALS ACQUIRING CITIZENSHIP, 2012 THE LEGAL STATUS OF MIGRANT WORKERS THE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS 2010 1993 THE CONVENTION ON ACTION AGAINST TRAFFICKING 220,000 CHRISTIAN: THE UN REFUGEES CONVENTION ESTIMATED IRREGULAR MIGRANTS, 2008 MIN MAX TOTAL NUMBER OF REFUGEES, 2014 RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION OF MIGRANTS IN 2012 FIRST DECISIONS FOR ASYLUM APPLICATIONS IN 2014 1,314 APPLICATIONS FOR ASYLUM IN 2014 20,000 UNAFFILIATED MUSLIM: 20,000 <1,000 HINDU JEWISH: <1,000 <1,000 OTHER: <10,000 BUDDHIST MEASURING MIGRANT INTEGRATION (MIPEX 2010) (National score compared with the European average ) 82 390 REFUGEES RE‐ SETTLED IN 2014 NO MIPEX DATA IS AVAILABLE FOR THIS COUNTRY REGISTERED VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING, 2012 POSITIVE ASYLUM DECISIONS FOR NON‐EU APPLICANTS IN 2014 I WOULD NOT WANT SOMEBODY AS A NEIGHBOUR WHO WAS… OVERALL SCORE (MIPEX 2010) out of 32 European countries ETHNICALLY DIFFERENT 28.4 % AN IMMIGRANT 28.6 % GYPSY OR ROMA 43.0 % NON‐EU OR FOREIGN‐BORN POPULATION, 2014 323,843 MUSLIM JEWISH ‐ /100 IN 2014, 1,287,404 EMIGRANTS FROM THE COUNTRY REMITTED A TOTAL OF $1,898 MILLION % 31.2 % 52 TOTAL POPULATION, 2014 9,468,154 BELARUS 1,085,396 LARGEST POPULATION OF MIGRANTS BY COUNTRY OF ORIGIN IN 2013 MIGRANT POPULATION, 2013 MIGRANTS AS A 686,316 % RUSSIA 227,042 70,362 11.6 16,562 OF THE TOTAL POPULATION UKRAINE KAZAKHSTAN LITHUANIA 14,874 UZBEKISTAN YEAR IN WHICH THE COUNTRY SIGNED: 2014 2001 THE EUROPEAN SOCIAL CHARTER TOTAL NON‐EU OR FOREIGN‐ BORN NATIONALS ACQUIRING CITIZENSHIP, 2012 THE LEGAL STATUS OF MIGRANT WORKERS THE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS THE CONVENTION ON ACTION AGAINST TRAFFICKING 870,000 CHRISTIAN: THE UN REFUGEES CONVENTION ESTIMATED IRREGULAR MIGRANTS, 2008 MIN MAX TOTAL NUMBER OF REFUGEES, 2014 RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION OF MIGRANTS IN 2012 FIRST DECISIONS FOR ASYLUM APPLICATIONS IN 2014 628 APPLICATIONS FOR ASYLUM IN 2014 MUSLIM: 80,000 JEWISH: <10,000 OTHER: <10,000 130,000 UNAFFILIATED <1,000 HINDU <10,000 BUDDHIST MEASURING MIGRANT INTEGRATION (MIPEX 2010) (National score compared with the European average ) 49 870 REFUGEES RE‐ SETTLED IN 2014 NO MIPEX DATA IS AVAILABLE FOR THIS COUNTRY REGISTERED VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING, 2012 POSITIVE ASYLUM DECISIONS FOR NON‐EU APPLICANTS IN 2014 I WOULD NOT WANT SOMEBODY AS A NEIGHBOUR WHO WAS… OVERALL SCORE (MIPEX 2010) out of 32 European countries ETHNICALLY DIFFERENT 18.2 % AN IMMIGRANT 27.2 % GYPSY OR ROMA 57.9 % MUSLIM 24.7 % JEWISH 20.1 % NON‐EU OR FOREIGN‐BORN POPULATION, 2014 1,085,396 /100 IN 2014, 1,620,196 EMIGRANTS FROM THE COUNTRY REMITTED A TOTAL OF $1,258 MILLION 53 TOTAL POPULATION, 2014 11,203,992 BELGIUM 1,159,801 LARGEST POPULATION OF MIGRANTS BY COUNTRY OF ORIGIN IN 2013 MIGRANT POPULATION, 2013 MIGRANTS AS A 189,367 % ITALY 155,879 148,440 10.4 FRANCE NETHERLANDS 91,090 OF THE TOTAL POPULATION MOROCCO 47,894 POLAND YEAR IN WHICH THE COUNTRY SIGNED: 1961 1978 1955 2009 1953 THE EUROPEAN SOCIAL CHARTER 289,853 THE LEGAL STATUS OF MIGRANT WORKERS THE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS THE CONVENTION ON ACTION AGAINST TRAFFICKING THE UN REFUGEES CONVENTION ESTIMATED IRREGULAR MIGRANTS, 2008 88,000 MIN 132,000 MAX TOTAL NUMBER OF REFUGEES, 2014 FIRST DECISIONS FOR ASYLUM APPLICATIONS IN 2014 29,179 APPLICATIONS FOR ASYLUM IN 2014 TOTAL NON‐EU OR FOREIGN‐ BORN NATIONALS ACQUIRING CITIZENSHIP, 2012 RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION OF MIGRANTS IN 2012 CHRISTIAN: 540,000 110,000 UNAFFILIATED MUSLIM: 260,000 10,000 HINDU JEWISH: <10,000 20,000 OTHER: 30,000 BUDDHIST MEASURING MIGRANT INTEGRATION (MIPEX 2010) (National score compared with the European average ) 8,045 22,710 REFUGEES RE‐ SETTLED IN 2014 100 REGISTERED VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING, 2012 POSITIVE ASYLUM DECISIONS FOR NON‐EU APPLICANTS IN 2014 157 I WOULD NOT WANT SOMEBODY AS A NEIGHBOUR WHO WAS… OVERALL SCORE (MIPEX 2010) 5 out of 32 European countries ETHNICALLY DIFFERENT 5.4 % AN IMMIGRANT 6.2 % NON‐EU OR FOREIGN‐BORN POPULATION, 2014 434,345 GYPSY OR ROMA 26.2 % MUSLIM 14.5 % JEWISH 3.9 IN 2014, 530,401 67.3 /100 EMIGRANTS FROM THE COUNTRY REMITTED A TOTAL OF $11,322 MILLION % 54 TOTAL POPULATION, 2014 3,830,911 BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA 23,197 LARGEST POPULATION OF MIGRANTS BY COUNTRY OF ORIGIN IN 2013 MIGRANT POPULATION, 2013 MIGRANTS AS A 7,506 % CROATIA 6,005 2,584 0.60 SERBIA MONTENEGRO 1,809 OF THE TOTAL POPULATION FYROM 1,991 SLOVAKIA YEAR IN WHICH THE COUNTRY SIGNED: 2004 2002 2008 1993 THE EUROPEAN SOCIAL CHARTER TOTAL NON‐EU OR FOREIGN‐ BORN NATIONALS ACQUIRING CITIZENSHIP, 2012 THE LEGAL STATUS OF MIGRANT WORKERS THE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS THE CONVENTION ON ACTION AGAINST TRAFFICKING 20,000 CHRISTIAN: THE UN REFUGEES CONVENTION ESTIMATED IRREGULAR MIGRANTS, 2008 MIN MAX TOTAL NUMBER OF REFUGEES, 2014 RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION OF MIGRANTS IN 2012 FIRST DECISIONS FOR ASYLUM APPLICATIONS IN 2014 6,907 APPLICATIONS FOR ASYLUM IN 2014 MUSLIM: <10,000 JEWISH: <1,000 OTHER: <1,000 <10,000 UNAFFILIATED <1,000 HINDU <1,000 BUDDHIST MEASURING MIGRANT INTEGRATION (MIPEX 2010) (National score compared with the European average ) 46 50 REFUGEES RE‐ SETTLED IN 2014 NO MIPEX DATA IS AVAILABLE FOR THIS COUNTRY REGISTERED VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING, 2012 POSITIVE ASYLUM DECISIONS FOR NON‐EU APPLICANTS IN 2014 I WOULD NOT WANT SOMEBODY AS A NEIGHBOUR WHO WAS… OVERALL SCORE (MIPEX 2010) out of 32 European countries NON‐EU OR FOREIGN‐BORN POPULATION, 2014 23,197 ETHNICALLY DIFFERENT 14.3 % AN IMMIGRANT 14.5 % GYPSY OR ROMA 21.7 % MUSLIM 13.0 % JEWISH 15.2 % /100 IN 2014, 1,699,893 EMIGRANTS FROM THE COUNTRY REMITTED A TOTAL OF $1,993 MILLION 55 TOTAL POPULATION, 2014 7,245,677 BULGARIA 84,101 LARGEST POPULATION OF MIGRANTS BY COUNTRY OF ORIGIN IN 2013 MIGRANT POPULATION, 2013 MIGRANTS AS A 19,733 % RUSSIA 6,193 5,196 1.15 UKRAINE GREECE 3,206 UNITED KINGDOM OF THE TOTAL POPULATION 2,558 FYROM YEAR IN WHICH THE COUNTRY SIGNED: 1998 1992 2008 1993 THE EUROPEAN SOCIAL CHARTER 1,696 THE LEGAL STATUS OF MIGRANT WORKERS THE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS THE CONVENTION ON ACTION AGAINST TRAFFICKING THE UN REFUGEES CONVENTION ESTIMATED IRREGULAR MIGRANTS, 2008 2,550 MIN 3,825 MAX TOTAL NUMBER OF REFUGEES, 2014 FIRST DECISIONS FOR ASYLUM APPLICATIONS IN 2014 4,320 APPLICATIONS FOR ASYLUM IN 2014 TOTAL NON‐EU OR FOREIGN‐ BORN NATIONALS ACQUIRING CITIZENSHIP, 2012 RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION OF MIGRANTS IN 2012 CHRISTIAN: 60,000 10,000 MUSLIM: 30,000 <1,000 HINDU JEWISH: <1,000 <10,000 BUDDHIST OTHER: <10,000 UNAFFILIATED MEASURING MIGRANT INTEGRATION (MIPEX 2010) (National score compared with the European average ) 7,000 11,080 REFUGEES RE‐ SETTLED IN 2014 NO MIPEX DATA IS AVAILABLE FOR THIS COUNTRY REGISTERED VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING, 2012 POSITIVE ASYLUM DECISIONS FOR NON‐EU APPLICANTS IN 2014 579 I WOULD NOT WANT SOMEBODY AS A NEIGHBOUR WHO WAS… OVERALL SCORE (MIPEX 2010) 26 out of 32 European countries NON‐EU OR FOREIGN‐BORN POPULATION, 2014 40,614 ETHNICALLY DIFFERENT 21.2 % AN IMMIGRANT 18.1 % GYPSY OR ROMA 49.5 % MUSLIM 19.5 % JEWISH 14.9 % 40.5 /100 IN 2014, 1,416,601 EMIGRANTS FROM THE COUNTRY REMITTED A TOTAL OF $1,719 MILLION 56 TOTAL POPULATION, 2014 4,246,809 CROATIA 756,980 LARGEST POPULATION OF MIGRANTS BY COUNTRY OF ORIGIN IN 2013 MIGRANT POPULATION, 2013 MIGRANTS AS A 499,059 % BOSNIA HGV 118,071 47,768 17.6 SERBIA SLOVENIA 39,357 OF THE TOTAL POPULATION MONTENEGRO 20,677 FYROM YEAR IN WHICH THE COUNTRY SIGNED: 1999 1997 2008 1992 THE EUROPEAN SOCIAL CHARTER 824 THE LEGAL STATUS OF MIGRANT WORKERS THE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS THE CONVENTION ON ACTION AGAINST TRAFFICKING ESTIMATED IRREGULAR MIGRANTS, 2008 MIN MAX TOTAL NUMBER OF REFUGEES, 2014 RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION OF MIGRANTS IN 2012 630,000 CHRISTIAN: THE UN REFUGEES CONVENTION FIRST DECISIONS FOR ASYLUM APPLICATIONS IN 2014 581 APPLICATIONS FOR ASYLUM IN 2014 TOTAL NON‐EU OR FOREIGN‐ BORN NATIONALS ACQUIRING CITIZENSHIP, 2012 50,000 UNAFFILIATED MUSLIM: 20,000 <1,000 HINDU JEWISH: <1,000 <1,000 OTHER: <1,000 BUDDHIST MEASURING MIGRANT INTEGRATION (MIPEX 2010) (National score compared with the European average ) 25 450 REFUGEES RE‐ SETTLED IN 2014 NO MIPEX DATA IS AVAILABLE FOR THIS COUNTRY REGISTERED VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING, 2012 POSITIVE ASYLUM DECISIONS FOR NON‐EU APPLICANTS IN 2014 I WOULD NOT WANT SOMEBODY AS A NEIGHBOUR WHO WAS… OVERALL SCORE (MIPEX 2010) out of 32 European countries NON‐EU OR FOREIGN‐BORN POPULATION, 2014 21,126 ETHNICALLY DIFFERENT 12.7 % AN IMMIGRANT 13.3 % GYPSY OR ROMA 25.1 % MUSLIM 17.5 % JEWISH 12.0 % IN 2014, 888,219 /100 EMIGRANTS FROM THE COUNTRY REMITTED A TOTAL OF $1,524 MILLION 57 TOTAL POPULATION, 2014 858,000 CYPRUS 207,313 LARGEST POPULATION OF MIGRANTS BY COUNTRY OF ORIGIN IN 2013 MIGRANT POPULATION, 2013 MIGRANTS AS A 42,854 % UNITED KINGDOM 27,912 17,994 18.1 GREECE GEORGIA 15,309 OF THE TOTAL POPULATION RUSSIA 11,627 SRI LANKA YEAR IN WHICH THE COUNTRY SIGNED: 1967 1962 2008 1963 THE EUROPEAN SOCIAL CHARTER 1,056 THE LEGAL STATUS OF MIGRANT WORKERS THE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS THE CONVENTION ON ACTION AGAINST TRAFFICKING RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION OF MIGRANTS IN 2012 CHRISTIAN: THE UN REFUGEES CONVENTION ESTIMATED IRREGULAR MIGRANTS, 2008 10,000 MIN 15,000 MAX TOTAL NUMBER OF REFUGEES, 2014 FIRST DECISIONS FOR ASYLUM APPLICATIONS IN 2014 4,281 APPLICATIONS FOR ASYLUM IN 2014 TOTAL NON‐EU OR FOREIGN‐ BORN NATIONALS ACQUIRING CITIZENSHIP, 2012 110,000 10,000 UNAFFILIATED MUSLIM: 20,000 <10,000 HINDU JEWISH: <1,000 <10,000 BUDDHIST OTHER: <10,000 MEASURING MIGRANT INTEGRATION (MIPEX 2010) (National score compared with the European average ) 995 1,745 REFUGEES RE‐ SETTLED IN 2014 REGISTERED VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING, 2012 POSITIVE ASYLUM DECISIONS FOR NON‐EU APPLICANTS IN 2014 37 I WOULD NOT WANT SOMEBODY AS A NEIGHBOUR WHO WAS… OVERALL SCORE (MIPEX 2010) 30 out of 32 European countries NON‐EU OR FOREIGN‐BORN POPULATION, 2014 48,465 ETHNICALLY DIFFERENT 16.8 % AN IMMIGRANT 24.4 % GYPSY OR ROMA 46.3 % MUSLIM 36.0 % JEWISH 25.1 % IN 2014, 148,769 35.2 /100 EMIGRANTS FROM THE COUNTRY REMITTED A TOTAL OF $91 MILLION 58 TOTAL POPULATION, 2014 10,512,419 CZECH REPUBLIC 432,776 LARGEST POPULATION OF MIGRANTS BY COUNTRY OF ORIGIN IN 2013 MIGRANT POPULATION, 2013 MIGRANTS AS A 127,239 % UKRAINE 73,437 61,744 4.04 SLOVAKIA VIET NAM 32,946 OF THE TOTAL POPULATION RUSSIA 18,663 POLAND YEAR IN WHICH THE COUNTRY SIGNED: 1999 1993 1993 THE EUROPEAN SOCIAL CHARTER 1,249 THE LEGAL STATUS OF MIGRANT WORKERS THE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS THE CONVENTION ON ACTION AGAINST TRAFFICKING ESTIMATED IRREGULAR MIGRANTS, 2008 17,000 MIN 100,000 MAX TOTAL NUMBER OF REFUGEES, 2014 RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION OF MIGRANTS IN 2012 CHRISTIAN: THE UN REFUGEES CONVENTION FIRST DECISIONS FOR ASYLUM APPLICATIONS IN 2014 2,979 APPLICATIONS FOR ASYLUM IN 2014 TOTAL NON‐EU OR FOREIGN‐ BORN NATIONALS ACQUIRING CITIZENSHIP, 2012 310,000 MUSLIM: 30,000 JEWISH: <10,000 OTHER: 20,000 60,000 UNAFFILIATED <10,000 HINDU 30,000 BUDDHIST MEASURING MIGRANT INTEGRATION (MIPEX 2010) (National score compared with the European average ) 375 1,145 REFUGEES RE‐ SETTLED IN 2014 1 REGISTERED VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING, 2012 POSITIVE ASYLUM DECISIONS FOR NON‐EU APPLICANTS IN 2014 100 I WOULD NOT WANT SOMEBODY AS A NEIGHBOUR WHO WAS… OVERALL SCORE (MIPEX 2010) 18 out of 32 European countries ETHNICALLY DIFFERENT 22.4 % AN IMMIGRANT 30.2 % GYPSY OR ROMA 56.9 % MUSLIM 30.7 % JEWISH 11.9 % NON‐EU OR FOREIGN‐BORN POPULATION, 2014 261,302 IN 2014, 524,399 45.7 /100 EMIGRANTS FROM THE COUNTRY REMITTED A TOTAL OF $2,537 MILLION 59 TOTAL POPULATION, 2014 5,627,235 DENMARK 556,825 LARGEST POPULATION OF MIGRANTS BY COUNTRY OF ORIGIN IN 2013 MIGRANT POPULATION, 2013 MIGRANTS AS A 35,316 % GERMANY 32,829 30,931 9.91 TURKEY POLAND 21,988 OF THE TOTAL POPULATION SWEDEN 21,974 IRAQ YEAR IN WHICH THE COUNTRY SIGNED: 1961 1953 2008 1952 THE EUROPEAN SOCIAL CHARTER 3,268 THE LEGAL STATUS OF MIGRANT WORKERS THE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS THE CONVENTION ON ACTION AGAINST TRAFFICKING THE UN REFUGEES CONVENTION ESTIMATED IRREGULAR MIGRANTS, 2008 1,000 MIN 5,000 MAX TOTAL NUMBER OF REFUGEES, 2014 FIRST DECISIONS FOR ASYLUM APPLICATIONS IN 2014 13,160 APPLICATIONS FOR ASYLUM IN 2014 TOTAL NON‐EU OR FOREIGN‐ BORN NATIONALS ACQUIRING CITIZENSHIP, 2012 RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION OF MIGRANTS IN 2012 CHRISTIAN: 250,000 40,000 MUSLIM: 140,000 <10,000 HINDU JEWISH: <10,000 20,000 OTHER: 20,000 UNAFFILIATED BUDDHIST MEASURING MIGRANT INTEGRATION (MIPEX 2010) (National score compared with the European average ) 5,480 14,680 REFUGEES RE‐ SETTLED IN 2014 475 REGISTERED VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING, 2012 POSITIVE ASYLUM DECISIONS FOR NON‐EU APPLICANTS IN 2014 66 I WOULD NOT WANT SOMEBODY AS A NEIGHBOUR WHO WAS… OVERALL SCORE (MIPEX 2010) 12 out of 32 European countries ETHNICALLY DIFFERENT 4.7 % AN IMMIGRANT 6.8 % NON‐EU OR FOREIGN‐BORN POPULATION, 2014 233,023 GYPSY OR ROMA 38.4 % MUSLIM 13.1 % JEWISH 2.1 IN 2014, 265,529 52.6 /100 EMIGRANTS FROM THE COUNTRY REMITTED A TOTAL OF $1,378 MILLION % 60 TOTAL POPULATION, 2014 1,315,819 ESTONIA 209,984 LARGEST POPULATION OF MIGRANTS BY COUNTRY OF ORIGIN IN 2013 MIGRANT POPULATION, 2013 MIGRANTS AS A 159,036 % RUSSIA 21,014 12,419 16.3 UKRAINE BELARUS 3,609 OF THE TOTAL POPULATION LATVIA 3,205 KAZAKHSTAN YEAR IN WHICH THE COUNTRY SIGNED: 1998 1996 2015 1997 THE EUROPEAN SOCIAL CHARTER 1,335 THE LEGAL STATUS OF MIGRANT WORKERS THE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS THE CONVENTION ON ACTION AGAINST TRAFFICKING THE UN REFUGEES CONVENTION ESTIMATED IRREGULAR MIGRANTS, 2008 5,000 MIN 10,000 MAX TOTAL NUMBER OF REFUGEES, 2014 FIRST DECISIONS FOR ASYLUM APPLICATIONS IN 2014 81 APPLICATIONS FOR ASYLUM IN 2014 TOTAL NON‐EU OR FOREIGN‐ BORN NATIONALS ACQUIRING CITIZENSHIP, 2012 RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION OF MIGRANTS IN 2012 CHRISTIAN: 100,000 70,000 MUSLIM: <10,000 <1,000 HINDU JEWISH: <1,000 OTHER: <1,000 <1,000 UNAFFILIATED BUDDHIST MEASURING MIGRANT INTEGRATION (MIPEX 2010) (National score compared with the European average ) 20 155 REFUGEES RE‐ SETTLED IN 2014 REGISTERED VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING, 2012 POSITIVE ASYLUM DECISIONS FOR NON‐EU APPLICANTS IN 2014 22 I WOULD NOT WANT SOMEBODY AS A NEIGHBOUR WHO WAS… OVERALL SCORE (MIPEX 2010) 17 out of 32 European countries ETHNICALLY DIFFERENT 24.6 % AN IMMIGRANT 32.2 % GYPSY OR ROMA 45.4 % MUSLIM 33.9 % JEWISH 22.3 % NON‐EU OR FOREIGN‐BORN POPULATION, 2014 187,087 IN 2014, 191,205 46.0 /100 EMIGRANTS FROM THE COUNTRY REMITTED A TOTAL OF $476 MILLION 61 TOTAL POPULATION, 2014 5,451,270 FINLAND 293,167 LARGEST POPULATION OF MIGRANTS BY COUNTRY OF ORIGIN IN 2013 MIGRANT POPULATION, 2013 MIGRANTS AS A 68,434 % RUSSIA 36,117 34,013 5.40 SWEDEN ESTONIA 10,093 OF THE TOTAL POPULATION SOMALIA 9,074 IRAQ YEAR IN WHICH THE COUNTRY SIGNED: 1990 1990 2012 1968 THE EUROPEAN SOCIAL CHARTER 7,889 THE LEGAL STATUS OF MIGRANT WORKERS THE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS THE CONVENTION ON ACTION AGAINST TRAFFICKING ESTIMATED IRREGULAR MIGRANTS, 2008 8,000 MIN 12,000 MAX TOTAL NUMBER OF REFUGEES, 2014 RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION OF MIGRANTS IN 2012 CHRISTIAN: THE UN REFUGEES CONVENTION FIRST DECISIONS FOR ASYLUM APPLICATIONS IN 2014 11,252 APPLICATIONS FOR ASYLUM IN 2014 TOTAL NON‐EU OR FOREIGN‐ BORN NATIONALS ACQUIRING CITIZENSHIP, 2012 130,000 40,000 UNAFFILIATED MUSLIM: 40,000 <10,000 HINDU JEWISH: <1,000 10,000 OTHER: <10,000 BUDDHIST MEASURING MIGRANT INTEGRATION (MIPEX 2010) (National score compared with the European average ) 2,210 3,620 REFUGEES RE‐ SETTLED IN 2014 665 REGISTERED VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING, 2012 POSITIVE ASYLUM DECISIONS FOR NON‐EU APPLICANTS IN 2014 75 I WOULD NOT WANT SOMEBODY AS A NEIGHBOUR WHO WAS… OVERALL SCORE (MIPEX 2010) 3 out of 32 European countries ETHNICALLY DIFFERENT NON‐EU OR FOREIGN‐BORN POPULATION, 2014 121,882 9.1 % AN IMMIGRANT 16.0 % GYPSY OR ROMA 50.7 % MUSLIM 23.4 % JEWISH 4.9 IN 2014, 314,075 69.2 /100 EMIGRANTS FROM THE COUNTRY REMITTED A TOTAL OF $1,106 MILLION % 62 TOTAL POPULATION, 2014 63,928,608 FRANCE 7,439,086 LARGEST POPULATION OF MIGRANTS BY COUNTRY OF ORIGIN IN 2013 MIGRANT POPULATION, 2013 MIGRANTS AS A 1,406,845 % ALGERIA 911,046 629,118 11.5 MOROCCO PORTUGAL 382,129 OF THE TOTAL POPULATION TUNISIA 361,475 ITALY YEAR IN WHICH THE COUNTRY SIGNED: 1961 1982 1974 2008 1954 THE EUROPEAN SOCIAL CHARTER 83,966 THE LEGAL STATUS OF MIGRANT WORKERS THE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS THE CONVENTION ON ACTION AGAINST TRAFFICKING THE UN REFUGEES CONVENTION ESTIMATED IRREGULAR MIGRANTS, 2008 178,000 MIN 400,000 MAX TOTAL NUMBER OF REFUGEES, 2014 237,985 APPLICATIONS FOR ASYLUM IN 2014 FIRST DECISIONS FOR ASYLUM APPLICATIONS IN 2014 TOTAL NON‐EU OR FOREIGN‐ BORN NATIONALS ACQUIRING CITIZENSHIP, 2012 RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION OF MIGRANTS IN 2012 CHRISTIAN: 2,750,000 400,000 UNAFFILIATED MUSLIM: 3,040,000 60,000 HINDU JEWISH: 10,000 OTHER: 240,000 190,000 BUDDHIST MEASURING MIGRANT INTEGRATION (MIPEX 2010) (National score compared with the European average ) 14,90 62,735 REFUGEES RE‐ SETTLED IN 2014 100 REGISTERED VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING, 2012 POSITIVE ASYLUM DECISIONS FOR NON‐EU APPLICANTS IN 2014 751 I WOULD NOT WANT SOMEBODY AS A NEIGHBOUR WHO WAS… OVERALL SCORE (MIPEX 2010) 13 out of 32 European countries ETHNICALLY DIFFERENT 3.4 % AN IMMIGRANT 4.3 % GYPSY OR ROMA NON‐EU OR FOREIGN‐BORN POPULATION, 2014 2,705,659 IN 2014, 2,184,539 EMIGRANTS FROM THE COUNTRY REMITTED A TOTAL OF 25.5 % MUSLIM 7.6 % JEWISH 2.4 % 50.6 /100 $24,760 MILLION 63 TOTAL POPULATION, 2014 4,490,500 GEORGIA 189,893 LARGEST POPULATION OF MIGRANTS BY COUNTRY OF ORIGIN IN 2013 MIGRANT POPULATION, 2013 MIGRANTS AS A 104,549 % RUSSIA 25,044 12,107 4.37 UKRAINE KAZAKHSTAN 9,306 OF THE TOTAL POPULATION BELARUS 8,593 UZBEKISTAN YEAR IN WHICH THE COUNTRY SIGNED: 2000 1999 2008 1999 TOTAL NON‐EU OR FOREIGN‐ BORN NATIONALS ACQUIRING CITIZENSHIP, 2012 THE EUROPEAN SOCIAL CHARTER THE LEGAL STATUS OF MIGRANT WORKERS THE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION OF MIGRANTS IN 2012 THE CONVENTION ON ACTION AGAINST TRAFFICKING ESTIMATED IRREGULAR MIGRANTS, 2008 MIN MAX TOTAL NUMBER OF REFUGEES, 2014 120,000 CHRISTIAN: THE UN REFUGEES CONVENTION FIRST DECISIONS FOR ASYLUM APPLICATIONS IN 2014 813 APPLICATIONS FOR ASYLUM IN 2014 10,000 UNAFFILIATED MUSLIM: 30,000 <1,000 HINDU JEWISH: <1,000 <1,000 OTHER: <10,000 BUDDHIST MEASURING MIGRANT INTEGRATION (MIPEX 2010) (National score compared with the European average ) 66 1,790 REFUGEES RE‐ SETTLED IN 2014 NO MIPEX DATA IS AVAILABLE FOR THIS COUNTRY REGISTERED VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING, 2012 POSITIVE ASYLUM DECISIONS FOR NON‐EU APPLICANTS IN 2014 I WOULD NOT WANT SOMEBODY AS A NEIGHBOUR WHO WAS… OVERALL SCORE (MIPEX 2010) out of 32 European countries ETHNICALLY DIFFERENT 22.7 % AN IMMIGRANT 27.8 % GYPSY OR ROMA 33.5 % MUSLIM 38.9 % JEWISH 17.5 % NON‐EU OR FOREIGN‐BORN POPULATION, 2014 189,893 IN 2014, 746,017 /100 EMIGRANTS FROM THE COUNTRY REMITTED A TOTAL OF $2,065 MILLION 64 TOTAL POPULATION, 2014 80,767,463 GERMANY 9,845,244 LARGEST POPULATION OF MIGRANTS BY COUNTRY OF ORIGIN IN 2013 MIGRANT POPULATION, 2013 MIGRANTS AS A 1,543,787 % TURKEY 1,146,754 1,007,536 11.9 POLAND RUSSIA 717,753 OF THE TOTAL POPULATION KAZAKHSTAN 433,127 ITALY YEAR IN WHICH THE COUNTRY SIGNED: 1961 1977 1953 2013 1953 THE EUROPEAN SOCIAL CHARTER 93,947 THE LEGAL STATUS OF MIGRANT WORKERS THE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS THE CONVENTION ON ACTION AGAINST TRAFFICKING THE UN REFUGEES CONVENTION ESTIMATED IRREGULAR MIGRANTS, 2008 195,845 MIN 457,015 MAX TOTAL NUMBER OF REFUGEES, 2014 200,805 APPLICATIONS FOR ASYLUM IN 2014 FIRST DECISIONS FOR ASYLUM APPLICATIONS IN 2014 TOTAL NON‐EU OR FOREIGN‐ BORN NATIONALS ACQUIRING CITIZENSHIP, 2012 RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION OF MIGRANTS IN 2012 CHRISTIAN: 5,480,000 1,580,000 UNAFFILIATED MUSLIM: 3,230,000 60,000 HINDU 210,000 BUDDHIST JEWISH: 30,000 OTHER: 170,000 MEASURING MIGRANT INTEGRATION (MIPEX 2010) (National score compared with the European average ) 40,560 202,645 REFUGEES RE‐ SETTLED IN 2014 1,092 REGISTERED VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING, 2012 POSITIVE ASYLUM DECISIONS FOR NON‐EU APPLICANTS IN 2014 626 I WOULD NOT WANT SOMEBODY AS A NEIGHBOUR WHO WAS… OVERALL SCORE (MIPEX 2010) 10 out of 32 European countries ETHNICALLY DIFFERENT 4.6 % AN IMMIGRANT 11.6 % GYPSY OR ROMA 27.2 % MUSLIM 26.2 % NON‐EU OR FOREIGN‐BORN POPULATION, 2014 3,912,407 JEWISH 6.1 57.4 /100 IN 2014, 4,141,435 EMIGRANTS FROM THE COUNTRY REMITTED A TOTAL OF $15,802 MILLION % 65 TOTAL POPULATION, 2014 10,903,704 GREECE 988,245 LARGEST POPULATION OF MIGRANTS BY COUNTRY OF ORIGIN IN 2013 MIGRANT POPULATION, 2013 MIGRANTS AS A 574,840 % ALBANIA 55,988 38,597 8.88 BULGARIA ROMANIA 37,912 OF THE TOTAL POPULATION GEORGIA 24,549 PAKISTAN YEAR IN WHICH THE COUNTRY SIGNED: 1961 1977 1974 2014 1960 THE EUROPEAN SOCIAL CHARTER 15,476 THE LEGAL STATUS OF MIGRANT WORKERS THE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS THE CONVENTION ON ACTION AGAINST TRAFFICKING THE UN REFUGEES CONVENTION ESTIMATED IRREGULAR MIGRANTS, 2008 172,000 MIN 209,000 MAX TOTAL NUMBER OF REFUGEES, 2014 FIRST DECISIONS FOR ASYLUM APPLICATIONS IN 2014 3,485 APPLICATIONS FOR ASYLUM IN 2014 TOTAL NON‐EU OR FOREIGN‐ BORN NATIONALS ACQUIRING CITIZENSHIP, 2012 RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION OF MIGRANTS IN 2012 CHRISTIAN: 690,000 110,000 UNAFFILIATED MUSLIM: 310,000 10,000 HINDU JEWISH: <1,000 OTHER: <10,000 <10,000 BUDDHIST MEASURING MIGRANT INTEGRATION (MIPEX 2010) (National score compared with the European average ) 1,970 9,430 REFUGEES RE‐ SETTLED IN 2014 REGISTERED VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING, 2012 POSITIVE ASYLUM DECISIONS FOR NON‐EU APPLICANTS IN 2014 94 I WOULD NOT WANT SOMEBODY AS A NEIGHBOUR WHO WAS… OVERALL SCORE (MIPEX 2010) 14 out of 32 European countries ETHNICALLY DIFFERENT 10.1 % AN IMMIGRANT 15.4 % GYPSY OR ROMA 37.3 % MUSLIM 16.9 % JEWISH 12.2 % NON‐EU OR FOREIGN‐BORN POPULATION, 2014 648,588 49.0 /100 IN 2014, 1,000,137 EMIGRANTS FROM THE COUNTRY REMITTED A TOTAL OF $824 MILLION 66 TOTAL POPULATION, 2014 9,877,365 HUNGARY 472,798 LARGEST POPULATION OF MIGRANTS BY COUNTRY OF ORIGIN IN 2013 MIGRANT POPULATION, 2013 MIGRANTS AS A 232,793 % ROMANIA 33,896 31,632 4.75 GERMANY UKRAINE 26,814 OF THE TOTAL POPULATION SERBIA 24,025 SLOVAKIA YEAR IN WHICH THE COUNTRY SIGNED: 1991 1992 2013 1989 THE EUROPEAN SOCIAL CHARTER 3,526 THE LEGAL STATUS OF MIGRANT WORKERS THE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS THE CONVENTION ON ACTION AGAINST TRAFFICKING ESTIMATED IRREGULAR MIGRANTS, 2008 10,000 MIN 50,000 MAX TOTAL NUMBER OF REFUGEES, 2014 RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION OF MIGRANTS IN 2012 CHRISTIAN: THE UN REFUGEES CONVENTION FIRST DECISIONS FOR ASYLUM APPLICATIONS IN 2014 2,693 APPLICATIONS FOR ASYLUM IN 2014 TOTAL NON‐EU OR FOREIGN‐ BORN NATIONALS ACQUIRING CITIZENSHIP, 2012 310,000 MUSLIM: 20,000 JEWISH: <10,000 OTHER: <10,000 30,000 UNAFFILIATED <1,000 HINDU <10,000 BUDDHIST MEASURING MIGRANT INTEGRATION (MIPEX 2010) (National score compared with the European average ) 510 42,775 REFUGEES RE‐ SETTLED IN 2014 REGISTERED VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING, 2012 POSITIVE ASYLUM DECISIONS FOR NON‐EU APPLICANTS IN 2014 57 I WOULD NOT WANT SOMEBODY AS A NEIGHBOUR WHO WAS… OVERALL SCORE (MIPEX 2010) 20 out of 32 European countries ETHNICALLY DIFFERENT NON‐EU OR FOREIGN‐BORN POPULATION, 2014 59,335 9.0 % AN IMMIGRANT 15.2 % GYPSY OR ROMA 38.7 % MUSLIM 11.0 % JEWISH 6.4 IN 2014, 570,188 44.8 /100 EMIGRANTS FROM THE COUNTRY REMITTED A TOTAL OF $4,473 MILLION % 67 TOTAL POPULATION, 2014 325,671 ICELAND 34,377 LARGEST POPULATION OF MIGRANTS BY COUNTRY OF ORIGIN IN 2013 MIGRANT POPULATION, 2013 MIGRANTS AS A 9,357 % POLAND 3,066 1,876 10.4 DENMARK SWEDEN 1,855 OF THE TOTAL POPULATION USA 1,592 GERMANY YEAR IN WHICH THE COUNTRY SIGNED: 1961 1953 2012 1955 THE EUROPEAN SOCIAL CHARTER 319 THE LEGAL STATUS OF MIGRANT WORKERS THE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS THE CONVENTION ON ACTION AGAINST TRAFFICKING ESTIMATED IRREGULAR MIGRANTS, 2008 MIN MAX TOTAL NUMBER OF REFUGEES, 2014 RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION OF MIGRANTS IN 2012 30,000 CHRISTIAN: THE UN REFUGEES CONVENTION FIRST DECISIONS FOR ASYLUM APPLICATIONS IN 2014 79 APPLICATIONS FOR ASYLUM IN 2014 TOTAL NON‐EU OR FOREIGN‐ BORN NATIONALS ACQUIRING CITIZENSHIP, 2012 MUSLIM: <10,000 JEWISH: <1,000 OTHER: <1,000 <10,000 UNAFFILIATED <1,000 HINDU <10,000 BUDDHIST MEASURING MIGRANT INTEGRATION (MIPEX 2010) (National score compared with the European average ) 30 170 REFUGEES RE‐ SETTLED IN 2014 NO MIPEX DATA IS AVAILABLE FOR THIS COUNTRY REGISTERED VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING, 2012 POSITIVE ASYLUM DECISIONS FOR NON‐EU APPLICANTS IN 2014 2 I WOULD NOT WANT SOMEBODY AS A NEIGHBOUR WHO WAS… OVERALL SCORE (MIPEX 2010) out of 32 European countries ETHNICALLY DIFFERENT 1.2 % AN IMMIGRANT 3.4 % GYPSY OR ROMA NON‐EU OR FOREIGN‐BORN POPULATION, 2014 4,478 IN 2014, 10.6 % MUSLIM 8.1 % JEWISH 2.6 % 36,940 /100 EMIGRANTS FROM THE COUNTRY REMITTED A TOTAL OF $216 MILLION 68 TOTAL POPULATION, 2014 4,605,501 IRELAND 735,535 LARGEST POPULATION OF MIGRANTS BY COUNTRY OF ORIGIN IN 2013 MIGRANT POPULATION, 2013 MIGRANTS AS A 253,605 % UNITED KINGDOM 124,566 37,823 15.9 POLAND LITHUANIA 24,857 OF THE TOTAL POPULATION USA 21,751 LATVIA YEAR IN WHICH THE COUNTRY SIGNED: 1961 1953 2010 1956 THE EUROPEAN SOCIAL CHARTER 23,731 THE LEGAL STATUS OF MIGRANT WORKERS THE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS THE CONVENTION ON ACTION AGAINST TRAFFICKING ESTIMATED IRREGULAR MIGRANTS, 2008 30,123 MIN 62,340 MAX TOTAL NUMBER OF REFUGEES, 2014 RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION OF MIGRANTS IN 2012 CHRISTIAN: THE UN REFUGEES CONVENTION FIRST DECISIONS FOR ASYLUM APPLICATIONS IN 2014 6,001 APPLICATIONS FOR ASYLUM IN 2014 TOTAL NON‐EU OR FOREIGN‐ BORN NATIONALS ACQUIRING CITIZENSHIP, 2012 680,000 MUSLIM: 60,000 JEWISH: <10,000 OTHER: 20,000 120,000 UNAFFILIATED 10,000 HINDU <10,000 BUDDHIST MEASURING MIGRANT INTEGRATION (MIPEX 2010) (National score compared with the European average ) 400 1,450 REFUGEES RE‐ SETTLED IN 2014 62 REGISTERED VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING, 2012 POSITIVE ASYLUM DECISIONS FOR NON‐EU APPLICANTS IN 2014 48 I WOULD NOT WANT SOMEBODY AS A NEIGHBOUR WHO WAS… OVERALL SCORE (MIPEX 2010) 15 out of 32 European countries ETHNICALLY DIFFERENT 10.9 % AN IMMIGRANT 14.1 % GYPSY OR ROMA 50.1 % MUSLIM 22.7 % JEWISH 10.9 % NON‐EU OR FOREIGN‐BORN POPULATION, 2014 170,590 IN 2014, 782,838 48.5 /100 EMIGRANTS FROM THE COUNTRY REMITTED A TOTAL OF $802 MILLION 69 TOTAL POPULATION, 2014 60,782,668 ITALY 5,721,457 LARGEST POPULATION OF MIGRANTS BY COUNTRY OF ORIGIN IN 2013 MIGRANT POPULATION, 2013 MIGRANTS AS A 1,008,169 % ROMANIA 449,657 425,188 9.38 ALBANIA MOROCCO 230,610 OF THE TOTAL POPULATION GERMANY 213,303 UKRAINE YEAR IN WHICH THE COUNTRY SIGNED: 1961 1983 