migration and communities884210_731200573_923421347

8/8/2019 Migration and communities884210_731200573_923421347

1/12

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

This article was downloaded by: [Northern Illinois University]

On: 29 July 2010

Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 917275521]

Publisher Routledge

Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-

41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Lifelong EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713747968

Migration and communities: challenges and opportunities for lifelonglearningShibao Guoaa University of Calgary, Canada

Online publication date: 28 June 2010

To cite this Article Guo, Shibao(2010) 'Migration and communities: challenges and opportunities for lifelong learning',International Journal of Lifelong Education, 29: 4, 437 447

To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/02601370.2010.488806URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02601370.2010.488806

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713747968http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02601370.2010.488806http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdfhttp://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdfhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02601370.2010.488806http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713747968


2/12

INT. J. OF LIFELONG EDUCATION, VOL. 29, NO. 4 (JULYAUGUST 2010), 437447

International Journal of Lifelong EducationISSN 0260-1370 print/ISSN 1464-519X online 2010 Taylor & Francishttp://www.tandf.co.uk/journals

DOI: 10.1080/02601370.2010.488806

Migration and communities: challenges andopportunities for lifelong learning

SHIBAO GUOUniversity of Calgary, Canada

TaylorandFrancisTLED_A_488806.sgm10.1080/02601370.2010.488806InternationalJournalof LifelongEducation0260-1370 (print)/1464-519X (online)OriginalArticle2010Taylor&[email protected]

This commentary article focuses on the theme ofmigration and communities. It raises a numberof important concerns inherent in the report. The report mistakenly adopts the samenessapproach, thus negating Britains unprecedented super-diversity that is the result of increas-

ing migration. It wrongly assumes that all migrants are the same and require similar modes ofservices and lifelong education programmes. A second issue pertains to the social cohesionand integration agenda that drives this report, especially its goal of assimilating migrants intoBritish norms and cultures. Furthermore, the idea of a culturally neutral state and universalcitizenship ignores cultural differences and diversity and perpetuates oppression andinequality. These flaws turn lifelong learning into an engineering project for manufacturingBritishness through language lessons and citizenship tests. It is time for Britain to revisit thisreport and develop a more inclusive framework that recognises cultural differences anddiversity as positive and desirable assets.

This commentary article focuses on migration and communitiesone of the ninethemes in Learning through Life: Inquiry into the future for lifelong learning(Schuller and

Watson 2009). My response falls into four parts:

(1) Britains super-diversity;(2) the sameness approach;(3) issues of social cohesion and integration; and(4) the role of ethno-cultural organisations.

Britains super-diversity

It is commendable that the inquiry identified migration and communities as one ofthe major concerns facing adult and lifelong educators in Britain. But given thesignificance of this issue, it is disappointing that migration was dealt within asporadic and fragmented way rather than being integrated into all aspects of lifelong

Shibao Guois an associate professor in the Faculty of Education, University of Calgary, Canada. He is anaffiliated researcher with the Prairie Metropolis Centre of Excellence for Research on Immigration,Integration, and Diversity (MPC). His research interests include citizenship and immigration, lifelonglearning, social justice and equity in education, and comparative and international education. Hisrecent works have appeared in theJournal of International Migration and Integration, Canadian Journal forthe Study of Adult Education, Canadian Journal of Higher Education, Convergence, andFrontiers of Education inChina. Currently he is the co-president of the Canadian Association for the Study of Adult Education.Correspondence: 2500 University Dr. NW, Calgary, AB T2N 1N4 Canada. Email: [email protected]


3/12

438 SHIBAO GUO

learning in a holistic manner. A closer examination of the report reveals that thewords migrant or migration do not actually appear until half way through (seepages 135 and 161). It is true that the issue is touched upon in discussions of relatedtopics, such as ethnicity and English for speakers of other languages, but in total, thespace occupied in the whole report adds up to no more than a few pages. This causesme to wonder why so limited a space was allocated to such an important issue. WhenI approached the end of the report in disappointment, I found two supplementarypapers entitled Demography and Lifelong Learning(McNair 2009a) and Migration,Communities and Lifelong Learning(McNair 2009b). These documents identify migra-tion and the ageing population as two major demographic forces in Britains recenthistory. The report itself also recognises two major trends, agreeing on the issue ofageing but substituting society and changing patterns of paid and unpaid work formigration. Why the omission of migration? Again, the limited attention paid tomigration in the report raises serious questions about the weight carried by thistheme in the report as a whole.

