Discover millions of ebooks, audiobooks, and so much more with a free trial

Only $11.99/month after trial. Cancel anytime.

Citizenship Education and Global Migration: Implications for Theory, Research, and Teaching
Citizenship Education and Global Migration: Implications for Theory, Research, and Teaching
Citizenship Education and Global Migration: Implications for Theory, Research, and Teaching
Ebook1,025 pages14 hours

Citizenship Education and Global Migration: Implications for Theory, Research, and Teaching

Rating: 0 out of 5 stars

()

Read preview

About this ebook

This groundbreaking book describes theory, research, and practice that can be used in civic education courses and programs to help students from marginalized and minoritized groups in nations around the world attain a sense of structural integration and political efficacy within their nation-states, develop civic participation skills, and reflective cultural, national, and global identities.
LanguageEnglish
Release dateJun 23, 2017
ISBN9780935302653
Citizenship Education and Global Migration: Implications for Theory, Research, and Teaching

Related to Citizenship Education and Global Migration

Related ebooks

Teaching Methods & Materials For You

View More

Related articles

Reviews for Citizenship Education and Global Migration

Rating: 0 out of 5 stars
0 ratings

0 ratings0 reviews

What did you think?

Tap to rate

Review must be at least 10 words

    Book preview

    Citizenship Education and Global Migration - James A. Banks

    Introduction

    G

    LOBAL

    M

    IGRATION AND

    C

    ITIZENSHIP

    E

    DUCATION

    J

    AMES

    A. B

    ANKS

    University of Washington, Seattle

    Migration within and across nation-states is a worldwide phenomenon. The movement of people across national boundaries is as old as the nation-state itself. However, never before in the history of the world has the movement of diverse racial, cultural, ethnic, religious, and linguistic groups within and across nation-states been as large-scale and rapid or raised such complex and difficult questions about citizenship, human rights, democracy, and education. Many worldwide trends and developments are challenging the notion of educating students to function in one nation-state. These trends include the ways in which people are moving back and forth across national borders, the rights of movement permitted by the European Union, and the rights codified in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948).

    Assimilation, Diversity, and Global Migration

    Prior to the ethnic revitalization movements of the 1960s and 1970s, the aim of schools in most nation-states was to develop citizens who internalized national values, venerated national heroes, and accepted glorified versions of national histories. These goals of citizenship education are obsolete today because many people have multiple national commitments, live in more than one nation, and practice flexible citizenship (Ong, 1999). However, the development of citizens who have global and cosmopolitan identities and commitments is contested in nation-states around the world because nationalism remains strong. Nationalism and globalization coexist in tension worldwide. Although nationalism remains strong and tenacious, globalization has a significant influence on migration. In 2015, there were approximately 244 million international migrants in the world (United Nations, 2016). Many of these migrants have ambiguous citizenship status and are victims of structural exclusion, racial microaggressions, cultural erasure, deculturalization (Spring, 2010)—and, sometimes, violence. The outcome of the U.K. Brexit referendum—voting to leave the European Union in 2016—as well as the rising power of right-wing political parties in European nations such as Austria, France, and Hungary—are partly rooted in xenophobia and racism toward immigrants (Aisch, Pearce, & Rousseau, 2016)

    Nations with different kinds of political systems—for example, democratic republics such as the United States and South Korea, federal republics such as Germany and Brazil, and Communist nations such as China and Cuba—must deal with complex educational issues when trying to respond to the problems wrought by international migration in ways consistent with their ideologies and declarations. Researchers have amply documented the wide gap between democratic ideals and the school experiences of minoritized groups in nations around the world. Students such as the Maori in New Zealand (Penetito, 2010), Muslims in France (Fredette, 2014), Chechens in Russia (Froumin, 2004), and Mexican Americans in the United States (Valenzuela, 1999) experience discrimination in school because of their ethnic, racial, cultural, linguistic, and religious differences (Banks, 2009).

    Nation-states and their schools—regardless of the type of political system—must grapple with a number of salient issues, paradigms, and ideologies as their populations become more diverse. The extent to which nation-states make multicultural citizenship possible (Kymlicka, 1995), the achievement gap between minoritized and majority groups (Ladson-Billings, 2006), and the language rights of immigrant and minoritized groups (Gándara & Hopkins, 2010) are among the unresolved and contentious issues with which diverse nations and schools must deal. Nations throughout the world are trying to determine whether they will perceive themselves as multicultural and allow immigrants to experience multicultural citizenship (Kymlicka, 1995), or continue to embrace an assimilationist ideology. In nation-states that embrace multicultural citizenship, immigrant and minority groups can retain important aspects of their languages and cultures and enjoy full citizenship rights as well.

    Nations in various parts of the world have responded to the citizenship and cultural rights of immigrant and minoritized groups in different ways. Since the ethnic revitalization movements of the 1960s and 1970s that were stimulated by the Black civil right movement in the United States, many of the national leaders and citizens in the United States, Canada, and Australia have viewed their nations as multicultural democracies (Banks, 2009; Banks & Lynch, 1986). An ideal exists within these nations that minoritized groups can retain important elements of their community cultures and participate fully in the national civic community. However, as the chapters in this book indicate, there is a wide gap between the ideals within these nations and the experiences of minoritized groups. Minoritized groups in the United States (Nieto, 2009), Canada (Joshee, 2009), and Australia (Inglis, 2009) experience discrimination both in schools and in the wider society. A citizenship education dilemma exists when nation-states try to teach students democratic ideals and values within social, economic, and educational contexts that contradict [those] ideals (Banks, 2004, pp. 9–10).

    Other nations, such as Japan (Hirasawa, 2009), Korea (Moon, 2012), and Germany (Eksner & Cheema, Chapter 8, this volume; Luchtenberg, 2009), have been reluctant to view themselves as multicultural. In the past, citizenship was closely linked to biological heritage and characteristics in these three nations. The biological conception of citizenship in Japan, Korea, and Germany has eroded significantly in the last decade, but it has left a tenacious legacy in those nations. A statement made by German Chancellor Angela Merkel at a meeting of the Christian Democratic Union party in October 2010 evoked Germany’s troubled past of dealing with ethnic, racial, and religiously diverse groups and made headlines around the world. Merkel said, We kidded ourselves a while. We said, ‘They won’t stay, [and after some time] they will be gone,’ but this isn’t reality. And of course, the approach [to building] a multicultural [society] and to liv[ing] side by side and to enjoy each other . . . has failed, utterly failed (cited in Clark, 2010). Castles (2004) refers to Germany’s response to immigrants as differential exclusion, which is partial and temporary integration of immigrant workers into society—that is, they are included in those subsystems of society necessary for their economic role: the labor market, basic accommodation, work-related health care, and welfare (p. 32). However, immigrants and their descendants are often excluded from full social, economic, and civic participation.

