The Culture of Multicultural Integration: Tertiary Organisations' Role in Immigrants' Reception in Sicily

4 
 
INTRODUCTION 
In the last decades and – above all – in the last months, Italian and European political 
debates deal with the issue of clandestine immigration. The growing figures of arrivals in 
the Sicilian shores, the so called ‘emergence’ faced by the Italian state regarding this 
wave of migration from the Mediterranean countries, the apparent closed-doors of the 
other European countries – reluctant in plunging in the management of this issue – all 
these issues represent only a snapshot of the whole situation. Disorders in North and Sub-
Saharan Africa, conflicts in Middle East with other various reasons, they all fostered 
immigration from the MENA (and Sub-Saharan) area to the Italian – and therefore the 
European – shores. Reactions have been many and diversified: claims of closing borders, 
proposals for migrants’ offshore ‘processing centres’, growth in aid and trade with 
countries of emigration in order to spur the economic development, information 
campaigns aimed at informing migrants of the condition faced by their predecessors in 
the path towards EU
1
. These proposals have been accompanied by a growth in the far-
right political parties, especially in the Mediterranean EU members states (Lega Nord in 
Italy, Front National in France, and others), but also in other parts of EU. Both European 
and national laws have been questioned, in order to search a solution for the reception of 
immigrants and, in some cases, also for their repatriation. Two operations patrolled the 
Mediterranean Sea and the Sicilian Canal in the last years, catching – and saving – many 
lives of ‘boat immigrants’ in search of the ‘European El Dorado’
2
. The Italian government 
found itself in difficulties in managing these flows of immigrants. Historically, Italy 
adopted an ‘emergency approach’
3
, underestimating the actual value of the migration 
phenomenon. The group of actors involved in the reception process is wider, and goes 
beyond the only political ones: there are many groups, associations, cooperatives, NGOs 
working – hopefully – for ensuring better conditions to immigrants. In Italy the relevance 
of the (immigration) issue appears widely accepted, and this fostered the growth of this 
kind of actors. Nevertheless, this does not ensure a growth in the level of multiculturalism 
                                                             
1
 H. DE HAAS, The Myth of Invasion: the inconvenient realities of African migration to Europe, Third World 
Quarterly, 29:7, 2008, pp. 1306 and 1313 
2
 Idem, p.1305 
3
 M.T. CONSOLI, Migration Phenomenon in Sicily, Catania, Laposs, 2006
5 
 
or acceptance of immigrants in the country. There are many interests related to the issue 
of immigration which make the management of the issue not always transparent. The 
recent scandal of ‘Mafia Capitale’ in Italy represents an egregious example of the 
interests that the issue moved; a huge proliferation of cooperatives officially focused on 
reception in eastern Sicily exhibits more an economic strategy rather than a restored (or 
completely new) multicultural feeling. Fortunately, there are also good examples of 
associations working for safer conditions for immigrants, aiming at an improvement in 
their permanence situation in Sicily, helping them in dealing with the legal practices for 
the permits and taking care of minors legally unable to provide for themselves. However, 
an issue appears as not – so far – totally acquired by the Italian actors dealing with the 
phenomenon, namely it is how migrants may be integrated in the country, considering 
especially their job inclusion. Of course, integration is a very broad concept with many 
implications, nevertheless, it represents the key factor in order to avoid that immigrants 
fall in bad hands (black market, smugglers,…), and in order to help them in getting their 
business in order. Debates on migrants integration need a wider and deeper assessment 
of the concept of multiculturalism in EU and especially in Italy. The growth of far right 
parties, the bad perception of immigrants in the ‘own’ soil, the increasing fear claiming 
for an invasion, they all reveal a lack of open mindedness, in few words they show that 
multiculturalism is not present in the EU in the same way, country by country. Differences 
in strategies adopted by member states (in dealing with immigration) reflect the different 
‘degrees of multiculturalism’ or the different ‘culture of multicultural integration’ present 
in each state. This explains why a deep analysis on immigration, and on the role of the 
tertiary sector organizations in Sicily, cannot disregard the level of multiculturalism 
present in the country and its connections with the reception and integration practices.  
This work is structured in three chapters and a conclusion. The first analyses the concept 
of multiculturalism, from the historical connections between the issue and International 
Relations (IR), to the modern framing of multiculturalism, related to the debates on 
citizenship, assimilation and integration. In this section EU and its member states are 
analysed through a comparative methodology aimed at underlining that a different 
degree of multiculturalism generates different outcomes both in policies adopted, and in 
the (social) perception of immigrants within the society. The second chapter outlines the
6 
 
