Exclusive Inclusion: EU Integration Discourse as Regulating Practice

This art icle was downloaded by: [ Susana Mart inez Guillem ] On: 16 August 2015, At : 07: 56 Publisher: Rout ledge I nform a Lt d Regist ered in England and Wales Regist ered Num ber: 1072954 Regist ered office: 5 Howick Place, London, SW1P 1WG Critical Discourse Studies Publicat ion det ails, including inst ruct ions f or aut hors and subscript ion inf ormat ion: ht t p: / / www. t andf online. com/ loi/ rcds20 EXCLUSIVE INCLUSION Susana Mart ínez Guillem Published online: 23 Mar 2015. Click for updates To cite this article: Susana Mart ínez Guillem (2015) EXCLUSIVE INCLUSION, Crit ical Discourse St udies, 12: 4, 426-444, DOI: 10. 1080/ 17405904. 2015. 1023327 To link to this article: ht t p: / / dx. doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 17405904. 2015. 1023327 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTI CLE Taylor & Francis m akes every effort t o ensure t he accuracy of all t he inform at ion ( t he “ Cont ent ” ) cont ained in t he publicat ions on our plat form . However, Taylor & Francis, our agent s, and our licensors m ake no represent at ions or warrant ies what soever as t o t he accuracy, com plet eness, or suit abilit y for any purpose of t he Cont ent . Any opinions and views expressed in t his publicat ion are t he opinions and views of t he aut hors, and are not t he views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of t he Cont ent should not be relied upon and should be independent ly verified wit h prim ary sources of inform at ion. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, act ions, claim s, proceedings, dem ands, cost s, expenses, dam ages, and ot her liabilit ies what soever or howsoever caused arising direct ly or indirect ly in connect ion wit h, in relat ion t o or arising out of t he use of t he Cont ent . This art icle m ay be used for research, t eaching, and privat e st udy purposes. Any subst ant ial or syst em at ic reproduct ion, redist ribut ion, reselling, loan, sub- licensing, syst em at ic supply, or dist ribut ion in any form t o anyone is expressly forbidden. Term s & Downloaded by [Susana Martinez Guillem] at 07:56 16 August 2015 Condit ions of access and use can be found at ht t p: / / www.t andfonline.com / page/ t erm sand- condit ions Critical Discourse Studies, 2015 Vol. 12, No. 4, 426–444, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2015.1023327 EXCLUSIVE INCLUSION EU integration discourse as regulating practice Downloaded by [Susana Martinez Guillem] at 07:56 16 August 2015 Susana Martínez Guillem This paper focuses on three different ‘Communications’ issued by the European Commission between 2007 and 2011 that inform, frame, and constitute contemporary European Union immigration policy. Drawing on a theoretical framework that calls attention to the embeddedness of cultural ideas and notions in economic dimensions of society, the analysis first emphasizes the naturalized link in the Communications between the need for integration and specific immigrants whose cultures are marked as fundamentally different. Second, it shows how lack of cultural integration is intrinsically connected in these documents to an economic understanding of ‘otherness’, since it is made salient as an obstacle in immigrants’ path toward upward mobility, and thus as a threat to social cohesion. This, I argue, creates an irresolvable paradox that positions undesirable immigrants as simultaneously in need of and ineligible for integration measures. KEYWORDS citizenship; cultural materialism; European Union; immigration; integration; multiculturalism; racialization On 12 May 2011, and in the midst of the ‘Arab spring’ revolts that led to the exodus of thousands of Libyans toward the coasts of Southern Italy – as well as, in much higher numbers, to north-African neighboring countries such as Tunisia – the European Union (EU) considered, for the first time since its implementation, the possibility of modifying the terms of the ‘Schengen agreement’. This policy, incorporated into EU law with the Amsterdam Treaty (1997), currently allows EU citizens to move freely within the socalled Schengen zone, nowadays comprised by 27 states and about 400 million people. The big controversy that surrounded these events, including an extraordinary debate in the European Council, as well as some of the measures taken in light of the crisis – France, for example, temporarily closed its border with Italy (Meichtry, 2011) – could appear disproportionate given the actual number of potential refugees (a few thousands) and also taking into account that the Schengen treaty already accounts for the possibility of closing one state’s border in ‘emergency’ cases. However, and beyond the actual impact of these in-the-moment reactions, the direct questioning of the principle of mobility also carried a significant symbolic weight: for the first time in the history of the EU, a potential retreat from one of the most tangible and well-received realities of the EU era, until that moment conceived as inalienable, was being seriously considered. As one commentator put it when nostalgically summarizing the EU’s main accomplishments: ‘Schengen is half of the EU. The other half, [the Euro] we’re carrying it in our pockets’ (Adiós a Schengen? [Bye bye Schengen?], 2011). © 2015 Taylor & Francis Downloaded by [Susana Martinez Guillem] at 07:56 16 August 2015 EXCLUSIVE INCLUSION About two years later, and not far from those same Southern Italian coasts that had witnessed the arrival of desperate Libyan refugees – many of whom were ultimately denied asylum – a ship carrying more than 500 people fleeing from Eritea and Somalia sank only half a mile away from the isle of Lampedusa: it was the end of the European dream for 387 people, including many children. In a grotesque twist, only those who died were allowed to stay – they were given Italian citizenship and then buried in nameless, numbered coffins in different parts of Sicily. The 114 survivors, on the other hand, were accused of illegal immigration, considered a crime in Italy, and punished with a fine of up to 10,000 euros and immediate expulsion. In the statement following his visit to Lampedusa, European Commission’s (EC’s) President José Manuel Barroso reiterated the need for ‘better cooperation and coordination among [European] member states’ and the need to show ‘solidarity’ toward ‘those [states] most exposed’ (European Commission, 2013). In the meantime, and about 700 miles to the West, the Spanish authorities decided to strengthen the border fence separating the city of Melilla from Morocco in North Africa. The fence was covered with an anti-climbing mesh and topped with a new concertina razor wire, designed to rip and grab onto clothing and flesh (Short, 2013). As those still attempting to climb the fence got severely injured and human rights organizations voiced their concerns, Government officials argued that these were only ‘deterrent’ measures, and that the kind of material used is common practice in prisons, as well as in nuclear power stations (Cué, 2013). These apparently unrelated episodes, I argue, can be seen as symptomatic of the current issues facing the EU when it comes to regulating migratory flows. Thus, the ‘Schengen crisis’, together with the dead and wounded in Lampedusa and Melilla, reveals both the cruciality and the vulnerability of the immigration policy in the EU. They also point to the tensions embedded in an approach to human movement where the opening of internal borders is intrinsically linked to the closing of external ones (Lahav, 2004). In other words, the progressiveness and openness that made it possible for the Schengen agreement to be adopted rest on the repressive assurance that the privilege of free movement will not be extended to those who fall outside of this ‘special treatment’ zone, most of which are non-white (Garner, 2007). In this paper I explore a series of official ‘Communications’1 issued by the EC2 that inform, frame, and constitute EU immigration policy since 2007. I argue that this exploration can help us better understand the links, in this particular sphere, between processes of exclusion and inclusion, on the one hand, and the beliefs values, and practices associated with the notion of integration, on the other. My goal is to show how integration needs to be examined, not as an alternative to exclusion, but in order to better understand how