    The chapters in this book describe the challenges that marginalized and minoritized racial, ethnic, cultural, linguistic, and religious groups experience in their efforts to attain full citizenship rights and participation in 18 nations. They also describe how civic and multicultural educators are conceptualizing and implementing civic education programs that enable minoritized students to develop a sense of structural inclusion, political efficacy, and civic participation. The chapters detail how these challenges can be mitigated by school reform that enables students from diverse groups to experience structural inclusion, equity, and cultural recognition (Gutmann, 2004). Most of the chapters on specific nations include profiles of effective teachers enabling their students to acquire civic literacy, political efficacy, and civic engagement skills.

    Overview of Chapters and Parts

    Diversity and Citizenship Education: Cross-Cutting Issues and Concepts

    Three chapters in Part 1 describe the cross-cutting issues and concepts related to global migration, citizenship, and citizenship education. In Chapter 1, Castles examines the influence of global migration on human security and human development. He also describes emerging forms of migration, with a focus on women and forced migrants. Many international migrants come from the less developed nations in the Global South and seek work in developed nations in the Global North. These migrants experience many problems when they arrive at their destinations, including the denial of full citizenship rights and equal educational opportunities. They are also victimized by discrimination and xenophobia. Castle describes how immigration changes both the migrants and the communities into which they settle. He also describes the myriad difficulties that migrants experience in attaining full citizenship rights.

    Bashir, in Chapter 2, describes the serious limitations of conceptualizing citizenship within nation-state boundaries and constructs and illustrates a regional notion of citizenship. He contends that globalization makes a regional conception of citizenship essential, especially in deeply divided and conflict-ridden societies. He maintains that globalization weakens the tight association between territorial nation-states, rights, and citizenship but also creates the possibility of establishing a deterritorialized, regional notion of citizenship that allows regional integration and normalization. Khanna (2016) echoes Bashir’s vision when he argues that socially and economically, the United States is reorganizing itself around regional infrastructure lines that ignore state and even national borders.

    Starkey (Chapter 3), too, believes that citizenship should be conceptualized beyond the nation-state, but his conception of civic education is global rather than regional. He thinks that civic education should foster cosmopolitan citizenship, which enables students to view themselves as connected to people in nations around the world; cosmopolitan citizenship is supranational and is guided by ideals stated in documents such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Starkey views human rights as an essential component of civic education programs and interventions that foster cosmopolitan citizenship. He describes practical examples of how human rights lessons can be taught within national contexts, such as by including content that focuses on Martin Luther King, Jr., and the civil right movement in the United States, and on Nelson Mandela and the struggle against apartheid in South Africa.

    United States, Canada, and South Africa

    Global migration has increased ethnic, cultural, linguistic, and religious diversity in nations around the world (Banks, 2009). Immigrant nations such as Canada and the United States have been diverse since their founding. The ethnic and cultural diversity among the native peoples of these lands was greatly increased by the myriad European groups that conquered and colonized them. The United States and Canada view themselves as immigrant nations and historically have developed citizenship and citizenship education policies and initiatives that enabled most European immigrants to attain structural inclusion and social mobility; historically they have had more restrictive policies for immigrants from non-European nations such as China, Japan, India, Pakistan, and Nigeria. At present, Canada, the United States, and South Africa are industrialized representative democracies. South Africa shares with the United States a history of institutionalized discrimination and structural racism (Adam & Moodley, 2015). However, it is not an immigrant nation in ways that parallel Canada or the United States because Indigenous Blacks from different ethnic groups make up a large part of its population (e.g., 80.5% in 2015; Statistics South Africa, 2015).

    The chapters in Part 2 describe ways in which citizenship and citizenship education are complex, multifaceted, and changing in the United States, Canada, and South Africa. Angela Banks (Chapter 4) details a theoretical framework for conceptualizing citizenship and identifies the values, norms, and practices that were considered essential aspects of American culture and used in making legal decisions about granting U.S. citizenship between 1790 and 1952. Banks critically analyzes congressional hearings and debates, administrative records, and judicial opinions during this period and identifies five key aspects of American culture that immigrants were required to adopt for naturalization: commitment to democracy and the rule of law, belief in individualism, self-sufficiency, Christian beliefs and morals, and English language skills. She also describes how desirable values, norms, and practices for naturalization purposes were racialized. In the final part of her chapter, Banks describes strategies for effectively teaching about immigration and citizenship using legal concepts and principles.

    Joshee and Thomas (Chapter 5) chronicle the historical context in which citizenship education developed in Canada. Although Canada introduced a federal multiculturalism policy in 1971, the implementation of this policy was limited and complicated by assimilationist policies and pressures for Anglo-conformity, as Joshee and Thomas describe. Since the 1990s, policies relating to multiculturalism and citizenship education in Canada have been socially cohesive, emphasizing integration, national harmony, economic progress, and neoliberalism. Joshee and Thomas recommend slow peace as a promising approach to citizenship education that will mitigate cultural and structural forms of violence—such as racism and forced assimilation—that cause ethnic and racial conflict in Canadian society. Slow peace derives from an engagement with the concept of slow violence (Nixon, 2011) and the Gandhian ethic of peace (Gandhi, 1993). Monica, the teacher profiled in Chapter 5, used the slow peace approach to help her students construct a community that promoted harmony and kindness and encouraged them to take actions to alleviate injustices in their communities and to develop a commitment to civic engagement, peace, and social justice.

    Moodley (Chapter 6) illuminates the contradictions within South African society that result from the democratic constitution that it adopted in 1996 and the xenophobia that is experienced there by immigrants from other African nations. She describes how the tensions between universal human rights and rights based on citizenship give rise to xenophobia and discrimination against immigrants in South Africa. Moodley details the results of a study she conducted with South African students in four township secondary schools. Most of the students (51%) had an outlook of compassion, inclusiveness, and care for the people. However, Moodley characterizes 25% of the students as xenophobic and 25% as ambivalent. She maintains that the current political education in South Africa fails to counter xenophobia among students. Moodley contends that teaching political literacy should be the focus of citizenship education because it will enable students to attain a cosmopolitan identity that will help to mitigate discrimination and xenophobia.

    England, Norway, Germany, and France

    The historic diversity in Europe was increased when thousands of immigrants from colonial nations such as India, Pakistan, Algeria, Jamaica, and Indonesia migrated to nations such as England, France, and the Netherlands to improve their economic status in the years following World War II. Diversity in European nations continued to increase during the 1980s and 1990s. However, most European nations do not view themselves as immigrant nations and have consequently found it difficult to construct citizenship and citizenship education policies and programs that reflect civic equality and exemplify multicultural citizenship (Koopmans, Statham, Giugni, & Passy, 2005; Lucassen, 2005; Osler & Starkey, 2005).

    The population of Muslims is increasing throughout Europe, especially in France, the United Kingdom, and Switzerland. The growth of the Muslim population and the rash of terrorist attacks by ISIS and Islamic extremists in Western nations have stimulated the rise of xenophobia and Islamophobia in Europe. In 2004 France banned the wearing of religious symbols in state schools—for example, the headscarf or hijab worn by Muslim female students. In 2009, a referendum was passed in Switzerland that prohibited the building of minarets on mosques. One of the most difficult challenges with which European nations are dealing is the growth of Muslims in their populations. Many Europeans believe that Muslims are threatening European civilization and culture (Bawer, 2006). Islam is the fastest growing religion in both Europe and the United States (Cesari, 2004). In 2010, Germany and France had the largest populations of Muslims in the European Union (4.8 million and 4.7 million, respectively); however, Russia had the largest population of Muslims in Europe (14 million; Pew Research Center, 2015).