existent laws (European and Italian) regulating immigration and assesses the role carried 
out by the two main operations in the Mediterranean: Mare Nostrum and Triton. This 
chapter draws the path faced by immigrants from their identification in sea to their arrival 
in the main centres devoted to the first reception before and, hopefully, to the 
reception’s third sector organizations, then. It is described in detail thanks to the 
contribute (interviews) of many actors involved in the reception process, from workers in 
the armed forces (navy, police, finance police and so on), to the same migrants and, 
above all, including operators in the associations, organizations, groups working for the 
reception of migrants in Sicily. In this section, the methodology used is principally 
analytical, with a spectrum focused on the Eastern Sicilian context, with specificities on 
the city of Siracusa considered as a case study. The analysis is accompanied by a statistical 
section outlining figures on the arrivals of immigrants in Sicily, on the capacity of the 
Centres for the Reception of Asylum Seekers (CARA), on the amount of people passed 
through the Centres for Identification and Expulsion (CIE), and on many other items 
related both to immigrants and to facilities operating for the reception of them. 
Furthermore, it highlights that the Italian ‘capacity’ in receiving migrants did not arrive to 
its saturation point, especially if compared with other EU member states like France, UK 
or Germany. The third chapter is sharply focused on the city chosen as case study, 
Siracusa. It provides a snapshot of the organizations involved in the reception of migrants, 
after their identification in sea and after their permanence – or in some cases during their 
permanence – in the first (and second) reception centres. Cooperatives, associations, 
NGOs, groups, they constitute the main actors analysed in this section. The chapter aims 
at underlining the importance that these actors have in the immigrants reception process, 
however it also shows the criticalities faced by these actors, highlighting that, albeit many 
of them work for their transparent and declared purposes, some others follow other 
ulterior, often economic, motives. The final section represents the creative part of the 
work. The aim of the chapter is to depict an ideal organization able to fill the gaps faced 
by the actors considered in the third chapter. This utopian (or UTHOPEAN) project does 
not represent a theoretical exercise only; it may be intended as a proposal, as a 
provocation or an incitement for doing more and doing better. The organization is shaped 
on the city considered as case study, and considering the laws, the amount of migrants,
7 
 
the possibilities offered by the bureaucracy for implementing such a project. The aim of 
the organization is to find ways able to improve migrants’ job integration in the Italian 
labour market; it is considered the challenge that organizations in Siracusa did not, 
already, overcome. Finally, the conclusive chapter collects the outcome of this work, 
trying to make a whole assessment of the migration phenomenon, and on the role of the 
third sector organizations in dealing with the issue. Nonetheless, it tries to make a 
prediction on what the future may reserve to us, both in terms of immigration in Italy 
(strongly related to the causes pushing for emigration in some countries), and in terms of 
ways of receiving migrants.
8 
 
 
 
 
 
1.0 
FIRST CHAPTER 
 
MULTICULTURALISM AND MIGRANTS’ 
RECEPTION APPROACH: DIRECT 
PROPORTIONALITY OR SEPARATED ISSUES?
9 
 
The possible relationship between the degree of multiculturalism within a country 
and the approaches used by that country in dealing with migrants’ reception represents 
the core theme of this chapter. Multiculturalism is a very broad concept that includes 
many subjects from sociology and anthropology, to politics, of course; however these 
subjects cannot be considered separately, they are reciprocally interrelated: for instance, 
sociological perceptions have an influence on the political choices made by political actors 
in their discourses and campaigns. EU embodies a multicultural entity per se, it is 
constituted by twenty-eight states, with cultures, languages, economies, histories 
completely different among each other. This reflects different degrees (or levels) of 
multiculturalism among MSs that, in an ideal continuum, range from exclusion to 
integration. The presence – and permanence – of people belonging to different cultures 
(like groups of immigrants in a MS) poses questions on the legal, social, political, cultural 
position of these people within the society. Debates about citizenship for second 
generation immigrants for instance, strategies of cultural assimilation, ways for 
integrating immigrants in the labour market, but even political struggles on the 
construction of a mosque, they all prove how multicultural a society is, and how it is open 
to receive different cultures without fearing a threat for the own national identity. The 
same joining the EU is perceived by many as a weakening of the nation-state identity (and 
power); this represents one of the reasons that – for example – fostered (and still fosters) 
huge debates regarding EU foreign policy, whether it should be Common or if it should 
remain national.  
The apparently inclusive – and open to multiculturalism – framework provided by the 
belonging to the (multicultural) EU, appears to be challenged by issues like immigration 
within the MSs. Although, the European Commission calls for a ‘holistic approach’
4
 
