A Typology of Different Integration Programmes in the EU

IP/C/LIBE/FWC/2005-22

Immigration and Integration

DG Internal Policies of the Union, Directorate C – Citizens’ rights and Constitutional Affairs.

BRIEFING PAPER:ORDER FORM No IP/C/LIBE/OF/2005-167.

A TYPOLOGY OF DIFFERENT INTEGRATION PROGRAMMES IN THE EU

By

Sergio Carrera

Date of Submission: 13 January 2006

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary i

Introduction 1

1. The Concept of Integration of Immigrants 1

2. A Typology of Integration Programmes 2

2.1 The Evolving Legislative and Policy Framework 2

2.2 National Models on Integration of Immigrants 2

2.3 The Mandatory Nature of Integration Courses and Their Enforcement 4

2.4 The Nexus between Immigration, Integration and Citizenship 5

3. The EU Framework on Integration of Immigrants 6

References 7

Annexes

1. Profile of National Integration Programme in Austria 11

2. Profile of National Integration Programme in Belgium (Wallonia and Flanders) 13

3. Profile of National Integration Programme in Denmark 15

4. Profile of National Integration Programme in France 16

5. Profile of National Integration Programme in Germany 17

6. Profile of National Integration Programme in the Netherlands 19

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This Briefing Paper presents a typology of integration programmes for immigrants in selected Member States of the European Union. It first looks at the concept of ‘integration of immigrants’ and its inherent vulnerabilities. It then provides a typology of integration strategies and policies in Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany and the Netherlands. The cases of Spain, Poland and the UK are also taken into consideration. The main tendencies and common elements are assessed and broadly compared. As the paper shows, there appears to be a move towards a restrictive integration policy for immigrants in the EU. Mandatory participation in integration programmes has become a constituent element of immigration and national citizenship legislation, as well as precondition to having access to a secure status. A nexus between immigration, integration and citizenship is also becoming the norm in a majority of the national legal systems assessed in this paper. The link between the social inclusion of immigrants and the juridical framework on immigration, integration and citizenship may raise human rights considerations, and endanger the inter-culturalism and diversity that are inherent to the character of the EU.

A TYPOLOGY OF DIFFERENT INTEGRATION PROGRAMMES IN THE EU

Sergio Carrera [1]

INTRODUCTION

This briefing paper presents a typology of integration programmes for immigrants in selected Member States of the European Union. It first looks at the concept of ‘integration of immigrants’ and its inherent vulnerabilities. It then provides a typology of integration strategies in Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany and the Netherlands. The cases of Spain, Poland and the UK are also taken into consideration. The main tendencies and common elements are assessed and broadly compared. As we will show, there appears to be a distinct trend towards a restrictive integration policy for immigrants in the EU. Mandatory participation in integration programmes is now a regular part of immigration and national citizenship legislation, and a precondition to having access to a secure status. A nexus between immigration, integration and citizenship is also becoming the norm in a majority of the national legal systems assessed in this paper. The nexus between the social inclusion of immigrants and the juridical framework on immigration, integration and citizenship may raise human rights considerations, and endanger the inter-culturalism and diversity that are inherent to the character of the EU.

THE CONCEPT OF INTEGRATION OF IMMIGRANTS

A critical vision of the ‘integration’ of immigrants is necessary in order to understand the evolution this word is undergoing in the EU. As Joppke and Morawska argue, [2]the category of ‘integrating migrants’ rests on the subjective idea of an already integrated receiving society that is composed by citizens who are also integrated, and which form a whole. In their view, any vision of unity or any discourse advocating integrated societies is inherently subjective. In fact, our societies are witnessing a wide variety of life styles that diversify the very concept of community and call into question claims of an homogeneous society of shared cultural values that need to be defended and made secure against those labelled as ‘immigrants’.

Into what exactly are immigrants supposed to ‘integrate’? Conceptualisation of national identity today is open to subjective interpretations of ‘us’ and our perceived identity and social values. [3] Traditional stereotypes of how to be ‘national’ are however taken as the model test to evaluate if the immigrant is well-integrated. Integration becomes the tool in the hands of the State to force a process of nationalisation by which any individual aiming to be included in its society will have to mutate into the traditional concept of ‘us’ in order to have fair and equal treatment. Integration is by nature antithetical to diversity and inter-culturalism, which are constitutive elements of the EU.