exclusion works. This dialectical dimension of inclusion/exclusion processes deserves our critical attention, in my view, if we are to work productively with the tensions between culture as a symbolic system and as material production (Fairclough, 1989; Williams, 1958). Specifically, we need to recognize the importance of institutional attempts to monopolize, ‘not only legitimate physical force but also legitimate symbolic force, as Bourdieu puts it. This includes the power to name, to identify, to categorize, to state what is what and who is who’ (Brubaker & Cooper, 2000, p. 15). As part of this project, the apparently benign notion of integration and the beliefs, values, and practices associated with it emerge as a crucial site where we can begin to 427 Downloaded by [Susana Martinez Guillem] at 07:56 16 August 2015 428 SUSANA MARTÍNEZ GUILLEM uncover how exclusion often works within an overall inclusive paradigm that is fueled by neoliberal notions of entitlement to belong. As Halualani puts it, while ‘communication studies scholars have uncovered the discursive operations of dominant and oppositional meanings’ that surround social issues such as immigration, race, and ethnicity, ‘missing are the larger encodings of “diversity” and “multiculturalism”’ (2011, p. 249). I argue that ‘integration’ can and should be added to this list in an effort to highlight the continuing relevance of racial ideologies in the Western world, hence intervening in the current post-racist ideological landscape in this context (Hall, 2011; Lentin & Titley, 2012; Shome, 2012). Based on the main themes identified in the Communications, I argue that, first of all, official rhetoric presents the repressive aspects of the EU policy as the unavoidable premise that allows for a set of other, arguably more inclusive integration measures. However, a careful look at exactly how the EU and its ‘others’ are conceptualized and positioned in these documents reveals that the very practice of integration functions predominantly as a mechanism of control. This control is exercised through the naturalized link between the need for integration and specific immigrants, whose cultures are racialized and marked as always already lacking a series of desirable ‘core European values’. Second, lack of cultural integration, as articulated in the different documents, is intrinsically linked to an economic understanding of ‘otherness’, since it is presented as an obstacle in immigrants’ path toward upward mobility, and thus as a threat to social cohesion. This creates an irresolvable paradox that positions undesirable immigrants as simultaneously in need of and ineligible for integration measures. In order to unpack this paradox and its pervasive effects, throughout this analysis I highlight the ways race and racism intersect – and often hide behind – other social categories and forms of oppression, and insist on the importance of the cultural/symbolic dimensions of racialization processes (Hall, 1996). The next section contextualizes this study by offering a concise overview of relevant scholarly contributions to the study of EU immigration policy. This review highlights how most of these studies operate within a dichotomous framework where the repressive aspects of EU immigration laws are located only in the explicitly punitive and control measures, whereas integration tends to remain unexplored or unproblematized. I then turn to the textual objects of the present study and the critique of the practices associated with apparently inclusive notions such as ‘integration’. The analysis shows that, first of all, integration appears as a fundamental component in the EU’s approach to immigration outlined in the Communications. Second, I offer a close examination of how integration functions as an exclusionary, regulating, and racializing practice facilitated by a ‘post-racist’ ideological grounding. In closing, I emphasize the link between these proposed integration practices and a pervasive ‘raceless’ discourse in the EU that nevertheless singles out certain bodies as inherently threatening and in need of control. Following Stuart Hall, I propose to highlight the ‘fusion of the economic and the social and the political and the ideological and the cultural’ in order to better highlight the contradictions of the current neoliberal conjuncture and thus act more efficiently upon them (Hay, Hall, & Grossberg, 2013, p. 22). EXCLUSIVE INCLUSION Downloaded by [Susana Martinez Guillem] at 07:56 16 August 2015 Deconstructing EU Immigration Policy: Exclusion versus Inclusion Since the adoption of the Tampere program in 1999, when the issue of immigration officially became primarily a concern of EU institutions, critical scholars across the humanities and social sciences have paid increasing attention to the nature of the different policies developed, and specifically to their possible discriminatory motives and/or outcomes. Accounts rooted in sociology, political science, anthropology or legal studies have all pointed out, with different emphases, the ways in which different agreements and legislative measures systematically have dramatic consequences for those deemed unable to contribute to the ‘European project’ (Checkel & Katzenstein, 2009; Gingrich & Banks, 2006). Focusing on explicit control measures as a mechanism of exclusion, many of these studies point to the complicated task of factoring in how discriminatory processes may be located at the intersections across race, ethnicity, nationality, gender and/or legal status. This perspective has produced insightful analyses of how the different legal measures endorsed by states are aimed at excluding non-white immigrants from the imagined national communities, which are (re)constructed as racial or ethnic unities (Bell, 2009). For Sivanandan (2001), for example, ‘the “debate” about immigration has always been about “race”’ (p. 12), in the sense that ‘the ideological justification for [immigration] control has been a racialized nationalism, and the practice of control by the state has been directed at racialized groups’ (p. 13). Mynott (2002) takes this argument one step further to claim that ‘immigration controls are […] racist and against the class interests of workers’, since the different policies are an attempt to encourage ‘the majority of people, especially working class people, to identify themselves in nationalistic or racial terms, rather than in terms of class’. (p. 21) Immigration laws have also been critiqued for delineating a sharp, uncrossable line between immigrants with legal status and those deemed illegal, thus excluding the latter from benefits provided by the welfare state (Mynott, 2002). For Cohen, Humphries, and Mynott (2002), ‘across the developed capitalist countries immigration control has increasingly come to involve the restriction of access to welfare provision on the grounds of immigration status’ (p. 1). Scholars have also addressed how, even when policy accounts for immigration as a legal phenomenon – which could allow for immigrants to be recognized as a legitimate part of contemporary European societies – there is a persistent link, accentuated in the last decade, between immigration flows and security issues (Dell’Olio, 2005; Garner, 2007). Moreover, those labeled as ‘of immigrant origin’ are also constantly presented as a source of ‘identity problems’ within western European host countries (Delanty, Wodak, & Jones, 2008; Mitchell & Russell, 1996). In terms of EU policy as a whole, different studies have shown that the development of immigration laws toward what is officially labeled ‘harmonization’ (Miles & Thrändhart, 1995) has resulted in the implementation of more restrictive laws in most European states with regard to both immigration and asylum (Garner, 2007), allowing practices such as the indefinite detention of the children of asylum-seekers (Fekete, 2007), the systematic incarceration of postcolonial immigrants (Wacquant, 2008) or the en masse deportations of Roma travelers from Italy and France (Martínez Guillem, 2011). Importantly, the recently implemented policies have also had significant effects for non-European countries and citizens. Fekete, for example, points out the repressive nature of agreements with Third World governments that, according to her, turn these countries into ‘immigration police for 429 Downloaded by [Susana Martinez Guillem] at 07:56 16 August 2015 430 SUSANA MARTÍNEZ GUILLEM western Europe’ (Fekete, 2009, p. 24). In this sense, some authors have challenged the metaphor of ‘fortress Europe’ to account for recent changes in immigration policy across Europe, arguing that it overlooks the significance of agreements with non-EU states – including, for example, receiving aid packages in exchange for accepting the return of their nationals – in the development of new EU policies (Garner, 2007; Mitchell & Russell, 1996). Without diminishing the value and need for these accounts, it is important to acknowledge that they operate under a rather linear understanding of policy-making in general, and EU immigration laws in particular. As the examples discussed demonstrate, this literature emphasizes a concern with explicit control measures, such as restricting the numbers of undesirable immigrants through visa policies or border patrolling. Even though this is an undoubtedly problematic reality, through this analysis I would like to highlight how what Garner (2007) labels ‘structural racialization’ is also enabled and reinforced by ideological components, and specifically, particular understandings of immigration in relation to integration. As Delany, Wodak, and Jones explain through their notion of ‘syncretic racism’, the discursive ‘construction of “differences” on many levels [ … ] serves ideological, political, and/or practical discrimination on all levels of society’ (2008, p. 3). I will thus focus on the notion of integration as a place where the dialectic of material and symbolic aspects of the EU’s approach to immigration can be explored in more detail. This approach will shed light on how specific rhetorics of immigration and integration inform and reproduce EU immigration policy by ideologically saturating most of the physical borders established through explicitly exclusive measures. Specifically, the discursive construction of integration’s goals and subjects in particular ways makes it possible to (re)frame potentially exclusive measures in inclusive terms, thus erasing the possible contradictions arising from the de facto proximity between a ‘Europe without frontiers’ and a ‘fortress Europe’ (Garner, 2007). Exclusion through Inclusion: EU’s Rhetoric of Immigration and Integration As aforementioned, this study concentrates on three different Communications adopted by the EC in 2007, 2008, and 2011. Taken together, these three Communications outline the justification, scope, and goals of an immigration policy that, according to the EC, represents and serves the current interests of the EU as a whole. The selected texts are part of a broader endeavor examining the development of a common European immigration policy and were chosen for the present study as a representative example of wideranging tendencies identified in that project (see Martínez Guillem, 2013). The examination of documents from this particular period is motivated by important historical developments with regard to the EU in general, and immigration policy in particular. Thus, the year 2007 constituted an inflection point in the history of European institutions. Through the Lisbon Treaty, the EU implemented a series of changes in almost all lawmaking, mainly with the purpose of allowing the European Parliament (EP) to play a much more significant role in legislative processes. Specifically, a ‘co-decision procedure’ was established by which the EP now shares the power to approve or reject laws with the European Council. The area of immigration has been one of these recent additions, and thus nowadays the EP is not merely consulted on immigration matters, but it plays EXCLUSIVE INCLUSION a more active role in the adoption of legal measures designed to address immigration issues. This recent increased importance of the EP goes hand in hand with the explicit acknowledgment by European institutions of the need to establish a common policy on immigration. Thus, article 79 of the Lisbon Treaty states that Downloaded by [Susana Martinez Guillem] at 07:56 16 August 2015 the Union shall develop a common immigration policy aimed at ensuring, at all stages, the efficient management of migration flows, fair treatment of third-country nationals residing legally in Member States, and the prevention of, and enhanced measures to combat, illegal immigration and trafficking in human beings. (European Union, 2007) In this context, the different Communications examined here play a crucial goal in promoting a common view on immigration-related issues that will in its turn inform different policies. The analysis that follows is aimed at discerning the extent to which particular understandings of integration are embedded in the EU’s project for a common immigration policy, as well as the ideological meanings articulated in the notion of integration itself. As Reisigl and Wodak (2009) explain, this kind of analysis is ultimately a critique in three different but interrelated ways: first, it is a ‘discourse-immanent critique’ aimed at identifying internal contradictions, inconsistencies, or dilemmas within a practice; second, it is a ‘socio-diagnostic critique’ that draws on social theory and contextual knowledge in order to point out the ‘manipulative character’ of some discursive practices; and third, it is a ‘prospective critique’ in the sense that it uses the insights gained through immanent and socio-diagnostic critique to ‘contribute to the improvement of communication’ (p. 88). Defining Immigration Our first point of interest when examining these official documents relates to how the concepts of ‘immigration’ and ‘immigrant’ are explicitly defined in the different texts. The 2007 Communication, titled ‘Towards a Common Immigration Policy’, states that: In parallel to immigration from outside the EU, the EU is also experiencing increasing movements of people within its territory. The advantages created by the European Union have stimulated Europeans to move inside its borders, and more and more people are taking advantage of this possibility. These internal movements are fundamentally different from immigration from outside and are not covered in this Communication. (European Commission, 2007, p. 2) The qualifications offered in this document establish a clear distinction between the ‘internal movement’ of European citizens and ‘immigration from outside’. The use of different terminology thus creates a clear distinction between insiders who engage in ‘movement’ and outsider ‘immigration’. Through this metonymic move, the broader term ‘immigration’ is used to refer to the specific phenomenon of non-Europeans entering the EU, which is then constituted as ‘fundamentally different’ from other kinds of human movement. The Communication then proceeds to lay out the proposed foundations for 431 432 SUSANA MARTÍNEZ GUILLEM Downloaded by [Susana Martinez Guillem] at 07:56 16 August 2015 a ‘common immigration policy’ in relation to this particular understanding of what immigration means. Along similar lines, the introductory paragraph of the 2008 Communication from the Commission, titled ‘A Common Immigration Policy for Europe – Principles, Actions and Tools,’ explicitly restricts the meaning of immigration, stating that ‘Today immigration, which for the purpose of this paper refers to nationals from third countries and not to EU citizens, represents around 3.8% of the total population in the EU’ (European Commission, 2008). Moreover, this statistical reference is clarified in a footnote that extends the notion of immigrant population to those who, although they may have been born in the EU, do not hold citizenship of any of the EU member states: The figure of 3.8% refers to the percentage of the EU population who are third-country nationals: It should be noted that many of these are not themselves immigrants but descendants of immigrants who have not taken citizenship of their country of residence. (European Commission, 2008) Immigrants and their descendants who are ‘third-country nationals’ (TCNs) are thus all encompassed in this understanding of immigration. Even though this definitional move is backgrounded in a footnote, I would argue that it carries important implications: it creates a rather fixed, blood-related understanding of the category ‘immigrant’ as inherited and therefore a quality that many children of TCNs will be automatically born with. Thus, a lack of EU citizenship, often passed on to the next generation, becomes the primordial element in this definition of immigrant population, whereas