Abstract
Deploying a lens informed by humanitarian reason and governmentality this article interrogates the normative assumptions underlying resettlement for international protection in the Irish context. Drawing on findings from a qualitative study on the needs of children and parents admitted under the Irish Refugee Protection Programme, it highlights tensions and contradictions underemphasised in the existing literature, including those deriving from assumptions which inversely associate age with integrate-ability. Such assumptions place a heavy burden on the young, perceived to be the most adaptable. The danger pointed to in this article is that those deemed least adaptable - adults with limited prior education - might not be prioritised for supports due to negative assumptions about their prospects. Somewhat paradoxically, the ‘most adaptable’ – children resettled at primary-school age or younger – might also miss out on supports as they are deemed likely to succeed in any case.
Introduction
This article addresses the government of resettlement, drawing on evidence from Ireland. It adds to work concerned with power relations in resettlement (e.g., Garnier et al., 2018; Schneider, 2021; Welfens and Bonjour, 2021), contributes to an emerging literature at the intersection of social policy and resettlement policy (e.g., Darrow, 2018; Haycox, 2023) and highlights connections between the government of migrant integration and the government of childhood. The analysis draws on findings from a qualitative study - commissioned by the Children's Rights Alliance – on the support needs of Syrian children and families resettled under the Irish Refugee Protection Programme (IRPP). As reported in other countries, power is exercised in ways which impede the aim of supporting those resettled in moving from vulnerability to independence. It is argued that this has the apparently paradoxical consequence that those generally regarded as most vulnerable – the very young – are seen as most likely to achieve desired outcomes, typically framed in terms of economic and social integration.
The context of contemporary resettlement is one of unprecedented rates of displacement driven by interrelated crises of conflict, climate, and inequality, in which the imperialist/neo-imperialist capitalist projects of rich Western states are heavily implicated. These same states are busily fortifying borders, and the ethno-nationalism of increasingly influential far-right movements is evident in mainstream policy discourse (Dodevska, 2023). In Ireland there has been an increase in far-right led anti-migrant activism following the rise in international protection admissions since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. The official response within the European Union to those fleeing Ukraine contrasts with the response to displacement triggered by conflict in Syria and (even more markedly) other long-standing conflicts (Daly and O'Riordan, 2023). Intensified securitisation has made it increasingly difficult to cross European borders independently to seek protection, while admission through resettlement is restricted to the ‘most vulnerable’ few (Sözer, 2020).
It is recognised that the relatively more ‘deserving’ status and greater support offered to those admitted under resettlement (see e.g., Arnold et al., 2021 in the Irish context) does not necessarily insulate against relatively poor outcomes, particularly in respect of economic indicators of integration. Recent critical literature points to the negative effects on resettled persons of policy tensions and contradictions in various host countries (Darrow, 2018; Haycox, 2023). An important theme is the tension between vulnerability as the key criterion for resettlement, and explicit or implicit requirements around what has been referred to as integrate-ability (Laurence, 2001). Various authors have drawn on the concept of ‘humanitarian reason’ to locate the tension between vulnerability and integrate-ability within broader tensions between care and control in humanitarian-inspired policy and practice (e.g., Darrow, 2018; Garnier et al., 2018). What is often neglected is that the apparently contradictory juxtaposition of care and control within humanitarian government derives from the tension between power and freedom which Michel Foucault (1982) identified as inherent in all efforts to exercise power over human subjects. Drawing on a Foucauldian governmentality lens, this article interrogates assumptions underlying Irish resettlement policy and provision, highlighting tensions and contradictions underemphasised in the existing literature, including those resulting from assumptions which inversely associate age with integrate-ability. The danger pointed to in this article is that the most integrate-able - the young - may be viewed as least in need of support. Somewhat paradoxically, due to negative assumptions about their prospects, those viewed as least adaptable – adults with limited prior education - might not be prioritised for supports either.
Given the recognised risks of economic precarity for those admitted under resettlement programmes, critical reflection on aspects of policy and provision which might hinder positive outcomes is essential. To do this, I first look to the existing literature related to the government of resettlement. I then provide a brief overview of the Irish policy context in relation to resettlement. Following presentation of approach and methods, the main part of the article draws on research findings to examine key aspects of the government of resettlement in Ireland, including normative assumptions about integration and integrate-able subjects and the extent to which children and young people are supported to attain the ‘bright futures’ to which they aspire. The final discussion highlights tensions and contradictions associated with the Irish approach to resettlement which inhibit the independence of adults, and which pose risks for the economic security of children during their childhoods and beyond.
