The process of selecting case studies for my research project turned out to be both intriguing and challenging. The question I faced was how to demonstrate that the cities on both sides of the Atlantic, which are difficult to compare, can be placed into one research framework. In order to be successful, the plan of comparing cities in Poland, Germany and the United States, which to the best of my knowledge had never before been put into a similar constellation of comparative migration research, required some fundamental criteria. First, the idea behind such a choice was to conduct research on both old and relatively new EU member states, which have different bonds and a different sense of belonging to the structure of the Union as well as a different history of immigration. Similarly, on the other side of the Atlantic the plan was to choose those US states, which differ in the time of their
admissions to the United States and in their experience with immigration. The number of case studies could not exceed my research capacities, so I decided to choose two cities of two neighboring EU countries, Poland and Germany, and two cities of two neighboring US states, California and Arizona. These two countries and two states represent a wide range of experiences with immigration. Moreover, the periods of Poland’s and Germany’s
memberships in the EU and Arizona’s and California’s belonging to the US differ by more than half a century.221 It is assumed that this difference between the countries and states can
220
For example:
- Cities of Migration is a Canadian internet platform for all stakeholders engaged in the integration of urban migrants. Home page: http://citiesofmigration.ca;
- Metropolis Project is also Canadian project open to international participants (for more information on the project see subchapter 2.6);
- The Global Forum on Migration and Development (GFMD) is an initiative of the United Nations member states, which since 2007 has been a discussion platform on migration and development interrelations and exchange of good practices and experiences “to maximize development benefits of migration and migration flows.” See Global Forum on Migration and Development (GFMD). Home page: http://gfmd.org/
221
Arizona was admitted to the US in 1912, 62 years after California. Poland entered the EU 53 years after the Treaty of Paris was signed in 1951 by Germany and five other future EU members. The
lead to a different sense of belonging to “their unions” and model certain patterns of local governance.222 In fact, both Arizona and Poland seem more defiant than their western neighbors towards top down recommendations from Washington and Brussels
respectively.223 A desire for a certain degree of sovereignty may influence local patterns of governance in migration and integration policies.224
Within these two EU countries and two US states I chose four cities of a relatively comparable population size and distance from each other: Phoenix in Arizona, San Diego in California, Munich in Germany, and Warsaw in Poland.225 Of course, the cities are unique in terms of the size and diversification of immigration populations and labor markets.
Accordingly, the choice of the cities was also determined by their different immigration patterns and the role these cities play as destination for immigrants. According to Singers’ classification of certain American cities as immigrant gateways, San Diego is considered a post-World War II gateway, which began attracting immigrants in large numbers only in the past fifty years or so. Long-established destinations for immigrants which continue to receive large numbers of foreign-born, such as the city of Munich, are termed “continuous gateways.” Phoenix, in turn, is considered an “emerging gateway,” with rapidly growing immigrant
populations which have settled there during the past twenty-five years. Warsaw might one day be one of Singer’s “pre-emerging gateways,” which is used to describe places where immigrant populations have grown very rapidly and are likely to continue to expand as immigrant destinations.226
The case studies have proven to be an interesting testing ground for the effects of local institutional conditions on the integration management for immigrant youth, which will be further developed in the analysis of the empirical research in chapter 5. The following methodological approach has been instrumental for this transatlantic cross-city research design.
Treaty established the European Coal and Steel Community, which formed the foundation for the modern-day EU.
222
“Their Unions” refers here to the political entities of the United States of America and the European Union. Of course, the intention is not to compare the EU political system to that of the US.
223
These trends might be exemplified by Poland’s determined struggle for the best possible terms for Polish farmers in the EU or by Arizona’s recent immigration laws, which are very controversial for the US Federal Government. For more on Arizona’s new immigration law, see subchapter 4.3.
224
The attitudes towards top-down recommendations are considered important for the politics of migration and integration at the local level.
225
The population of each city: Munich (1.3 million), Warsaw (1.7 million), San Diego (1.2 million), Phoenix (1.5 million). The distance between Warsaw and Munich is 810 km, between San Diego and Phoenix 490 km.
226
Singer distinguishes two other immigrant gateway types. “Former gateways” attracted considerable numbers of immigrants in the early years of the 20th century but no longer do so. “Re-emerging gateways” began the twentieth century as magnets for immigrants, waned as popular destinations in the middle of the century, but are once are reemerging as immigrant gateways.
Singer puts both continuous and the post-World War II gateways into the single category of “established gateways.” See Singer, A., Hardwick S. W., and Brettell C. B. (Eds.), op. cit.