1955 2011 1954 THE EUROPEAN SOCIAL CHARTER 60,059 THE LEGAL STATUS OF MIGRANT WORKERS THE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS THE CONVENTION ON ACTION AGAINST TRAFFICKING THE UN REFUGEES CONVENTION ESTIMATED IRREGULAR MIGRANTS, 2008 279,200 MIN 460,680 MAX TOTAL NUMBER OF REFUGEES, 2014 FIRST DECISIONS FOR ASYLUM APPLICATIONS IN 2014 76,263 APPLICATIONS FOR ASYLUM IN 2014 TOTAL NON‐EU OR FOREIGN‐ BORN NATIONALS ACQUIRING CITIZENSHIP, 2012 RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION OF MIGRANTS IN 2012 CHRISTIAN: 2,450,000 240,000 UNAFFILIATED MUSLIM: 1,420,000 110,000 HINDU JEWISH: <10,000 OTHER: 150,000 90,000 BUDDHIST MEASURING MIGRANT INTEGRATION (MIPEX 2010) (National score compared with the European average ) 20,580 64,625 REFUGEES RE‐ SETTLED IN 2014 REGISTERED VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING, 2012 POSITIVE ASYLUM DECISIONS FOR NON‐EU APPLICANTS IN 2014 2,631 I WOULD NOT WANT SOMEBODY AS A NEIGHBOUR WHO WAS… OVERALL SCORE (MIPEX 2010) 8 out of 32 European countries ETHNICALLY DIFFERENT 15.6 % AN IMMIGRANT 16.1 % GYPSY OR ROMA 62.8 % MUSLIM 22.7 % JEWISH 12.1 % NON‐EU OR FOREIGN‐BORN POPULATION, 2014 3,479,566 60.4 /100 IN 2014, 2,928,772 EMIGRANTS FROM THE COUNTRY REMITTED A TOTAL OF $7,715 MILLION 70 TOTAL POPULATION, 2014 2,001,468 LATVIA 282,887 LARGEST POPULATION OF MIGRANTS BY COUNTRY OF ORIGIN IN 2013 MIGRANT POPULATION, 2013 MIGRANTS AS A 146,628 % RUSSIA 49,235 36,106 13.8 BELARUS UKRAINE 18,187 OF THE TOTAL POPULATION LITHUANIA 6,452 KAZAKHSTAN YEAR IN WHICH THE COUNTRY SIGNED: 1997 1997 2008 1997 THE EUROPEAN SOCIAL CHARTER 3,751 THE LEGAL STATUS OF MIGRANT WORKERS THE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS THE CONVENTION ON ACTION AGAINST TRAFFICKING ESTIMATED IRREGULAR MIGRANTS, 2008 2,261 MIN 11,304 MAX TOTAL NUMBER OF REFUGEES, 2014 RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION OF MIGRANTS IN 2012 CHRISTIAN: THE UN REFUGEES CONVENTION FIRST DECISIONS FOR ASYLUM APPLICATIONS IN 2014 165 APPLICATIONS FOR ASYLUM IN 2014 TOTAL NON‐EU OR FOREIGN‐ BORN NATIONALS ACQUIRING CITIZENSHIP, 2012 270,000 40,000 UNAFFILIATED MUSLIM: 10,000 <1,000 HINDU JEWISH: <1,000 <1,000 OTHER: <10,000 BUDDHIST MEASURING MIGRANT INTEGRATION (MIPEX 2010) (National score compared with the European average ) 25 375 REFUGEES RE‐ SETTLED IN 2014 REGISTERED VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING, 2012 POSITIVE ASYLUM DECISIONS FOR NON‐EU APPLICANTS IN 2014 144 I WOULD NOT WANT SOMEBODY AS A NEIGHBOUR WHO WAS… OVERALL SCORE (MIPEX 2010) 31 out of 32 European countries ETHNICALLY DIFFERENT NON‐EU OR FOREIGN‐BORN POPULATION, 2014 298,616 14 % AN IMMIGRANT 20.9 % GYPSY OR ROMA 41.2 % MUSLIM 28.6 % JEWISH 9.8 IN 2014, 342,317 30.7 /100 EMIGRANTS FROM THE COUNTRY REMITTED A TOTAL OF $790 MILLION % 71 TOTAL POPULATION, 2014 2,943,472 LITHUANIA 147,781 LARGEST POPULATION OF MIGRANTS BY COUNTRY OF ORIGIN IN 2013 MIGRANT POPULATION, 2013 MIGRANTS AS A 62,143 % RUSSIA 35,708 13,322 4.90 BELARUS UKRAINE 6,440 OF THE TOTAL POPULATION LATVIA 5,375 KAZAKHSTAN YEAR IN WHICH THE COUNTRY SIGNED: 1997 1995 2012 1997 THE EUROPEAN SOCIAL CHARTER 200 THE LEGAL STATUS OF MIGRANT WORKERS THE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS THE CONVENTION ON ACTION AGAINST TRAFFICKING THE UN REFUGEES CONVENTION ESTIMATED IRREGULAR MIGRANTS, 2008 3,351 MIN 16,756 MAX TOTAL NUMBER OF REFUGEES, 2014 FIRST DECISIONS FOR ASYLUM APPLICATIONS IN 2014 951 APPLICATIONS FOR ASYLUM IN 2014 TOTAL NON‐EU OR FOREIGN‐ BORN NATIONALS ACQUIRING CITIZENSHIP, 2012 RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION OF MIGRANTS IN 2012 CHRISTIAN: 100,000 20,000 MUSLIM: <10,000 <1,000 HINDU JEWISH: <1,000 OTHER: <1,000 <1,000 UNAFFILIATED BUDDHIST MEASURING MIGRANT INTEGRATION (MIPEX 2010) (National score compared with the European average ) 70 440 REFUGEES RE‐ SETTLED IN 2014 REGISTERED VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING, 2012 POSITIVE ASYLUM DECISIONS FOR NON‐EU APPLICANTS IN 2014 14 I WOULD NOT WANT SOMEBODY AS A NEIGHBOUR WHO WAS… OVERALL SCORE (MIPEX 2010) 27 out of 32 European countries NON‐EU OR FOREIGN‐BORN POPULATION, 2014 16,039 ETHNICALLY DIFFERENT 14.6 % AN IMMIGRANT 28.6 % GYPSY OR ROMA 68.7 % MUSLIM JEWISH 47 IN 2014, 588,897 39.8 /100 EMIGRANTS FROM THE COUNTRY REMITTED A TOTAL OF $2,399 MILLION % 28.3 % 72 TOTAL POPULATION, 2014 549,680 LUXEMBOURG 229,409 LARGEST POPULATION OF MIGRANTS BY COUNTRY OF ORIGIN IN 2013 MIGRANT POPULATION, 2013 MIGRANTS AS A 85,716 % PORTUGAL 32,752 18,667 43.2 FRANCE ITALY 17,925 OF THE TOTAL POPULATION BELGIUM 12,787 GERMANY YEAR IN WHICH THE COUNTRY SIGNED: 1961 1977 1953 2009 1953 THE EUROPEAN SOCIAL CHARTER 638 THE LEGAL STATUS OF MIGRANT WORKERS THE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS THE CONVENTION ON ACTION AGAINST TRAFFICKING ESTIMATED IRREGULAR MIGRANTS, 2008 1,838 MIN 3,863 MAX TOTAL NUMBER OF REFUGEES, 2014 RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION OF MIGRANTS IN 2012 130,000 CHRISTIAN: THE UN REFUGEES CONVENTION FIRST DECISIONS FOR ASYLUM APPLICATIONS IN 2014 1,032 APPLICATIONS FOR ASYLUM IN 2014 TOTAL NON‐EU OR FOREIGN‐ BORN NATIONALS ACQUIRING CITIZENSHIP, 2012 20,000 UNAFFILIATED MUSLIM: 10,000 <1,000 HINDU JEWISH: <1,000 <10,000 BUDDHIST OTHER: <10,000 MEASURING MIGRANT INTEGRATION (MIPEX 2010) (National score compared with the European average ) 120 1,150 REFUGEES RE‐ SETTLED IN 2014 NO MIPEX DATA IS AVAILABLE FOR THIS COUNTRY REGISTERED VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING, 2012 POSITIVE ASYLUM DECISIONS FOR NON‐EU APPLICANTS IN 2014 7 I WOULD NOT WANT SOMEBODY AS A NEIGHBOUR WHO WAS… OVERALL SCORE (MIPEX 2010) 9 out of 32 European countries NON‐EU OR FOREIGN‐BORN POPULATION, 2014 34,482 ETHNICALLY DIFFERENT 12.3 % AN IMMIGRANT 13.3 % GYPSY OR ROMA 24.1 % MUSLIM 16.8 % JEWISH 12.7 % IN 2014, 65,980 60.1 /100 EMIGRANTS FROM THE COUNTRY REMITTED A TOTAL OF $1,964 MILLION 73 TOTAL POPULATION, 2014 2,065,769 MACEDONIA (FYROM) 139,751 LARGEST POPULATION OF MIGRANTS BY COUNTRY OF ORIGIN IN 2013 MIGRANT POPULATION, 2013 MIGRANTS AS A 72,556 % TURKEY 25,400 17,411 6.62 ALBANIA SERBIA 8,968 OF THE TOTAL POPULATION MONTENEGRO 8,468 BOSNIA HGV YEAR IN WHICH THE COUNTRY SIGNED: 1998 1997 2009 1994 THE EUROPEAN SOCIAL CHARTER 917 THE LEGAL STATUS OF MIGRANT WORKERS THE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS THE CONVENTION ON ACTION AGAINST TRAFFICKING THE UN REFUGEES CONVENTION ESTIMATED IRREGULAR MIGRANTS, 2008 MIN MAX TOTAL NUMBER OF REFUGEES, 2014 FIRST DECISIONS FOR ASYLUM APPLICATIONS IN 2014 955 APPLICATIONS FOR ASYLUM IN 2014 TOTAL NON‐EU OR FOREIGN‐ BORN NATIONALS ACQUIRING CITIZENSHIP, 2012 RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION OF MIGRANTS IN 2012 CHRISTIAN: 40,000 <10,000 UNAFFILIATED MUSLIM: 80,000 <1,000 HINDU JEWISH: <1,000 <1,000 OTHER: <1,000 BUDDHIST MEASURING MIGRANT INTEGRATION (MIPEX 2010) (National score compared with the European average ) 1 1,260 REFUGEES RE‐ SETTLED IN 2014 NO MIPEX DATA IS AVAILABLE FOR THIS COUNTRY REGISTERED VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING, 2012 POSITIVE ASYLUM DECISIONS FOR NON‐EU APPLICANTS IN 2014 I WOULD NOT WANT SOMEBODY AS A NEIGHBOUR WHO WAS… OVERALL SCORE (MIPEX 2010) out of 32 European countries ETHNICALLY DIFFERENT 21.2 % AN IMMIGRANT 20.4 % GYPSY OR ROMA 16.4 % MUSLIM 26.8 % JEWISH 16.1 % NON‐EU OR FOREIGN‐BORN POPULATION, 2014 139,751 IN 2014, 626,312 /100 EMIGRANTS FROM THE COUNTRY REMITTED A TOTAL OF $367 MILLION 74 TOTAL POPULATION, 2014 425,384 MALTA 34,455 LARGEST POPULATION OF MIGRANTS BY COUNTRY OF ORIGIN IN 2013 MIGRANT POPULATION, 2013 MIGRANTS AS A 11,429 % UNITED KINGDOM 5,463 2,136 8.02 AUSTRALIA CANADA 1,572 OF THE TOTAL POPULATION ITALY 1,528 USA YEAR IN WHICH THE COUNTRY SIGNED: 1988 1967 2008 1971 THE EUROPEAN SOCIAL CHARTER 808 THE LEGAL STATUS OF MIGRANT WORKERS THE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS THE CONVENTION ON ACTION AGAINST TRAFFICKING THE UN REFUGEES CONVENTION ESTIMATED IRREGULAR MIGRANTS, 2008 5,167 MIN 7,751 MAX TOTAL NUMBER OF REFUGEES, 2014 FIRST DECISIONS FOR ASYLUM APPLICATIONS IN 2014 9,906 APPLICATIONS FOR ASYLUM IN 2014 TOTAL NON‐EU OR FOREIGN‐ BORN NATIONALS ACQUIRING CITIZENSHIP, 2012 RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION OF MIGRANTS IN 2012 CHRISTIAN: <10,000 <10,000 UNAFFILIATED MUSLIM: <10,000 <1,000 HINDU JEWISH: <1,000 OTHER: <1,000 <1,000 BUDDHIST MEASURING MIGRANT INTEGRATION (MIPEX 2010) (National score compared with the European average ) 1,260 1,350 REFUGEES RE‐ SETTLED IN 2014 NO MIPEX DATA IS AVAILABLE FOR THIS COUNTRY REGISTERED VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING, 2012 POSITIVE ASYLUM DECISIONS FOR NON‐EU APPLICANTS IN 2014 8 I WOULD NOT WANT SOMEBODY AS A NEIGHBOUR WHO WAS… OVERALL SCORE (MIPEX 2010) 28 out of 32 European countries NON‐EU OR FOREIGN‐BORN POPULATION, 2014 11,319 ETHNICALLY DIFFERENT 25.6 % AN IMMIGRANT 34.1 % GYPSY OR ROMA 32.2 % MUSLIM 31.6 % JEWISH 20.8 % IN 2014, 109,892 36.9 /100 EMIGRANTS FROM THE COUNTRY REMITTED A TOTAL OF $665 MILLION 75 TOTAL POPULATION, 2014 3,557,634 MOLDOVA 391,508 LARGEST POPULATION OF MIGRANTS BY COUNTRY OF ORIGIN IN 2013 MIGRANT POPULATION, 2013 MIGRANTS AS A 221,965 % RUSSIA 51,908 34,291 11.2 UKRAINE BELARUS 18,312 OF THE TOTAL POPULATION KAZAKHSTAN 10,696 UZBEKISTAN YEAR IN WHICH THE COUNTRY SIGNED: 1998 2002 1997 2008 2002 THE EUROPEAN SOCIAL CHARTER TOTAL NON‐EU OR FOREIGN‐ BORN NATIONALS ACQUIRING CITIZENSHIP, 2012 THE LEGAL STATUS OF MIGRANT WORKERS THE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS THE CONVENTION ON ACTION AGAINST TRAFFICKING 340,000 CHRISTIAN: THE UN REFUGEES CONVENTION ESTIMATED IRREGULAR MIGRANTS, 2008 MIN MAX TOTAL NUMBER OF REFUGEES, 2014 RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION OF MIGRANTS IN 2012 FIRST DECISIONS FOR ASYLUM APPLICATIONS IN 2014 284 APPLICATIONS FOR ASYLUM IN 2014 MUSLIM: 20,000 JEWISH: <10,000 OTHER: <10,000 40,000 UNAFFILIATED <10,000 HINDU <10,000 BUDDHIST MEASURING MIGRANT INTEGRATION (MIPEX 2010) (National score compared with the European average ) 95 250 REFUGEES RE‐ SETTLED IN 2014 NO MIPEX DATA IS AVAILABLE FOR THIS COUNTRY REGISTERED VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING, 2012 POSITIVE ASYLUM DECISIONS FOR NON‐EU APPLICANTS IN 2014 I WOULD NOT WANT SOMEBODY AS A NEIGHBOUR WHO WAS… OVERALL SCORE (MIPEX 2010) out of 32 European countries ETHNICALLY DIFFERENT 19.5 % AN IMMIGRANT 19.7 % GYPSY OR ROMA 48.2 % MUSLIM 36.2 % JEWISH 22.2 % NON‐EU OR FOREIGN‐BORN POPULATION, 2014 391,508 IN 2014, 859,400 /100 EMIGRANTS FROM THE COUNTRY REMITTED A TOTAL OF $1,981 MILLION 76 TOTAL POPULATION, 2014 621,521 MONTENEGRO 50,708 LARGEST POPULATION OF MIGRANTS BY COUNTRY OF ORIGIN IN 2013 MIGRANT POPULATION, 2013 MIGRANTS AS A 19,775 % ALBANIA 11,864 9,886 8.16 SERBIA BOSNIA HGV 4,489 OF THE TOTAL POPULATION CROATIA 1,620 FYROM YEAR IN WHICH THE COUNTRY SIGNED: 2005 2004 2006 THE EUROPEAN SOCIAL CHARTER TOTAL NON‐EU OR FOREIGN‐ BORN NATIONALS ACQUIRING CITIZENSHIP, 2012 THE LEGAL STATUS OF MIGRANT WORKERS THE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS THE CONVENTION ON ACTION AGAINST TRAFFICKING 30,000 CHRISTIAN: THE UN REFUGEES CONVENTION ESTIMATED IRREGULAR MIGRANTS, 2008 MIN MAX TOTAL NUMBER OF REFUGEES, 2014 RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION OF MIGRANTS IN 2012 FIRST DECISIONS FOR ASYLUM APPLICATIONS IN 2014 7,160 APPLICATIONS FOR ASYLUM IN 2014 MUSLIM: <10,000 JEWISH: <1,000 OTHER: <1,000 <10,000 UNAFFILIATED <1,000 HINDU <1,000 BUDDHIST MEASURING MIGRANT INTEGRATION (MIPEX 2010) (National score compared with the European average ) 0 2,310 REFUGEES RE‐ SETTLED IN 2014 NO MIPEX DATA IS AVAILABLE FOR THIS COUNTRY REGISTERED VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING, 2012 POSITIVE ASYLUM DECISIONS FOR NON‐EU APPLICANTS IN 2014 I WOULD NOT WANT SOMEBODY AS A NEIGHBOUR WHO WAS… OVERALL SCORE (MIPEX 2010) out of 32 European countries NON‐EU OR FOREIGN‐BORN POPULATION, 2014 50,708 ETHNICALLY DIFFERENT 12.8 % AN IMMIGRANT 11.3 % GYPSY OR ROMA 20.5 % MUSLIM 12.7 % JEWISH 15.1 % IN 2014, 281,812 /100 EMIGRANTS FROM THE COUNTRY REMITTED A TOTAL OF $441 MILLION 77 TOTAL POPULATION, 2014 16,829,289 NETHERLANDS 1,964,922 LARGEST POPULATION OF MIGRANTS BY COUNTRY OF ORIGIN IN 2013 MIGRANT POPULATION, 2013 MIGRANTS AS A 203,483 % TURKEY 191,182 173,489 11.7 SURINAME MOROCCO 139,260 OF THE TOTAL POPULATION INDONESIA 126,587 GERMANY YEAR IN WHICH THE COUNTRY SIGNED: 1961 1977 1954 2010 1956 THE EUROPEAN SOCIAL CHARTER 27,395 THE LEGAL STATUS OF MIGRANT WORKERS THE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS THE CONVENTION ON ACTION AGAINST TRAFFICKING THE UN REFUGEES CONVENTION ESTIMATED IRREGULAR MIGRANTS, 2008 62,320 MIN 130,999 MAX TOTAL NUMBER OF REFUGEES, 2014 FIRST DECISIONS FOR ASYLUM APPLICATIONS IN 2014 74,707 APPLICATIONS FOR ASYLUM IN 2014 TOTAL NON‐EU OR FOREIGN‐ BORN NATIONALS ACQUIRING CITIZENSHIP, 2012 RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION OF MIGRANTS IN 2012 CHRISTIAN: 770,000 120,000 UNAFFILIATED MUSLIM: 690,000 60,000 HINDU JEWISH: <10,000 40,000 OTHER: 70,000 BUDDHIST MEASURING MIGRANT INTEGRATION (MIPEX 2010) (National score compared with the European average ) 14,14 26,210 REFUGEES RE‐ SETTLED IN 2014 362 REGISTERED VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING, 2012 POSITIVE ASYLUM DECISIONS FOR NON‐EU APPLICANTS IN 2014 1,711 I WOULD NOT WANT SOMEBODY AS A NEIGHBOUR WHO WAS… OVERALL SCORE (MIPEX 2010) 4 out of 32 European countries ETHNICALLY DIFFERENT 11.1 % AN IMMIGRANT 15.4 % GYPSY OR ROMA 30.2 % MUSLIM 18.9 % NON‐EU OR FOREIGN‐BORN POPULATION, 2014 330,382 JEWISH 8.0 67.7 /100 IN 2014, 1,008,742 EMIGRANTS FROM THE COUNTRY REMITTED A TOTAL OF $1,589 MILLION % 78 TOTAL POPULATION, 2014 5,107,970 NORWAY 694,508 LARGEST POPULATION OF MIGRANTS BY COUNTRY OF ORIGIN IN 2013 MIGRANT POPULATION, 2013 MIGRANTS AS A 76,184 % POLAND 53,082 30,819 13.7 SWEDEN GERMANY 26,235 OF THE TOTAL POPULATION DENMARK 25,623 LITHUANIA YEAR IN WHICH THE COUNTRY SIGNED: 1961 1989 1953 2008 1953 THE EUROPEAN SOCIAL CHARTER 11,594 THE LEGAL STATUS OF MIGRANT WORKERS THE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS THE CONVENTION ON ACTION AGAINST TRAFFICKING THE UN REFUGEES CONVENTION ESTIMATED IRREGULAR MIGRANTS, 2008 MIN MAX TOTAL NUMBER OF REFUGEES, 2014 FIRST DECISIONS FOR ASYLUM APPLICATIONS IN 2014 46,106 APPLICATIONS FOR ASYLUM IN 2014 TOTAL NON‐EU OR FOREIGN‐ BORN NATIONALS ACQUIRING CITIZENSHIP, 2012 RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION OF MIGRANTS IN 2012 CHRISTIAN: 250,000 50,000 MUSLIM: 130,000 <10,000 HINDU JEWISH: <10,000 30,000 OTHER: 20,000 UNAFFILIATED BUDDHIST MEASURING MIGRANT INTEGRATION (MIPEX 2010) (National score compared with the European average ) 4,905 13,205 REFUGEES RE‐ SETTLED IN 2014 941 REGISTERED VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING, 2012 POSITIVE ASYLUM DECISIONS FOR NON‐EU APPLICANTS IN 2014 48 I WOULD NOT WANT SOMEBODY AS A NEIGHBOUR WHO WAS… OVERALL SCORE (MIPEX 2010) 6 out of 32 European countries ETHNICALLY DIFFERENT 5.1 % AN IMMIGRANT 6.0 % NON‐EU OR FOREIGN‐BORN POPULATION, 2014 176,126 GYPSY OR ROMA 24.7 % MUSLIM 13.3 % JEWISH 2.9 IN 2014, 204,275 65.5 /100 EMIGRANTS FROM THE COUNTRY REMITTED A TOTAL OF $760 MILLION % 79 TOTAL POPULATION, 2014 38,017,856 POLAND 663,755 LARGEST POPULATION OF MIGRANTS BY COUNTRY OF ORIGIN IN 2013 MIGRANT POPULATION, 2013 MIGRANTS AS A 221,307 % UKRAINE 81,779 81,363 1.74 GERMANY BELARUS 54,057 OF THE TOTAL POPULATION LITHUANIA 40,879 RUSSIA YEAR IN WHICH THE COUNTRY SIGNED: 1991 1993 2009 1991 THE EUROPEAN SOCIAL CHARTER 2,266 THE LEGAL STATUS OF MIGRANT WORKERS THE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS THE CONVENTION ON ACTION AGAINST TRAFFICKING ESTIMATED IRREGULAR MIGRANTS, 2008 50,000 MIN 300,000 MAX TOTAL NUMBER OF REFUGEES, 2014 RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION OF MIGRANTS IN 2012 CHRISTIAN: THE UN REFUGEES CONVENTION FIRST DECISIONS FOR ASYLUM APPLICATIONS IN 2014 16,438 APPLICATIONS FOR ASYLUM IN 2014 TOTAL NON‐EU OR FOREIGN‐ BORN NATIONALS ACQUIRING CITIZENSHIP, 2012 640,000 MUSLIM: 40,000 JEWISH: <10,000 OTHER: <10,000 140,000 UNAFFILIATED <10,000 HINDU <10,000 BUDDHIST MEASURING MIGRANT INTEGRATION (MIPEX 2010) (National score compared with the European average ) 720 8,020 REFUGEES RE‐ SETTLED IN 2014 REGISTERED VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING, 2012 POSITIVE ASYLUM DECISIONS FOR NON‐EU APPLICANTS IN 2014 246 I WOULD NOT WANT SOMEBODY AS A NEIGHBOUR WHO WAS… OVERALL SCORE (MIPEX 2010) 23 out of 32 European countries NON‐EU OR FOREIGN‐BORN POPULATION, 2014 71,543 ETHNICALLY DIFFERENT 12.3 % AN IMMIGRANT 7.9 % GYPSY OR ROMA 44.5 % MUSLIM 14.8 % JEWISH 12.6 % 41.7 /100 IN 2014, 3,882,994 EMIGRANTS FROM THE COUNTRY REMITTED A TOTAL OF $7,466 MILLION 80 TOTAL POPULATION, 2014 10,427,301 PORTUGAL 893,847 LARGEST POPULATION OF MIGRANTS BY COUNTRY OF ORIGIN IN 2013 MIGRANT POPULATION, 2013 MIGRANTS AS A 161,395 % ANGOLA 138,664 93,781 8.42 BRAZIL FRANCE 72,541 OF THE TOTAL POPULATION MOZAMBIQUE 48,065 UKRAINE YEAR IN WHICH THE COUNTRY SIGNED: 1982 1977 1978 2008 1960 THE EUROPEAN SOCIAL CHARTER 21,082 THE LEGAL STATUS OF MIGRANT WORKERS THE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS THE CONVENTION ON ACTION AGAINST TRAFFICKING ESTIMATED IRREGULAR MIGRANTS, 2008 80,000 MIN 100,000 MAX TOTAL NUMBER OF REFUGEES, 2014 RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION OF MIGRANTS IN 2012 CHRISTIAN: THE UN REFUGEES CONVENTION FIRST DECISIONS FOR ASYLUM APPLICATIONS IN 2014 598 APPLICATIONS FOR ASYLUM IN 2014 TOTAL NON‐EU OR FOREIGN‐ BORN NATIONALS ACQUIRING CITIZENSHIP, 2012 710,000 MUSLIM: 70,000 JEWISH: <10,000 OTHER: 70,000 60,000 UNAFFILIATED <10,000 HINDU <10,000 BUDDHIST MEASURING MIGRANT INTEGRATION (MIPEX 2010) (National score compared with the European average ) 40 440 REFUGEES RE‐ SETTLED IN 2014 6 REGISTERED VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING, 2012 POSITIVE ASYLUM DECISIONS FOR NON‐EU APPLICANTS IN 2014 5 I WOULD NOT WANT SOMEBODY AS A NEIGHBOUR WHO WAS… OVERALL SCORE (MIPEX 2010) 2 out of 32 European countries ETHNICALLY DIFFERENT 12.2 % AN IMMIGRANT 17.5 % GYPSY OR ROMA 33.4 % MUSLIM 25.1 % JEWISH 17.9 % NON‐EU OR FOREIGN‐BORN POPULATION, 2014 300,711 78.8 /100 IN 2014, 2,028,597 EMIGRANTS FROM THE COUNTRY REMITTED A TOTAL OF $4,351 MILLION 81 TOTAL POPULATION, 2014 19,947,311 ROMANIA 198,839 LARGEST POPULATION OF MIGRANTS BY COUNTRY OF ORIGIN IN 2013 MIGRANT POPULATION, 2013 MIGRANTS AS A 49,785 % MOLDOVA 27,462 18,271 0.92 ITALY BULGARIA 14,506 OF THE TOTAL POPULATION SPAIN 11,903 UKRAINE YEAR IN WHICH THE COUNTRY SIGNED: 1994 1994 2008 1991 THE EUROPEAN SOCIAL CHARTER TOTAL NON‐EU OR FOREIGN‐ BORN NATIONALS ACQUIRING CITIZENSHIP, 2012 THE LEGAL STATUS OF MIGRANT WORKERS THE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS THE CONVENTION ON ACTION AGAINST TRAFFICKING THE UN REFUGEES CONVENTION ESTIMATED IRREGULAR MIGRANTS, 2008 7,185 MIN 10,778 MAX TOTAL NUMBER OF REFUGEES, 2014 FIRST DECISIONS FOR ASYLUM APPLICATIONS IN 2014 1,996 APPLICATIONS FOR ASYLUM IN 2014 RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION OF MIGRANTS IN 2012 CHRISTIAN: 120,000 <10,000 UNAFFILIATED MUSLIM: <10,000 <1,000 HINDU JEWISH: <1,000 OTHER: <10,000 <1,000 BUDDHIST MEASURING MIGRANT INTEGRATION (MIPEX 2010) (National score compared with the European average ) 740 1,545 REFUGEES RE‐ SETTLED IN 2014 REGISTERED VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING, 2012 POSITIVE ASYLUM DECISIONS FOR NON‐EU APPLICANTS IN 2014 1,041 I WOULD NOT WANT SOMEBODY AS A NEIGHBOUR WHO WAS… OVERALL SCORE (MIPEX 2010) 19 out of 32 European countries NON‐EU OR FOREIGN‐BORN POPULATION, 2014 52,529 ETHNICALLY DIFFERENT 20.8 % AN IMMIGRANT 20.8 % GYPSY OR ROMA 45.6 % MUSLIM 22.9 % JEWISH 18.6 % 45.1 /100 IN 2014, 3,430,476 EMIGRANTS FROM THE COUNTRY REMITTED A TOTAL OF $3,431 MILLION 82 TOTAL POPULATION, 2014 143,347,100 RUSSIA 11,048,064 LARGEST POPULATION OF MIGRANTS BY COUNTRY OF ORIGIN IN 2013 MIGRANT POPULATION, 2013 MIGRANTS AS A 2,939,083 % UKRAINE 247,9430 1,110,593 7.73 KAZAKHSTAN UZBEKISTAN 743,111 OF THE TOTAL POPULATION AZERBAIJAN 740,148 BELARUS YEAR IN WHICH THE COUNTRY SIGNED: 2000 1998 1993 THE EUROPEAN SOCIAL CHARTER TOTAL NON‐EU OR FOREIGN‐ BORN NATIONALS ACQUIRING CITIZENSHIP, 2012 THE LEGAL STATUS OF MIGRANT WORKERS THE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS THE CONVENTION ON ACTION AGAINST TRAFFICKING THE UN REFUGEES CONVENTION ESTIMATED IRREGULAR MIGRANTS, 2008 MIN MAX TOTAL NUMBER OF REFUGEES, 2014 FIRST DECISIONS FOR ASYLUM APPLICATIONS IN 2014 5,135 APPLICATIONS FOR ASYLUM IN 2014 RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION OF MIGRANTS IN 2012 CHRISTIAN: 5,840,000 2,280,000UNAFFILIATED MUSLIM: 4,030,000 30,000 HINDU JEWISH: 30,000 OTHER: 50,000 30,000 BUDDHIST MEASURING MIGRANT INTEGRATION (MIPEX 2010) (National score compared with the European average ) 1,688 6,980 REFUGEES RE‐ SETTLED IN 2014 NO MIPEX DATA IS AVAILABLE FOR THIS COUNTRY REGISTERED VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING, 2012 POSITIVE ASYLUM DECISIONS FOR NON‐EU APPLICANTS IN 2014 I WOULD NOT WANT SOMEBODY AS A NEIGHBOUR WHO WAS… OVERALL SCORE (MIPEX 2010) out of 32 European countries ETHNICALLY DIFFERENT 15.8 % AN IMMIGRANT 32.4 % GYPSY OR ROMA 54.3 % MUSLIM 20.8 % JEWISH 13.7 % NON‐EU OR FOREIGN‐BORN POPULATION, 2014 11,048,064 /100 IN 2014, 10,910,492 EMIGRANTS FROM THE COUNTRY REMITTED A TOTAL OF $7,116 MILLION 83 TOTAL POPULATION, 2014 7,146,759 SERBIA 532,457 LARGEST POPULATION OF MIGRANTS BY COUNTRY OF ORIGIN IN 2013 MIGRANT POPULATION, 2013 MIGRANTS AS A 170,974 % BOSNIA HGV 157,361 80,674 5.59 CROATIA MONTENEGRO 61,315 OF THE TOTAL POPULATION FYROM 14,703 SLOVENIA YEAR IN WHICH THE COUNTRY SIGNED: 2005 2004 2009 2001 THE EUROPEAN SOCIAL CHARTER TOTAL NON‐EU OR FOREIGN‐ BORN NATIONALS ACQUIRING CITIZENSHIP, 2012 THE LEGAL STATUS OF MIGRANT WORKERS THE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS THE CONVENTION ON ACTION AGAINST TRAFFICKING THE UN REFUGEES CONVENTION ESTIMATED IRREGULAR MIGRANTS, 2008 MIN MAX TOTAL NUMBER OF REFUGEES, 2014 FIRST DECISIONS FOR ASYLUM APPLICATIONS IN 2014 43,763 APPLICATIONS FOR ASYLUM IN 2014 RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION OF MIGRANTS IN 2012 CHRISTIAN: 350,000 30,000 MUSLIM: 150,000 <1,000 HINDU JEWISH: <1,000 OTHER: <1,000 <1,000 UNAFFILIATED BUDDHIST MEASURING MIGRANT INTEGRATION (MIPEX 2010) (National score compared with the European average ) 14 16,590 REFUGEES RE‐ SETTLED IN 2014 REGISTERED VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING, 2012 POSITIVE ASYLUM DECISIONS FOR NON‐EU APPLICANTS IN 2014 79 I WOULD NOT WANT SOMEBODY AS A NEIGHBOUR WHO WAS… OVERALL SCORE (MIPEX 2010) 24 out of 32 European countries ETHNICALLY DIFFERENT 20.0 % AN IMMIGRANT 22.7 % GYPSY OR ROMA 24.0 % MUSLIM 27.0 % JEWISH 17.6 % NON‐EU OR FOREIGN‐BORN POPULATION, 2014 532,457 41.4 /100 IN 2014, 1,292,910 EMIGRANTS FROM THE COUNTRY REMITTED A TOTAL OF $3,656 MILLION 84 TOTAL POPULATION, 2014 5,415,949 SLOVAKIA 149,635 LARGEST POPULATION OF MIGRANTS BY COUNTRY OF ORIGIN IN 2013 MIGRANT POPULATION, 2013 MIGRANTS AS A 83,050 % CZECH REPUBLIC 1,5895 9,398 2.75 HUNGARY UKRAINE 4,890 OF THE TOTAL POPULATION ROMANIA 4,379 POLAND YEAR IN WHICH THE COUNTRY SIGNED: 1992 1993 2008 1993 THE EUROPEAN SOCIAL CHARTER 176 THE LEGAL STATUS OF MIGRANT WORKERS THE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS THE CONVENTION ON ACTION AGAINST TRAFFICKING ESTIMATED IRREGULAR MIGRANTS, 2008 15,000 MIN 20,000 MAX TOTAL NUMBER OF REFUGEES, 2014 RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION OF MIGRANTS IN 2012 CHRISTIAN: THE UN REFUGEES CONVENTION FIRST DECISIONS FOR ASYLUM APPLICATIONS IN 2014 701 APPLICATIONS FOR ASYLUM IN 2014 TOTAL NON‐EU OR FOREIGN‐ BORN NATIONALS ACQUIRING CITIZENSHIP, 2012 90,000 MUSLIM: <10,000 JEWISH: <1,000 OTHER: <10,000 20,000 UNAFFILIATED <1,000 HINDU <10,000 BUDDHIST MEASURING MIGRANT INTEGRATION (MIPEX 2010) (National score compared with the European average ) 170 330 REFUGEES RE‐ SETTLED IN 2014 REGISTERED VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING, 2012 POSITIVE ASYLUM DECISIONS FOR NON‐EU APPLICANTS IN 2014 40 I WOULD NOT WANT SOMEBODY AS A NEIGHBOUR WHO WAS… OVERALL SCORE (MIPEX 2010) 29 out of 32 European countries NON‐EU OR FOREIGN‐BORN POPULATION, 2014 12,476 ETHNICALLY DIFFERENT 15.4 % AN IMMIGRANT 16.6 % GYPSY OR ROMA 51.2 % MUSLIM 23.1 % JEWISH 12.5 % IN 2014, 592,292 36.2 /100 EMIGRANTS FROM THE COUNTRY REMITTED A TOTAL OF $2,121 MILLION 85 TOTAL POPULATION, 2014 2,061,085 SLOVENIA 233,293 LARGEST POPULATION OF MIGRANTS BY COUNTRY OF ORIGIN IN 2013 MIGRANT POPULATION, 2013 MIGRANTS AS A 98,501 % BOSNIA HGV 49,475 36,719 11.2 CROATIA SERBIA 14,398 OF THE TOTAL POPULATION FYROM 8,547 GERMANY YEAR IN WHICH THE COUNTRY SIGNED: 1997 1994 2010 1992 THE EUROPEAN SOCIAL CHARTER 1,282 THE LEGAL STATUS OF MIGRANT WORKERS THE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS THE CONVENTION ON ACTION AGAINST TRAFFICKING ESTIMATED IRREGULAR MIGRANTS, 2008 2,017 MIN 10,084 MAX TOTAL NUMBER OF REFUGEES, 2014 RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION OF MIGRANTS IN 2012 CHRISTIAN: THE UN REFUGEES CONVENTION FIRST DECISIONS FOR ASYLUM APPLICATIONS IN 2014 235 APPLICATIONS FOR ASYLUM IN 2014 TOTAL NON‐EU OR FOREIGN‐ BORN NATIONALS ACQUIRING CITIZENSHIP, 2012 100,000 10,000 UNAFFILIATED MUSLIM: 50,000 <1,000 HINDU JEWISH: <1,000 <1,000 OTHER: <1,000 BUDDHIST MEASURING MIGRANT INTEGRATION (MIPEX 2010) (National score compared with the European average ) 45 385 REFUGEES RE‐ SETTLED IN 2014 REGISTERED VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING, 2012 POSITIVE ASYLUM DECISIONS FOR NON‐EU APPLICANTS IN 2014 67 I WOULD NOT WANT SOMEBODY AS A NEIGHBOUR WHO WAS… OVERALL SCORE (MIPEX 2010) 16 out of 32 European countries NON‐EU OR FOREIGN‐BORN POPULATION, 2014 80,290 ETHNICALLY DIFFERENT 28.9 % AN IMMIGRANT 28.5 % GYPSY OR ROMA 39.1 % MUSLIM 29.3 % JEWISH 28.2 % IN 2014, 171,331 48.4 /100 EMIGRANTS FROM THE COUNTRY REMITTED A TOTAL OF $717 MILLION 86 TOTAL POPULATION, 2014 46,512,199 SPAIN 6,466,605 LARGEST POPULATION OF MIGRANTS BY COUNTRY OF ORIGIN IN 2013 MIGRANT POPULATION, 2013 MIGRANTS AS A 797,603 % ROMANIA 745,674 451,184 13.7 MOROCCO ECUADOR 381,025 OF THE TOTAL POPULATION UK 359,178 COLOMBIA YEAR IN WHICH THE COUNTRY SIGNED: 1978 1977 1979 2009 1978 THE EUROPEAN SOCIAL CHARTER 92,719 THE LEGAL STATUS OF MIGRANT WORKERS THE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS THE CONVENTION ON ACTION AGAINST TRAFFICKING THE UN REFUGEES CONVENTION ESTIMATED IRREGULAR MIGRANTS, 2008 280,000 MIN 353,927 MAX TOTAL NUMBER OF REFUGEES, 2014 FIRST DECISIONS FOR ASYLUM APPLICATIONS IN 2014 4,637 APPLICATIONS FOR ASYLUM IN 2014 TOTAL NON‐EU OR FOREIGN‐ BORN NATIONALS ACQUIRING CITIZENSHIP, 2012 RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION OF MIGRANTS IN 2012 CHRISTIAN: 4,560,000 460,000 UNAFFILIATED MUSLIM: 1,100,000 30,000 HINDU JEWISH: 10,000 OTHER: 170,000 40,000 BUDDHIST MEASURING MIGRANT INTEGRATION (MIPEX 2010) (National score compared with the European average ) 1,585 5,615 REFUGEES RE‐ SETTLED IN 2014 80 REGISTERED VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING, 2012 POSITIVE ASYLUM DECISIONS FOR NON‐EU APPLICANTS IN 2014 125 I WOULD NOT WANT SOMEBODY AS A NEIGHBOUR WHO WAS… OVERALL SCORE (MIPEX 2010) 7 out of 32 European countries ETHNICALLY DIFFERENT 4.0 % AN IMMIGRANT 4.2 % GYPSY OR ROMA 26.1 % MUSLIM 12.9 % NON‐EU OR FOREIGN‐BORN POPULATION, 2014 2,685,348 JEWISH 2.5 62.5 /100 IN 2014, 1,230,969 EMIGRANTS FROM THE COUNTRY REMITTED A TOTAL OF $10,990 MILLION % 87 TOTAL POPULATION, 2014 9,644,864 SWEDEN 1,519,510 LARGEST POPULATION OF MIGRANTS BY COUNTRY OF ORIGIN IN 2013 MIGRANT POPULATION, 2013 MIGRANTS AS A 167,185 % FINLAND 130,449 76,848 15.8 IRAQ POLAND 66,978 OF THE TOTAL POPULATION IRAN 