Klára ANTESBERGER & Emese SCHILLER & Helga DORNER

Language Integration of Adult Immigrants in the EU in the Context of Policy Measures

Introduction

According to data from Eurostat, as of January 1, 2023, there were 27.3 million citizens of non-EU countries residing in the European Union, representing 6.1% of the total EU population. In addition, 13.9 million persons living in one of the EU Member States on 1 January 2023 were citizens of another EU Member State. The four EU countries with the largest numbers of non-nationals are Germany (12.3 million), Spain (6.1 million), France (5.6 million), and Italy (5.1 million), collectively representing 70.6% of the total non-national population in the EU1 (Migration and migrant population statistics - Statistics Explained (europa.eu)).

Table 1: Migrant Population in the European Union

(Source: Migration and migrant population statistics - Statistics Explained (europa.eu)2)

For immigrants´ social and cultural integration, a good knowledge of the host country´s language is among the most important factors. This is also important for socioeconomic success in education and the labor market (Dustmann and van Soest 2002), as, for example, immigrants' language skills in the receiving country positively impact their labor market integration and their earnings (Dustmann & van Soest, 2001). Therefore, learning the language of the receiving country is necessary for immigrants to achieve full integration, which means that they become equal to the country's citizens regarding rights, duties, or opportunities (Sezer, 2010).

It may also be in the interest of the host country to support the integration of immigrants into the labor market, partly because they represent a human resource for the economy (Dustmann & Fabbri, 2003).

It is therefore not surprising that language learning and teaching have been a priority for EU Member States from the outset. The Council of Europe has been supporting linguistic diversity and language learning through the European Cultural Convention since 1954. Their goal is not only to support language learning but also to safeguard and strengthen language rights, mutual understanding, democratic citizenship, and social cohesion (Trim, 2018). Accordingly, the importance and usefulness of promoting learner autonomy have been also recognized since the 1970s as an important prerequisite for lifelong learning.

Since 2016, the European Union has had an action plan3 for social inclusion. However, national action plans and strategies for the integration of immigrants vary widely between member states (Vareikyté, 2020). In 2007, 2009, 2013, and 2018, the Council of Europe commissioned reports4 on the linguistic integration of immigrant adults, with the participation of 40 countries (out of 47 member states). These reports assessed the expectations of immigrants and their learning opportunities.

Among the main findings of the reports is that, as part of their migration and integration policies, more and more Council of Europe member states have established formal language and civic knowledge requirements since the early 2000s. Most member states impose formal language and civic knowledge requirements in case immigrants want to apply for citizenship. Every second member state requires migrants to fulfill these requirements for residency - one-third of them even before entry. However, in the language proficiency level which is required, there are big differences between member states. Other problematic issues in many member states are that the tests' quality was not controlled appropriately and vulnerable groups (for example, learners with low literacy levels, minors, and refugees) also have to take the tests, even if their impact on them is very rarely investigated. Language learning opportunities for migrants are offered in almost every member state, but the number of hours provided is different and - especially for vulnerable groups - very often insufficient.

It would be highly advantageous for migrants to be able to learn the language of the host country not only to gain basic communication skills but also to develop their language abilities autonomously. The promotion of autonomous language learning for adult migrants represents a significant area of research and practice in the context of integration policies. There is an increasing acknowledgment that autonomous learning is pivotal for the long-term language development of adult migrants. The Council of Europe posits that "once teaching stops, further learning must be autonomous" and that autonomous learning should be advanced as an indispensable component of language learning (Little, 2012, p. 8). In accordance with this, information and communication technologies (ICT) are increasingly regarded as instruments to facilitate autonomous learning among adult migrants, exemplified by ICT-based language course delivery. Information and communication technologies (ICT) can facilitate access to learning resources beyond the confines of formal classroom settings, thereby supporting the continued autonomous learning process (Kluzer et al., 2011). Furthermore, recent research has delved into the implementation of learner-centered education in language programs designed for adult migrants. This approach strives to empower learners to ascertain their own learning needs and goals, in alignment with the tenets of autonomous learning (Gravani et al., 2024).

The adult migrant population is characterized by significant heterogeneity, encompassing a wide range of needs, goals, and backgrounds. The diversity of this group presents challenges for language education policies, necessitating flexible approaches that can support autonomous learning (Kluzer et al., 2011). The concept of autonomous language learning is regarded as a means of facilitating the attainment of broader integration objectives. Research indicates that language proficiency acquired through autonomous learning can facilitate migrants' integration in several areas of their lives, including employment and social interactions (Little, 2012; Gravani et al., 2024). Researchers and policymakers are increasingly recognizing the importance of promoting autonomous learning within the framework of integration policies, as it can support long-term language development and broader integration goals for adult migrants. This paper aims to examine the relationship between linguistic integration in the context of policy measures and the success of integration in the European context.