    Osler (Chapter 7) discusses three challenges associated with integrating minority groups and implementing policies to support human rights and social justice in Europe: (a) the large number of refugees and migrants arriving in Europe; (b) public debates about diversity, integration, and multiculturalism; and (c) the securitization of education policy. Osler profiles Veronica, a Ghanaian British teacher of high school students in London, describing how her experiences as a minoritized British citizen motivated her to teach democratic citizenship, human rights, and social justice. Veronica’s teaching exemplifies professional and moral ethics. She tried to empower her students from minoritized communities and to help both mainstream White students and minoritized students experience human rights education and develop political efficacy.

    In the final part of her chapter, Osler uses case studies in England and Norway to reflect on national educational policy initiatives. She states that although the two countries differ in their levels of demographic diversity and integration of minoritized population groups, they share an assimilationist orientation in education policies, which emphasizes national values and the securitization of education policy that targets Muslim students. Osler concludes that Norway is facing a human rights education paradox: Human rights principles are deemed essential, yet human rights education in schools is weak.

    Eksner and Cheema (Chapter 8) use a postcolonial perspective to examine the public debate in Germany about how secular society responds to the resurgence of religion in educational institutions and civil society. They describe how the othering and exclusion of minoritized groups—especially Muslim youth—occur in German schools. The authors provide an overview of the hegemonic narratives that construct and represent Muslims as civilizational, cultural, ethnic, and religious others, as opposed to Germans who represent the culture and values of Judeo-Christian Western civilization. These narratives were exacerbated by the ideas of enlightenment and secularism in German society. The authors contend that the recent terrorist attacks in Europe and the rise of ISIS instantiated discourses that viewed Islam as anti-Western.

    Eksner and Cheema describe German civic education that is designed to develop active, responsible citizens and point out the contrast between democratic values and the reality experienced by minoritized students. The authors present a profile of Almas Nur, a human rights educator, and describe how her human rights–oriented approach addressed anti-Muslim racism through the (Un)Believable workshops. In the workshops students were invited to analyze discriminatory discourses and human rights abuses against marginalized groups and were empowered to learn about, through, and for human rights. Eksner and Cheema conclude Chapter 8 by recommending training and professional development opportunities for teachers and nondominant youths that empower them to exercise their civic and human rights as transformative agents for social change.

    Bozec (Chapter 9) presents an overview of the French model of citizenship that is centered on the secular values of the Republic and a strict separation of religion and the state (laïcité). She discusses the tensions between the assimilationist model of French citizenship education, which focuses on national identity, and the increasing presence of students of immigrant descent in French schools. Accommodating the needs of immigrant heritage students in schools is viewed as a religious or Muslim issue that is considered anti-Republican under the restrictive conception of laïcité. After the terrorist attacks in 2015, citizenship education emphasized student civic engagement and a less restrictive conception of laïcité.

    Bozec profiles Arnaud, an effective citizenship education teacher. She describes the difficulties he experienced teaching in a school context characterized by inequality and discrimination. Arnaud tried to increase students’ awareness about the situation of Muslim people in France [and] their multiple identities through conversation with students, reflective activities, classroom debates about civic issues, and the use of photographs. He also presented a diversity of perspectives regarding freedom of expression after the Charlie Hebdo terrorist attack—which occurred in Paris on January 7, 2015—and the complex nature of the social context, to help his students become informed and critical thinkers. Bozec uses the profile of Arnaud’s teaching to illustrate the possibilities, as well as the challenges, of effective citizenship education in French schools.

    China, Korea, and Singapore

    China, Korea, and Singapore are grappling with ways to reconceptualize citizenship and citizenship education to reflect their increasing diversity. Nations such as Japan and Korea do not view themselves as immigrant nations but are characterized by growing ethnic, cultural, linguistic, and religious diversity. China has 55 officially designated ethnic minority groups (Postiglione, 2009). It is experiencing massive waves of internal migration from rural to urban areas (Wang, 2015); China now has one of the world’s largest internal migrations, which consisted of 236 million people in 2013. Rural inhabitants are settling in large waves in cities such as Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, and Shenzhen (National Bureau of Statistics of China, 2013).

    In 2015, almost two million (1,741,919) foreign residents lived in South Korea, comprising 3.4% of its population. The number of foreign nationals in Korea tripled in the 10 years preceding 2015 (Eum, 2015). Although Chinese immigrants and their descendants constitute the dominant and largest percentage of Singapore’s population (about 74.2%), Singapore is ethnically and linguistically diverse. In 2014, the Malay ethnic group made up approximately 13.3% of the population, Indians 9%, and other ethnic groups about 3.3% (Department of Statistics Singapore, 2015).

    In Chapter 10, Law examines the tensions between ethnic diversity and citizenship education for ethnic minority groups in China. He reviews policies related to ethnic minority issues and citizenship education for ethnic minority students. These policies reflect China’s effort to maintain ethnic diversity as well as national integration and security. Law also describes the affirmative educational policies that China has implemented to accommodate the education of ethnic minority students. Law states that China’s citizenship education and ethnic solidarity education for ethnic minority students focuses on national identification, dialectical materialism, and atheism. After analyzing the curriculum and textbooks, Law concludes that ethnic solidarity education in China prioritizes national unity and security concerns over ethnic diversity and educational equality for ethnic groups. The education of ethnic groups in China is guided by a strong assimilationist policy, despite the stated policy of permitting ethnic minority groups to maintain components of their languages and cultures. Law’s chapter also supports the observation that multicultural education in China has been conceptualized primarily as a compensatory endeavor that is designed to benefit marginalized ethnic minority groups. It is rarely viewed as an intervention strategy for the Han majority (Banks, 2014, p. xvi).

    Cha, Ham, and Lim (Chapter 11) describe the ways in which the focus on high-stakes testing causes schools and teachers in Korea to focus on the core subject areas such as math and reading and to largely neglect citizenship education. This approach, the authors contend, has produced students who are near the top of international ratings such as the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) in subjects such as mathematics and reading, but whose ability to deliberate on social issues and to participate in civic action are low. A wide gap exists between the students’ high level of civic knowledge and their low level of civic engagement. The authors also discuss the challenges caused by demographic diversity in Korean society, which is neither widely recognized nor accepted by the general public.

    The authors propose an alternative approach to citizenship education: the yungbokhap model, which consists of four dimensions: autonomy, bridgeability, contextuality, and diversity. Ms. Kim, a Russian language teacher, is profiled in this chapter. She uses the yungbokhap model to integrate citizenship education into her teaching. The authors describe how Ms. Kim taught the idea of fair travel to help her students think critically and reflectively about social issues in the global society and to cultivate their global citizenship through active and participatory learning. Cha, Ham, and Lim conclude their chapter by describing the benefits of creating a learning environment that fosters and sustains the yungbokhap model.

