Priyanka Shankar talks with Petra Molnar - Lawyer, Anthropologist, Writer

PS: Petra you’ve been analyzing this differential response towards migration in Europe for many years now. Why exactly is migration such a contentious topic in the continent?

PM: Migration has been in the news and public discourse for many years now and it is kind of thought of as a contentious topic partly because it is able to capture people’s imagination in a really specific way. But I just want to say that migration has always been with us. People have always been moving around and it’s really become a political topic in recent years because our leaders and this shift to he right side of the political spectrum, has been able to use migration as a contentious topic, to garner votes and really shift the conversation on these issues in some pretty notorious ways. But at the end of the day, it is people’s stories at the end of this. Migration has always been happening and it will continue to happen as long as there are people on the planet.

You know, again it is really people, its families, it's humans who have real reasons why they need to move. A lot of them are geopolitical in nature. And the fact that the conversation has become so pointed and polarized is precisely because we talk in kind of grand theories or these ideas of flows, masses, crises, but we’ve forgotten that it is really individuals at the center of all of this.

PS: That’s true and on that note, despite having a common asylum system, Migrants have also become victims of violent pushbacks to third countries or back to the countries they fled from. The EU has also been fortifying its borders through border patrols and funding the construction of walls and border technology. Do such border surveillance techniques actually work?

PM: With this kind of turn to making borders sharper and harder and turning towards enforcement and weaponizing the conversation on migration, states are increasingly turning to sharper solutions. So physical walls, we’re seeing them crop up all over the world, but also different types of logical solutions we’re also seeing. You know we’re seeing all sorts of surveillance equipment all around the world, really problematic use of tech like the newly announced robotic dogs, autonomous weapon systems that can be changed to be used for border enforcement. Those are the kind of robots that have been used for policing and other types of uses. We’re also seeing artificial intelligence make its way into refugee processing around the world. But again, the motivating factor behind this is that increasingly as the world is kind of becoming more polarized, states are feeling the pressure to enforce borders and also make big money out of this. Because I think that’s a huge piece to this that we don’t talk enough about. The fact that private companies and the big tech sector is increasingly making inroads for border enforcement, because it is lucrative business. Some other scholars have called it the border industrial complex because there is a lot of money to be made in all these technological experiments and unfortunately, these tech experiments are then playing out on really vulnerable people’s lives. People who are crossing borders, who might want to be reunited with their spouses. I mean you and I could be affected by this too as we cross borders. Again it is kind of this real turn that some people have called technosolutionism, at the expense of people’s human rights and dignity as they’re trying to exercise their freedom of movement and all sorts of other human rights that are impacted too.

And also, some academics have spoken about the criminalization of migration. This kind of conflation or uniting of ideas that somehow because people are crossing borders, they are criminal or terrorists unless proven otherwise. This link has been made really really firmly in all sorts of jurisdictions in countries around the world. That is a huge motivating factor as to why border surveillance and technology surveillance is increasingly used. Because countries are able to say, “See we need these tools to prevent terrorists from coming in, from preventing crime” and from preventing this kind of fear mentality, the fear of the other. That is really strong with these border logics. But again, it kind of gets us away from the foundational conversation we need to have. How are human rights protected? What kind of dignified procedures to we have in place? What kind of oversight and accountability mechanisms do we have? Because when you operate from a place of fear, it obfuscates the humanity which should be at the center of the conversation.

PS: Border surveillance is not only common in Europe but also prevalent in the US along the US-Mexico border. You have also spent time analyzing border tech along this border. Do you think the US has been learning how to deal with migration from Europe?

PM: For me what is really useful is that I take a comparative approach in my work and am also writing a book that takes a comparative approach because sometimes when we zoom in too much, we don’t kind of see the broader picture. These issues are really of a global nature and countries also like to learn from one another and a lot of money and technology kind of changes hands. And so for example in the US Mexico border, the US generally has been a long test bed for all sorts of surveillance tech, and then it kind of filters through, for example the European Union then learns. But it also goes the other way, being based in Athens and looking at the fringes of Europe and what’s happening there, particularly with the rise of refugee camps which are replete with all sorts of technology, that’s a model that the EU has signaled that it wants to replicate, but also the US. There is clearly a lot of knowledge exchange that happens. And not only that, there is also all sorts of other players in the mix. We know that China for example is a huge geopolitical player when it comes to the development of artificial intelligence and all sorts of surveillance technologies. Israel is a major player in the surveillance economy and a lot of the technologies that are tested out in the west bank, are then imported to the US and used along the US-Mexico border. For example the Albert System Towers in Arizona, where I was just a few weeks ago, in February of 2022. So it really goes to show that this is a kind of global move and a global political economy where different actors are able to really push forward and see how much money can be made in all of this. So having a comparative approach at least for me is really useful, because it can be quiet overwhelming to see just how vast this kind of system is. But it helps to also underscore that we need to think globally when it comes to strategies of resistance and advocacy and knowledge sharing as well.  