As Guild points out, [4] the hallmark of the categorisation of immigrants and national culture is the integration discourse. There appears to be a duty on the part of those falling within the juridical category of immigrant to abandon some of their cultural expression and identity to become more like the receiving community sees itself. Guild continues by arguing that the linkage between integration and poverty is apparent. If immigrants do not claim State benefits in certain forms, such as income or family support, then they are not affected by the consequences of failure to comply. Indeed, economic status is a key factor determining who is subject to mandatory integration programmes.

A TYPOLOGY OF INTEGRATION PROGRAMMES

This section presents a number of common tendencies and vulnerabilities found in a majority of the countries under study, i.e. Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany and the Netherlands. As we will see below, most of these countries have traditionally used terms such as ‘integration’, ‘assimilation’, and ‘multiculturalism’ in order to frame their respective national philosophies and approaches on ‘the inclusion of immigrants’.

An Evolving Legislative and Policy Framework

The dynamic nature of national legislation and programmes on the integration of immigrantsmakes any comprehensive comparative analysis in this field difficult. Over the last years, new immigration and integration juridical frameworks have been put in place, or are being debated, in most of the EU Member States. In Germany, for instance, a new Immigration Act (Zuwanderungsgesetz) regulating the entry and stay of immigrants entered into force on 1 January 2005. In the Netherlands, the Newcomers Integration Act (Wet Inburgering Nieuwkomers, WIN, 1997) is undergoing revision in the Parliament. Austria has also adopted a new Settlement and Residence Act, which entered into force on 1 January 2006 and regulates long-term residence and labour migration in conjunction with the Alien’s Employment Act (Ausländerbeschäftigungs-gesetz, 1975). Similar situations can be found in other Member States, where legislative proposals providing a brand new juridical framework on integration of immigrants are under consideration (for more details on national integration programmes, see Annexes 1 to 6).

National Models on Integration of Immigrants

The academic literature on integration distinguishes among three main national models. [5] The first is the multicultural model, which is based on respect and protection of cultural diversity and aims at explicitly guaranteeing the identity of the immigrant community. Countries that have traditionally followed this model are the Netherlands and Sweden. The second model, assimilationism (also called the republican or universalistic model),has ‘equality’ at its root, but only for those individuals who fall within the category of ‘citizens’. It is based on the complete assimilation of the foreigner into the dominant traditional national values and perceived common identity. France is the classic example of this approach. [6] Finally, there is the separation or exclusionist model, which is characterised by restrictive and rigid immigration legislation and policies. In this context, ‘rigid’ refers mainly to the legal conditions that must be satisfied in order to have access to and reside in the territory. It consists of policies aimed at maintaining the temporary character of an immigrant’s settlement. Immigrant workers are often denied ‘political citizenship’. Germany, Switzerland and Belgium fall within this model.

In our view, these traditional national models of integration no longer exist. Societies and their attitudes towards immigrants and their integration are continuously changing. National models and integration programmes have often been rendered moot by evolving contemporary realities, political and economic priorities and dramatic events. Also, the content and structure of these programmes vary widely in terms of their scope and content, target groups and institutional actors. Member States differ considerably in their approaches and political priorities vis-à-vis the integration of migrants. This diversity mainly derives from the different historical backgrounds, societal models and patterns and traditions of migration flows.

Nevertheless, integration programmes tend to share some general elements, such as language classes, civic courses familiarising migrants with the receiving country’s norms, history, values and cultural traditions, and labour market orientation/vocational training. [7] For instance, in Austria, the new Law on Residence and Settlement divides the so-called ‘integration agreement’ (integrationsvereinbarung) into two modules, the first dealing with literacy and the second focusing on language training and social, economic and cultural aspects. Further, two other countries under analysis apply the so-called ‘integration contract’ to formalise the obligation between the immigrant and the State as regards integration, namely Denmark and France (contract d’accueil et d’integration) (see Annexes 3 and 4). In Germany, the new Immigration Act provides a compulsory integration course consisting of a language course aimed at giving participants a good command of German together with an orientation course in which immigrants learn about the German legal system, history and culture (see Annex 5).

