The “migrant with poor prospects”: racialized intersections of class and culture in Dutch civic integration debates

ABSTRACT

The recent trend towards selective immigration policies is based on the racialization of certain categories of migrants into irretrievably unassimilable Others. In Europe, this trend has materialized largely through the application of integration requirements to the immigration of foreigners, the so-called “civic integration turn”. Based on an analysis of parliamentary debates about civic integration policies in the Netherlands, this paper asks which migrants are considered likely or unlikely to integrate based on which presumed characteristics. We find that Dutch civic integration policies aim at barring “migrants with poor prospects”. In sharp contrast with a long history of Dutch social policies, politicians deny state responsibility for migrants’ emancipation based on a discursive racialization of these migrants as unassimilable. While class has hitherto been largely ignored in the literature on migration and the politics of belonging, we show that class, intersecting with culture and gender, is key in this process of racialization.

KEYWORDS:

• Civic integration
• class
• racialization
• immigration policy
• Netherlands
• political discourse

View correction statement:

Corrigendum

Acknowledgements

We are indebted to Sébastien Chauvin, Karen Phalet, Ines Michalowksi, and the anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful comments on previous versions of this article.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1 This section draws on Uitermark, Duyvendak, and Rath (2014, 174–176).

2 Since refugees cannot be expected to learn Dutch before leaving the country where they are in danger, the requirement of passing a civic integration test before admission to the Netherlands only applies to family migrants (and religious ministers).

3 TK 1996–1997 25114 (5).

4 TK 2002–2003 28600 (24).

5 TK 2005–2006 30304 (2)

6 TK 2003–2004 29700 (3)

7 TK 2003–2004 29700 (3), p. 4-6.

8 TK 2004–2005 29700 Plenary 16 March 2005, p. 60-3885.

9 Ibid., p. 60-3896-3897.

10 Ibid, p. 60-3886.

11 TK 2007–2008 31225 (1).

12 TK 2007–2008 29700 (50).

13 TK 2009–2010 32123 Plenary 16 September 2009, p. 2-36

14 TK 2008–2009 31700–XVIII Plenary 2 December 2008, p. 31-2650.

15 TK 2010–2011 32175 (16), p. 13

16 TK 2008–2009 19637 (1266), p. 29.

17 TK 2009–2010 32175 (1), p. 2.

18 TK 2009–2010 31268 (25), p. 5-6, 11.

19 TK 2009–2010 32123-XVIII Plenary 25 November 2009, p. 29-2646.

20 TK 2009–2010 32052 (7), p. 5.

21 TK 2010–2011 32417 (15), p. 20.

22 TK 2010–2011 32500-VI Plenary 1 December 2010, p. 29-6.

23 TK 2010–2011 32500-VI Plenary, 1 December 2010, p. 29-13

24 TK 2012–2013 32824 (7), p. 5-6.

25 TK 2007–2008 31318(5), p. 7.

26 TK 2009–2010 32005 (4), p. 13.

27 TK 2009–2010 32175 (1), p. 3.

28 TK 2009–2010 32123-VI Plenary 4 November 2009, p. 20-1611.

29 E.g. TK 2008–2009 30573 (15), p. 10; TK 2009–2010 32175 (1), p. 3; TK 2010–2011 32824 (1), p. 3, 8-9.

30 TK 2008–2009 30573 (14), p. 5.

31 TK 2010–2011 32175 (16), p. 30.

32 TK 2010–2011 32500-VI Plenary, 1 December 2010, p. 29-6.

33 TK 2010–2011 32500-VI Plenary, 1 December 2010, p. 29-69.

34 TK 2010–2011 32500 Plenary, 26 October 2010, p. 13-8.

35 TK 2008–2009 31143 (65), p. 8.

36 TK 2008–2009 31700-XVIII Plenary 2 December 2008, p. 31-2650.

37 TK 2009–2010 32123 Plenary 16 September 2009, p. 2-50.

38 TK 2010–2011 Plenary 26 October 2010, p.

39 TK 2003–2004 29700 (3), p. 4-5.

40 TK 2009–2010 32005 (4), p. 13.

41 TK 2007–2008 31200-VI Plenary 14 November 2007, p. 23-1712.