57,741 BOSNIA HGV YEAR IN WHICH THE COUNTRY SIGNED: 1961 1977 1953 2010 1954 THE EUROPEAN SOCIAL CHARTER 41,485 THE LEGAL STATUS OF MIGRANT WORKERS THE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS THE CONVENTION ON ACTION AGAINST TRAFFICKING THE UN REFUGEES CONVENTION ESTIMATED IRREGULAR MIGRANTS, 2008 8,000 MIN 12,000 MAX TOTAL NUMBER OF REFUGEES, 2014 114,175 APPLICATIONS FOR ASYLUM IN 2014 FIRST DECISIONS FOR ASYLUM APPLICATIONS IN 2014 TOTAL NON‐EU OR FOREIGN‐ BORN NATIONALS ACQUIRING CITIZENSHIP, 2012 RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION OF MIGRANTS IN 2012 CHRISTIAN: 760,000 90,000 MUSLIM: 340,000 10,000 HINDU JEWISH: <10,000 40,000 OTHER: 50,000 UNAFFILIATED BUDDHIST MEASURING MIGRANT INTEGRATION (MIPEX 2010) (National score compared with the European average ) 30,650 81,180 REFUGEES RE‐ SETTLED IN 2014 1,832 REGISTERED VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING, 2012 POSITIVE ASYLUM DECISIONS FOR NON‐EU APPLICANTS IN 2014 88 I WOULD NOT WANT SOMEBODY AS A NEIGHBOUR WHO WAS… OVERALL SCORE (MIPEX 2010) 1 out of 32 European countries ETHNICALLY DIFFERENT 5.6 % AN IMMIGRANT 6.4 % NON‐EU OR FOREIGN‐BORN POPULATION, 2014 384,947 GYPSY OR ROMA 22.2 % MUSLIM 15.8 % JEWISH 3.1 IN 2014, 352,002 83.0 /100 EMIGRANTS FROM THE COUNTRY REMITTED A TOTAL OF $3,976 MILLION % 88 TOTAL POPULATION, 2014 8,139,631 SWITZERLAND 2,335,059 LARGEST POPULATION OF MIGRANTS BY COUNTRY OF ORIGIN IN 2013 MIGRANT POPULATION, 2013 MIGRANTS AS A 356,974 % GERMANY 260,746 202,745 28.9 ITALY PORTUGAL 149,737 OF THE TOTAL POPULATION FRANCE 128,392 SERBIA YEAR IN WHICH THE COUNTRY SIGNED: 1976 1974 2013 1955 THE EUROPEAN SOCIAL CHARTER 19,601 THE LEGAL STATUS OF MIGRANT WORKERS THE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS THE CONVENTION ON ACTION AGAINST TRAFFICKING ESTIMATED IRREGULAR MIGRANTS, 2008 MIN MAX TOTAL NUMBER OF REFUGEES, 2014 RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION OF MIGRANTS IN 2012 CHRISTIAN: THE UN REFUGEES CONVENTION FIRST DECISIONS FOR ASYLUM APPLICATIONS IN 2014 57,783 APPLICATIONS FOR ASYLUM IN 2014 TOTAL NON‐EU OR FOREIGN‐ BORN NATIONALS ACQUIRING CITIZENSHIP, 2012 1,250,000 250,000 UNAFFILIATED MUSLIM: 200,000 <10,000 HINDU JEWISH: <10,000 30,000 OTHER: 30,000 BUDDHIST MEASURING MIGRANT INTEGRATION (MIPEX 2010) (National score compared with the European average ) 15,410 23,555 REFUGEES RE‐ SETTLED IN 2014 78 NO MIPEX DATA IS AVAILABLE FOR THIS COUNTRY REGISTERED VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING, 2012 POSITIVE ASYLUM DECISIONS FOR NON‐EU APPLICANTS IN 2014 60 I WOULD NOT WANT SOMEBODY AS A NEIGHBOUR WHO WAS… OVERALL SCORE (MIPEX 2010) 22 out of 32 European countries ETHNICALLY DIFFERENT 3.0 % AN IMMIGRANT 3.7 % NON‐EU OR FOREIGN‐BORN POPULATION, 2014 663,337 GYPSY OR ROMA 22.3 % MUSLIM 11.5 % JEWISH 5.3 IN 2014, 649,963 43.3 /100 EMIGRANTS FROM THE COUNTRY REMITTED A TOTAL OF $2,737 MILLION % 89 TOTAL POPULATION, 2014 76,667,864 TURKEY 1,864,889 LARGEST POPULATION OF MIGRANTS BY COUNTRY OF ORIGIN IN 2013 MIGRANT POPULATION, 2013 MIGRANTS AS A 712,013 % BULGARIA 405,056 109,701 2.49 GERMANY SERBIA 87,690 OF THE TOTAL POPULATION GREECE 54,850 MONTENEGRO YEAR IN WHICH THE COUNTRY SIGNED: 1961 1977 1954 1962 THE EUROPEAN SOCIAL CHARTER TOTAL NON‐EU OR FOREIGN‐ BORN NATIONALS ACQUIRING CITIZENSHIP, 2012 THE LEGAL STATUS OF MIGRANT WORKERS THE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS THE CONVENTION ON ACTION AGAINST TRAFFICKING RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION OF MIGRANTS IN 2012 MUSLIM: ESTIMATED IRREGULAR MIGRANTS, 2008 42,576 MIN 42,576 MAX TOTAL NUMBER OF REFUGEES, 2014 300,000 CHRISTIAN: THE UN REFUGEES CONVENTION 824,381 APPLICATIONS FOR ASYLUM IN 2014 FIRST DECISIONS FOR ASYLUM APPLICATIONS IN 2014 1,040,000 JEWISH: <10,000 OTHER: <10,000 50,000 UNAFFILIATED <10,000 HINDU <10,000 BUDDHIST MEASURING MIGRANT INTEGRATION (MIPEX 2010) (National score compared with the European average ) 14,160 87,820 REFUGEES RE‐ SETTLED IN 2014 REGISTERED VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING, 2012 POSITIVE ASYLUM DECISIONS FOR NON‐EU APPLICANTS IN 2014 55 I WOULD NOT WANT SOMEBODY AS A NEIGHBOUR WHO WAS… OVERALL SCORE (MIPEX 2010) 32 out of 32 European countries ETHNICALLY DIFFERENT 42.7 % AN IMMIGRANT 48.7 % GYPSY OR ROMA 67.4 % NON‐EU OR FOREIGN‐BORN POPULATION, 2014 1,864,889 MUSLIM JEWISH 6.0 24.3 /100 IN 2014, 3,110,051 EMIGRANTS FROM THE COUNTRY REMITTED A TOTAL OF $1,128 MILLION % 68.9 % 90 TOTAL POPULATION, 2014 45,245,894 UKRAINE 5,151,378 LARGEST POPULATION OF MIGRANTS BY COUNTRY OF ORIGIN IN 2013 MIGRANT POPULATION, 2013 MIGRANTS AS A 3,453,506 % RUSSIA 258,781 234,238 11.3 BELARUS KAZAKHSTAN 231,674 OF THE TOTAL POPULATION UZBEKISTAN 157,826 MOLDOVA YEAR IN WHICH THE COUNTRY SIGNED: 1996 2004 1997 2011 2002 THE EUROPEAN SOCIAL CHARTER TOTAL NON‐EU OR FOREIGN‐ BORN NATIONALS ACQUIRING CITIZENSHIP, 2012 THE LEGAL STATUS OF MIGRANT WORKERS THE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS THE CONVENTION ON ACTION AGAINST TRAFFICKING CHRISTIAN: THE UN REFUGEES CONVENTION ESTIMATED IRREGULAR MIGRANTS, 2008 MIN MAX TOTAL NUMBER OF REFUGEES, 2014 RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION OF MIGRANTS IN 2012 FIRST DECISIONS FOR ASYLUM APPLICATIONS IN 2014 3,132 APPLICATIONS FOR ASYLUM IN 2014 3,700,000 530,000 UNAFFILIATED MUSLIM: 940,000 10,000 HINDU JEWISH: <10,000 20,000 OTHER: 40,000 BUDDHIST MEASURING MIGRANT INTEGRATION (MIPEX 2010) (National score compared with the European average ) 386 1,170 REFUGEES RE‐ SETTLED IN 2014 NO MIPEX DATA IS AVAILABLE FOR THIS COUNTRY REGISTERED VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING, 2012 POSITIVE ASYLUM DECISIONS FOR NON‐EU APPLICANTS IN 2014 I WOULD NOT WANT SOMEBODY AS A NEIGHBOUR WHO WAS… OVERALL SCORE (MIPEX 2010) out of 32 European countries ETHNICALLY DIFFERENT 9.8 % AN IMMIGRANT 18.2 % GYPSY OR ROMA 53.4 % MUSLIM 24.0 % JEWISH 11.4 % NON‐EU OR FOREIGN‐BORN POPULATION, 2014 5,151,378 /100 IN 2014, 5,583,906 EMIGRANTS FROM THE COUNTRY REMITTED A TOTAL OF $7,587 MILLION 91 TOTAL POPULATION, 2014 64,308,261 UNITED KINGDOM 7,824,131 LARGEST POPULATION OF MIGRANTS BY COUNTRY OF ORIGIN IN 2013 MIGRANT POPULATION, 2013 MIGRANTS AS A 756,471 % INDIA 661,482 476,144 12.3 POLAND PAKISTAN 412,658 OF THE TOTAL POPULATION IRELAND 311,286 GERMANY YEAR IN WHICH THE COUNTRY SIGNED: 1961 1953 2008 1954 THE EUROPEAN SOCIAL CHARTER 183,417 THE LEGAL STATUS OF MIGRANT WORKERS THE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS THE CONVENTION ON ACTION AGAINST TRAFFICKING THE UN REFUGEES CONVENTION ESTIMATED IRREGULAR MIGRANTS, 2008 417,000 MIN 863,000 MAX TOTAL NUMBER OF REFUGEES, 2014 126,055 APPLICATIONS FOR ASYLUM IN 2014 FIRST DECISIONS FOR ASYLUM APPLICATIONS IN 2014 TOTAL NON‐EU OR FOREIGN‐ BORN NATIONALS ACQUIRING CITIZENSHIP, 2012 RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION OF MIGRANTS IN 2012 CHRISTIAN: 3,500,000 530,000 UNAFFILIATED MUSLIM: 1,420,000 390,000 HINDU JEWISH: 40,000 OTHER: 380,000 190,000 BUDDHIST MEASURING MIGRANT INTEGRATION (MIPEX 2010) (National score compared with the European average ) 1,050 31,745 REFUGEES RE‐ SETTLED IN 2014 750 REGISTERED VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING, 2012 POSITIVE ASYLUM DECISIONS FOR NON‐EU APPLICANTS IN 2014 2,145 I WOULD NOT WANT SOMEBODY AS A NEIGHBOUR WHO WAS… OVERALL SCORE (MIPEX 2010) 11 out of 32 European countries ETHNICALLY DIFFERENT 6.8 % AN IMMIGRANT 18.1 % GYPSY OR ROMA 44.5 % MUSLIM 16.7 % NON‐EU OR FOREIGN‐BORN POPULATION, 2014 2,401,050 JEWISH 5.7 56.6 /100 IN 2014, 5,151,142 EMIGRANTS FROM THE COUNTRY REMITTED A TOTAL OF $1,839 MILLION % 92 TOTAL POPULATION, 2014 Eurostat/CISStat COUNTRY NAME UN Population Division LARGEST POPULATION OF MIGRANTS BY COUNTRY OF ORIGIN IN 2013 MIGRANT POPULATION, 2013 MIGRANTS AS A UN % UN UN UN UN UN UN OF THE TOTAL POPULATION UN UN UN YEAR IN WHICH THE COUNTRY SIGNED: 1961 1953 2008 1954 THE EUROPEAN SOCIAL CHARTER Eurostat THE LEGAL STATUS OF MIGRANT WORKERS THE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS THE CONVENTION ON ACTION AGAINST TRAFFICKING THE UN REFUGEES CONVENTION ESTIMATED IRREGULAR MIGRANTS, 2008 Kovacheva and MIN Fogel, 2009 MAX TOTAL NUMBER OF REFUGEES, 2014 FIRST DECISIONS FOR ASYLUM APPLICATIONS IN 2014 TOTAL NON‐EU OR FOREIGN‐ BORN NATIONALS ACQUIRING CITIZENSHIP, 2012 RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION OF MIGRANTS IN 2012 CHRISTIAN: PEW 2012 PEW 2012 UNAFFILIATED MUSLIM: PEW 2012 PEW 2012 HINDU JEWISH: PEW 2012 PEW 2012 BUDDHIST OTHER: PEW 2012 MEASURING MIGRANT INTEGRATION (MIPEX 2010) (National score compared with the European average ) EUROSTAT APPLICATIONS FOR ASYLUM IN 2014 EUROSTAT REFUGEES RE‐ SETTLED IN 2014 UNHCR REGISTERED VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING, 2012 POSITIVE ASYLUM DECISIONS FOR NON‐EU APPLICANTS IN 2014 EUROSTAT I WOULD NOT WANT SOMEBODY AS A NEIGHBOUR WHO WAS… OVERALL SCORE (MIPEX 2010) 11 out of 32 European countries ETHNICALLY DIFFERENT EVS % AN IMMIGRANT EVS % GYPSY OR ROMA EVS % MUSLIM EVS % JEWISH EVS % NON‐EU OR FOREIGN‐BORN POPULATION, 2014 EUROSTAT MIPEX IN 2014, World Bank 2015 EMIGRANTS FROM THE COUNTRY REMITTED A TOTAL OF MILLION 93 Sources cited on the previous page are referred to in full here: UN UNHCR Eurostat PEW 2012 Kovacheva and Vogel, 2009 World Bank 2015 = United Nations Population Division, Mid‐Year Report 2013. = United Nations High Commission for Refugees = Various Eu ostat reports = Faith o the Mo e ‘epo t, Boston, MA: PEW Foundation. = The size of the i egula fo eig eside t populatio i the Eu opea U io i , ,a d : agg egated esti ates, Wo ki g Pape No. / . Hamburg: Hamburg Institute of International Economics. = ‘Migration and Remittances Data, April 2015’, P ospe ts, available at http://econ.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/EXTDEC/EXTDECPROSPECTS/0,,contentMDK:227 59429~pagePK:64165401~piPK:64165026~theSitePK:476883,00.html EVS = European Values Survey 94 CHAPTER FIVE: EUROPEAN CHURCHES RESPONDING TO MIGRATION 1. Introduction This chapter contains our compilation and analysis of information received directly from the churches during 2014 and into early 2015. During early 2014 we began circulating a detailed questionnaire to churches and church related agencies in Europe.1 We sent copies of the questionnaire to churches located in all of the Council of Europe countries. The questionnaire was designed to investigate the impact of migration upon the churches, particularly any consequent changes stimulated by migrants either directly or as a result of their presence at various levels within the indigenous churches of Europe. In designing the questionnaire we were interested in three areas of significance and which we considered required analysis; a. Which churches contain migrants and, further, what the percentages are of migrants in membership, what the main ethnicities are, how those churches perceive themselves, and to what extent they rely upon migrant leadership; b. The presence of younger migrants and the impact of generational differences, particularly the impact of being a second generation migrant upon relations with indigenous and other young people within the church; and c. Levels of assistance and advocacy in which the church engages at local and national level. We received a total of thirty‐five completed questionnaires from nineteen European countries. Of the thirty‐five responses, thirteen came from one country alone, Ireland. The majority of the responses came from Western countries; to be more specific from the following countries: Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom. For Austria, Italy and Switzerland the questionnaire was completed by the Federation of Protestant Churches in those countries, providing a comprehensive picture of the situation at the national level. For other countries we received questionnaires from single denominations, often representing the situation of the majority church in that country. As mentioned in the introduction, the circulation of the questionnaire was an innovation, considered a major step forward over the previous edition of 2008. We have taken into account the feedback and suggestions received from CCME member churches following the publication in 2008. Several of these are implemented in this new version and, for this reason alone, we anticipated a higher level of interest and response. This has not happened. As a result, this chapter should not be read as a comprehensive picture but rather as a snapshot of different realities at a given moment in time. By this we mean that we have had to take into account a lack of data in many instances. We have also come to appreciate again that the nature of migration exists in a state of constant flux and change. In pulling together the pieces of the puzzle we have done so in the knowledge that the final image is more akin to a movie‐clip than to a photograph. Nevertheless we believe it was a valid effort, for at least two reasons: a. it's a new area of investigation that looks at migration and its impact upon Christian churches at European level; and, b. it provides some data that can be revisited in five years’ time and compared with newly gathered data at that point. 2. Migrants in the life of the churches This section investigates trends and changes occurring within churches in different European countries as a result of the presence of Christian migrants in their countries and in church constituencies. If we look at the first question in relation to the estimated percentage of migrants belonging to each of the churches surveyed, we can see that 60% of the churches have between 6 to 100% of migrants in their membership. It is also possible to say that half of the churches (48.5%) have a migrant membership of somewhere between 6 and 20%. Those churches having over 60% of migrants in their parishes or local congregations are mostly migrant‐led. 95 Figure 7: Answers to the question ‘What is the (estimated) percentage of migrants belonging to your Church?’ It is undeniable that migration is impacting the previous ethnic composition of church memberships. In this respect, churches reflect trends that are apparent within the wider population. For some, however, the impact is of more significance. There are a number of countries in which the churches have significantly more than 5% of migrants in membership, with all of these located in Western Europe. Figu e illustrates this clearly. However the picture is actually more complex than the data appears to indicate. For example, whilst the majority churches in the Scandinavian countries report the presence of fewer than 5% of migrants in their membership, the national picture changes if we consider the minority churches in those countries. For example, the Roman Catholic Church in Sweden and the Orthodox Church in Finland have much higher percentages of migrants in their membership. This fact alone suggests that future research should pay closer attention to the composition and experience of the minority churches. Our research suggests this area is rich with possibility and likely to prove a productive area of research. . The self‐pe eptio a d self‐ide tifi atio hu hes ith ig a ts i thei e e ship of Since compiling results for the first edition, we have been aware of the complexity relating to the migrant presence and ethnic diversity of the churches of Europe. There are no simple categories to catch the huge variety of experience and expression. Nevertheless, we wanted to try and capture something of this variety, however inadequate it was likely to prove. To this end, our questionnaire investigated; a. the presence of ethnic minority parishes or local congregations within mainline churches; b. the presence of international parishes or local congregations; and c. the presence of intercultural parishes or local congregations. Before presenting the data collected, some clarification of Figure 8: Countries in which church membership includes considerably more than a 5% membership of migrants 96 the terminology used may be helpful. Immediately following the circulation of the questionnaire, churches began to seek clarification about what we meant by our references to ‘ethnic minorities’, ‘international’ and ‘intercultural’ parishes and local congregations. In the Introduction to the Report we highlight the challenges of describing congregations on the basis of the origin of their members. We stressed for instance the problematic of even the term 'migrant'. Its definition may be purely legal or it may be ascribed according to common, or popular, norms, frequently on the basis of skin colour. In countries where migrants have the right to permanent residency or citizenship after five years, for example, should these people continue to be counted as ‘migrant Christians’? In some countries the term ‘ethnic’ is applied to all non‐indigenous churches in a way that assumes that indigenous church members to not possess any ‘ethnicity’ at all. In yet other European countries the term ‘ethnic minority church’ is used to refer to congregations that have had a long‐term presence beyond the first or even second generation of ‘local born migrants’. Recognising the problems associated with these various descriptions, some migrant Christians and churches self‐describe as ‘diaspora Churches’. In all of this, we wished to discover something about the self‐ perception and self‐description of each of the churches surveyed. The survey allowed some space for this to be explored. We could not avoid the need to define our terms more carefully and provided a broad definition of some of the terminology used in the questionnaires (see the box below) whilst allowing space for churches to define or describe themselves. We remain open to this approach because we think it allows for a richer picture to emerge (with potential for generating new insights) even though this comes at the not significant disadvantage that data may be less comparable with that of other responses. In this sense we confess a bias towards diversity of experience and expression rather than an inflexible commitment to comparison and compilation. It is worth stressing a point regarding our use of the term 'ethnic' in some of the questions; everyone has an ethnicity and, for instance, a mono‐cultural parish or congregation is pe sè an ethnic congregation. For this reason we use the preferred term of 'ethnic minority congregation’ as a way of avoiding labelling only migrant‐ led congregations or migrants belonging to any church as those having an ethnicity – as if ethnicity were describing something that is merely exotic. Eth i i o it hu h: A significantly mono‐ethnic local parish or congregation in membership of a mainline church or denomination and which is different to the ethnic, cultural, and national traditions of a majority of the wider church membership. I te atio al hu h: An ethnically diverse local parish or congregation which worships using a common language such as English, French, Spanish, or Chinese. I te ultu al hu h: A local parish or congregation whose ethnically diverse composition is reflected in the culturally and linguistically diverse content of worship as well as in the life of the congregation as a whole. Examining the data we discovered that a high percentage of respondents (74.3%) reported the presence of noticeable ethnic minorities within the parishes or local congregations, although it was not always clear whether these minorities were worshipping on their own or were part of the local congregations. The churches were also able to state the percentage of international and/or intercultural parishes or local congregations. Whilst a majority of respondents reported that they have fewer than 5% in both instances, a considerable number of answers state that the percentage is somewhere between 5% and 20%. Where respondents indicated that more than 60% of their parishes or congregations were either international or intercultural, we generally found that these were also mainly but not exclusively composed of migrants. In addition, 6.6% of churches reported that between 21‐40% of their congregations were intercultural. The same percentage of churches reported that between 41 and 60% of their congregations were intercultural churches. Generally speaking we can observe that mono‐ethnic parishes, whether indigenous or ethnic minority, constitute the most characteristic pattern within a local congregation. It is arguable that an international congregation, worshipping in a common language, represent a step along the way towards a more intentional form of integration, whilst an intercultural parish calls for significantly higher levels of ethnic diversity, mutuality, and reciprocity in the nature of public worship and shared life together. Our findings suggest that 97 parishes or local congregations with a commitment to greater intentionality towards integration are less common then mono‐ethnic churches. Figure 9: Churches answering ‘Yes’ to questions about ethnic minority, international and intercultural parishes Survey question Response = ‘Yes’ Response = ‘No’ No answer Does your Church have congregations at local or parish level that have noticeable ethnic minorities? 74.3% 20% 5.7% Do you have international congregations or parishes in your Church? 57.1% 28.6% 14.3% Do you have intercultural congregations or parishes in your Church? 51.4% 28.6% 14.3% Table 3: Responses to questions about ethnic minority, international and intercultural parishes . Co g egatio al o ship as a i te tio al step to a ds g eate i teg atio The worship is very often the first experience that any newcomer has of a parish or local congregation. Research tends to suggest that the first encounter with the worshipping community is central to the decision as to whether migrants stay there or go on look for another worshipping community. The welcome received is important but, according to some of the interviewees from the MI‘ACLE project, it needs to be followed by the active inclusion and participation of migrants at a variety of levels in the life of the congregation. We have tried to 'measure' this participation by looking at the following aspects of the corporate life of the parish or local congregation: a. patterns of worship; b. the existence of policies on multicultural worship; and c. the presence of resources for multicultural worship. We attempted to survey the range of corporate worship patterns exploring the manner in which migrant and national Christians worship. The options include worshipping together every Sunday, having separate and united worship times every once a week, and having separate worship times once a week. Analysing the patterns of worship proved to be more difficult than anticipated primarily because of lack of data available at the national level. It seems possible, however, to make a few tentative observations. Firstly, the majority of the respondents opted either for 'worshipping together every Sunday' or for 'having separate worship times every Sunday'. Those who answered that their parishes tend to worship together can be 98 subdivided into three groups: those parishes with only a small number of migrants in their midst; those which are migrant‐led; and those which have in place policies for promoting multicultural worship or resources available for multicultural worship. Figure 10: Responses to questions about multicultural policies and resources . Leade ship a d the i teg atio of ig a ts ithi the life of the pa ish o lo al o g egatio Fostering active migrant member participation and encouraging migrants to take up leadership positions is a key issue for any church which wishes to reflect on its identity and future in light of the changes as a result of migration including, but not limited to, the increasing percentage of church members who are migrants or have a migrant background. For this reason, two of our survey questions investigated; a. the presence of policies that encourage the active participation of migrants, and b. the percentage of leadership positions in the church held by migrants. The data we have collected suggests that some of the churches surveyed do recognise the challenges ahead of them and are developing the necessary tools to deal with them. However, Figu e above illustrates the persistently high percentages of non‐respondents and of those who do not have any policies in place. A more promising picture emerges when one considers the percentage of leadership positions held by migrants within the church. Whilst 42.8% of responding churches have fewer than 5% of their leadership positions filled by migrants, 25.7% reported that between 5 to 20% of their leadership positions were filled by migrants. Figure 11: Responses to the question: ‘Does your church have policies that encourage the active participation of migrants in the organisation and leadership of your churches?’ 99 Figure 12: Responses to the question: ‘What percentage of leadership positions in your Church is held by migrants?’ (n = 23 out of 31) 3. Migrant young people in the life and ministry of the churches of Europe In Chapter One we discussed the importance of developing ad ho integration policies which address the area of migrants' children. We also pointed out the difficulties of defining the term 'second generation' migrant.2 For the purposes of this research, in the absence of a better term, we nevertheless took the decision to use it in the generally accepted sense of it referring to all children born in the receiving country to migrants where one or both migrant parents was born in a place other than the receiving country. Our research asked for estimates of the percentages of young people (aged 18 to 35 years) with a migrant background. In addition we differentiated the percentages of young people according to whether they were first or second generation migrants. Almost one in three of the responding churches (32.2%) indicated that between one in twenty and one in five of the young people in their churches have a migrant background. Figure 13: Percentage of migrants aged 18‐35 who belong to parish or local congregations, categorised according to generation of migrant 100 The same data is tabulated below for ease of comparison. Questio : What pe e tage of ou g people up to the age of i ou Chu h has a Options available as answers to this question: ig a t a kg ou d? Percentage of churches that selected this option Fewer than 5% of the young people in our church have a migrant background 25.7% Between 5‐20% of the young people in our church have a migrant background 34.2% Between 21 ‐40% of the young people in our church have a migrant background 2.8% Between 41 – 60% of the young people in our church have a migrant background 2.8% Over 60% of the young people in our church have a migrant background 11.4% No answer 23.1% Questio : What pe e tage of ou g people up to the age of ge e atio ig a t? i ou Chu h ould e o side ed fi st Options available as answers to this question: Percentage of churches that selected this option Fewer than 5% of the young people in our church are first generation migrant Between 5‐20% of the young people in our church are first generation migrant Between 21 ‐40% of the young people in our church are first generation migrant Between 41 – 60% of the young people in our church are first generation migrant Over 60% of the young people in our church are first generation migrant No answer Questio : What pe e tage of ou g people up to the age of ge e atio ig a t? i 25.7% 11.4% 8.6% 2.9% 0% 51.4% ou Chu h ould e o side ed se o d Options available as answers to this question: Percentage of churches that selected this option Fewer than 5% of the young people in our church are second generation migrant Between 5‐20% of the young people in our church are second generation migrant Between 21 ‐40% of the young people in our church are second generation migrant Between 41 – 60% of the young people in our church are second generation migrant Over 60% of the young people in our church are second generation migrant No answer 20% 8.6% 2.9% 5.7% 11.4% 51.4% Our questionnaire also asked if activities were organised separately for young people on the basis of ethnicity. The overwhelming response to this question suggests that even if this were an option, it is not one that many churches would readily adopt. In general, our research suggests that work among young people is vital for the present and future health of parishes and local congregations but that this has not been properly addressed by churches at the national level. As an example that this need not be the case, we received evidence from Italy that the Fede atio of P otesta t Youth (FGEI) is involved in a project promoting diversity within its local congregations. As such, it is one of the few church organisations of which we are aware that is intentionally working towards becoming an intercultural federation. The Fede atio is also working closely with the Gha aia Youth Fello ship to avoid the ethnic isolation within the Italian Protestant churches of entire generations (first and second) of young people with a Ghanaian background. 