Journal of Multicultural Discourses

Vol. 7, No. 1, March 2012, 81
97

Enhancing solidarity: Discourses of voluntary organizations on

immigration and integration in multicultural societies
Óscar Garcı́a Agustı́n

Department of Culture and Global Studies, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark

(Received 15 November 2010; final version received 2 March 2011)

This article analyses the discursive construction of solidarity regarding immigra-

tion and integration in two European countries: Spain and Denmark. The study is
based on interviews with representatives of 10 Non Governmental Organizations
(NGOs) and it focuses on the affective and evaluative dimensions of language
aimed at achieving alignment with civil society. The analytical approach combines
Positive Discourse Analysis and Appraisal Theory, since these perspectives deal
from a discourse analytic point of view with social change promoted by community
and interpersonal relations. The discourses on solidarity are framed with reference
to their respective national policies and debates. Therefore, different approaches
exist between the two countries, albeit that all the NGOs aim to show new
dimensions of integration in order to promote empathy towards immigrants. The
goal of the NGOs is to contribute positively to social change and combating the
current unfair situation. In the article it is argued that solidarity is built on affect
and evaluative language at the national level, challenging in this way dominant
policies on immigration. Furthermore, the findings show that a European discourse
which would be able to solve contradictions related to the scope of human rights,
politics of asylum and inclusion of irregular immigrants is still missing.
Keywords: Positive Discourse Analysis; Appraisal Theory; Non Governmental
Organizations; solidarity; immigration; integration

Introduction
This article examines how Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) in Spain and
Denmark discursively promote solidarity with immigrants in their respective
national frameworks. Although migration is a global phenomenon and it is
beginning to be addressed by international policies at the European level,
immigration and especially integration are still perceived as domestic issues. The
comparative analysis of two countries aims at assessing national differences and, at
the same time, it considers the potentials for a European perspective.
A lot of research has been conducted in recent years on the representation of
immigrants and how discrimination and power relations are constituted and
reproduced through language, mostly in political discourses and in mass media
(Reisigl and Wodak 2001; Van Dijk 1991, 1993; Wodak 1996). Little research has
been undertaken regarding the role of social actors. Bañón (2002, 2003), however,
shows how social engagement and solidarity can influence media representations of
immigration.

*Email: oscar@cgs.aau.dk

ISSN 1744-7143 print/ISSN 1747-6615 online

# 2012 Taylor & Francis
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17447143.2011.570344
http://www.tandfonline.com
82 Ó.G. Agustı́n

In this study, I want to focus on the discourses produced by organizations that try
to change the current political and social situation and offer alternatives. In order to
address this change of perspective, based on contestations of domination and
solidarity, I will use Positive Discourse Analysis (PDA), on the one hand, and
Appraisal Theory (AT), on the other. The PDA approach allows me to focus on the
discursive (and positive) contributions of civil society to social change, whereas AT
helps to show how NGOs use affectual and emotive dimensions to position
themselves and try to achieve the Other’s alignment.
In particular, I look at the concept of the Third, non-profit or voluntary, sector
(Billis and Glennerster 1998; DeLaat 1987; Roitter 2005) which acknowledges the
existence of a new kind of organization capable of supplying social services which
are not covered by the current welfare states. The NGOs in the end manage both
state and stateless solidarity (Gutiérrez Resa 1997, 40). Despite the different roots of
the third sector, shaped by philanthropy or equality, all NGOs share the goal of
enhancing solidarity (Garcı́a Roca 1994, 167). Solidarity has traditionally been used
as synonym of community (Pensky 2008). However, globalization has challenged the
borders of nation-states and the homogeneity of national identities. Therefore a
cosmopolitan solidarity is also expected to develop (Payrow Shabani 2007; Pensky
2000). I share the idea of Dean (1995) that solidarity is not fixed or attached to an
existing community (i.e. national community) but is instead constructed commu-
nicatively. Especially in multicultural societies and in the global world, solidarity
must avoid the reproduction of groups of us and them and be more inclusive, aiming
towards a generalized Other. In this sense, it is important to reintroduce Arendt’s
definition (Andronache 2006, 122; Honohan 2002, 130) of solidarity since it is based
on a community of shared interests in public affairs and not on geographical
boundaries. It is directed to all mankind and not constrained to a specific social class
or nation.
The objective of the present article is to characterize different NGO discourses on
solidarity produced in Spain and in Denmark. I will follow the cosmopolitan
understanding of solidarity both with regards to the respective countries and more
generally in the European Union (EU). As Dryzek (2006) argues, discourses have
increased their impact on the construction of public opinion in international
relations, where proper international institutions are still missing. Discourses of
solidarity are not an exception when dealing with global phenomena such as
immigration. It is necessary to look at how NGO discourses respond to dominant
national discourses but this analysis must nevertheless be included in a broader
perspective which assesses the potential of ethical discourse at the European level.

Data and method

The corpus is made up of 10 interviews with representatives of NGOs in Spain and
Denmark. I interviewed members from the Danish organizations Dansk Flygtnin-
gehjælp, SOS mod Racisme, Foreningen Nydansker, Flygtninge i Fare and
Flygtninge under Jorden; and from the Spanish CEAR, ACCEM, Cepaim, SOS
Racismo and Semilla. The idea of using interviews was to gain more information on
the changes which have taken place in recent years and the awareness of the role
played by social actors. All interviewees speak as representatives of their organization
and their reflections are based on their practices. The average duration of the
interviews is one hour, and all of them were conducted face to face and subsequently
 Journal of Multicultural Discourses 83

