Will Kymlicka

Immigration, Multiculturalism, and the Welfare State
Will Kymlicka & Keith Banting (2006). Ethics & International Affairs, 20(3), 281-304.

In spite of a increasingly prevailing public assumption of a potential trade-off between inclusive immigration policies and the maintenance of a robust welfare state, Kymlicka and Banting argue that there Besides the issues of security and terrorism that prevail in many circles about massive immigration, Kymlicka and Banting point out that there is little evidence about the impact of increasing ethnic diversity on the welfare state and the claim of an inevitable trade-off between them may be premature.

Kymlicka and Banting defines two concerns in this debate: (1) A growing heterogeneity/ethnic diversity in society will inevitably loosen national solidarity across ethnic lines, thus resulting in making more difficult achieving redistribution of resources or sustaining a robust welfare state (the heterogeneity/redistribution trade-off) (2) Multiculturalism policies that promote recognition of each culture will exacerbate weaken the politics of (economic) redistribution (the recognition/redistribution trade-off).

In the first case, the authors state that a general acceptance of the trade-off is generally drawn from case studies done in the United State, where scholars concluded that there is a universal tendency for people to resist interethnic redistribution. The authors argue that the studies are deeply rooted in the country's peculiar history of slavery and segregation, thus providing little evidence for a potential erosion of Canadian welfare state as a result of a growing ethnic diversity that new immigrants bring into the society.

Secondly, the authors observe the debate even among multiculturalism defendants over the dilemma between the politics of recognition and the politics of redistribution in the process of their commitment to social justice and equality. In this regard, the author state that this concern, unlike the first one, is not based on empirical studies but entirely speculative and conjectural.

Within this context, the authors conclude their research on the trade-offs as follows:

"There is no evidence here that countries with large immigrant populations have greater difficulty in sustaining and enhancing their historic welfare commitments. But large changes do seem to matter. It is the pace of social change rather than the fact of ethnic diversity per se that stands out here as politically unsettling." (p. 293)

Examining change in social spending as a proportion of GDP and change in the redistributive impact of taxes and transfers between 1980 and 2000 in twenty-one countries, the authors conclude that "the countries with the strongest immigrant multiculturalism policies did better than the other groups, providing a hint that perhaps multiculturalism policies may actually ease possible tensions between heterogeneity and redistribution." (p. 295)

They support this conclusion with a similar study conducted with indigenous peoples and national minorities: there is no evidence a politics of recognition that entails a trade-off with a politics of redistribution. Instead, the authors suggest that it is state management and politics that turns ethnic diversity into a source of erosion of the national welfare state and solidarity and trust among peoples.

The authors delineates three ways in which multiculturalism policies promote solidarity: (1) in contrast to claims made by critiques of multiculturalism, multiculturalism policies can help to combat the stereotypes and stigmatizations that currently erode feelings of solidarity across ethnic and racial lines. (2) the policies should be supplemented with nation-building policies, such as language training programs, citizenship education in the schools, the shared celebration of national heroes and holidays, citizenship ceremonies for immigrants, and so on. (3) What's more, these policies should be sustained with the national adoption of multiculturalism as a national identity. In this regards, the authors write, "Multiculturalism arguably plays this role in Canada. Affirming multiculturalism has become part of what it means to ‘‘be Canadian,’’ and, more specifically, part of what it means to be a ‘‘good Canadian" (p. 301). Thus the authors call attention to multiculturalism as an essential Canadian nationhood.

The authors' nation-centered narrative seems to stem from their perspective on nation solidarity:

"On the one hand, our findings cast doubt on pessimistic claims about the conflict between diversity and solidarity, and this should indirectly lend support to the struggles of noncitizens, making greater space for an open-minded consideration of their claims on their own merits. On the other hand, however, our findings do not cast doubt on the importance of national solidarity, and our own best guess is that those countries that have done well in combining diversity and solidarity have done so by linking immigration and multiculturalism to the promotion of national citizenship." (p. 303-304)

Liberal Nationalism and Cosmopolitan Justice. (2006). In Seyla Benhabib, Another Cosmopolitanism. New York: Oxford University Press.

Kymlicka states, "at the heart of citizenship rights are individual liberties" (p. 128).

He regards the nation-state as the privileged locus for political participation, self-government, and solidarity. Looking at the model of citizenship developed within the liberal democratic political system in the West in the past two centuries, Kymlicka points out that this political reordering was nearly universal and embarked on "'national-building' policies aimed at the diffusion of a common national identity, culture, and language throughout the territory of the state" (p. 129)

He argues that, while this model of "liberal nationhood" succeeded in ensuring democracy, individual rights and economic prosperity, it involved injustice against immigrants, indigenous or regional minorities and neighboring nation-states.

Refuting the thought that these injustices are not intrinsic to liberal nationhood, Kymlicka contests that they are inherent risks of the pursuit of liberal nationhood and in fact responsible for many harms executed in the twenties century. In this dilemma, Kymlicka argues two options: (1) taming liberal nationhood approach, by adopting a multicultural concept for immigrants, a multination concept for indigenous and substate minorities to condone autonomy, and geopolitical agreements with neighboring nation-states. or (2) transcending liberal nation by building postnational or cosmopolitan citizenship.