The Study

Research Design and Methodology

The research is based on a secondary analysis of data from the following sources: MIPEX5 (Solano & Huddleston, 2020) and descriptions (N=27) of policy measures on the European Website on Integration6 (EWSI) which is an initiative of the European Commission.

Main Research Questions

• RQ1: What are the common characteristics of measures of countries most successful in integrating immigrants?

• RQ2: What are the differences in the investigated host countries' policies regarding linguistic integration?

Methods

We conducted the secondary analysis of MIPEX7 (Solano & Huddleston, 2020). MIPEX considers 56 countries around the world and examines 3 dimensions that are crucial to the integration of migrants. These are basic rights, equal opportunities, and a secure future. The dimension of basic rights, for example, raises the question of whether immigrants can enjoy rights like citizens. In other words, do citizens enjoy the same rights as immigrants?

The investigation of the dimension of equal opportunities tries to answer the question of whether immigrants can be supported to enjoy opportunities like those of nationals. Meaning, are they entitled to equal opportunities with nationals (for example, do they receive specific assistance in health, education, or political participation)?

Examining the dimension of a secure future aims to determine whether immigrants can settle in the country and feel secure in the long term. Important issues in this context are family reunification, permanent residence, and access to citizenship.

The eight areas of policy covered are access to citizenship, anti-discrimination, education, family reunification, health, labor market mobility, permanent place of residence, and political participation. The indicators in each area were chosen after interviews and/or email exchanges between the MIPEX team and leading experts on integration policies. At least one national expert per country completed the questionnaires.

Table 2 shows how the MIPEX survey groups the EU member states and how many points each of them receives.

Table 2: MIPEX Scores of Member States of the EU

Source: https://mipex.eu/

The experts' responses were reviewed by the MIPEX team to make sure that the country experts answered them consistently, the same way as in other countries. The questions were also double-checked against publicly available data and legal texts. Finally, the MIPEX team reviewed the questionnaires for all the countries. If there were doubts, researchers went back to the country expert and asked for further information.

The MIPEX score can be used therefore, due to its careful preparation, as a trustworthy source for assessing the success of countries in integrating migrants. As mentioned before, there is an indicator for "education", but this does not include language education for immigrants. Therefore, the present research can provide a new perspective on successful integration by linking successful integration to host country policies related to language integration.

The source of integration policy measures is the descriptions of the country policies on the European Website on Integration created by so-called Country Coordinators. They are experts from the 27 EU countries with experience in the field of integration. As all country policy descriptions have the same structure (Statistics, Integration Strategy, Integration Programme, Evaluation, Legislation, Public Authorities, Civil Society, and Funding) they can be easily compared with each other.

These policy descriptions contain both qualitative and quantitative data, and for this reason, we used a mixed-mode inquiry. Our analysis proceeded in 2 steps.

Initially, employing the Microsoft 365 Excel program, we generated graphs to assess the quantitative data within the policy descriptions. The analysis encompassed various measurements, including the number of immigrants, the percentage of the country's population represented by immigrants, and the distinction between immigrants from within the EU and those originating from outside the EU. This examination revealed substantial disparities among EU member states in the challenges they encounter concerning immigrant integration.

Figure 1: Share of Non-nationals in the Resident Population in EU Member States

Source: (Kraszewska et al., 20208)

The perceived language barrier of immigrants highly depends on their country of origin and how different the language of the receiving country is from the language that the immigrant already speaks. For example, when the language of the receiving country is the same as the native language of the immigrant (e.g., Brazilian immigrants in Portugal), the language barrier is smaller than in the case of e.g., Arabic-speaking immigrants in Germany.

Hence, as a second step, we selected for further analysis those countries (N=6) that face above-average challenges but still have above-average MIPEX scores.

For this reason, we have not included Portugal, with many immigrants from Brazil (the common language is Portuguese). We have also excluded Belgium and France, with many immigrants from a country where French is the common language. We have also excluded Ireland because of the large number of immigrants from the UK, India, and the USA, where the common language is English. Nor have we included the Netherlands, because many immigrants come from the Republic of Suriname and the Netherlands Antilles, where Dutch is the official language. In Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, most immigrants come from the former Soviet Union, and in Croatia and Slovenia from the former Yugoslavia, so these countries have also been excluded from the analysis. Finally, we have also excluded Romania because the majority of immigrants are Romanians from Moldova and Ukraine.