4. Advocacy and Assistance In Chapters two and three we referred to the long‐standing tradition of churches providing assistance to migrants and advocating for the rights of migrants. This continues to be a strong component of the work of the Churches across Europe, clearly illustrated in our data. When it comes to the Church's work for migrants, 101 refugees and ethnic minorities, half of the respondents reported that they have an office or department within the Church in charge of these issues. Almost half of the churches (48.6%) have an individual or team with specific responsibility for advocacy and just over two thirds (65.7%) of churches engage in advocacy work in partnership with other churches or their related agencies. Figure 2: Church responses to questions concerning advocacy and advocacy partnerships Figure 3: Responses regarding the provision of practical assistance to migrants, refugees or asylum seekers As a step beyond advocacy on behalf of and with migrants, the provision of practical and material assistance to migrants, refugees and asylum seekers is engaged in by approximately two out of every five churches at national level. The provision of shelter, food, clothes, or legal advice is clearly an aspect of the life of many churches although there is less likelihood that this is done, as is advocacy work, in partnership with other churches or agencies. This may reflect the professional and legal expertise that is often required to undertake effective advocacy work. Several churches at national level were also at pains to point out that although there was no national provision of such assistance through a designated office or department, this was due to the fact that it is felt that this is most effective when carried out at the parish or local level. Indeed, in many cases, this work is only carried out at local level by individual parishes, relying on the personal involvement of ministers supported by networks of parish volunteers. 102 5. Individual reports from Churches describing the presence of migrants in the life of their church and their advocacy and assistance programmes among refugees and migrants. AUSTRIA Federation of Churches Mig a ts i the life of the hu hes The percentage of migrants within the churches is estimated at between 5 and 20%. Intercultural congregations are not as common as international churches. The most common pattern of worship involves migrant congregations meeting separately for worship at different times with occasional encounters throughout the year. There Federation has a person in charge of intercultural issues at national level and there is at least one international partnership, with churches in Ghana. Ad o a a d assista e Diako ie Aust ia is in charge of advocacy at the national level. Cooperation with other churches and organisations happens and is ongoing. Diako ie Flü htli gsdie st is the office responsible for providing assistance to migrants, refugees and asylum seekers. Protestant Churches also carry out this work in cooperation with other churches and organisations. BELGIUM VPKB/EPUB (United Protestant Church in Belgium) Mig a ts i the life of the hu hes The percentage of migrants within the churches is between 5 and 20%. Ethnic minorities represent fewer than 5% of the church membership and they are mostly people from Rwanda, Congo, and Pakistan. There are international as well as intercultural churches. Between 21 and 40% of churches are intercultural. Patterns of worship range from members of various ethnic backgrounds worshiping together every Sunday, worshipping at separate worship time, to separate worship times every Sunday. Between 5 to 20% of leadership positions are held by migrants. The church has nobody in charge of intercultural issues. The estimated percentage of young people with migrant background is relatively high at between 41 and 60%. Of these, 20% are considered to be first generation migrants, with 40% of young people with migrant backgrounds being second generation. There are no separate activities organised for migrant youth. Ad o a a d assista e There are organisations in Brussels, Antwerp and Oostend linked to the Federation of Protestant Churches in charge of both advocacy and assistance for migrants, refugees and ethnic minorities. Advocacy work is also carried out in partnership with other churches (for example, the ecumenical working group, AMOS). CYPRUS Church of Cyprus (Orthodox) Mig a ts i the life of the hu hes The percentage of migrants and ethnic minorities in the church is below 5%. The main ethnic minorities are Russian, Romanian, and Georgian. The two most common patterns of worship include worshipping together every Sunday and separate worship times with monthly joint worship. The percentage of leadership positions held by migrants is below 5%. The percentage of young people with a migrant background is also below 5%. CZECH REPUBLIC Czechoslovak Hussite Church Mig a ts i the life of the hu hes There are fewer than 5% of migrants within the churches. The main ethnic minorities present are Czech, Polish, Roma, and Koreans. The church is bilingual (Czech and Polish). Ad o a a d assista e The Church does advocacy work in cooperation with the Lutheran World Federation and the Conference of Protestant Churches in Europe (GEKE/CPCE). 103 DENMARK The Evangelical Lutheran Church of Denmark (ELKD) Mig a ts i the life of the hu hes The percentage of migrants within the ELKD is below 5%. In Denmark it is more usual for Christians to form their own congregations based on confession, language and ethnicity rather than integrating into the ELKD. The presence of international and intercultural churches is below 5% as well as the numbers of migrants in a leadership position. The church has resources for multicultural worship. The ELKD does not have anybody responsible for intercultural issues at national level. However, these aspects are carried out by two organisations working within the church framework: the I te atio al Ch istia Ce t e and the Chu hes' I teg atio Mi ist (KIT). Ad o a a d assista e ELKD advocacy and assistance work is carried out in cooperation with other organisations. FINLAND Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland (ELCF) Mig a ts i the life of the hu hes The percentage of migrants within the ELCF is below 5%. Ethnic minority presence is below 5% and includes ethnic Swedes, people from the former Soviet Union, Ingrians, Sami people, Estonians, Germans, Sudanese, people from Myanmar, and Congolese. The ELCF does not have 'minority congregations' but there are language‐ specific or ethnic based worshipping communities. For instance, in the Helsinki area there are four worshipping communities attached to local Lutheran congregations: they all have Lutheran pastors and the participants are usually ecumenically diverse. The presence of international congregation is below 5%.The patterns of worship include separate and united worship times every Sunday. The ELCF has a policy on multicultural worship as well as resources available for such services. Policies encouraging the active participation of migrants are in place. The percentage of migrants in leadership position is below 5%. The ELCF Council has an advisor on migration and refugee issues who also deals with multicultural issues with the support of a national committee. The committee makes recommendations to congregations, and has a lead in making strategic efforts towards churches to be more responsive to migrants and to be more welcoming. The ELCF works in close cooperation with the Ecumenical Council to include migrant leaders in the ecumenical forums. The percentage of migrant young people is below 5%. Ad o a a d assista e The ELCF has an advisor on migration and asylum issues. The advocacy work is done mostly in cooperation with the E u e i al Cou il. There is a Unit for Diaconia and Counselling in the Church Council in charge of providing assistance to migrants, refugees and asylum seekers. Local ecumenical cooperation exists as well as cooperation with the Helsi ki Diako ia I stitute. The Orthodox Church of Finland Mig a ts i the life of the hu hes The percentage of migrants within the Orthodox Church is between 5 and 20 %. According to the information on mother tongue use from church membership registers, the immigrant population is approximately 15%, or around 9,000 people. In addition there are an estimated 20,000 non‐registered Orthodox migrants, some of whom participate in church life. The main ethnicities are; Russian, Romanian, Ukrainian, Greek, Coptic Egyptian, Ethiopian, Eritrean, Serbian, Belarusian, and Estonian. All congregations are multi‐ethnic, mostly Finnish‐ Russian. The church includes one Russian congregation, three Romanian congregations with a monthly liturgy, one English‐speaking congregation with a monthly liturgy, one 1 Greek congregation with monthly liturgy, one Ethiopian congregation with weekly services but no priest, one Ethiopian congregation with less frequent services, and one Eritrean congregation with irregular services. There are also Serbian, Bulgarian and Armenian services a few times a year, hosted by local Finnish congregations. There are currently three immigrant clergy representatives out of twelve in the General Clergy‐Laity Assembly, which is the highest administrative body of the church. There are immigrant parish council members in several parishes. There are currently three immigrant clergy serving as Deans, out of a total of twenty‐three, with responsibility for particular church districts or parishes. In general, 5 to 20% of leadership positions are held by migrants. 104 Ad o a a d assista e The assistant Bishop to the Archbishop is responsible for migrant work at the national level of the Church. The issue is mentioned in the strategy for the church, and is therefore supervised officially by the church. In Helsinki, the International Orthodox Community of St. Isaac of Nineveh, supports local parish work and organizes local and national activities. The official humanitarian aid and mission organization Fila t opia often represents the church on the national level in migrant issues. Cooperation through the Fi ish E u e i al Cou il is important. The diakonia action of the Helsinki parish works with migrants on many issues. The NGO Filokse ia works with migrants in the Western suburb of Helsinki from all ethnicities and religions, with an Orthodox Christian value base. It participates visibly in debates at the national level. The Helsinki church district, or parish, has introduced the specific position of a priest for multicultural work. The aim is to form a team of two priests, one church musician and two general church workers to coordinate and support work with migrants and migrant congregations across the Helsinki region, cooperating with all the local Finnish speaking Orthodox congregations. FRANCE EPUdF – Eglise protestante unie de France Mig a ts i the life of the hu hes Germans, Italians. The Presence of ethnic minorities is below 5%. The percentage of intercultural churches is between 41 and 60%. Most common patterns of worship: worshipping together every Sunday, separate and united worship with occasional encounters. EPUdF does not have policies on multicultural worship but the parishes at local level usually have them. The percentage of migrants in leadership positions is between 5 and 20%. The percentage is higher in Paris than in the rest of the country where 20% of lay members and 22% of the ministers have a migrant background. The French Protestant Federation (FPF) has a person in charge of the Mosaï Project whose aim is to help churches to have contacts and fruitful cooperation with migrant‐churches. The FPF plays an important role in advocacy for ethnic churches as they often have difficulty in finding places for worship. The percentage of young people with migrant background is between 5 and 20%. Of these, 5 to 10% are first generation migrants. In comparison, second generation migrants make up 15 to 20%. Ad o a a d assista e The President of the EPUdF, its executive secretary for international relations and the President of the FPF are the persons responsible for advocacy within the Protestant Churches in France. Advocacy is also carried out in cooperation with CIMADE, CEPPLE and CEVAA. Assistance to migrants is provided at the local level often in cooperation with other organisations such as Ca itas or CIMADE for instance. GERMANY Evangelical Church in Germany (EKD) Mig a ts i the life of the hu hes The percentage of migrants within the churches is between 5 and 20%. The main ethnic minorities include people from Indonesia, Ghana, Finland, Netherlands, Sweden, and Vietnam. The presence of ethnic minorities is below 5%. The common patterns of worship range from separate worship times, united worship times every Sunday, and occasional joint gatherings. The percentage of migrants in leadership positions is below 5%. The Mig atio a d Hu a ‘ights Desk of the EKD also deals with intercultural issues. Other associated activities include the Co fe e e of Co issio e s fo the i te ultu al i ist of the EKD, the E u e i al Co issio fo the a ual I te ultu al Week i Ge a , and the I te ultu al Mi iste s' Co fe e e. The percentage of young people with a migrant background is between 5 and 20% of which 5% can be considered first generation with a further 20% being second generation migrants. Ad o a a d assista e Diako ia Ge a is responsible for advocacy work as well as for providing assistance to migrants, refugees, asylum seekers and minority groups. 105 Methodist Church Mig a ts i the life of the hu hes The percentage of migrants within the churches is below 5%. The main ethnic minorities are Ghanaian, South African, Chinese, Vietnamese, and Russian. The percentage of ethnic minorities is below 5%. Additionally, fewer than 5% of churches are international or intercultural. Common patterns of worship range from separate worship times; occasional encounters, and monthly joint worship. The percentage of leadership positions held by migrants is below 5%. The Coordinator of Migrant and International Ministries is also in charge of intercultural issues. The officer's work is to connect the various migrant and international congregations with indigenous congregations. With the exception of isolated areas the interaction between migrant‐led and indigenous churches is limited. There are a few indigenous congregations whose ministers have developed dynamic intercultural work. The percentage of young people with a migrant background is below 5%. Ad o a a d assista e The Methodist Church has a Coo di ato of Mig a t a d I te atio al Co g egatio s whose work is assisted by the ICUMC (International Committee of the United Methodist Church). The co‐ordinator’s priorities are training, advocacy and conflict resolution. Assistance to migrants, refugees, asylum seekers and minority groups is provided at local level. GREECE Church of Greece (Orthodox) Ad o a a d assista e The KSPM (I teg atio Ce t e fo ‘etu i g Mig a ts) was founded in 1978 within the Holy Synod of the Church of Greece, to assist Greek migrants returning from Western Europe. Since the 1990s it has extended its scope to include other migrants, asylum seekers and refugees. It is composed of three main departments: a. A study and research department, b. The social service department, and c. The legal services department. The E u e i al ‘efugee P og a (ERP) is a special office for refugees within the I teg atio Ce t e fo Wo ki g Mig a ts (known as the KSPM‐ERP) and is an NGO of the Church of Greece which succeeded the KSPM in 2012. Since 1994, the ERP has provided legal assistance and representation to asylum seekers and refugees as well as social support. ERP works very closely with other Greek, European and international entities, bodies and NGOs which defend the human rights of particular migrants and refugees. It has participated in a significant number of international and Greek campaigns for this purpose. KSPM‐ERP is an implementing partner (IP) of UNHCR in administering, organizing and presenting training activities on refugee protection issues for the Greek police, coast guards, bar‐associations and other voluntary networks of civil society. ICELAND Lutheran Church of Iceland Mig a ts i the life of the hu hes The percentage of migrants within the Church is below 5%. There are international congregations although their percentage is below 5%. Common patterns of worship include joint worship every Sunday as well as separate worship times with occasional encounters. The percentage of migrants in leadership position is below 5%. Since 1996 there has been a minister working for immigrants at national level. The percentage of young people with a migrant background is between 5 and 20%. Ad o a a d assista e The minister for immigrants is also responsible for the advocacy work and assistance on behalf of the Church. IRELAND Church of Ireland (CoI) Mig a ts i the life of the hu hes The percentage of migrants within the Church of Ireland is below 5%. This percentage, however, does not include people from the UK or other EU countries. The main ethnic minorities are Nigerian, Lithuanians, and Polish. The presence of noticeable ethnic minorities is somewhere between 5 and 20%. International and intercultural churches are present although they represent below 5% of all churches. Common patterns of 106 worship are separate worship times, and occasional encounters. The Church has a policy on multicultural worship as well as resources for such services. The percentage of leadership positions held by migrants is below 5%. The church has a committee on intercultural issues at diocesan level, particularly in the Dublin area. The percentage of young people in the Church with a migrant background is between 5 and 20%. Ad o a a d assista e The Church has a Dio esa Chapli fo the I te atio al Co u it Dublin area) and a minister responsible for advocacy. The Church carries out advocacy work in cooperation with other churches and organisations. The Lutheran Church Mig a ts i the life of the hu hes The Lutheran Church in Ireland is a migrant‐led church. The percentage of migrants within the church is over 60% with ethnic Germans making approximately 85% of the ethnic minority total population. Other ethnicities present in the church are US Americans, Hungarians, Polish, Finnish, Swedish, and Danish migrants. Between 5 and 20% of congregations are international in some way. Common patterns of worship include separate worship times, monthly joint worship, separate worship times, and occasional joint activities. The Church has a policy to encourage the active participation of English speaking members. The percentage of leadership position held by migrants is over 60%. The Church has a person in charge of intercultural issues. The percentage of young people with a migrant background is over 60%. Of these, 30% are first generation migrants and a further 70% are second generation. The Methodist Church (Republic of Ireland) Mig a ts i the life of the hu hes The percentage of migrants within the Methodist Church in the Republic of Ireland is between 5 and 20%, mostly originating from Africa, India, the Philippines, other European countries, and Brazil. The Church has congregations with a noticeable ethnic minority presence, including Zimbabwe, South Africa, Nigeria, Ghana, Uganda, Philippines. The Church has intercultural as well as international congregations both of them with a percentage between 5 and 20%. Common worship patterns include joint worship every Sunday, separate worship times every Sunday, and joint monthly worship. The Church has policies encouraging the active participation of migrants in its organisation and leadership. For instance they run an annual multi‐ethnic church conference. The percentage of leadership positions held by migrants is between 5 and 20%. The Methodist Church in Ireland plans to appoint a multi‐ethnic Ministry Officer in 2015. The percentage of young people with a migrant background is between 21 and 40%. Half of these (50%) are first generation migrants while the other 50% are second generation migrants. Ad o a a d assista e The multi‐ethnic Ministry Officer will be appointed with a brief to oversee the advocacy work of the Church. The Methodist Church (Northern Ireland, UK) Mig a ts i the life of the hu hes The percentage of migrants within the Methodist Church in Northern Ireland is below 5%. There are no noticeable ethnic minorities within the Church. The Methodist Church in the entire island is planning to appoint a Multi‐ethnic Ministry Officer in 2015. Ad o a a d assista e The Multi‐ethnic Ministry Officer which will be appointed will also cover the advocacy work of the Church. The Presbyterian Church in Ireland, Republic of Ireland (PCI‐ROI) Mig a ts i the life of the hu hes The percentage of migrants within the PCI‐ROI is between 5 and 20%. The main ethnic minorities are British, Nigerian, Korean, US‐Americans, and Indians. The presence of noticeable ethnic minorities is between 41 and 60%. Congregations that are considered Intercultural make up over 60% of the PCI‐ROI congregations. Common patterns of worship include worshipping together every Sunday, separate worship times, and occasional joint activities. The PCI‐ROI has prepared resources for multicultural worship. The percentage of leadership position held by migrants is below 5%. The church has a committee on intercultural issues at diocesan level, particularly 107 in the Dublin area. The percentage of young people in the PCI‐ROI with a migrant background is between 5 and 20%. The PCI‐ROI has two committees with responsibility in these areas; firstly, the Race and Relation Panel and, secondly, the Church Relations Panel. The former is in charge of advocacy at national level and the latter has responsibility for church relations and co‐operation with migrant‐led churches. The percentage of young people with a migrant background is between 5 and 20%. Of these, first generation migrants make up more than 25% while second generation migrants are slightly less than 75%. Ad o a a d assista e The ‘a e a d ‘elatio Pa el is in charge of the PCI‐ROI’s advocacy work. The PCI‐ROI carries out advocacy in co‐ operation with other churches such as the Irish Council of Churches, the Wo ld Co u ities of ‘efo ed Chu hes, the I ish I te ‐Chu h Meeti g and the Co fe e e of Eu opea Chu hes. The Presbyterian Church in Ireland, Northern Ireland (PCI‐NI) Mig a ts i the life of the hu hes The percentage of migrants within the PCI‐NI is below 5%. Migrants come from Africa, China, Malaysia, and India. Common patterns of worship include joint worship every Sunday, separate worship times, and occasional join activities. The Church has prepared resources for multicultural worship. The percentage of leadership position held by migrants is below 5% and the presence of young people with a migrant background is also below 5%. The ‘a e a d ‘elatio s Pa el coordinates intercultural issues for both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. However this panel is composed by volunteers who have other responsibilities and therefore it has limited capacity to influence strategy, provide resources and deal with practical issues. Ad o a a d assista e The ‘a e a d ‘elatio s Pa el deals with advocacy issues for immigrants and minority ethnic groups. The PCI‐NI carries out advocacy in cooperation with the Irish Council of Churches and E a e. The Moravian Church (Northern Ireland) Mig a ts i the life of the hu hes The percentage of migrants within the Moravian Church in Northern Ireland is below 5%. The Salvation Army (Northern Ireland) Mig a ts i the life of the hu hes The percentage of migrants within the Salvation Army is between 5 and 20%. Migrants come mainly from Africa and China. The most common pattern of worship is joint worship every Sunday. The percentage of leadership position held by migrants is below 5%. There is a Multi ultu al Mi ist ies Missio Pa t e dealing with intercultural issues. The percentage of young people with a migrant background is between 5 and 20%. The Roman Catholic Church (Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland) Mig a ts i the life of the hu hes The percentage of migrants within the Roman Catholic Church in the whole of Ireland is between 5 and 20%. The main ethnicity of migrants is Polish, British, Filipino, and Indian. There are noticeable ethnic minorities and their percentage is between 5 and 20%. Common worship patterns include occasional united worship, separate monthly worship, joint worship every Sunday, and joint monthly worship. The Church has prepared resources for multicultural worship and has measures in place to measure successes, for instance through workshops, questionnaires and provincial networking and feedback. The percentage of leadership positions held by migrants is below 5%. The Cou il fo I ig a ts of the I ish Bishops Co fe e e directs its efforts towards the acceptance and settlement of refugees and migrants in their parish communities. The work of welcoming, settling and assisting immigrants within the multicultural realities of Irish society and local church is initially carried out by the ministry of migrant‐led churches. As time passes, the focus shifts to assisting immigrants, especially the younger generation, to a more active participation in the life of the wider society and local Church. Three migrant Chaplains sit on the Boa d of the Cou il fo I ig a ts. There is an annual gathering of migrant Chaplains each year. Migrant Chaplains are also active members of local parish teams. The percentage of young people with a migrant background is between 5 and 20%. Of these, 5% are first generation migrants, and a further 3% are second generation migrants. Some dioceses have separate organisations for young people, arranged according to the ethnic background of the migrants. 