PS: When do you think border surveillance is a good solution? Do you think it can be in certain cases?

PM: It’s a good question because it forces us to reexamine concepts of both “borders” and “surveillance”. Because even something as obvious as borders, is actually changing these days as well. We’re moving away from the geographical understanding of a place as a border but it really gets much more complicated. Borders can be our phones if they are used by governments for example, they’re changing because of artificial intelligence and surveillance. And so it really changes the way that we can think and talk about these concepts. And surveillance as well. You know it is a historic practice that often times overburdens particular communities. Communities that are racialized, marginalized and kind of pushed to the margins of vulnerabilities. So really I think we need to ask ourselves, what is it that we’re enforcing with border surveillance? Is it a system of power hierarchies that we’re okay with? Or are there other ways that we can think about protecting people’s human rights and dignity? While also solving the needs that a particular country or state can have. I know this all sounds a bit theoretical, but at the end of the day, it all goes back to what kind of human rights and civil liberties are at stake here? We’re talking about privacy rights? We’re talking about equality rights, we’re talking about the internationally protected rights to seek asylum, among many other human rights as well. And it’s not just the theoretical exercise, but it also becomes very practical when we start to unpack how power operates and it is always really powerful actors like the state or the private sector that is able to kind of set the agenda. While individuals and communities are kind of caught in the mix. So I guess what I’m saying is that we really need to have some radical conversations about what we are comfortable with as a society, to introduce at the border and immigration and refugee decision making when it comes to new technologies. And whether we are actually okay with using increased surveillance or automation there. Or whether we need to have a conversation about increasing funding for lawyers or different types of services. Or even actually tackling the geopolitical reasons why people are forced to migrate in the first place.

PS: And these government decisions in countries like Greece are just government decisions right? And not democratic?

PM: That’s right and it is a big part of it. It is not really a democratic process with these technologies. States make all sorts of public-private partnerships and all of these stuff is rolled out, like for example the robo-dogs that we saw that are going to be introduced at the US-Mexico border, and all sorts of AI that is already in use in the European space. A lot of this is not a part of the public discussions at all. I’m not just talking about the communities that I work with, you know folks on the move, refugees, asylum seekers, but citizens as well. Often times, people find out after the facts when something’s been introduced in the surveillance. So that is part of it too. Transferability to individuals and communities. That has really become an afterthought, which really needs to be part of the conversation.

PS: On that note of continuing conversations about migration, how do you think countries can find solutions to make peace with migration and asylum?

PM: I think making peace with migration and asylum is something which is central to the human experience, because people have been moving since time immemorial and there is a reason why we have established norms and laws and frameworks for asylum and refugee processing. And so we really can’ have it both ways. If a country and a state is a signatory for example, of the refugee convention and it says that it wants to uphold certain human rights conditions in this space, then it needs to do so and not just pay lip service to it. And then not turn around and use all sorts of Israeli surveillance technology or automation without public discourse. So I think we have to go back to basics and look at what’s really at stake. A foundational human right to move and migrate and seek a better life somewhere. That is a hallmark of humanity and we really kind of moved away from that. So in order to to make peace with migration, I think it has always been part of the human experience. So it is nothing to really make peace with, but rather something to honor and something to see as a positive, because immigrants, migrants, refugees, people on the move, bring so many benefits to societies. And i think if anything, that is exactly what our world needs.We need new ideas, we need new energy, new passions and more complexity. Unfortunately, it seems like we are kind of moving away from that. But I really hope that we can kind of turn it around and really see the joys and the glory that migration can bring to the world. In the law in particular, we kind of strive to get away from complexity. Sometimes we talk about kind of really rigid categories. You know you’re a refugee or an economic migrant or you’re an immigrant. But humans are complicated, migration is complicated. We all lead such complex lives. I mean, if you look at any individual life, you will see so much complexity, so many kind of dissident issues that happen at the same time and I think we need to hold that at the center of the conversation. We’re all complex. Migration is complex. And we need to honor that and respect that in the way we kind of deal with it.