Because of the reports inherent weaknesses, it is necessary at this point tofurther map the landscape of migration and ethnic diversity in Britain. Vertovec(2006), an Oxford scholar, coined the term super-diversity to describe Britainscurrent level and complexity of migration, which has surpassed anything the coun-try has previously experienced. According to Vertovec, a number of factors haveshaped Britains new patterns of migration. First, the diversity of migrants countriesof origin has grown considerably. In the 1950s and 1960s, almost all migrants camefrom African-Caribbean and South Asian countries; most source countries wereBritains former colonies or Commonwealth countries. Since the beginning of the1990s, migration patterns have undergone significant change. One of the most

noteworthy features of what Vertovec calls the new migration is the diversificationof migrants countries of origin. As Vertovec notes, Britain is now home to peoplefrom practically every country in the world. Among the top source countries,Poland became the largest foreign nationality in 2007, representing 11.9% (aroundhalf a million) of all foreign nationals in the UK (Organisation for EconomicCooperation and Development [OECD] 2009). In the same year, Asians accountedfor a quarter of all foreign citizens. Indians were the largest group with 7% of thetotal. Secondly, migrants destination cities are also being diversified. London, alsoreferred to the city in one world, hosts people from some 179 countries. It is esti-mated that more than 40% of migrants to the UK live in London, accounting for

26% of Londons total population (Jackson 2010). However, the relatively new andhigh proportion of migrants also characterises many other places in the UK(Vertovec 2006). Outside Londons boroughs, migrants also find homes in Leices-ter, Slough, Forest Heath in Suffolk, Croydon and Luton.

Furthermore, Britains super-diversity is also manifested in migrants languagesand religious affiliations, Vertovec argues. It is claimed that 300 languages arespoken in London alone. Some of the largest language groups include Punjabi,Gujarati, Hindi/Urdu, Bengali and Sylheti, Turkish and Arabic. The religious diver-sity that migrants have brought to Britain is also well documented, with Christianityas the main religion, followed by Muslim, Hindus and Sikhs. It is also important torecognise the heterogeneities within each individual group.

To fully understand migration in the UK, it is important to situate the discussionin the context of the European Union (EU) because of the social and economicintegration among the member states. Like the UK, many EU countries also face


4/12

MIGRATION AND COMMUNITIES 439

low fertility levels and ageing populations. Hence, international migration hasbecome the major force behind population growth since the beginning of the1990s (Eurostat 2009a). Eurostat also reports that in the period 200307, almost50% of the EUs regions experienced negative natural population change. Incountries such as Austria, the UK and Spain, negative natural change has beenoffset by positive net migration. It is estimated that the number of migrants arriv-ing to live in the UK for at least a year in 2007 was 577,000 (OECD 2009), gaining237,000 net migrants, up from 191,000 the previous year. In 2008, EU memberstates attracted 30.8 million migrants, of which more than one third (11.3 million)

were citizens of another member state (Eurostat 2009b). The second largest groupof six million was from non-EU European countries, followed by people from

African countries (4.7 million) and the Asian continent (3.7 million). The UK wasamong the top five countries in receiving them along with Germany, Spain, Franceand Italy. It is evident that the UK has been successful in attracting migrants in thelast decade or so.

This discussion provides important contextual information for us to understandthe magnitude and trends of migration in the UK. This is a crucial first step to helpadult and lifelong educators to adequately assess its implications for lifelong learn-ing and policy development. Regrettably, this information was not made available toreaders in the report, although it appeared in the supplementary papers.

The sameness approach

A fundamental flaw of the report lies in its sameness approach to the issue of

migration and lifelong education. In particular, I am concerned with how interna-tional migration is lumped together with internal migration. The rationale seems tobe that everyone who moves home has to learn to fit into a new community,

whether the move is a few miles or across continents and cultures (McNair 2009b:16). I am troubled by the fact that the inquiry makes no distinctions with regard tothe adjustment process, which could be totally different depending on how muchchange is involved as a result of migration. Based on this misassumption, one of therecommendations is a welcome entitlement to a free course that applies to internaland international migrants alike. This is based on still another misassumption thatall migrants share similar learning needs and hence, the educational response may

also be similar (McNair 2009b: 16). A free course might help internal migrantslearn about their new communities because most internal migration within Britainis very local, and, in fact, 60 per cent of these moves are under 10 kilometres(McNair 2009b: 20). However, will this offering be sufficient for migrants fromIndia or Pakistan who come from different languages, cultures and traditions?

