South Tyrol: the importance of boundaries for immigrant integration

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cjms20

Download by: [Eurac Research] Date: 16 September 2015, At: 23:16

Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies

ISSN: 1369-183X (Print) 1469-9451 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjms20

South Tyrol: the importance of boundaries forimmigrant integration

Verena Wisthaler

To cite this article: Verena Wisthaler (2015): South Tyrol: the importance ofboundaries for immigrant integration, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, DOI:10.1080/1369183X.2015.1082290

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2015.1082290

Published online: 15 Sep 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

South Tyrol: the importance of boundaries for immigrantintegrationVerena Wisthalera,b

aInstitute for Minority Rights, EURAC, Bozen/Bolzano, Italy; bDepartment of Politics and International Relations,University of Leicester, Leicester, UK

ABSTRACTUsing South Tyrol as a case study, this article analyses how boundariesbetween groups and their institutionalisation through power-sharingarrangements affect the politics of immigrant integration. Through alongitudinal qualitative analysis of party manifestos, the article focuseson the period between 1993 and 2013 to evaluate the immigration andintegration discourses of political parties, claiming to represent theGerman and Ladin minorities. It is argued that these parties havedeliberately framed immigration as a challenge to the strength of theirrespective cultures and languages, as well as the array of institutionsthat support the separate but equal coexistence of South Tyrol’slinguistic groups. The consequence of this tendency to ‘think in groups’is that the main political parties of the German and Ladin minorities areshoring up group boundaries and advancing an assimilationist model ofimmigrant integration.

KEYWORDSSouth Tyrol; immigration;integration; political parties;linguistic boundaries

Introduction

National minorities, or ‘stateless nations’, face a double challenge when confronted with immigra-tion. On the one hand, they aim to maintain and protect their distinctiveness, but on the otherhand, they are confronted with the need to find ways to include the additional diversity stemmingfrom immigration. Banting and Soroka suggest that this is ‘where immigrant multiculturalism meetsthe politics of minority nationalism’ (2012, 158). This article examines the South Tyrolean case andoffers a novel argument about the importance of inter-regional group relations and how theserelations weigh in on the discourses of stateless nationalist and regionalist parties (SNRPs). The find-ings suggest that when it comes to the politics of immigration, the internal boundaries betweengroups and their eventual institutionalisation via consociational mechanisms add another importantexplanatory factor to the literature. In particular, this article complements factors such as the natureof centre-periphery relations and the perceived impact immigration has on the autonomy goals ofSNRPs (Barker 2015), the SNRPs’ ideological positions and the importance of linguistic barriers(Hepburn 2014), the path-dependent approach of SNRPs (Arrighi de Casanova 2012), and narrativesof past cultural oppression (Jeram and Adam 2015).

South Tyrol is the only province in Italy without an Italian-speaking majority: 69% of the popu-lation currently identifies1 as German-speaking, 26% Italian-speaking, and 4.5% belongs to the Ladinminority (ASTAT 2012). Group relations in the territory are shaped by consociational power-shar-ing mechanisms between the German, Italian, and Ladin groups, which have resulted in ‘tolerancethrough law’ (Woelk, Marko, and Palermo 2008) and ‘forced cooperation’ (Pallaver 2008).2 Critics of

© 2015 Taylor & Francis

CONTACT Verena Wisthaler [email protected]

JOURNAL OF ETHNIC AND MIGRATION STUDIES, 2015http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2015.1082290

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Eur

ac R

esea

rch]

at 2

3:16

16

Sept

embe

r 20

15

consociationalism argue that it hinders the development of an overarching common identity (Wil-ford and Wilson 2006) and the development of a coherent society. Indeed, Carlà suggests that, as aresult of the consociational system, the three linguistic groups in South Tyrol now find themselves‘living apart in the same room’. In other words, the boundaries separating the German, Ladin, andItalian speakers and the internal fractures, which are present in daily life, have effectively been frozenat the institutional level.

Along with most of Europe, South Tyrol has experienced a significant diversification of languages,cultures, and religions due to migration over the past 20 years: 8.3% of the population does not holdItalian citizenship and originates from over 140 countries (ASTAT 2014).3 The diversity stemmingfrom immigration supplements that of the autochthonous linguistic groups, leading to new chal-lenges for all the actors involved. The migrant population is not confronted with a single coherentsociety, but with a plurality of German, Italian, and Ladin language groups. It is the German andLadin minorities, in particular, who grapple with the dual challenge of trying to maintain their cul-tural and linguistic distinctiveness within the Italian state, while simultaneously managing theadditional diversity stemming from migration.

The aim of this article is to analyse whether the existence of boundaries and fractures between theGerman, Ladin, and Italian language groups has an appreciable impact on the discourses on immi-gration and the management of immigration-generated diversity. This article argues that the conso-ciational system reinforces the salience of boundaries separating the three linguistic groups in SouthTyrol, thereby engendering a mentality of ‘thinking in terms of groups’, when adopting approachesto recent immigration and integration.

To substantiate this assertion, I conceptualise the elites of SNRPs as ‘ethnic identity entrepre-neurs’ (Brubaker and Cooper 2000), who claim to represent the interests of the German andLadin groups and, thus, play a significant role in boundary making. Not only does the continuousaffirmation of group difference, both in contemporary discourse and as a result of the consociationalsystem, highlight the boundaries between the three groups; it also negatively affects how immigrationand immigrant integration are perceived. Thus, SNRPs in South Tyrol do not view immigration asadding value to their respective communities, but rather as a challenge to the preservation of theautochthonous—German and Ladin—language and culture.