movement – specifically that within EU borders – is not a necessary condition to be considered an immigrant. This situates citizenship as crucial in being perceived as from Europe, but at the same time a very difficult status to attain for TCNs. Moreover, since most of these immigrants are non-white, the association between whiteness and citizenship is reinforced. At the same time, the notion of immigrant emerges as a highly stigmatizing and rather fixed label, both of which are important conditions for racialization (Gilroy, 1987; Lentin & Titley, 2012). The specific understanding of immigration introduced in these documents goes hand in hand with another general characteristic: the consistent articulation of immigration and integration as inseparable terms. Thus, the three Communications examined all highlight the need for immigration and integration policies to go together, and more specifically, the necessity to incorporate integration into the management of immigration in order for it to be ‘successful’. The emphasis on integration is further developed through sections specifically devoted to discuss this issue. Here, all three Communications address the role that integration measures should play in the development of a common immigration policy, as well as its crucial contribution to the future of the EU as a whole. For example, the introductory paragraph of the 2007 Communication states, ‘Any policy of immigration must now go hand in hand with a policy of integration’ (European Commission, 2007, p. 4, original emphasis), thus implicitly linking the notion of immigrant with that of lack of integration – an important point that I develop later on. In subsequent paragraphs, this document specifically discusses what are considered ‘integration challenges’ that need to be addressed, including immigrants’ difficulties to Downloaded by [Susana Martinez Guillem] at 07:56 16 August 2015 EXCLUSIVE INCLUSION access housing, employment, or health benefits. Highlighting similar goals, the title of section II.3 of the 2008 Communication reads: ‘Prosperity and Immigration: Integration is the key to successful immigration’. Here the Commission urges the different member states to develop or implement measures aimed at improving immigrants’ ‘integration into the labour market’, ‘social inclusion’, or ‘antidiscrimination’. In the most recent Communication, adopted in 2011, the Commission also included a section devoted to integration, titled: ‘Building an inclusive society by integrating immigrants’. This document emphasized, among other things, the need for immigrants to ‘have access to employment, education and health systems, as well as to have the socio-economic capacity to support themselves’ (European Commission, 2011). As these examples show, the need to better ‘integrate’ immigrants as a way to manage immigration in general often emerges in these agenda-setting documents as a significant motivation for implementing common EU rules with regard to immigration policy. Thus, ‘integration’ and ‘management’ are discussed together, in the sense that lack of integration is seen as an example of ‘poorly managed migration’, which is to be avoided for economic reasons. As the 2011 Communication states, ‘whereas poorly managed immigration can affect social cohesion and the trust of citizens in an area of free movement without internal borders, well managed migration can be a positive asset for the EU’ (European Commission, 2011). In this context, a unified policy emerges as the most efficient way to achieve this good management: ‘A common immigration policy represents a fundamental priority for the EU if we want to be successful together in harnessing the benefits and addressing the challenges at stake’ (European Commission, 2008). In contrast to a critical assessment of EU policy only in terms of its explicitly punitive aspects, I would argue that the proposed integration/good management practices, even though they may not constitute explicit control measures, have at least two important, indirect, and pervasive effects. First of all, the association of the terms ‘immigration’ and ‘integration’, understood as inevitably linked, clearly positions the discussion of integration primarily in the realm of immigration. Moreover, and keeping in mind the definitional moves outlined earlier, approaching immigration alongside integration specifically places non-European immigrants and their descendants as direct sources of ‘integration challenges’. As Ahmed (2011) explains in her description of the notion of problematic proximities, ‘the repetition of proximity makes the association “essential,” [and] the process of attribution is in turn bound up with the justification of action’ – in the present case, the actions proposed are the different ‘integration measures’. Integration thus becomes a sine qua non for a ‘successful immigration policy’, which is to be understood as inevitably linked to the different processes of integration. Whereas the existence of this relationship in itself is not positive or negative per se, it does point to the need of incorporating analyses of integration discourses into a comprehensive discussion of (EU) immigration policy. In the next section I thus pay specific attention to the ways in which integration in these texts is not treated as an objective, allencompassing ideal for European societies as a whole; instead, it emerges as the necessary process that turns the potentially problematic reality of immigration into a profitable phenomenon that will serve the economic interests of the EU. As a consequence, the notion of ‘integrated immigrants’ emerges as an irresolvable paradox, since the path 433 434 SUSANA MARTÍNEZ GUILLEM toward integration is paved with a series of conditions that, in the end, construct being an immigrant and being ‘integrated’ as mutually exclusive categories. Downloaded by [Susana Martinez Guillem] at 07:56 16 August 2015 Instrumentalizing Immigration Let us then unpack the notion of integration in order to dig deeper into the assumptions embedded in this concept, as well as how these assumptions relate to the particular actors and actions associated with integration. Even though the Communications clearly articulate the need for an integration component within immigration policy, several questions still remain unanswered. For example, why are ‘integration measures’ needed, what exactly will they consist of, who will be responsible for them, and what are the possible consequences if they are not implemented? In order to start digging into these questions, I focus on the functional moves in relation to immigration embedded in these texts. These reveal that, first of all, the Communications present immigrants mostly as sources of economic opportunities and cultural challenges for the EU. Second, the documents attribute a crucial role to integration as a way to maximize what are presented as the potential benefits of immigration. As seen in the previous examples, the communications clearly articulate a dichotomous perspective with regard to the definition of the term ‘immigration’, with people falling into either the ‘immigrant’ or the ‘EU citizen’ category. In contrast, when looking at the different functions attributed to immigration in relation to the EU as a whole, the texts operate within a more nuanced, diunital framework. Thus, a noticeable characteristic of these documents is the description of migration flows as containing both problematic and positive aspects. This ‘both/and’ approach can be seen as the affirmative version of what Barthes (1957/2012) described as ‘neither/norism’, a pervasive and normalizing figure that generates a ‘non-committed, detached, moderate, and non extreme mode of being that is so highly valued in the West’ (Sandoval, 1997, p. 92) and thus allows the EC to present a ‘fair’ face. However, and in spite of these moderate introductory claims, the arguments subsequently developed in the texts systematically introduce a series of what we could call ‘incompatible compatibilities’ aimed at solving the initial tensions associated with immigration. This creates a clear division between the positive aspects of immigration that need to be ‘maximized’, and the negative or challenging aspects that need to be ‘managed’. The most recurrent incompatible compatibility in these documents is based on an initial presentation of immigration as related to both ‘opportunities’ and ‘challenges’ that subsequently turns