It is important to acknowledge that a number of EU Member States do not yet have in place a nation-wide integration policy for immigrants. For example, Spain [8] has been elaborating a framework for integrating immigrants since the election of the new Spanish Government in March 2004, and a new strategy on integration will be officially presented early in 2006. At the present time, the Autonomous Communities hold the main competences on the integration of immigrants. A series of ‘integration plans’ are being implemented by Cataluña, Madrid and Andalucía, which have large foreign populations. Since 2001, they have applied ‘integration plans’ aimed at promoting the principle of equal treatment, respect for inter-culturalism and non-discrimination and the protection of cultural plurality. [9] These plans provide orientation and juridical guidance, education, language courses, as well as support by the social services. [10]

Poland is equally lacking a national legal framework on the integration of immigrants. Only a few categories of immigrants have access to integration programmes, e.g. recognised refugees and immigrants of Polish ethnicity. Refugees are entitled to receive Polish language instruction, vocational training and subsistence support. Ethnic Polish immigrants have similar entitlements in addition to community support, but their repatriation and subsequent integration are subject to the availability of funds. [11]

The Mandatory Nature of Integration Courses and Their Enforcement

In those Member States where a nation-wide juridical framework on integration does exist, there is a trend towards conceiving integration as an obligation by the immigrant in order to be included and to have access to the different societal dimensions of the receiving State. The mandatory character of integration programmes has progressively become the rule in a majority of EU-15 states. [12] Integration is becoming a one-way process by which the responsibilities are placed exclusively on the immigrant. The non-nationals are forced to integrate in order to have access to a ‘secure status’. In most Member States, the concept of integration as incorporated in their national laws is restrictive in nature, mostly related to cultural aspects (courses on the acquisition of the language, history, culture and civic and social aspects of the receiving country). It bears little resemblance to the fair and equal treatment paradigm emphasised at the Tampere European Council of 1999, [13] which favoured social inclusion of immigrants and equality, non-discrimination and respect for diversity. [14]

The majority of Member States under study have introduced mandatory integration programmes. In particular, Germany, the Netherlands, Austria, Belgium (Flanders) and Denmark apply obligatory integration courses, which must be successfully completed before the immigrant has the right to residency and has access to social and welfare benefits (see Annexes 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6). Only France and Belgium (Wallonia) apply ‘voluntary’ integration programmes. Yet, in the case of France once the ‘integration contract’ is signed by the newcomer, the non-attendance of civic and language courses will have negative consequences for the official decision on whether to grant long-term residence status. Also, a new project de loi de programmation pour la cohesion sociale, has been proposed by the Ministère d l’emploi, du travail et de la cohesion sociale, on 15 September 2004 which would make mandatory the integration contract (see Annexes 2 and 4).

‘Integration’ hides the actual conventional models of assimilation, incorporation or acculturation. As Brubaker argues, we are witnessing a ‘return to assimilation’, [15] as exemplified by the experience of the Netherlands. The traditionally multicultural position on integration that characterised that country has been substituted by an assimilationist doctrine – i.e. a policy of obligatory integration. [16] Another case might be the new Settlement and Residence Act in Austria, which appears to present a more restrictive framework on the integration of immigrants (for more details, see Annex 1).

As regards the personal scope, the target group of the integration programmes are mainly those qualified as ‘newcomers’ of adult age, immigrants with an insufficient knowledge of the language and immigrants interested in acquiring permanent residence. In some cases settled immigrants who may still have integration needs are also subject to integration programmes. The exempted groups are usually, among others, EU and EEA citizens, immigrants in possession of a short-term work permit, highly skilled workers, scientists and professors, students, researchers and asylum seekers. It is striking to see which individuals are excluded in the new Bill revising the WIN in the Netherlands from the obligation to integrate: nationals from the US, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Japan, etc. [17] In fact, poor immigrant without financial resources and in search of economic improvement seems to be the one mainly targeted by the rigid obligation to integrate (see Annex 6). The compatibility of these measures with Protocol No. 12 of the European Convention of Human Rights remains open (see Annexes 1 to 6). [18]

The enforcement of integration programmes involves a series of sanctions if they are not successfully completed. Penalties range from those of financial character to the loss of the right of residency and expulsion from the country. Austria represents a typical case concerning the enforcement attached to a failure to integrate. Under Austrian law, when the integration programme is not completed within: the first year, the residence permit can only be renewed for another year; the first 18 months, State financing is reduced to 25% of costs; and the first 2 years, State financing is withdrawn and a fine of €100-200 is charged. Finally, after 3 years without having begun, or after 4 years without having completed the programme, the immigrant can be expelled from Austria after the State has produced proof of his or her unwillingness to integrate. Other countries, such as the Netherlands and Belgium (Flanders), also apply fines to newcomers who have failed to those successfully integrate (see Annexes 2 and 6).