Figure 2: Selection of Countries for the Study (data based on Eurostat's Non-national population by group of citizenship, 1 January 2021)

Third country nationals (Thousand)

MIPEX score

Source: Authors´ figure

Finally, based on the MIPEX ranks and the policy descriptions, from the remaining countries we chose Finland (85 MIPEX points) and Sweden (86 points) which were in the "Top Ten", followed by Spain (60 points) and Luxembourg (64 points) with "Comprehensive Approach" and finally Germany (58 points) and Italy (58 points) with "Temporary Integration".

We employed a hybrid form (Swain, 2018) of the grounded theory approach (GTA) (Corbin & Strauss, 2008) to analyze the integration policy descriptions of the selected countries. This approach, as recommended by Corbin and Strauss (2008) involved three distinct phases. In the first phase, after becoming familiar with the data, we created a table of codes, establishing priori coding constructs based on existing literature and our prior knowledge of the subject matter. Moving on to the second phase, we initiated coding, supplementing the code table with additional information and new codes based on the empirical data through open/posterior coding. Appendix 1 presents a concise profile of each country based on information from the European Website of Integration.

For the third phase, we gathered text excerpts that effectively illustrated the identified coded constructs. Subsequently, we consolidated both the prior and posterior codes into code groups through axial coding. Open and axial coding were executed using Atlas.ti software (version 23). Axial coding was guided by the re-occurrence of coded constructs (cf. Schiller et al., 2023), serving as a pivotal method during the comparison of the selected countries.

Results

In this section, the "categories" employed stem from qualitative, posterior coding of the descriptions and are not recognized as official "policy categories." Consequently, we refrain from including additional literature references.

In Atlas.ti, we coded the descriptions on the EU integration website for all 27 countries, and then further analyzed the 6 selected countries. Table 3 shows the a priori code structure of the study.

Table 3: A Priori Codes of the Study

(The posterior code structure and frequencies are given in Appendix 2.)

Source: Authors´ table

RQ 1: What are the common characteristics of measures of countries most successful in integrating immigrants?

As for all the investigated 6 countries, common characteristics regarding the applied policies of integration strategies and programs (RQ1) concerned the presence of a mainstream approach to integration (Frequency f=79), early intervention and language acquisition (f=31), labor market integration (f=28), local involvement and flexibility (f=24), support for integration partnerships (f=20), and civic education (f=10), but also continuous evaluation (f=7) implying that they are generally considered important by policymakers.

Table 4: Code Group Frequencies Finland and Sweden (Gr: number of codes, GS: number of quotes)

Source: Authors´ table

Sweden and Finland, as members of the "Top Ten" group, share several common political measures and characteristics in their approach to migrant integration:

• Mainstream Approach to Integration (f=37): Both countries prioritize integration through mainstream policies and services, rather than relying solely on targeted integration programs. This approach aims to integrate newcomers into society seamlessly by providing access to education, employment, healthcare, and social services alongside the native population.

• Emphasis on Active Citizenship (f=15): Both countries promote active citizenship as a key aspect of integration. This includes encouraging newcomers to participate in civic life, engage in local activities, and contribute to their communities. Active citizenship is seen as a way to foster social cohesion and a sense of belonging among newcomers.

• Early Intervention and Language Acquisition (f=8): Early language learning is emphasized in both Sweden and Finland, with language courses provided to newcomers as soon as possible after arrival. This focus on language acquisition is crucial for enabling migrants to participate in society, access employment opportunities, and fully integrate into their new communities.

• Local Involvement and Flexibility (f=8): Both Sweden and Finland recognize the importance of local involvement in migrant integration. Local authorities play a key role in tailoring integration measures to the specific needs of their communities, ensuring that newcomers are connected to local resources and support networks. Additionally, both countries have implemented flexible integration pathways that allow for adjustments based on individual needs and circumstances.

• Civic Integration Requirements (f=4): Both countries have established civic integration requirements for permanent residency, which typically involve language proficiency exams, knowledge of Swedish or Finnish society, and participation in civic education courses. These requirements aim to ensure that newcomers acquire the skills and knowledge necessary to become active and responsible members of society.

• Support for Integration Partnerships (f=5): Both Sweden and Finland have established partnerships between government agencies, local authorities, civil society organizations, and the private sector to coordinate their integration efforts. These partnerships aim to pool resources, share expertise, and ensure that integration services are tailored to the needs of the migrant population.

• Continuous Evaluation and Monitoring (f=3): Both countries engage in ongoing evaluation and monitoring of their integration policies and programs to assess their effectiveness and identify areas for improvement. This commitment to evidence-based policymaking ensures that integration efforts adapt to changing needs and circumstances.