Of course, insights generated from the South Tyrolean case cannot simply be exported to othercases. However, situating South Tyrol within the literature on group formation and consociational-ism imbues the present arguments with sufficient plausibility to make them relevant in other immi-grant-receiving sub-national territories and states that similarly manage the sharp boundaries anddeep fractures between their groups with consociational institutions.

The article is organised as follows. First, I discuss why theories of group formation have value forthe literature on immigration and SNRPs. Next, I briefly present South Tyrol as a relevant case, alongwith the methodology and data I used to show how the relations between the different groups shapethe approaches to immigration taken by those parties. I, then, present the results and argue that thehistorical boundary between German, Ladin, and Italian speakers significantly influences the parties’discourses on immigration and integration. Finally, I discuss what can be learned from the case, par-ticularly its theoretical and analytical value for the literature on sub-state national accommodationand immigrant integration. The conclusion combines the findings with suggestions for futureresearch.

Theoretical framework

Previous studies show that when ‘immigrant multiculturalism meets the politics of minority nation-alism’ (Banting and Soroka 2012, 158), immigration is perceived by SNRPs either as an advantage(Hepburn 2010) or a threat to their interests (Kymlicka 2001; Zapata-Barrero 2009). As a result,the parties vary in their stances on immigrant integration; some support the inclusion of immigrants

2 V. WISTHALER

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Eur

ac R

esea

rch]

at 2

3:16

16

Sept

embe

r 20

15

into the (minority) nation-building project (Jeram 2012), while others advocate assimilation or eventhe outright exclusion of immigrants from the minority community.

A number of factors have been developed to explain the wide variety of stances SNRPs have takenon migrant integration. Among the political-institutional factors, Kymlicka’s (2001) argument is stillthe most prominent, suggesting that the degree of competences and independence in managingimmigration and integration at the sub-state level impacts how immigration is perceived in minorityregions. The more competences a region has to self-govern immigration and integration, the less it isperceived as a threat for the national minority’s survival. However, with this argument we cannotexplain the great variety of approaches taken by SNRPs in regions that share a similar institutionalframework, such as Catalonia, the Basque Country, Scotland, and South Tyrol. Explanations likeparty ideology (Hepburn 2012; Odmalm 2012), ethnic or civic definitions of nationalism (van derZwet 2015), socio-economic factors, regional demographic development (Hepburn 2014), and con-straints by the European and supranational context, (Keating 1996) all seem to be more important.What these explanations do not take into account are the particular challenges faced by sub-stateterritories characterised by autochthonous diversity, as well as their claims for autonomy and self-government. This article therefore agrees with authors, such as Arrighi de Casanova (2012), Mana-tschal (2011), Barker (2015), and Jeram and Adam (2015), that path-dependency and identity-basedexplanations have an appreciable causal effect on the different approaches to immigration and inte-gration and, thus, demand further attention.

Jeram and Adam (2015) consider past experiences of oppression and assimilation to be a dimen-sion of path-dependency that leads towards greater sympathy for immigrants in the discourses ofSNRPs. In contrast, Hepburn focuses on linguistic and cultural barriers, arguing that SNRPs’ pos-itions towards immigration might be determined by the immigrant’s ability and willingness tolearn the minority language (Hepburn 2014, 54). Arrighi de Casanova proposes that the approachto immigration depends on the strategic interests of the sub-state level (Arrighi de Casanova2012), while Barker (2015, 35) credits the perceived impact immigration has on the region’s auton-omy goals and the institutional and political context of the multinational state. Building upon thesearguments, Franco-Guillén and Zapata-Barrero (2014) argue that the positive stances of most Cat-alan SNRPs are connected, on the one hand, to their civic nationalist discourse, and, on the other, totheir quest to assimilate immigrants into the Catalan instead of Spanish language and culture.

Another path-dependent dimension in need of further analysis is the group boundary within theregion—for example, the relations between Spanish and Catalan speakers—thereby raising the ques-tion of whether it is the group boundary that impacts immigrant integration or immigrant inte-gration that impacts the group boundary. Gilligan, Hainsworth, and Aidan (2011) argue thatimmigration to Northern Ireland is affecting the division between the two traditional communities.In their study of public and elite attitudes towards immigration they find that Northern Irish elitesperceive immigration as an ‘opportunity for us to develop a better future for our “traditional” sec-tions of the community and to integrate new arrivals into a more cohesive society’. The authorsfurther argue that the ‘integration of immigrants is different in the context of a society wherethere are significant pre-existing fractures along ethnic and religious lines’ (265).

Bartram (2011) supports this argument in his study of immigrant integration in Israel, claimingthat depending on the type of immigrants, divisions in the native population are reinforced orblurred. Thus, both studies suggest that in territories characterised by the complex co-existence ofmultiple autochthonous groups, special attention needs to also be paid to the divisions and fracturesbetween the groups.

The present article substantiates and further develops this line of research. More specifically, itcombines current research about SNRP responses to immigration with both the literature on theboundaries between groups and the literature on consociationalism, as a form of inter-group conflictmanagement.

