Williams et al. (2009) stress that migrants face additional difficulties in new destinations when compared to the metropolitan areas which have ethnically diverse populations. One of the key challenges relates to high level of ethnic intolerance.
Ethnic intolerance manifested in multiple ways. The examples primarily relate to social interactions between migrant newcomers and established local residents of ‘White’ background. The study of Shutika (2006) shows that even speaking a foreign language in a public space can provoke xenophobic acts: it is interpreted by some members of established communities as the attempt to undermine and challenge locally accepted cultural norms. Other acts of intolerance were linked to the practices of job search. When migrant men congregated around private properties in the areas where they could find casual work, e.g. in the construction, gardening or other services, it provoked negative response from some established residents: middle-class residents were prepared to benefit from labour offered by migrants, but were less tolerant to the ways migrants had to sell it (Hansen, 2005). However, the manifestations of ethnic intolerance come not only from middle- class and ‘White’ groups. The hostility directed towards newcomers can also originate from ethnic minority groups in new destinations, particularly when members of ethnic minority groups and migrant newcomers are competing for the same jobs in the local labour market (Grey and Woodrick, 2006). According to Marrow (2008), members of ethnic minority groups, especially those who already have been disadvantaged in the local labour market may display negative sentiments in relation to new arrivals if they feel that new groups are used by employers in the private sector to cut wages, intensify the labour process or even to displace them by low cost labour altogether. In such instances, xenophobia is not restricted to the ‘White’ majority, but extends to other groups anxious of changes and fears associated with migration.
The hostile reception of new arrivals is deepened by the perception of them being only temporary labour migrants rather than permanent residents: it is argued that such views implicitly contribute to the atmosphere of ethnic intolerance (Fennelly, 2005).
International research has also shown that new destinations located in the regions with a distinctive ethnic and religious mix can require from newcomers to confront additional forms of social exclusion (Solorzano, 2005): for example the structure of the economy of US state of Utah, which has been traditionally based on the religious mobilisation of Mormon community, tends to marginalise new incomers
not simply because of their different ethnic background, but because they are seen as a threat to the established ethno-religious domination in local economy and society. In contrast, Mormon migrants and converters to the faith (including those of Non-European ‘White’ background) receive support and assistance from the local business and religious establishment (Solorzano, 2005).
Fennelly (2008) studied different forms of racist narratives reproduced by individuals coming from ‘White’ ethnic background. According to the findings (Fennelly, 2008), individuals from middle-class background tended to express their racial prejudice by referring to the images of perfect and harmonious past, the time when the locality was ‘free’ of new arrivals and social problems attributed to them. The local past, in which migrants were absent, was portrayed as peaceful. In contrast, the arrival of migrants is associated with the disintegration of community and increase in crime and discord. In the US working class anti-migrant sentiment acquired a dimension related to social class: migrants were seen not only as a competitive group, but as a group threatening the established compromise between ‘White’ capital represented by local business community and ‘White’ organized labour (Fennelly, 2008). Migrants were also resented for the alleged preferential treatment received from statutory social agencies (Hernandez-Leon and Zuniga, 2006). The consequence of such tensions was the destabilization of traditional ethnic relations in which many members of local ‘White’ working class felt betrayed by the local business community and upper middle classes who benefit from migration economically, and threatened by migrants when it comes to the competition for work, housing and the use of statutory social support (Hernandez-Leon and Zuniga, 2006).
While ethnic intolerance is specific to localities, it is also a national phenomenon. Hence it would be necessary to focus on the UK context more generally. The issue of ethnic tensions associated with CEE migration to Britain has come out in a number of studies. Overall, the analysis tends to highlight the link between the competition for jobs and social services on one hand and the tension existing between newly arrived CEE migrants and members of established communities. Reed and Latorre (2009) point to the negative local impacts on low-skilled British workers who have to compete with new arrivals in low wage labour markets.
Pemberton (2009) argued that if CEE workers are seen as a social group undercutting wages and displacing low-skilled British workers in low-wage sectors, it can lead to the negative reactions of British workers and their family members. The study looking at workplace dynamics has shown that CEE migrants are subjected to various ethnic stereotyping by employers, which sometimes leads to open abuse justified on ethnic grounds (EHRC, 2010).