In summary, Sweden and Finland share a strong commitment to migrant integration through mainstream policies, early language acquisition, civic integration requirements, local involvement, active citizenship support, integration partnerships, and continuous evaluation. These common approaches reflect their shared values of social cohesion, inclusion, and active participation in society.

Nevertheless, code groups revealed also differences between the country groups, which we inquired as suggested by our research question (RQ2), namely, what are the differences in the investigated host countries' policies regarding linguistic integration?

Tables 5 and 6 show a comparison of the political measures regarding migrant integration between the groups of Finland and Sweden, Luxembourg and Spain, and Germany and Italy.

Table 5: Comparison of the Political Measures Regarding Migrant Integration (between Countries) (Gr: number of codes, GS: number of quotes)

Table 6: Comparison of the Political Measures Regarding Migrant Integration between the Groups of Finland and Sweden, Luxembourg and Spain, and Germany and Italy

Finland and Sweden

Civic integration: Finland and Sweden have more stringent civic integration requirements for permanent residency than Luxembourg, Spain, Germany, and Italy. This includes language proficiency exams, knowledge of Finnish or Swedish society, and participation in civic education courses.

Integration system centralization: Finland and Sweden have more centralized integration systems than Luxembourg, Spain, Germany, and Italy. This means that the national government plays a greater role in developing and implementing integration policies.

Language acquisition: Sweden has strong language learning requirements for newcomers, with language courses provided as soon as possible after arrival. Interestingly, if we look at the frequencies only, there is a big difference between Sweden and Finland. However, the fact is that in Finland local integration services offer individual integration plans for immigrants who newly arrived. Participation is mandatory for them, and it contains language courses among other things. Frequency of occurrence as an indicator does not allow for a more in-depth analysis of differences between Sweden and Finland, therefore future research should include other approaches or data collection tools.

Luxembourg and Spain

Civic integration: Luxembourg and Spain have less stringent civic integration requirements for permanent residency than Finland and Sweden.

Integration system decentralization: Both countries have more decentralized integration systems than Finland and Sweden. This means that local authorities and civil society organizations play a greater role in tailoring integration measures to the specific needs of their communities.

Language acquisition: Both countries have more adaptable approaches to language learning than Finland and Sweden. This includes allowing for personalized learning journeys and targeted support. There is, once more, a significant disparity between the two countries. Further research is thus required to determine the extent of these differences.

Germany and Italy

Civic integration: Germany and Italy have civic integration requirements that are more flexible than those of Finland and Sweden, or Luxembourg and Spain. The main focus is on labor market integration.

Integration system decentralization: Germany and Italy have more decentralized integration systems than Finland and Sweden, comparable with Luxembourg and Spain.

Language acquisition: Germany and Italy have language requirements that are less stringent than those of Luxembourg and Spain.

In general, Finland and Sweden have a more assimilationist approach (Bowskill et al., 2007) to migrant integration, aiming to integrate newcomers fully into the Finnish or Swedish society. This is reflected in their stronger language requirements (Sweden), stricter civic integration measures, and more centralized integration systems. In contrast, Luxembourg, Spain, Germany, and Italy have a more integrationist approach (Bowskill et al., 2007) , recognizing the value of diversity and aiming to create a more inclusive society where migrants can retain their cultural identities while also participating fully in the host society. This is reflected in their more flexible language acquisition approach, less stringent civic integration measures, and more decentralized integration system.

Discussion

While we acknowledge that several dimensions play a role in immigrants' integration, our analyses have revealed that the support of migrants' active engagement in and ownership of their integration (Emphasis on Active Citizenship) and their labor market integration (Labor market integration) are important factors in the success of integration. Countries need a strong mainstream strategy, but it is also beneficial if local support for integration is arranged.

Unfortunately, the descriptions of integration programs were not detailed enough to enable a precise comparison of language learning-related characteristics. This suggests that "linguistic integration" is not necessarily highlighted as a priority at the policy level. This represents a limitation of the study. Further research is necessary to adequately demonstrate the need for EU-wide policies to prioritize the support of tailor-made local language learning initiatives to support immigrants to integrate more effectively.

Considering the findings of the MIPEX study and the results of this study, a crucial policy recommendation concerning the linguistic integration of adult migrants is the formulation of evidence-based language policies. It is recommended that research and data from studies such as MIPEX be employed to inform language integration policies, ensuring that they are based on empirical evidence rather than political assumptions.