Boundary formation theories are now featured in both studies of ethnic group formation (Barth1969; Wimmer 2008) and studies of migrant integration, precisely because they focus on ways of

JOURNAL OF ETHNIC AND MIGRATION STUDIES 3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Eur

ac R

esea

rch]

at 2

3:16

16

Sept

embe

r 20

15

overcoming the boundary between newcomers and the integrating society (Alba 2005; Zolberg andWoon 1999). Alba concludes that,

the construction of immigrant-native boundaries is, in each society, a path-dependent process that hinges onthe material available in the social-structural, cultural, legal, and other institutional domains of the receivingsociety, as well as on characteristics and histories that the immigrants themselves present. (2005, 41)

In this sense, Alba distinguishes between ‘bright’ vs. ‘blurred’ boundaries, in order to explain thesocial distance between natives and immigrants and the problems associated with immigrant inte-gration (2005, 25). Studying the immigration history of the USA, he argues that a ‘porous’ main-stream culture, characterised by blurred boundaries, had emerged from its continuousconfrontation with new ethnic and racial groups, and led to the development of a compositeculture.

The present article applies the group boundary argument, which was initially developed in thecontext of the national level, to the case of sub-state South Tyrol. The relations between the groupsin South Tyrol are currently characterised by sharp and bright boundaries that are managed througha framework of power-sharing and ‘forced’ cooperation. It is argued that this consociational model ofdiversity management is a successful way to generate stability in culturally heterogeneous or segmen-ted societies (Lijphart 2004; O’Leary and McGarry 2004). Nevertheless, it has been accused of insti-tutionalising, aggravating, and freezing divisions between groups, and thus leading to the creation ofsharp boundaries in society (Graham and Nash 2006; Wilford andWilson 2006). Accordingly, criticscontend that that power-sharing mechanisms in South Tyrol have further institutionalised the pre-existing bright boundary between the linguistic groups (Pallaver 2008). Taking Alba’s line of argu-mentation a step further, one would thus expect groups with bright boundaries and a strong identity,such as linguistic minorities, to experience particular difficulties in integrating the diversity stem-ming from immigration. This is because the boundaries are even sharper in territories, where groupsare institutionally organised along consociational lines. South Tyrol, with its bright, internal, andinstitutionalised boundaries, is therefore assumed to be experiencing difficulties in integrating inter-national immigrants.

The key question to ask is whether there is a path-dependent process that reinforces the accen-tuated or, as Alba defines them, ‘bright boundaries’ present within South Tyrolean society, when par-ties tackle the issue of immigrant integration. This theoretical argument will be explored in thepresent article through an in-depth analysis of the stances of SNRPs towards immigration.

Case, data and methodology

Until 1919, South Tyrol belonged to the Austro-Hungarian Empire as part of the historical County ofTyrol. At that time, the territory was 89% German-speaking (Rautz 1999, 191). Since then, the popu-lation, state borders, and legal status of the territory have changed significantly, especially after itsannexation by Italy in 1919. Efforts to ‘Italianise’ South Tyrol preceded the 1948 statute of self-gov-ernment, which did not, however, significantly improve the precarious situation of the German andLadin minorities. A second and improved autonomy statute was negotiated in 1972. After a 20-yearimplementation period and a subsequent amendment in 2001, the autonomy statute now grants acatalogue of rights and liberties to the province of South Tyrol, enabling it to effectively protect theGerman and Ladin minorities. As a result, South Tyrol enjoys the status of being one of the most suc-cessful examples of the accommodation of minorities (Woelk, Marko, and Palermo 2008, xiii).

The basic principles of the autonomy statute include cultural autonomy for German and Ladinspeakers, parity of the three languages in state institutions, equal rights for all citizens irrespectiveof the group they belong to, proportionality based on a quota system, and minority veto rights. Itis therefore clear that South Tyrol uses a consociational power-sharing model based on the strictseparation and forced cooperation of the two main linguistic groups, German and Italian speakers(Wolff 2008).

4 V. WISTHALER

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Eur

ac R

esea

rch]

at 2

3:16

16

Sept

embe

r 20

15

The principle of proportionality, implemented through the ‘quota system’,4 has contributed to thedivision of South Tyrolean society along ethno-linguistic lines, and to the establishment of strongboundaries between the groups. Furthermore, the autonomy statute establishes two separate andparallel state school systems,5 from pre-school to secondary school, with pupils taught in theirmother tongue by teachers of the same language.6 It has also led to the establishment of three distinctadministrative systems and educational policies. Nevertheless, parents reserve the right to choosewhichever educational system they prefer for their children.

The division of society along ethno-linguistic lines at both the political-institutional and edu-cational levels is mirrored at the societal level. Geographically, the linguistic groups are divided:the Italian-speaking community is concentrated in the capital city of Bozen/Bolzano, the neighbour-ing town of Leifers/Laives, where it constitutes the absolute majority (70%), as well as six other smallcities, where around 30% of the population is Italian-speaking. All of the other towns are primarilyinhabited by German speakers; in 81 out of 116 municipalities, the German speakers form more than90% of the population (ASTAT 2010, 120).

Ethno-linguistic divisions within South Tyrolean society are also reflected in the party system,7

cutting across all other traditional cleavages (Pallaver 2008). Despite sharing one electoral district,the electoral market is divided into two ethnically distinct sub-arenas, so that German-speakingand Italian-speaking parties do not compete with each other.

