LIQUID LIFE: A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN VULNERABILITY AND MOBILITY – THE CONSEQUENCES FOR A SUSTAINABLE CITY

ABSTRACT

People move. How people move, and how this moving of people has affected the cities on their way is known, so far, from the sociological research citizens’ mobility within short intervals (daily or periodic measurements during the day). This brief concept paper deals with the issue of transition from a static, sedentary lifestyle, characterized by stability, to an agile, dynamic way of life, characterized by mobility. The consequences of these dissimilarities are now present on a global level. Since the mass migration to Europe began in 2011 after the Arab Spring, it seems as if refugees are occupying the cities in Europe, which are on the migration route to the "promised land". Consequently, we no longer just have individual districts predominantly populated by immigrants or segregated districts where immigrants live, but the city centres of several capitals have been turned into meeting places for people from Africa and the Middle East too. What is the relationship between vulnerability and mobility and whether the city, regarded as metamorphic entity, with all its properties, is able to adapt to new citizens? Has the city an identity that is mixed with the identities of (temporary) inhabitants and are cultural differences ignored in case of tolerance and intolerance from the local population? Is the concept of public space gaining more importance, or is this a situation where the public space has become overcrowded and overloaded? These questions arise in this paper.

Keywords: vulnerability, risk, mobility, refugee crisis, public space

Topics: Image, identity and quality of place

INTRODUCTION

The Raft of the Medusa, a famous painting by Théodore Géricault, one of the pioneers of the Romantic period, became the focus of public attention again in 2015 when Philip Hoare mentioned it text “‘The sea does not care’: the wretched history of migrant voyages”. The painting is not only a disturbing representation of the suffering that may occur out at sea, but also a reminder of the true event, and the inspiration for this work of art, the tragedy that befell the French frigate Méduse. On July 2nd 1816, the frigate ran aground off the West African coast, and of the 147 crew members evacuated onto a make-shift raft, only 15 survived the 13 days adrift at sea, enduring sickness, death, rebellion and cannibalism. Géricault's Medusa was a response to the political scandal and modern tragedy of epic proportions (Janson & Janson, 1992). In order to convey the tragedy in the most profound manner, and to unveil the truth surrounding the event, Géricault interviewed survivors and, by capturing one particular moment, tried to present both the hopelessness of the situation as well as the optimism that appeared in the distance in the form of a ship on the horizon.This work of art became the matter of public discourse again with the peak of the refugee crisis in 2015. Since 2012, the Mediterranean has been a place of ordeal for a large number of people seeking a better life in European countries. At the same time, the Mediterranean is a no man's land, open space, a vastness that does not belong to anyone regardless of the territorial scope of nautical miles. Therefore, refugees losing their lives in the open sea are regarded only as victims, not as threats. However, when they have crossed several hundred miles by sea, the refugees reach land, where all administrative activities for obtaining asylum, for exercising human rights and integration actually begin. It is also a long period of waiting, spent by most refugees in the only areas of the European continent where they have access, European cities. This opens up an old debate while refugees continue to arrive in new waves towards new destinations. The use of space in European cities is not a matter for debating who has the right to the city, but a matter of discussion about the context and reception of immigrant arrivals. This brief conceptual paper will try to argue in favor of the idea that the integration of newcomers into town communities brings prosperity and stability, rather than vulnerability.

Last Refugee Crisis: 2011 – …The last major movement of people began in 2010. Events like the Arab Spring in the north of Africa and the (global) civil wars in Middle East countries launched the shift of a multitude of people looking for a more secure and sustainable life. Myron Weiner distinguishes three reasons for refugee movements: 1) security reasons, 2) economic reasons, 3) environmental degradation (Weiner, 1992). The growing complexity of the situation in Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Palestine, resulted in the war escalation, extremization, polarization, and a number of civilian casualties. This caused many people to leave their homes in the aforementioned countries and to move towards safer regions. From 2010 until now, quantitative indicators have made it clear that the number of asylum seekers in Europe has been increasing (Figure 1: Eurostat, 2015).

