Public policy
Sahar Alizadeh Niri; Alireza Sadeghi; Yousef Adib; Mostafa Ghaderi
Abstract
IntroductionThe Islamic Republic of Iran is one of the largest countries that accommodates Afghan immigrants. However, the Iranian government lacks a unified and national policy towards accommodating immigrants. Initially, the government pursued an open-door policy towards immigration, but after ...
Read More
IntroductionThe Islamic Republic of Iran is one of the largest countries that accommodates Afghan immigrants. However, the Iranian government lacks a unified and national policy towards accommodating immigrants. Initially, the government pursued an open-door policy towards immigration, but after a decade it shifted its stance towards limitations, repatriation, and even deportation of immigrants. It appeared as if the government was identifying individuals who should be removed from Iran. It would be beneficial to integrate ideas and resources from a variety of academic disciplines and fields of study to gain a deeper insight into the broader dynamics of how immigrant groups are perceived as others in Iran. By concentrating on this level of analysis, policymakers can better comprehend how the overarching social structures and phenomena impact individual attitudes and identities. Likewise, this approach allows for an understanding of how people’s attitudes and identities, in turn, affect social structures. In this respect, the primary question of the present study is: What mechanisms are at play in the process of labeling immigrants as others, according to the Iranian political science experts and political sociologists?Literature ReviewIn general, when discussing the dynamics between immigrants (referred to as newcomers) and the host population (the dominant group), the concept of other is commonly employed, specifically in reference to newcomers. The presence of a national identity implies the existence of other groups, nations, or individuals that are not part of the host group, prompting group members to emphasize their distinctiveness.The specific concept of nation–state leads to the formulation of specific immigration policies and strategies for integrating minority groups within host societies. Based on this assumption, several major integration models have been proposed. First, the model of assimilation, which does not grant special rights to minorities, primarily intends to fully integrate all immigrants into the society and foster the development of a homogeneous society.The second is a pluralistic model known as multiculturalism, which operates on the premise that successful integration is ensured if the public tolerates the plural identities of minorities and immigrants and recognizes their unique needs.This model manifests itself in two primary forms. In the United States, cultural diversity and ethnic communities are officially recognized, but the government does not actively play a role in enforcing social justice or supporting the preservation of ethnic cultures.The second variant of multiculturalism is a matter of public policy, in which efforts are made to promote integration and eliminate the barriers that immigrants might encounter in the host societies, thereby erasing the otherness they may experience. The third model is the differentiation approach, which is distinct from integration and instead emphasizes the differences between the native population and immigrants. The primary objective of this model is not to facilitate the integration of future immigrants into the host society but rather to isolate them. The differentiation model perceives immigrants as foreign and temporary components of society, rather than as a permanent and inseparable part.According to this model, minorities may face poor employment conditions, low income, and high poverty rates. Such conditions can result in densely populated, low-income areas and increased residential segregation. In this context, the presence of isolated and marginalized communities is seen as evidence of a lack of integration that poses a threat to the target society.Materials and MethodsThe study used a qualitative approach and thematic analysis. The target population of the study comprised professors of sociology and political science at four universities in Tehran, namely the University of Tehran, Allameh Tabataba’i University, Kharazmi University, and the Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies. The purposive sampling was used to select the participants who had authored a book, article, or research project. Data collection was conducted through semi-structured interviews, involving ten professors to address the research question. The interviews continued until data saturation was reached. After conducting seven interviews, data repletion became apparent, but an additional three participants were interviewed to ensure data saturation. The collected interview data was manually analyzed following Braun and Clarke’s thematic analysis method in three key steps: 1) Generating and categorizing similar codes, 2) identifying sub-themes, and 3) Identifying main themes. Feedback from the respondents was sought to validate the research quality. Furthermore, to avoid misinterpretation, an independent reviewer was asked to evaluate the codes derived from the data.Results and DiscussionThe data gathered from the interviews revealed various othering mechanisms. These encompassed the main themes of economic, cultural, and legal mechanisms. The economic mechanisms included the sub-theme of the exploitation of migrant labor force. The cultural mechanisms included social stigma, cultural stigma, and the neglect of immigrants' cultural capital as sub-themes. Finally, the legal mechanisms were comprised of three sub-themes: the deprivation of bank card access, the denial of health insurance services, and the restriction of access to driving licenses.ConclusionAccording to the findings, one of the primary mechanisms for categorizing immigrants as others is the exploitation of migrant labor force, which is a component of the economic mechanisms. It appears that the vulnerability of the migrant labor force is deeply rooted in the long-term changes in Iran’s political economy. These changes have gradually resulted in the weakening of government support for the immigrant working class on one hand, and the normalization of using cheap labor to meet the needs of employers as a legitimate goal of neoliberal capitalist development, on the other hand.The cultural mechanisms of othering involved criminalizing immigrants through the use of social stigmas. Immigrants are frequently portrayed and blamed as the cause of increased crime and order-related challenges in the cities. Furthermore, immigrants are sometimes perceived as threats to national security.Another mechanism used to label immigrants as others is portraying them as inferior through the cultural stigma often referred to as Hazareh. Given the fact the residents of Hazareh have endured centuries of persecution by various Afghan groups due to their ethnicity and religion, this kind of labeling further subjects them to the double otherness. Neglecting immigrants’ cultural capital constitutes another mechanism for cultural alienation. Neglecting the cultural capital leads to the disregard of other forms of capital, such as economic and symbolic capital, ultimately hindering the integration of immigrants into the host society.The interviewees expressed the belief that various aspects of the law contribute to the alienation of immigrants. Since most Afghan immigrants are seeking better economic opportunities in Iran, financial services play a significant role in achieving their goal during their stay in Iran. However, their legal status has led to the exclusion of many immigrants from the formal, mainstream financial sector. Consequently, they are compelled to turn to alternative services offered in the informal sector. Moreover, due to their restricted legal status, most immigrants are unable to access any insurance services. In general, the prevailing cultural climate in Iran, coupled with legal constraints and the shortcomings in policy formulation, has contributed to the immigrant other and hindered the integration of immigrants into Iranian society.
ALi Sabbaghian
Abstract
Given that solidarity is at the heart of the European integration process in the post-World War II era, this article seeks to answer the question of how the Coronavirus crisis of 2020 affected European solidarity and how the weakness or lack of solidarity in the European integration process Affected? ...
Read More
Given that solidarity is at the heart of the European integration process in the post-World War II era, this article seeks to answer the question of how the Coronavirus crisis of 2020 affected European solidarity and how the weakness or lack of solidarity in the European integration process Affected? The paper based on this assumption examines the fact that the weakness of the European solidarity in the face of the Coronavirus crisis has exacerbated nationalist approaches in EU member states, thus exacerbating divisions in Europe and neglecting the EU's transnational achievements. Findings from the article show that European citizens are frustrated by the existence of solidarity, the intensification of nationalist policies, the widening of the gaps between the north and the south are the most important effects of the Corona Crisis on the solidarity of the European Union.In response to the consequences of this crisis, the European Union is using the experience gained from the management of previous crises to strengthen governance and increase its resilience, albeit at a high political cost.