This article traces the immigration discourses of the parties claiming to represent the German andLadin minorities from the early 1990s until 2013. These include the Südtiroler Volkspartei (SVP—South Tyrolean People’s Party), the Freiheitlichen (dF—the Libertarians), the Süd-Tiroler Freiheit(SF—South Tyrolean Freedom Party), and the Union für Südtirol/Bürgerunion (UfS/BU—Unionfor South Tyrol/Citizen’s Union). As shown in Table 1, the parties claiming to represent the Germanand Ladin minorities constitute the majority in the South Tyrolean parliament. Thus, the South Tyr-olean party system is characterised by a majority of SNRPs, which are not connected with any Italiannation-wide party, as well as a minority of regional branches of state-wide parties and of regionalparties claiming to represent the Italian-speaking population in South Tyrol.8 However, only thelocal branch of the Italian-speaking PD (Partito Democratico—Democratic Party, emerged fromDS—Democratici di Sinistra—Democrats of the Left) and its predecessors managed to be continu-ously present in the South Tyrolean parliament since 1992.

The SVP was founded in 1945 in order to give a voice to the German- and Ladin-speaking popu-lations in South Tyrol, of whom it has always considered itself to be the main representative. The

Table 1. Parties in the South Tyrolean Parliament (seats obtained).

Party 1993 1998 2003 2008 2013

SVP 19 21 21 18 17dF 2 1 2 5 6UfS 2 2 2 1 Renamed BU 1SFa 2 3Other parties 12b 11c 10d 9e 8f

Total 35 35 35 35 35

Source: Own elaboration, Data: Südtiroler Landtag, Wahlen, Historisches Archiv.aSF split from UfS in 2007.bMSI-DN (4 seats), DC-Part.Pop. AA (1 seat), Ladins (1 seat), Lega Nord AA-S (1 seat), PDS (1 seat), Unione Centro AA (1 seat), seehttp://www.landtag-bz.org/de/datenbanken-sammlungen/ergebnisse-legislatur-11.asp.

cAN—I Liberali (3 seats), Verdi-die Grünen (2 seats), Lista Civica—FI—CCD (1 seat), Ladins-DPS (1 seat), Centrosinistra-Mitte-Links-Projekt (1 seat), Popolari—AA Domani (1 seat), Unitalia—Fiamma Tric. (1 seat), Il Centro—UDA (1 seat), see http://www.landtag-bz.org/de/datenbanken-sammlungen/ergebnisse-legislatur-12.asp.

dAlleanza Nazionale (3 seats), Verdi-die Grünen (2 seats), Pace e Diritti—Insieme a sinistra—Frieden und Gerechtigkeit—Gemein-sam links (1 seat), Unione Autonomista (1 seat), Forza Italia (1 seat), Unitalia Movimento per l’Alto Adige (1 seat), see http://www.landtag-bz.org/de/datenbanken-sammlungen/ergebnisse-legislatur-13.asp.

eIl popolo della libertá Berlusconi (3 seats), PD (2 seats), Verdi-die Grünen (2 seats), Lega Nord Südtirol (1 seat), Unitalia movimentoiniziativa sociale (1 seat), see http://www.landtag-bz.org/de/datenbanken-sammlungen/ergebnisse-legislatur-14.asp.

fVerdi-die Grünen (3 seats), PD (2 seats), Forza Alto Adige (1 seat), Movimento Cinque Stelle (1 seat), Alto Adige nel Cuore (1 seat),see http://www.provinz.bz.it/vote/landtag2013/results/home_ld_vg.htm.

JOURNAL OF ETHNIC AND MIGRATION STUDIES 5

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Eur

ac R

esea

rch]

at 2

3:16

16

Sept

embe

r 20

15

importance of the party is demonstrated both by its role in the negotiation of the legislative frame-work of South Tyrol and its electoral success (see Table 1). Until 2013, the SVP was constantly able tosecure an absolute majority, therefore making it what Sartori calls a ‘hegemonic party’ (1976, 119–128). Due to the consociational power-sharing system, which requires governmental representationof all three linguistic groups, it has never ruled the territory alone, but always in a coalition with aparty representing the Italian language group.9 Although the SVP refuses to position itself on theleft–right spectrum, its politics have been characterised as moderate-conservative (Holzer andSchwegler 1998, 164). Instead of outright independence, the SVP is in favour of broadening theregion’s autonomy within the Italian state and the further devolution of competences.

Since 1993, other parties have emerged to challenge the SVP’s position as the dominant SNRP.These competitors vary in their perceptions of the degree to which South Tyrol should be self-gov-erning. Thus, although the political landscape in South Tyrol has always been fragmented, the degreeof fragmentation has increased since 1993, especially among SNRPs competing for the German- andLadin-speaking electorate. The UfS was established in 1989 as a conservative right-wing party, whichuntil 2012, focused on advocating the secession of South Tyrol from Italy and its reunification withAustria. In 2012, the party transferred its attention from territorial reform to social issues and wasrenamed BU. In 2007, one of the most prominent members of the UfS, Eva Klotz, founded her ownparty, the SF, which is separatist in orientation. Her party demands a referendum on secession fromItaly, seeking either the development of an independent state or re-unification with Austria. Finally,there is the dF, which was founded in 1992 mainly as an opposition party to the SVP but, like the SF,demands the establishment of an independent South Tyrolean state.