You know I think there are examples. For example, you know Canada is one of the leading countries in terms of resettlement. There is all sorts of countries in Europe that for example really, that people going through the asylum procedures are supported. But actually for me what is really inspiring are the civil society movements and conversations that are happening among the migration justice organizations or prison abolition organizations and the kind of way information and resources are shared. That gives me a lot of hope and these grass root responses need to be strengthened. 

PS: In February 2022, the Russian Federation brutally invaded Ukraine, killing thousands and displacing millions. Many Ukrainians fled to the neighboring European nations of Poland, Romania and Moldova. Some of them also boarded trains and planes to Western European nations, the UK and the US, in search of asylum.

While countries in Europe were quick to display solidarity and welcomed many of these people with open arms, migration experts were also critical about how people of color and people from minority communities fleeing Ukraine, continued to face discrimination at borders.

The European Union also announced that displaced Ukrainian citizens would be eligible for temporary protection in EU nations and would not be required to apply for asylum.

Petra Molnar spent a couple of weeks monitoring asylum procedures along Poland’s border with Ukraine.  Petra, Poland has been one European country whose government supports an anti-refugee narrative. What really changed with the war in Ukraine? Right now it is one of the countries accepting the largest number of displaced people.

PM: It’s been quite remarkable and really heartbreaking to see what’s happening in Ukraine, since the Russian occupation in late Feb 2022. And I had a chance to actually go do some human rights monitoring at three different countries that border Ukraine, for the purposes of learning more about the situation but also to gather evidence of racial discrimination of people fleeing Ukraine and also for students that are living in Ukraine. And you know, to be perfectly honest, it is a really complicated thing because on one hand, it is beautiful to see amazing solidarity and the kind of help extended to Ukrainian refugees and rightly so. It is very possible to have a soft, kind response, to a horrific crisis like this. You know we would see massive amount of food, clothes, diapers and housing opportunities collected for people. And yet the amazing level of solidarity also highlights this two tier system that unfortunately is n most immigration policies around the world. Again with this ongoing situation in Ukraine, it became clear that solidarity was shown mostly to white refugees from Ukraine. People of color fleeing Ukraine who have an equally legitimate reason to get out because their lives are at risk, Roma people have been reporting incidences of violence, of not being able to get access to the same resources and things like this. And Poland is a particular case study which highlights this kind of two-tier system. Because on its southern border, which is its border with Ukraine, you see this amazing show of solidarity and yet at its Polish-Russian border, where I was in 2021 to monitor the situation as well, you still see this corridor that is inaccessible to human rights groups and people from the middle east who are trying to seek asylum in Europe. People are being forcibly pushed back, which is illegal in international law and are often living in horrific conditions along the border. So really, we’re talking about a couple of hours of a drive-in difference, and it again highlights this system of just arbitrariness that is inherent in how borders are expressed. So again, a lot has changed because of the situation in Ukraine, but it also highlights that it is very possible to show solidarity to people fleeing war. But it is done very selectively. We have to again be proud of this solidarity but critique all the racial injustice which is also part of this system at the same time.

PS: Criticism often does hold governments accountable and you’re right we’ve seen the media and NGO’s highlighting Europe’s two-tier migration system with this crisis. But will the criticism trigger EU leaders to ensure people fleeing conflicts from other nations, also get the same treatment?

PM: It is a bit complicated to answer that because at the end of the day, we have to critique borders and how some people can cross, while others cannot. But I do think that at the end, given this kind of disparity, in terms of treatment received, there has definitely been response that has been promising. But again, I think if we talk to real people and bringing it down to the personal experience and then thinking about how we can make sure the response that is put into place is fair for everybody, that is really the key. But I think time will tell as well, this is something we are all worried about in this space, the solidarity and help will fall away. Countries get tired and overburdened with lack of resources. So it is not that farfetched to imagine that even white Ukrainian refugees who are leaving, are going to be severely impacted by this kind of violence. So again, it is a beautiful moment in time but it is important to focus on the good in the situation, while calling out the wrong and making sure that what we do is grounded in humanity, when it comes to these responses.

PS: Going forward, how will this crisis affect peace-oriented migration policy in Europe and elsewhere in the world?