into an irreconcilable dichotomy. Thus, in the more specific elaborations on the two terms, ‘opportunities’ are systematically associated with the EU economic sphere. ‘Challenges’, on the other hand, are mostly linked to the increasing difficulties in controlling the entrance of undocumented migrants – and the illegal activities that this fosters – as well as, importantly, with ‘the need for integration’. Thus, for example, the Commission’s Communication titled ‘On a Common Immigration Policy’, adopted in 2007, introduces the topic with the following statement: Immigration presents both a challenge and an opportunity for the EU. It has an impact on the economy, society and external relations and against the background of ageing EXCLUSIVE INCLUSION Downloaded by [Susana Martinez Guillem] at 07:56 16 August 2015 European societies and of growing market needs, demand for immigration in the EU is set to increase. Europe looks likely to rely more on immigrants to balance supply and demand in labour markets, and more generally to fuel economic growth. So the economic interest in immigration will add to the complex mix of questions raised by immigration arranging from respect for the rights of the individual and the need for integration, through security and Europe’s relations with immigrants’ countries of origin, and last but not least, the need to tackle illegal immigration. (European Commission, 2007, p. 1, original emphasis) After the initial two-dimensional statement, the ‘interest’ in immigration is linked in this excerpt to economic (labor market needs) and demographic (increased ageing) needs in Europe. In this context, the Communication presents the relationship between immigration and the EU in terms of a ‘demand’, thus positioning immigration as the answer to the need to ‘fuel economic growth’. The opportunities associated with immigration are thus confined to the economic realm, whereas its challenging aspects are connected to illegality, security, and integration, seen as exemplary areas where immigration raises ‘a complex mix of questions’. As this topic is introduced in the Communications, the seemingly counterintuitive association of immigration with notions such as ‘interest’, ‘demand’, or, in general, ‘opportunity’ becomes appropriate when placing its potential benefits ‘against the background of ageing European societies and of growing market needs’. We can see this crucial point further developed in the 2008 Communication, where the positive aspects of immigration are articulated in the following way: In a context of an ageing Europe, the potential contribution of immigration to EU economic performance is significant. Europeans are living longer, the so called ‘baby boom’ generation is nearing retirement and birth rates are low [ … ] According to the latest population projections, by 2060, the working age population of the EU is projected to fall by almost 50 million even with continued net immigration similar to historical levels and by around 110 million without such immigration. Such evolutions present risks for the sustainability of pensions, health and social protection systems and require increased public spending. [ … ] While to a certain extent immigration may help to alleviate the challenges arising from population ageing, it will play a more crucial role in helping to address future labour and skill shortages as well as to increase the EU’s growth potential and prosperity. (European Commission, 2008, original emphasis) Thus, within the larger context of social and economic developments in the EU, seen as a source of a specific set of ‘risks’, immigration appears as a warranty of safety for Europeans, beneficial insofar as it constitutes a way to counteract particular structural issues generated in contemporary Europe. In the catastrophic future landscape depicted by the EC, with a shrinking working age population and an increasing life expectancy, immigration is needed to guarantee defining European assets such as pensions, health, and social protection. In other words, and paradoxically, it is the so-called immigrant population who, with their labor, will secure those same current privileges for EU citizens that they are seen to threaten. Whereas the opportunities associated with immigration are directly linked to the possibilities to maintain the current European economic model, immigrants are also presented as sources of new and different concerns for European states. The EC introduces 435 436 SUSANA MARTÍNEZ GUILLEM Downloaded by [Susana Martinez Guillem] at 07:56 16 August 2015 these concerns as ‘challenges’ that need to be addressed through practices such as ‘fighting illegal immigration’, or assuring ‘integration’. As explained earlier, the 2007 Communication includes a section devoted entirely to ‘integration challenges’. Interestingly enough, addressing these challenges often means that cultural ‘integration’ is presented at best, as inevitably linked, and at worst, as a necessary first step in order to assure the potential economic benefits for the EU. As expressed in the 2007 Communication from the EC: The EU lags behind other main immigration destinations in terms of integration. The potential for significant overall gains from immigration can only be realised if integration is successful [ … ] Effective and efficient integration policies are needed in particular in the areas of education, health, housing and the labour market [ … ]. Last but not least, antidiscrimination and equal rights policies are important for addressing some of the obstacles faced by immigrants and their descendents; in this context, intercultural and inter-faith dialogue needs to be promoted. (European Commission, 2007, p. 8) As seen in this excerpt, the main motivation to engage in practices to facilitate immigrants’ access to ‘education, health, housing and the labour market’ centers on the different opportunities this creates for maximizing the economic benefits of immigration. This superposing of economic needs when addressing immigration does not, in itself, carry negative consequences for immigrants. One may in fact argue that enjoying equal access to labor would be a desirable situation for any newly arrived in the EU – or any other place. However, prioritizing immigrants’ economic contribution does become problematic when it is accompanied by the singling out of a series of ‘cultural’ characteristics that allegedly make some immigrants less suitable to engage in profitable labor, and therefore less desirable. This is exactly the potential effect of splitting the term ‘integration’ – just like the term immigration in the documents discussed earlier – into positive (economic) and challenging (cultural) aspects. What are, then, those ‘cultural’ dimensions that, according to the different communications, integration practices need to address? Do the documents present economic integration as compatible with cultural diversity, or does the singling out of cultural aspects lead to the construction of certain immigrants as dispreferred? In the 2008 Communication from the EC, we find the following illustrative reference: Apart from the economic potential, immigration can also enrich European societies in terms of cultural diversity. However, the positive potential of immigration can only be realised if integration into host societies is successful. This requires an approach which does not only look at the benefit for the host society but takes also account of the interests of the immigrants [ … ] Rising to this challenge poses a complex mix of questions. While access to the labour market is a key path to integration, current figures show that, overall, the unemployment rates for immigrants remain often higher than those for EU nationals although there are great variations between Member States. Furthermore, immigrants are often more exposed to being employed in precarious work, jobs of lower quality or jobs for which they are over-qualified, with the result that their skills are not fully utilised (‘brain waste’). This contributes to making immigrants more likely to undertake undeclared work. Female non-EU migrants face particular difficulties in the labour market. In addition, the language skills of immigrants and the educational path of their children remain often unsatisfactory, raising concerns regarding their EXCLUSIVE INCLUSION Downloaded by [Susana Martinez Guillem] at 07:56 16 August 2015 future personal and professional development. (European