Figure 1: First time asylum applicants EU-28 January 2014 (Eurostat, 2015)

Most asylum seekers during this six-year period have used three routes on their way to Europe: the route through the Iberian Peninsula, the Mediterranean route, and Balkan route leading to Greece through Turkey and by land across the Balkan countries. On all three routes, there are points that are considered to be the boundaries of Europe, or Fortress Europe as it is called by some authors (Geddes, 2008); the Melilla border fence on the Morocco - Spain border (Bendel, 2007; Goldschmidt, 2006), the Italian island of Lampedusa (Cartel & Merrill, 2007; Coluccello & Massey, 2007), and the Hungarian border fence on the Balkan route (Hann, 2015).

In the second half of 2015, over 100,000 people arrived to Europe each month (Figure 2: Eurostat, 2015). The number of refugees who arrived to Europe in 2015 exceeded 1 million.1

The European Union tried to enable refugees to stay in EU member states by applying a common policy to all Member States, but also tried to provide adequate support to non-EU countries to cope with the refugee crisis. All measures were taken in accordance with the Dublin Regulation2, a legal document that governs this area.

Figure 2: Asylum applications non-EU in the EU-28 Member (Eurostat, 2015)

1 Interactive map, real time data update: http://data.unhcr.org/mediterranean/regional.php (27.01.2016)2 Regulation No. 604/2013 which entered into force in June, 2013. This Regulation governs the European Union Policy towards asylum seekers and aligns the provision of protection for asylum seekers with the Geneva Conventions and other international treaties in this field.

While the most upsetting photos referring to the refugee crisis are the ones which share similarities with Géricault’s Medusa (overcrowded boats and sea deaths), the fact is that 80% of Syrian refugees have sought refuge in camps, and the majority of these refugees are living in urban areas, be it in "informal tented settlements," rented rooms, or semi-finished buildings (Miliband, 2015). Refugees coming to Europe are accustomed to living in urban areas, and due to its capacity, a city represents a center of economic growth and opportunities. Train stations, shops, banks and hospitals are located in towns. The International Rescue Committee, for example, reports that "over a half of the world's refugees now live in large towns and cities' (International Rescue Committee, n.d.), which is a figure that is consistent with our own estimates stating that about six in ten refugees are living in urban areas (Crawford et all, 2015). Nowadays, the number of Syrian refugees in Istanbul is higher than the number there is in all of Europe (Miliband, 2015), which fully supports the fact that Istanbul is the only European fast-growing megalopolis (Eurostat, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015). The same situation is registered in most cities of Jordan and Lebanon, which carried the biggest burden of the crisis.The general impression is that there are EU countries which appear to be favorable destinations for refugees for various reasons (economic prospects, stability, existing minority groups, and multiculturalism). At the same time, there are other EU countries that refugees are not willing to go to or which do not want to accept them. The list of destinations chosen by refugees may also include cities due to their availability, development, open-mindedness, the existence of municipal minority communities of the same origin, and employment opportunities. Therefore, the object of observation may be the list of desirable cities (World's most livable cities3). This concept paper offers an insight into three lists of the most livable cities made in 2015. The most famous list is the one made by the newspaper “The Economist” and is based on 30 different factors, classified into five areas (see more in: EIU, 2015). Regardless of indexing, it seems as though this list is too Anglo-centric, since it highlights the quality of cities based on the capacity to use the English language (Greenway, 2010). The other two lists seem to be more objective. Monocle's Quality of Life Survey has been published since 2006 and the list is based on 11 criteria: security (crime), climate (sunshine), architecture, urban design, environment and access to nature, business conditions, development policies, international connectivity, public transport, tolerance and medical care. All these criteria form The Most Livable City Index (see more in: Monocle, 2015). The consulting company Mercer published its Mercer Quality of Living Survey, which presents the comparisons between 221 cities across 39 criteria (See more in: Mercer, 2015). New York is used as the baseline, and received a score of 100, whereas other cities are compared and ranked in relation to NY.Making it to the top 30 on these lists are European cities in Switzerland, France, Spain, Germany and Austria, as well as the Benelux and Scandinavian countries. These Western European countries are the preferred destinations of refugees on their way to a better life in cities such as: Vienna, Zurich, Helsinki, Geneva, Hamburg, Frankfurt, Oslo, Copenhagen, Berlin, Stockholm, Dusseldorf, Paris, Lyon, Barcelona, Munich, Amsterdam, Brussels and Barcelona. Regardless of the circumstances that led to the crisis, the migration situation will not end in 2015, 2016, or in any year in the near future. As Polish sociologist Zigmund Bauman wrote, mass migration is unlikely to grind to a halt (Bauman, 2015). Migration, whether voluntary or forced, has always been a characteristic of individual and collective