    Ismail (Chapter 12) describes Singapore’s national narrative as that of an accidental small nation that has defied expectations and become immensely successful economically and socially in managing diversity. She discusses the role that citizenship education has played in building a multicultural, multiracial, multireligious, and multilingual nation. Ismail describes the national curriculum—especially the social studies curriculum—which was designed to respond to globalization and to reach a delicate balance between the national and the global with the overriding mission of economic survival.

    Ismail analyzes the highly stratified education system in Singapore that has produced what she called a testocracy—a nation in which the fate of students is determined largely by their performance on standardized tests. Cha, Ham, and Lim, in Chapter 11, describe a similar kind of testocracy. Malik, the teacher profiled in Chapter 12, tried to teach beyond the testocracy structure, bringing his students’ experiences and backgrounds into the classroom by inviting questions from them and creating an inclusive learning environment for all students, especially immigrant students. Malik’s teaching practices demonstrate the potential for the co-existence of a national education curriculum and an individual teacher’s agency.

    The Middle East

    The rich ethnic, cultural, linguistic, and religious diversity in the nations of the Middle East has created complex problems of constructing nation-states with shared national and civic cultures that are viewed as legitimate and inclusive by the diverse groups within each nation. The majority of the populations in nations such as Qatar and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) are immigrants (Faour & Muasher, 2011). Immigrants are also a significant part of Kuwait’s population. In addition to the problems wrought by large immigrant, expatriate, and refugee populations, there is massive political alienation and discontent in many of the Gulf states, resulting in part from autocratic political leadership and massive unemployment among young people.

    Many of the divisive tensions within Middle East nations originated in the Sykes-Picot Agreement signed May 19, 1916. France and Britain divided up the territories of the former Ottoman Empire without consideration for the cultural, ethnic, linguistic, and religious boundaries that existed within and between nations, but primarily to fulfill the aims of European nations seeking to establish spheres of influence (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2016). Since December 18, 2010, public protests have occurred in nations such as Egypt, Libya, Morocco, Algeria, Syria, Oman, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait. Young people were involved in most of the protests (Al-Nakib, 2012), which became known as the Arab Spring. The youth participating in those protests and demonstrations used social media to voice their discontent and to organize politically.

    As indicated in several of the chapters in Part 5 of this book, it is challenging for educators to teach for political literacy and active citizenship in nations with autocratic political systems that provide few possibilities for rigorous discussion, debate, criticism of political leaders, or civic engagement and participation. The disappointment and disillusionment that resulted from the failure of the Arab Spring, the rise of the Islamic State (ISIS)—which many young people have joined—and the reestablishment of autocratic leaders in most of the nations in the Middle East severely complicate and limit the possibility of educating students for political literacy and civic engagement in most nations in the Middle East. Pfeffer (2016) describes the failure of the Arab Spring and the reestablishment of autocratic leaders in most Middle Eastern nations:

    Across the region the tide had been turned back. In Bahrain, where a Shia majority, encouraged by Iran, demanded civil rights, the Sunni regime increased repression. In Yemen the president went into exile; and in Libya, Muammar Gadaffi was gunned down on the street. But in their absence these countries are torn by internecine conflict and civil war. Bashar Assad has survived in Syria, at the price of drowning the country in the blood of 300,000 citizens, dislocating over half the population from their homes and exiling at least four million.

    Israel is usually considered a democratic nation-state that was founded as a haven for Jews, who were victims of the Holocaust during World War II and had been persecuted in many nations. However, Arab citizens (Agbaria, 2016) and Jewish immigrants, such as Ethiopians (Ben-Peretz & Aderet-German, 2016), face serious challenges to attaining full citizenship rights in Israel. Smooha (as cited in Tatar, 2004) describes Israel as an ethnic democracy driven by ethnic nationalism, . . . identified with a ‘core ethnic nation’, not with its citizens (p. 382).

    Faour (Chapter 13) describes the sociopolitical and educational contexts in the Arab world for three types of immigrants: displaced people, refugees, and temporary workers or expatriates. He explains the civic marginalization and educational exclusion of immigrant and expatriate students in Lebanon, Jordan, and the United Arab Emirates. All three countries face challenges related to cultural diversity from within and acceptance of immigrants, expatriates, and refugees from a variety of nation-states, most recently refugees from Syria. Although many programs have been implemented to provide quality education for immigrant and refugee children in Lebanon, Jordan, and the United Arab Emirates, Faour found that many policies related to immigration and education for immigrant students in these countries deny them access to public education and use an exclusionary approach to education that is a form of injustice. He sets forth proposals for rethinking education for immigrant and refugee students in Lebanon, Jordan, and the United Arab Emirates, based on principles of social justice and human rights, including providing equal educational opportunities for students regardless of citizenship status, inclusive learning environments, and global citizenship education.

    Akar (Chapter 14) describes education for active citizenship in Lebanon. He defines active citizenship as a desirable form of citizenship grounded in democratic and human rights principles and education for active citizenship as an educational experience whereby learners live the approaches to being active citizens. He profiles Nadine, a civics teacher whose classes consisted of students from religiously and politically diverse backgrounds. Akar describes how Nadine reimagined and redesigned her civics curriculum in ways that went beyond the narrow content of the required textbooks, and how she engaged her students in activities such as filmmaking, debate, and poster making that focused on human rights and social justice issues in Lebanon as well as in the rest of the Arab world. These activities helped Nadine’s students to develop autonomy, collaboration, and critical thinking skills as well as opportunities to learn active citizenship.

    Al-Nakib (Chapter 15) describes the concepts of transformative citizenship and human rights education that support active and visionary learning. She provides an overview of the education system in Kuwait and national education policies that perpetuate what she calls differential segregation in Kuwaiti society. Al-Nakib provides a detailed analysis of one document on national citizenship education issued by the Kuwaiti Ministry of Education, which focuses on national citizenship and Islamic hegemony. She profiles Amani, an effective teacher of civic education, who taught in a girls’ school. Al-Nakib describes how Amani encouraged her students to engage in active and transformative learning through activities and a creative rearrangement of the classroom space in spite of political and administrative restraints. Amani’s pedagogical approaches included helping her students to analyze human rights issues in Kuwait by using alternative learning materials and simulation activities. Amani also encouraged her students to take action on student rights issues that were related to their daily lives. Al-Nakib also describes how Amani encouraged an Iraqi girl to share the culture of her country with her classmates to give her recognition and a sense of inclusion.