The Nexus between Immigration, Integration and Citizenship

There is an increasing tendency to link integration programmes with immigration policy and law, in terms of admission, residence and length of stay. Policies on admission are therefore paradoxically converging with those of integration. The nexus between integration and immigration might be seen if we look at the Netherlands, where a new legislative proposal on the integration of migrants has been presented by the Justice Minister Rita Verdonk. The draft law was approved by the Dutch Parliament on 22 March 2005 and is now in hands of the Council of State. Integration is no longer seen as a process taking place inside the receiving State, but rather as commencing even before an individual emigrates from his/her country of origin. The Bill will provide for a ‘pre-arrival integration’ or ‘integration of immigrants abroad’ (Wet Inburgering in het buitenland). The lack of progress in becoming integrated will be grounds for refusal of admission (see Annex 6).

Concerning, the nexus between integration and citizenship, the UK gives us a good example of the new legislation being passed linking integration and citizenship. The Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act of 2002, which entered into force on 1 November 2005, has added to the previous British Nationality Act of 1981 a requirement for naturalisation that the person ‘has sufficient knowledge about life in the United Kingdom’. In addition to the English language requirement (knowledge of English, Welsh or Scottish Gaelic), applicants for naturalisation need to pass the ‘Life in the UK’ test. [19] The link between integration and citizenship does not apply however to Belgium, where the last amendment to the Belgian citizenship law in March 2000 removed the condition imposed on the immigrant to express the willingness to integrate from the naturalisation process. [20]

THE EU FRAMEWORK ON INTEGRATION OF IMMIGRANTS

While the Common Basic Principles adopted by the Council on November 2004 provide a good start in the progressive establishment of an EU framework on integration, [21] it seems that most of them are purely symbolic. An openness regarding the inclusiveness of immigrants has not formed the foundation of the Directives on the status of long-term residents (2003/109) and on the right to family reunification (2003/86). [22] The philosophy underlying these Directives seems to strengthen the trend evident in a majority of Member States towards a restrictive integration policy for immigrants. Member States are given wide discretion to compel migrants to comply with mandatory integration conditions stipulated by national law in order to have access to the rights that they provide. [23]

The European Parliament needs to voice concerns about the developments at national level and their precise implications in the common EU framework on integration of immigrants. No EU framework should provide the means to strengthen particular national immigration and integration philosophies that might make the already-vulnerable position of the immigrant more vulnerable. This needs to be prevented for the sake of social cohesion, human rights and freedom. Instead, the EU should advocate a policy based on the equal and fair treatment paradigm emphasised at the Tampere European Council. [24] This common policy needs to facilitate the global social inclusion of immigrants in the receiving societies and fight against discrimination and xenophobia.

REFERENCES

Andersen, S., E. Heinesen and L. Husted (2005), Benchmarking Analysis of Danish Municipalities’ Integration Policies in the Period 1999-2002 (available at: http://www.inm.dk).

Apap, J. (2002), The Development of European Citizenship and its relevance to the Integration of Refugees, CEPS Working Document No. 180, CEPS, Brussels.

Arango, J. and R. Sandell (2004), Inmigración: Prioridades para una Nueva Política Española, Informes Elcano, Real Instituto Elcano de Estudios Internacionales y Estratégicos, Madrid.

Bauböck, R. (2004), «Civic Citizenship – A New Concept for the New Europe», in R. Süssmuth and W. Weidenfeld (eds), Managing Integration. European Union responsibilities towards immigrants, Brussels: Bertelsmann Foundation, pp. 146-163.

Bertossi, C. (2004), ‘Politics and Policies of French Citizenship, Ethnic Minorities and the European Agenda’, in A. Górny and P. Ruspini (eds), Migration in the New Europe; East-West Revisited, Basingstoke: Palgrave.

Besselink, L. F. M. (2005), Inburgering, gelijke behandeling en verblijfsrecht van vreemdelingen in Nederland, Staats-en Bestuursrecht, Faculteit Rechtsgeleerdheid, University of Utrecht (retrievable from www.libertysecurity.org).

Brubaker, R. (2004), «The Return to Assimilation? Changing Perspectives on Immigration and its Sequels in France, Germany and the United States», in C. Joppke and E. Morawska (eds), Toward Assimilation and citizenship: Immigrants in Liberal Nation States, Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 39-58.