Another recommendation is that international migrants have free access to first-stage ESOL (English for speakers of other languages) classes. This appears tosuggest that international migrants are a homogeneous group and that they requirethe same assistance. These are complex issues that require further exploration andcontextualisation.

First, it is important to point out that international migrants are not a homoge-neous group. In illustrating Britains super-diversity, we learned that its migrantpopulation is becoming increasingly diverse in terms of country of origin, languageand religious affiliation. Another dimension of super-diversity pertains to the


5/12

440 SHIBAO GUO

diverse migration channels and migration statuses, which carry quite specific andlegally enforceable entitlements, controls, conditions and limitations (Vertovec2006). According to Vertovec (2006), international migrants move to Britain inmany forms, primarily under five categoriesworkers, students, spouses and familymigrants, asylum seekers and refugees, and undocumented migrants. Under thecategory of workers alone, there are huge variances. For example, foreign nationalsfrom the European Economic Area (EEA) do not need a visa or permit to work inthe UK, while members from non-EEA countries do.

Another condition attached to non-EEA migrants is that they are admitted to theUK provided that they do not have recourse to public funds, i.e. they forgo rights tosocial housing and benefits. Highly skilled workers are a targeted group of migrantsattracted to the UK to work in finance, business management, information technol-ogy and medical services. Furthermore, the category of business migrants wascreated to encourage entrepreneurs to invest and start businesses in the UK. Other

workers subsumed under this category include seasonal agricultural workers, work-

ing holidaymakers, domestic workers, au pairs, volunteers and religious instructors.A stratified system of rights, opportunities, constraints and partial-to-full member-ship is attached to each category of migrant (Vertovec 2006). Thus, the samenessapproach is neither adequate nor appropriate in addressing the complexity ofmigrants different statuses and entitlements.

When migrants move to a new country, they are more likely to encounter a seriesof barriers that require different responses. Generally speaking, they need assis-tance with language, employment, education, housing, daycare, health, counsel-ling, legal and social services (Guo 2010). Reitz (1995) reviewed nearly 400publications from Australia, Britain, Canada and the USA on aspects of ethno-racial

access, utilisation, and delivery of social services. He concluded that recent immi-grants very often experience low rates of utilisation of many important social andhealth services, despite evidence of significant need and the fact that immigrantscontribute more to the economy through taxation than they use in services. Lowutilisation can be attributed to a number of barriers, including language difficul-ties, lack of information about services, cultural patterns of help seeking, lack ofcultural sensitivity by service providers, financial barriers and lack of service avail-ability. In the context of Britain, little has changed since the publication of Reitzs

work. In fact, recent studies conducted by British researchers identified similarchallenges to those reported by Reitz (Anderson et al. 2007, Spencer et al. 2007,

Jayaweera and Choudhury 2008, Cangiano et al. 2009). In a study of 600 migrantsfrom Eastern and Central Europe working in Britains agriculture, construction,hospitality and the au pair sector, Spencer et al. (2007) found that recent migrants

work long hours with low pay. Where accommodation is provided as part of theirpay, many are living in poor and overcrowded conditions. Their study also suggeststhat migrants have limited access to information, advice and English classes.Furthermore, they have limited opportunities for leisure activity and social interac-tion with British people. More importantly, many experience racial and religiousdiscrimination. In a study with Muslim migrants in Birmingham, Bradford andNewham, Jayaweera and Choudhury (2008) report that many migrants experienceunfair treatment due to their perceived colour or ethnicity. In particular, Muslimmigrants tend to be discriminated against in accessing employment, housing andservices because of their religious affiliations. It is evident that many of these issuescannot be solved by free ESOL courses.