3 An informal name given to the list of the cities ranked based on an annual survey of living conditions.

human behavior (Newman, 2003). Thomas Nail, from Denver University, started his book The Figure of the Migrant, with the opening line: The twenty-first century will be the century of the migrant (Nail, 2015). Obviously writing in a singular form, this author dedicates his book to a migrant, which confirms writing of Georgio Agamben, the Italian philosopher, who, in his review of Hana Arenth's paper We, Refugees (1943) pointed out the following - inasmuch as the refugee, an apparently marginal figure, which unhinges the old trinity of state-nation-territory, it deserves instead to be regarded as the central figure of our political history (Agamben, 1995). The city should be added to make the trilogy a tetralogy.

Mixophobia: Relationship between vulnerability and resilience, as a context for exclusion and segregationPeople move. People are changing. The change of people is accompanied with the change of cities. Besides being described by Nail as the century of the migrant, the 21st century is also described as the urban century by UN-HABITAT. This relies on the trend in which more than 50% of the world's population now lives in cities. Since this trend of movement will not stop, the trend of settling and expansion of the city will not stop either. At some point we will find out how this impacts on the 21st century city. Perhaps migration itself shall be the punch line of the city development. Since every crisis creates a new theory, maybe this refugee crisis will turn out to be epistemological rupture in the development of the city. Former studies of movement in cities came down to daily and local migrations. However, nowadays we understand that the movement of population has turned into a mass migration of people. The city now faces the challenge of trying to remain resilient to a crisis such as the arrival of a large number of people at one time.No matter how we observe the city, regardless of its infrastructure, if we relied on its most important structural element - the population - we would come to the conclusion that the occurrence of foreigners is always a problem for citizens. The more different a foreigner is, the greater the caution is. The more specific the foreigner is, the greater fear is felt. If there was no Other there would be no reason to be afraid (Koskela, 2009). A stranger is, by definition, a factor triggered by the intention which we can speculate about, but which we can never truly know (Bauman, 2009). A stranger poses a risk. Hale (1996, p. 79), in his comprehensive review of literature, indicated that "over two hundred articles, conference papers, monographs and books have been written on some aspect or other of the fear of crime" (Banniseter & Fyfe, 2001). Phobias and fears at one point were an important research topic in the endeavour to understand social cohesion and the city. Even though fear is a personal emotion, the social production of fear does not take place in a thorough and individual's own perspective, but through the experiences of others (Koskela, 2009).In a city, it is impossible to avoid encounters with foreigners. The closeness of foreigners is their fate, and the modus vivendi must be experimented with, tried and tested, and, hopefully, in the end the cohabitation will prove to be bearable, and life possible (Bauman, 2009). The risk appears in densely populated areas. Large-scale changes have been registered in cities due to the growing interest of investors in the construction of closed settlements and gated communities, a Fortress City. The first impulse was a failed attempt to reduce vulnerability. Public spaces shrank as privatized social spaces expanded in order to provide white citizens with immunity from immigrants, poor people, and other "undesirable" minorities (Low, 1997). But it was also the failure of the city. Voluntary segregation, as Calame & Charlesworth call it in their book Divided Cities (2011), has its own