108 Ad o a a d assista e The Cou il fo I ig a ts of the I ish Bishops Co fe e e and the Cou il fo Justi e a d Pea e of the I ish Bishops' Co fe e e are responsible for advocacy work. Among their priorities they serve as a well‐informed resource to the Bishops Co fe e e and to individual Bishops’ on asylum, refugee, migrant workers and related issues. Further, they promote awareness of the needs of migrant workers, asylum seekers and refugees and related issues; contribute to the public policy debate on migrant related issues; and act as a resource for parishes and dioceses who are interested in advocating for the rights of migrants. There is cooperation with other churches and organisations. Dioceses across Ireland provide assistance to migrants, refugees and asylum seekers on behalf of the Church. Many of the key NGOs working in the field of migration have a Catholic ethos. Romanian Orthodox Church Mig a ts i the life of the hu hes The Romanian Orthodox Church is a migrant‐led Church in Ireland and the percentage of migrants is over 60%. The main ethnicities of migrant are Romanian, Moldovan, Irish, Palestinian, and Belorussian. There are intercultural congregations although fewer than 5% of Romanian Orthodox Churches are intercultural. The most common worship pattern involves joint worship every Sunday. The Church has policies to encourage the active participation of migrants. The percentage of migrants in leadership position is over 60%. Over 60% of young people within the church have a migrant background. Ad o a a d assista e The Church has a person in charge of advocacy work which is also done in cooperation with the I ish Cou il of Chu hes and Du li Cou il of Chu hes. Assistance to migrants, refugees and asylum seekers is done at local level. Religious Society of Friends (‘Quakers’) Mig a ts i the life of the hu hes The percentage of migrants among the Religious Society of Friends in the Republic of Ireland is between 5 and 20%. Most migrants are of white Anglo‐Saxon descent. Worship comprises joint worship every Sunday. The Church has policies to encourage the active participation of migrants. The percentage of migrants in leadership position is between 5 and 20%. ITALY Federation of Protestant Churches (FCEI) Mig a ts i the life of the hu hes Migrants within the FCEI make up between 21 and 40% of the membership. Among the Waldensians and Methodists the main ethnicities are Ghanaians, Filipinos, Latin Americans, and Koreans. For the Baptists there is a higher presence of Romanians and Ukrainians. The percentage of churches that have noticeable ethnic minorities is between 5 and 20%. There are both international and intercultural churches within the membership of FCEI with a higher percentage of these being intercultural (between 5 and 20%). Common worship patterns include joint worship every Sunday, separate worship times, and occasional activities. The FCEI has resource materials for multicultural worship. The Churches have policies encouraging migrants’ active participation. For example, a two‐year intercultural training program for indigenous and migrant leaders (lay and ordained) is available. The percentage of leadership position held by migrants is between 21 and 40%. FCEI has a national office for Bei g Chu h Togethe run by a program director and a secretariat with a commission meeting twice a year. Bei g Chu h Togethe has been the national strategy of the churches belonging to the Federation: promoting multi‐ethnic congregations, helping indigenous and migrants to find a new intercultural way to share the Gospel and being Church. The percentage of young people with a migrant background is between 21 and 40%. Ad o a a d assista e FCEI has a department, the ‘efugees a d Mig a t “e i e (SRM), responsible for the work on advocacy and assistance for migrants, refugees and minorities. The main areas of advocacy include migration and asylum issues; racism and discrimination; citizenship rights; detention centres; Roma minorities; and human trafficking 109 for labour exploitation. SRM‐FCEI advocacy work is carried out in partnership with other organisations at local, national and international level. Among the networks in which SRM is involved are the Co ittee fo the P o otio a d P ote tio of Hu a ‘ights; the Natio al o ki g g oup fo the Eu opea a paig agai st dis i i atio ; the Natio al o se ato o Hu a T affi ki g; the Ta olo Nazio ale Asilo and Ta olo Nazio ale I ig azio e. SRM‐FCEI runs a counselling desk providing legal, social and health assistance and advice to migrants, refugees and asylum seekers. Special attention is given to refugees' and migrants' empowerment in terms of professional and academic skills. At the national level, SRM‐FCEI closely works with Ca itas‐‘o a, AC“E and JSR. At international level SRM‐FCEI works in partnership with CCME, CEC and WCC. In 2014 FCEI started a new project, called Medite a ea Hope (MH) which includes an office monitoring migration flows in Lampedusa, a reception centre in Sicily, and a relocation desk in Rome. MH will soon be operational in Morocco and Lebanon in partnership with the Sant'Egidio Community to start a pilot project on a 'humanitarian corridor’. NETHERLANDS Protestant Church of the Netherlands (PKN) Mig a ts i the life of the hu hes The percentage of migrants within the church is below 5%. Fewer than 5% of churches are international churches. There is a person at national level in charge of intercultural issues. Ad o a a d assista e Ke k i A tie is responsible for advocacy work. The main areas of advocacy include working with undocumented migrants without housing, the rights of asylum children, migrants in detention centres, and statelessness. Advocacy is also carried out in partnership with other churches and organisations including the Council of Churches in the Netherlands; Defence for children, UNHCR, Amnesty International. Assistance to migrants, refugees, and minority groups is provided at local level. NORWAY Church of Norway (Lutheran) Mig a ts i the life of the hu hes The percentage of migrants within the Church of Norway is below 5%. The percentage of ethnic minorities is also below 5%. There are few international and intercultural congregations, estimated at below 5% of all churches. Worshipping together is the most common pattern for Sunday service. Although the Church of Norway does not have a policy in place for multicultural worship, resources for joint worship is available. The Church does have policies encouraging the active participation of migrants. The percentage of leadership positions held by migrants is below 5%. There is a national advisor on integration and migration issues at the Church Council Office. The percentage of young people with a migrant background is below 5%. Ad o a a d assista e The advocacy work is carried out by the Church of Norway Cou il o E u e i al a d I te atio al elatio s whose main priorities include irregular migration; asylum policy, children's rights, the rights of converts, Roma, victims of trafficking in human beings, and labour migrants. Assistance to migrants, refugees and minority groups is provided by the Cit Missio and the Ch istia Multi ultu al Asso iatio on behalf of the Church of Norway. Christian Council of Norway Mig a ts i the life of the hu hes The Christian Council of Norway has a project coordinator who facilitates a Multi ultu al Net o k between mainline churches, church organisations and migrant‐led churches. 110 PORTUGAL Methodist Church Mig a ts i the life of the hu hes The percentage of migrants within the Methodist Church in Portugal is between 5 and 20%. The main ethnic migrants are Angola, Brazil and Mozambique. The Church has congregations with a noticeable ethnic minority (between 5 and 20%) made up mainly of people from Angola. The most common pattern of worship is joint worship every Sunday. The percentage of ordained leadership positions held by migrants is between 41 and 60%. SPAIN Spanish Evangelical Church (IEE) Mig a ts i the life of the hu hes The percentage of migrants within the Church is between 5 and 20%. The majority of migrants come from Latin America, Africa and the rest of Europe. Between 41‐60% of the Church’s congregations have a noticeable ethnic minority presence. The Church has both international and intercultural churches. The percentage of the international churches is between 5 and 20% while the intercultural ones are less than 5%. Common worship patterns of worship include separate worship times, occasional joint activities, and joint worship every Sunday. The Church has policies encouraging the active participation of migrants. The percentage of migrants is between 5 and 20%. The Synod and the regional communities are important moments of interactions between indigenous and migrant‐led congregations and can be considered as a step towards integration. The percentage of young people with a migrant background is between 5 and 20%. Of these, 20% are first generation migrants and 80% are second generation migrants. Ad o a a d assista e The Church has a staff person in charge of the advocacy work with priorities to assist with refugees and the integration of migrants. Advocacy is carried out in cooperation with CEAR (Spanish commission helping refugees), Ca itas and the Jesuit Service for Migrants. SWEDEN Church of Sweden (Lutheran) Mig a ts i the life of the hu hes The 2011 Church of Sweden statistics record the percentage of foreign born members as 3.5% of total church membership. The percentage of foreign‐born members of the Church is 16%. Finnish, Sami, German, and Roma are the major ethic minority groups, followed by Latin Americans and those from the former USSR. The Church has both international and intercultural parishes, although their estimated percentage is below 5%. These parishes are mainly found in areas highly populated by migrants. There are some Lutheran migrant or former migrant groups organised as ethnic minority congregations; including Ethiopian, Finnish, and German‐speaking parishes in the bigger cities. The most common pattern of worship for those parishes with migrants in their constituency is to have separate worship times every Sunday or separate worship times with monthly joint worship. The percentage of leadership positions held by migrants is below 5%. However, the Archbishop is a migrant from Germany and one of the four bishops is from Finland. In addition the Church has an estimated fifteen ordained pastors and forty deacons with a migrant background. Ad o a a d assista e In the Depa t e t fo Chu h a d “o iet of the central church office there is one person working as an advisor on refugees, migrants and integration issues and partly doing advocacy. Additionally, there are diocesan staff and others who work with advocacy. At a national level the work on migration is carried out mainly in cooperation with the Ch istia Cou il of “ ede but also, to a lesser extent, with “a e the Child e , A est I te atio al, ‘ed C oss, and Ca itas. At a European level, the Church partners mainly with CCME and sometimes with Eu odiako ia and the Chu h a d “o iet Co issio of CEC. Support and assistance is provided by the Chu h s Ad i e Bu eau fo ‘efugees a d As lu seeke s providing free legal assistance in partnership with A est , Ca itas, Free Churches in Union and “a e the Child e . Some dioceses provide legal 111 advice and many collect funds for family reunification purposes or other refugee‐related costs. Local parishes that organize food, shelter, and clothes, frequently do so through their diaconal work. SWITZERLAND Federation of Swiss Protestant Churches (FSPC) Mig a ts i the life of the hu hes The percentage of migrants within the church is between 5% and 20 %. The percentage of ethnic minorities with the Federation of Swiss Protestant Churches (FSPC) is below 5%. There are intercultural churches that belong to the FSPC. The most common pattern of worship is joint worship every Sunday. The percentage of leadership positions held by migrants is estimated at below 5%. The FSPC has an officer responsible for migrant churches and migrants as member of indigenous churches. Ad o a a d assista e The FSPC has a senior migration affair officer in charge of all questions regarding migration; dealing with migration politics and policies, asylum law, and the coordination of pastoral care for asylum seekers. In addition to the work of FSPC, the “ iss Chu h Aid is involved in advocacy for refugees and it runs projects for migrants on national level. UNITED KINGDOM Pentecostal Church – Musama Disco Christo Church (MDCC) Mig a ts i the life of the hu hes The MDCC is a migrant‐led church. The percentage of migrants within the church is between 41 and 60%. The same percentage applies to the presence of ethnic minorities within the church. The percentage of churches defined as intercultural is over 60%. The most common pattern of worship is joint worship every Sunday. The percentage of leadership position held by migrants is over 60%. Ad o a a d assista e There is no Church office or department working on advocacy but the Church is a member of, and co‐operates with, the Cou il of Af i a a d Ca i ea Chu hes UK, and the T a s‐Atla ti a d Pa ifi Allia e of Chu hes. Methodist Church Mig a ts i the life of the hu hes The percentage of migrants within the Methodist Church in the UK is between 5 and 20%. The main migrant ethnicities in British Methodism are: Afro‐Caribbean, African (especially West African: Ghanaian, Nigerian, Sierra Leonean, and also Kenyan, South African, Zimbabwean), Chinese, Farsi, Fijian, Filipino, Korean, Sri Lankan, Tongan, and Urdu. There are a number of congregations with many more nationalities. Between 5 to 20% of congregations have visible ethnic minorities. The Church has both international and intercultural churches whose percentage is also between 5 and 20%. Common patterns of worship include joint worship every Sunday, weekly joint worship, monthly separate fellowship, separate worship times, and occasional joint activities. Members of English language ‘fellowships’ characteristically hold their church services in local church congregations and join in fellowship activities periodically on top of that. Members of other language groups, on the other hand, especially Chinese and Korean, tend to meet weekly in gatherings which are really their own church congregations rather than ‘additional fellowship meetings’. Since the 1960s, the Church has had policies in place to encourage the active participation of migrants in the Church. The percentage of leadership positions held by migrants is between 5 and 20%. There has been a three year project (2010‐2013) to explore and develop intercultural policy. Two working parties reported to the Methodist Conference in 2015. The percentage of young people with a migrant background is between 5 and 20%. The Methodist Church noted that whilst the 2011 Government census records 36.7% of the population of London as ‘migrant’, this doesn’t include migrants beyond the first generation nor non‐UK nationals with less than six‐month’s residency. London and the major cities have many ethnically diverse Methodist congregations but other areas of the country have almost exclusively white British congregations. The incidence of migrants varies widely across the country and therefore within the Methodist Church’s congregations. 112 Ad o a a d assista e There is an ecumenical advocacy team called the Joi t Pu li Issues Tea (JPIT) which engages with International and Public Issues although it does not work specifically on migrant or ethnic minority issues. The work supporting refugees and asylum seekers is carried out by at least ten regional projects across the churches, especially in regions where asylum seekers are relocated by the UK Government. In addition many individuals and small groups in congregations are involved in supporting people in their local areas often ecumenically. United Reformed Church Mig a ts i the life of the hu hes The percentage of migrants within the United Reformed Church (URC) in UK is between 5 and 20%. The main ethnic migrants include Korean, Chinese, African, African‐Caribbean, Indo‐Caribbean, Indian, and Pakistani. Between 5 to 20% of congregations within the Church are noticeably ethnic minority. The main ethnic minorities are Pakistani, Korean, African‐Caribbean, and African. The Church has both international and intercultural churches. While the percentage of international congregations is below 5%, the percentage of intercultural congregations is between 5 and 20%. Common patterns of worship include joint worship every Sunday, occasional united worship, and separate worship times. The URC has resources for multicultural worship. The church has policies in place to promote and encourage the active participation of migrants and also records the implementation of successful practices. For instance URC monitors the representation and participation of different members and provides mentoring and training for church members in developing intercultural competencies. The percentage of migrants in leadership position is between 5 and 20%. The Church has a “e eta fo ‘a ial Justi e a d I te ultu al Mi ist . The percentage of young people with a migrant background is between 5 and 20%. Ad o a a d assista e The advocacy work is carried out by the “e eta fo ‘a ial Justi e a d I te ultu al Mi ist and a team of volunteers. Advocacy work is carried out in cooperation with the Methodist Church and the Baptist Union of Great Britain through the Joi t Pu li Issues Tea ; through unofficial networks addressing equality and diversity; through the ecumenical agency of Chu hes Togethe i B itai a d I ela d, Chu hes Togethe i E gla d, the Asso iatio of Chu hes Togethe i “ otla d and CYTUN (Wales). Assistance is carried out at by churches at congregational level. 6. Concluding remarks Our data show that as migration has increased the religious diversity in European societies, it has also increased the diversity within mainline European Churches. However, it is possible to highlight that very often this increase is more consistent among well‐established minority communities which are also those who have been developing various degrees of integration policies. When developing the questionnaire we intentionally did not ask about offering or renting church premises to other religious communities as we consider this praxis falling into the sphere of hospitality. In any case very often there is no significant exchange among those who use the church premises and the owners. We have not gathered enough information in order to analyse the integration projects of individual and/or national churches (some recommendations/policies can be found in the appendix), and, to a certain extent it would go beyond the scope of this report. CCME, since the 1990s, has been active in the area of 'Uniting in diversity' seeing migration as an opportunity and challenge for churches. CCME has organised consultations at European level tackling the issue of migrants' pastoral care as well as training for church leaders on creating and fostering integrated community.3 Nevertheless we would like to stress the need to further investigate the nexus between migration and integration policies at national level, and those promoted by churches. On the one hand, it is indeed very evident the consolidated work carried on by a large number of churches at national, regional and local level when it comes to advocacy for/with migrants and to providing assistance to those in need. On the other hand, the relationship with migrant‐led churches and more in general with migrants within the indigenous churches is not so straightforward. The data show a trend of growing communities as a result of migration and the creation of both intercultural and international churches. However, it does not explain if migrants have been assimilated into the indigenous congregations or if they did not pursue integration 113 together with the indigenous or, still, whether the congregation itself has decided to undertake a process of transformation involving all aspects of the life of the church, towards becoming an integrated church. Finally, as the data highlights, there is the need for a closer and deeper analyses of the new generation of churchgoers. First and second‐generation migrants are already part of many congregations and from their interaction with their peers and the community in general will depend what type of churches we will have in future – monocultural, multicultural, intercultural. REFERENCES 1 2 3 See annex for the list of questions. Alternatives used elsewhere rely upon a descriptor that prefaces the individual’s ethnicity with the country of birth. So, for example, French‐born Congolese, British‐born Chinese, Portuguese‐born Brazilian, Dutch‐ born Moluccan. http://www.ccme.be/areas‐of‐work/uniting‐in‐diversity/ 114 CHAPTER SIX: PERSPECTIVES FROM THE MIGRANT EXPERIENCE OF ACTIVE PARTICIPATION IN THE CHURCHES OF EUROPE While the previous chapter deals primarily but not exclusively with the responses of mainline churches to migration, this chapter gives voices to migrants and their own experiences in active participation in churches across Europe. For this chapter we propose an extract from the research carried out by Alessia Passarelli for CCME in the framework of the MI‘ACLE project,1 I sights i to ig a ts' e pe ie es i a ti e pa ti ipatio i hu hes i Eu ope 2, a qualitative study involving twenty‐two interviewees with migrant background actively involved in mainline as well as migrant‐led churches. The analysis of the MI‘ACLE data was presented according to four main themes emerging from the interviews: (a) first encounter with the church in Europe; (b) factors behind migrants’ activation; (c) the role of the church from migrants’ perspectives; and (d) experiencing integration. These themes are relevant to our own study as they provide additional important information, through the experiences and the reflections of migrants themselves, when addressing models of integration and their challenges in churches as well as in society. 1. First encounter with a church community and the choice of affiliation You know, the great difficulty for a migrant Christian is to find quickly a church that resembles the church he comes from. (Male, Central African living in France, Pentecostal, lay) Religious connections are often among the first social relations people form upon arriving in a new country as it emerges from different respondents in different countries: Actually for me the first thing I was planning to do after settling up was to go to the church. Because I am born in a Christian family and I have been active in church for many many years. So, for me, being in a country without going to the church would have been a problem. And, I knew I could join the Lutheran church because I am a Presbyterian back home… (Male, Togolese living in Finland, Presbyterian, lay) I was here maybe 3 months or 4 months, so I started missing to go to church and I started to realize that I needed the church for myself and... so I went to the service one Sunday and ... it was ... it was like this, I missed the church. (Female, Brazilian living in Sweden, Anglican, lay/studying to become a minister) Going to church has always been part in my life. Since I was born, my parents brought me to church because they have a strong faith. I think that the right question should have been: when did I first meet the Lord? Because my conversion took place later on when I was a teenager. (Male, Central African living in France, Pentecostal, lay) The choice of affiliation presents challenges. The situation is not necessarily as smooth as the Togolese respondent in Finland highlighted: ‘I knew I could join the Lutheran church because I am a Presbyterian back home…’. In fact, in another case, in France, a Togolese stressed his difficulties in finding the place that really reflected his spirituality and met his needs as believer: When I came here, I did not know in which church I should be going, but luckily I found one of my cousins here who knew better than I and guided me. We started to go to a church in Croix which was rather evangelical. It was not quite what I was looking for but I returned several times. Then we went to a church in Roubaix. This time, it was a little bit more of what I was looking for. Then we went to a church in Villeneuve d’Ascq after my A‐levels; there were lots of students and also a good atmosphere. It was not easy for me because it was somehow too spiritualized and I was not used to it (…) but it really is in the reformed church that I already knew I found what suits me the most. A church which allows me to work my mind freely, that gives importance to the word of God, a church that welcomed me. There were some African people who gave me a good reception and the church proposed me to become a Sunday school teacher, so I started to serve again doing what I was used to do in Togo where I was very committed to youth groups and where I organized Christmas celebrations. So really, it was in Calais that things started again for me. (Male, Togolese living in France, Reformed, lay) 115 In addition it is also important to remember that a majority church in the country of origin may be a minority church in the new country, and vice versa. Therefore the church structure, its relations with the outside world, can consequently be different and this can have a repercussion on the activity held, on its visibility and, in some cases, on the relations vis‐á‐vis other churches and the government: I am born in Christian family, my father and mother they were church members that time, I grew up in this atmosphere and everything was clear from that time until now. All my relatives belong to Catholic Church (…). Here in Finland it’s different I ask many people on the street where is Catholic Church but they don’t know where is Catholic Church that was in 1995. (…) The church here is the same like in Lebanon but there not in the same level of activities. (Female, Lebanese living in Finland, Roman Catholic, lay) Furthermore, interviewees reported how the first encounter is vital to determine whether to stay or the leave the church. Being welcomed is a first step in the integration process for migrants: As many Catholics do, I went to services on big holidays, like Easter, and sometimes in between. But something was missing. Nobody ever came and said “oh, hi! Nice to see you, where are you from?“ I just went there, attended mass and went home again, and nobody ever took notice. (Female, Zimbabwean living in Germany, Roman Catholic, lay) My first encounter was around 1989 to 1990 and it was in a Pentecostal church in Conegliano. I've visited the church for about 18 month to be exact. What happened was that nobody came to greet me, nobody welcomed me. I didn't know them and they didn't know me. So, I was always going there and i went purposely to worship God, but for that people there was no feeling of fellowship or social activity. We were two different worlds. (…) I come from the Assembly of God background. Everything they were doing was the same. I could sing the songs because of the way the hymn goes. Even though I couldn't speak Italian I could recognize they were singing some hymns that I already knew, and I could understand the preaching by following the Bible. I was present at everything they did but actually what was lacking was that they didn't speak my language, I didn't speak theirs. They could have come and salute me, shake hands but they did not. (Male, Ghanaian living in Italy, Pentecostal, pastor/leader) As a result of their experience both interviewees opted for another congregation. Although the language is an issue, the Ghanaian interviewee rightly suggests that the language cannot become an excuse for not taking care of the newcomers in the congregation. In fact a similar story happened to the Togolese respondent in Finland: When I first came, I tried to attend the service in Finnish. And, at that time, my Finnish was nothing. I did not even have the basics. So for me, it was difficult. I did not get anything. And, I don’t know if I was the one who did not approach anybody or if it were the people in the church who did not approach me (…)...ok I did not understand anything but I tried to follow and as I knew the time when they were preaching, praying and all those stuff so I did everything on my own. And I went home. But it was not a good experience for me. There was no one to translate for me. (Male, Togolese living in Finland, Presbyterian, lay) The data shows also positive examples of migrants who have been welcomed in the congregation since their arrival and who have decided to remain and actively participate ever since: When I arrived here, I was immediately surrounded, integrated, and encouraged by the pastor as if he knew that I could bring something to the church. And I think that for a migrant Christian like me all this was very meaningful. (Male, Central African living in France, Pentecostal, lay) A Cameroonian in Sweden stressed the importance of receiving a warm welcome but also of going beyond that: being invited to activities and events outside the community helped him for instance to strengthen his ties with the church. It seems, however, that not all migrants who approached the same congregation have the same experience and according to the respondent it has to do with the migrants approach too: …when you are immigrant somewhere you should not just come there and still live like you are in your own country, it is two countries, two different cultures, especially when you are not from the European circle. (Male, Cameroonian living in Sweden, Pentecostal, lay) 116 “u a The data shows that migrants look for a church which resembles as much as possible the church in the country of origin. However, the first impression is decisive to stay or to go somewhere else. Changing or looking for another congregation is not merely related to the welcoming received, but it is also related to more liturgical and theological issues. In addition, it appears that being welcomed is the first step in feeling part of the community and building up the basis for beginning the journey towards integration. Migrants, on their side, also need to first understand the new environment, which might be the opposite of what they were used to, and secondly, once welcomed, take an active role in the church. In the next section we will explore what are the factors which can either promote or discourage migrants’ active participation in the church. 