Politici de integrare a migranţilor

Who is afraid of immigrants?
Social predictors of fear of immigrants in Europe

SEBASTIAN NĂSTUŢĂ
[„Petre Andrei” University of Iași]

ANCUŢA-DANIELA TOMPEA
[„Petre Andrei” University of Iași]

Abstract:
Starting from the assumption that „fear” or „the threat feeling” felt on immigrants as a group is a strong predictor of negative reaction and actions against these out-groups we are trying to identify in this paper the social predictors of these feelings. If most studies on anti-immigrant attitudes are oriented mainly to economic effects, city or municipality effects we included in our analysis not only the clasical variable like education, income, age, gender, professional status, citizenship as in previous studies, but also the religious affiliation and immigration descendence. Starting from EVS 2008 data we obtained results that confirms other studies and also we identified the positive strong effect of religious denomination on immigration threat feelings.

Keywords: group threat; immigration phobia; xenophobia; prejudice

Introduction

In a world of globalization, in a multicultural, multi-ethnic and plural Europe the problem of interaction and dialogue between majorities and minorities become more and more important from a social policy perspective¹ but also for sociologists, psychologists and political scientist who are confronted with new phenomena like xenophobia, islamophobia, homophobia, the rise of nationalists and right-wing movements. In a secularized, rationalist and profit-oriented Europe these social reaction could sound quite strange.

On the other hand if we have in mind that at the onset of the 21st century, nearly 200 million people, about 3 percent of the global population, were international migrants we can understand the magnitude of this global phenonenon and its social consequences. Thirty years ago, the figure stood at 85 million (2.1 percent), and 230 million are projected for 2030. In 2008, around 100 million were labor migrants, 13 million were refugees registered with United Nations (UN) agencies, and the others are family members or students.²

As a result, xenophobic and racist beliefs and attitudes are still widespread today. According to Eurobarometer data presented in EUMC (2001), 15% of European Union citizens felt ‘personally disturbed’ by the ‘presence of people of another race’ in their daily lives. Moreover, during the past two decades, xenophobic parties – such as the French Front National, the Austrian Freedom Party, among several others – have emerged and obtained political leverage in several West European countries.³

Although these xenophobic attitudes exist we can observe a dominant anti-discriminatory ideology in the democratic countries and a significant improvements in intergroup relations in the last fifty years. New forms of prejudice and discrimination appear and are described with a variety of terms including modern racism, color-blind racism, and symbolic racism. These are obvious in the existing segregated neighborhoods or segregated schools where people do not feel discriminated anymore.⁴ In consequence the „new migration”, the „new xenophobia” or the „new racism” are characterized by contemporary atributes. If we compare the migration flows from the beginning of the 20st century with the contemporary flows we can identify some important differences:
• immigrants today are, in significant numbers, people of color, whereas those at the turn of the century were, in the main, phenotypically white.⁵
• instead of the „classical immigrants” gradually shifting their orientation from the home to the host country, modern immigrants are supposed to remain oriented to the home culture being transnationals, not immigrants.⁶
• there are not just persons as ‘migrants’, but rather a wide range of people exhibiting different forms of mobility that constitute different types of migration streams⁷ (professional or business oriented).
• the diversification of migration has generated a situation characterized by Vertovec (2006) as ‘super-diversity’, with a complex and diverse array of ethnicities, countries of origin, immigration statuses, labour market experiences, gender and age profiles and spatial settlement patterns among the migrant population. In particular, there is an increasing differentiation of experiences between established ethnic minority communities, with migration histories stretching back a few generations, and the various groups of ‘new migrants’ with more recent histories of migration thus challenging a dichotomous majority/minority model of ethnic or racial relations.⁸

In consequence, the feelings people manifests on immigrants are mixed and influenced by contextual or local factors or by mass-media views and the immigrants are now treated as the hybrid strangers.