Furthermore, the provision of accessible language learning opportunities is also a crucial component of supporting migrants' language learning. It is recommended that free or low-cost language courses, which are designed to meet the diverse needs, backgrounds, and goals of adult migrants, be made available to new arrivals in the host country. Conversely, the promotion of autonomous learning is also of significant importance. It is recommended that migrants be encouraged and supported in their self-directed language learning. This may be achieved through the implementation of a learner-centered approach, which would empower migrants to determine their own learning needs and goals.

It is also imperative at the policy level to guarantee fair and appropriate language requirements for newcomers. It is essential that language proficiency requirements for residence, citizenship, and entry are reasonable and do not impede the process of integration.

While it is indubitable that learning the language of the host country is of the utmost importance for migrants, it is equally crucial to recognize and value their existing language skills while providing support for the acquisition of the host country's language(s). Language learning should be integrated with broader integration goals. For instance, language education should be connected to other aspects of integration, such as employment, social participation, and cultural understanding. To achieve this, it is necessary to provide migrants with targeted support. Language support programs must be devised for those who are most vulnerable, such as refugees or migrants with low literacy levels. Furthermore, it is of the utmost importance that language requirements and policies do not infringe upon the human rights of migrants or create unnecessary barriers to integration.

In conclusion, a two-way approach to integration should be encouraged. It is important to recognize that linguistic integration is a two-way process, involving both migrants and the host society and that policies should reflect this understanding. The objective of these policy proposals is to create a more inclusive, effective, and rights-based approach to the linguistic integration of adult migrants, which takes into account the complexity and diversity of migrants' needs and experiences.

References

• Becker, Rolf (Herausgeber) (2009). Integration in Deutschland. Bundesausländerbeauftragte. http://www.bundesauslaenderbeauftragte.de/integration.html

• Becker, Rolf & Lauterbach, Wolfgang (Hrsg.) (2008). Bildung als Privileg: Erklärungen und Befunde zu den Ursachen der Bildungsungleichheit (4. Aufl.) Weinheim.

• BMI/BAMF - Bundesministerium des Innern/Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge (2022). Migrationsbericht des Bundesamtes für Migration und Flüchtlinge im Auftrag der Bundesregierung. Migrationsbericht 2021. Berlin/Nürnberg: BMI/BAMF. https://www.bamf.de/SharedDocs/Anlagen/DE/Forschung/Migrationsberichte/migrationsbericht-2021.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=10

• Bowskill, M. & Lyons, E. & Coyle, A. (2007). The rhetoric of acculturation: When integration means assimilation. British Journal of Social Psychology, 46(4), 793-813. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466607X182771

• BPA (Presse- und Informationsamt der Bundesregierung) (2016). Meseberger Erklärung zur Integration https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-de/aktuelles/meseberger-erklaerung-zur-integration-396024

• Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge - BAMF (2015). Konzept für einen bundesweiten Integrationskurs (Überarbeitete Neuauflage - April 2015). https://www.bamf.de/SharedDocs/Anlagen/DE/Integration/Integrationskurse/Kurstraeger/KonzepteLeitfaeden/konz-f-bundesw-integrationskurs.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=8

• Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge - BAMF (2020). Migrationsbericht 2019. https://www.bamf.de/SharedDocs/Anlagen/DE/Forschung/Migrationsberichte/migrationsbericht-2019.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=13

• Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge - BAMF (2020). Bericht zur Integrationskursgeschäftsstatistik für das Jahr 2019. https://www.bamf.de/SharedDocs/Anlagen/DE/Statistik/Integrationskurszahlen/Bundesweit/2019-integrationskursgeschaeftsstatistik-gesamt_bund.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=3

• Comunidad de Madrid (2018). Plan de Inmigración de la Comunidad de Madrid 2019-2021. Consejería de Políticas Sociales y Familia, Dirección General de Servicios Sociales e Integración Social. https://www.comunidad.madrid/transparencia/sites/default/files/plan/document/plan_de_inmigracion_2019-2021.pdf

• Corbin, J. & Strauss, A. (2008). Qualitative research. Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory, 3.

• Council of Europe (2020). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment - Companion volume. Council of Europe Publishing. Strasbourg. www.coe.int/lang-cefr.

• Dustmann, C. & Soest, A. V. (2001). Language fluency and earnings: Estimation with misclassified language indicators. Review of Economics and Statistics, 83(4), 663-674.