Along with the changes to the party system, the population of South Tyrol has also changed sig-nificantly since Italy’s annexation of the territory, as can be seen in Between 1990 and 2011, thepopulation of South Tyrol more than doubled to 511,750, mainly as a result of international immi-gration. The first immigration wave in the 1990s primarily included people from the former Yugo-slavia and North Africa. It is only recently that people were immigrating to South Tyrol from LatinAmerica (Medda-Windischer and Girardi 2011, 16). By 2011, the number of international immi-grants had increased significantly to 45,469 (8.8% of the South Tyrolean population), and thecountries of origin have become significantly more diverse. Migrants from 137 countries havebeen registered in the region, with around 30% coming from the EU, another 30% from non-EUEastern European countries, 16.5% from Asia, 12.7% from Africa, and around 5% from the Americas(ASTAT 2014).

This study focuses on the last 20 years in order to gauge how the political elite developed theirdiscourse, as the migrant population grew. From 1993 until 2013, immigration shifted from beinga marginal phenomenon to a significant one in South Tyrol, in terms of both numbers (see Figure 1)and the importance given to immigration by the SNRPs (see Figure 2). The findings in this article arebased on the party manifestos of the SNRPs for the regional elections between 1993 and 2013, as wellas their thematic documents on immigration. All data were retrieved from the parties’ homepagesand archives. They form a textual corpus on which the analyses are undertaken. This corpus reflectsthe official party positions, representing the consensus reached within the particular organisation.Thus, it will neither be possible to reflect, evaluate, and analyse how SNRPs internally decided ona certain position, nor to identify underlying conflicts and divergent positions within a party.

The data are analysed through qualitative content analysis, which allows, on the one hand, for aninterpretation of the content of text data through the systematic classification of codes, themes, orpatterns (Hsieh and Shannon 2005), and on the other, for a quantitative presentation of the results.All the data have been coded with Atlas.ti. Codes have been developed inductively from the materialitself, and cluster around whether immigration or integration was presented as having a negative,positive, or neutral impact on the territory. Negative depictions rely on the framing and perceptionof immigration as a threat—namely, as a threat to the security, identity, economy, and/or welfaresystem of the territory. In contrast, the neutral depiction refers to immigration as a fact and chal-lenge, but not as a problem. Not only do neutral frames highlight the inability to control immigration

6 V. WISTHALER

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Eur

ac R

esea

rch]

at 2

3:16

16

Sept

embe

r 20

15

flows; they are also characterised by the opposition to national immigration policies. In this sense,neutral frames do not assess whether immigration has a positive or negative impact on the minorityregion, but instead assess the relations between the minority region and the state. Ultimately, con-trolling immigration flows can either aim to restrict or expand immigration as a whole, depending onthe overall perceived impact of immigration on the territory. In contrast to its negative and neutralcounterparts, the positive depiction conceives immigration as a counterbalance to demographic

Figure 1. Demographic evolution in South Tyrol from 1910 to 2011.Source: Data from ASTAT, Demographisches Handbuch für Südtirol (2012, 118), own elaboration; German, Italian and Ladin speak-ers are all Italian citizens, data on the language are based on the declaration of linguistic affiliation which are collected togetherwith census data every 10 years. *intn. Immigrants, not Italian citizens (and in 1910 not Austrian citizens), naturalised immigrantsare not included in this category.

Figure 2. Importance of immigration for SNRPs.Notes: All documents of the document families ‘parties’ and ‘election manifesto’ between 1993 and 2013 in the hermeneutic unit‘South Tyrol’, coded on ‘immigration’ (unit of analysis: paragraphs/sentences). y-axis: % of codes in relation to total codes onimmigration.

JOURNAL OF ETHNIC AND MIGRATION STUDIES 7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Eur

ac R

esea

rch]

at 2

3:16

16

Sept

embe

r 20

15

decline, a necessity for the economy and labour market, and more generally, a source of economic,social, and cultural enrichment for the region.

Codes can correspond to a sentence, a part of a sentence, or a paragraph. The quantification of theresults therefore does not say anything about how the codes and the overall document relate to eachother; it merely depends on the number of codes allocated to the document.

Given the under-researched nature of the South Tyrolean case and the predominantly explora-tory, as opposed to theory testing, aim of this article, analysing official party positions with qualitat-ive content analysis proves to be the most suitable approach. It is acknowledged, however, that futurestudies focusing on why and how certain party and governmental positions come into place will bean added value to this research field.

Immigration and integration as seen through the lenses of SNRPs

The importance of immigration and integration for SNRPs increased significantly from 1993 to2013. Figure 2 shows that during this period, SNPRs increasingly engaged with immigration intheir election programmes. Of all the South Tyrolean SNRPs, the dF is the party that focusesmost on immigration and integration. The UfS and its splinters, the BU and SF, are the least engagedon these topics. Thus, the dF dominates the issue for the period selected and actively campaignsagainst immigrants, not only in election campaigns but also through continuously issuing pressreleases on the topic and lodging requests with the South Tyrolean provincial parliament. Since2003, the ‘contagion effect’ (van Spanje 2010) generated by the dF has incentivised competing partiesto adopt more radical positions on these issues, as will be demonstrated below in relation to the SVP,BU, and SF.

Between 1993 and 2013, a negative discourse on immigration predominates among all SNRPs inSouth Tyrol, as shown in Figure 3. In 2011, the provincial government adopted the ‘Law on the inte-gration of foreigners’,10 causing neutral positions on particular aspects of integration, such as hous-ing, education, and the labour market, to decrease in the 2013 elections.