    In Chapter 16, Aydin and Koc-Damgaci provide an overview of how citizenship was developed and enacted in the Ottoman Empire and the Turkish Republic, with a focus on the citizenship duties and rights of religious and ethnically minoritized groups. In the Ottoman Empire, which consisted of many diverse groups, minoritized groups were able to speak their home languages, practice their religions, and maintain their cultures. The authors contend that a multicultural education focus in teacher education is essential to guarantee the citizenship rights and accommodate the need of minoritized students, including Kurdish students and the recently arrived Syrian refugee children and youth. The authors present a profile of Mr. Ozgur, a Kurdish teacher who taught a class of diverse students in Istanbul. Mr. Ozgur responded to the cultural and linguistic backgrounds of his students with empathy and helped them to overcome prejudices they held toward other ethnically minoritized and immigrant students. Aydin and Koc-Damgaci describe how Mr. Ozgur developed empathy for students from diverse groups after being exposed to multicultural education. He tried to build a cooperative relationship with his students from diverse backgrounds and used culturally responsive instructional and evaluative strategies.

    In Chapter 17, Bekerman and Cohen critically discuss the limitations of traditional discourses of multiculturalism and provide an overview of the social, historical, and political contexts that shape the Palestinian and Jewish conflicts in Israel. They analyze the national civics curriculum in Israel and conclude that it fails to engage Israeli students from diverse backgrounds and consequently fails to promote multicultural citizenship; instead, it reinforces social and political injustices. The authors present excerpts from interviews with civics teachers in Israel that reveal the challenges of providing civic education to diverse cultural, ethnic, and religious groups in Israel. The challenges include the fragility of Israel’s democracy, a lack of teacher efficacy, and a narrowly focused civics curriculum. Bekerman and Cohen conclude Chapter 17 with a call for a curriculum that is inclusive of the complex cultural and civic identities of students from diverse Israeli groups.

    Mexico and Brazil

    The populations of Mexico and Brazil consist of Indians who were native to those lands, people of African descent whose ancestors were forced to come in chains, and many peoples of European descent, such as the Spanish and Portuguese. Mestizos (people of Amerindian-Spanish heritage) make up 62% of Mexico’s population. Twenty-one percent of the population was classified in 2012 as predominantly Amerindian, 7% as Amerindian, and 10% as mostly European (Central Intelligence Agency, 2016). People of African descent make up a small part of the population, about 1.4 million, or 1.2% (Fernandez de Castro, 2015). The country has a substantial Indigenous population.

    Mexican teachers interviewed in 1977 indicated that the Mexican school curriculum devoted considerable attention to the cultures of ancient Mexican Indians but essentially neglected the histories and plight of contemporary Indigenous groups (Banks, 1978). Levinson and Luna Elizarrarás, in Chapter 18, also describe how Indigenous groups were glorified in the 20th century but were granted few differentiated citizenship rights. These authors describe how minoritized groups in Mexico other than the Indigenous groups—such as people of African descent and immigrants from Asia, the Middle East, and Central and South America—are largely invisible in Mexico and in the school curriculum. Consequently, the authors characterize diversity in Mexico as stealth diversity.

    Brazil’s Black population, which was 97 million in 2010, is the world’s largest outside Africa. However, race and racial categories are complex in Brazil. In 2010, the official census indicated that 47.7% of the population was White, 43.1% was Mulatto, 7.6% was Black, 1.1% was Asian, and 0.4% was Indigenous (Central Intelligence Agency, 2016). Because of the fluid and intricate nature of racial categories and options in Brazil (Telles, 2004), the percentage of the people who self-identify as Black varies over time. In 2011, the Guardian published a story with the headline Brazil census shows African-Brazilians in the majority for the first time, quoted here:

    For the first time since records began black and mixed race people form the majority of Brazil’s population, the country’s latest census has confirmed. Preliminary results from the 2010 census, released on Wednesday, show that 97 million Brazilians, or 50.7% of the population, now define themselves as black or mixed race, compared with 91 million or 47.7% who label themselves white. The proportion of Brazilians declaring themselves white was down from 53.7% in 2000, when Brazil’s last census was held. (Phillips, 2011)

    Levinson and Luna Elizarrarás (Chapter 18) state that the policy of citizenship and citizenship education in 19th-century Mexico was intended to assimilate its Indigenous population into a mainstream Mestizo culture, and that the policy continued in the 20th century, after the Mexican Revolution. A more pluralistic and inclusive policy has emerged since the 1980s. The authors emphasize developments at the lower secondary level since 1993 because the national ministry of education has focused most of its efforts in citizenship education at this level. Levinson and Luna Elizarrarás conclude that Mexican citizenship education has shifted from an emphasis on national identity and assimilation to a multicultural focus on democratic membership and participation. However, these policies and curricula have been limited and sometimes contradictory and do not reflect the full range of diversity in Mexico. Teachers with limited experiences and limited training for teaching about diversity face challenges in implementing the curriculum.

    The authors present a profile of Esteban, who taught Indigenous students and students of other minoritized ethnic groups. They describe how Esteban made adjustments to the national curriculum to reflect the cultures and communities of his students and how he encouraged them to speak Indigenous languages, tried to understand their communities, and engaged in activities that helped them to recognize and respect cultural diversity and differences. He did this despite receiving little training and support from authorities.

    Verrangia and Silva (Chapter 19) describe a number of significant changes in educational policy and race relations that have occurred in Brazil since the 1990s, when citizenship education began to appear in government documents. The authors document the long history of institutionalized racism and discrimination that have victimized African Brazilians and Indigenous peoples since the arrival of the Portuguese in Brazil in 1500. They describe the contradictions between Brazil’s view of itself as a racial democracy and the institutionalized racial inequality that exists in Brazilian society.

    Within the past decade, the government has developed legislation and policies related to diversity that established affirmative action programs, and has issued mandates and guidelines for the inclusion of African and African Brazilian history and culture in the curriculum. Verrangia and Silva contend that the struggle by Indigenous peoples and Blacks for citizenship identity and inclusion have been, and will continue to be, a major factor in their structural inclusion in Brazilian society and the attainment of educational equality. The authors describe the positive changes that have resulted from the new legislation and policies, as well as the challenges that remain for Blacks and Indigenous people to attain full citizenship. The last part of Chapter 19 consists of a short essay by Solange Bonifàcio, an elementary school teacher who describes how she teaches literacy skills using content related to African and African Brazilian culture.

    Human Rights Education and Curriculum Reform

    For Parker (Chapter 20), the major curriculum implications of the chapters in this book have to do with human rights education and the teaching of human rights. He constructs his recommendation in the context of the major goal of the conference from which this book was generated: for educators in different parts of the world . . . [to] share perspectives, issues, theories, research, and strategies for implementing citizenship education courses and programs in schools—courses and programs that facilitate the structural inclusion of minoritized groups in their societies and nation-states (Banks, 2015, p. 2). Parker analyzes whether human rights education is likely to be successful as a curriculum reform. He also examines whether it is powerful and liberatory and will enable students to think in ways they would not learn to think in other spaces, communities, and institutions. Parker draws on critical sociology of knowledge to determine what kind of human rights knowledge should be taught in schools. He describes the work that is still needed to make human rights education a more robust and powerful curriculum initiative.