Economic globalization has undermined the livelihood of certain Australian regions and their populations, which has fuelled fear and insecurity in relation to those strangers who threaten national homogeneity and job security. On the other hand, the effects of globalization, in particular the global movement of labour and neoliberal policies, have resulted in a strong economy that has left the beneficiaries more open towards immigrants and more financially secure. An ambivalent attitude exists toward the hybrid stranger, because the hybrid stranger both threatens and blurs cultural boundaries.⁹

This ambivalent reaction, of rejection and acceptance, seems to be the feeling most people has about the „new commers” or about the potential immigrants. The differences are induced by predictors like social status, educational level, income level, sex, religious affiliation that make citizens to feel much or less threatened by the presence of immigrants. The real or hypothetical presence creates a perception of migrant characteristics and a fear feeling or threat feeling that, in some cases, could generate hostility.

Fear feelings on immigrants

These social processes are normal if take into account that Allport argued in 1979 the human being has a natural propensity toward prejudice. Prejudicial¹⁰ views result quite easily from an interaction of three factors: our tendency toward ethnocentrism, our lack of meaningfull group contacts, and our inclination to organize informations into predeveloped categories. Prejudices¹¹ are irrational, faulty, and not grounded in reality and are defined typically as negative attitudes toward individuals who are members of a particular group or toward a group as a whole.¹² We can observe these in the next two examples.

First, we should remember that the New Yorkers of eastern and southern European ancestry which are considered today fully and unquestionably white had a different status at the turn of the 20th century. There was considerable prejudice against Jews and Italians, and, to a surprising degree, it was expressed in racial terms.¹³ Anti-immigrant activity began to arise in the United States in the mid-nineteenth century, first against Catholics (Irish and Germans; then against Asians (Chinese, Japanese and Filipinos) and then against all increasing immigrant flow.¹⁴

Second, there are situations of overstated anti-migratory discourse acceptance in places where the majority’s demographic trends were superior to those of the new commers or disproportionate perception of immigrant’s number.

This exaggeration of migration scale and imputed threats to sovereignty and security no matter how marginal their numbers in proportion to the incumbent population size.¹⁵ Based on data from European Social Survey 2002/2003 Zan Strabac clearly indicated that „as a rule Western Europeans think that the immigrant population in their countries is much larger that it actually is”.¹⁶

These examples clearly indicate that social representations, prejudices and stereotypes are determined by social factors as those mentioned before. Such a prejudice is the „fear feeling felt on the immigrants from countries” which is our topic of interest in this paper.

Studies on German youth found that threat was a more powerful predictor of political xenophobia than right-wing extremism.¹⁷ Recent studies on anti-immigrant attitudes found that ethnic threat perceptions are a core explanatory variable for a wide set of anti-immigrant attitudes, e.g. resistance to immigrants and refugees, nationalism and chauvinism.¹⁸ These facts convinced us about the importance of analysing threat feeling predictors.

Data and analysis

There are thousands of written pages about prejudice, discrimination, stereotypes or xenophobia in social psychology and sociology. These processes are extremely complex and, due to their sensitivity, should be carefully treated. Our article approach a very narrow topic: the social predictors of „fear feeling” or the „immigrant threat” felt by europeans or how the immigrationthreat differs amongst individuals and between societies.

We can consider this as an intermediate stage between the social perception or representation of immigrants and prejudiced reaction like antilocution, avoidance and discrimination.

Table 1.
Predictors of immigration threat feelings. Strandard multiple regression analysis.

* The dependent variable is „Felt threat on immigrants” (1 – 10 scale).
** The dependent variable is „Immigrants take away jobs from (nationality)” (1 - 10). ¹⁹

We are less interested in this paper by stereotyping or prejudices mechanisms, or on how Europeans perceive different ethnic groups or other minorities. Our focus is the „fear feeling felt on immigrant” and measured on a subsample of 41.894 respondents from the 4th wave²⁰ of European Values Study.

Our analysis consists on four standard multiple regression models. The dependent variables are „Felt threat on immigrants”²¹ in the Models 1 - 3 and „Immigrants take away jobs from natives” (variable Q78.A. from the EVS 2008 master questionairre) in Model 4.

As predictors we first tested the classical socio-demographic variables like age, gender, income level, educational level and employment status.²² The second category of predictors was the religious affiliation of a person²³ and the last category of variables refers to contextual aspects.²⁴ Mixing these variables, we created four standard (simultaneous) multiple regression models that explain 6,2%, 5,9%, 5,7% and 8,2% of the criterion variation. This standard method provides a full model solution in that all the predictors are part of it.