• Dustmann, C. & von Soest, A. (2002). Language and the earnings of immigrants. Industrial and Labour Relations Review, 55, 473-492. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/001979390205500305?journalCode=ilra

• Dustmann, C. & Fabbri, F. (2003). Language proficiency and labour market performance of immigrants in the UK. The Economic Journal, 113 (489), 695-717. https://www.ucl.ac.uk/~uctpb21/Cpapers/languageproficiency.pdf

• European Commission (2020). Action Plan on Integration and Inclusion 2021-2027. https://ec.europa.eu/migrant-integration/news/ec-reveals-its-new-eu-action-plan-integration-and-inclusion-2021-2027_en

• European Commission. Directorate General for Education and Culture. & European Expert Network on Economics of Education (EENEE). (2016). Education as a tool for the economic integration of migrants. Publications Office. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/46295

• European Commission. Statistical Office of the European Union. (2020). Migrant integration statistics: 2020 edition. Publications Office. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2785/373334

• European Cultural Convention (ETS No. 018) (1954). https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list?module=treaty-detail&treatynum=018

• Gravani, M.N. & Slade, B. & Brown, M. et al. (2024). From Learner-Centered Education (LCE) to Emancipatory Learner-Centered Education (ELCE): A comparative case study of language education for adult migrants in four European countries. Prospects 54, 175-190. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-023-09633-0

• Halász, G. (2012). Az oktatás az Európai Unióban: Tanulás és együttműködés. ÚMK.

• Kirchberger, A. (2007). Der Nationale Integrationsplan - neue Wege, neue Chancen. Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung - BMBF. https://ec.europa.eu/migrant-integration/library-document/national-plan-integration_en

• Kluzer, S. & Ferrari, A. & Centeno, C. (2011). Language Learning by Adult Migrants: Policy Challenges and ICT Responses. https://languageforwork.ecml.at/Portals/48/documents/lfw-web_item-16_eu_lang-learn-migrants-ict.pdf

• Kraszewska, K. & Juchno, P. & Todorova, A. (2020). Migrant integration statistics: 2020 edition (2020 edition). Eurostat statistical books. Publications Office of the European Union. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/en/web/products-statistical-books/-/ks-06-20-184

• Lacomba Vázquez, Joan & Benlloch Doménech, Cristina, Cloquell Lozano, Alexis & Veira Ramos, Alberto (2020). La aportación de la inmigración a la sociedad española - Informe final. https://extranjeros.inclusion.gob.es/ficheros/Observatorio_permanente_inmigracion/publicaciones/fichas/Aportacion_inmigracion_vacc.pdf

• Ley Orgánica 2/2009, de 11 de diciembre, de reforma de la Ley Orgánica 4/2000, de 11 de enero, sobre derechos y libertades de los extranjeros en España y su integración social. https://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2009/12/12/pdfs/BOE-A-2009-19949.pdf

• Little, D. (2012). The linguistic integration of adult migrants and the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR). Language Policy Unit DG II - Education Department Council of Europe. https://rm.coe.int/16802fc1ca

• Ministry of Integration and Gender Equality (2009). Fact sheet on Swedish integration Policy. https://www.government.se/contentassets/b055a941e7a247348f1acf6ade2fd876/swedish-integration-policy-fact-sheet-in-english

• OECD (2014). Finding the Way: A Discussion of the Swedish Migrant Integration System. https://www.oecd.org/migration/swedish-migrant-intergation-system.pdf

• OECD (Ed.). (2022). Bildung auf einen Blick 2022: OECD-Indikatoren (1. Auflage). wbv Media; wbv Publikation. https://www.bmbf.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/de/2022/221004-oecd-vergleichsstudie-2022.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=3

• Solano, Giacomo & Huddleston, Thomas (2020). Migrant Integration Policy Index 2020. https://www.mipex.eu/

• PECI I (2007). Strategic Plan for Citizenship and Integration 2007-2010 - Executive summary. Ministerio de Trabajo y Asuntos Sociales, Subdirección General de Información, Administración y Publicaciones, Kingdom of Spain. https://ec.europa.eu/migrant-integration/library-document/strategic-plan-citizenship-and-integration-executive-summary_en

• PECI II (2011). Plan Estratégico de Ciudadanía e Integración (Strategic Plan on Citizenship and Integration) 2011-2014. https://ec.europa.eu/migrant-integration/library-document/strategic-plan-citizenship-and-integration-2011-2014_en

• Schiller, E. & Dorner, H. & Szabó, Z. A. (2023). Developing older adults' learner autonomy through one-to-one counselling: Exploratory results of a longitudinal investigation. System, 115, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2023.103030

• Sezer, Kamuran (2010). Was ist Integration? Projekt "Migration und Integration", Goethe-Institut.

• Swain, J. (2018). A hybrid approach to thematic analysis in qualitative research: Using a practical example. Sage research methods.