6/12


While many scholars treat the abovementioned barriers as cultural and linguis-tic problems, others (Henryet al. 2006) attribute them to ideologies of democraticracism and universalism, which act to undergird the sameness approach. Despitethe fact that British people are committed to democratic principles such as justice,equality, and fairness, the same people often respond negatively towards effortsthat aim to ameliorate the low status of minority groups. Henry and colleaguesMattis and Rees call the ideological context in which these two sets of conflicting

values coexist democratic racism. They also maintain that failure to provide immi-grants with services that are racially sensitive, culturally appropriate, and linguisti-cally accessible can be attributed to liberal universalism, which assumes thatpeople are all the same and therefore require similar modes of service and inter-

vention (Henryet al. 2006: 223). Where some mainstream agencies have attemptedto provide more accessible and equitable services by introducing a multiculturalorganisational model, changes are often cosmetic rather than substantive,because the needs and interest of minorities are dealt with on an ad hoc basis

rather than being integrated into the structure, policies, programmes, and prac-tices of the organisation (Henry et al. 2006: 191). As an alternative, ethno-racialorganisations have taken responsibility for providing more effective, responsive,and equitable services to minority communities (Weinfeld 2000, Guo 2008), atopic further discussed in the final part of this commentary.

It is generally believed that lifelong learning has an important role to play in help-ing migrants with their adaptation and transition to a new society. It is also claimedthat lifelong learning is primarily concerned with the well-being and equality ofsociety. Hence, it has the moral and social responsibility to join other social forcesto help migrants overcome the abovementioned issues. The prerequisite of its

success lies in the jettisoning of the sameness approach and associated doctrines ofdemocratic racism and liberal universalism.

Issues of social cohesion and integration

A review of the supplementary paper on migration and communities reveals thatthe social cohesion and integration agenda drives this inquiry. Social cohesionrefers to the degree to which people feel themselves to be full members of acommunity (McNair 2009b: 12). In supporting the principles of social cohesion

laid out by the Commission on Integration and Cohesion, it is recommended thatlifelong learning should prioritise integration and encourage contribution.Furthermore, funding should be directed at activities which bring people togetheracross divides, rather than encouraging separate development and seek toenable everyone to make a visible contribution to the life of the community(McNair 2009b: 57). If we take these recommendations at face value, we may nottake umbrage with them. On the surface they sound very impressive. But if we criti-cally analyse the reasoning behind them, it becomes clear that they are not as naveas they appear to be. Hence, it is necessary to examine the real agenda behind thesocial cohesion and integration recommendation.

The adoption of the social cohesion and integration principle can be traced tothe critique of multiculturalism and the ways in which multiculturalism is alleged tocreate segregation among communities (Vasta 2007, 2009). According to Vasta, theUK is currently experiencing a widespread moral panic about immigration and


7/12

442 SHIBAO GUO

ethnic and religious diversity: a panic that has led to the questioning of policies thatseek the maintenance of group difference and the formation of ethno-cultural andreligious communities. According to Vasta (2007), the arguments against multicul-turalism are numerous, including:

Multiculturalism leads to segregation; it leads to welfare dependency; itprevents immigrants from integrating into the dominant culture and nationalidentity; by extension, immigrants do not take the responsibility to integrate;multiculturalism undermines western democratic values; it allows an inflatedtolerance to cultural and religious difference; it is too focused on culturalrights of groups rather than on the rights of the individual. (25)

These criticisms led to a shift away from multiculturalism and toward a demandfor social cohesion and integration.

In the past 50 years, Vasta (2007, 2009) argues, various models of immigrant

settlement and inclusion have emerged, focusing variously on assimilation, integra-tion and multiculturalism. In the 1950s and 1960s, the UK adopted a policy of assim-ilation in which ethnic minorities were expected to abandon their previous culturesand traditions and assimilate into the host culture. According to Vasta, this focusemphasised the idea of searching for commonalities and the process of becomingsimilar through a direction of change. It did not recognise cultural differences ormake any structural adjustment to accommodate ethno-cultural needs. Since then,the UK has developed a unique mix of inclusion policies, including the race rela-tions and multiculturalism model, integration strategies and community cohesion.

After 9/11 in the US and 7/7 in the UK, there has been a widespread fear that

multicultural values, and particularly the inclusion of Islamic values, may have adamaging effect on Western democracy. Hence the return of a dominant nationaldiscourse of assimilation. The current model of social cohesion and integrationemerged from this context of backlash and a desire for cultural homogeneity. Next,let us further explore what social cohesion and integration entails.