transcribed. The interviews were all carried out during the spring of 2009, in Madrid
and Copenhagen. The interviews were based on common, semi-structured guidelines
(Kvale 1997), composed of questions related to three different topics: history and
structure of the organization; immigration initiatives and assessment of govern-
mental policies; and integration initiatives and assessment of governmental policies.
Since the analysis is comparative, the interview sections on immigration and
integration were divided into two parts: one regarding the national agenda in
question and another regarding the EU agenda. The intention was to make the
results comparable, but it is clear that the interviewees simply focused on the topics
which seemed most relevant from their particular perspective and practices.
The NGOs were selected on the basis of work areas (immigration and
integration) and the national dimension (except for Semilla whose work is local).
Some changes were introduced into the design of the project. Since Foreningen
Nydansker has a business approach, it is quite different from the other NGOs.
Therefore I pursued another strategy in the case of the Spanish NGOs and picked
Semilla because they do not share either the immigration framework, nor do they
apply a methodology against social exclusion.
The comparison is based on what can be considered to be most-different or
extreme cases (Neergaard 2007; Yin 2003). The two countries have, among other
things, quite different approaches to EU immigration policies: Denmark does not
participate in EU policies on justice and home affairs while Spain favors the
development of a more coordinated EU action in the field of immigration policies.
The comparative perspective delineates more clearly the tendencies of discourses of
solidarity and, due to the most-different design in terms of case selection, it leads to a
better understanding of the complexity of the EU situation since more actors and
discursive mechanisms are involved. Despite these differences, it should be under-
lined that both countries share the general EU framework and are examples of the
difficulties of achieving a common institutional approach to immigration and
integration policies as well as the obstacles encountered by NGOs when trying to
articulate a transnational discourse.
A qualitative approach is applied in the analysis of all interviews but some
examples are chosen for a more detailed linguistic characterization. Because of my
interest in uncovering discourses and identifying values, beliefs and emotions, I will
distance myself from the close reading of single texts (Barlett 2010; Martin 2004a)
through the analytical framework I apply and I will use a more contextual approach in
which discourse is considered as the articulation of interpretations (Zapata-Barrero
2009). This also means that the transcriptions do not reflect any aspects, such as
intonation or pauses, which would have been very relevant in another type of analysis.
Furthermore, the identification of discourses of solidarity entails leaving some
relevant information out of this analysis, such as the motivations and structure of
the selected NGOs, in terms of assessing the differences between them, not to mention
issues like funding or influence on government.
To make the comparison feasible, I find it necessary to contextualize the
discourses and look at general strategies. Thus, on the one hand, I will apply a notion
of context as defined by Van Dijk: ‘the structured set of all properties of a social
situation that are possibly relevant for the production, structures, interpretation and
functions of text and talk’ (Van Dijk 1998, 211). On the other hand, I identify three
strategies in the interviews which are developed according to the national frame-
works and references to the European dimension: first, interviewees refer to a human
84 Ó.G. Agustı́n

rights framework, creating in this way an inclusive understanding of migration and

the need of solidarity; second, they refer to immigrants’ motivations, thus showing a
different angle on the reasons why immigrants migrate to host societies; and third,
they refer to life experiences which present immigrants as human beings just like
anyone else. Arguably, this selection implies not including other specificities of each
country (for example, references to the past of Spain as a country of immigration or
allusions to how Danish society was more supportive of immigrants in the 1970s and
1980s). Nonetheless, the three strategies allow me to look at the potential for a
common discourse on solidarity at the European level uncovering, at the same time,
some differences between the two selected countries.

Analytical framework
My research is grounded on the contributions of Discourse Analysis, particularly
PDA and AT. PDA must be understood within the tradition commenced by Critical
Discourse Analysis (CDA) exploring the relations between language, society and
power. PDA does not differ essentially from the method applied by CDA and it must
rather be seen as an approach which shifts the focus from dominant discourses to
counterdiscourses or alternatives to hegemonic formations. Owing to the major
developments in PDA which have been realized by James Martin, its methodology
has mostly been based on AT. I find it appropriate to apply AT to this analysis
because it is concerned with alternative discourses in which dominant attitudes are
challenged and renegotiated. Furthermore, it is more susceptible to textual analysis
than other recent approaches which address the role of affect and emotions in
collective identities and actions (see Blom and Jaoul 2008; Laclau 2005). Thus, AT
focuses on interpersonal dimensions and offers a different perspective than CDA
since the latter first and foremost underlines dominant representations or (re)pro-
ductions of reality.

Positive Discourse Analysis

Barbara Johnstone (2002, 112) claims that two aspects of social relations are
expressed and created in discourse: power and solidarity. Power refers to
asymmetrical relationships, while solidarity has to do with symmetrical relationships.
PDA suggests that CDA has focused only on hegemony and power (Alba-Juez 2009:
253; Martin and Rose 2003, 264). According to this criticism CDA shows the
deconstructive face of analysis (Martin 2004b, 184) and lacks a constructive
dimension, which is relevant if analyses must help us to change social reality. PDA
proposes to become positive and look at how social change is taking place. Becoming
positive ‘depends on taking a stand positively valuing some aspect of social change’
(Martin 2004b, 184; Martin 2007, 85
86). In other words, a complementary
approach to CDA should move from the deconstructive to the constructive social
action and focus on community instead of hegemony (Martin 2004b, 184; Martin
2007, 85
86; Martin and Rose 2003).
This new scope affects not only the object of study but more broadly the way of
understanding social change. CDA usually perceives social change as the creation of
a new social order, which entails a restructuration of social relations through a
change of the hegemonic forces. In opposition to this top-down conception, PDA
focuses on how communities mobilize their social and discursive resources and
 Journal of Multicultural Discourses 85

redistribute power. However, PDA does not really address bottom-up change insofar
as it chooses its texts based on the positiveness of the proposal, regardless of whether
the actors are media, politicians or civil society. The idea of analyzing ‘the discourse
we like rather than the discourse we wish to criticise’ (Macgilchrist 2007, 74) could
miss the critical dimension necessary to account for social change. Wodak (2007) is
right when she points out that PDA displays a narrow meaning of ‘critical’. ‘Positive’
cannot simply become the counterpart of ‘critical’. Besides, the opposition between
hegemony and community is not very precise. Hegemony is presented in a one-
dimensional manner and it omits the potential for change via articulations (Laclau
and Mouffe 2001) or the generation of counterhegemonies (Garcı́a Agustı́n 2005).
On the other hand, community is not well specified either and is even in conflict with
different conceptions of solidarity. Indeed, solidarity could be exclusionary when
based on a narrow definition of community, i.e. national identity, without taking into
account other aspects such as social justice and equality (Vasta 2010, 510).
I consider the notions of community and solidarity to be very productive for an
approach to civil society discourses. On the one hand, social actors respond to the
need for looking at alternative discourses regarding the common good or a better
society. Civil society can challenge or complement official discourses and initiate
social change which is not based only on top-down power relations. On the other
hand, social movements and NGOs are constituted by solidarity in order to
strengthen their collective identity and achieve empathy and support from other
actors. Solidarity is not only a constitutive part of social identities but also a
discursive construction aimed at unfolding alignment with civil society and
increasing its impact on the political sphere. My purpose here is to show how civic
discourse on solidarity is constituted on the basis of a language which entails a high
degree of attitudinal contents and does not rely exclusively on rational arguments.