granting equal rights to migrants – without asking them to give up their cultural 
distinctiveness – some authors stressed that this idea, derived from the European motto 
of ‘unity in diversity’, lies on a ‘constructive ambiguity’ to enable it to be acceptable by 
                                                             
4
 Communication from the EU Commission on Immigration, Integration and Employment, COM (2003) 336, 
3, June 2003. In particular, the commission stresses ‘the need for a holistic approach which takes into 
account not only the economic and social aspects of integration, but also issues related to cultural and 
religious diversity, citizenship, participation and political rights’.
10 
 
everyone, but of course in different ways
5
. Aggestam and Hill argue that there are two 
logics that can be found in the debate on multiculturalism in EU: the ‘logic of diversity’ 
and the ‘logic of integration’
6
. They reflect the different ways of addressing the challenge 
of immigration faced by the EU, and adopted by different MSs sharing the same unique 
external border
7
. According to the authors, the logic of diversity can be divided into three 
different models: “assimilationist” (derived from the cultural assimilation), multicultural 
(properly), and exclusionary.         
 The first is based on a reciprocal relationship in which ‘guests’ (immigrants, 
minority groups) are asked to assimilate to the host society’s culture, while natives are 
asked to legitimize this position in virtue of a universalist nationalism
8
. Within the EU, 
France represents the state that majorly fits with this model: multiculturalism in France is 
based on a form of solidarity and – above all – of ‘acculturation’ shaped on the French 
culture, French language, Republican history and secular distrust in the role of religion in 
public life. In few words, it is possible to assert that immigrants are “integrated” only 
whether they conform themselves to the French culture, and only if they assimilate 
themselves to the natives. In this case, multiculturalism appears as a passive acceptance 
made by the natives in regards of immigrants.       
 The second acknowledges the cultural diversity of immigrants per se, without 
attempting any kind of simple assimilation, but rather a proper and permanent 
multicultural integration. Immigrants are considered not only as individuals, but there are 
collective (minority groups) rights commonly recognized. This is a model that seems to fit 
with the American melting-pot culture, however this model does not specify any kind of 
mix among different cultures, but only a recognition of the diversity of cultures in a pacific 
coexistence. In EU, Britain, Netherlands and Sweden are considered the most properly 
multicultural countries. Nevertheless, after the terroristic attacks in Britain (also the ones 
                                                             
5
 L. AGGESTAM, C. HILL, The Challenge of Multiculturalism in European Foreign Policy, International Affairs 
84:1, (2008), p. 99 
6
 Idem, pp. 103-106 
7
 The freedom of movements in EU makes the external border of the Union a common border, shared by all 
the MSs. Therefore, the immigration issue faced by border-states is not solely a national issue but is – or 
should be – shared by the entirety of the Union. 
8
 For a wider analysis on the assimilationist theory [see also]: N. CARMON, Immigration and integration in 
post-industrial societies, New York, St. Martin’s, 1996, p.23; and L. AGGESTAM, A European foreign policy? 
Role conceptions and the politics of identity in Britain, France and Germany, Stockholm, Akademitryck, 
2004, p.157
11 
 