representation in divisions against others. The need for protection from foreigners occurs in rich, privileged elites who will thus remain isolated from the hostile urban environment. But the value of the city is in its very diversity, its most valuable asset, isn’t it? Zygmunt Bauman in his book Liquid Love, introduces the concepts of mixophobia and mixophilia. Mixophobia is a reaction to the complex variants of human types and life styles that come in contact on the streets of large cities (in unprotected barrier areas). Under these conditions, foreigners become more terrifying if they are strange and unknown, thus creating a tendency towards a homogeneous, territorially isolated environment. Fortress City invented a more perfidious way to control: surveillance. Physical barriers are no longer required. It is enough to set registration centers that handle numerical data using biometrics. Strict control and governmentality are established through three criteria: the practices of exceptionalism, acts of profiling and containing foreigners, and a normative imperative of mobility (Bigo, 2006). That is how ban-opticon established, as a tool contributing towards the securitization of migration, and the transition of refugees is terminated before reaching London or Copenhagen.For authors such as Schiller, Caglar and Guldbrandsen, monitoring policies are adopted at the national level. However, the context of reception is conceived as national, although immigrant incorporation, as well as promulgation of policies and community responses to immigrants, varies considerably across physical and political spaces within nations. As new immigrants increasingly move into communities that have not dealt with large number of foreign-born residents, these new destinations accommodate, celebrate, and resist their new residents (Cadge et all, 2010). Until the 90s, migrations had been regarded as an economic problem/opportunity or as a political and security issue requiring a humanitarian response. All that ceased to exist by the end of the Cold War, when borders started being treated differently in both directions; a more flexible observation of national boundaries of states, which led to the Schengen Agreement in 1995, but also to strengthening national identity which does not grant access to the non-European Other. In his article from 2001, The EU and the Securitization of Migration, Jef Huysmans says that linking internal and external borders of the European Community has played an important role in the production of a spillover of the socio-economic project of the internal market into an internal security project. Within this setting, migration has been increasingly presented as a danger to public order, cultural identity, and domestic and labor market stability; it has been securitized (Huysmans, 2000). He described this as a security project in Europe. Since the 1990s, even more people have moved to and within Europe, and they are more and more different from each other (Vertovec, 2007, 2010).As was mentioned before, during 2015, 1 million refugees arrived in Europe, and one can assume that they have come expecting a better life and hoping for a warm welcome. However, they encountered the following: Sweden announced that 80,000 people shall be returned, Germany tightened their rules on who is entitled to asylum, Denmark passed the law allowing it to take away the money from refugees, Austria closed their borders, and Norway is no longer accepting refugees. This is the level of national control policies. Nevertheless, the 1 million refugees were dispersed around European cities. The question that arises is whether they will spend time in a hostile environment, without a clear perspective, and constantly expecting to be deported back or will they be integrated and appropriately accepted, as this could happen in the developed European cities. In the analysis of segregation, set up by Park (Park, 1928), the city rather than migrants

themselves, chooses where to put migrants, the city organizes itself in order to put migrants and poor people into its less attractive areas (Cattacin, 2006). If European cities set up physical barriers and become Complete Fortress Cities as a bastion of defense of the Fortress Europe or they allow new citizens to stay remains to be seen.

Mixophilia: The relationship between cities and sustainability, as context for inclusion and aggregationThe city is a metamorphic form. It is prone to changes brought about by outside influences and for this reason the resilience of the city is what is depended on. Experience of the city is, on the other hand, an ambivalent experience (Bauman, 2003). Diversity is a feature of the city and, along with dispersion, it causes confusion and confusion, in turn, causes fear. But the diversity and ambivalence of the urban experience does not only have to cause fear, it could also be observed as a source of possibilities. The same as urbanization was considered to be a solution for service availability, a high-density idea of sustainability (see wider Ng (ed.). 2009), we wonder what is the solution for the arrival of large numbers of people. UN-Habitat proposes that harmony hinges on two key pillars: equity and sustainability (UN-Habitat, 2010). These can be achieved by social integration. Refugees who set off on their way to Europe during the refugee crisis ended up in European cities. The more heterogeneous a city is, the more opportunities it provides. Densely populated urban areas inevitably generate the contradictory impulses of "mixophilia" (interest in variegated, heteronymous surroundings auguring unknown and unexplored experiences and for that reason promising pleasures of adventure and discovery) (Bauman, 2015). The mass concentration of foreigners in one place is the most powerful magnet which constantly attracts new troops into the city [...] diversity is the promise of opportunities which are suitable for all tastes and skills [...] The bigger the city is, the more people it will attract (Bauman, 2009). The city attracts differences: different ways of life, different trajectories and different socio/economic positions [...] it promises liberty and attracts people in search of new opportunities (Cattacin, 2006).Refugees see a city as a source of possibilities. European citizens also regard the arrival of new people to a city as good. Eurostat reports, which include Focus on European City chapters, confirm these claims. In 49 of the 79 cities surveyed, at least 70% of respondents agreed that the presence of foreigners was a good thing (Eurostat, 2014, 2015). The survey was conducted in December 2012 and results are available for cities across all of the EU Member States, as well as Iceland, Norway, Switzerland, Croatia and Turkey (Eurostat, 2014). According to this study, a foreigner is a person who does not have the citizenship of the country of their usual residence, regardless of their place of birth. Among the 10 cities where the perception of foreigners was at its most positive, were three Nordic capital cities - Copenhagen, Stockholm and Helsinki, and two other capitals, namely, Luxembourg and Ljubljana. The top 10 also included Groningen (the Netherlands) and three other cities from Eastern Europe - Kraków (Poland), Burgas (Bulgaria) and Piatra Neamt (Romania). However, it is certainly important to note that research should be repeated with regard to the recently formed situation, since governments of certain countries, whose capitals are mentioned herewith, have a negative attitude towards refugees from Africa and the Middle East. Nevertheless, one of the strongest impressions within the humanitarian context of the refugee crisis is that citizens, much more than states and stakeholders, have helped refugees. An important ethnographic conclusion reached, in terms of the attitude towards