Governing through resettlement: Producing integrate-able subjects
Resettlement is a mechanism for admission of persons with refugee status to third countries from countries of first asylum (UNHCR, 2011). There is no legal duty upon states and thus no substantive right under international law (de Boer and Zieck, 2020; Welfens and Bonjour, 2021). The UNHCR submits resettlement applications to states, with a significant gap between cases submitted and accepted (de Boer and Zieck, 2020; Welfens and Bonjour, 2021). Garnier et al. (2018) view resettlement as a form of “humanitarian governance”, a concept utilised in subtly different ways depending on theoretical orientation. What is shared is attentiveness to tensions between care and control within ‘humanitarian’ policies and programmes (Fassin, 2011; Garnier et al., 2018; Welfens and Bonjour, 2021). Following authors such as Fassin (2011), Reid-Henry (2014) and Sözer (2020), my approach is informed by the Foucauldian governmentality tradition in which humanitarianism represents a form of ‘political reason’ (Fassin 2011) or ‘rationality of government’ (Rose, 1999). The term used by Reid-Henry is ‘diagnostic’, which underlines the analytical and prescriptive aspects of governmental rationalities (2014: 425). Humanitarianism is a “liberal diagnostic”, informing, delimiting, and legitimising the exercise of power within and beyond the boundaries of the liberal state, thus relevant to domestic social policy as well as extraterritorial intervention (ibid: 426–428).
Humanitarian reason is viewed as a rationality which, in prioritising particular kinds of suffering, urges compassion, while delimiting its scope (Fassin 2011; Reid-Henry, 2014). The humanitarian reason of international protection creates and forecloses possibilities for admission, legitimising barriers to entry for those outside the criteria. Under the influence of neoliberal governmentality the scope of compassion has become even narrower, to which end vulnerability has been rationalised in service of ‘efficient’ use of resources in the humanitarian sphere (Sözer, 2020). The UNHCR resettlement selection process prioritises the ‘most vulnerable’ for resettlement. This includes those whose needs: legal/physical needs; medical needs; or need for a durable solution are not being met in the country of first asylum. It also includes various special categories: survivors of torture; girls and women; and children and adolescents deemed “at risk” (UNHCR, 2011). Prioritisation of the ‘most vulnerable’ is argued to obscure the shared structural vulnerability associated with forced migration (Sözer, 2020). Furthermore, the framing of resettlement as a ‘safe and legal’ avenue to protection can in practice shore up policies which render ‘irregular’ (though legal) migration to seek protection so unsafe (see e.g., Moreno-Lax and Lemberg-Pedersen, 2019). Resettlement must thus be viewed in light of a securitised migration regime in which border ‘control’ and the profits of the expanding “border industry” (Andersson, 2018) are prioritised over human rights and lives.
The politics of compassion brings into play highly unequal relations of power (Fassin, 2011: 3). The subjects of humanitarian government “are expected to show the humility of the beholden rather than express demands for rights” (Fassin, 2011: 4). This has clear resonance with resettlement which has limited procedural rights and no right of appeal (de Boer and Zieck, 2020). As favoured targets of the politics of compassion, those admitted under resettlement are generally provided with much greater support than other newcomers, but the literature on resettlement points to how closely the logics of care and control are intertwined. This must be viewed in the context of broader problematics of government related to tensions between power and freedom.
The foundational tenet of governmentality theory is Foucault's (1982) insight that the exercise of power depends upon and produces the agency of the governed. Based on the assumption that governing through freedom (via a limited state and an unfettered market) is the most ‘efficient’ way to exercise power, liberal rationalities operate on the basis that the human capacity for agency must be shaped and disciplined, ideally during childhood, so that freedom is exercised responsibly (Rose, 1999; Smith, 2014). Humanitarianism emerged as part of wider processes of ‘disciplinary moralisation’, associated with the rise of liberal democratic politics and marketised economic relations in the long nineteenth century, (Reid-Henry, 2014). Humanitarian interventions offered a means to regulate those, such as children ‘at risk’ and their ‘unfit’ (typically classed and/or racialised) parents, whose very vulnerability rendered them threatening (see e.g., Hendrick, 2003). A potential danger to themselves and to others, and a drain on public finances, until capable of governing themselves in line with liberal capitalist norms, those targeted by the politics of compassion were (as remains the case today) deemed in need of– in Donzelot's (1979) term–tutelary intervention. Therein arises the tension between care and control.