Carrera, S. (2005), «Integration as a Process of Inclusion for Migrants? The Case of Long-term Residents in the EU», in H. Schneider (ed.), Migration, Integration and Citizenship: A Challenge for Europe’s Future, Forum Maastricht: The Netherlands, pp. 109-138.

Carrera, S. and T. Balzacq (2005), Migration, Borders and Asylum: Trends and Vulnerabilities in EU Policy, CEPS, Brussels.

Council of Europe (2001), A Common European Framework of Reference for Languages, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cyrus, N. and D. Vogel (2005), «Germany», in J. Niessen, Y. Schibel and C. Thompson (eds), Current Immigration Debates in Europe: A Publication of the European Migration Dialogue, Brussels/Warsaw: Migration Policy Group.

Danish Government (2003), The Government’s Vision and Strategies for Improved Integration: Summary or report submitted by the Group of Ministers on Improved Integration.

Danish Ministry of the Interior (2005),A New Chance for Everyone: the Danish Government’s integration plan (available at http://www.inm.dk).

Danish Ministry of Refugee, Immigration and Integration Affairs (2004), Immigration and Integration Practices in Denmark and Selected Countries, Copenhagen: The Think Tank on Integration in Denmark (available at: http://www.inm.dk).

–––––––– (2001), The Integration of Foreigners into Danish Society, Copenhagen: The Think Tank on Integration in Denmark (available at: http://www.inm.dk).

European Migration Network, The Impact of Immigration on Europe’s Society: A Pilot Research Study undertaken by the European Migration Network, Berlin: Berlin Institute for Comparative Social Research BIVS.

Entzinger, H. and R. Biezeveld (2003), Benchmarking in Immigration Integration, European Research Centre on Migration and Ethnic Relations, Erasmus University of Rotterdam, August.

Favell, A. (1998), Philosophies of Integration: Immigration and the Idea of Citizenship in France and Britain, London: Macmillan.

Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (2005), «The Impact of Immigration on Germany’s Society», in Berlin Institute for Comparative Social Research (eds), The Impact of Immigration on Europe’s Society: A Pilot Research Study undertaken by the European Migration Network, Berlin: BIVS.

Fermin, A. (2001), The Justification of Mandatory Integration Programmes for New Immigrants, Utrecht: European Research Centre on Migration and Ethnic Relations, Utrecht University.

Foblets, M-C, B. Hubeau and D. Vanheule (2003), De tewerkstelling en het verblijf in België van vreemdelingen: vandaag en morgen, Brugge, De Keure.

Gsir, S., M. Martiniello, K. Meireman and J. Wets (2005), «Belgium», in J. Niessen, Y. Schibel and C. Thompson (eds), Current Immigration Debates in Europe: A Publication of the European Migration Dialogue, Migration Policy Group, Brussels/Warsaw, September.

Groenendijk, K. (2004), «Legal Concepts of Integration in EU Migration Law», European Journal of Migration and Law,Vol. 6, No. 2, pp.111-26.

Guild, E. (2005), «Cultural and Identity Security: Immigrants and the Legal Expression of National Identity», in E. Guild and J. Van Selm (eds), International Migration and Security: Opportunities and Challenges, New York: Routledge Research in Transnationalism, Routledge.

Hamilton, K., P. Simon and C. Veniard (2004), The Challenge of French Diversity, Migration Information Source (www.migrationinformatiom.com).

Iglicka, K., P. Kazmierkiewicz and A. Weinar (2005), «Poland», in J. Niessen, Y. Schibel and C. Thompson (eds), Current Immigration Debates in Europe: A Publication of the European Migration Dialogue, Brussels/Warsaw: Migration Policy Group.

International Centre for Migration Policy Development (ICMPD) (2005), Integration Agreements and Voluntary Measures: Compulsory or Voluntary Nature – Comparison of Compulsory Integration Courses, Programmes and Agreements and Voluntary Integration Programmes and Measures in Austria, France, Germany, the Netherlands and Switzerland, Vienna, May.

Joppke, C. and E. Morawska (2003), «Integrating Immigrants in Liberal Nation-States: Policies and Practices», in C. Joppke and E. Morawska (eds), Toward Assimilation and Citizenship: Immigrants in Liberal Nation-States, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

König, K. and B. Perchinig (2005), «Austria», in J. Niessen, Y. Schibel and C. Thompson (eds), Current Immigration Debates in Europe: A Publication of the European Migration Dialogue, Brussels/Warsaw: Migration Policy Group.