Commission, 2008, p. 3, original emphasis) In this excerpt, immigration is, once again, initially presented as holding an economic and cultural ‘positive potential’. After this, the text immediately highlights ‘integration into host societies’ as a necessary step toward the realization of this dual promise. Thus integration does not, in principle, seem to be opposed to cultural diversity, and could even help enhance it by accounting for ‘the interests of the immigrants’. However, the following sentences again frame these ideal goals as mainly a ‘challenge’, due to a series of ‘unsatisfactory’ lacks that prevent immigrants from being fully productive in the economic context of the EU. Thus, the deficient ‘language skills’ or ‘educational path’ of immigrants is seen as getting in the way of full utilization of their capacities, which suggests that the potential enrichment coming from the (diverse) cultural aspects of immigrant identities is subordinated to the need to avoid ‘brain waste’. Integration, therefore, is again understood as a process that can guarantee immigrants’ economic productivity, and in this context, there is no place for cultural enrichment away from this primary goal. Thus, ultimately, the ‘cultural diversity’ initially celebrated in the text ends up legitimizing the economic exclusion of certain groups. Along similar lines, the 2011 Communication from the EC poses that: Integration of legally resident third-country nationals remains a key and sometimes controversial issue. Successful integration is essential for human and cultural reasons. It is also necessary for maximising the economic and social benefits of immigration, for individuals as well as societies [ … ] Every migrant should feel at home in Europe, respecting its laws and values, and should be able to contribute to Europe’s future. Integration requires efforts by the migrant and the receiving society. Migrants must be given the opportunity to participate in their new communities, in particular to learn the language of the receiving country, to have access to employment, education and health systems, as well as to have the socio-economic capacity to support themselves. (European Commission, 2011, p. 13) In this excerpt, ‘integration’ is once again linked to the potential benefits of immigration, this time understood broadly as ‘economic’ and ‘social’, and affecting both ‘individuals’ and ‘societies’. At the same time, ‘integration’ is presented as ‘sometimes controversial’ and as requiring ‘more efforts’ at the ‘EU, national and local levels’, as well as by the ‘migrant and the receiving society’. Host societies, in line with the earlier texts, are presented here as responsible for not only facilitating immigrants’ access to ‘employment, education and health systems’, but also, and importantly, providing the ‘opportunity to participate in their new communities’, by learning the language. The combination of these native ‘efforts’ is supposed to lead to the ultimate purpose of integration, which is for immigrants to have ‘the socio-economic capacity to support themselves’. As I mentioned earlier, this (apparently) purely economic understanding of integration is not necessarily problematic in itself. However, if integration is presented in these general terms, why is it, at the same time, reduced to the sphere of immigration? Is economic self-sufficiency a goal concerning only immigrant groups, or should it 437 438 SUSANA MARTÍNEZ GUILLEM involve the whole of society? Why are some groups singled out as subject to state intervention in order to assure their ‘integration’ and subsequent productivity, and not others? In the last sentences of the earlier excerpt, the Communication discusses immigrants’ possibilities for economic integration as inevitably linked to their supposed (in)capacity to overcome what are presented as cultural barriers, stating that: Downloaded by [Susana Martinez Guillem] at 07:56 16 August 2015 Migrants should become acquainted with the fundamental values of the EU and its Member States in order to understand the culture and traditions of the country they live in. Migrants’ integration implies a balance between enjoying the rights and respecting the laws and cultures of the host countries. (European Commission, 2011, p. 13) This is the association that the ‘balance’ metaphor of ‘enjoying rights’ and ‘respecting laws’ facilitates. Thus, the text clearly posits potentially integratable immigrants as culturally homogeneous immigrants. Respecting the law is thus framed in terms of the ‘fundamental values’, ‘culture’, and ‘traditions’ supposedly shared throughout the EU. As Robert Miles (1993) points out, this demonstrates the important ideological role of the concept of integration in naturalizing the association between immigrant and cultural ‘other’. Thus, if immigrants have to be integrated in a society, then they must first be outside of it. [ … ] The ideological consequence is a legitimation of the notion that immigrants are apart from, or outside, ‘our’ nation state, that they do not ‘belong’. (p. 179) Ultimately, this obscures the racialized nature of the structural determination of exclusion and disadvantage under the capitalist economic model enforced by the EU. It also, importantly, calls attention to the ways in which the economic dimensions of immigration are penetrated by cultural ideas and notions (Hay, Hall, & Grossberg, 2013; see also Bauman, 1999). Racializing Integration The analysis of the three Communications presented earlier exposed that, first of all, immigration and immigrants are clearly defined as non-European and thus placed in a hierarchical order of entitlement to migrate, further accentuated by the introduction of qualifications aimed at distinguishing between high-skilled and low-skilled ‘TCNs’. This process creates a de facto racialization (Garner, 2007) where the vast majority of those with legal permits to work in the EU are seen as white. As Garner explains, restricting immigration from certain countries and groups is not only an EU phenomenon, since all immigration policies use classificatory methods that distinguish between problematic and unproblematic bodies, imposing more conditions on the latter’s entry into national territory and rendering all regimes racialized in some form or another. (Garner, 2007, p. 64) In the case of the EU, those classified as non-European and low skilled clearly face the toughest barriers, whereas, on the other hand, ‘internal movement’ of high-skilled workers is openly favored. But the regulation of immigration, what Garner (2007) calls ‘structural racialization’ and I am calling here exclusive inclusion, or racialized integration, does not only take place through the explicit discrimination against certain groups. As shown throughout Downloaded by [Susana Martinez Guillem] at 07:56 16 August 2015 EXCLUSIVE INCLUSION this analysis, the proposed form and functions of immigration in the EU, together with the specific practices linked to the need for integration measures, create a series of ‘others within’ whose lack of economic and social equality is seen as resulting from a failure to take advantage of integration policies, and not as always already constituted by these policies. This normalizes exclusion and exploitation as a contingent effect, directly proportional to someone’s degree of ‘otherness’, and not as a necessary component of a particular economic system. Rather, cultural integration is separated from and seen as a desirable means in the road toward economic integration, which is unproblematically embraced as a fair assessment of immigrants’ ability to become active participants in their societies. However, in this approach to integration, the specific conditions that, regardless of immigration, make socioeconomic exclusion an inherent characteristic of contemporary EU societies are not recognized. Rather, in the general agenda-setting documents such as the EC’s Communications examined, there is a constant and essential link between integration and immigration that frames the former as exclusively belonging to the realm of the latter. Thus, a common immigration policy is presented as necessary in order to facilitate the entrance of potentially productive immigrants while increasing impediments for those deemed unneeded. As a consequence, the material and immediate incorporation into the capitalist system of millions of racialized Others is erased, thus inevitably relegating them