Within contemporary resettlement practice, tutelary power is exercised towards the end of integration. There are various definitions, but within policy discourse integration is generally conceptualised as ‘two-way’: newcomers and host society institutions and actors should ‘adapt’. As noted above, the tensions and contradictions between integrate-ability and vulnerability is a key theme within the critical literature on resettlement (Phillimore et al., 2022). Welfens and Bonjour (2021) refer to this tension as between vulnerability and assimilability. This resonates with criticisms that despite the emphasis on two-way adaptation, integration in practice centres on migrants ‘fitting in’ (Masoud et al., 2021; Schinkel, 2018). By this light integration is a means of neutralising the multi-fold threat – cultural, economic, and security-related (Welfens and Bonjour, 2021) – represented by the refugee or migrant ‘other’. The ‘most vulnerable’ tend to be perceived as less of a security threat (Darrow, 2018), but a potential fiscal ‘burden’ and threat to majority-group values until ‘integrated’ into the host state (Welfens and Bonjour, 2021).
The emphasis on vulnerability in the UNHCR resettlement selection process is reflected in state-level processes. Nonetheless many resettlement states have additional criteria related to ‘integration potential’ (Brekke et al., 2021; Cellin, 2018), which (drawing on Chauvin and Garcés-Mascareñas (2018)), Welfens and Bonjour (2021: 219–220) refer to as “promising victimhood” - vulnerability which is likely to be “outgrown” (see also Welfens, 2023). Potential to integrate can be implicit in criteria such as ‘connection’ to the resettlement state, or even more subtly in prioritisation of certain nationalities or ethnicities (Brekke et al., 2021), or the common preference (strongly evident in Irish practice) for family units over individuals (Welfens and Bonjour, 2021). In some states, such as Germany and the Netherlands, ‘capacity to integrate’ is an explicit, if vague, criterion (Brekke et al., 2021). Research on selection processes suggests that acceptance of (idealised) Western liberal values, including - and especially - those related to family, gender equality and sexuality, is a significant aspect of presumed integration capacity, even for states without explicit additional eligibility criteria (Brekke et al., 2021; Welfens and Bonjour, 2021). The paradox here is that liberal and feminist values of equality and inclusion serve to legitimise exclusionary - ethnocentric and racist - practices (Dodevska, 2023; Farris, 2017).
Findings from the literature indicate that ‘human capital’ considerations can form part of assessment of ‘integration potential’ (Schneider, 2021) and some resettlement states have explicit criteria related to employability (found to have gendered implications (Phillimore et al., 2022)). Economic independence is generally regarded as a marker of success in resettlement. In the United States, state financial support for resettled persons is time-limited, criticised for the potential impact on long-term labour market outcomes and social integration (see e.g., Darrow, 2018; Phillimore et al., 2022). Obtaining paid work is not as pressing in all resettlement contexts. Nevertheless, the neoliberal-inspired intensification of conditionality evident in even ‘generous’ welfare systems can mean that resettled persons are ‘activated’ relatively quickly. In the European context labour market outcomes for those with refugee status are poorer than for economic migrants or the general population. Differences between countries are associated with labour-market programmes of varying efficacy (Hernes et al., 2019), but also with the impact of dispersal policies on economic prospects (Fasani et al., 2022). Widely used to “spread the burden” and combat ‘segregation’ (Robinson et al., 2003), dispersal can result in diminished access to employment opportunities and supports (ibid.; Fasani et al., 2022).
With reference to Australia, although with wider applicability, Losoncz argues that “… resettlement policies are dominated by a strong emphasis on migrants’ adopting their new country's normative goals and values without a corresponding emphasis on ensuring that there are effective pathways for refugees to achieve these goals” (2018: 140). Skills in the dominant language of the host country are generally regarded as a key enabler and indicator of successful integration of resettled refugees (Phillimore et al., 2022). Evidence from various countries, including Ireland, points to a contradictory combination of high expectations around language acquisition, inadequate language learning supports and weak recognition for linguistic diversity (Ćatibušić et al., 2019a, 2019b; Phillimore et al., 2022; Rafferty et al., 2020). This has significant implications for the prospects of those resettled in ‘outgrowing’ vulnerability.
It is generally assumed that children have a greater facility for additional language acquisition, however, reviewing the research, Scovel (2021) contends that young-age advantage is restricted to ‘native-like’ pronunciation and - possibly - syntax. What Scovel describes as the “myth” of “the younger the better” (2021: 116) accords with assumptions around malleability/impressionability which are central to the modern Western construction of childhood (Smith, 2014). This positions children as particularly vulnerable and uniquely endowed with the potential to learn and adapt. They are thus likely to be viewed - at least before adolescence - not just as the least threatening and most deserving of those deemed in need of resettlement, but also the most likely to “outgrow vulnerability” (Welfens, 2023). Assumptions around greater ‘integrate-ability’ of younger age-groups – particularly young children and girls - have been found to inform selection in states such as Norway and Germany (Brekke et al., 2021; Welfens, 2023; Welfens and Bonjour, 2021).