Three topics dominate the discourse of SNRPs in South Tyrol: welfare chauvinism (Andersen andBjørklund 1990) and the demand to restrict immigrants’ access to the South Tyrolean welfare system;the potential link between immigration and increasing crime and security; and safeguarding the

Figure 3. The overall discourse of SNRPs on immigration between 1993 and 2013.Notes: All documents of the document family ‘parties’ in the hermeneutic unit ‘South Tyrol’, coded on ‘immigration’ (unit of analy-sis: paragraphs/sentences), and in code family negative, neutral and positive; y-axis: % of codes in relation to total codes onimmigration.

8 V. WISTHALER

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Eur

ac R

esea

rch]

at 2

3:16

16

Sept

embe

r 20

15

German and Ladin cultures and languages. All the SNRPs present in South Tyrol perceive immigra-tion as a challenge to the territory, its system of self-governance, and even the preservation of Ger-man and Ladin culture and language. None of the parties view immigration as a potential source ofenrichment for the already existing diversity and cohabitation between the German, Ladin, and Ita-lian groups. While the SVP and SF are mainly focused on the cultural preservation of the autochtho-nous communities, in the face of migration-generated diversity, the dF deals predominantly withrestricting immigrant access to the South Tyrolean welfare system and presenting immigration asa security threat.

The following section, first, analyses the SNRPs independently of each other, in order to underlinethe differences in how they frame immigration, based on their overall aims to represent the interestsof the German and Ladin minorities. To give a complete picture of the framing of immigration inSouth Tyrol, this article, then, presents the main positions of the parties claiming to represent theItalian-speaking population in the region, as well as the parties which cross-cut the linguistic div-ision. The final section evaluates the framing of immigration in light of the boundary makingtheories.

Südtiroler Volkspartei (South Tyrolean People’s Party)

The SVP first mentioned immigration and integration in their 1993 manifesto. Although thesethemes were not included in the 1998 elections manifesto, they were brought back into discussionin 2003, as can be seen in Figure 4. The party takes a very mixed stance without positioning itselfeither clearly for or against immigration.

In its 1993 statement of basic principles, the party aims to ‘protect the rights of the autochthonouspopulation [i.e. the German- and Ladin-speaking population] and to protect our land and its peoplefrom “over-alienation”11 due to artificially supported and uncontrolled migration’ (SVP Grundsatz-programm 1993). In 1993, the party did not specify which migrants it was concerned about. Never-theless, the topic was referred to under the heading of ‘the relation to Italy and between the linguisticgroups’, suggesting that the party was focused on internal migrants from other Italian regions. Inter-preting this statement as being focused on internal migrants can be supported by a number of points:

Figure 4. SVP’S discourse on immigration.Notes: All documents of the document families ‘SVP’ and ‘election manifesto’ between 1993 and 2013, in the hermeneutic unit‘South Tyrol’, coded on ‘immigration’ (unit of analysis: paragraphs/sentences), and in code family negative, neutral and positive;y-axis: % of codes in relation to total codes on immigration.

JOURNAL OF ETHNIC AND MIGRATION STUDIES 9

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Eur

ac R

esea

rch]

at 2

3:16

16

Sept

embe

r 20

15

the past experiences of the Italian state in implementing active migration policies to dilute the Ger-man population;12 the fact that in 1993 international immigration to South Tyrol had not evenamounted to 2% of the overall population; and that international immigrants came mainly fromGermany and Austria, and were closer to the language and culture of the German speakers. More-over, to reiterate, one of the main principles of the SVP is the enforcement of the rights of the Ger-man and Ladin population in South Tyrol (SVP Grundsatzprogramm 1993).

Relations between the historical groups, namely the German, Ladin, and Italian speakers, are cen-tral to the 2003 manifesto, but the fear of ‘over-alienation’ is no longer discussed. This may have alsochanged due to the formal settlement of the conflict between Austria and Italy at the United Nations,and Italy’s implementation of the autonomy statute, which is seen to adequately protect the Germanand Ladin language and culture. Indeed, since 2003, the presence of the three historical linguisticgroups has been perceived as an added value that ‘to promote mutual understanding and open-mindedness towards other cultures’ (SVP Manifesto 2003, 16). The SVP also claims that ‘homelandand tradition create identity which is the basis for openness, open-mindedness, self-confidence andmutual understanding that are needed to encounter fellow citizens from other cultures’ (SVP Mani-festo 2003, 16).

Since 1993, the SVP has moved towards a more open and welcoming approach. Although itstill aims to both maintain the local identity and develop the South Tyrolean model in times ofdeep social change, the party claims that South Tyrol will become increasingly attractive to immi-grants, because of its ‘relatively high prosperity and political stability’ (SVP Manifesto 2003, 9).The SVP has therefore demanded that the Italian state devolve competences in immigration con-trol to the region, indicating concerns with the economic, social, and cultural effects of immigra-tion. In addition, the party focuses on making the South Tyrolean identity accessible toimmigrants and promoting language acquisition as the main mechanism of integration. Theparty, however, has not specified if it is proficiency in German, Italian,13 or both languages thatimmigrants should acquire.

Between 2003 and 2008, some members of the SVP radicalised and started to demand restrictionson the welfare access of immigrants. The 2007 document, ‘Integration in South Tyrol: GeneralRemarks and 10 Guidelines’, is the best illustration of this restrictive approach. Presented by fourleading exponents of the party and members of the provincial parliament,14 this document favoursrestricting immigration ‘to European countries with a western culture’ (SVP Integration in Südtirol2007) and introducing a five-year residency requirement that non-EU immigrants must meet beforeaccessing the welfare system. Besides restricting the flow of immigration and access to the welfaresystem, the 10 guidelines for integration highlight language and education as the most importantaspects of integration and identify Islam as a barrier for successful integration (SVP Integrationin Südtirol 2007).

