Search

Global migration has revived questions of collective identity. As George Orwell once said: “It is only when you meet someone of a different culture from yourself that you begin to realize what your own beliefs really are”. Naturalization policies (re)construct collective identities by telling a narrative about who “we” are and deriving from it the qualities that “we” value in “others”.

In recent years, liberal democracies have implemented a variety of “cultural-defense means”, directing immigrants to embrace the narratives of the host society. This issue is a bone of contention especially in the European Union, where leading officials in some Member States declare a right to impose immigration restrictions to supposedly defend their collective identity.

Minority-majority tensions are among the most pressing issues of our time and a key factor in the rise of populism. The reemergence of majority nationalism raises new concerns over the tyranny of the majority. At the same time, fears over the erosion of majority groups’ cultural identity appear as a result of global migration. This calls for a reexamination of fundamental assumptions in liberal political theory and the meaning of nationhood in a globalized world.

On December 19, 2018, the U.N. General Assembly endorsed the Global Compact for Migration (GCM), a non-binding agreement approved in a historical moment in Marrakech on 10 December by 164 Member States. The GCM is the first time in which the international community has widely agreed on how to address the global migration challenge. The topic of citizenship, however, has been left outside of the GCM and remains the last stronghold of national sovereignty, which seems to need no international regulation. Is this assumption still politically valid, or is the world ready for a Global Compact on Citizenship?

With close to 250 million international migrants, and almost 65 million refugees and displaced people, the topic of newcomer integration has become one of the most pressing issues of our time. Private individuals and organizations in the receiving countries have helped refugees in different ways, yet their actions have often been considered goodwill — voluntarism, charity, and philanthropic initiatives — rather than an individual responsibility. What should be the role of individuals in newcomer integration? Is there an individual responsibility and what could it demand from individual agents?