in France that however belongs to another model), this model started to be questioned 
and criticized.           
 Finally, the third model – the exclusionary – refuses any type of multiculturalism 
considering immigrants as guests. Countries within this model follow a strict 
monoculturalism, however, the by now globalized society almost impedes to this model 
to flourish. Nowadays it is almost impossible to preserve the own culture, avoiding any 
kind of external influence, it is – at least – possible only in totalitarian states; it 
represented the model in Germany and Austria until few decades ago.  Of course, the 
entry in the EU pushed many states in softening their positions of monoculturalism, or 
those positions refusing cultural diversity within the own country, thanks also to the 
multicultural identity proper of the Union. 
Conversely, the logic of integration originates in the holistic approach of the EU, but 
presents differences – but also some similarities – with the models mentioned above. It 
claims for an actual integration that includes all the relevant aspects in order to ensure a 
multicultural coexistence: economic issues, social, cultural and political ones. The main 
actor fostering this logic is the European Commission which, thanks to its legislative 
initiative power, is able to influence the framing of policy proposals, therefore, orienting – 
in a such way – MSs’ policy-making. The logic of integration embodies the consequence to 
the failure of the former strategies adopted for the integration or – in other cases the – 
assimilation of migrants within the Union. This failure is proved by the current migrants’ 
situations in host societies, the growth of extremist parties claiming for a refuse of 
multiculturalism, and the wrong assessment of migration as a temporary restricted 
phenomenon. In particular, according to some, the emergence of extremist far-right 
parties is related to the growing political distrust, and this has also been fostered by the 
increased immigration rate
9
. McLaren argues that, ‘many Europeans generally have fears 
about the impact of immigration on their national communities, and […] this weakens 
their feelings of connectedness to their political systems and elites, and leads them to feel 
negatively about a political system that appears to be failing to protect the national 
                                                             
9
 L.M. MCLAREN, The Cultural Divide in Europe: Migration, Multiculturalism, and Political Trust, World 
Politics, Vol. 64, No. 2, April 2012, pp. 199-241
12 
 
community’
10
. Regarding the opinion that this is a ‘temporary restricted phenomenon’, 
there are some doubts: migration flows are continuing, and debates on multiculturalism 
upgraded from low-politics issues to high-politics since they strongly affect the – already 
high – foreign policy
11
. The phenomenon is still continuing and it is hard to definitely 
predict whether and when it would stop.  
Depending on the logic adopted in the country, and depending on the ‘degree’ of 
multiculturalism present in that society, the way of receiving migrants strongly differs. In 
the last decades, from the ‘80s on, Europe (not only EU) showed two different 
tendencies: countries characterized by high levels of immigration (France, UK, Northern 
Europe countries) on the one side, and emigration countries (Mediterranean and Eastern 
Europe) on the other side. Among these two categories there were some states which 
shifted their tendency mainly reverting from emigration countries to immigration 
countries. In the ‘80s Italy, Spain, Portugal and Yugoslavia were considered as sending 
countries, however in the same period Italy, for instance, was reverting its trends. 
Although emigration persisted (and persists) in affecting Italian citizens, in the last thirty 
years there has been a strong growth of immigrants in Italy, even during economic 
recession periods. Causes were many, and have been facilitated by the fact that Italy may 
appear as a ‘free land’ characterized by a lack of restrictions to entries, which on the 
contrary were tightened more and more in traditional immigration countries
12
. In fact, 
historically immigration countries like UK, France and Germany faced themselves fuelled 
by great amounts of immigrants indeed, since the past they started debating both on 
strategies of assimilation or of integration, and on ways for controlling the inflow of 
migrants.          
 In the ‘90s, the fact that Italy was no longer only an emigration country is proved 
by the increase of academic studies dealing with the integration of migrants, citizenship, 
but also ethnicity and other related issues. These subjects have already been analysed in 
                                                             
10
 Ibidem 
11
 C. MITCHELL, International Migration, International Relations and Foreign Policy, in International Migration 
Review, Vol. 23, No. 3, Special Silver Anniversary Issue: International Migration an Assessment for the ‘90s, 
Autumn 1989, pp. 682 and 695 
12
 U. MELOTTI, Migrazioni internazionali e integrazione sociale: il caso italiano e le esperienze europee, pp.29-
66, in Immigrazione in Europa: solidarietà e conflitto, edited by M. DELLE DONNE, U. MELOTTI, AND S. PETILLI, 
Rome Italy: Cediss, 1993, quoted by T. CAPONIO, (Im)Migration Research in Italy: A European Comparative 
Perspective, The Sociological Quaterly, Vol. 49, No. 3, Summer 2008, p.447