    Parker is keenly sensitive to and knowledgeable about the limitations of schools and describes how they are embedded within their social, economic, and political contexts. He thinks that most of the problems that prevent the structural inclusion of minoritized students in their nation-states are external to schools. However, he believes that schools can do something to facilitate the structural inclusion of marginalized and minoritized students in their nation-states. That something is to teach students robust knowledge about human rights education.

    Most of the chapters in this book discuss multicultural citizenship education and how it can be implemented effectively in schools. However, human rights education is a pivotal theme in several of the chapters and is a major recommendation in the chapters by Starkey (Chapter 3), Osler (Chapter 7), Eksner and Cheema (Chapter 8), Akar (Chapter 14), and Parker (Chapter 20). Kymlicka, in the Foreword, maintains that multicultural citizenship and citizenship rights and responsibilities must be a central focus in citizenship education even when human rights is an important component, because citizens must and do function within nation-states. He explicates the limitations of human rights education and sets forth pragmatic and principled objections to an exclusive focus on human rights and cosmopolitanism in citizenship education. Although none of the authors of this book recommend an exclusive human rights approach to citizenship education, Kymlicka’s cautions merit serious reflection.

    Parker views human rights education as a major implication of the chapters in this book. However, he agrees with Kymlicka that citizenship education must occur within the contexts and limitations of nation-states. Parker writes (in Chapter 20 of this volume):

    . . . Nation-states do exist; they do take their sovereignty seriously; they do expect their schools to serve national, not cosmopolitan, purposes; and they will not be loosening their grip on education anytime soon. Indeed, they are eager to beat other nations on the international tables. This is not to say there are no transnational initiatives under way in local places, but as emphasized earlier in this chapter, the local agencies (such as the teacher cases presented in this volume) cannot provide the structural conditions necessary for their institutionalization. (pp. 473–474)

    Balancing Unity and Diversity

    As the chapters in this book indicate, multicultural societies are faced with the problem of constructing nation-states that reflect and incorporate the diversity of their citizens and yet have an overarching set of shared values, ideals, and goals to which all of their citizens are committed (Banks, 2007, 2008). The chapters in this book describe theory, research, policies, and practices that illustrate how state schools and teachers in 18 different nations are trying to attain this goal.

    Cultural, ethnic, racial, linguistic, and religious diversity exists in each of the nations discussed in this book, as well as in nations around the world (Banks, 2009). One of the challenges to multicultural nation-states is to provide opportunities for different groups to maintain aspects of their community cultures while they are being structurally included in the nation so that they will develop a clarified national identity. A delicate balance of diversity and unity is an essential goal of multicultural nations and of teaching and learning in societies in which equality and social justice are major aims (Banks et al., 2005). Unity must be an important aim when nation-states are responding to diversity within their populations. Nations can protect the rights of minoritized groups and enable them to participate fully in the polity only when the people are unified around a set of values such as justice, equality, and human rights (Gutmann, 2004; Osler, 2016).

    As the chapters in this book document, most nations in the past have tried to create unity by forcing minoritized racial, cultural, ethnic, linguistic, and religious groups to give up their community languages and cultures in order to participate in an imagined and constructed national civic culture (Anderson, 1983). Spring (2010) refers to this process as deculturalization; Valenzuela (1999) calls it subtractive schooling. In the United States, in the 1950s, Mexican American students in the Southwest were punished for speaking Spanish in school. In the 1870s, the federal government began sending American Indians to off-reservation boarding schools, where their cultures and languages were eradicated (Lomawaima & McCarty, 2006). In Australia, Aboriginal children were taken from their families and forced to live on state missions and reserves (Broome, 1982), a practice that lasted from 1869 to 1969. These children are called the Stolen Generation. Kevin Rudd, the Australian Prime Minister, issued a formal apology to the Stolen Generation on February 13, 2008. In order to embrace their national civic culture, students from diverse groups must feel that it reflects their experiences, hopes, and dreams (Banks, 2008). Theory and research described in the chapters of this book indicate that schools and nations cannot marginalize the cultures of groups and expect them to feel structurally included in the nation or to develop strong allegiances or robust identification with it.

    Citizenship education needs to be transformed in the 21st century because of global migration, the deepening diversity in nations around the world, and the quests by minoritized groups for equality, social justice, and human rights. Citizens in multicultural nations should be able to maintain attachments to their cultural communities and, at the same time, participate effectively in the shared national culture and polity. Unity without diversity results in cultural repression and hegemony, as was the case in the Soviet Union and in China during the Cultural Revolution, from 1966 to 1976. Diversity without unity leads to Balkanization and the fracturing of the nation-state, as occurred during the Iraq war when sectarian conflict and violence threatened that fragile nation in the late 2000s. Diversity and unity must coexist in a delicate balance in multicultural nations that hope to foster structural inclusion and equality for diverse racial, ethnic, cultural, linguistic, and religious groups.

    References

    Adam, H., & Moodley, K. (2015). Imagined liberation: Xenophobia, citizenship, and identity in South Africa, Germany, and Canada. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

    Agbaria, A. K. (2016). Ethnonational politics of citizenship education in Israel and the counterknowledge of Palestinian teachers. In J. A. Banks, M. M. Suárez-Orozco, & M. Ben-Peretz (Eds.), Global migration, diversity, and civic education: Improving policy and practice (pp. 156–176). New York: Teachers College Press.

    Aisch, G., Pearce, A., & Rousseau, B. (2016, May 22). How far is Europe swinging to the Right? International New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/05/22/world/europe/europe-right-wing-austria-hungary.html?_r=0

    Al-Nakib, R. (2012). Human rights, education for democratic citizenship and organisations: Findings from a Kuwaiti UNESCO ASPnet school. Cambridge Journal of Education, 42(1), 97–112.

    Anderson, B. (1983). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. New York: Verson.

    Banks, J. A. (1978). Multiethnic education across cultures: United States, Mexico, Puerto Rico, France, and Great Britain. Social Education, 42, 177–185.

    Banks, J. A. (2004). Introduction: Democratic citizenship education in multicultural societies. In J. A. Banks (Ed.), Diversity and citizenship education: Global perspectives (pp. 3–15). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Banks, J. A. (2007). Educating citizens in a multicultural society (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.

    Banks, J. A. (2008). Diversity, group identity, and citizenship education in a global age. Educational Researcher, 17(3), 129–139.

    Banks, J. A. (Ed.). (2009). The Routledge international companion to multicultural education. New York: Routledge.

    Banks, J. A. (2014). Foreword. In J. Leibold & C. Yangbin (Eds.), Minority education in China: Balancing unity and diversity in an era of critical pluralism (pp. xiii–xvii). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.

    Banks, J. A. (2015). Global migration, structural inclusion, and citizenship education across nations: A conference sponsored by the Center for Multicultural Education [conference program]. Seattle, WA: University of Washington, Center for Multicultural Education.

    Banks, J. A., Banks, C. A. M., Cortés, C. E., Hahn. C. L., Merryfield, M. M., Moodley, K. A., . . . Parker, W. C. (2005). Democracy and diversity: Principles and concepts for educating citizens in a global age. Seattle, WA: University of Washington, Center for Multicultural Education.