The literature points to the challenges faced by those resettled as children which impact on outcomes. These include experiences pre-resettlement, however evidence suggests that post-resettlement experiences, including challenges adjusting to a new culture and language, and, most particularly, experiences of racism and discrimination, have at least as much significance (d’Abreu et al., 2019). This underlines the need to identify and address factors in countries of resettlement contributing to the structural vulnerability of children, young people, and their families.
Resettlement for international protection purposes in Ireland
One of the earlier European countries to do so, Ireland established a quota-based resettlement programme with UNHCR in 2000 (Cellini, 2018). This occurred in the same year as the introduction of a new policy of Dispersal and Direct Provision for persons applying for protection in Ireland. Explicitly intended to deter, the policy has resulted in international protection applicants being confined - often for years - in Direct Provision (DP) centres, most of which are run for profit by commercial entities (Garrett, 2015). Progress on a government commitment made in 2020 to end Direct Provision has stalled. While there are unprecedented numbers currently receiving protection in Ireland, challenges associated with the crisis tendencies of the increasingly marketised Irish housing system long pre-date the recent rise in admissions (Daly and O’Riordan, 2023), and have been impacting resettlement since the establishment of the IRPP.
Until 2015 the numbers admitted to Ireland via resettlement were low, no more than 200 individuals annually (Cellini, 2018), a fraction of those entering via the international protection application system. Establishment of the IRPP in 2015 followed commitments to admit 4000 persons – predominantly Syrian nationals – under new mechanisms established by the European Union (EU) in that year. This initial commitment included 1040 individuals to be resettled from countries of first asylum outside of the EU, and 2622 individuals to be “relocated” from the EU member states where they had initially sought asylum (Groarke and Brazil, 2020).
Persons admitted under resettlement are accommodated initially (intended to be an approximately 12 week stay but often much longer) in Emergency Reception and Orientation Centres (EROCs). Findings previously reported from the current study evidence isolation and boredom in EROC settings, frustration about lack of information, and inappropriate surveillance of parenting (Ní Raghallaigh et al., 2019, see also Watters et al., 2022). The resettlement programme, which is essentially housing-led, is based on ‘dispersal’ to regional local authority areas. (Local authorities serving the Dublin area – the central hub of economic activity –are excluded from the programme.) Challenges sourcing housing in many local authority areas have led to extended stays in EROCs, over a year in some cases. In addition to housing provision, local authorities establish an inter-agency committee to coordinate access to other services and set up an orientation/integration programme. Typically this programme is outsourced to an ‘implementing partner’ such as a migrant NGO, with the bulk of funding allocated to employment of resettlement and intercultural support workers. The remaining budget supports integration activities, with funding for child/youth activities apparently standard and among the largest budget items.
There has been limited research on resettlement in Ireland and no longitudinal study to date so there is a dearth of information on longer-term outcomes. Findings from studies specifically on the IRPP provide some insight into experiences and support needs. Access to social housing (albeit delayed) and other social services were reported strengths of the programme (IOM, 2021). For adults, eagerness to gain employment and the negative impact on mental health and social participation of not being in employment were among the main challenges reported (IOM, 2021; Watters et al., 2022). Language barriers (and needs for greater/more tailored English-language support) were chief among reported obstacles to employment, in addition to issues around recognition of qualifications, support for labour market entry, childcare, health conditions, and limited employment opportunities in some resettlement locations (Ćatibušić et al. 2019a; 2019b; IOM, 2021). From reports of parents who participated in these studies, it seems that generally children were faring well in school and socially, however the difficulties which language barriers posed for children themselves and for parents in supporting their children's education, as well as concerns about children's mother-tongue retention, were among the issues raised.
Methodology
This article is based on a study addressing the needs of children admitted with their parents under the IRPP. The study was based on a qualitative research design involving focus groups and interviews with refugee children, young people and parents and other stakeholders working in policy and/or service provision roles related to the IRPP. Data collection was conducted between March 2018 – November 2018. In total 77 individuals took part. Participants were recruited via purposive sampling, with the assistance of various gatekeepers, some of whom participated in the study. Data collection was carried out by two female researchers (PI and Co-I) of Irish ethnicity with translation/interpretation support for data collection with Syrian nationals from a Kurdish-Syrian peer researcher. 1
Ethical approval was granted by the Research Ethics Committees of University College Dublin and Tusla. All participants provided written informed consent and consent was obtained from a parent/guardian and the individual minor in the case of participants under 18. The voluntary nature of participation was emphasised to potential participants who were provided with opportunities to ask questions and raise concerns, with interpretation support where necessary. To protect confidentiality and anonymity, care was taken to recruit participants from a number of resettlement locations and to alter any potentially identifying details when reporting findings. Participants were not asked about experiences prior to arriving in Ireland.