Summary and discussion

The concept of immigration phobia implies that attributes of demographic, political, and socioeconomic contexts of migration get systematically filtered through a discrete perceptual logic that makes threat „exaggerated,” „disabling,” „illogical,” and „symbolic” across diverse settings, albeit with varying intensity.²⁵

Education and immigration threat feelings
This classic variable has been shown repeatedly across space and time to correlate negatively with anti-immigrant attitudes is the education that often has a liberalizing effect on people’s minds.In terms of group threat theory, highly educated people are predicted to feel less threatened by a large minority.²⁶ Most empirical studies show higher prejudices among lower educated individuals.²⁷

Our results clearly confirm these findings. In our model the „lower educational” has a positive significant effect on both criterions [M1: ß = +0,324 (p=0,000); M2: ß = +0,263 (p=0,000); M3: ß = +0,305 (p=0,000); M4: ß = +0,442 (p=0,000)] while the „higher education” has stronger (almost double) but negative effect in all cases [M1: ß = - 0,530 (p=0,000); M2: ß = - 0,514 (p=0,000); M3: ß = - 0,492 (p=0,000); M4: ß = - 0,64 (p=0,000)].

Age and immigration threat feelings
The effect of age on anti-immigrant attitudes has been demonstrated in cross-comparative research. Older people generally display higher levels of anti-immigrant attitudes, although the reasons are not conclusive because of the lack of studies separating life-cycle from cohort and period effects.²⁸ If we use the age as continuous variable its effect is very weak but significant (ß ≤ 0,009) and is non significant in Model 4. The dummy coded variable „young person (≤ 29 year)” has a negative significant effect on the „Felt threat on immigrants” [ß = -0,129(p=0,000)]. The explanation seems to be simple if we have in mind that youths are less pressed by the economic or cultural competition of potential immigrants.

Gender and immigration threat feelings
Few but the classic studies (Adorno et al., 1982 [1950]) have attempted to explain why sex should have an effect on anti-immigrant attitudes. Many recent studies simply conclude that gender is of little or no importance in explaining anti-immigrant attitudes. However, in terms of group threat, women are predicted to be less threatened than men, as their labour market situation is less exposed to competition due to the gender division of work²⁹. Also, women tends to exhibit lower levels of xenophobia then men.³⁰ Our analysis confirms this because the „male” variable has a significant pozitive effect on „threat feeling”.

In model 4 there is no significant gender difference which indicate that in 2008 - 2009 when the data were collected there was no clear difference if you consider the possibility of loosing your job because these are taken by immigrants. But males are still more threatened by immigrants.

Income, working-status and immigration threat feelings
Income is negatively related to exclusionary at­titudes towards low status immigrant groups, but positively to what are seen as higher status immigrants.³¹ The lack of resources increases the perception of possible competitor. In our models, if a person has „higher income level” he feels less threatened by immigrants. The negative effect it’s stronger if they consider the idea that immigrants will take native’s jobs.

The „self-employed” people from our sample manifests decreased anti-immigrant attitudes, due to their financial stability, while those „who are not working” (retired, unemployed, other cases) have an increased threat feeling, as they are more vulnerable to immigrant’s competition.

In the last model we included as predictor the variable „Ex-communist country”³² that has a positive significant strong effect (ß = +0,572) on the dependent variable. Clearly, the explanation is the economic structural instability from these countries who witnessed, in the last decade, many emigration flows to Westest countries.

This finding conforms with studies by other researchers demonstrating that people of low socioeconomic status are most susceptible to the perception of out-groups as a competitive threat.³³

Citizenship and etnocentrism
By far, the strongest predictor from our models is „Citizen of [country]” having unstandardized coefficients as +1,007 (p = 0,000) and more. This seems to be a proof that ethnocentrism is at the heart of prejudice and discrimination toward out-groups.³⁴ In analyzing this predictor we should consider also the significant negative effect on „Felt threat on immigrants” and „Immigrants take away jobs from natives” of the predictor „One or both parents are immigrants”. Collapsed from two variables („Father born abroad” and „Mother born abroad”) this variable has a significant consistent negative effect on criterions [M1: ß = - 0,37 (p=0,000); M2: ß = - 0,352 (p=0,000); M3: ß = - 0,359 (p=0,000); M4: ß = - 0,524 (p=0,000)].