    Banks, J. A., & Lynch, J. (Eds.). (1986). Multicultural education in Western societies. London: Holt.

    Bawer, B. (2006). While Europe slept: How radical Islam is destroying the West from within. New York: Anchor Books.

    Ben-Peretz, M., & Aderet-German, T. (2016). Narratives of success of Ethiopian immigrants: Implications for civic education. In J. A. Banks, M. M. Suárez-Orozco, & M. Ben-Peretz (Eds.), Global migration, diversity, and civic education: Improving policy and practice (pp. 132–156). New York: Teachers College Press.

    Broome, R. (1982). Aboriginal Australians: Black response to White dominance, 1788–1980. Sydney, Australia: George Allen & Unwin.

    Castles, S. (2004). Migration, citizenship, and education. In J. A. Banks (Ed.), Diversity and citizenship education: Global perspectives (pp.17–4). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Central Intelligence Agency. (2016). The world factbook: Ethnic groups. Retrieved from https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2075.html#mx

    Cesari, J. (2004). When Islam and democracy meet: Muslims in Europe and the United States. New York: Pelgrave Macmillan.

    Clark, C. (2010). Germany’s Angela Merkel: Multiculturalism has utterly failed. Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved from http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-News/2010/1017/Germany-s-Angela-Merkel-Multiculturalism-has-utterly-failed

    Department of Statistics Singapore. (2015, July). Yearbook of statistics Singapore, 2015. Retrieved from http://www.singstat.gov.sg/docs/default-source/default-document-library/publications/publications_and_papers/reference/yearbook_2015/yos2015.pdf

    Encyclopaedia Britannica. (2016). Sykes-Picot agreement. Retrieved from http://www.britannica.com/event/Sykes-Picot-Agreement

    Eum, S. (2015, July 6). Number of foreign residents in S. Korea triples over ten years. The Hankyoreh. Retrieved from http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_international/699034.html

    Faour, M., & Muasher, M. (2011). Education for citizenship in the Arab world: Key to the future. Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

    Fernandez de Castro, R. (2015, December 15). Mexico discovers 1.4 million black Mexicans—they just had to ask. Fusion. Retrieved from fusion.net/story/245192/mexico-discovers-1-4-million-black-mexicans-they-just-had-to-ask/

    Fredette, J. (2014). Constructing Muslims in France: Discourse, public identity, and the politics of citizenship. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

    Froumin, I. D. (2004). Citizenship education and ethnic issues in Russia. In J. A. Banks (Ed.), Diversity and citizenship education: Global perspectives (pp. 273–298). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Gándara, P., & Hopkins, M. (Eds.). (2010). Forbidden language: English language learners and restrictive language policies. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Gandhi, M. (1993). Gandhi: An autobiography (M. H. Desai, Trans.). Boston: Beacon Press.

    Gutmann, A. (2004). Unity and diversity in democratic multicultural education: Creative and destructive tensions. In J. A. Banks (Ed.), Diversity and citizenship education: Global perspectives (pp. 71–96). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Hirasawa, Y. (2009). Multicultural education in Japan. In J. A. Banks (Ed.), The Routledge international companion to multicultural education (pp.159–169). New York: Routledge.

    Inglis, C. (2009). Multicultural education in Australia: Two generations of evolution. In J. A. Banks (Ed.), The Routledge international companion to multicultural education (pp.109–120). New York: Routledge.

    Joshee, R. (2009). Multicultural policy in Canada: Competing ideologies, interconnected discourses. In J. A. Banks (Ed.), The Routledge international companion to multicultural education (pp. 96–108). New York: Routledge.

    Khanna, P. (2016, April 15). A new map for America. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/17/opinion/sunday/a-new-map-for-america.html

    Koopmans, R., Statham, P., Giugni, M., & Passy, F. (2005). Contested citizenship: Immigration and cultural diversity in Europe. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Kymlicka, W. (1995). Multicultural citizenship: A liberal theory of minority rights. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). From the achievement gap to the education debt: Understanding achievement in U. S. schools. Educational Researcher, 15(7), 3–12.

    Lomawaima, K. T., & McCarty, T. L. (2006). To remain an Indian: Lessons in democracy from a century of Native American education. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Lucassen, L. (2005). The immigrant threat: The integration of old and new immigrants in Western Europe since 1850. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

    Luchtenberg, S. (2009). Migrant minority groups in Germany: Success and failure in Germany. In J. A. Banks (Ed.), The Routledge international companion to multicultural education (pp. 463–473). New York: Routledge.

    Moon, S. (2012). Korea, multicultural education in. In J. A. Banks (Ed.), Encyclopedia of diversity in education (Vol. 3, pp. 1307–1312). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    National Bureau of Statistics of China. (2013). Zhong hua ren min gong he guo 2012 guo min jing ji he she hui fa zhan tong ji gong bao. [Statistical communiqué of the People’s Republic of China on the 2012 economic and social development]. Retrieved from http://www.stats.gov.cn/tjgb/ndtjgb/qgndtjgb/t20130221_402874525.htm

    Nieto, S. (2009). Multicultural education in the United States: Historical realities, ongoing challenges, and transformative possibilities. In J. A. Banks (Ed.), The Routledge international companion to multicultural education (pp. 79–95). New York: Routledge.

    Nixon, R. (2011). Slow violence and the environmentalism of the poor. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Ong, A. (1999). Flexible citizenship: The cultural logics of transnationality. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

    Osler, A. (2016). Human rights and schooling: An ethical framework for teaching social justice. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Osler, A., & Starkey, H. (2005). Changing citizenship and inclusion in education. New York: Open University Press.

    Penetito, W. (2010). What’s Maori about Maori education? The struggle for a meaningful context. Wellington, New Zealand: Victoria University Press.

    Pew Research Center. (2015, November 17). 5 facts about the Muslim population in Europe. Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/17/5-facts-about-the-muslim-population-in-europe/

    Pfeffer, A. (2016, January 20). Why the Arab spring failed: Choosing survival over chaos. Haaretz Daily Newspaper. Retrieved from http://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/1.698071

    Phillips, T. P. (2011, November 17). Brazil census shows African-Brazilians in the majority for the first time. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/nov/17/brazil-census-african-brazilians-majority

    Postiglione, G. A. (2009). The education of ethnic minority groups in China. In J. A. Banks (Ed.), The Routledge international companion to multicultural education (pp. 501–511). New York: Routledge.

    Spring, J. (2010). Deculturalization and the struggle for equality: A brief history of the education of dominated cultures in the United States (7th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Statistics South Africa. (2015). Mid-year population estimate, 2015. Retrieved from https://www.statssa.gov.za/publications/P0302/P03022015.pdf

    Tatar, M. (2004). Diversity and citizenship education in Israel. In J. A. Banks (Ed.), Diversity and citizenship education: Global perspectives (pp. 377–405). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Telles, E. E. (2004). Race in another America: The significance of skin color in Brazil. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    United Nations. (2016, January 10). International migration 2015. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/publications/wallchart/docs/MigrationWallChart2015.pdf

    Valenzuela, A. (1999). Subtractive schooling: U.S.-Mexican youth and the politics of caring. Albany: State University of New York Press.