2. The factors behind migrants’ active participation in a church community ‘In my family in Togo, being active in the church is a normal thing. There is no other way.’ (Male, Togolese living in France, Reformed, lay) The data reports that very often previous involvement of individuals in their country of origin is an important factor promoting active participation of migrants in congregations. I can find the motivation in my past experience. I was very active in the Evangelical Church of Congo in a youth group (…) There I had some responsibilities and in the objectives of this group there was the will of being witness everywhere. Once you learn something, you have to bring it outside and be helpful for the nation. (Male, Congolese living in Italy, Reformed, Lay) No doubt and wondering why we should go to the church. The church is, it has been our life, for many, many years… (Female, Assyrian living in Sweden, Syrian Orthodox Church/Church of Sweden, lay) Along with the previous involvement, the character, the charisma and the personal choices/aspirations play a major role in the activism. Actually I was an evangelist before coming here. (…)Based on a prophecy that I was called to speak to the nations, I left and came here to spread the gospel. (Male, Ghanaian living in Italy, Pentecostal, pastor/leader) The Ghanaian interviewee is not an isolated case; among the respondents there are other situations where previous involvement and personal aspirations merged. For instance in the Netherlands we have two cases: a South‐African male came to the Netherlands when he was already ordained and an Indonesian female minister in the Netherlands who came as trainee minister and who was ordained as the first migrant woman in the mainline Church in the Netherlands in 1995. Along with a history of active participation of migrants in their country of origin, there are factors that foster or inhibit it in the new country. The Cameroonian interviewee from Sweden talks about the first impression congregants have and the care they have for each other and for the newcomers: It´s the first impression, the first day they go to the church that is the impression they have, this I mean, what they are going to do in the future... (…)The second factor is the care... many churches miss that part, to care about people, I use to say there are people, nobody has said to them during the week, ”how are doing in the school, how are you doing in your job”, it is like nobody cares... and when (newcomers) come to church they expect people to ask them such questions to care about them (…) when you live in Sweden, I live in a flat but I don’t know my neighbours... (Male, Cameroonian living in Sweden, Pentecostal, lay) There are also attitudes and behaviours that instead of fostering participation and integration inhibit them. Language appears as one of the factors perceived as a barrier as the example below shows: … (Language) can be a big barrier for many immigrants to be devoted in the church activities. Most of the time the tools used for translation are not in good condition or may be the interpreters are not competent. (…) It happens that we have service in English when the guest is an English speaker. I understand Swedish it means it is not a problem for me. (Male, Cameroonian living in Sweden, Pentecostal, lay) In addition to the language barrier, another discouraging element can be identified in the lack of empowerment of the congregants from the side of the minister. If there is only one person doing everything people can lose the motivation 117 not only to be active but also to attend the church. Below the considerations of a Ghanaian leader, in Italy, to this regard: When I came here, I visited many churches and I noticed that the pastor did everything, the sermon, the liturgy, the choice of the songs. So we just sat and listened. This was discouraging. I suggested something about this but the suggestion did not get well. When we started this ministry, I did it the way we do in Africa: every single part of the worship is being organized by someone. We are all humans and sometimes something can bring us down but I love the verse of the Bible that say that anyone who puts his mind on God will never be shaking. (Male, Ghanaian living in Italy, Pentecostal, pastor/leader) Therefore it emerges that the cultural differences – if not properly addressed and dealt with ‐ might push migrants away, or they can also have negative repercussions on their participation in the church. To this regard the experience of an Ethiopian interviewee in Germany is also emblematic who reflects on the differences between the worship life in Ethiopia and in Germany and how it has had a negative impact on participation of migrants in the church: The problem is (…) that even if we belong to the same denomination the way we exercise our service is completely different. So, people sometimes say it is not very encouraging and not very attractive so even some of the members who were active members back in Ethiopia, they are not as active as they used to…they say the environment is not attractive, they say when they go to church it is not…the usual thing. (Male, Ethiopian living in Germany, Lutheran, Ordained) The respondent explains that the difference consists in music, prayer and quality of the sermon. The experience is, however, diverse if you find yourself alone, as a migrant, in the church. The Congolese interviewee in Italy explains how the attitude of congregants had influenced his participation: It wasn't easy for me to integrate in this community (…) when I started attending the church assemblies I was the only African and, at the time, it was rare to see even a stranger standing in front of the community reading the bible on Sunday. I also thought to renounce. You know God is everywhere, so I could even pray and meditate in another place. (Male, Congolese living in Italy, Reformed, Lay) According to the interviewee, the difficulties may lie in the supposed cold attitude of the church congregants who come from the region – Piedmont – in the North‐West; and, in the historical background of the Waldensian Church, which is a minority church. Despite these difficulties, the respondent recognizes the benefits of the church as a channel for integration while, at the same time, pointing out the crucial role played by national policies: The church is a very interesting channel for integration but we can't forget the other aspect (the political context). (…) Politics for me is everyday life, it is the society but for migrants is very hard to get engaged in the social life (…) Migrants need stable jobs to renew their permission to stay (in Italy), so they don't have time for social life. If you don't work you won't renew your permission. Many people say that it's impossible to be involved in all these activities without earning money from them. I understand their point of view, maybe it's the Italian context. (Male, Congolese living in Italy, Reformed, Lay) “u a The first consideration to be drawn from the data is the existence of relations between migrants’ previous involvement in the church in their country of origin and their activism in the church in the new country. However, interviewees suggest that there are factors promoting or discouraging their participation in church as well as in society. A welcoming environment followed by an involvement of the newcomers in church and extra‐church activities does foster an active participation of migrants. On the other hand, a cold reception along with the language barrier discourages migrants’ participation, not only active participation but participation in general. However, what is perceived as a ‘cold reception’ may be related to cultural differences and in the journey towards integration migrants have also their role to play. Finally it emerges that the legal status of migrants’ in the new country and laws regulating migration and integration issues influence the possibility of individuals to take an active role in churches as well as in civil society. The next section will analyse the different approaches that churches have in serving as an integration tool for migrants. 3. The role of the church from the perspective of the migrant ‘The only thing I can say about my experiences all over the world is that, as far as immigrants are concerned, the church is extremely good basis for providing immigrants with the stability.’ (Male, English living in Finland, Anglican, ordained) 118 In a migration situation people find themselves in more vulnerable situations characterised by high voltages of insecurity, instability and uncertainty. The respondents identify a key role played by churches in supporting migrants in the new environment as highlighted by the experiences below: The churches, all the churches, all the denominations have to be in a positions to help those who come from abroad and those who are seeking help. (Male, English living in Finland, Anglican, ordained) I think that the church played an important role in my stability in this country; I really do need God. And since I am far from my family I know that He strengthens me and guides me in everything that I do. In my personal life, I need God more than anything else. (Male, African Central living in France, Pentecostal, lay) Stability is, in fact, a recurring theme in the interviews. However, for respondents stability is a concept that goes beyond being fully part of a religious community. It can be reached by finding a job, friends, and family and, the church connections can play a prominent role in this. It can be achieved through: becoming a priest, deacon, working for the church in general. For people like me, when you graduate from school and it’s getting difficult for you to get job that is really in your field then if the church could have some kind of relationship with some company or tries to introduce you to a kind of job that can really help you then it could be really okay. So you know that you belong to like a family and you have certain expectations. (Male, Togolese living in Finland, Presbyterian, lay) For a Russian interviewee in Finland, the church is the place that gives access to different networks: In general I got the feeling that in the church I can find anything that I really need: like friends, activities, and work. (…) I can say that the church is always near to immigrant, the church is open for immigrant: (…) If you are active you can have your position inside the church because they need us and we need them. Having a multicultural group in the church is something good in my opinion. (Female, Russian living in Finland, lay) Churches do also play a role in building up a community that resembles the religious and cultural context that migrants had back home. To this regard the analysis of the Indonesian minister in the Netherlands is inspiring as she describes the positive and negative sides of the migrant‐ led churches: Let me start with being critical to us as migrants, I mean the Migrant churches in Holland. Many migrant churches are still very much isolated and look to their own groups, to their own business. Of course that is very much understandable because they are small and they are just new here. But it has been like this for a long time and that is not good because the church has to look outside. Most migrants are not very positive at the idea of being integrated into the society because they are either afraid or they feel that the Dutch society is less moral than us (migrant society). They drink a lot of alcohol. They accept homosexuals. They accept euthanasia here in the society. So, migrants are to be, to formulate it more positively, the migrant Christians must be more positively open to the Dutch society. I don't mean to say that they have to accept all their moral ethical things, no... But they can try to understand the standpoint of the other. To be in dialogue. They mostly judge first and then they say Dutch society is evil. That is not good of course. The positive way is that there is a lot of cooperation in local church in the migrant churches. (Female, Indonesian living in the Netherlands, Protestant, Ordained) The church can indeed be a space where people from the same nationality or, even more specifically, from the same ethnic group gather together to maintain their cultural traits along with their religious tradition. We have lots of traditions in our church. Traditional celebrations and festivals, and I like them very much. It is very impressive and magnificent in the Syrian Orthodox Church. You feel how the atmosphere and the congregation live up, as if for you, God is for you, the theological in the altar in the church, it is beautiful. Not everything is wasted, or negative. But, personally, to accept that woman is not welcome in the altar as much as men are is a problem. Why only priests, male deacons, male choir are welcome? (Female, Assyrian living in Sweden, Syrian Orthodox Church/Church of Sweden, lay) According to the Assyrian interviewee in Sweden, the encounter between the traditional church and the mainline church in the new country raises some questions, creates challenges as presented in the example above in relation to 119 gender roles in the different church traditions. However, it appears possible to attend both – mainline and migrant‐led churches as they absolve to different roles as she further explains below: (Being part of the Swedish church) has its advantages. (…) here there is not so much contact with Swedish families. (…) In this area, in this neighbourhood, there are no Swedish families, unfortunately, which we are in contact with. Then the church becomes the only place of contact with Swedes. Otherwise I would not meet my co‐workers, for example, and almost all of them are Swedes. That does a lot! You hear a lot, you learn a lot when you discuss... (Female, Assyrian living in Sweden, Syrian Orthodox Church/Church of Sweden, lay) In this case being part of the ethnic church is a way to maintain and nourish cultural and religious tradition, while being part of the mainline church gives migrants the opportunity to weave a net of relations with the receiving society that is crucial for the integration process. Another interviewee sees the differences between migrant‐led and mainline churches laying on cultural issues but he provides another solution: I think the thing there is that people tend to stick together culturally. It’s from both sides. Migrants often want to stick to their group. They have their way of praying or worshipping. And mainstream have their way. It is not always with bad motives or discrimination, it is cultural. But I always think that we must be open for one another. We really encourage if people of another background whether from Africa or China, whoever wants to join us are most welcome. (Male, South African living in the Netherlands, Protestant, Ordained) Albeit migrant churches often utilize buildings of the mainline churches for their worship and activities, there is not always communication and exchange between migrant‐led and mainline churches: The Oromo congregation is here and the German congregation is here. So people either go to the German congregation or they go to the Oromo congregation. So there is no dialogue on how to change the German way of worship, but parallel we are conducting our own worship‐programme in our language, and this is a big powerful compared to the German way. (Male, Ethiopian living in Germany, Lutheran, Ordained) For a Nigerian living in the Netherlands the only way forward to survive as a church is ‘being church together’ which is not assimilation but valuing diversity: So, any church that is not ready to be 'church together' will die. I am telling you, whether immigrant or mainline we have to come together to be effective. That will make the church very rich like the one described in revelation I think chapter nine, all people worshipping God from all nations. That is the vision of God to bring people from different nations to worship him. There are challenges there. Because if we study the concept of multi‐cultural churches, there are real challenges. But there can be unity in diversity which the Bible really preaches. So, we have to find a way to make it work. (Male, Nigerian living in the Netherlands, Maranathan Christian Assembly, Ordained) In line with what is expressed by the Nigerian interviewee, the Togolese respondent in France has similar hopes and expectations. Moreover, he delineates a possible way to be followed: Every one of us has to find his place. Within the church we try to encourage Africans so that they feel involved and welcomed in the church. We need to make room for everyone. The migrants are asked to participate to the activities of the church. We wrote an article which goal is to help us welcome the stranger and to work within a context of great diversity. We do not have rigid orientations but good will. Rigid orientations gave priority to individuals. Now on the contrary the collective movements are claiming. Since our actions speak for us, I always say that the migrants must get involved first. Africans need to take their place. We must manage diversity with what unites us the most: our faith. That’s why we organize one service a year which is a service of sharing in which we take down barriers. We have to pass through faith to know what diversity is. We had a synod about the place a protestant takes in the reception of foreigners. (Male, Togolese living in France, Reformed, lay) Finally, being church together for the Assyrian respondent is ‘all about people’ as the church is composed of people: Without people the church is just empty, an empty house. And it is so important to me to work with people, to meet people and be together with them. (…) Irrespectively of male, female, old, young – meet them at their level according to their needs. (…) To me this is church. (Female, Assyrian living in Sweden, Syrian Orthodox Church/Church of Sweden, lay) 120 “u a Churches as institutions have a role to play for supporting migrants. Drawing from the data it is clear that the church acts as bridge‐builder for migrants – to link the old and new realities. Churches provide migrants with stability: spiritual as well as material. Through the religious communities it is possible to establish links and connections which can lead to friendship and to employment. Migrant‐led churches, especially those with a st o g ethnic component serve not only to maintain religious beliefs ‐ which might not be present in the new country ‐ but also their cultural identity. It emerges that migrant‐led and mainline churches can have different roles in the integration process of migrants and this is one of the reasons why some of the respondents found themselves attending (both) two congregations. Sometimes migrant churches use the buildings of mainline congregations for worships and other activities but not always there is a real exchange or communication between them. 4. The migrant experience of integration Well, actually, integration... I don’t know how to express myself, but anyway, irrespectively of the matter, where you are, it must be a mutual cooperation. (Female, Assyrian living in Sweden, Syrian Orthodox Church/Church of Sweden, lay) When facing diversity people find themselves caught in positive and negative stereotypes, which, even if led by good will, can result in creating conflicts. To this regard I would like to report the experience of the Zimbabwean interviewee in Germany: People often want to know what I think about this country, they want to hear about things I don't like (…) or (about) cooking, they want to know about our food (…) they only ask „do you have rice where are you from? Do you have apples? Do you have potatoes?“ That's such nonsense. (Conversations are) very shallow, superficial. And I believe, rice is everywhere, you know. We eat very much the same things. (…) But I recognise when somebody is really interested in a topic, or if they just ask me because I look different. It also happens that when we're in a group with Germans, many Germans have a lot of questions for me, they like to ask a lot of questions, but they don't like to share and tell about themselves. Maybe they think it is self‐evident or natural or not interesting, but then, I always feel like I'm being made a poster child or showcase, you know? (Female, Zimbabwean living in Germany, Roman Catholic, lay) Another interviewee reported that the language used and the jokes are not always appropriate as they might hurt the other person or be misunderstood: Once a member of the church with an important role said to me: “You are becoming dangerously Waldensian”. When I heard this I reflected and then I went to talk to a deacon (…) explaining to her what happened. She told me: “I'm so happy to have you here because I think you have something to bring us. I know that this society is not easy, but your presence makes me happy, I know this person and if you need mediation you can count on me”. But I prefer talking face to face, so I asked the person (…) for an encounter. I told him that for me a pastor is like a landmark so I don't expect to hear every kind of thing from a similar figure, because for me what he said was totally out of context. He answered me that it was a joke, and that the Italians used to do it friendly and frequently. But I thought it was not so funny, because the word dangerous translated in French and in my own dialect becomes a heavy word. Anyway he apologized. (Male, Congolese living in Italy, Reformed, Lay) Along with stereotypes and misunderstanding migrants are also confronted with racism in the new country. Sometimes it can be traced in violent or verbal actions but at other times it is more hidden in people’s behaviours and attitudes. According to the South African interviewee in the Netherlands, the skin colour, for instance, does play a role in migrants’ integration: South Africans are usually quite well integrated in the Dutch society because we have a lot in common. I don’t think they are like Ghanaians or other people from other countries. I think for us it is quiet easy to integrate here. (Male, South African living in the Netherlands, Protestant, Ordained) The integration journey as a two way process requires the active involvement of both migrants as well as the receiving societies. Interviewees stressed that to be integrated migrants must be helped and supported, however in this process migrants have their role to play, they cannot entirely depend on the help from the outside (be it the church or the government), they have to be able to articulate their needs, and to be willing to engage in the process. 121 In Africa, we often have a mentality of begging ‐ we must be helped. I think migrants are able and capable enough to do their thing. (…) You must give them the opportunity to that. (…) They are not stupid. They can take care of themselves. That is one of the things in Holland that people very much tend to be ‘the state must do things’. I’m not so much interested in the state. I will do my own thing and that is what migrant churches must do. Get your things organized, do it in a positive way and the things will work out. (Male, South African living in the Netherlands, Protestant, Ordained) …but you have to offer something yourself. You cannot expect everything to be served upon a silver plate, that won’t do. That won’t happen even to Swedes living in Sweden. You have to fight for it. (…) (Female, Assyrian living in Sweden, Syrian Orthodox Church/Church of Sweden, lay) Knowledge of each other’s culture, perspectives, and expectations is a recurring theme among interviewees and it is an important requisite to overcome prejudices and stereotypes. The Surinamese interviewee highlights that mainline churches should go beyond the assumption that people in migrant‐led churches are good at singing, dancing; according to her both churches can learn from each other: There is fear for things that are different and strange, people are afraid of mingling with strangers. (…) I think it is important that we show who we are, that we contact the non‐migrant churches, that we make it feel at ease and that they shouldn’t be afraid of us (migrant churches). I think that because we don’t deal with each other ensures that we don’t get to know each other, we don’t know each other. (…) I think that the non‐migrant churches have to be open, to step outside their comfort zone and take a look at we do things. They shouldn’t only see us as people who are good at singing or cooking but also because they (non‐migrant churches) are sent a good message and because there is a lot we (migrant churches) can learn from them. (Female, Surinamese living in the Netherlands, Moravian, ordained) “u a Data shows that experiences of integration are diverse; they are influenced by the migrants’ attitudes as well as by the cultural and political context in the receiving societies. In their everyday life migrants are confronted with racism, stereotypes – both positive and negative ‐ and prejudices. Another important issue arising from the interviews is the risk of dependency on the support provided by churches or by civil society in general. Finally, respondents highlight the importance of ‘getting to know each other’ as a crucial step towards overcoming prejudices, stereotypes, racism and setting the basis for integration. To conclude, it appears evident that migrants’ active participation is crucial in fostering their integration process in churches as well as in society. 