Moreover, the expression of hostile feeling is not restricted to the people of ‘White’ British background. In their focus group interviews Cook et al. (2011) documented tensions between new arrivals from CEE and members of established ethnic minority communities, who perceived this group of migrants as potential competitors for jobs and social services. On their side, some CEEs reveal a repertoire of racial prejudice directed against people of Black and Asian background. They rationalise it by referring to their supposed superiority represented by ‘White’ European origins and the possession of EU citizenship (McDowell, 2009). However other studies suggested that the origins of ethnic intolerance went beyond the competition for the jobs and services: Garvey and Stewart (2015) demonstrated how the newness of migration to the North of Ireland (compared to other parts of British Isles), combined with the local context of sectarianism and on-going tensions between Republican and Loyalist communities reinforced xenophobic attitudes to migrants.
In general, the literature on ethnic tensions reveals certain underlying structural problems linked to the sphere of the labour market as well as to the persistence of social stereotypes. However, the discussed studies do not tackle the experiences of ethnic intolerance affecting CEE migrants in everyday life. On the other hand, the most extreme manifestation of intolerance – racism, receive greater coverage in the literature dedicated to the experiences of dispersed non EU migrants. A selective review of those studies is going to be provided next.
In the context of migration to the UK, the manifestations of ethnic intolerance are explored in the studies focused on migrants’ post-settlement experiences in the areas affected by the policy of dispersal. Grillo (2005) investigated the manifestations of racism in the language used by local politicians and journalists in
the case of a seaside English town chosen as an area of dispersal by UK government. Grillo (2005) identified the main narrative which this researcher labeled as the discourse of localism. This discourse both relied on the implicit and explicit manifestations of racism. The explicit dimension was linked to equating migration to terrorism and other forms of criminal violence. This was particularly propagated by the far right British National Party. In contrast, the implicit racist discourse rejected arrival of dispersed migrants on the grounds of additional economic burden and pressures on local ‘White’ British communities who were confronted with the unexpected increase in new ethnic diversity.
Robinson et al. (2003) discovered similar manifestations of intolerance in the analysis of national newspapers. Most tabloid papers tended to portray dispersed non EU migrants as individuals whose culture was incompatible with British norms and values. The neighborhoods in which migrants were housed were described by the media as the areas of street violence, crime and sex work. On the other hand, while broadsheets did not employ such explicit racist rhetoric, its portrayal of dispersed migrants was still determined by the agenda set by the anti-immigration discourse. The implication of such discourses was the production of moral panic associated with the settlement of non EU migrants: the dispersal of migrants was linked with the fears over community breakdown, crime and the proliferation of infectious diseases (Robinson et al., 2003 and Grillo, 2005). Dispersed migrants who arrived to the UK as refugees were portrayed not as legitimate victims of events beyond their control, but as dangerous burden on local ‘White’ British communities (Robinson et al., 2003). Such kind of discourses created a homogenously negative image of dispersed migrants (Finney and Robinson, 2008).
Some authors have argued that such stereotyping led to greater ethnic intolerance on a local level. Robinson et al. (2003) also tend to believe that when the media coverage was neutral or positive, the scale of hostility directed against dispersed migrant was weaker. Robinson et al. (2003) cite the example of the Kosovan scheme when a general sympathetic portrayal of the plight of Kosovar Albanians migrants led to more benign receptions in the areas to which they have been dispersed. Finney and Robinson (2008) also noted that local newspapers had played their role in reinforcing or challenging negative images of dispersed
migrants: in their comparison of two local papers in Yorkshire and Wales, Finney and Robinson (2008) had shown how Welsh journalists consciously adapted an approach aimed to explain the life histories of dispersed migrants to local public and highlight positive aspects associated with migration rather than to demonize new arrivals. In contrast, the Yorkshire paper presented the arrival of dispersed migrants as a strategy of national authorities designed to soften the impact of migration on London and the South of England at the expense of putting greater ‘burden’ on a poorer North. As a result, the dispersal of migrants to the city of Leeds was described in a pre-dominantly negative way (Finney and Robinson, 2008).