refugees, was that cities whose citizens are of a refugee background and have had prior experiences in accepting refugees, have a greater capacity to be permanent locations for refugees. At the same time, important variations were noticed in how cities create and deploy their cultural reinforcement, including differences in urban self/presentation, the prevailing ethos towards immigrants, and how culture is harnessed in the service of urban renewal projects (Cadge et al. 2010).While these issues have been burdening the research community over the past few decades, the role of cities as centers of global economic development and their part in changing environmental and social conditions has gained much more attention recently. Isolation, as presented in the previous chapter, means dependence. After all, it is clear that the elimination of fences and barriers leads towards the elimination of differences.

CONCLUSIONS

As Refugees would not just disappear from the city, as people would not disappear from the city. Cities becoming more and more developed, and its component – the population – will become increasingly important for its development. What we need is to allow the city to be sustainable, and to be a free zone, safe zones are open for new opportunities. Mobility stands out as one of the key principles of sustainable city, and comment that refugees see the city as a source of possibilities, should applied vice versa, so the city needs to see refugees as a source of possibilities. This refugee crisis, perhaps, shows that the time has come for modus coexistendi, as one of the most operative way of functioning and sustainability.

REFERENCES

Agamben, G. (1995, June). We refugees. In Symposium: A Quarterly Journal in Modern Literatures (Vol. 49, No. 2, pp. 114-119). Taylor & Francis.

Bannister, J., & Fyfe, N. (2001). Introduction: Fear and the city. Urban studies, 38(5-6), 807-813.

Bauman, Z. (2009) Fluidna ljubav: O krhkosti ljudskih veza. Novi Sad: Mediterran publishing

Bauman, Z. (2003). Liquid love: On the frailty of human bonds. Cambridge: Polity.

Bauman, Z. (2015, December 17th). The Migration Panic and Its (Mis)uses. Social Europe. Retrieved from: https://www.socialeurope.eu/2015/12/migration-panic-misuses/

Bendel, P. (2007). Everything under control? The European Union’s policies and politics of immigration. In The Europeanization of national policies and politics of immigration (pp. 32-48). Palgrave Macmillan UK.

Bigo, D. (2006). Globalized (in) security: the field and the ban-opticon. Illiberal Practices of Liberal Regimes: The (In) Security Games, L’Harmattan: Paris, 5-49.

Cadge, W., Curran, S., Jaworsky, B. N., & Levitt, P. (2010). The city as context: culture and scale in new immigrant destinations. Amérique Latine Histoire et Mémoire. Les Cahiers ALHIM. Les Cahiers ALHIM, (20).

Calame, J., & Charlesworth, E. (2011). Divided Cities: Belfast, Beirut, Jerusalem, Mostar, and Nicosia. University of Pennsylvania Press.

Carter, D., & Merrill, H. (2007). Bordering humanism: Life and death on the margins of Europe. Geopolitics, 12(2), 248-264.

Cattacin, S. (2006). Why not “ghettos”? The governance of migration in the splintering city. Willy Brandt Series of Working Papers in International Migration, Migration and Ethnic Relations, 6(2).

Coluccello, S., & Massey, S. (2007). Out of Africa: The human trade between Libya and Lampedusa. Trends in Organized Crime, 10(4), 77-90.