There is no agreed-upon definition of integration. Some argue that integrationfalls somewhere between assimilation and multiculturalism while for others it is aform of assimilation. In principle, integration should be a two-way adjustmentprocess whereby immigrants and the host society together create a new culture.Since the principle of assimilation has become increasingly obsolete, many argue

that integration has replaced assimilation as a more acceptable substitute. Althoughintegration as a two-way process is a much advocated concept in the UK, Vasta (2007,2009) argues that it never spells out how the white or established communitiesshould engage. The prevailing idea is that integration is an immigrant issue; onlyimmigrants are expected to take the responsibility to integrate. A second problem

with this model is that it falls short in providing the necessary resources and rightsto help immigrants to integrate. It appears to have more concern for cultural assim-ilation than for structural integration and there is often slippage between use of thetwo ideas (Vasta 2009: 19). In this view, integration endorses a conformity model inassessing immigrants and a monolithic cultural framework that preaches tolerancein the abstract but in practice remains intolerant towards cultural specificitiesdeemed to fall outside the mainstream (Li 2003).

In commenting on social cohesion, Vasta (2007) argues that it can mean differ-ent things to different people. The current framework of cohesion in the UK has


8/12


been coupled with integration to encourage people from different groups in allcommunities to get on well together. It does not specify, however, how this shouldbe approached. For Vasta, the current strategy of social cohesion stresses a moreindividualist approachgetting on well together and adapting to one another,and rejection of multiculturalism (p. 7). A fatal flaw with the current approach isthat it rarely acknowledges the ongoing social inequality and structural barriersthat prevent many immigrant groups from integration and social cohesion. On thecontrary, it blames the victims for their high levels of unemployment and for notintegrating. Vasta also reminds us of leftist critiques of integration and social cohe-sion that identify in these discourses themes of social order and social control,themes that bear a striking resemblance to assimilation practices of the past.Dominant groups remain in a privileged position, able to define the terms andcharacteristics of social cohesion.

Vasta maintains that social cohesion and integration cannot be engineered, andthat these can only be achieved with the development of a sense of belonging,

shared values and trust (Vasta 2007, Hamaz and Vasta 2009). To realise this goal, Vasta (2007) suggests we expand multiculturalism rather than abandon it. Shesuggests four principles that might contribute to the success of multiculturalism:mutual accommodation, multiculturalism for all, equality of access and outcomes,and combating racism. First, she points out that the alleged failure of earlier poli-cies of multiculturalism and integration lies in the lack of mutual accommodation.She emphasises the importance of a genuine two-way process of integration thatrequires a strategy of mutual accommodation involving the adaptation of theinserted group to existing conditions, as well as a change in the structure of thelarger society and a redefinition of its criteria of cohesion (Baubck 1996, cited in

Vasta 2007: 26). Next, multiculturalism is not just for immigrants; it should belongto everyone. Multiculturalism is committed to the process of accommodatingdifference. It is a philosophy and policy that promotes the acceptance of immigra-tion and of cultural and religious diversity and challenges the static image ofnational identity and cultural homogeneity. This principle undermines the claimthat multiculturalism is segregationist. Furthermore, Vasta suggests equality andfull participation, which introduces new structural strategies and practices to deal

with long-term inequalities facing both new immigrants and the second generationin the labour market, education, social and health services. She further points outthat equality of access alone is not sufficient; special resources are required to help

immigrants to achieve equal outcomes and statuses. In addition, multiculturalismand the fight against racism have to go hand in hand. It is widely recognised thatsystemic racism promotes the alienation and marginalisation of migrants, theconsequence of which is that members of these groups turn inward for support.Unfortunately, this inward, defensive move is negatively labelled segregation orghettoisation. Vasta emphasises the importance of acknowledging the destructiveeffects of racism on immigrants and the development of ameliorative strategiesand policies.