The study design involved two initial consultative focus groups with refugee young people (five females and four males, ranging in age from 15 to 21). Interviews and focus groups were then carried out separately with children/young people (six male, one female) and parents (three males and three females) living in reception centres and children/young people (two female, one male) and parents (five females and four males) resettled in communities. One young female participant took part in a focus group and in an individual interview. One adult male participant took part while in the EROC and again following his move to a community. The IRPP prioritised persons displaced due to the Syrian conflict: all 32 of the refugee parents and children/young people who participated were Syrian nationals.
To gain an overview of the various aspects of the IRPP programme and a range of views on how effectively needs were being met under the programme, focus groups and interviews were conducted with various other stakeholders (n = 44). These included resettlement support workers and managers; intercultural workers; health/mental health professionals; education professionals; EROC staff; youth workers; child welfare professionals; government officials; a volunteer. Topics addressed mainly concerned responses to the needs of children admitted under the IRPP in addition to general operational issues.
Data was analysed with the aid of NVivo 11 for Windows, using Thematic Analysis (TA). Following Braun and Clarke (2006), familiarisation, involving multiple readings of anonymised transcripts, preceded initial coding. In line with the focus of the original study, initial coding was led by five key domains set out in Irish child policy – health; education; connection; economic security; welfare and protection – with a separate domain relating to the implementation of the resettlement programme. Categories of codes were identified as themes which were reviewed against relevant subsets of the data set and individual data items, and subsequently defined and elaborated in conjunction with the writing up process.
Governing resettlement
The government of resettlement under the IRPP incorporates distinct phases and various sites and strategies of intervention, underpinned by normative assumptions about the ends and pace of the integration journey. The aim is that when the support programme ends resettled persons will be able to navigate daily life independently and to participate in Irish society, socially and economically. Given weak recognition for linguistic diversity in Ireland, it is unsurprising that proficiency in English was viewed by all participants as central to independence and participation. Conversely it was effectively taken for granted that language was the main barrier to integration with the onus for overcoming this barrier on resettled refugees. Various stakeholders who took part in the study, including resettlement personnel and youth workers, did suggest that the approach to integration under the IRPP was somewhat ‘one-sided’, with some identifying a need for work with existing communities in resettlement locations. A few stakeholders also acknowledged their own stereotyped preconceptions and assumptions about refugees from Syria and some identified a need for enhanced training and supervision. There were also references to local tensions in some areas when EROCs were being established and in some resettlement locations and various reports of incidences of racism (from service-providers and from young resettled people). Nonetheless anti-racist training or interventions either with those in professional roles, resettled people or existing communities did not appear to be a feature of the resettlement programme.
From vulnerability to independence
The integration journey begins in the EROC. The official line is that EROCs provide a space for “these particularly vulnerable people” to recover, to begin healing from the past, and to adjust and prepare for life in Ireland (Stanton, 2017). While in the EROC school-age children receive transition education to support English-language acquisition and adaptation to mainstream schooling. Adults attend English classes and undergo an orientation programme, aimed at laying the foundations of future independence. Intensive intervention at the start – when in the words of a government official there was a “captive” audience – was viewed as minimising risks of problems later by “[g]etting them into the right patterns of Irish life and norms…”. Based on interviews with EROC stakeholders and government officials an important aspect of this was ensuring that parents were familiar with ‘Irish’ childrearing and gender norms - tacitly idealised as ‘modern’ and ‘equal’ in contrast to ‘traditional’ and ‘conservative’ ‘Syrian’ practices.
The dispersal model adopted under the IRPP means that those resettled have no say in where they will live upon leaving the EROC. While satisfaction with housing quality was high among participants of refugee background, feelings of isolation were reported by some due to poor transport links and distance from shops and services and from other resettled families. In interviews with resettlement workers the reported size of groups resettled in any area (who might not be living very near each other) ranged from two to nine families, but the perceived optimum number, according to a government official, was “three to four families”. The underlying policy-logic, as elaborated by this official is that “there is capacity to integrate, but there's also some support”. The implicit assumption here is that ‘too much’ support from resettled peers could impact negatively on integrate-ability.