Appraisal Theory
To explore the negotiation of meaning and values and the interpersonal relations
between social actors, I will apply AT to the analysis of NGO discourses on
immigration and integration. As mentioned above, the shift to community as
solidarity, as presented by Martin, also requires paying more attention to the
interpersonal negotiation of meanings and the affectual and emotional dimensions
of discourses. In their development of Systemic Functional Linguistic (SFL), Martin
and Rose (2003, 6) distinguish three kinds of metafunctions: ideational, which
represents experiences; interpersonal, related to the negotiation of social relations;
and textual, which is about organizing the text. Appraisal (Martin 2004a; Martin and
Rose 2003; Martin and White 2007) refers to interpersonal meanings and is
concerned with evaluations and the ways in which attitudes are negotiated in texts.
It lays down three interrelated domains of organizing interpersonal meanings:
Attitude, Engagement and Graduation. The focus is placed on ‘how speakers and
writers adopt intersubjective and ideological positions in the texts through positive
or negative evaluations of, and attitudes towards, peoples, objects, and events’
(Harvey 2004, 254). The writer exposes her feelings and evaluations of people or
things and the readers take up an evaluative stance towards her discourse (Coffin and
O’Halloran 2010, 113).
According to the Bajtinian tradition, a text has an ideological and an axiological
dimension. Ideology refers to the truth and the rational explanation of reality.
86 Ó.G. Agustı́n

Axiology is an invitation for the reader to ‘a position of empathy
emotional

solidarity with or, at least, understanding of the motives of a given character. [. . .]
The reader is expected to take up a position of discernment
adjudication of the
ethical values adopted by a given character’ (Macken-Horarik 2003, 286
287). In the
case of civil society, negotiating solidarity does not only happen in the ideological
realm but rather in the axiological one. The articulation of a civic discourse on
solidarity is strongly ethical and it seeks the empathy of the Other in order to achieve
alignment. AT explains the characteristics of civic discourse in its textual dimensions
(what kind of discourse must be opposed to the official discourse?) and in its
interpersonal dimensions (how is the support of the Other achieved?).

Integration models in Denmark and Spain

The debilitation of national sovereignty due to globalization has been highly
debated. Although particularly economies have been denationalized to a great
extent, immigration policies have renationalized sovereignty (Sassen 1996) since
states are in control of their frontiers and citizenship is attached to territory.
Nevertheless immigration has intensified and societies must find a way to make
multicultural diversity work: though questioned in theory (Joppke 2004), multi-
culturality is also acknowledged as an irreversible process which has to be managed
(Zapata-Barrero 2008). New issues such as ethnic revival have to be dealt with:
immigrants do not necessarily return to their home countries, and minority rights
must be recognized (Zanfrini 2004, 16).
Though clearly insufficient, there have been some advances in the EU in terms of
developing a common policy on integration even though competences are still
national. Neither the Danish nor the Spanish integration model is very well defined.
The two countries share a concern about the globalization of integration but their
national frameworks differ, among other things with regards to the kind of
immigrants to be admitted into the country, state and administrative structures as
well as political attitudes. These societal conditions influence civil society action and
the formulation of a discourse of solidarity between the national and the post-
national frameworks.
Like the other Nordic countries, Denmark has low rates of immigration and is
adverse to further incoming flows (Megı́as Quirós 2008, 87). In the 1970s, the
immigrant worker was perceived as necessary but unwanted. Nowadays, the political
refugee is the most common immigrant (Mikkelsen 2008) and the state concentrates
its efforts on asylum and refugee policies as well as cooperation with third countries.
Asylum requirements have become stricter in recent years, including the access to
citizenship (Clante Bendixen 2009). In the political debate two categories are fixed:
immigrants who want to work and contribute to Danish society; and refugees who
are only interested in family reunification (Lassen 2009, 145). Despite the fact that
immigrants do contribute to society (Lassen 2009, 146) this dominant discursive
categorization makes it seem unlikely that integration is taking place through
inclusion into the labor market. Instead, immigrants and in particular refugees are
perceived as a challenge for the welfare system (Emerek 2003, 4).
In a brief period of time, Spain has gone from being a country of emigrants to a
country of destination for a substantial flow of immigrants. Due to this new scenario,
immigration became a strong political issue for the first time in 2000 (Zapata-Barrero
2004, 18) when a new immigration plan was launched. The delayed state intervention
 Journal of Multicultural Discourses 87

and the insufficient welfare system explain the development of a shadow market and
the traditionally strong role of the NGOs in terms of assistance (Düvel and Jordan
2003). The increasing number of irregular immigrants (including both asylum seekers
and undocumented immigrants) has given priority to the control of external borders
as an instrument of immigration policy (Pinyol 2008) and integration into the
(formal and informal) labor market (Düvel and Jordan 2003, 510).

Human rights: whose rights?

Most of the interviewed NGOs avoid adopting an explicit political position and they
underline that they are social organizations composed of members with different
ideologies, albeit they can be critical about some governmental actions or policies.
Thus, NGOs appeal to a broad framework in which their practices, claims and values
can be shared by other civil society groups.
The definition of human rights is closely attached to the NGOs’ understanding of
the phenomenon of migration. Here, it is useful to take into account ‘push-pull’
theories (Castles and Miller 2009, 23). Push factors, such as political repression or
lack of economic opportunities, impel people to migrate whereas pull factors make
some countries attractive for immigrants due to their economic growth, demand for
labor or political freedoms. Despite the shortfalls of this model, it can help to explain
the different conceptions of human rights attending to the ‘push factors’ in the
countries of origin and the ‘pull factors’ of the host countries. Considering the
combination of these factors, the Spanish and Danish NGOs differ in their framings
of human rights as these are applied to their actions and discourses:

(1) The protection of human rights, the protection of the most underprivileged
people, in the case of the collectives which we attend; asylum seekers, refugees
and immigrants (ACCEM).
(2) Because that is the aim, the refugees’ right to asylum. First and foremost, and
of course regular rights, human rights [. . .]. But they gain some of them if
they are granted asylum (Flygtninge i Fare).