In his response to Benhabib's call for cosmopolital norms instead of liberal nationhood, Kymlicka argues that the two concepts are commensurate. He states:

[O]ne concept of the nature and function of cosmopolitan norms is precisely to pomote (a tamed form of) liberal nationhood, and that this conception is conceptually coherent, politically feasible, and morally progressive. (p. 131)

Politics in the Vernacular: Nationalism, Multiculturalism, and Citizenship. (2001). New York: Oxford University Press.

For Kymlicka, crucial in the theories and practices of West democracies is to see claims for minority rights as a defensive response to an assault on the basic dignity and respect in the process of state nation-building, instead of 'special status' or 'privilege'. He states that the Western democracies are a complex package of robust forms of nation-building constrained by robust forms of minority rights.

Kymlicka refutes the discourse of minority rights as the old liberalism-vs-communitarianism debate, such that communitarians supported rights of ethnocultural communities whereas liberalism opposed them in the name of individualism. He asserts that debates over minority rights within liberalism are increasingly about fair accommodations of cultural diversity within liberal institutions.

Kymlicka also argues that human rights are insufficient to ensure justice between ethnocultural groups, thus minority rights must supplement human rights.

Chapter 1.
Kymlicka summarizes that the debate over minority rights before 1989 was characterized with theoretical confrontation between liberals and communitarians. Kymlicka explains that liberals prioritize individual freedom to choose the good life, whereas communitarians dispute the concept of autonomous individuals and rather regard individuals as the product of social practices which define the good life. In this stage, minority rights were viewed as the communitarian critique of liberalism, defending communal group rights against liberal individualism.

This dichotomy, however, is an old one, according to Kymlicka. Kymlicka highlights recent debate over minority rights within a liberal perspective. Central to this debate is to distinguish 'good' minority rights to supplement individual rights.
Kymlicka observes the current tendency of nation-building efforts in modern liberal states by creating a societal culture that involves a common language and social institutions, as seen in the United States. Kymlicka questions the impact of nation-building on minority rights and justice.

Observing the recent public recognition that difference-blind rules may cause disadvantages for minority groups, Kymlicka rightly points out that multiculturalism is widely accepted although there remain profound disagreements over specific policies of multiculturalism. Along with this general disposition, he remarks another common argument that recognition of minority rights threatens to erode citizenship. With this respect, Kymlicka argues that recognizing minority rights, on the contrary, would strengthen solidarity by removing barriers that prevent minority from full participation in political institutions.

Chapter 8. The theory and Practice of Immigrant Multiculturalism (152-176)

"The first country to officially adopt such a 'multiculturalism' policy at the national level was Canada in 1971" (p. 154).

For Kymlicka, demands for multiculturalism is a response to the government's nation-building of pressuring immigrants to integrate into common educational, economical and political institutions operating in the national language. In particular about immigrant multiculturalism policy, Kymlicka disputes critiques that multiculturalism continues to ghettoize immigrants and balkanizes society. He emphasizes that the policies are clearly integrationist and promotes institutional integration through education and citizenship practices. He argues:

The idea that multiculturalism is promoting an apartheid-like system of institutional separatism is, I think, wholly misplaced. But is it promoting a kind of mental separatism, encouraging immigrants to dwell on the life they left behind, rather than the opportunities available in their new country? This is a more plausible worry. However institutional integration is likely to generate over time a sense of psychological identification. The fact that common institutions bring together the members of different ethnic groups has important ramifications both personally and politically. At the personal level, it means that people meet (and indeed often fall in love with) members of other ethnic groups, propmoting inter-ethnic friendships and marriages. These relationships are intimately tied up with one's new life here, not with the Old World. (p. 167-168)

[Criticism: his division between new world and old world, new opportunities are not that rosy in the new world, some interpersonal relations do not melt inveterate racism and other hierarchy. In fact, people do not mix as much as he imagines.]

According to Kymlicka, immigrants must engage in common institutions and contribute to democratic citizenship under the institutional multiculturalism policies. He states:

Politically, it[multiculturalism] means that people must learn how to negotiate with the members of other ethnic groups...The inevitable result is that groups must focus on how to contribute to the new life here, rather than simply dwelling on the society left behind. In short, institutional integration makes possible the kind of civic engagement that supports democratic citizenship. (p. 168)

Kymlicka calls his view of multiculturalism 'pluralizing' or 'hybridic', which "does not involve the preservation of distinct cultures (since ethnic identities weaken and incorporate aspects of the larger culture), but nor is it assimilation (since ethnic groups change the larger society as they integrate)" (p. 168-169). He asserts that immigrants common demands for language training assistance, for instance, indicate their intention of integration. Central to his argument appears to be the backlash against immigrant multiculturalism among native-born citizens. He argues:

[T]he logic of multiculturalism involves accepting the principle of state-prescribed integraion, but renegotiation the terms of integration...So immigrants accept the principle of integration into common institutions: they are simply seeking fairer terms of integration. If the state is going to pressure immigrants to integrates into common institutions operating in the national language, then immigrant groups understandably want to ensure that the terns of integration are fair. This demand is not only justified, but long overdue. (p. 169)