The orientation/integration programme delivered post-resettlement comprises three phases over an eighteen-month timeframe. It is envisaged that initial orientation, involving quite intensive assistance from resettlement personnel, will be completed in four - six months. The second phase centres on supporting integration and capacity-building of both resettled persons and mainstream service-providers. Work to prepare adults for labour market entry is expected in this phase, but based on interviews carried out with resettlement personnel the greater emphasis is on supporting social integration of both adults and children, framed mainly in terms of participation in the existing local community. Throughout the first year of the programme adults are expected to attend English classes for 20 h per week (Ćatibušić et al., 2019a). That intercultural workers are employed only on twelve-month contracts suggests that expectations for language acquisition in this first year are high. The final phase of the programme - “preparation for exit” - is based on the understanding that needs will be met through mainstream services once the programme ends. The assumption, as expressed by a government official, was that only a ‘very vulnerable’ minority of those resettled would require dedicated support after the end of the eighteen-month programme. This assumption was challenged by resettlement personnel who were almost unanimous in the view that the programme was too short and consequently “too much too soon”.
More or less ‘integrate-able’ subjects
Within the discourse of integration, success depends on the capacity to adapt and acquire the attributes and attitudes demanded for social and economic participation (Welfens, 2023). In interviews with service providers and officials for this study, age, gender, and education/class were identified as important factors in integrate-ability. Children were viewed as more adaptable than adults, while women were seen as facing particular obstacles to integration. Families of educated, middle-class background were viewed as more integrate-able than others.
Perceptions of greater adaptability of the young stemmed largely from assumed speed of language acquisition “You know how quickly they can pick it up” (Teacher). While viewed positively, this also gave rise to concern around children effectively acting as agents of integration for parents: “…there's high expectations on the children to first of all take it all in … and then to obviously do the English role—or the translation—but also, … go with the parents shopping, to… do all these tasks, because the parents don’t really know how to do it themselves and the children learn faster. “ (resettlement worker)
Some stakeholders raised particular concerns about women's engagement in English classes. While English-language acquisition was viewed as a vital aspect of integrate-ability for all, for women specifically it was represented as a safeguard against social isolation and domestic violence, suggestive of generalised assumptions about oppressive gender relations. Discussions around economic integration and employability centred mainly - although not exclusively - on men. There appeared to be an assumption that Syrian women had a preference for full-time domestic/caring duties, although when probed in a focus group resettlement workers recounted varied career aspirations among Syrian women they worked with.
Those whose integration prospects elicited the greatest concern were adults with low education. In some interviews with officials and service providers a broad contrast was made between “two extremes” of resettled adults perceived as more or less vulnerable/integrate-able. At one end were people – described as typically of rural background – with little previous education and limited literacy skills. This group were seen as having poor prospects for social mobility as they were likely to struggle in gaining employment in Ireland. At the other end were those who were educated, literate, of middle-class and urban background, described by a government official as being eager to learn English, gain employment and improve their position and that of their children as quickly as possible.
In interviews with resettlement support personnel it was clear that even those categorised as most integrate- able might experience challenges accessing the labour market. …a family I’m working with … one of them he has a degree … He speaks excellent English. … he can read and he can understand but he wouldn’t be completely, say, fluent. … he was really motivated to get a job. …. He would hand out his CVs, he’d be very kind of active in that, and he was finding it difficult. … (resettlement worker) A lot our families were ready to get going. … They were so excited …You know, like they have their house, they can set up a business now—… And then you’re saying, well, hang on now. You’ve got your English classes. So that puts a brake on things. …. And then there's all this red tape. And then—before you know it of course they’re demotivated and oh, well, I’ll stay on social welfare then— I suppose it's not just them. It's kind of pushed on them as well. …you just take your time. You stay on social, you learn English, you know.
In the study by Ćatibušić et al. (2019a) concern was expressed by a support provider that pessimism regarding outcomes for resettled adults - viewed as implicit in resettlement policy - meant that children were effectively the main targets of integration efforts. The findings from the current study suggest that this concern might not be unfounded in that at least some adults were viewed as having limited integration potential. As one government official put it in reference to adults with little previous education “one can only hope for the next generation”. While such a sentiment might not represent ‘official’ policy, without adequate support for adults to achieve their aspirations, the burden of integration shifts by default to the young.
Bright futures?
In Ireland, as in the wider European context, the ‘social investment’ imperative of neoliberal rationality - oriented towards individual and social returns from ‘human capital’ - is a guiding tenet of economic and social policy. While cultivation of human capital is represented as a ‘life-long’ project, the greatest returns are assumed to accrue from earlier investment, particularly in ‘the disadvantaged’, with the promise of future gains in productivity, an end to intergenerational poverty, and, correspondingly, reduced social expenditure (Smith, 2019). This kind of policy-logic was evident in the perspective on integration expressed by a government official interviewed for this study, who argued that “getting it right” in respect of education could significantly enhance “capacity for our workforce” and support “real integration”. Conversely not getting it right would result in young people not advancing to third-level and effectively being shut out from economic participation.