This text has never been presented as an official party position but the restrictive approach wasechoed in the 2008 election manifesto. Immigration is listed under the topic of prosperity; the partydemands restricting immigration to only those persons who can fill labour market gaps. Further-more, the party proposes to attract more EU citizens who are ‘closer to our culture, language andtraditions’ (SVP Manifesto 2008, 15). Access to social benefits and public housing15 should, as pro-posed in the document of 2007, be delayed until a newcomer has worked and resided in South Tyrolfor at least five years. Family reunification should also be further circumscribed and made availableonly to those immigrants who have obtained a job contract and adequate housing. The section onimmigration within the election manifesto ends again with a general principle, namely the require-ment that immigrants respect the laws, values, and institutions of South Tyrolean society.

Thus, the 2008 election manifesto neither mirrors the open and positive approach towards immi-gration seen in the 2003 manifesto nor pays much attention to the relations between the historicminorities and the Italians. Ultimately, the 2008 manifesto exposes the competing positions withinthe SVP. On the one hand, there are those within the party who aim to restrict immigration and thealready minimum amount of resources that the European and national frameworks require for

10 V. WISTHALER

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Eur

ac R

esea

rch]

at 2

3:16

16

Sept

embe

r 20

15

immigrant integration. On the other hand, there exists a more liberal and free market-oriented wingin the party that conceptualises immigration as a necessity for economic growth.

This shift in the SVP’s narrative should be regarded in the larger context of demographic change:migration was a marginal phenomenon in the 1990s, but accelerated greatly in the 2000s. Since 2008and, in particular, during the drafting of the ‘Law on the Integration of Foreign Citizens’, the partymoved slightly away from the restrictive approach it had previously adopted. In 2010, the SVP pre-sented for the first time its official internal position on immigration, which they called ‘fordern undfördern’ (to demand and to facilitate). The principle of ‘demanding and facilitating’ (demanding will-ingness to integrate and facilitating immigrants’ attempts to integrate) was also central to the party’s2013 electoral campaign; the party recalled its humanistic Christian values and argued that every-body has a right to dignity and solidarity. It also proposed investments in integration measures,such as language courses and labour market integration, but simultaneously demanded the willing-ness of migrants to integrate and respect the constitution, rule of law, and local customs (SVP For-dern und Fördern 2010).

The party no longer demands integration into the general society, but specifically integration intothe German and Ladin groups, hence their emphasis of the necessity of learning both Italian andGerman.16 The bilingual setting and the importance of the German language have since been pro-moted, and the party has begun to lobby for greater recognition of this regional particularity in theintegration contract regulated by the Italian state.17 One example is the inclusion of Germanlanguage competence as a criterion for additional points in the integration contract.18

The SVP has developed an incoherent approach to immigration in the last 20 years due to theparty’s internal diversity and as a response to the particular South Tyrolean context of three linguisticgroups and conosociational power-sharing arrangements. The relations between the autochthonousgroups and migrants, as well as the protection of the German and Ladin language and culture, arecentral elements of all party policies. Nevertheless, the SVP has lately also recognised that immi-grants should be actively integrated into the multilingual milieu of South Tyrol.

Thus, the analysis shows that the party has moved from a restrictive approach, which involved thecontraction of the boundaries between the immigrants and German/Ladin speakers, to an inclusiveapproach in 2003, and finally to an assimilationist approach, central to which were the attempts toattract immigrants into their group. The party has also increasingly highlighted the need to blur theboundaries between groups and work towards the development of one multilingual society.

Union für Südtirol (Union for South Tyrol), Bürgerunion (Citizen’s Union), and SüdtirolerFreiheit (South Tyrolean Freedom Party)

Immigration and Integration have not been central topics of either the UfS (as the party was calledbefore its split into the BU and the SF) or its successors. Nevertheless, Figure 5 shows that the UfS,and later also the BU and the SF, mainly frame immigration negatively.

In 1998, the UfS campaigned against uncontrolled migration and for restricting access to socialbenefits exclusively to the autochthonous groups. The party was particularly concerned that unrest-ricted access to social benefits would lead to social insecurity and conflict (UfS Manifesto 1998).

After the split of the SF from the UfS, both parties engaged with these topics in the election cam-paign in 2008, which in general was characterised by a heavy focus on immigration and integrationby all SNRPs. Both parties presented immigration as a threat to the German and Ladin minoritiesand demanded more competences from the central state to directly manage immigration flows.However, in contrast to the SF, the UfS also highlighted the aspects developed in 1998, namelythe focus on privileging the local population over migrants in terms of welfare access and the per-ceived threat of immigration to security. By renaming the remainder of the UfS as the BU in 2012and by focusing explicitly on welfare issues, the party moreover eliminated its anti-immigrant pro-gramme for the 2013 election campaign, and engaged in an electoral pact with two other new one-man parties.19 However, in 2008 and 2013, the UfS and the BU coalition respectively won only one

JOURNAL OF ETHNIC AND MIGRATION STUDIES 11

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Eur

ac R

esea

rch]

at 2

3:16

16

Sept

embe

r 20

15

seat in the South Tyrolean parliament, and thus by Sartori’s (2005) definition, both can no longer beconsidered relevant parties.