In the example of the Spanish NGO (1) there is an overlap between the protection of
human rights and the protection of underprivileged people. In the Danish case (2),
human rights are applicable only to two categories, namely refugees and asylum
seekers: ‘human rights’ are considered ‘regular rights’ which are achieved when the
refugee gains the right to asylum. It is interesting to notice that refugees’ rights are
presented before human rights, i.e. human rights derive from the (universal) rights of
a concrete group. Comparing both perspectives, narrow and broad conceptions of
human rights are created. The subject of rights, namely the person that civil society
wants to include in its community of solidarity, differs.

(3) From the year 2000 practically and onwards, [CEAR] amplified, let’s say, its
mission and its objectives and they didn’t refer only to the issue of refugees
anymore [. . .] The experience with the issue of refugees and asylum from the
year 2000 onwards, practically, we could say in a much clearer way starting in
2004, when Spain is constituted as a receiving country of immigration [. . .]
This reality led CEAR to direct its attention towards how to intervene in our
immigration reality (CEAR).
88 Ó.G. Agustı́n

(4) I think it is so difficult to get into Denmark from most countries. [. . .] I don’t
think that there are [economic refugees] in Denmark actually because it is so
difficult to get in. It is almost impossible to get a visa to Denmark from
Africa. Well, you have to be invited by someone and have a special reason and
they keep a keen eye on you (SOS mod Racisme).

There is a general agreement regarding the change in the migration situation in

Spain. NGOs, whose goal was specifically to assist refugees (such as CEAR,
CEPAIM and ACCEM), now deal with immigration generally, including irregular
immigrants. The narratives explain this evolution as a response to social change in
Spain. The interviewed CEAR member (3) represents reality as the agent that drives
his organization into a new direction, on the one hand, and as a collective process
(through the use of the pronoun ‘our’), on the other. A similar shift of scope does not
exist in the Danish context. Only because of the insistence of the interviewer in
asking if there are irregular migrants or economic refugees in Denmark does the
interviewee talk about this (4). According to her (‘I think’, ‘I don’t think’), there is no
irregular immigration. She expresses this through the grading of adjectives (‘so
difficult’ and ‘almost impossible’).
Thus the conditions of immigration are represented in different ways and
NGOs apply their own means to try to solve the problems emerged within their
corresponding societies. This explains why the Danish NGOs restrict their actions to
refugees and asylum seekers, while the Spanish ones include irregular immigrants.
Likewise, the national realities entail different frameworks for human rights
discourse. In Denmark, NGOs and politicians (Thomsen 2009) share the same
strict distinction between immigrants and refugees/asylum seekers. The NGOs try to
improve the rights and conditions of refugees and they use existing policies and
institutions to do so. Although irregular immigrants have easy access to the informal
economy in Spain (Düvel and Jordan 2003, 79), the political debate is mainly focused
on control. The Spanish NGOs set a different agenda based on everyday practices of
integration and the attribution of rights to those who do not have any.

The motivations of the migrants: people without choice

As a consequence of the push factors, discourses of solidarity tend to depict
immigrants as ‘people without choice’ in the context of their countries of origin.
NGOs attempt to promote positive attitudes towards immigrants. I want to
emphasize that this discursive strategy is not based on political alternatives or a
revision of current policies. No concrete solutions to the existence of push factors are
articulated, although development aid is highlighted on several occasions by
the Spanish NGOs. Civil society is invited to align itself with the NGOs’ vision of
the ‘real’ reasons of migration, namely the lack of choices which forces people to
emigrate. It is expected that empathy will be strengthened through understanding or
sharing of values and beliefs. The same strategy is used in both countries but the
portrait of ‘people without choice’ and the linguistic mechanisms applied to create
affect vary.
The more general approach to migration used by Spanish NGOs, including
asylum seekers, refugees and irregular immigrants, means that economic survival is
considered a push factor. The category ‘people without choice’ is expanded to
 Journal of Multicultural Discourses 89

include ‘people lacking economic opportunities’. Therefore irregular immigrants and

refugees can share the same category, although their motivations are not the same.
Referring to the United Nations’ concept of freedom to emigrate as a right, the
NGOs underline that people should enjoy this right when their freedom in the
countries of origin is constrained.

(5) We defend the right to emigrate but also the right to stay in the country where
they are born. And a lot of the people who come here don’t do it out of free
will; they do it forced by a situation of absolute inactivity or absolute lack of
prospects as you can find in so many African countries. When you talk with
the young people and see that there aren’t any prospects for the future, no
possibility of building a life, building a future in their country of origin, and
the only way out is the cayuco. As some young people told us in San Luis:
‘The only thing I have is my life and you don’t even let me risk it. They ask
me all the time why I travel in cayuco. Well, I take the cayuco by my own
choice and because it is the only thing I have in my life and the only thing I
have decided in my life’ (CEPAIM).

The representative of CEPAIM compares the right to emigrate with the right to stay
but he emphasizes that immigrants coming to Spain do not have a choice. They
cannot stay in their home countries, and emigrating is a necessity rather than a right.
In the first utterances, the immigrants are not active actors, capable of choice. They
do not come ‘out of free will’ and they act ‘forced by a situation’. Their situation is
assessed as a ‘situation of inactivity’ and ‘lack of prospects’: both characterizations
are graded by ‘absolute’ which excludes the existence of alternatives. The apprecia-
tion is intensified by references to no ‘prospects’ or ‘possibility’. Emigrating is the
‘only way out’ and economic immigration as a push factor is not a matter of free
choice.
To exemplify this general statement the interviewee invokes an external voice. The
voice is anonymous and represents a collective person (‘young people’). It is quite
common in NGO discourses to include immigrant voices. The interviewees show
their engagement with the immigrants’ position since alignment with them is
stressed, and they introduce arguments attributed to immigrants which are normally
not so visible in public debate. In this way, the NGOs attempt to strengthen solidarity
with immigrants by giving discursive access to an alternative point of view.
The shift of perspective turns the immigrant into an active subject: the young
immigrant is not the object of actions attributed to an external agency (‘forced by’)
but instead he or she becomes an agent (‘I take’, ‘I have decided’). When there are no
alternatives, the immigrants cannot choose: they only become agents when they
choose to abandon their homeland.
The relation between the socioeconomic conditions of the countries of origin and
the reasons to migrate is stressed by all interviewees. The representative of CEAR
makes this point clear and he even broadens the right to choose to other generations.