Faith in the power of education as the key to success in Ireland was reflected in the findings from resettled young people and parents. The high aspirations of Syrian parents for their children was commented upon by a number of resettlement personnel. Children and young people themselves –male and female– spoke of the “bright future” they hoped to have in Ireland and identified ambitious goals which for most centred on obtaining a university education as the foundation for a professional career. The felt value of education transcended vocational objectives - young people in a focus group shared that study offered a way “to forget about the past and be occupied with the present.”
A key theme in interviews and focus groups with resettlement personnel and educational professionals was that high levels of motivation notwithstanding, the prospects for academic success were much greater for those admitted at a younger age than for those arriving as teenagers or young adults. 2 The difficulties of adapting to school for adolescents with significantly interrupted formal education were particularly highlighted. Even for those without major breaks in their schooling, adapting to a new language, a new curriculum and a new environment was viewed as extremely challenging. Resettlement workers commented on the experience for teenagers– referred to by one as “horrendous” – due to the pressure to operate at an advanced academic level with beginner-level English language skills. A comparison was made between two individuals, reported to have equivalent levels of written English, one aged 5 and in the first stage of primary school, while the other, aged 19, at upper secondary level, was “trying to tackle Shakespeare”.
Some resettlement personnel reported using funding for youth activities under the resettlement budget to supplement learning and language supports for those in secondary school. While no doubt beneficial and appreciated, it was noted that this made for a very heavy workload for young people receiving tuition in the evenings and/or at weekends. The responsibility placed on young people to ‘catch up’ with peers represents an unequal or “exclusionary” form of inclusion analogous to that described by Masoud et al. (2021) in labour market programmes for refugee adults, which, they argue, effectively imposes the near-impossible burden on subjects of integration for addressing the inequalities impeding their inclusion.
Compared to their adolescent siblings, younger children were, in the words of a resettlement worker, more likely to be able to “mullach [muddle] through”. This view was echoed by education professionals. In general children entering at lower primary level were thought to be adapting more successfully, academically, and socially, than children who had entered the Irish school system at upper primary level. Nonetheless resettlement personnel, educational professionals and parents expressed concerns regarding the level of support available to younger children, in particular English language support, even in schools regarded as exemplary.
Primary school-aged children interviewed for the study recounted their difficulties in adjusting to mainstream school in Ireland including, for some, the sense of isolation of being the only Arabic speaker in the class. As one child put it “nobody understands me”. While in general satisfied with how their children were progressing, parents recounted struggles experienced by their children in settling into school initially and their own frustration at being unable to assist children with homework due to the language barrier. The impact of the language barrier on parental involvement in their children's education was raised by various participants as schools have limited access to interpretation/translation support.
Parents and other stakeholders expressed concern about the implications of the limited extent, duration, and resourcing of English language support available in Irish primary and secondary schools for academic progression and social participation. Parents also identified a need for ‘mother-tongue’ support for their children. Some stakeholders identified that social supports - for which some young people expressed a need - were not necessarily available in all schools. There was also reference to variation between schools in addressing racism. (Anti-racist programmes are not implemented as standard in Irish schools.) Findings from resettlement personnel and refugee young people point to cultural insensitivity and racialised discrimination within some schools and indicate particular challenges for Muslim girls. Respect for cultural identity is an explicit principle of Irish integration policy and there are no restrictions on religious attire in public settings. Nonetheless, there were reports of incidents where education professionals had displayed negative attitudes towards hijab, while youth workers, teachers and young people recounted examples of hijab-wearing adolescent girls experiencing exclusion and subtler forms of ‘othering’ in schools and in other settings. While the findings here are limited, they resonate with themes in the wider literature around the deployment of equality as an instrument of racialised exclusion and normalisation and stereotyped representations of Muslim women and girls (Farris, 2017).