Crawford, Cosgrave, Haysom, Walicki (2015) Protracted displacement - uncertain paths to self-reliance in exile (Report). Retrieved from Overseas Development Institute, website: http://www.odi.org/programmes/humanitarian-policy-group

Eurostat (2014) Eurostat Regional Yearbook 2014. Focus on European cities. Retrieved from: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/3217494/5786473/KS-HA-14-001-14-EN.PDF/aa72d461-8c09-4792-b62b-87b26e47e152?version=1.0

Eurostat (2015) Eurostat Regional Yearbook 2015. Focus on European cities. Retrieved from: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/3217494/7018888/KS-HA-15-001-EN-N.pdf

Eurostat (2015) Asylum applications (non-EU) in the EU-28 Member States, 2004-14 (thousands) YB15III (Datafile) Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/File:Asylum_applications_(non-EU)_in_the_EU-28_Member_States,_2004%E2%80%9314_(%C2%B9)_(thousands)_YB15_III.png

Eurostat (2015) First time Asylum applicants, EU-28, January 2014-September 2015 (Datafile) Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/File:First_time_asylum_applicants,_EU-28,_January_2014_%E2%80%93_September_2015.png

Geddes, A. (2008). Immigration and European integration: beyond fortress Europe?. Manchester Univ Pr.

Global Liveability Ranking 2015. The Economist Intelligence Unit (2015). Retrieved from: http://www.eiu.com/public/topical_report.aspx?campaignid=Liveability2015

Goldschmidt, E. (2006). Storming the fences: Morocco and Europe's anti-migration policy. Middle East Report, (239), 36-48.

Greenway, H.D.S. (2010, May 26). The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com

Hale, C. (1996) Fear of crime: a review of the literature, International Review of Victimology, 4, pp. 79–150.

Hann, C. (2015). The fragility of Europe's Willkommenskultur. Anthropology Today, 31(6), 1-2.

Hoare P. (2015, April 21st) ‘The sea does not care’: the wretched history of migrant voyages. The Guardian, Retrieved from: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/21/the-sea-does-not-care-wretched-history-migrant-voyages-mediterranean-tragedy

Huysmans, J. (2000). The European Union and the securitization of migration. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 38(5), 751-777.

International Rescue Committee (n.d.) Crisis Watch Urban Refugees, Retrieved from: www.rescue.org/crisis-watch-urban-refugees

Janson, H. W., & Janson, A. F. (1986). History of art. HN Abrams.

Koskela, H. (2009). Fear and its others. Smith, SJ, Pain, R., Marston, S. and Jones, JP (eds.), Handbook of Social Geography, 389-407.

Low, S. M. (1997). Urban fear: building the fortress city. City & Society, 9(1), 53-71.

Mercer 2015 Quality of Living Rankings. Imercer.com (2015). Retrieved from: http://interactive.columnfivemedia.com/mercer/quality-of-living/

Miliband D. (2015, October 30th) Cities are at the centre of the Syrian refugee crisis – so why are they being ignored? The Guardian, Retrieved from: http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/oct/30/cities-are-at-the-centre-of-the-syrian-refugee-crisis-so-why-are-they-being-ignored

The Monocle Quality of Life Survey 2015. Monocle (2015). Retrieved from: http://monocle.com/film/affairs/the-monocle-quality-of-life-survey-2015/

Nail, T. (2015). The figure of the migrant. Stanford University Press.

Ng, E. (Ed.). (2009). Designing high-density cities: for social and environmental sustainability. Routledge.

Newman, E., & Van Selm, J. (2003). Refugees and forced displacement. International security, human vulnerability and the state. United Nations University Press.

Park, R. E. (1928). Human migration and the marginal man. American journal of sociology, 881-893.

Un-habitat. (2010). State of the world's cities 2010/2011: bridging the urban divide. Earthscan.

Vertovec, S. (2007). Super-diversity and its implications. Ethnic and racial studies, 30(6), 1024-1054.

Vertovec, S. (2010). Towards post‐multiculturalism? Changing communities, conditions and contexts of diversity. International social science journal, 61(199), 83-95.

Weiner, M. (1992). Security, stability, and international migration. International Security, 17(3), 91-126.