(6) Africa, well, probably the reality of Africa is not going to be other than that
of no development. And more and more a kind of politics is being advanced
which makes a lot of these realities and these countries unfeasible. If a
pregnant woman, African, from Mali, knows that her son will have a
maximum expectation of life of 40 years in her country and she knows that if
90 Ó.G. Agustı́n

she reaches the Canary Islands in a boat or a cayuco, in the very moment that
she is on the Canary Islands and her son is born, that son could have an
average life expectancy of 90 years, isn’t it then legitimate for people to say ‘I
will take the chance for my son to live 50 more years’? (CEAR).

The lack of choices is underlined and migration is caused both by the conditions of
the countries of origin and current international politics. The approach to the need
for development aid and the motivations of the migrants is strongly emotional. It is
an efficient way of denouncing the structural economic differences between Europe
and Africa and it is reflected in the interviewee’s account in the final hypothetical
quote of an immigrant woman. The interviewee uses a dialogic question which
introduces two voices: ‘the people’, who are not specified, and ‘I’, the immigrant
woman. The generalization of those who support the immigrant creates an idea of
majority, and ‘people’ is here identical with community of solidarity. In contrast with
the generalization, the voice of immigrants is personalized by the first person
singular, albeit there is no concrete person. Both voices agree with the legitimization
of migrating. In other words, immigrants have to emigrate because they have no
choice: the socioeconomic conditions of their countries do not allow them to have an
‘ordinary’ life.
The Danish NGOs use the same category, i.e. ‘people without choice’, to explain
why immigrants leave their home countries and why the host society should welcome
migrants. Nonetheless the strategies applied to achieve civil society alignment are
different, and in the Danish case focus is placed on refugees and asylum seekers.

(7) Most people don’t understand that refugees are actually persecuted and
haven’t left their home country voluntarily and cannot go back. That . . . well,
that understanding simply doesn’t exist. Most Danes think, and that is
including the authorities, they think that people can just go back. And that it
is nonsense, the things that they claim. [. . .] People don’t understand how
incredibly difficult it is to abandon one’s home country and one’s own culture
and settle somewhere else, and that you actually don’t do that voluntarily.
This is . . . Most of the refugees miss their home countries and would prefer to
have stayed there if it had been possible in any way and they hope to be able
to return some day (Flygtninge under Jorden).
(8) If you think about, especially for refugees, you could say, well, a break has
happened, right, there is a before and an after, and there is . . . and when you
have been forced to emigrate, then it is not something that you have chosen
and been thinking about, like where would I like to move to, well, it is a
break, and people are pulled up by the roots and have ended up in a
completely different place (Dansk Flygtningehjælp).

In these examples it is emphasized that refugees do not want to leave their home
countries. They are not agents of their own actions (‘are persecuted’, ‘have been
forced to emigrate’). Comparing both quotes, (7) has a higher degree of dialogic
references. The interviewee assumes a position against the discourse accepted by the
majority (according to her). She criticizes the lack of engagement of the potential
respondents, namely the members of civil society and public institutions. Mental and
verbal processes (‘understand’, ‘think’, ‘claim’) realized by agents (‘people’, ‘most
Danes’, ‘authorities’) are rejected through negation and modality (‘actually’,
 Journal of Multicultural Discourses 91

‘simply’, ‘that is nonsense’). Martin and White (2007, 102) refer to this process as
dialogic contraction, because other positions than the one adopted by the
interviewee are challenged or restricted. However there is an underlying belief in
the quote that knowledge of the reality of the refugees would change people’s
position on this issue. The voices of ‘people’ are not excluded since it is expected that
they will align with the NGO representative when they become aware of the situation
of the refugees.
An emphatic perspective is apparent in the lexical choices in the abovementioned
quotes. They depict a person who does not choose herself where she wants to live.
The rootlessness is represented by the tough (‘incredibly difficult’) decision
(‘abandon’) and by the losses (‘home country’, ‘own culture’). The desired (or
hypothetical) future is to return home. The conditional (‘if . . .’), the modal forms
(‘would prefer’) and the future tenses (‘some day’) are all linked to ‘hope’. The
refugee as a person without choice is articulated by the NGO representative in (8)
through the metaphor ‘break’. As a consequence of the break the refugee cannot
choose her destiny and must leave her home country and all that this implies
(‘roots’). Consequently, there is no reason to mistrust refugees or think that they
want to take advantage of the host country. It is an extreme situation which forces
them to leave their home countries. In the mind of the interviewees an improved
understanding of refugees’ lives would ensure a stronger sense of solidarity with
them.

The experiences of life: between normality and trauma

I have described how discourses of solidarity portray a certain picture of immigrants
before migrating and how civil society can be more understanding or tolerant
towards them if it aligns itself with the values defended by the voluntary
organizations. It is a matter of acceptance but also about improving the migrants’
conditions. Likewise, affect is used in the representations of immigrants in the host
countries. All the NGOs interviewed talk about issues which are constantly
articulated in the public sphere, such as labor market, education, housing, etc. The
difference lies in the angle, in the NGO discourses, which are aimed at awakening
emotions and understanding in the community of solidarity. The experiences of life,
i.e. migrants’ lives in the host societies, reveal a personal dimension which is
commonly located outside the media agenda.
The Danish NGOs emphasize that ‘people without choices’ (prior to their arrival
to Denmark) do not turn into ‘people with the same choices’ since they are not
treated as refugees and their rights as such are denied.

(9) And what we also know and have experienced is that there is a rather large
group of refugees who actually come here with traumas. They have
experienced something awful which makes them traumatized. Well, it doesn’t
always show in the beginning, several years can pass but it actually affects
their capacity to function, right. And there are also some people, unfortu-
nately also some people who suffer a lot from . . . well, if it takes a long time
for their case to be handled, so they can actually also become traumatized
while they are waiting in Denmark because it is this insecurity about ‘where
do I belong’, ‘where can I feel safe’, well, feeling safe where you are, that is
incredibly important (Dansk Flygtningehjælp).
92 Ó.G. Agustı́n

The refugees are represented as people who need help not only before migrating but
also afterwards. In the NGO account (9), negative adjectives are used to characterize
the situation that the refugee has to overcome (‘awful’, ‘traumatized’) and their
feelings about it (‘insecurity’, ‘suffer[ing]’). The refugees can hardly do anything to
avoid the situation and they are not in control of the process (‘which makes them
traumatized’, ‘it affects their capacity’). The modality (‘actually’ is used three times)
underlines the truthfulness of the facts narrated and the extension of the trauma. The
difficulty of handling the situation is intensified (‘rather large group’, ‘suffers a lot’,
‘it takes a long time’). The evaluative language underpins the need for paying
attention to the doubly traumatized condition. The interviewee intensifies (‘in-
credibly’) the importance of dealing with the insecurity in Denmark and trying to
lessen it by turning it into a feeling of safety. Insecurity prevents refugees from having
an ordinary life.