Interpreted together the coefficients for „Citizen of [country]” and „One or both parents are immigrants” support other studies that indicate that people discriminate naturally and unintentionally those people who are different. As differences are more visible the discrimination and threat feeling is bigger. We can see in the article „Belonging and Entitlement: Shifting Discourses of Difference in Multiethnic Neighbourhoods in the UK” that inside an immigrant community or neighbourhoods those who are older migrants discriminate the new commers.

White British and Black Caribbean residents from the previous mentioned study narrated themselves as a longstanding and entitled community based on their work ethic or understandings of respectability, from which recent migrant groups were excluded. ³⁵ The experiences of established ethnic minorities – notwithstanding their ongoing disadvantage – differ from recent migrant groups in terms of citizenship status and the rights that this confers, and the kinds of claims to recognition that they have been able to make on the (local and national) state.³⁶ In our study, although people who have immigrants parent(s) feel the competition of the new wave of immigrants, this feeling is atenuated by their own experience and solidarity with other immigrants.

Urban anti-immigrants reactions?
Traditionally, migration is an urban phenomenon. The cities and metopolitan areas are attraction poles for internal and international migration. The diversity and the cultural melting-pot of an urban area make people who live in cities bigger than 500.000 people to feel less threatened by immigrants. In our study the „medium and big city” effect on threat immigration perception is significant and negative.

That conclusion apparently contradicts other theoretical findings. For example, Quillian (1995) shows that GDP interacts with the proportion of immigrants to produce anti-minority prejudice in Europe. The less the majority feel that their jobs are in jeopardy, the more likely they are to be in favour of, or at least not against, increased levels of immigration.³⁷

Religion and immigration threat feelings
Especially after 9/11 events the Muslims are becoming the main targets of racist discourse. Due to their number, fertility rate, visibility, skin colour and specific fashion they are perceived now as the main threat to Western cultural identity. The undesirable xenophobic and anti-semitic attitudes are now replaced by Islamophobia.³⁸

As with parallel concepts such as homophobia or xenophobia, Islamophobia connotes a broader set of negative attitudes and emotions directed at individuals or groups because of their perceived membership in a defined category. Viewed in this way, Islamophobia is also analogous to terms such as racism, sexism, or anti-Semitism.³⁹

Having these premises in mind we tested in our regression models if someone’s religious affiliation has an impact on his „felt threat on immigrants”. And we found that Romano - Catholic and Christian-Orthodox affiliation had strong positive effects on criterion, almost double if we compare with Protestant affiliation.

The perception of „non-Christian threat” of the muslims or asian religions could be a possible explanation. As people assumes a religious apartenence even if he is not a practicant he naturally marks the difference between „Us” and „They”.⁴⁰ Although it is positive the Protestant affiliation should be analysed in-depth because the label „Protestant” covers, in European Values Study, many different religious traditions.

If we analyse the effects on „jobs threatening” we can observe it is negative for Protestants. We consider that’s a country effect because most Protestants live in countries with strong economies and as Quillian (1995) shows the GDP interacts with the proportion of immigrants⁴¹ and decrease the felt threatening. The reversed process is identified for Christian-Orthodox who are, most of them, from ex-communist countries with a low GDP.

Conclusion

If most studies on anti-immigrant attitudes are oriented mainly to economic effects, city or municipality effects we included in our analysis not only the clasical variable like education, income, age, gender, professional status, citizenship as in previous studies, but also the religious affiliation and immigration descendence. Other studies on immigrant threat feeling are using databases like European Social Survey (ESS)⁴²⁴³ or International Social Survey Programme (ISSP).⁴⁴ Starting from European Values Study 4th wave data we obtained results that confirm other previous studies and also identified the positive strong effect of religious denomination on anti-immigration attitudes.