Ethno-cultural organisations

The sameness approach and the social cohesion and integration agenda have led tothe questioning and denigration of ethno-cultural organisations. Because of this, it


9/12


10/12


liberals advocate a culturally neutral state in which citizens deal fairly with eachother and the state deals equally with all, regardless of how we conceive our ends.This position is compatible with Rawls (1971) notion of justice as fairness, whichplaces the protection of individual rights, along with non-discrimination provisions,before collective goals. The liberal perspective has been criticised as unrealistic,unacceptably thin and unfair because governments cannot be culturally neutral(Taylor 1994, Tamir 1995, Bloemraad 2000).

Bloemraad maintains that thought experiments concerning an original posi-tion are unrealistic because such a position never existed. Furthermore, theyignore the critical point that no one is born an atomised, rational actor. Because itfails to recognise that being part of a community is a primordial good, Bloemraadcontinues, the liberal conception of citizenship is unacceptably thin. A personsethnic and cultural heritage must be recognised as part of the individual so as toencourage the participation of all (Walzer 1982, Baubck 1996, Parekh 1999).Finally, Bloemraad criticises the liberal conception of universal citizenship as

unfair because the neutrality of the state prevents citizens from pursuing certainlegitimate collective goals through their political institutions. The ideal of a cultur-ally neutral state promotes a notion of universal citizenship that ignores differ-ences in capacities, cultures and values, and which perpetuates oppression andinequality (Young 1995). Alternative forms of citizenship such as differentiated citi-zenship (Young 1995) and multicultural citizenship (Kymlicka 1995) have beenproposed as a means to guarantee group rights and group representation.

Based on the above discussion, it can be predicted that the failure to recogniseethno-cultural organisations and the denial of necessary recourses and support tohelp immigrant and ethnic communities with their adaptation will likely lead to

further alienation, as well as the failure of migrants to identify with the broader soci-ety and thus to become full members of the community. This goes against the inten-tion of integration rather than facilitating it.

Concluding remarks

Despite its commendable efforts in addressing the impact of migration on lifelonglearning and communities, this commentary raises a number of important questionsabout issues inherent in the report. The above discussion has shown that Britain is

experiencing unprecedented super-diversity as a result of migration. Rather thanresponding positively to this changing diversity, lifelong learning has been used as atool for the assimilation of migrants into British norms and cultures. By adoptingthe sameness approach and the social cohesion and integration agenda, lifelonglearning has become an engineering project for manufacturing Britishness throughlanguage lessons and citizenship tests. This approach treats cultural diversity as defi-cit and deficiency, blames the victims for their marginalisation and exclusion andleaves systemic issues intact. Furthermore, the idea of a culturally neutral state anduniversal citizenship negates cultural differences and perpetuates oppressionand inequality. In the age of globalisation, whereby unidirectional migration isbeing replaced by circulatory and transnational movements, it is time for Britain torevisit the recommendations put forward in this report and to develop a more inclu-sive framework that recognises cultural differences and diversity as positive anddesirable assets, enhances multiple ways of attachments and belongings, and helps


11/12

446 SHIBAO GUO

marginalised groups to overcome systemic barriers and to become fully participat-ing members of the society.

References

ANDERSON, B., CLARK, N. and PARUTIS, V. (2007) New Eu Members? Migrant workers challenges and opportu-nities to UK trade unions: a Polish and Lithuanian case study (Oxford: ESRC Centre on Migration,Policy and Society).

BAUBCK, R. (1996) Cultural minority rights for immigrants. International Migration Review, 30(1), 203250.

BLOEMRAAD, I. (2000) Citizenship and immigration: a current review. Journal of International Migration andIntegration, 1(1), 937.

CANGIANO, A., SHUTES, I., SPENCER, S. and LEESON, G. (2009) Migrant Care Workers in Ageing Societies:Research findings in the UK(Oxford: ESRC Centre on Migration, Policy and Society).

CHEETHAM, J. (1988) Ethnic associations in Britain. In S. JENKINS (ed.) Ethnic Associations and the WarfareState: Services to immigrants in five countries(New York: Columbia University Press), pp. 107154.

EUROSTAT (2009a) Eurostat Regional Yearbook 2009(Brussels: European Commission).

EUROSTAT (2009b) Citizens of European Countries Account for the Majority of the Foreign Population in EU-27 in2008(Brussels: European Commission).

GUO, S. (2006) Adult education for social change: the role of a grassroots organization in Canada. Conver-gence, 39(4), 107122.