(10) There are no other countries than Denmark, I think, that would keep people
in a refugee centre for 10 years, where they are denied having their children
sent to a regular public school and where they are denied the right to work.
I think that is absolutely horrible that they do that. That is . . . well . . . you
turn people into victims, you make people disabled . . . well, in a labor related
sense, anyway. Most of them [. . .] haven’t been able to say ‘What is going to
happen in my life? What is going to happen by next year? Will I be granted
asylum? Will I be sent back? Will somebody kill me if I am sent back?’ I think
it is so grotesque . . . I cannot believe that my fellow countrymen, who
are sitting there, in the government, have become so . . . such evil-minded
people actually. They don’t care at all about these asylum seekers and they
don’t care at all about the children. I cannot believe it. I cannot believe it
(SOS mod Racisme).

The critique of the politicians is articulated in a strong evaluative language. The

appreciations on how refugees are treated in Denmark include adjectives such as
‘horrible’ and ‘grotesque’ and the interviewee represents politicians in very negative
terms (‘evil-minded’, ‘don’t care at all’). She is so indignant that she repeats the
sentence ‘I cannot believe it’ three times to stress her frustration over current politics.
It is not a coincidence that the NGO representative refers to two main actors: asylum
seekers and their children. In this way the audience notices the everyday impact of
political decisions. The interviewee also tries to avoid transforming refugees into
passive subjects (they are ‘people’, not ‘victims’ or ‘disabled’). They are in principle
autonomous and do not depend on other people’s will but the conditions of asylum
seekers in Denmark make it impossible for them to develop this autonomy. Instead
of diminishing the ‘break’, the system increases insecurity. The interrogative form
used in the quote when implicitly giving voice to the refugee underlines the
uncertainty and all the issues that refugees must confront. The questions are
individualized by the first person singular and reveal the difficulties of living in a
position of constant waiting in Denmark. The audience is also reminded of the
seriousness of the situation: ‘not receiving asylum’ is the same as ‘going back’ which
could mean that the asylum seeker would be killed. This emotional angle on asylum
stresses the need for specific action, for traumatized as well as non-traumatized
people.
 Journal of Multicultural Discourses 93

To summarize, refugees are not ‘normal people’ when they arrive in the host
country because they are traumatized. The way in which they are addressed and
treated by the system should not impede their access to a ‘normal life’. In this sense
the Danish NGO discourse shows injustices which hamper refugees’ possibilities of
living without insecurity or fear. Unlike political or human rights related claims,
solidarity is based on affect: discursively the bad conditions of the refugees are
underlined, and the underlying logic is that once the community of solidarity shares
this empathetic approach, the situation can be translated into claims for rights and a
more socio-political perspective.
The Spanish NGOs’ focus on a broader definition of immigration implies the use
of general terms to refer to immigrants (‘people’, ‘person’) and their inclusion into
practices in which all citizens are involved. Being an irregular immigrant, a labor
migrant or a refugee does not mean that the experience of life is not the same as the
experience of all other members of the host society.

(11) In the beginning they arrive with an idea of a project, even a project which
involves their return, to come here, to save up and to go back. A lot of times,
when they see the possibilities that open up and, furthermore, they reunify or
regroup with family members and the family members and the children start
to grow up here, start to create their own attachment here, it is difficult. That
is, when that has already happened, you cannot think that this is a return
journey and that when the labor market doesn’t allow it, that person cannot
stay here any longer. Because these people are these people and their family
members and the whole attachment that they have created with the host
society (ACCEM).

The perspective of the immigrants is incorporated into the shift from the traditional
conception of migration (‘return project’) into the current one, in which the
immigrant can consider staying in the host society or returning to her country of
origin. There is an opposition between the voices of the immigrants (third person
plural) and the locals (second person singular). While the third person is used to
narrate the story of the migrants, the interviewee does not align herself with the
second person, whose voice is not identified but can be associated with political and
public authorities. The rejection of obligatory return attached to labor market needs
is opposed to the dominant discourse and it is articulated without naming economic
profits or advantages to host countries. The strategy is oriented towards the
perception of immigrants as ordinary people. The second person represents
the prohibition made by ‘the labor market’ as an agent which ‘does not let the
person stay in Spain’. Just as the second person opposes the third person, the
impersonal agency contrasts with the actions of the immigrant (‘person’) as agent.
The immigrants themselves change their minds when they reunify with their families
and their children and they start to socialize with the nationals of the host country
and enter its educational system. In other words the narrow conception of labor
migration is challenged by the inclusion of experiences of life.

(12) The vision which has existed in recent years and still exists in Spain regarding
immigration has been immigration as a workforce. Thus when somebody was
needed to construct highways, buildings and so on, well then, everything
was alright. Anyone who was needed for that was welcomed, right? And now
94 Ó.G. Agustı́n

it is really a problem because [. . .] there are no job offers. [. . .] What is being

proposed [is] voluntary return, that they have to go back because they are not
needed anymore, as if they were an unnecessary workforce. [. . .] Taking into
account the life projects that they have, each one of them, their realities . . .
well, when you come to live in a country, any country, a few years, your life
could change completely. You may have children here or you may . . . buy a
house, a lot of things that are not taken into account. There are simply no
jobs now, so go back. (Semilla)