5. Concluding remarks As the data was collected between 2009 and 2010 it is not appropriate to intertwine interviews with the responses we solicited from CCME member churches in 2014 and 2015. The experience of migrants in 2009 in any of the European countries or churches from those countries is certain to be different from today’s realities. However, the themes emerging from the interviews, reported in this chapter, are still a relevant tool for discussions for European churches whether the scenarios that churchgoers face have changed or not. REFERENCES 1 2 Op it. See http://www.ccme.be/areas‐of‐work/uniting‐in‐diversity/miracle http://www.ccme.be/fileadmin/filer/ccme/70_DOWNLOADS/20_Publications/2010‐06‐ Insights_into_migrants__experiences_final.pdf 122 APPENDIX ONE: A SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY OF REFERENCES Alfayev, Archbishop H., O thodo theolog o the th eshold of the st e tu , unpublished conference paper presented at The Russian Orthodox Church from 1943 to the present, Bose, Italy, 15‐17 September 1999. Available at http://en.hilarion.orthodoxia.org/6_3 Algan, Y. et al, ‘The integration of immigrants and their children in Europe’, Ce t e Pie e, Winter, 2009/10, Working Paper, 2009. Bauman, Z., Li uid Mode it , Cambridge: Polity Press, 2004. Bauman, Z., Wasted Li es: Mode it a d its Out asts, Cambridge: Polity Press, 2004. Bauman, Z., Li uid life, Cambridge: Polity Press, 2005. Berger, P. L., The sa ed a op : ele e ts of a so iologi al theo of religion, 1st ed., Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1967. Berger, P. L., The so ial ealit of eligio , Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1973 Berger, P. L., and Luckmann, T., The so ial o st u tio of ealit : a t eatise i the so iolog of k o ledge, Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1971. Bertelli, O., and Peschke, D., MI‘ACLE: ‘e o e datio s fo A ti e Pa ti ipatio of Mig a ts i Chu hes, Brussels: Churches’ Commission for Migrants in Europe, 2010. Available at http://www.ccme.be/fileadmin/filer/ccme/70_DOWNLOADS/20_Publications/2010‐06‐Guide_English_final.pdf. Bruce, S., ‘eligio i the ode o ld : f o athed als to ults, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996. Bruce, S., Choi e a d eligio : a iti ue of atio al hoi e theo , Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. Campese, G., ‘Beyond ethnic and national imagination: Towards a Catholic theology of U.S. immigration’, in Hondagneu‐ Sotelo, P., ‘eligio A d “o ial Justi e fo I ig a ts, Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, 2007. Carroll, D., Ch istia s at the Bo de : I ig atio , the Chu h, & the Bi le, 2nd ed., Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2013. Casanova, J., Pu li eligio s i the ode o ld, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994. Christou, A., I ig atio i Eu ope a d the I teg atio of Eu opea “e o d Ge e atio , Network Migration in Europe E.V., 2012, http://migrationeducation.de/fileadmin/uploads/Anastasia_Christou_2G_FEB_2012_Policy_Brief_02.pdf Churches Commission for Migrants in Europe, “afe Passage: Deaths at Eu opea U io Bo de s – The e a e alte ati es. Co fe e e ‘epo t, ‘o e ‐ Fe ua ., Brussels: CCME, 2015. Available at http://www.ccme.be/fileadmin/filer/ccme/20_Areas_of_Work/Safe_Passage/2015‐05‐19‐Safe_Passage_Conference_Rome_2015‐final.pdf Churches Together in Britain and Ireland, As lu P i iples, CTBI, London, 2006. Coleman, S., and Collins, P., ‘eligio , ide tit a d ha ge: pe spe ti es o glo al t a sfo atio s, Aldershot: Ashgate, 2004. Cristea, A., et al, U it i Di e sit i Ou Chu hes, Dublin: Irish Inter‐Church Meeting, 2008. Connor, P., I ig a t Faith: Patte s of I ig a t ‘eligio i the U ited “tates, Ca ada, a d Weste Eu ope, New York, NY: New York University Press, 2014 Davie, G., ‘eligio i B itai si e : elie i g ithout elo gi g, Oxford: Blackwell, 1994. ode Eu ope: a e o utates, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Davie, G., ‘eligio i Davie, G., Eu ope: the e eptio al ase: pa a ete s of faith i the ode o ld, London: Darton Longman & Todd, 2002. Davie, G., The so iolog of eligio , London: SAGE, 2007. Diakonie Deutschland, et al, Guideli es o La ou Mig atio a d De elop e t, Leinfelden‐Echterdingen: Diakonie, http://www.ccme.be/fileadmin/filer/ccme/20_Areas_of_Work/05_Labour_Migration/2012‐11‐14_EN‐ 2012. Available at _Guidelines_on_Labour_Migration_01Okt.pdf Droogers A, van der Laan C., van Laar W., F uitful i this La d. Plu alis , Dialogue a d Heali g i Pe te ostalis , Zoetermeer, NL: Broekecentrum, 2006. Mig a t Durkheim, E., The ele e ta fo s of the eligious life (2nd ed), London: Allen and Unwin, 1976. Dustmann, C., Frattini, T. and Lanzara, G., Edu atio al A hie e e t of “e o d Ge e atio I ig a ts: A I te atio al Co pa iso , NORFACE MIGRATION Discussion Paper No. 2011‐25, 2011. http://www.norface‐ migration.org/publ_uploads/NDP_25_11.pdf Ebaugh, H.R. and Chafetz, J.S., eds., ‘eligio a oss Bo de s: T a s atio al I ig a t Net o ks, USA: Altamira Press, 2002. European Commission A Eu opea Age da o Mig atio , 2015, http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home‐affairs/what‐we‐ do/policies/european‐agenda‐migration/background‐ information/docs/communication_on_the_european_agenda_on_migration_en.pdf 123 Eurostat, Eu ostat Yea ook , Brussels: Eurostat, 2014. Eurostat, Eu ostat ‘egio al Yea ook , Brussels: Eurostat, 2014. Eurostat, Mig a t I teg atio “tatisti s – “o ial I lusio , Brussels: Eurostat, 2014. Eurostat, Mig a t I teg atio “tatisti s – E plo e t, Brussels: Eurostat, 2014. Eurostat, T affi ki g i Hu a Bei gs, Brussels: Eurostat, 2014. Eurostat, As lu ua te l epo t, , http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics‐explained/index.php/Asylum_quarterly_report#cite_note‐1 Favell, A., Philosophies of i teg atio : i ig atio a d the idea of itize ship i F a e a d B itai , Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2001. Foley, M. W. and Hoge, D. R., ‘eligio a d the Ne I ig a ts: Ho Faith Co u ities Fo Ou Ne est Citize s, USA: Oxford University Press, 2007. Fountain, J., Deepl ‘ooted: The Fo gotte Visio of ‘o e t “ hu a , Heerde: The Schuman Centre for European Studies, 2010. Frattini, F., ‘Enhanced mobility, vigorous integration strategy and zero tolerance on illegal employment: a dynamic ig atio , Lisbon, 2007. Available approach to European immigration policies’, High‐le el Co fe e e o Legal I at http://europa.eu/rapid/press‐release_SPEECH‐07‐526_en.htm Groody, D.G. and Campese, G., eds., A P o ised La d, A Pe ilous Jou e : Theologi al Pe spe ti es o Mig atio , Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2008. Guerra, J.E.C., ‘A Theology of Migration: Towards an Intercultural Methodology’ in Groody, D.G. and Campese, G., eds., A P o ised La d, A Pe ilous Jou e : Theologi al Pe spe ti es o Mig atio , Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2008, pp243‐270. Hall, S., ‘Who needs identity?’, in S. Hall and P. Du Gay (eds.) Questio s of Cultu al Ide tit . London: Sage, 1996. Hall, S., ‘The spectacle of the “other”’, in S. Hall (ed.), ‘ep ese tatio . Cultu al ‘ep ese tatio s a d “ig if i g P a ti es, Milton Keynes: The Open University, 1997. Hall, S., ‘Conclusion: The multi‐cultural question’, in B. Hesse (ed.) U /“ettled Multi ultu alis : Diaspo as, E ta gle e ts, T a s uptio s, London: Routledge, 2000. Hervieu‐Lâeger, D., ‘eligio as a hai of e o , Cambridge: Polity, 2000. Hondagneu‐Sotelo, P., ‘eligio A d “o ial Justi e fo I ig a ts, Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, 2007. InterChurch Committee on Social Issues (ICCSI), I te ‐ ultu al I sights. Ch istia s ‘efle tio s o ‘a is , Hospitalit , a d Ide tit fo the Isla d of I ela d, Dublin: ICCSI, 2006. Available at http://www.iccsi.ie/resources/intercultural%20insights.pdf. Jackson, D.R., ‘Europe and the Migrant Experience: Transforming Integration’ in T a sfo atio , 28, 1, 2010, pp14‐28. Jackson, D.R. ‘Imagine a Church without Migrants’ in Carroll, D., ed., Thi ki g Ch istia l a out I CO: Denver Theological Seminary, 2011. ig atio , Denver, Jackson D.R. and Passarelli, A., Mappi g Mig atio , Mappi g Chu hes ‘espo ses: Eu ope “tud , CCME/WCC: Brussels, 2008. Available at http://migration.ceceurope.org/fileadmin/filer/mig/50_Materials/20_Publications/Mapping_migration_report_2009‐ 07‐04.pdf. Jenkins P., God s Co ti e t, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2007. Jenkins, P., The Ne t Ch iste do : The Co i g of the Glo al Ch istia it , New York: Oxford University Press, 2002. Jenkins, R., “o ial ide tit (2nd ed.), London: Routledge, 2002. Joppke, C., ‘The retreat of multiculturalism in the liberal state: theory and policy’, in The B itish Jou al of “o iolog , 5, 2, 237‐257, 2004. Jubilee Centre, I ig atio a d Justi e: Ho Cambridge: Jubilee Centre, 2015. lo al hu hes a ha ge the de ate o i ig atio i B itai , King, W.E., ‘Refugee scholars at Duke University’, in Henry A. Landsberger and Christoph E. Schweitzer (eds.) They Fled Hitler's Germany and Found Refuge in North Carolina (Southern Research Report 8) (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill: Academic Affairs Library), 1966. See http://www.phy.duke.edu/history/DistinguishedFaculty/HerthaSponer/RefugeeScholarsAtDukeUniversity.pdf Knott, K., The lo atio of eligio : a spatial a al sis, London: Equinox Publishing, 2005. Knott, K., and McLoughlin, S.N., Diasporas : concepts, intersections, identities, London: Zed, 2010. Kosic, A., ‘What motivates civic participation of immigrants? Antecedents and experiences’, in D. Vogel (ed.), Highl A ti e I ig a ts, Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2008. Kundnani, A., The e d of tole a e: a is i st e tu B itai , London: Pluto Press, 2007. 124 Koser K, I te atio al Mig atio . A e sho t i t odu tio , Oxford University Press, 2007. Kovacheva, V. and Vogel, D., The size of the i egula fo eig eside t populatio i the Eu opea U io i , a d : agg egated esti ates, Hamburg: Hamburg Institute of International Economics, 2009, http://irregular‐ migration.net//index.php?id=160 Lentin, A., ‘a is a d A ti‐‘a is i Eu ope, London: Pluto Press, 2004. Lentin, A. and Lentin, R., eds., ‘a e a d “tate, Newcastle: Cambridge Scholar Press, 2008. Lentin, A. and Titley, G., The C ises of Multi ultu alis . ‘a is i a Neoli e al Age, London: Zed Books, 2011. Lentin, R., ‘From racial state to racist state? Racism and immigration in twentieth century Ireland’, in A. Lentin and R. Lentin (eds.) ‘a e a d “tate, Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Press, 2008. Lentin, R., and Moreo, E., Mig a t a ti is a d i teg atio f o elo i I ela d. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012. Levitt, P., God eeds o passpo t: i ig a ts a d the ha gi g A e i a eligious la ds ape, New York: New Press, 2007. Levitt, P., T a s atio al Mig a ts: Whe Ho e ea s o e tha o e Cou t , nd., http://www.migrationinformation.org/ Feature/display.cfm?id=261 Levitt, P. and Hejtmanek, J., ‘Constructing religious life transnationally: Lessons from the U.S. experience’, in P. Bramadat and M. Koenig (eds) I te atio al Mig atio a d the Go e a e of ‘eligious Di e sit , Montreal: McGill‐Queen's University Press, 2009. Levitt, P. and Schiller, N.G., ‘A transnational social field perspective on society’ in A. Portes and J. DeWind (eds), ‘ethi ki g Mig atio , New York: Berghan Books, 2007. Levitt, P.E., DeWind, J.E., and Vertovec, S.E., T a s atio al ig atio : i te atio al pe spe ti es, Center for Migration Studies of New York, 2003. Loyal, S., ‘Immigration’, in S. O’Sullivan (ed.) Co te po a I ela d: A “o iologi al Map, Dublin: University College Dublin Press, 2007. Mac Éinrí, P., ‘Integration models and choices’ in B. Fanning (ed.) I ig atio a d “o ial Cha ge i I ela d, Manchester: University Press, 2007. Maguire, M. and Titley, G., ‘The body and soul of integration’, in T a slo atio s, 6, 2, 2010. Available at http://www.translocations.ie/current_issue.html. Martin, D., A ge e al theo of se ula izatio , Oxford: Blackwell, 1978. Mathes, R., CCME ‐ : Fa ts a d Figu es of Yea s, Brussels: Churches Commission for Migrants in Europe, 2004. Meer, N and Moodoq T., ‘The Multicultural State We’re In: Muslims, ‘Multiculture’ and the ‘Civic Re‐balancing’ of British Multiculturalism’ in Politi al “tudies, 57 (3), 473–698, 2008. Migrant File, The, http://www.themigrantsfiles.com/ Migrant Integration Policy Index (MIPEX), I ela d, 2011. http://www.mipex.eu/ireland Nagy, D. Mig atio a d Theolog : The Case of Chi ese Ch istia Co u ities i Glo alisatio ‐Co te t, Zoetermeer, NL: Uitgeverij Boekencentrum, 2009. Hu ga a d ‘o a ia i the Naso, P., Passarelli, A. and Pispisa, T., eds., L i ig azio e e a geli a i Italia, Torino: Claudiana, 2014. Niessen J., et al, Mig a t I teg atio Poli I de , Brussels: British Council and Migration Policy Group, 2007. Osmer, R.R., P a ti al Theolog : A I t odu tio , Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2008. Padilla, E. and Phan, P.C., eds., Co te po a Issues of Mig atio a d Theolog , New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013 Papantoniou, A.K., ‘e alli g the past… P ese tatio , F a kfu t a Commission for Migrants in Europe, 2014. Available at Mai , th Ma h , Brussels: Churches http://www.ccme.be/fileadmin/filer/ccme/01_WHO_WE_ARE/50_History/2014‐03‐30‐Keynote_AP_March_2014.pdf Parish‐Based Integration Project, I ish Chu hes' Affi atio o Mig atio , Di e sit a d I te ultu alis , Dublin: InterChurch Committee on Social Issues, 2010. Available at http://www.iccsi.ie/resources/affirmations.pdf. Parker, T.H.L., Joh Cal i : A Biog aph , Oxford: Lion Publishing, 1975. Passarelli, A., and Peschke, D., ‘esettle e t: P ote ti g ‘efugees, “ha i g espo si ilit , CCME, Brussels, 2006. Passarelli, A., I sights i to Mig a ts E pe ie es i A ti e Pa ti ipatio i Chu hes i Eu ope, Brussels: Churches Commission for Migrants in Europe, 2007. Available at http://www.ccme.be/fileadmin/filer/ccme/70_DOWNLOADS/20_Publications/2010‐06‐Insights_into_migrants__experiences_final.pdf Passarelli, A., and Peschke, D. (eds), Mig atio a d De elop e t: Af i a, Eu ope, Middle East i te ‐ egio al o sultatio of Chu hes, CCME, Brussels, 2008. 125 Passarelli, A., ‘Integration, migration and religion: Responses of the Church of Ireland’, in T a slo atio s, 6, 2, 2010(a). Passarelli, A., I sights i to ig a ts e pe ie es i a ti e pa ti ipatio i hu hes i Eu ope, CCME, 2010(b), Available at http://www.ccme.be/fileadmin/filer/ccme/70_DOWNLOADS/20_Publications/2010‐06‐Insights_into_ migrants__experiences_final.pdf. Passarelli, A., ‘Beyond welcoming the strangers: Migrants Integration Processes among Protestant Churches in Ireland’, in Lentin, R. and Moreo, E., eds., Mig a t a ti is a d i teg atio f o elo i I ela d, Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012(a). Passarelli, A., ‘Chiese etniche e multietniche al di là delle definizioni’, in Salvarani, B. and Naso, P. eds., U a tie e se za p ogetto, Bologna: EMI, 2012(b). Passarelli, A., ‘Dalle politiche alle pratiche d’integrazione. Modelli di essere chiesa a confronto’, in P otesta tesi o, 68, 3‐4, 407 – 416, 2013. Peschke, D. ‘Migration in Europe: Fortress Europe or Opportunity Europe?’ in “tudies, 94, 375, 285‐292, 2005. Pluim, I.M., and Kuyk, E., ‘elatio s ith Mig a t hu hes. E pe ie es a d Pe spe ti es, Amsterdam: Kerkinactie, 2002. Prill, T. Glo al Missio o ou Doo step: Fo ed Mig atio a d the Futu e of the Chu h, Münster: MV Wissenschaft, 2008. Putnam, R.D., Bo li g Alo e: The Collapse a d ‘e i al of A e i a Co u it , New York: Simon and Schuster, 2000. Putnam, R.D., ‘E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty‐first Century’, in “ a di a ia Poli “tudies, 30(2): 137‐174, 2007. Rex, J., ‘Ethnic mobilisation in multicultural societies’, in Rex, J. and Drury, B., eds., Eth i Mo ilisatio i a Multi‐ Cultu al Eu ope, Aldershot: Avebury, 1994. Richardson, C.C., Early Christian Fathers, New York: Touchstone, 1996. Schär, B.H.R., Geisler, R., eds., Theological reflections on migration: a CCME reader Brussels, Churches' Commission for Migrants in Europe, 2008. Snyder, S., As lu ‐“eeki g, Mig atio a d Chu h, Farnham, UK: Ashgate Publishing Ltd, 2012. Soysal, Y.N., Li its of Citize ship. Mig a ts a d Post atio al Me e ship i Eu ope, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994. Soysal, Y.N., ‘Citizenship and identity: Living in diasporas in post‐war Europe?’, in Eth i a d ‘a ial “tudies, 23, 1, 1‐15, 2000. Spencer N., As lu & I ig atio . A Ch istia Pe spe ti e o a Pola ised De ate, Jubilee Center, Cambridge, 2004. Stephens, J., De elopi g a Multi‐eth i Co g egatio a d Ne Mi ist ies i Du li s Cha gi g Cit Ce te Co te t, Doctoral Ministry Thesis, Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, CA, 2004. Titley, G. and Maguire, M., eds., T a slo atio s, “pe ial issue o I teg atio , 6, 2, 2011. Available at http://www.translocations.ie/current_issue.html Triandafyllidou, A., ‘Nation and Immigration: a Study of the Italian Press Discourse’, in “o ial Ide tities, 5, 1, 65‐88, 1999. Tsourdi, L., To a ds a ‘ight of Pe a e t ‘eside e fo Lo g‐Te Mig a ts, Brussels: Churches Commission for Migrants in Europe, 2010. Ugba, A., ‘Active civic participation of immigrants in Ireland. Country report prepared for the European research project POLITIS’, Oldenburg: POLITIS, 2005. Available at http://www.politis‐europe.uni‐oldenburg.de/download/Ireland.pdf Ugba, A. ‘African Pentecostals in 21st century Ireland’, in “tudies, 95, 378, 163‐173, 2006. Ugba, A., “hades of Belo gi g: Af i a Pe te ostals i T e t ‐Fi st Ce tu I ela d, Trenton, NJ and Asmara: African World Press, 2009. United Nations, Populatio Fa ts. September 2013, http://esa.un.org/unmigration/documents/The_number_of_international_migrants.pdf United Nations High Commission for Refugees, Glo al T e ds, , http://www.unhcr.org/5399a14f9.html Vasta, E., 'From ethnic minorities to ethnic majority policy: Multiculturalism and the shift to assimilationism in the Netherlands', in Eth i a d ‘a ial “tudies, 30, 5, 713‐740, 2007. Vertovec, S., ‘Transnationalism and identity’, in Jou al of Eth i a d Mig atio “tudies, 27, 4, 573‐82, 2001. Vertovec S., ‘Religion and Diaspora’, in Antes, P, Geertz, A. and Warne, R.R., eds., Ne App oa hes to the “tud of ‘eligio , Berlin & New York: Verlag de Gruyter, 275‐304, 2004. Vilaca, H., et al, The Cha gi g “oul of Eu ope: ‘eligio s a d Mig atio s i No the Ashgate Publishing Limited. 126 a d “outhe Eu ope, Farnham, UK: Vogel, D., Highl a ti e i ig a ts: a esou e fo Eu opea i il so ieties, Franfurt am Main; Oxford: Peter Lang. 2008. Wan, E., Diaspo a Missiolog : Theo , Methodolog , a d P a ti e, Portland, OR: Institute of Diaspora Studies, 2011. Warner, R.S., ‘Approaching religious diversity: barriers, byways and beginnings’, in “o iolog of ‘eligio , 59: 193‐215, 1998. Warner, R.S., and Wittner, J.G., Gathe i gs i diaspo a: eligious o u ities a d the e i ig atio , Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1998. Weller P., ed., Mig atio P i iples. “tate e t fo Chu hes o ki g o Mig atio Issues, Churches Together in Britain and Ireland: London, 2007. Wieviorka, M., The A e a of ‘a is , London: Sage, 1995 Yuval‐Davis, N., ‘Theorizing identity: beyond the 'us' and 'them' dichotomy’, in Patte s of P ejudi e, 44, 3, 261‐280, 2010. Yuval‐Davis, N., Kannabiråan, K., and Vieten, U., The situated politi s of elo gi g, London: SAGE, 2006. 127 APPENDIX TWO: QUESTIONNAIRE CIRCULATED TO CCME/CEC AND WCC MEMBER CHURCHES AND CHURCH‐RELATED AGENCIES IN EUROPE SECTION ONE: MIGRANTS IN THE LIFE OF THE CHURCHES Through the questions below we aim at collecting statistical data, wherever possible, and at keeping track of trends and changes due to migration within your own (national) church, or churches in your country,. When talking about changes we refer to numerical changes as well as structural changes in relations to worship life and position of the church within the country (i.e. migration has increased the percentage of the Orthodox and the Protestant Churches in Italy and of the Roman Catholic Church in Sweden and also their visibility in those countries). We are aware of the problematic nature of collecting data which might not be available or accessible, and of working on estimates; however, there is a concrete, real need to have at least an estimation of what role migration and migrants are playing in changing the ecclesiological landscape of Europe. We would therefore encourage you to indicate your estimates when data is not available. 1) What is the (estimated) percentage of migrants belonging to your Church? Below 5%  5 to 20%   21 to 40% What is the source of this data? Ti k o e o 41 to 60%  over 60%  Ti k o e     Church‐organised census or survey? Other census or survey Estimate Other: Please indicate the source: _____________ 2) What are the main ethnicities present in your churches? (Please list as appropriate) ________________________________________ What is the source of this data? Ti k o e o     Church‐organised census or survey? Other census or survey Estimate Other: Please indicate the source: _______________ 3) Does your Church have congregations at local or parish level that have noticeable ethnic minorities? Yes  No  Ti k o e If yes, what is the percentage of ethnic minority congregations belonging to your Church?  Ti k o e If yes, what is the percentage of international/intercultural congregations belonging to your Church? International: Below 5% 5 to 20% 21 to 40%  41 to 60%  over 60%    Ti k o e Below 5%  5 to 20%   21 to 40% What is the source of this data? Ti k o e o 41 to 60%  over 60%     Church‐organised census or survey? Other census or survey Estimate Other: Please indicate the source: __________ And, if yes, from which countries have these ethnic minority congregations come? ________________________________________ 4) Do you have international and/or intercultural congregations or parishes in your Church? International congregations: Intercultural congregations: Yes Yes   No No 129   Ti k o e Ti k o e Intercultural: Below 5%  5 to 20%   21 to 40% What is the source of this data? Ti k o e o 41 to 60%  over 60%  Ti k o e     Church‐organised census or survey? Other census or survey Estimate Other: Please indicate the source:________________ 5) We would like to know about patterns of worship in churches with migrants in their constituency: Various possibilities for the manner in which migrant and national Christians worship are outlined below. Please rank the following from 1 to 5, using ‘1’ to indicate the most frequent and ‘5’ the least frequent patterns of worship across the congregations and parishes in your Church. Worshipping together every Sunday Separate and united worship times every Sunday Separate worship times with monthly joint worship Separate worship times with occasional encounters Separate worship times What is the source of this data? Ti k o e o     Church‐organised census or survey? Other census or survey Estimate Other: Please indicate the source: ________________ 6) Does your Church have a policy on multicultural worship? Yes No Ti k o e   If yes, please supply an electronic copy, either by email or by including a link to your document The URL for an electronic copy of our policy documents, available online is: 7) Has your Church prepared resources for multicultural worship? No Ti k o e   If yes, please supply an electronic copy, either by email or by including a link to your document? Yes The URL for our electronic resources, available online is: 8) Does your Church have policies that encourage the active participation of migrants in the organization and leadership of your churches? No Ti k o e   If yes, do you measure the success of these? Yes Yes No Ti k o e   If yes, how do you measure the success: ________________________________________ What percentage of leadership positions in your Church is held by migrants?) Below 5%  5 to 20%  21 to 40%  What is the source of this data? Ti k o e o 41 to 60%     Church‐organised census or survey? Other census or survey Estimate Other: Please indicate the source: ________________ 130  over 60%  Ti k o e 9) Does your Church have a committee or a person in charge of intercultural issues at national level? Yes No Ti k o e   If yes, please provide some information on the work done or envisaged. Please include contact details for relevant individuals. ________________________________________ 10) In what ways does your Church encourage the engagement and interaction of indigenous‐led churches and migrant‐ led churches? ________________________________________ SECTION TWO: WORK AMONG MIGRANT YOUTH 11) What percentage of young people (up to the age of 35) in your Church has a migrant background? Below 5%  5 to 20%  21 to 40%  What is the source of this data? Ti k o e o 41 to 60%  over 60%  Ti k o e     Church‐organised census or survey? Other census or survey Estimate Other: Please indicate the source: ________________ 12) How many of the young people in your Church could be considered either a first or second generation migrant? please e te a pe e tage First generation migrant (foreign‐born) % A second generation migrant (one or both parents foreign‐born) % What is the source of this data? Ti k o e o     Church‐organised census or survey? Other census or survey Estimate Other: Please indicate the source: ________________ 13) Does your Church organize separate activities, or have separate organisations, for young people, according to ethnicity? No Ti k o e   Does your Church have a committee or a person in charge of these separate events or organisations at national level? Yes No Ti k o e   If yes, please provide contact details for that person, and some information on the work done or envisaged. Yes ________________________________________ SECTION THREE: ADVOCACY AND ASSISTANCE This section addresses migrant advocacy work and service provision undertaken by churches and church related agencies. 14) Do you have a Department or Office responsible for advocacy work for migrants, refugees, or minority ethnic people carried out by your Church? (Please indicate main priorities and supply contact details) Yes No (Tick one)   ________________________________________ 15) Is there an individual or team with responsibility for advocacy work carried out by your church? (Please supply contact details. NB. We will NOT publish this information in the Migration Report). No (Tick one)   ________________________________________ Yes 131 16) Does your Church do advocacy work in partnership with other churches and/or organisations? (Please list the names of churches, joint church programmes, and/or agencies with which you co‐operate). Yes  No  (Tick one) 17) If your Church engages in advocacy work, are you able to forward or point us to documents, policy papers, website resources, that provide further information about your work in this area? (Please send documentation by email or list appropriate web‐links) ________________________________________ 18) Do you have a Department or Office responsible for organising assistance to migrants, refugees and asylum seekers on behalf of your Church? (ie. food, shelter, clothes, legal advice etc.) (Please supply contact details) Yes No (Tick one)   ________________________________________ 19) Is there an individual or team with responsibility for organising assistance to migrants, refugees and asylum seekers on behalf of your church? (Please supply contact details. NB. We will NOT publish this information in the Report). Yes No (Tick one)   ________________________________________ 20) Does your Church organise assistance to migrants, refugees and asylum seekers in partnership with other churches and/or organisations? (Please list the names of churches, joint church programmes, and/or agencies with which you co‐ operate). Yes No (Tick one)   ________________________________________ 21) If your Church provides assistance to migrants and refugees, are you able to forward or point us to documents, policy papers, website resources, that provide further information about your work in this area? (Please send documentation by email or list appropriate web‐links) FINALLY…. We are very grateful for the time and effort you have given to completing this survey. Please be assured that your contribution is most valuable to our efforts to revise the “Mapping Migration – Mapping Churches’ Responses” Report. You will be able to receive the report from the CCME office by late October 2015. Many thanks, Rev Dr Darrell Jackson and Dr Alessia Passarelli Lead Researchers, CCME Mappi g Mig atio Report, April 2014 132 APPENDIX THREE: RESOLUTIONS AND STATEMENTS 1. URGE GOVERNMENTS TO RESETTLE SUBSTANTIAL NUMBERS OF SYRIAN REFUGEES, UPHOLD COMMITMENTS TO PROTECTION Joint Appeal Church World Service and Churches’ Commission for Migrants in Europe, 26th October 2015 Church World Service (CWS), a humanitarian organization representing 37 Protestant, Anglican and Orthodox communions and 33 refugee resettlement offices across the United States, and Churches’ Commission for Migrants in Europe (CCME), bringing together 30 Anglican, Orthodox and Protestant churches and church‐related organizations working on migration and integration, refugees and asylum, and against racism and discrimination, from 19 countries all over Europe, call on the international community to extend welcome to Syrian refugees. Today, there are more than 60 million people displaced around the world, the highest number in nearly 70 years. More than eight million Syrians are internally displaced and four million Syrian refugees are seeking safety in the region.. Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey, Iraq and Egypt currently host around four million Syrian refugees. Individuals from Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Eritrea and other countries are fleeing war, conflict and persecution and seeking safety in Europe in increasing numbers. A combination of deteriorating conditions in refugee hosting countries and the lack of safe, legal and timely access to a safe third country forces men, women and children to take perilous journeys and risk falling prey to traffickers or even worse, losing their lives. The humanitarian crisis in Syria is complex, requiring international leadership on a variety of solutions. Countries must continue to address the root causes of displacement, but never as an excuse to delay assistance to individuals in urgent need. Europe and the United States must increase their support to UNHCR, humanitarian organizations, and refugee hosting countries to ensure infrastructure can adequately support refugees. It is imperative that wherever they are, refugees have the freedom to move, the right to work, and the ability for their children to attend school. From their direct and extensive experience working with displaced and vulnerable populations, CWS, CCME and their members insist that all countries' migration and refugee policies be rooted in a humanitarian, rights‐based and hospitable approach. Every effort must be made to save the lives of refugees and migrants in jeopardy, including expanding protection space and increasing the capacity of civilian search and rescue operations for migrants in transit, including at sea. It is critical that refugees have access to protection, both in the region and through asylum, refugee resettlement and humanitarian admissions programs in Europe and the United States. CWS and CCME urge governments to expand legal and safe avenues for people to seek safety, to expedite procedures so that people have access to protection as quickly as possible, and to enhance family tracing and reunification capacities. By welcoming refugees, both Europe and the United States can play a strategic role in alleviating pressure on host countries in the region and providing opportunities for a new life for vulnerable populations. In order for relocation and resettlement to truly become a durable solution, access must be timely and ample resources must be provided to help refugees integrate and thrive as they rebuild their lives. People of faith across the globe have demonstrated the best of humanity through acts of welcome and the provision of humanitarian assistance, which governments should support and which should never be blocked or criminalized. The hospitality, welcome and cooperation of communities are powerful antidotes to dangerous xenophobic and anti‐ Muslim rhetoric stemming from a small but loud contingent. CWS and CCME affirm that all vulnerable persons in need of protection must be welcomed, regardless of their ethnicity, legal status, or religious affiliation. We encourage governments to maintain regular dialogue and collaboration with civil society, including congregations and faith‐based organizations, as they are eager to help refugees with both immediate needs and longer‐term integration assistance. Communities, schools, congregations, and employers are welcoming refugees and helping them integrate in their new homes. In turn, refugees contribute to their new communities with their inspiring perseverance and skills, dedicated work ethic and entrepreneurship that help revitalize and bolster local economies. Given the strain on countries in the host region, CWS and CCME appeal to the United States and Europe to substantially contribute to resettling the 10 percent of Syrian refugees considered by UNHCR to be particularly vulnerable and in need of resettlement. As faith‐based organizations, we cannot sit idly by while our Syrian brothers and sisters struggle and even perish as they seek safety from violence that has forced them from their homes. Decisions made today, in the wake of this humanitarian and displacement emergency, will go down in history as either celebrated leadership or dismal apathy toward our fellow human beings. The world is watching, including millions of individuals offering up their 133 homes and hands in solidarity and demanding leadership from their governments. Let us not disappoint them, nor our displaced brothers and sisters in their time of need. 2. EUROPEAN RESPONSES TO REFUGEES AND MIGRANTS INFORMAL JUSTICE AND HOME AFFAIRS COUNCIL 14‐15 SEPTEMBER 2015 10 September 2015 Dear Minister, On behalf of our members, Anglican, Orthodox and Protestant Churches and Christian service, relief and development organizations, and based on our extensive experience of working with people in situations of extreme precariousness and vulnerability we call on you in your discussion at the Informal Justice and Home Affairs Council to commit to a unified, ambitious and rights based refugee and migration policy. We, along with many people in Europe and the rest of the world cannot accept the death, destitution and dehumanizing across our Union that is a direct result of asylum and migration policies that are unrealistic, unfocused on human beings and lack solidarity. The resulting loss of life or social and economic deprivation experienced by those coming to Europe has shown the urgent need for the European Union and its Member States to agree and act on a new approach to asylum and migration whether it be towards economic migrants, refugees or asylum seekers. As Ministers for Justice and Home Affairs you have the opportunity and the responsibility to ensure policies concerning migrants, asylum seekers and refugees meet the needs of those affected as well as the expectations of people across Europe who believe that Europe should provide refuge, protection and opportunity for those who need it. The majority of those taking the route to Europe come from Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia and Eritrea and their numbers continue to rise rapidly. Most people arriving are fleeing war, conflict or persecution at home, as well as deteriorating conditions in many refugee‐hosting countries and countries of transit which do not, or can no longer offer safety or the possibility to establish a new existence. The lack of safe and legal paths to Europe forces these people to take risks and forces many to rely on smugglers. This puts them in danger of falling prey to traffickers and other criminals and of losing their life. The European Union now faces a humanitarian crisis. Our members working across Europe and the Middle East bear witness to this as they provide support and services for vulnerable people regardless of their ethnicity, legal status, and religion or how they have travelled to Europe. As Christian churches and church related organizations we expect a more human and effective response of Member States and the European Union in protecting the lives of those coming to Europe and ensuring that their inviable dignity, value and potential is defended once in Europe. Furthermore, people who are in this situation of vulnerability should not be used as political pawns and we call on those in the public sphere to desist from the increasingly xenophobic and inflammatory discourse used to describe migrants, refugees and asylum seekers. Policies and mechanisms must be adopted that effectively guarantee that human rights are met, that obligations and responsibilities as are enshrined in EU and international law are respected and that ensure solidarity between member states. We therefore call on the European Union and Member States to commit to the following:        Consolidate and maintain concerted efforts to save the lives of refugees and migrants in jeopardy within and beyond EU borders and to increase the capacities for, preferably civilian, search and rescue operations in the Mediterranean. Put in place and finance legal and practical responses that respect the rights and dignity of refugees, migrants and persons seeking protection and improve their reception conditions ‐ at least in line with EU minimum standards1 ‐ and to ensure and ease the access to asylum procedures. To increase resources to source countries to support organizations who are responding to the needs of refugees and internally displaced people in the international humanitarian and development context. Considerably increase the places for the resettlement of refugees from different crisis regions to European states. EU Member States need to come up with credible figures proving their commitment to share the responsibility to protect, and the European Commission could ‐ in addition to funding ‐ offer expertise and policy coordination to encourage pledging of substantially higher numbers. To put in place policies which enable safe and legal pathways into Europe including issuing of humanitarian visas, lifting of visa requirements for persons fleeing from conflict zones (e.g., Syria or Eritrea), easier and more generous family reunification for persons in need of or granted international protection, and humanitarian admission To support efforts of countries in the Middle East and other conflict regions as well as UNHCR to adequately support refugees. To advance plans for an accessible and known system of legal migration in countries of origin, hereby providing viable and humane alternatives to smuggling. 134      Ensure sharing of responsibility for refugee reception between EU Member States, and relocation and reception of refugees from Greece, Hungary and Italy to other EU Member States going beyond the pledges reached in July 2015. With the rising figures particularly for Greece, speedy relocation of higher numbers will be necessary to reduce the lengthy and risky journeys across Europe. Consider the needs and aspirations of refugees: particularly vulnerable persons and children. Family unity must always be respected, therefore tracing of relatives and family reunification should be pursued as a matter of priority and bureaucratic hurdles abolished. Wishes and reasons of refugees to want to go to specific countries and places should wherever possible be considered. We wish to raise caution concerning any approach of a common EU approach on the national lists of Safe Countries of Origin. To declare a country of origin as “safe” because the vast majority of asylum applicants is not recognised as in need of protection may lead to unjustifiable exclusion of persons actually requiring protection. We uphold our view that fair, efficient and shorter asylum procedures are necessary, rather than accelerated ones with a high potential of error. The status as EU candidate country does not mean that all human rights standards are yet in place, and particularly where violent conflicts are raging, such a status would be against human rights obligations. To include one of the missing elements of the Common European Asylum System by making a proposal for the ‘Recognition of the International Protection Status throughout the Union’. Such a proposal must include the ability to move from one Member State to another for the purposes of employment and reduce the currently proposed lengthy obligations to stay in one member state after a protection has been accorded there. Maintain a regular dialogue and collaboration with Churches, Christian organizations, civil society organizations, and other religious organizations which contribute to cover immediate basic needs of migrants and refugees and support longer term integration of migrants, refugees and asylum seekers. Ensure such organizations are adequately resourced to provide services both in the short and long term. We have been moved by the recent outstanding actions initiated by some member states such as Austria, Germany and Italy (Mare Nostra) and considering the broad support such initiatives have received from citizens believe such courageous actions ought to be replicated. Without concerted and committed actions in the coming days and months the European Union and its member states will violate their commitment to human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights as enshrined in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union. We hope that in your deliberations on 14 September you will courageously take the responsibility to generously receive the asylum applicants currently in Europe, to end the need to walk thousands of kilometers to find a safe space, and to receive refugees from Middle Eastern countries before winter sets in again. In coming together to prepare this response we show a unity of concern for people both outside and inside European borders. Echoing the words of European Council President Donald Tusk, ‘public debate on migration must mean in the first place the readiness to show solidarity and sacrifice, irrespective of what race, religion and nationality the need represents.’ Yours sincerely, Rev. Guy Liagre, General Secretary, Conference of European Churches Heather Roy, Secretary General, Eurodiaconia Floris Faber, Director, actalliance eu Doris Peschke, General Secretary, Churches’ Commission for Migrants in Europe Ruth Faber, Director EU‐CORD 3. EUROPEAN REFUGEE SITUATION: CHURCHES’ INITIATIVES FOR REFUGEES AND OTHER MIGRANTS: PRIORITY FOR SAFE PASSAGE To the Member Churches and Associated Organizations of the World Council of Churches, Conference of European Churches and the Churches’ Commission for Migrants in Europe 9 September 2015 Dear Sisters and Brothers in Christ, Dear Colleagues and Friends, In light of the on‐going migration of refugees, we write to reiterate the calls issued by our respective organizations for a compassionate ecumenical response to the people most affected by this crisis – desperate people arriving in Europe after great suffering and danger. We also wish to share some of the stories of responses by churches and related organizations to current needs, and to solicit stories from your own communities. 135 Over the past weeks, we all have observed dramatic developments regarding refugee and migrant arrivals on the shores and at the borders of Europe. The most recent news and images have been especially moving, as thousands of refugees assembled around Budapest train station, and there seemed no solution. But then Austria and Germany agreed with Hungary to open the borders and let the refugees move on, and the new arrivals have been welcomed warmly in these countries by citizens including church leaders. Though not as widely reported, support by citizens – particularly in Greece, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Serbia, Hungary and Italy – has been essential so that people on the move may survive and regain strength. Arrival of tens of thousands of migrants in Greece or Italy has not meant that refugees find a safe place and the protection they deserve. Thousands of refugees continue to make their way onward. The most dramatic refugee crisis remains in countries bordering Syria. Of the estimated total of 12 million Syrians displaced by the ongoing unresolved conflict; 4 million have crossed into neighbouring countries, with Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey hosting the majority of them. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees has pleaded with the international community to act urgently and effectively to respond to the biggest refugee crisis since World War II. But as the international community’s response has been insufficient to meet the emergency humanitarian needs – let alone bring about an end to the brutal conflict – those refugees who can are trying to find their own way. As no safe legal channels have been opened, they turn to smugglers, sometimes falling prey to groups trafficking in human beings. Increased loss of life in the Mediterranean is a shocking reality. Policies and positions on refugees and migration On 12 June 2015 the World Council of Churches (WCC) Executive Committee, in its statement on responses to migrant crises, invited “WCC member churches and ecumenical partners, together with all people of goodwill, to promote a more open and welcoming approach to the ‘stranger’ and to the neighbour in need and distress, and to help receive and care for refugees and migrants in full respect for their God‐given human dignity.” The governing board of the Conference of European Churches (CEC), in its statement “Do not forget to show hospitality to strangers” of 3 June 2015, requested churches in Europe to:        Continue to pray for those who flee conflict, war and destruction; Commemorate those who have lost their lives on their way to Europe and use material developed for the annual day of commemoration (21 June 2015) proposed by CEC and the Churches’ Commission for Migrants in Europe (CCME); Continue to work on addressing the root causes of forced displacement; Build up capacity to welcome refugees, commending the examples given by churches in the Mediterranean and elsewhere; Provide places where fears about the arrival of strangers can be discussed and constructive ways of living together can be found; Cooperate in changing policies in the EU and associated states from migration deterrence to those putting the human at the heart of migration policies, including by cooperating with CCME in the “safe passage” project; Address national governments and responsible authorities in EU member states in order to support such human centred migration policies. The CCME Assembly 2014 called for “a change of attitudes regarding migration in accordance with European values. This also implies a truly human approach to refugee protection in line with the relevant European and international conventions. This includes legal and secure access to Europe for those in need of protection. We advocate for a Common European Asylum System including decent reception conditions as well as a Common European Resettlement Scheme that puts the human being and his/her dignity at the centre of the processes. Therefore, we call upon the European governments to embark upon policies that aim to address the main causes for forced migration. We urge the European governments to take responsibility in particular for the situation of minors, the most vulnerable group, who are often deprived of basic stability, a full family life and education.” As the EU Commissioner for Migration and Home Affairs, Dimitris Avramopoulos, declared in December 2014 at the UN High Commissioner for Refugees Conference: “Europe can and must do more”. The urgency of the situation requires our prayers, compassion and action. Indeed, during the last months, Europe has seen a widespread movement of solidarity with refugees among the WCC and CEC member churches and ecumenical partners. 136 Select examples of practical action by churches and ecumenical bodies:            In many parts of Greece, churches are supporting newly arrived refugees. On the Aegean islands, some parishes are providing for the basic needs for those arriving from neighbouring Turkey. On the Greek mainland, churches are helping in various ways ranging from soup kitchens to providing items needed by refugees in reception centres. This emergency help is accompanied by legal support services particularly by the Ecumenical Refugee Programme of the Church of Greece. In Hungary, the Reformed Church has been catering in various ways for refugees, and is currently providing medical services in one of the country’s refugee camps. The Lutheran Church and the Hungarian Interchurch Aid are also active in this emergency situation. Church‐related humanitarian aid agencies in the Nordic countries and Germany have committed to helping improve the reception of refugees in Southern European countries. Calls for donations have been launched and the agencies are rolling out their work in cooperation with partners in the region. In the UK, numerous church leaders have spoken out on the refugee crisis at Calais near the Eurotunnel, calling for compassion and humanitarian responses to the situation. In Germany, churches have initiated and supported local initiatives supporting refugees. Synods have spoken out in favour of refugee reception and resettlement, and churches are generously donating money to solidarity activities in other countries. In Sweden, churches are providing the ground for a continued reception of refugees under the slogan “make space!” In Italy, the Federation of Protestant Churches is monitoring the situation on the island of Lampedusa, and providing reception and meeting spaces between the local population and newly arrived refugees in Sicily. Churches are playing an important role in the reception of refugees throughout the country. In the Czech Republic, the Evangelical Church of the Czech Brethren has appealed to the government to allow for the resettlement of Syrian refugees with special needs. The Protestant Church in the Netherlands has in a public statement assured the state authorities of its support in securing reception places for refugees in the municipalities and asked for safe and legal pathways into Europe. Churches from Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, and other countries have sent solidarity delegations to Italy or Greece to express their support to the churches in these countries and their work for refugees. ACT Alliance through its members in Greece (IOCC/Apostoli), Hungary (Hungarian Interchurch Aid) and Serbia (Philanthropy) have begun to provide humanitarian assistance in this complex situation. An ACT appeal issued on 9 September will enable a continued and expanded response. A coordination structure under the ACT Europe Emergency Response Group will be established, and a meeting will be held in Belgrade/Serbia on 16 and 17 September in order to ensure that all members of ACT work collaboratively within this ACT response. This list is far from exhaustive. But these activities for support, reception and advocacy provide examples of how churches can further engage in responding to the refugee crisis. In this critical moment, ecumenical cooperation in the response is especially important, in order to enhance the collective impact of our various activities, to encourage others and to give a common witness of compassion, justice and peace. The nature of this crisis calls for both humanitarian support and advocacy with governments. To assist you in your advocacy work, please find attached a summary of the most important advocacy points. And please let us know of the commitments and engagement of your own church or organization, in response to our common Christian calling, “For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in.” Matthew 25:35 Yours sincerely, Doris Peschke, CCME General Secretary Rev. Dr Guy Liagre, CEC General Secretary Rev. Dr Olav Fykse Tveit, WCC General Secretary 137 4. ‘A CALL FOR A CHANGE OF ATTITUDES REGARDING MIGRATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH EUROPEAN VALUES’: PUBLIC MESSAGE OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF CCME, SIGTUNA 24‐28 JUNE 2014 Europe is enriched and shaped as it is today because of historical patterns of movement and settlement of people; migration has always been part of human existence. However, more people than ever are currently on the move as a result of conflicts, environmental degradation, lack of future for themselves and their families. While most refugees are internally displaced persons or find temporary shelter in neighbouring countries, many lose their lives trying to cross borders. Meanwhile European countries are constantly increasing barriers of security measures for those in need of protection, becoming a “gated community”. Its responses can be described as incoherent, divided, selfish and inhumane. 25 years after the Berlin Wall came down we see many new walls built. Even more internal borders have been set up within Europe preventing people from free movement and social inclusion. This applies particularly to minority groups. Some of these borders are visible, some are invisible. Fears have been fuelled and exploited in order to justify the reinforcement of borders. This has led to even higher walls and more repressive measures, such as the systematic use of detention as well as the inhumane and degrading treatment of detainees. As churches and church related agencies we therefore call for a change of attitudes regarding migration in accordance with common European values. This also implies a truly human approach to refugee protection in line with the relevant European and international conventions. This includes legal and secure access to Europe for those in need of protection. We advocate for a Common European Asylum System including decent reception conditions as well as a Common European Resettlement Scheme that puts the human being and his/her dignity at the centre of the processes. Therefore, we call upon the European governments to embark upon policies that aim to address the main causes for forced migration. We urge the European governments to take responsibility in particular for the situation of minors, the most vulnerable group, who are often deprived of basic stability, a full family life and education. As members of CCME we commit ourselves to continue to go beyond borders and to pull down walls of separation. In the same perspective we call on churches in Europe to value diversity, to promote inclusive communities within their own structures and in the wider society. CCME Asse l , “igtu a, “ ede , Ju e 5. PUBLIC STATEMENT OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF CCME, BUCHAREST 16‐19 JUNE 2011 The 18th General Assembly of the Churches’ Commission for Migrants in Europe (CCME) was held in Bucharest, Romania, from 16‐19 June 2011. Romania is one of the countries grappling with the recent economic crisis and related migration issues. On the eve of International Refugees’ Day on June 20th, the CCME General Assembly commemorates the 60th anniversary of the Geneva Refugee Convention. The political changes in North Africa are the most recent examples causing movements of people who risk their life to reach Europe. To avoid further loss of life European churches regard the Geneva Refugee Convention and other International and European Conventions an important basis which need to be fully applied. Churches demand from European governments an enforcement of international refugee protection according to these conventions. In this context, the General Assembly stresses the need for a real responsibility sharing among European countries ensuring human rights and dignity of all migrants and refugees. This includes also a responsible use of language and images which avoid terms such as “invasion”, “migrant flows” or even “human tsunamis”. From a Christian point of view every human being is created in the image of God. Therefore, human rights and dignity are non‐negotiable regardless of the legal status a persons. Furthermore, it is an ongoing task of societies as well as of churches to defend the common space of freedom and justice against efforts to implement security measures which undermine the core values of Europe. It needs to live in solidarity within and beyond its borders. CCME Asse l , Bu ha est, ‘o a ia, Ju e 138