Estudios de Empleadores

from a culture very similar to ours” (M17-P).132 _{The category of culture here is}

interpreted less as partaking in common language, disposition, history, ethnie, or way of life, an “organic” conception participants apply to Latin Americans (Gellner, 1983). It is instead framed as participating in shared high educational levels, a common economic and political reality within Europe, and certain political mores and values like obeying the law. Culture here is understood as socially and politically engineered (Weber, 1976). Thus, while shared cultural identity with Ecuadorians refers to Spaniards’ innate Ibero- American roots, shared culture with Bulgarians is elected and confirms Madrilenians’ determination to be European. The two connections highlight the desirable characteristics of the receiving space without necessarily being contradictory and despite two distinct conceptions of culture and identity.

On the other hand, the same expert respondents speak of Bulgarians’ cultural distance from Madrilenians and the Balkan migrants’ different customs. As the East Europeans are “introverted, in the sense of ‘I don’t interact with others’,” Madrilenians find it hard to establish deep connections and share in relationships with the newcomers

(M25-TU; M34-TU).133 _{Bulgarians’ “different customs” set them apart from both the}

festive Madrilenian and the lively Ecuadorian, who “parties, dances” (fiestas, bailes) and

132 _{Author’s translation from original quote in Spanish: “Parten de culturas muy parecida a la nuestra.”} 133 _{Author’s translation derived from original quote in Spanish: “Un poco quizás introvertidos, en el sentido}

de ‘no me interactúo con otros’. … La gente de los países del Este son como más introvertidas, de relacionarse más entre ellos,.”

123

enjoys life (M23-TU).134 _{As Bulgarians are “people who do not speak your language…}

people who come from a different reality,” they create problems of cohesion and

integration in the receiving context (M25-TU; M34-TU).135 _{Their different way of life,}

for instance their tendencies for aggression and public drunkenness, presents a barrier to their inclusion in Madrid and an issue for coexistence with that collective. These elite sentiments are reflected in public opinion as well, with 21.7% of write-in responses pointing to Bulgarians’ seriousness, closed mindset, and lack for trust for outsiders. Respondents also suggest they simply cannot understand the culturally-different Balkan

migrants.136 _{Therefore, while the East Europeans might share certain civic and political}

values with Spaniards as Europeans, they are different from their hosts and the culturally proximate South American group in terms of fundamental characteristics like their “way of being” (forma de ser). Bulgarians are thus excluded in Madrid.

III.5. Conclusion

Through analysis of elite and public discourse, Chapter III finds that the four immigrant groups of interest to this thesis are positioned very differently in Dublin and Madrid. Despite a general souring of public attitudes toward all immigrant groups with economic downturn, Polish and Ecuadorian workers continue to be narrated as insiders who fit into the host contexts’ lives and integrate in the receiving societies. Both engender empathy and a sense of kinship from their hosts. On the other hand, Nigerian immigrants are excluded in public discourse despite the length of their stay and the actual

134 _{Author’s translation from original Spanish.}

135 _{Author’s translation from original quote in Spanish: “Son gente que no habla tu idioma, son gente que}

viene de una realidad diferente.”

124

ties they share with their receiving community. They are perceived as outsiders who are too different from the native population to integrate. Bulgarians’ reception in Madrid is conflicted. While not as negative as that of Nigerians in Dublin, the evaluation of Bulgarians’ ability and willingness to fit in is ambiguous.

This differential reception might have something to do with the groups’ perceived economic utility. The Polish are considered economic migrants contributing to Dublin’s labor market and Nigerians are seen as asylum seekers who only place a burden on Irish social resources. Ecuadorians were recruited by the Spanish state to fill labor shortages in low-skilled services, and Bulgarians, while highly educated and hard-working, are tied to organized criminal organizations and the begging Roma.

However, in both official discourse and the public’s eye, economic utility has less to do with inclusion and exclusion than do perceived distance and familiarity constructed in cultural, non-economic terms. Shared strong work ethic, white European ethnicity, Catholicism, English language, history of emigration and independent spirit, as well as an accepting and friendly disposition, frame kinship between the Irish and the Polish, while also reasserting these positive qualities among Dubliners. Nigerian immigrants are in turn narrated as fundamentally different on the basis of the same categories, where the coexistence of the two immigrant groups makes these categories even more meaningful. Ecuadorians are admitted in Madrid in view of their common existence with Spaniards in an Ibero-American transnational space. They share with their hosts the Castellan language; historical parallels of emigration and a spirit of reciprocity between Spain and South America; Catholic religion; as well as social interaction patterns, an extroverted disposition and common culture. Despite Bulgarians’ white European ethnicity and

125

similar historical trajectories, the Balkan migrants are constructed as different from Madrilenians. They are farmed as serious, criminal, authoritarian, Orthodox, ethnically suspect, and participants in different customs and interaction patterns. Commonalities between desirable immigrant populations and natives are emphasized or invented while any connections with undesirable collectives are downplayed.

Surprisingly, European belonging or privileged legal status does not automatically translate into positive reception in new immigration spaces on the Continent, with non- European Ecuadorians faring better than EU Bulgarians in Spain. Instead, inclusion and inclusion are based in local stakeholders’ interpretation of the subjective identity-based categories of ethnicity, history, religion, language, work ethic, and culture. Two of these attributes stand out. “Hard work” is a non-material category that underlies and assumes all other desirable characteristics of insider immigrants, especially in the case of Dublin. “Culture,” while understood as common mores and a shared disposition, is an all- encompassing classification that serves as the basis of other commonalities. For instance, Poles’ hard work implies shared cultural mores with ambitious Dubliners. Nigerians’ distinct intonation suggests cultural distance from the Irish. Ecuadorians’ shared language with Madrilenians allows for common traditions and cultural patterns. Bulgarians’ Orthodox faith correlates with dissimilar customs and a cultural barrier.

Furthermore, cultural markers of similarity and difference are not essentialist or objective, but are mutable, fluid, and reinterpretable. They are employed strategically by local stakeholders to institutionalize patterns of welcome or rejection, and carry different meanings and weight according to context and local identity variations. For instance, authoritarian past engenders not empathy but suspicion for Bulgarians in Madrid, as local

126

identity is focused on modernism, republicanism, and democracy. It creates kinship between Poles and Dubliners who have both overcome such historical obstacles. Language skills are paramount in Spain, but are downplayed and explained out in Ireland. This chapter showed how local political and economic elites and the general public interpret and reinterpret flexible identity characteristics in order to include or exclude the immigrants in their midst. However, public discourse is only factor in determining immigrant integration outcomes in Dublin and Madid. Ethnic communities’ own perceptions of welcome or rejection have a large role to play for incorporation patterns. It is to the way in which foreign cohorts utilize the same fluid identity attributes employed by elites and native public to construct their own belonging or isolation in Dublin and Madrid that Chapter IV turns next.

127 CHAPTER IV