Bibliography
Alexseev, Mikhail A., Immigration phobia and the security dilemma: Russia, Europe, and the United States (Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006).
Amersfoort, Hans van, „Immigration”, în Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology. Ritzer, George (ed). Blackwell Publishing, 2007. Blackwell Reference Online, 24 October 2007,
Bleich, Erik, What Is Islamophobia and How Much Is There? Theorizing and Measuring an Emerging Comparative Concept, American Behavioral Scientist2011 55(12) 1581 – 1600.
Brown, Susan K. and Frank D. Bean. „Immigration Policy.” Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology. Ritzer, George (editor). Blackwell Publishing, 2007. Blackwell Reference Online, 24 October 2007,
Düvell, Franck, „Global migration”, în Encyclopedia of social problems - volume 2, Vincent N. Parrillo (editor), (Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publication, 2008, pp. 582 - 585.
Fennelly, Katherine, „Local Responses to Immigrants in the Midwestern United States”, în Bo Petersson, Katharine Tyler (editori), Majority Cultures and the Everyday Politics of Ethnic Difference Whose House is This? (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008), pp. 94 - 113.
Foner, Nancy, From Ellis Island to JFK : New York’s two great waves of immigration, New Haven and London : Yale University Press, 2000.
Healey, Joseph F., Diversity and society: race, ethnicity, and gender 3rd edition (Thousand Oaks, California, Pine Forge Press, 2009).
Hjerm, Mikael, „What the Future May Bring. Xenophobia among Swedish Adolescents”, Acta Sociologica, December 2005, Vol 48(4): 292–307.
Hjerm, Mikael, „Anti-Immigrant Attitudes and Cross-municipal Variation in the Proportion of Immigrants”, Acta Sociologica, March 2009, Vol 52(1): 47–62.
Küpper, Beate, Wolf, Carina, Zick, Andreas, „Social Status and Anti-Immigrant Attitudes in Europe: An Examination from the Perspective of Social Dominance Theory”, International Journal of Conflict and Violence: Vol. 4 (2) 2010, pp. 205 – 219.
Monteith, Margo J., „Prejudice”, în Alan E. Kazdin (coordonator), Encyclopedia of Psychology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 278 - 281.
Pietsch, Juliet, Marotta, Vince, „Bauman, strangerhood and attitudes towards immigrants among the Australian population”, în Journal of Sociology 2009 Volume 45(2): 187–200.
Ponterotto, Joseph G., Utsey, Shawn O., Pedersen, Paul B., Preventing prejudice: a guide for counselors, educators, and parents 2nd edition (Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, 2006).
Rydgren, Jens, „The Logic of Xenophobia”, Rationality and Society Vol. 16(2): 123–148.
Ray, Kathryn, Hudson, Maria, Phillips, Joan, „Belonging and Entitlement: Shifting Discourses of Difference in Multiethnic Neighbourhoods in the UK”, în Bo Petersson, Katharine Tyler (editori), Majority Cultures and the Everyday Politics of Ethnic Difference Whose House is This? (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008), pp. 114 - 135.
Salt, John, „Managing new migrations in Europe: Concept and reality in the ICT sector”, în Corrado Bonifazi, Marek Okolski, Jeannette Schoorl, Patrick Simon (editori), International Migration in Europe. New Trends and New Methods of Analysis, (Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Press, 2008), pp. 19 - 34.
Schneider, Silke L., „Anti-Immigrant Attitudes in Europe: Outgroup Size and Perceived Ethnic Threat”, European Sociological Review VOLUME 24 NUMBER 1, 2008: 53–67.
Strabac, Zan, „It is the eyes and not the size that matter. The real and the perceived size of immigrant populations and anti-immigrant prejudice in Western Europe”, European Societies Vol 13 (4) 2011: 559 - 582.

SEBASTIAN NĂSTUŢĂ– Lect.univ.dr.în cadrul Facultăţii de Asistenţă socială şi sociologie din cadrul Universităţii Petre Andrei din Iaşi.

ANCUŢA-DANIELA TOMPEA– Conf.univ.dr., este decan al Facultăţii de Asistenţă socială şi sociologie din cadrul Universităţii Petre Andrei din Iaşi.

 sus