GUO, S. (2008) The promotion of minority group rights as the protection of individual rights and free-doms for immigrants: A Canadian case study. Interchange, 39(2), 259275.

GUO, S. (2010) Toward recognitive justice: emerging trends and challenges in transnational migrationand lifelong learning. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 29(2), 149167.

HAMAZ, S. and VASTA, E. (2009) To belong or not to belong: Is that the question? Negotiating belonging in multi-ethnic London. Working Paper No. 73 (Oxford: ESRC Centre on Migration, Policy and Society).

HENRY, F., TATOR, C., MATTIS, W. and REES, T. (2006)The Colour of Democracy: Racism in Canadian society(Toronto: Thompson Nelson).

JACKSON, S. (2010) Learning through social spaces: migrant women and lifelong learning in post-colonialLondon. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 29(2), 237253.

JAYAWEERA, H. and CHOUDHURY, T. (2008) Immigration, Faith and Cohesion: Evidence from local areas withsignificant Muslim populations(Oxford: ESRC Centre on Migration, Policy and Society).

JENKINS, S. (1988) (ed.) Ethnic Associations and the Warfare State: Services to immigrants in five countries(NewYork: Columbia University Press).

KYMLICKA, W. (1995) Multicultural Citizenship: A liberal theory of minority rights(Oxford: Clarendon Press).LI, P. S. (2003) Deconstructing Canadas discourse of immigrant integration. Journal of International

Migration and Integration, 4(3), 315333.MCNAIR, S. (2009a) Demography and Lifelong Learning: IFLL thematic paper 1 (Leicester, UK: NIACE).MCNAIR, S. (2009b) Demography and Lifelong Learning: IFLL thematic paper 2(Leicester, UK: NIACE).ORGANISATIONFORECONOMIC COOPERATIONAND DEVELOPMENT [OECD] (2009) International Migration

Outlook(Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development).PAREKH, B. (1999) Common citizenship in a multicultural society. The Round Table, 351, 449460.RAWLS, J. (1971) A Theory of Justice(London: Oxford University Press).

REITZ, J.G. (1995) A review of the literature on aspects of ethno-racial access, utilization and delivery of social services.http://ceris.metropolis.net/Virtual Library/other/reitz1/reitz1.html (accessed 4 February,2010).

SCHULLER, T. and WATSON, D. (2009) Learning through Life: Inquiry into the future for lifelong learning(Leicester, UK: NIACE).

SPENCER, S., RUHS, M., ANDERSON, B. and ROGALY, B. (2007) Migrants Lives Beyond the Workplace: Theexperiences of Central and East Europeans in the UK(Oxford: ESRC Centre on Migration, Policy andSociety).

TAMIR, Y. (1995) Two concepts of multiculturalism. In Y. TAMIR(ed.) Democratic Education in a Multicul-tural State(Oxford: Blackwell Publishers), pp. 314.

TAYLOR, C. (1994) The politics of recognition. In A. GUTMANN (ed.) Multiculturalism: Examining the politicsof recognition(Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press), pp. 2573.

VASTA, E. (2007) Accommodating Diversity: Why current critiques of multiculturalism miss the point. WorkingPaper No. 53 (Oxford: ESRC Centre on Migration, Policy and Society).

VASTA, E. (2009) The Controllability of Difference: Social solidarity and immigrant integration. Working PaperNo. 71 (Oxford: ESRC Centre on Migration, Policy and Society).

VERTOVEC, S. (2006). The Emergence of Super-Diversity in Britain. Working Paper No. 25 (Oxford: ESRCCentre on Migration, Policy and Society).


12/12


WALZER, M. (1982) Pluralism in political perspective. In W. WALZER (ed.) The Politics of Ethnicity(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press), pp. 128.

WEINFELD, M. (2000) The integration of Jewish immigrants in Montreal: models and dilemmas of ethnicmatch. In D.J. ELAZAR and M. WEINFELD (eds.) Still Moving: Recent Jewish migration in corporativeperspective(New Jersey: Transaction), pp. 28598.

YOUNG, I. (1995) Polity and group difference: a critique of the ideal of universal citizenship. In R. BEINER

(ed.) Theorizing Citizenship(Albany: State University of New York), pp. 175207.

migration and communities884210_731200573_923421347

Documents