• Swedish Government (2008). Regeringens skrivelse 2008/09:24. Egenmakt mot utanförskap - regeringens strategi för integration. https://ec.europa.eu/migrant-integration/library-document/2008-swedish-government-strategy-integration_en

• Trim, John L. M. (2018). Modern Languages in the Council of Europe 1954-1997. International co-operation in support of lifelong language learning for effective communication, mutual cultural enrichment and democratic citizenship in Europe. Language Policy Division, Strasbourg. www.coe.int/lang, https://rm.coe.int/modern-languages-in-the-council-of-europe-1954-1997-international-co-o/1680886eae

• Vareikyté, Indré (2020). Integration of women, mothers and families with a migrant background in the EU Member States and target language levels for integration (Exploratory opinion at the request of the German presidency). European Economic and Social Committee, Section "Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship". SOC/641 - EESC-2020-02146-00-01-AS-TRA (EN). https://www.eesc.europa.eu/en/our-work/opinions-information-reports/opinions/integration-women-mothers-and-families-migrant-background-eu-member-states-and-target-language-levels-integration/timeline.

Appendix 1: Country profiles

Top Ten

Sweden (MIPEX score: 86) has a long history of migration and has been implementing integration policies since the 1970s. The government has set up various integration programmes, the centrepiece of which is the Establishment Programme, which aims to help migrants learn Swedish, find work and become self-sufficient. The programme is run by the Swedish Public Employment Service and includes language courses, job coaching and civic orientation courses. Integration in Sweden is a cross-sectoral issue, with different ministries and agencies working together to achieve different goals. Authorities such as the Ministry of Employment and the Ministry of Culture have a coordinating role. County councils are responsible for coordinating regional and local integration policies, and municipalities are responsible for providing accommodation for refugees. There are various sources of funding for integration in Sweden, including EU funds such as the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund and the European Social Fund. Other public and private sources of funding are also available. Several actors, such as the Swedish Red Cross and Save the Children Sweden, play a role in providing integration services, and statistics on migration and integration are published by Statistics Sweden, the Swedish Migration Agency and the Swedish Public Employment Service. Sweden has been rated as one of the top 10 countries in the world in terms of integration according to the 2020 Migrant Integration Policy Index (MIPEX).

Finland (MIPEX score: 85) has experienced an increase in international migration since the 1990s, with a significant number of migrants coming from Russia. The government has implemented a National Integration Programme to promote the integration of migrants, focusing on areas such as education, labour market participation and combating racism. Local integration services are required to draw up individual integration plans for newcomers, including language courses, civic education and vocational training. The Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment is responsible for developing and guiding migrant integration policy. Municipalities are responsible for implementing integration policies in cooperation with the Employment and Economic Development Offices. Civil society organisations, such as the Centre of Expertise in Integration of Immigrants, support practitioners working in the field of integration. Funding for immigrant integration is available through EU funds, such as the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund and the European Social Fund. Other public and private funding is also available. The Ministry of the Interior is the national managing authority for the Asylum, Migration, and Integration Fund, while the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment and the Centres for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment are the national managing authorities for the European Social Fund. Finland's approach to integration has been evaluated through the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment's annual reports and the Migrant Integration Policy Index. The country has also adopted legislation on foreigners, asylum, integration, citizenship and anti-discrimination.

Various public authorities, such as the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment, and stakeholders, including trade unions, private companies, and educational institutions, play a role in providing integration services and implementing integration programs. There are also organizations that campaign and publish statistics on migration and integration in Finland.

Comprehensive integration - Slightly favorable

Luxembourg (64) has been a country of immigration for over 100 years, attracting both EU citizens and third-country nationals. To facilitate the integration of migrants, Luxembourg has implemented an integration strategy, including a national action plan on integration and against discrimination. The country also has an integration program known as the Integration Contract, which offers language and civic integration courses.

The government is responsible for evaluating integration efforts and reports every five years on the situation of migration, integration, and anti-discrimination. Various laws have been enacted to support the integration of migrants, including laws on foreigners, asylum, integration, citizenship, and anti-discrimination.

Public authorities involved in the integration of migrants include the National Reception Office (ONA), the Ministry of the Family, Integration and the Greater Region, and the Consultative Committee for Integration in each municipality. Civil society organizations such as the National Council for Foreigners also play a role in promoting integration.

Funding for integration initiatives comes from various sources, including EU funds such as the Asylum, Migration, and Integration Fund (AMIF) and the European Social Fund (ESF). Other public and private funding is also available.

Several stakeholders are involved in the provision of integration services, the implementation of the integration program, and the publication of statistics on migration and integration in Luxembourg. These actors include organizations such as ASTI, Caritas Luxembourg, and the Luxembourg Reception Office.

Overall, Luxembourg has adopted a comprehensive approach to migrant integration, providing support programs and resources to help migrants successfully integrate into society.

