Introduction

This chapter, building on a comparative study of immigration policies at the urban level in Europe, discusses the present state of multiculturalist approaches and their adaptations at the local level after the ‘multiculturalism backlash’ (Vertovec and Wessendorf, 2009) in most political discourse. The relations between national frameworks and urban policies, the changing labels and the forms of continuity of local immigration policies, the involvement of civil society actors, the appearance of local policies of exclusion, will be the issues analysed in the chapter. As I will suggest in the conclusion, diversity could be the new framework within which multiculturalist stances can be reshaped.

Beyond multiculturalism?

In recent years, immigration policies in most European countries have been intended to reaffirm both the control of external borders and the values of identity and national belonging, and particularly so since 2001 (Balibar, 2012). Especially in the case of non-skilled third country nationals, this approach can be defined as neo-assimilationist. Learning the local language, displaying political loyalty, and adapting to national values of some kind are generally required (Antonsich, 2016). In an increasing number of cases, this includes language tests and the formal signing of special ‘integration agreements’ according to a demand for ‘civic integration’ (Joppke, 2007; Goodman, 2010).

This change in immigration policies goes hand in hand with growing disaffection with multiculturalism, at least as a discourse, in the European political debate (Prins and Slijper, 2002; Grillo, 2005). Several national leaders, including Blair, Cameron, Merkel and Sarkozy, have openly criticised the political idea of multiculturalism (Collett, 2011). This term can nevertheless be understood in different ways. It can be defined, following Modood, as ‘the recognition of group difference within the public sphere of laws, democratic discourses and the terms of a shared citizenship and national identity’ (2007, 2). But it can also be assumed, in practice, as an umbrella term covering many types of policies concerning ethnic and cultural diversities, migrants’ associations, promotion of ethnic minorities. In this framework, as Faist (2009) in particular has noted, diversity now appears more accepted in the political discourse than multiculturalism: it shifts the attention from the collective (ethnic group) to individuals; it creates links with other types of diversities; and it seems more acceptable from a neoliberal point of view, also because it may be seen as a resource for organisations, marketing and service delivery (‘diversity management’).