Such evidence suggests that the perceptions of dispersal are shaped by the interplay of national and local discourses. Moreover, those actors who are involved in creating those perceptions can shape them in one or another way. It should be noted that the discourses of intolerance towards migrants settling in the areas as a result of dispersal can be found not only in mass media and among policy makers, but among ordinary members of the public. Millington (2010) considers racist and xenophobic narratives directed against asylum seekers as the extensions of middle class identities of local ‘White’ British residents. Millington (2010) argued that the manifestations of hostility to migrants should be understood through a dual prism of the dynamics of local context and class identification of established residents: when middle class established residents would feel that the arrival of dispersed migrants endangered the socio-economic status of their areas of residence, they would employ a set of ethnic stereotypes aimed to separate themselves from those migrants.
Overall, the study of Millington (2010) and others provide a relevant analysis when it comes to the manifestations of racism, xenophobia and intolerance. However it largely focuses on the racist narratives employed by ‘White’ British residents, UK politicians and mass media. It says less on how migrants respond to and reflect on their experiences of hostility directed against them in everyday life. Moreover, by focusing primarily on ‘White’ racism and on dispersed non EU migrants, the literature does not explore xenophobia directed against and experienced by CEE migrants. Such gap points to the need to incorporate CEE migrants (who are, with
an exception of Roma, perceived as ‘White’ Europeans) into the study of local manifestations of racism and xenophobia. Moreover, it would be worthwhile to explore whether and how the difference in structurally mechanism (UK dispersal versus EU freedom of movement) contribute to local manifestations of ethnic intolerance.
In conclusion of this section, it should be noted that all three strands of research – the one exclusively dedicated to migration to new destination, the study of CEE migration and the work conducted on the dispersal of non EU migrants tend not only to focus racism and related phenomena, but also reflect on the ways in which both migrants and members of established communities seek to counteract to it. Williams et al. (2009) stressed that the existence of hostility towards migrants and the weakness of existing migrant communities could be compensated by migrants’ determination to establish their own groups, which in turn will seek to outreach local community organizations formed by established residents. Vasquez (2009) revealed how migrants, when faced with exploitative working conditions and ethnic intolerance, managed to use local and transnational networks to establish smaller, more informal migrant support groups which facilitated them in creating spaces for social relations and religious self-expression.
According to Steigenga and Williams (2009), when responding to social isolation created by racism, migrants tend to mobilise alongside ethnic lines, relying primarily on ethnic solidarity. Palma et al. (2009) demonstrated that transnational connections – the continuous relations with the relatives in sending countries, often compensated for the lack of social support in the areas considered to be both new and hostile to inward migration. Those groups were used to provide collective protection from the persecution of hostile local authorities and residents. Moreover, transnational networks can not only affect migrant livelihood strategies, but also forge links between sending countries and new destinations: Grey and Woodrick (2006) provided examples of how the members of ‘White’ English speaking, established communities in new destinations, e.g. in the teaching profession, got involved in raising funds in support of social services in the countries from which migrant communities originated from. The cooperation between local community organizations and migrant groups can also be fruitful.
On a local level both Catholic and Protestant Churches are being used as the sites of social interactions between the members of established community and migrant newcomers; the Churches provide important meeting spaces, which is often lacking in the workplace or neighborhood levels (Shutika, 2008). All of it leads towards changing perceptions of new destinations or, as Shutika (2008, p.276) puts it, to locality production: ‘it also encompasses the expansion of meaningful relationships and social networks, especially between newcomers and the established community so that they are connected to each other and their locale. Newcomers are no longer seen as transient, but “people who belong”. In this sense, the boundaries between newcomers and long-term residents begin to subside’.
There are other positive developments involving dispersed non EU migrants in the UK specifically. Griffiths et al. (2006) reveal that the dispersal of non EU migrants was accompanied by the rise of new refugee community organizations characterised by ethnic and religious diversity: in dispersed areas migrants tend to establish communities based on wider sense of kinship and solidarity, e.g. African communities representing migrants from the Great Lakes region, instead of prioritizing more narrow national and ethnic identities. It can be argued that such communities help to respond to both individual and collective challenges, including those related to ethnic intolerance.
The discussion of this section has shown that the scholars tend to place great importance onto the local context when exploring the manifestations of ethnic intolerance. Such focus resulted in the accumulation of substantial research material. However the discussion has also pointed to a notable research gap: when it comes to the experiences of ethnic intolerance of CEE migrants, the available literature largely remains silent. This is surprising given the scale of migration from CEE countries.
The final major issue, which has not only received attention of the studies related to new destinations but it is also relevant to forthcoming empirical analysis, is linked to the experiences of housing. It is going to be considered next.