PM: I think the situation in Ukraine really feels a bit tectonic. It is really changing not only global order, but also changing countries’ responses to people needing to flee war. But I think again, it is too early to tell how far-reaching potential changes might be. And I think it is really important to look at it from a global perspective. Yes the situation is happening in Ukraine, in Europe, but also, it has ramifications all over. There have been instances of Ukrainians trying to enter the US and there were some confusions about the whole issue of title 42, where people moving from Mexico to the US are to be processed. So Ukrainians were allowed to enter but others were not. So again it highlights the hypocrisy of border regimes and the way that we manage people. So, I would like to be hopeful that this is a bit of a game changer and has shown that it is very possible for countries to step up and be there for people in time of need, but unfortunately and I think again, coming from someone who has been working in this for over a decade, its horrific to see how the situation in Syria has been. And I think again, while there was solidarity in 2015-2016 in Europe when many people were coming, it also quickly solidified blatant racism, criminalization of migrants and people who are helping. So it is really easy for these situations to turn and we have to make sure that we use this global moment as a way to increase how this human rights situation is used in our global system. And also to, put the human back at the center of all of this. Because at the end of the day, it is people who are fleeing war, who need help.

PS: Clearly this war has made us realize that countries have the ability to make peace with migration and asylum and embrace open borders. While it is still open borders for a particular group of people, would you say there is a border policy which would enable countries to treat every human being equally?

PM: In a utopia, I would advocate an abolishment of borders and coming up with a creative and kind way of living together as a global society. That is something we have to advocate for because border logics impact all of us. However, realistically, we are nowhere near that utopia. So I think in the present day, we can still really work towards making sure, that border crossings, migration management and the forced dislocation and relocation of people is fair, equitable and really grounded in human dignity. That is something that is really possible and needs to be strengthened for people all over the world. And it is something which is possible and is something the Ukrainian crisis is showing us. There is kind of two ways to look at it: Working towards the abolishment of borders and while in the present day, thinking about the current system to make the system more dignified and kinder for people who need to flee conflict and war.

Priyanka Shankar talks with Bram Frouws -  Mixed Migration Centre (MMC) in Geneva

PS: Bram, you’ve been researching migration across the globe for many years now. Why do you think migration is such a polarizing topic?

BF: I think one of the reasons why it is such a contentious topic is because the scale of migration is very much over estimated in Europe. Most of the people in the world don’t migrate. Those who do, primarily do so within their own countries. The minority that does migrate internationally, the majority of that number does migrate legally. Then there is a very small number of people who migrate irregularly. But if you look at social media, media headlines, there is a lot of focus on that irregular migration. Which then signals to populations that migration is something that is so hard to manage, that is out of control. Then I think there are politicians, especially on the right side of the political spectrum, that fuel a fear of migration for political gain because they know that this is what could mobilize their voters. And then of course there are general concerns about migration that are valid. Very often, migrants might end up in neighborhoods that are dealing with higher social challenges like unemployment, poor housing conditions etc. So there are valid concerns over migration. But I think what we’re seeing is too often the language around migration where it is referred to as a crisis makes it such a contentious topic around Europe.

PS: Yes as a part of your research at the Mixed Migration Center, you have been critical about the language used to discuss the movement of people in the media and amidst political groups. Do you feel it feeds into a sort of war narrative?

BF: Yes it is and we’ve seen that a lot before the 2015 crisis already, also sometimes by leaders outside Europe like Gadhafi, who was talking about turning Europe Black if he didn’t get the funds he had requested from the EU and Italy. Also recently we have seen the example where in late 2021 in the border between Poland and Belarus, where the Belarusian President Lukashenko, sent a few thousand people to the border with the European Union. Initially Lithuania, later Poland. In response, European leaders were responding to a hybrid war and being under attack. Which all signaled that you can actually hit or target a powerful rich block like the EU, by sending a few thousand people. And I think we see too much of that kind of language and I think we still see a lot of water metaphors being used like floods and waves of migrants both in the media and by leaders and politicians as well. Often in relation to climate change for example. Language around the root cause of migration like it is a problem that needs to be cut by the roots to address. Also a lot of reference to migrants instead of people. So there are a lot of negative narratives that all fuel this idea of migration being out of control and that strip people of their agency.

PS: Have there been countries in Europe that have found a solution to manage migration well?

