CYIL vol. 8 (2017)

HARALD CHRISTIAN SCHEU CYIL 8 ȍ2017Ȏ the host society. Such a process shall provide for full participation of the immigrant. 8 When the EU Council in 2004 adopted the “Common Basic Principles for Immigrant Integration Policy in the EU”, it described integration as a “dynamic, long-term, and continuous process of mutual accommodation” which involves adaptation by immigrants and the receiving society. 9 Also more recent Commission communications of 2011 10 and 2016 11 use the term process and explain that the process of integration involves a wide range of actors in different policy areas like e.g. education, employment, entrepreneurship, and culture. On the one hand, the picture of a two-way process may be a quite good description of structures and challenges concerning migrant integration, but on the other hand it can hardly serve as a legal definition of integration. The very open notion of migrant integration which is used by EU bodies automatically leads to disputes concerning the delimitation of specific competences. The more actors, policy areas and levels of legislation are concerned, the more difficult it is to precisely determine the role of the EU. Moreover, there is a more practical reason why EU involvement in the field of integration should be considered rather sceptically. To put it bluntly, integration is not only a vague concept but also a catchy word which is often used by human rights activists and by those who claim financial support for their projects and studies. In this way, integration policy has become a vehicle for money distribution. The EU Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF), which has been set up for the period of 2014 to 2020, offers a total of more than € 3 billion, among others for the promotion of effective integration of non-EU nationals. In December 2016, the European Commission published a call for proposals concerning the integration of third-country nationals 12 which prioritizes projects that help to promote a positive image of migration, combat stereotypes, communicate real facts and change the “narrative” on migration. The inclusion of the gender dimension will be also considered favourably. Those priorities are backed by the Commission’s action plan of 2016. According to the Commission, “integration is most effective when it is anchored in what it means to live in diverse European societies“. The Commission favours “welcoming, diverse and inclusive societies“, and, among others, it calls for intercultural dialogue and interreligious dialogue. 13 It seems, this wording is a bit more cautious than some formulations contained in the European Agenda of 2011 where the Commission held that Europe needs to better cope with its diverse and multicultural societies through more effective integration of migrants. The term “multicultural societies” is no longer used in the most recent documents, but the 8 Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on immigration, integration and employment, COM(2003)336 final. 9 Council document 14615/04, 19.11.2004. 10 Communication from the European Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of Regions: European Agenda for the Integration of Third-Country Nationals, COM(2011) 455 final. 11 Communication from the European Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of Regions: Action Plan on the integration of third country nationals, COM(2016) 377 final. 12 AMIF-2016-AG-INTE (available at http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/other_eu_prog/home/ guide/amif-call-proposals-ag-inte-16_en.pdf). 13 COM(2016) 377 final.

176