Spain (60) Spain has a decentralized governance system for migrant integration, with responsibilities shared between the central government, regional governments (Autonomous Communities), and local authorities. The central government is responsible for overall policy development, while the regional governments are responsible for implementing integration measures in their respective territories. Local authorities play a key role in providing integration services and support to migrants at the community level.

Spain's integration policy is based on the principle of integration as a two-way process, to enable migrants to participate fully in Spanish society while also respecting their cultural identities. The country has a comprehensive range of integration measures in place, including language training, vocational training and education, access to the labor market, and social support.

In recent years, Spain has made significant progress in improving its integration policy. These efforts include the introduction of a new integration law, the development of regional and local integration plans, and the increased involvement of civil society organizations in integration initiatives.

Despite these advances, Spain continues to face challenges in integrating migrants. These challenges include the high concentration of migrants in certain regions, the diversity of their backgrounds, and the need to integrate them into a society that is already experiencing demographic and socioeconomic changes.

Overall, Spain has a well-developed and multifaceted integration policy framework. However, continuous efforts and adaptation are required to ensure that the policy effectively addresses the needs of migrants and fosters social cohesion.

Temporary integration - Halfway favorable

Germany (58) has a multi-level governance system for the integration of migrants, with responsibilities shared between the federal government, the Länder, municipalities and civil society organisations. The federal government is responsible for overall policy development and coordination, while the Länder are responsible for implementing integration policies in their respective jurisdictions. Municipalities play a key role in providing integration services and support to migrants, and civil society organisations are involved in a variety of initiatives to promote integration.

Germany's integration policy is based on the principle of integration as an opportunity for all and aims to enable migrants to participate fully in German society. The country has a range of integration measures, including language training, vocational training and education, access to the labour market and social support.

In recent years, Germany has taken a number of steps to improve its integration policy. These include the introduction of a new Integration Pact, which sets out clear expectations for migrants and provides them with a roadmap for integration. Germany has also increased funding for integration measures and is working to strengthen cooperation between different levels of government.

Despite these efforts, Germany still faces challenges in integrating migrants. These challenges include the large number of migrants arriving in the country, the diversity of their backgrounds and the need to integrate them into a society that is already experiencing social and economic tensions.

Overall, Germany has a comprehensive and well-developed integration policy. However, it is a complex policy that requires continuous effort and adaptation to ensure that it effectively meets the needs of migrants in the country.

Italy (58) has a multi-level governance framework for the integration of migrants, with regional governments having autonomy in policy planning and implementation. The country does not have a stand-alone integration law, but integration measures are implemented through administrative regulations. Newly arrived immigrants are required to sign an integration agreement in which they commit to achieving specific integration goals within two years. The fulfillment of these goals is a condition for the renewal of residence permits.

The Ministry of Labour and Social Policy is responsible for monitoring and evaluating the socio-economic integration of migrants and publishes annual reports on this topic. However, there is no systematic evaluation of integration policies in Italy, except for those funded by the EU's Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF).

The main actors responsible for implementing integration policies are local authorities and public services, supported by civil society organizations. Non-state actors are consulted in the policy-making process, but their participation depends on the willingness of the government.

Funding for integration measures in Italy comes from various sources, including EU funds such as the AMIF and the European Social Fund (ESF). There are also other public and private funds available to service providers and stakeholders. The ESF is managed by the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy, while the AMIF is managed by the Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration.

Several organizations in Italy provide integration services, such as ARCI, Diaconia Valdese and ANOLF. These organizations offer a range of services including counseling, language courses, and social support.

In terms of legislation, Italy has laws on foreigners, asylum, citizenship, and anti-discrimination. The main legal framework for immigration and integration is Legislative Decree 286/1998, while asylum legislation is based on EU directives. There is also legislation on anti-discrimination, although it is not a separate law.

Overall, Italy's integration policy has been categorized as focused on temporary integration, with some integration measures in place but little change in recent years.

Appendix 2

Code Structure and Frequencies (Gr: number of codes, GS: number of quotes)

1 https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Migration_and_migrant_population_statistics

2 https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Migration_and_migrant_population_statistics

3 Action plan on integration and inclusion 2021-2027: https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/bb47d489-a2b1-11eb-9585-01aa75ed71a1/language-hu/format-XHTML

4 https://rm.coe.int/linguistic-integration-of-adult-migrants-requirements-and-learning-opp/16809b93cb

5 https://mipex.eu/

6 https://ec.europa.eu/migrant-integration/country-governance/governance-migrant-integration-across-europe_en

7 https://mipex.eu/

8 https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/en/web/products-statistical-books/-/ks-06-20-184