BF: Yes definitely. I mean there are a lot of bad examples but in November 2021, we launched our annual mixed migration review, we always compile a list which we call normalizing the extreme, which is an overview of harsh approaches to refugees and migrants. But last year for the first time, we introduced what is called as a necessary counterpoint which we called, resisting the extreme. This lists progressive and positive examples of how you can also deal with migration. And I think that is important because there are lots of good examples out there and all over the world that we can learn from. I think Portugal is one interesting case. For example, during the Covid-19 pandemic, they provided residency to irregular migrants to make sure that they have access to healthcare. They are now discussing scaling up immigration pathways between Morocco and Portugal. There is a German coalition government who agreed upon a number of 400,000 migrants they will need every year, to just keep the German economy going, so also scaling up regular migration pathways. Italy regularizing migrant workers. But also outside of Europe, Colombia recognizing that there is a large population of Venezuelans there, who are likely to stay and granting them a regular status. Countries in Europe like France, Belgium and the Netherlands, providing good access to Covid-19 vaccinations to irregular migrants. So I think we see a lot of positive approaches and I think we need more of those and need to learn from those.

PS: When it comes to migration governance and migration in Europe and across the world, a global compact for migration or the GCM was signed in 2018 by 152 countries. But is the GCM being respected? Or do we see a north-south divide with migration management?

BF: I think there is a north-south divide. It has been there for a long time in global migration governance and different agreements, where migration is almost regarded as an issue to be addressed in the global south. And also in general, a mistake in distinguishing countries of origin and countries of destination. The former being in the south, the latter being in the north. And it is a very simplistic portrayal of reality and most countries are countries of origin, transit and destination at the same time. What I’m worried about is what we’re currently seeing in the global compact for migration, which was adopted in 2018, is that we in a way see the resurfacing of the divide where a lot of countries declare themselves as the champion countries or GCM implementation. But with a few expectations, all of them are found in the global south. And if you look at the projects that are being funded and implemented, as GCM implementation, those are all projects in the global south. And in a way signals that countries in the global north, don’t do any GCM implementation, as if their migration policies are already well established and perfect and the issues are elsewhere. That is a misrepresentation of reality, because there are lot of things that countries in the global north need to do as well. For example, when it comes to finding  alternatives to immigration systems that are better than return systems, saving lives, which is a whole objective in itself, where we actually see efforts to save lives being hampered in the Mediterranean, so I think the need to improve migration policies and implementing the global compact for migration, is as applicable to states in the global south, as it is to states in the global north.

PS: Are there solutions for Europe to make peace with migration and asylum?

BF: That’s a great question, the billion dollar question indeed. I think it starts as you said with accepting that migration is a normal phenomenon, a relatively small phenomenon. As I said, most people don’t migrate and most do so regularly and there is only a small number that migrates irregularly. And that’s where the problems are where smugglers gain and take advantage of refugees and migrants. So I think what we need to do is see things in proportion. Irregular migration is a relatively small phenomenon and we need some courage to develop migration policy and systems that combine a humane approach, with an economically smart and rational approach. And part of that I think is cutting out the unproductive elements that we see, surrounding migration, such as human smuggling, tax evasion, job subsidies in African businesses for example which means people cannot find jobs where they are and will come to Europe to find those jobs. Really scaling up irregular migration pathways and dignified returns after fast asylum processing. And I think we need a bit of respect that doesn't signal that migration is out of control, sometimes it will impose humanitarian challenges. But usually this is all manageable, as long as there is a political will to manage things in a humane way.

Priyanka Shankar talks with Vasco Malta - Head of the UN's International Organization for Migration in Portugal

PS: A successful migration and integration policy has been challenging for many countries not only in Europe but also across the globe. What is Portugal’s secret?

VM: People tend to say that Portugal is seen as a country where integration policies of migration are a success, and I believe that the fact that all Portuguese system is built up remotely, where the participation of migrants in the decisions that affected them, allowed Portugal to have a very sustainable system. But, that’s not the only reason. There are other reasons behind this alleged success of Portugal and migration.  First of all, I would say that there is migration history of the country. So there is reciprocity as a principal, since we have 4 to 5 million Portuguese living abroad. So, when you have people living abroad and you are a migrant, you know how it is to be a migrant. Also this is very important to highlight that somehow there is a very strong, political consensus, meaning that the benefits of immigration, are almost clearly perceived for almost all political parties. We had elections this last weekend actually, and a right-wing party elected 12 members, and nevertheless, I could say the benefits of immigration, are still very clearly perceived. Especially because according to different barometers, that I remember, only 3% of the Portuguese population, considered immigration as a problem, as an issue. Finally, two other reasons behind its alleged success is the fact that, in Portugal, there is inter-ministerial coordination of the topic of migration, with a clear leadership on the integration agenda. Meaning that the politics and government agenda in Portugal, its focus on the migrants and their integration. And that is also very important. And of course, finally, there are a lot of partnerships at multi-level governance, meaning that immigrant associations and also municipalities, are always part of the solution. And always, normally, the local delivers of the national framework on the integration of migrants. So the propagation of all these factors, I would believe is the reason behind the success of Portugal and the integration of migrants.