For the very youngest children in families admitted under the IRPP, entitlement to provision has been framed mainly in terms of parental integration. At the time of data collection families were entitled to access free, part-time, early learning and care (ELC) services for 60 weeks to facilitate parental attendance at English-language classes. Only one participant had a direct role in relation to ELC services, however this participant - in a policy role - made important points regarding provision for very young children. While emphasising the potential benefits of adequately resourced early years services for both children and parents, this participant noted that the Irish early years sector (comprised of a mix of public, non-profit, but mainly for-profit providers) was underfunded and that minimum staff qualifications were low. Additionally, it was noted that training in intercultural competence is not mandatory for staff in early years settings. There is limited support for children from minority-language backgrounds in Irish early years settings (see Ćatibušić, 2019). The assumption seems to be that very young children will not require dedicated support with English-language or mother-tongue acquisition. Furthermore, as this participant identified, children of refugee background and their families might have needs for “wellbeing supports or trauma supports” which not all Irish early years services would be equipped to meet. In light of disparities in standards and capacity pressure across the sector, ensuring that children of refugee background were placed in services best able to respond to their needs represented a significant challenge.
Concluding remarks
Viewed in terms of the exercise of power, resettlement represents what Foucault might call a ‘gentle’ mode of governing migration. Grounded in the logic of humanitarian reason, resettlement programmes aim to meet the needs of the vulnerable for protection, support, and guidance. The care imperative was evident in the findings obtained in this study from interviews with service providers, officials, and professionals. Nonetheless the dynamics of care put into play through resettlement must also be understood as asymmetrical relations of power via which the conduct of more-or-less ‘integrate-able’ subjects can be worked upon (Garnier et al., 2018).
The subjects of integration are necessarily othered, positioned as outsiders until they have ‘adapted’ to the norms and values of the dominant culture (Schinkel, 2018). There is a presumption of ‘difference’ and an implicit goal that such difference should - at least in part - be eradicated (somewhat paradoxically in the name of ‘equality’ (Dodevska, 2023, Farris, 2017)). The resettlement programme in Ireland could not be said to be aiming at erasure of cultural identity, nonetheless aspects of the programme such as dispersal in small groups and corresponding expectations around social mixing and English-language acquisition are associated with an assimilationist orientation.
Moving from vulnerability to independence in this context can be an onerous task giving rise to extensive support needs for at least some of those resettled. The concern is that those adults viewed as having weak integration potential and the highest support needs might be written off and consigned to long-term welfare dependency. While it can be viewed as positive that resettled persons in Ireland are not being pushed into employment, individuals should not be faced with unnecessary barriers to pursuing and achieving employment goals and should receive appropriately tailored supports.
Although viewed as among the most vulnerable of those in need of international protection, children are also typically perceived as the most adaptable. The concern here is that this greater perception of adaptability is associated with an assumption that the younger the child, the less need for support. This article has argued that this give rises to a policy contradiction which demands attention: while those adults with the least integration potential might not be prioritised for support, neither might those viewed as most integrate-able – children resettled at primary-school age or younger – as they are deemed likely to succeed in any case.
The assumption that children resettled at a younger age have a greater chance of success than their parents and older siblings runs into various difficulties. Firstly, while accurate to state that the ‘gap’ between newcomer children and non-migrant children is likely to be less at lower levels of the education system, this does not mean – as emphasised by education professionals who took part in this study – that young children of refugee background will not need considerable support in language acquisition, academic skills, and social adjustment and for some at least in dealing with loss and/or trauma. Secondly, children of refugee or other migrant background whose parents are not fluent in the dominant host country language are likely to be at a significant disadvantage (see Darmody et al., 2022 for Irish evidence). Finally, in Ireland, as elsewhere, labour market outcomes for those admitted on international protection grounds as adults appear to be poor. The strong relationship between joblessness and poverty – the result of policy choices - necessarily impacts upon the resources available to families of international protection background, further disadvantaging children educationally and socially, with long-term implications for life chances in a competitive, market-driven society.
The logic of integration which informs resettlement policy – and its inherent tensions and contradictions – has been subject to criticism for the burden of responsibility placed on the resettled, including, as this article, has argued, the very young, represented as both highly vulnerable and particularly adaptable. This reflects wider themes within the governmentality-informed social policy literature, which has provided valuable insights into the significance of childhood for “the production of governable subjects” (Rose, 1999; Smith, 2012), which can be said to be a key objective of integration policy. In drawing together insights from the government of childhood and government through ‘humanitarian reason’ this article points to promising directions for future research and theory on resettlement policy and practice.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Muireann Ní Raghallaigh, Azad Izzeddin and Jennifer Scholtz with whom she carried out the research associated with this paper and all at the Children's Rights Alliance, particularly Tanya Ward and (formerly) Saoirse Brady. I am very grateful to Muireann Ní Raghallaigh and to Melanie Smith for helpful comments on drafts of this article. Thanks also to the Editorial Collective and the anonymous reviewers for their very constructive feedback.
Funding
The author disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The research which informs this paper was commissioned and funded by the Children's Rights Alliance and supported by supplemental funding from University College Dublin.
Notes
Author biography