The representative of Semilla explicitly expresses a similar critique of the idea of

immigration as exclusively workforce related (12). The official discourse is included,
simplified and rejected in the quote as it is opposed to immigrants’ reality, i.e. their
experiences of life. The reproduction of this discourse is constituted by positive
evaluations of migrants (‘needed’, ‘alright’, ‘welcomed’) until the beginning of
the economic crisis in 2008. Together with the modalization (‘really’), the temporal
adverb (‘now’) marks a shift towards negative language (‘problem’, ‘not needed’,
‘unnecessary’). The inconsistencies of the official discourse are revealed by the
contrast of positive and negative conceptions of immigration depending on the labor
market situation. The alternative discourse avoids defining immigrants in relation to
their contribution to the economy of the host countries and questions the ‘voluntary’
nature of their return to their home countries since they are forced (by imperative
mode) to leave the country because of national unemployment rates (‘so go back’). In
fact the interviewee does not use the category ‘immigrant’; he prefers the indefinite
pronouns (‘somebody’, ‘anyone’) instead. The discourse of the needs of the labor
market is replaced by that of the life projects of the migrants. Just like the ACCEM
representative, the interviewee from Semilla uses the metaphor ‘project’ to indicate
that people have a plan or an intention to develop their life which includes the people
they meet and how they adapt themselves to changing circumstances. Besides,
the idea of ‘life project’ turns the immigrants into agents of their actions and the life
they aspire to lead.
The third person plural is also applied to immigrants but the interviewee changes
into the second person singular. In this case, the use of the second person aims to
achieve a strong identification between members of civil society and immigrants.
Regardless of the characteristics of irregular or regular migrants, the situation
is represented as equal to anyone who ‘comes to live in any country’. Through this
mechanism of identification, the interviewee detaches immigration from the needs of
the labor market and highlights their life project as a possible project (expressed by
the modal verbs of possibility: ‘could’, ‘you may’). In sum, the empathetic angle of
identification is opposed to the rationality of the labor market.

Conclusions
Discourses of solidarity activate alternative ways of thinking about immigration,
sometimes opposed to dominant discourses. The evaluative language and the use of
affect aim to have immigration understood from the perspective of shared values in a
community of solidarity. The NGOs position themselves in relation to different
issues and try to refute the discriminatory policies and practices. This article has
argued that a focus on solidarity and the role of NGOs complements the critique of
dominant discourses, as presented by CDA. Likewise the article emphasizes the need
 Journal of Multicultural Discourses 95

for comparing and contextualizing national discourses in order to assess their

universal projection.
Regarding the conceptions of human rights, I have shown that they are
determined by national frameworks. The linguistic mechanisms applied to shared
emotions, tastes and normative assessments of communities of solidarity rely on
these national assumptions. This is not incompatible with claims about the global
dimension of migration or the role of international institutions. Two main strategies
to evaluate immigration can be identified: the rational side and the human side,
which is based on (shared) emotions. The latter consists of two dimensions:
the motivations of the migrants and the experiences of life. Although the main
discursive strategies are the same, the interpersonal meanings change due to the
national frameworks.
As to the experiences of life, it is worth noticing that the Danish NGOs appeal to
people’s understanding of a person exposed to traumatic experiences and the need
for proper treatment. Specific considerations are combined with the wish to have an
ordinary life, especially by being incorporated into the labor market. Spanish
solidarity moves in another direction and focuses mostly on immigrants’ life projects
and seeing them as people, not as a workforce (though without denying the
importance of having a job).
The political implications of the discursive claims in Spain and in Denmark are
quite different. In Spain, the lack of choices is attributed to poor socioeconomic
circumstances in the home countries while the Danish organizations focus more on
the individual conditions of each refugee, as a response to various political and social
factors. According to the Spanish NGOs, future policies should increase develop-
ment cooperation in order to reduce the economic inequalities between rich and poor
countries. The Danish NGOs suggest improving the access and especially the
treatment of refugees coming to Denmark. The structural approach of the Spanish
organizations contrasts with the more individual approach of the Danish NGOs.
Either way, the idea of ‘people without choice’ allows the interviewees to build a
discourse of solidarity based on the need of understanding, empathy and shared
values.
Despite national differences, the search for a European perspective on solidarity
with immigrants must be taken into account. The implementation of new national
integration policies and the increasing influence of the EU constitute a change of the
framework whereby migration is being defined. Rooted in the regional and national
experiences, discourses of solidarity contribute to influencing current policies and to
achieving a cosmopolitan point of view that promotes the respect for the Other and
the coexistence of diversity. When the idea of national community is changing,
solidarity must, similarly, be understood beyond nation-state borders. An approach
based on affect sets the basis for a strengthened fairness in both policies and
practices and it recovers social justice and universal equality as values in discourses
on immigration.

Notes on contributor
Óscar Garcı́a Agustı́n, PhD, is a post doctoral researcher affiliated with the project ‘Talking
Culture’ (financed by the Danish Council for Strategic Research) and teacher at Aalborg
University, Denmark. His research interests include discourse analysis, approaches combin-
ing Linguistics and Political Science, political communication, discourses of resistance and,
96 Ó.G. Agustı́n

currently, European Union immigration and integration policies. He has recently published a
book entitled Discurso e Institucionalización (Discourse and Institutionalization). Email:
oscar@cgs.aau.dk