Le centre d’action interculturelle de Namur (2003), Construction Commune d’une Société où chacun est Égal et Différent, Cahier n° 19/20: Laboratoire des Innovations Sociales.

Marinelli, V. (2005), «The Netherlands», in J. Niessen, Y. Schibel and C. Thompson (eds), Current Immigration Debates in Europe: A Publication of the European Migration Dialogue, Brussels/Warsaw: Migration Policy Group.

Martiniello, M. and A. Rea (2003), Belgium’s Immigration Policy Brings Renewal and Challenges,Migration Information Source (www.migrationinformatiom.com).

Martiniello, M., M-C Foblets et al. (2004), Les populations d’origine immigrée face au droit en Belgique, Academia Press, Politique Scientifique fédérale, Série ‘Problèmes actuels concernent la cohésion sociale’, Gand.

Michalowski, I. (2004), An Overview on Introduction Programmes for Immigrants in Seven European Member States, Den Haag: Adviescommissie voor Vreemdelingenzaken.

Michalowski, I. (2004), «Integration Programmes for Newcomers – a Dutch model for Europe?», in A. Böcker, B. de Hart and I. Michalowski, IMIS-Beiträge, Special Issue on Migration and the Regulation of Social Integration, IMIS, Universität Osnabrück.

National Contact Point, Austria (2005), «The Impact of Immigration on Austria’s Society: A Survey of Recent Austrian Migration Research», in Berlin Institute for Comparative Social Research (eds), The Impact of Immigration on Europe’s Society: A Pilot Research Study undertaken by the European Migration Network, Berlin: BIVS.

National Contact Point, The Netherlands (2005), «A review of recent literature on the impact of immigration on Dutch society», in Berlin Institute for Comparative Social Research (eds) The Impact of Immigration on Europe’s Society: A Pilot Research Study undertaken by the European Migration Network, Berlin: BIVS.

Niessen, J., A. Geddes, A. Balch, C. Bullen and M.J. Peiro (2005), European Civic Citizenship and Inclusion Index, compiled by L. Citron and R. Gowan, British Council Brussels.

Pajares, M. (2005), La Integración Ciudadana: Una Perspectiva para la Inmigración, Icaria, Antrazyt no. 216.

Penninx, R. (2004), Integration of Migrants: Economic, Social, Cultural and Political Dimensions, background paper for the UNECE Conference 12-14 January 2004, Geneva.

Penninx, R., K. Kraal, M. Martiniello and S. Vertovec (eds) (2004), Citizenship in European Cities. Immigrants, Local Politics and Integration Policies, Aldershot/Burlington, VT: Ashgate.

Pérez, N.O. (2003), Spain: Forging an Immigration Policy, Migration Information Source (available at: http://www.migrationinformation.org).

Pérez-Díaz, V., B. Álvarez-Miranda and C. González-Enríquez (2001), España ante la Inmigración, Barcelona: la Caixa.

Serra, A., P. Mas, A. Xalabarder and G. Pinyol (2005), «Spain», in J. Niessen, Y. Schibel and C. Thompson (eds) Current Immigration Debates in Europe: A Publication of the European Migration Dialogue, Brussels/Warsaw: Migration Policy Group.

Sopemi report - Denmark 2005, OECD (retrievable from www.inm.dk).

Süssmuth, R. and W. Weidenfeld (eds) (2005), Managing Integration: The European Union’s Responsibilities towards Immigrants, Migration Policy Institute and Bertelsman Foundation.

UK Home Office (2005), Naturalisation as a British Citizen: A Guide for Applicants, London: B&B Press.

–––––––– (2005), Life in the United Kingdom: A Journey to Citizenship, Norwich: The Stationery Office.

–––––––– (2003), The New and the Old: The Report of the «Life in the United Kingdom» Advisory Group, Croydon: Home Office Communication Directorate.

Van Baalen, I. and W. Coumou (2004), Denkend aan Holland: Een programma Maastschappij-oriëntatie voor nieuwkomers, NCB.

Van Selm, J. (2005), The Netherlands: Death of a Filmmaker Shakes a Nation, Migration Information Source (www.migrationifnormation.org).

Wenden, C. de (2005), «Conceptual and political approaches to integration: the French perspective», in R. Süssmuth and W. Weidenfeld (eds), Managing Integration: The European Union’s Responsibilities towards Immigrants, Migration Policy Institute and Bertelsman Foundation.

For the annexes, see the word document

A Typology of Different Integration Programmes in the EU