to the margins of EU societies. Conclusions: Accounting for Systematic Exclusion The different discursive moves that accompany beliefs about the inappropriateness of ‘race’ as a way to discuss prejudice and social inequality are well documented in the literature, spanning across all levels of the European public sphere: institutions (Wodak, 2007), political and intellectual organizations (Lentin, 2008), mediated accounts (van der Veer, 2006), or citizens’ everyday talk (van Dijk, 1987). As I hoped to have shown in this analysis, integration discourse is one important site through which racism becomes a ‘function of state, institutional, class-based and individual participation in the legitimation of an established dominant culture’ (Balibar, 1991 p. 91). In this context, ‘integration’ clearly emerges as the middle-ground option filling ‘the semantic space between the politically incorrect “assimilation” and the politically unpalatable “multiculturalism”’ (Calavita, 2005, p. 97). As Lentin and Titley (2012) explain, there is nowadays, across European institutions, a pervasive discourse of ‘correction’, emphasizing the need to compensate for the supposed failures of multiculturalism through integration policies that in many cases presuppose or even demand acculturation. Thus, cultural preconditions have been instigated as dimensions of the turn to integration, [and] the insistence on forced acculturation in integration governance has much to do with the measures being conceived of as undoing the damage of multicultural indulgence. (2011, p. 126) In light of these complex dynamics, this study grew out of what I saw as a need to carefully explore the institutional discourses that accompany the contemporary social 439 Downloaded by [Susana Martinez Guillem] at 07:56 16 August 2015 440 SUSANA MARTÍNEZ GUILLEM and political European landscape, and their connections with material realities such as the consistent presence of migratory flows, and the increase of economic inequalities across the EU. At a broader level, this project sought to recover the impulse for a continued critique of contemporary cultural policy and its defining keywords (Acland, 2013; Williams, 1989) – a move that, I would argue, could enhance a critical/cultural project in discourse studies. As this study showed, digging into the regulation of the position of those constructed as outsider minorities may require an important deconstructive tour through the recurring tropes associated with immigration – such as integration, diversity, or multiculturalism – which in turn are tied to the rise of a racialized notion of culture as difference, and its potential for precluding a much-needed discussion of structural inequalities in contemporary Western societies. Throughout this analysis, I focused on institutional discourses and policies as one important site where the material and symbolic elements of culture are articulated. Specifically, I offered an analysis of three Communications related to immigration policy produced by the EC between 2007 and 2011. My goal was to show how considering the inextricable link between the (perceived as) economic and cultural spheres of society can assist us in the more specific task of conceptualizing inclusion and exclusion practices as mutually constitutive. Overall, a comprehensive approach to integration that accounts for its potential to further exclude certain migrants was shown in this analysis to be hindered by the prioritization, in the texts discussed, of a presumed lack of cultural compatibility that defines those considered ‘immigrants’ and justifies their economic marginalization. In this context, the different measures promoted in the Communications, such as requiring ‘immigrants’ to learn the state’s official language(s), or to endorse a series of ‘core European values’, are naturalized as preconditions for social and economic equality cannot be granted. Integration, as discussed in these texts, becomes a process of drawing attention to cultural characteristics that become salient only when perceived as incompatible with possible material benefits. As a result, the prospect of ‘integrated immigrants’ emerges as an irresolvable paradox that reinforces the myth of a homogeneous European culture – understood as mainly a set of superior values. Integration policies thus end up creating the space that allows for those perceived as not integrated to remain outside of the social and economic core. Ultimately, through this exclusionary construction of particular and essentialized permanent outsiders, the discourse and practices associated with integration reinforce the disassociation of immigration from citizenship and toward inherent, unavoidable marginalization even as they promote the recognition of difference. In the end, the integration ‘efforts’ across the EU members, developed and generously sponsored by European institutions, become one more of the oppressive measures they are supposed to compensate for: they reinforce the impossibility for most undesired immigrants to access the privileged many fundamental rights, which for now remain restricted to those perceived as from Europe and not just in Europe. However, just as the economic landscape is shifting, so too is the ideological one, and groups – in this case nations – whose belonging came naturally once the EU was established may soon become the new outsiders needing to earn their equal status. As EXCLUSIVE INCLUSION Downloaded by [Susana Martinez Guillem] at 07:56 16 August 2015 Krzyżanowski (2010) points out, whatever is meant by a European identity, or a set of common European values, is a constant battleground informed and shaped by sociopolitical realities. Thus, as the current crisis pushes many Southern European countries to the economic periphery, arguments about the fundamental cultural differences between North and South are starting to reemerge across national political spheres. The ambiguous, racializing, and regulating character of ‘integration’ exposed here definitely allows for such conceptual shifts to take place – shifts that will create and target new threatening ‘others’. Far from discouraging us, I would argue that this precarious nature of privilege should push us even more toward a sustained monitoring and critique of excluding inclusion practices. Acknowledgments The author would like to thank the editor and the anonymous reviewers for their encouraging feedback and helpful suggestions. Earlier versions of this paper were presented at the Western States Communication Association annual meeting, February 2014, and the National Communication Association annual meeting, November 2014. Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author. Notes 1. The different documents issued by the European Commission are known as ‘COM documents’. These may include proposals for legislation, working papers, communications with other bodies, and reports such as ‘green papers’ and ‘white papers’. Among all these, the communications are the most wide-ranging, since they are designed to bring a specific topic onto the EU agenda. Because of this important framing function, they also have a more deliberative character than, for example, COM documents that report on a decision already made (Johansson, 2007). However, like most documents produced by European institutions, communications are nonbinding, and thus they have no direct legal consequences for member states, who can choose to take them more or less into consideration according to their particular interests. Significantly, the three communications analyzed here are the only official documents issued by the European Commission where the topic of immigration is introduced in an explicit way – a fact that speaks to the difficulties, in the EU context, of crafting a common position with regard to immigration policy. 2. As described in the EU’s webpage, the EC is independent of national governments. Its job is to represent and uphold the interests of the EU as a whole. It drafts proposals for new European laws, which it presents to the European Parliament and the Council. It is also the EU’s executive arm – in other words, it is responsible for implementing the decisions of Parliament and the Council. That means managing the day-to-day business of the European Union: implementing its policies, running its programmes and spending its funds. (European Commission, 2007) 441 442 SUSANA MARTÍNEZ GUILLEM Downloaded by [Susana Martinez Guillem] at 07:56 16 August 2015 References Acland, C. R. (2013). New Conformism Redux. Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, 10(2-3), 211–215. doi:10.1080/14791420.2013.806127 Adiós a Schengen? [Bye bye Schengen?]. (2011, April 18). El País. Retrieved from http://elpais. com/diario/2011/04/18/opinion/1303077601_850215.html Ahmed, S. (2011). Problematic proximities. Or why critiques of gay imperialism matter. Feminist Legal Studies, 19, 119–132. Balibar, E. (1991). Is there a “neo-racism”? In E. Balibar & I. Wallerstein (Eds.), Race, nation, class: Ambiguous identities (pp. 17–28). London: Verso. Barthes, R., (1957/2012). Mythologies. The complete edition, in a new translation. (R. Howard & A. Lavers, Trans.). New York: Hill & Wang. Bauman, Z. (1999). Theory, culture & society: Culture as praxis. London: Sage Publications. Bell, M. (2009). Racism and equality in the European Union. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Brubaker, R., & Cooper, F., (2000). Beyond Identity. Theory and Society, 29, 1–47. Calavita, K. (2005). Immigrants at the margins. Law, race, and exclusion in southern Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Checkel, J. T., & Katzenstein, P. J. (Eds.). (2009). European identity (pp. 11–29). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cohen, S., Humphries, B., & Mynott, E. (Eds.). (2002). From immigration controls to welfare controls. New York, NY: Routledge. Cué, C. (2013, November 22). Rajoy se pertrecha para mantener las cuchillas de la valla de Melilla. El País. Retrieved from http://politica.elpais.com/politica/2013/11/22/actualidad/ 1385122249_220132.html Delanty, G., Wodak, R., & Jones, P. (2008). Migration, identity, and belonging. Liverpool: University of Liverpool Press. Dell’Olio, F. (2005). The Europeanization of citizenship: Between the ideology of nationality, immigration, and European identity. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing. European Commission. (2007, May 5). Towards a common immigration policy. COM(2007) 780/ final. Communication from the commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Brussels, 1–12. European Commission. (2008, June 17). A common immigration policy for Europe – principles, actions and tools. COM(2008) 359/final. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, 1–19. European Commission. (2011, April 5). Communication on migration. COM(2011) 248/final. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, 1–25. European Commission. (2013). Statement by President Barroso following his visit to Lampedusa. Retrieved from http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-13–792_en.htm European Union. (2007). Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community. Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/JOHtml.do? uri=OJ:C:2007:306:SOM:EN:HTML Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and Power. London: Longman. Downloaded by [Susana Martinez Guillem] at 07:56 16 August 2015 EXCLUSIVE INCLUSION Fekete, L. (2007). Detained: Foreign children in Europe. Race & Class, 49, 93–104. Fekete, L. (2009). A suitable enemy. Racism, migration and islamophobia in Europe. London: Pluto Press. Garner, S. (2007). The European Union and the racialization of immigration, 1985–2006. Race/Ethnicity, 1, 61–87. Gilroy, P. (1987). There ain’t no black in the union jack: The cultural politics of race and nation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Gingrich, A., & Banks, M. (Eds.). (2006). Neo-nationalism in Europe and beyond. Perspectives from social anthropology. New York, NY: Bergham Books. Hall, S. (1996). New ethnicities. In D. Morley & K. Chen (Eds.), Stuart Hall: Critical dialogues (pp. 411–440). London: Routledge. Hall, S. (2011). The neo-liberal revolution. Cultural Studies, 25(6), 705–728. Halualani, R. T. (2011). Abstracting and de-racializing diversity: The articulation of diversity in the post-race era. In M. G. Lacy & K. A. Ono (Eds.), Critical rhetorics of race (pp. 247–264). New York: New York University Press. Hay, J., Hall, S., & Grossberg, L. (2013). Interview with Stuart Hall. Communication and Critical/ Cultural Studies, 10(1), 10–33. Johansson, J. (2007). Learning to be (come) a good European: A critical analysis of the official European Union discourse on European identity and higher education. Linköping: LiU Press. Krzyżanowski, M. (2010). The discursive construction of European identities: A multi-level approach to discourse and identity in the transforming European Union. Bern: Peter Lang. Lahav, G. (2004). Immigration and politics in the new Europe: Reinventing borders. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Lentin, A. (2008). After anti-racism? European Journal of Cultural Studies, 11, 311–331. Lentin, A., & Titley, G. (2012). The crisis of ’multiculturalism’ in Europe: Mediated minarets, intolerable subjects. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 15, 123–138. Martínez Guillem, S. (2011). European identity: Across which lines? Defining Europe through public discourses on the Roma. Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, 4(1), 23–41. Martínez Guillem, S. (2013). Constructing contexts, (re)defining immigrants: Mental models and social representations in immigration policy defense. Discourse & Society, 24, 208–228. Meichtry, S. (2011, April 8). France resurrects border with Italy. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704630004576249120727824628.html Miles, R. (1993). Racism after ’race relations’. London: Routledge. Miles, R., & Thrändhart, D. (Eds.). (1995). Migration and European integration: The dynamics of inclusion and exclusion. London: Pinter. Mitchell, M., & Russell, D. (1996). Immigration, citizenship and the nation-state in the new Europe. In B. Jenkins & S. Sofos (Eds.), Nation and identity in contemporary Europe (pp. 50–76). London: Routledge. Mynott, E. (2002). Nationalism, racism and immigration control. From anti-racism to anti capitalism. In S. Cohen, B. Humphries, & E. Mynott (Eds.), From immigration controls to welfare controls (pp. 11–29). New York, NY: Routledge. Reisigl, M., & Wodak, R. (2009). The discourse-historical approach (DHA). In R. Wodak, & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods for Critical Discourse Analysis (2nd revised edition, pp. 87–121). London: Sage. 443 Downloaded by [Susana Martinez Guillem] at 07:56 16 August 2015 444 SUSANA MARTÍNEZ GUILLEM Sandoval, C. (1997). Theorizing white consciousness for a post-empire world: Barthes, Fanon, and the rhetoric of love. In R. Frankenberg (Ed.), Displacing whiteness: Essays in social and cultural criticism (pp. 86–107). Durham, NC: Duke UP. Shome, R. (2012). Mapping the limits of multiculturalism in the context of globalization. International Journal of Communication, 6, 144–165. Short, V. (2013, November 29). Spanish government strengthens anti-migrant border fence. World Socialist Website. Retrieved from https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/11/29/morrn29.html Sivanandan, A. (2001, August 17). Poverty is the New Black. The Guardian. van der Veer, P. (2006). Pim Fortuyn, Theo van Gogh, and the Politics of Tolerance in the Netherlands, Public Culture, 18(1), 111–125. van Dijk, T. A. (1987). Communicating racism. Ethnic prejudice in thought and talk. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Wacquant, L. (2008). Extirpate and expel: On the penal management of postcolonial migrants in the European Union. Race/Ethnicity: Multidisciplinary Global Perspectives, 2, 45–52. Williams, R. (1958). Culture and society. London: Chatto & Windus. Williams, R. (1989). The future of cultural studies. In T. Pinkney (Ed.), The politics of modernism: Against the new conformists (pp. 151–162). London: Verso. Wodak, R. (2007). Discourses in European Union organizations. Aspects of access, participation, and exclusion. Text & Talk, 27, 655–680. Susana Martínez Guillem is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication & Journalism at the University of New Mexico, USA. Her research interests are in cultural studies and critical discourse studies, focusing mainly on rhetorics of immigration, race, and racism in the European Union and the United States. Her work has appeared in several internationally recognized journals, including Discourse & Society, Journal of Intercultural and Intercultural Communication, Critical Studies in Media Communication, and European Journal of Cultural Studies. E-mail: susanam@unm.edu