PS: Has it been easy implementing this welcoming migration and integration policy? Or were there challenges along the way?

VM: So regarding the biggest challenges of migration we have in Portugal, I’ll put it in two ways. First of all we need to make sure that we have the conditions to attract migrants. Please bear in mind, one specific thing. In Portugal we are, the third country in the world with the highest percentage of old people and also our birth rates are compared to countries that are technically at war. So actually, we need migrants in Portugal. So the first challenge that we need to put out-front, is the fact that we need to attract migrants to our country. Another one, is of course the integration process. So we need to make sure that in Portugal, we have the proper conditions to access employment, housing, health in order to start a new life in this country. So as I said, on one hand the first challenge is how to attract the high skilled migrants and also how to integrate them when they decided to come is the other challenge that we face here in Portugal.

PS: Europe is a safe haven for many people fleeing conflict in the middle east, North Africa, eastern Europe, and even central America. Often countries like Greece, Italy, Spain become the recipient countries because of their geographical location next to water bodies, making it easy for migrants to enter. Does Portugal help these countries accommodate everyone who needs asylum? 

VM: Since 2015, Portugal has responded to the migration flows in Europe with solidarity. By having an active participation in the EU emergency schemes, relocating different asylum seekers and beneficiaries of international protection coming from different European countries such as Greece, Italy and Malta. So, to be clear, Portugal has upheld its political commitment to responsibility sharing and of course proactively contributing to intra EU solidarity in Europe. The fact is until two years ago, Portugal has for many years, a negative migratory balance. Meaning that, always more Portuguese going abroad, than migrants coming in. This combined with the mention that Portugal is the third country in the EU, with the highest percentage of people more than 65 years old, somehow alerted the Portuguese authorities about a dark scenario in the years to come. To be clear, this migratory imbalance has stopped in 2018 and 2019, showing of course that Portugal started to receive new migration flows, and became a more attractive destination for foreigners and at the same time, the economic growth forced Portuguese to stay. So this is sometimes the background that may explain what Portugal did so far. So that’s actually an excellent question, since, the government of Portugal has completed with bilateral agreement with Greece, for the relocation of up to 1000 refugees, that are currently in Greece.  So this agreement, served as the basis for implementation of the first, pilot relocation scheme, which targeted 100 beneficiaries, so refugees and asylum seekers, that actually were relocated in Portugal, there until 2021. So till a few months ago. So this project that was also implemented by IOM, intended to provide a comprehensive, relocation support to those beneficiaries reidentified by the government of Portugal and Greece, for the relocation in Portugal. So, specifically on Greece, as you already mentioned, I would say that Portugal has shown solidarity and I believe this should be seen as an example to other EU countries to do the same.

PS: What would you say is the best way to make peace with migration and asylum?

VM: It is a difficult question, but I honestly believe that if you allow the participation of migrants in the decisions that affect them, somehow, you create a social cohesion in the society. So the final sentence I would say is, make sure that you heard the migrants needs and problems, when you build up the solutions that you want to affect them. There is a saying in Brussels, I think it is connected with the handicapped movement, saying something like, nothing about us, without us. I think this is a key success factor, when you want to build up social cohesion. When you want to build up peace between the majority of the population and the migrant population. So besides giving the necessary tools for people to be integrated, you make sure you build up a system where the needs of this person can be heard. And this is a way to make sure you have social cohesion in the society, migrants feel they are heard and their voices are important, and somehow this helps all the society and the majority of society and the migrants, to be reintegrated as a whole, and contributes to the success of the nations.

I am going to share with you a very powerful example of integration. As you know food can be a very powerful example of the culture of a country. So there is a program running called the “family of next door”, according to which, every year, two families, who know each, one with a migrant background, another with a national background, simply sit with each other at the same table and both of them, share a food dish that somehow can represent their country. So this is of course a very simple example. But you cannot imagine, how results coming from this simple example, since it ensures sharing part of who you are, sharing your culture. And learning about the culture of the other country in the same time, of course is, very powerful in helping the integration process. So this means one thing and I will end on that behalf, is that, it is not only about the government. Always, all of us need to do our share, and why not just invite the family next door, to sit down, eat, listen, share a little bit of my culture and learn also a little bit of the other’s culture. Maybe this is a very simple example but I honestly believe it can bring very powerful results.