    Wang, T. (2015). Marginality of rural migrant students in eleven Chinese high schools. Journal of Ethnic and Cultural Studies, 2(2), 21–32.

    Part 1

    Diversity and Citizenship Education: Cross-Cutting Issues and Concepts

    Chapter 1

    The Challenges of International Migration in the 21st Century

    S

    TEPHEN

    C

    ASTLES

    University of Sydney

    In 2015, about a million undocumented migrants arrived in Europe, most applying for refugee status. The European Commission forecast some 3 million arrivals altogether in 2015 and 2016. Most have been Syrians, fleeing the seemingly endless civil war, but many came from other countries experiencing generalized violence, such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, and other African nations. In many cases, people arriving in Europe have both protection and economic motivations; in some cases, the latter are predominant. That is why many European politicians speak of a migration crisis rather than a refugee crisis. Perhaps surprisingly, it seems the situation developed unexpectedly, even though numbers of asylum-seekers had grown quite rapidly in 2014. The European response has been piecemeal, uncoordinated, and chaotic—leading to conflict between national governments within the European Union (EU), as well as to varying reactions, from great generosity to open hostility, on the part of European populations.

    Europe is by no means the only region to experience new types of mass migration. As was pointed out in the newsletter of the Washington Migration Policy Institute,

    The year 2015 was punctuated by a series of migration crises, from the unrelenting flows of asylum seekers and migrants to Europe’s shores and displacement from new and ongoing conflicts in places such as Yemen and Ukraine, to the Nepal earthquake. (December 18, 2015, p. 1)

    To give just one example, the United States experienced a surge in entries of unaccompanied children from Central America. U.S. border authorities apprehended more than 100,000 children from Central America and Mexico between October 2013 and August 2015. The Mexicans were generally sent back, while 77,000 children from Central America were released for housing and schooling in communities throughout the United States. One can imagine the classroom challenges this has created for thousands of teachers.

    My purpose in this chapter is not to describe these migration crises but to examine their significance in scholarly efforts to understand the causes of migration and the effects it has on the societies of origin and of destination. In the 21st century, the dilemmas of human mobility across international borders are more evident than ever before. The economic, demographic, and political drivers of migration remain powerful, yet the public hostility to migration in some receiving countries continues to gain in strength. International and intercontinental flows of labor at all skill levels are crucial to the global economy. Together with other cross-border flows—of commodities, capital, intellectual property, and culture—human mobility is an integral part of globalization. Yet states continue to regulate entry of foreigners as a symbol of national sovereignty. At a time when regulatory frameworks for finance, trade, and many other aspects of international cooperation have been adopted, global governance of migration remains conspicuous mainly for its absence.

    Yet this is a time of change. The global economic crisis is disrupting established patterns of migration. At the same time, settler populations in rich countries have proved more resilient than many expected, and flows to new industrial areas in Asia, Latin America, and Africa have grown. Developed countries and newly industrializing countries are competing for scarce skills; even lower-skilled labor is in short supply in some areas, because of the demographic transitions taking place in China and elsewhere. The labor-importing countries—after many years of refusal—have begun to talk to governments of migrant-origin countries through mechanisms such as the UN High-Level Dialogue on Migration and Development in 2006 and 2013, and the Global Forum on Migration and Development, which has met annually since 2007. In September 2016, the UN held its first-ever summit of world leaders on refugees and migrants.

    This is a good moment to take stock of some of the key issues in international migration. In this chapter, I first look at the significance of migration for human security and human development and link it to processes of globalization. I then examine some emerging forms of migration, with special attention to women’s migration and forced migration. Issues of diversity and multiculturalism in destination societies are discussed. Finally, I discuss possible future trends and the global governance deficit.

    The Significance of Migration for Human Security and Human Development

    Since the beginning of the 21st century, governments have increasingly portrayed migration as a threat to security. The New York terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, followed by a string of attacks in Madrid, London, and Bali, and, most recently, the 2015 massacres in Paris, led to a widespread belief that Muslim migrants could constitute a danger to democratic societies. This belief ignores the fact that the overwhelming majority of Muslims oppose fundamentalism. Rather than excluding Muslims from western societies, it is important that public policies are based on full participation, which is the best way of preventing the radicalization of an alienated minority. The idea of immigrants as a potential enemy within is not new (Guild, 2009). Indeed, for centuries immigrants have been seen as a threat to state security and national identity. Before Muslims, a succession of other groups were cast in this role, for example, Catholics, Jews, or foreigners in general (Cohen, 1994). Such attitudes have been used to justify immigration restrictions and reductions in civil liberties—often not just for immigrants but for the population as a whole.

    The securitization of migration and ethnic minorities is based on a perspective that emphasizes the security of rich Northern states and their populations, while ignoring the reality that migration and refugee flows are often the result of the fundamental lack of human security in poorer countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. This absence of human security—which finds its expression in poverty, hunger, violence, and lack of human rights—is not a natural condition but a result of past practices of colonization and more recent imbalances in economic and political power, which have created extreme inequality. For example, in many less-developed countries with natural endowments of oil and other minerals, much of the wealth is monopolized by local elites and multinational companies, leaving the majority of the population as poor as ever, or even poorer (the so-called resource curse). Internal conflicts about economic and political power often lead to warfare, persecution of civilian populations, and mass displacement. Thus the social transformations inherent in globalization not only affect economic well-being but also lead to increased violence and lack of human security. Growing numbers of people have to leave their homes in search of protection and better livelihoods.

    Migration policies, too, can exacerbate human insecurity. Where states refuse to create legal migration systems despite strong employer demand for workers, migrants experience high levels of risk and exploitation. Smuggling, trafficking, bonded labor, and lack of human and worker rights are the fate of millions of migrants. Even legal migrants may have an insecure residence status and be vulnerable to economic exploitation, discrimination, and racist violence. Many governments around the world try to resolve the contradiction between strong labor needs and public hostility to migration by creating differentiated entry systems that encourage legal entry of highly skilled workers while excluding lower-skilled workers or admitting them only on a restricted and temporary basis. Because labor-market demand for the lower-skilled workers is strong, millions of migrants are pushed into irregularity (i.e., crossing borders or taking up employment without permission from the destination country authorities).

    Irregular migration affects most countries. The statistics on irregular migration are unreliable, due to the nature of such movements and because estimates may be manipulated for political reasons. The most accurate data are for the United States: As of 2010, there were 10.8 million irregular migrants living in the United States, down from the peak of 11.8 million in 2007 (Hoefer, Rytina, & Baker, 2011). An estimated 7.8 million irregular migrant workers make up 5.1% of the U.S. workforce (Passel & Cohn, 2009). The best estimates for the European Union range from

    Enjoying the preview?
    Page 1 of 1