References
Alba-Juez, Laura. 2009. Perspectives on discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars
Publishing.
Andronache, Laura. 2006. Contemporary republican theories in search of solidarity. In
Republicanism in theory and practice, ed. I. Honohan and J. Jennings, 109
22. London:
Routledge.
Bañón, Antonio M. 2002. Discurso e inmigración. Propuestas para el análisis de un debate
social. Murcia: Universidad de Murcia.
Bañón, Antonio M. 2003. Análisis crı́tico del discurso sobre la inmigración. A propósito de la
representación de los actores comprometidos. Interlingüı́stica 14: 15
30.
Barlett, Tom. 2010. Towards intervention in Positive Discourse Analysis. In Applied linguistics
methods. A reader, ed. C. Coffin et al., 133
47. London: Routledge.
Billis, David., and Howard Glennerster. 1998. Human service delivery and the voluntary
sector: Towards a theory of comparative advantage. Journal of Social Policy 27, no. 1:
79
98.
Blom, Amélie., and Nicolas Jaoul. 2008. The moral and affectual dimension of collective
action in South Asia. South Asia Multidisciplinary Academic Journal 2. http://samaj.
revues.org/index1912.html
Castles, Stephen., and Mark J. Miller. 2009. The age of migration: International population
movements in the modern world. London: MacMillan.
Clante Bendixen, Michala. 2009. Lighed for loven. In Afvist. Asylansøgere i Danmark, ed. E.
Mørch Jensen and G. Gottlieb, 168
73. Copenhagen: Tiderne Skifter.
Coffin, Caroline., and Kieran O’Halloran. 2010. Finding the global groove: Theorising and
analysing dynamic reader positioning using APPRAISAL, corpus and a concordancer. In
Applied linguistics methods. A reader, ed. C. Coffin et al., 112
32. London: Routledge.
Dean, Jodi. 1995. Reflective solidarity. Constellations 2, no. 1: 114
40.
DeLaat, Jacqueline. 1987. Volunteering as linkage in the three sectors. Nonprofit and Voluntary
Sector Quarterly 16, nos. 1
2: 97
111.
Dryzek, John. 2006. Deliberative global politics. Discourse and democracy in a divided world.
Cambridge: Polity.
Düvel, Franck., and Bill Jordan. 2003. Migration: The boundaries of equality and justice.
Cambridge: Polity.
Emerek, Ruth. 2003. Integration
eller inklusion? Den danske diskussion om integration.
AMID Working Paper Series 31. http://www.amid.dk/pub/papers/AMID_31-2003_Emerek.
pdf
Garcı́a Agustı́n, Óscar. 2005. Contrahegemonı́as y desacuerdos. Desacuerdos 2: 11
27.
Garcı́a Roca, Joaquı́n. 1994. Solidaridad y voluntariado. Cantabria: Sal Terrae.
Gutiérrez Resa, Antonio. 1997. Acción Social no Gubernamental. Análisis y reflexiones sobre
las organizaciones voluntarias. Valencia: Tirant lo Blanch.
Harvey, Arlene. 2004. Charismatic business leader rhetoric: From transaction to transforma-
tion. In Systematic functional linguistics and critical discourse analysis. Studies in social
change, ed. L. Young and C. Harrison, 247
63. New York: Continuum.
Honohan, Iseult. 2002. Civic republicanism. London: Routledge.
Johnstone, Barbara. 2002. Discourse analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.
Joppke, C. 2004. The retreat of multiculturalism in the liberal state: theory and policy. The
British Journal of Sociology 55, no. 2: 237
57.
Kvale, Steinar. 1997. InterView: En introduktion til det kvalitative forskningsinterview.
Copenhagen: Hans Retizel.
Laclau, Ernesto. 2005. On populist reason. London: Verso.
Laclau, Ernesto, and Chantal Mouffe. 2001. Hegemony and socialist strategy: Towards a
radical democratic politics. London: Verso.
Lassen, Hans. 2009. Den anden virkelighed. Tanker og tal om integration i Danmark.
Copenhagen: Informations Forlag.
 Journal of Multicultural Discourses 97

Macgilchrist, Felicitas. 2007. Positive Discourse Analysis: Contesting dominant discourses by

reframing the issues. Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis Across Disciplines 1, no. 1:
74
94.
Macken-Horarik, Mary. 2003. APPRAISAL and the special instructiveness of narrative. Text
23, no. 2: 285
312.
Martin, James R. 2004a. Mourning: How we get aligned. Discourse & Society 15, nos. 2
3:
321
44.
Martin, James R. 2004b. Positive Discourse Analysis: Solidarity and change. Revista Canaria
de Estudios Ingleses 49: 179
200.
Martin, James R. 2007. Comment. World Englishes 26, no. 1: 84
6.
Martin, James R., and David Rose. 2003. Working with discourse: Meaning beyond clause.
London: Continuum.
Martin, James R., and P.R.R. White. 2007. Language of evaluation. Appraisal in English.
London: Palgrave MacMillan.
Megı́as, Quirós., and José Justo. 2008. Asimilación e Interculturalidad en la Polı́tica de
integración social europea. El trasfondo doctrinal. Entelequia. Revista Interdisciplinar 8:
73
96.
Mikkelsen, Flemming. 2008. Indvandring og integration. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag.
Neergaard, Helle. 2007. Udvælgelse af cases i kvalitative underøgelser. Frederiksberg:
Samfundslitteratur.
Payrow Shabani, Omid A. 2007. Cosmopolitan justice and immigration: A critical theory
perspective. European Journal of Social Theory 10, no. 1: 87
98.
Pensky, Max. 2000. Cosmopolitanism and the solidarity problem: Habermas on national and
cultural identities. Constellations 7, no. 1: 54
79.
Pensky, Max. 2008. The ends of solidarity: Discourse theory in ethics and politics. New York:
University of New York.
Pinyol, Gemma. 2008. Spain’s immigration policy as a new instrument of external action.
Spain in Europe 2004
2008, ed. E. Barbé, 1
6. Barcelona: Bellaterra.
Reisigl, Martin., and Ruth Wodak. 2001. Discourse and discrimination: Rhetorics of racism and
anti-semitism. London: Routledge.
Roitter, Mario M. 2005. El tercer sector como representación topográfica de la sociedad civil.
In ¿Democracia Post-Liberal? El espacio polı́tico de las asociaciones, ed. B. Arditi, 23
44.
Barcelona: Anthropos.
Sassen, Saskia. 1996. Losing control? Sovereignty in the age of globalization. New York:
Columbia University Press.
Thomsen, Britta. 2009. Den nødvendige indvandring. Rødovre: Forlaget Sohn.
Van Dijk, Teun. 1991. Racism and the press (Critical studies in racism and migration). London:
Routledge.
Van Dijk, Teun. 1993. Elite discourse and racism. Newbury Park: Sage.
Van Dijk, Teun. 1998. Ideology: A multidisciplinary approach. London: Sage.
Vasta, Ellie. 2010. The controllability of difference: Social cohesion and the new politics of
solidarity. Ethnicities 10, no. 4: 503
21.
Wodak, Ruth. 1996. The genesis of racist discourse in Austria since 1989. In Texts and
practices: Readings in critical discourse analysis, ed. C.R. Caldas-Coulthard and M.
Coulthard, 107
128. London: Routledge.
Wodak, Ruth. 2007. What is Critical Discourse Analysis? Conversation with Gavin Kendall.
Forum: Qualitative Research, 8 (2), Art. 29. http://www.ling.lancs.ac.uk/staff/wodak/
interview.pdf
Yin, Robert K. 2003. Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Zanfrini, Laura. 2004. La convivencia interétnica. Madrid: Alianza Editorial.
Zapata-Barrero, Ricard. 2004. Inmigración, innovación polı́tica y cultura de acomodación en
España. Barcelona: Fundación CIDOG.
Zapata-Barrero, Ricard. 2008. Multiculturalidad e inmigración. Madrid: Editorial Sı́ntesis.
Zapata-Barrero, Ricard. 2009. Fundamentos de los discursos polı́ticos en torno a la inmigración.
Madrid: Trotta.
Copyright of Journal of Multicultural Discourses is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may
not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.