The SF is more successful than the BU, and has a more substantial impact on daily local politicsbecause of Eva Klotz, who as party chair was the most prominent member of the UfS before its splin-tering. Since it is chiefly concerned with the relations between the German and Ladin minorities andthe Italian speakers, the SF fears the impact that immigration will have on the cultural identity of theterritory. In 2008, it presented immigration as a new threat to the German language and culture inSouth Tyrol. It feared that, after the previous attempts at assimilation by the Fascist government, the

Figure 5. UfS’, BU’s and SF’s discourse on immigration.Notes: All documents of the document families ‘UfS/BU’ and ‘election manifesto’ between 1993 and 2013, in the hermeneutic unit‘South Tyrol’, coded on ‘immigration’ (unit of analysis: paragraphs/sentences), and in code family negative, neutral and positive; y-axis: % of codes in relation to total codes on immigration. All documents of the document families ‘SF’ and ‘election manifesto’between 1993 and 2013, in the hermeneutic unit ‘South Tyrol’, coded on ‘immigration’ (unit of analysis: paragraphs/sentences),and in code family negative, neutral and positive; y-axis: % of codes in relation to total codes on immigration. *After the splitof SF in 2008, UfS was renamed BU. **For 2013 BU entered a coalition with 2 one-man parties.

12 V. WISTHALER

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Eur

ac R

esea

rch]

at 2

3:16

16

Sept

embe

r 20

15

region would again be at risk of becoming a ‘minority in its own country’ (SF Manifesto 2008). TheSF even argued that most of the immigrants settling in South Tyrol were unaware of the historicalbackground of the province, and of the presence and cohabitation of the three language groups. Theconcern was that immigrants would naturally assimilate into the Italian language group, send theirchildren to Italian schools, in all other aspects become ‘normal Italians’ (SF Manifesto 2008), andtherefore change the overall linguistic demographics of South Tyrol. Nonetheless, the SF, like theSVP, eschewed any active campaigns against immigrants. Instead, it advocated the developmentof concrete measures, such as compulsory German language courses as a condition for accessingeducation and other social benefits; recruiting immigrants for the labour market from neighbouring,and in particular, German-speaking countries; and transferring the competences in regulating immi-gration from the state to the provincial level (SF Manifesto 2008). At the same time, the party empha-sised its support for openness and tolerance, for judging people based on their commitment todeveloping a common ‘homeland’. In short, the SF approach is primarily characterised by the pursuitof immigrants, who are likely to assimilate into the German/Ladin group, and the general promotionof immigrant assimilation into the German/Ladin group.

In the 2013 elections, however, the party went on to add the dimension of crime to its narrative,demanding that migrants with criminal records be deprived of their residence permits. Thus, like allother SNRPs in South Tyrol, the party linked unchecked immigration to abuse of the South Tyroleanwelfare system.

In this sense, the SF is more restrictive than the SVP in its approach to immigration, preciselybecause it emphasises the protection of the German language and culture from external influences;perceives immigration as a threat to both the German and Ladin identities; and regards immigrationa threat to the balance of power between the German/Ladin and Italian speakers within South Tyrol.The party therefore advocates either the contraction of the boundaries by restricting immigration toa certain type of immigrant, or the expansion of the boundaries by assimilating immigrants only intothe German/Ladin group.

die Freiheitlichen (the Libertarians)

The dF is the most anti-immigrant party among all the SNRPs in South Tyrol. Immigration was oneof the central topics in the dF election manifestos of 1993, 1998, 2003, and 2008, presented under theheading, ‘Security—Right to a homeland’. Figure 6 shows the salience of the negative approach toimmigration and integration. The dF’s anti-immigration stance relies on an emphasis on securityand the belief in the erosive effects of additional diversity on the culture of the territory.

The party has portrayed immigration in a much more radical way than the SVP, UfS, and its sub-sequent successor parties, the BU and SF. Since its first election manifesto in 1993, the activation ofxenophobic sentiments has become central to the party’s strategy. Ideologically, the party can be situ-ated to the right of the SVP and it claims to stand in the tradition of the Freiheitliche Partei Öster-reichs (Austrian Freedom Party—FPÖ) of Jörg Haider (dF Rückblick—Parteigründung), who waspresent in many of the initial meetings and events of the dF (dF Rückblick—Parteigründung).The close connection to Haider (Pallaver 2007) can be recognised particularly in relation to howthe party portrays immigration. Haider organised a referendum in 1993 with the slogan ‘Österreichzuerst’ (‘Austria first’). He demanded a reduction or cessation of immigration to Austria and restric-tions on immigrant access to social services, public education, and the labour market. ‘Südtirolzuerst’ (‘South Tyrol first’) was introduced by the dF in 1993 and has since been used as its mainpolitical goal. In short, since the early 1990s, the party has presented immigration as a threat tothe South Tyrolean welfare system and population.

Between 1993 and 2008, the arguments and demands presented by the party remained generallythe same. It still believed that the control of immigration should be in the hands of the South Tyr-olean population and that the influx of new persons, family reunification, and access to the socialwelfare system be restricted, as well. In 2008, the slogan ‘Südtirol zuerst’ was changed and the

JOURNAL OF ETHNIC AND MIGRATION STUDIES 13

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Eur

ac R

esea

rch]

at 2

3:16

16

Sept

embe

r 20

15

two following election campaigns used a new slogan, ‘Einheimische zuerst’ (‘locals first’), in order tohighlight the importance of the South Tyrolean population vis-á-vis immigrants. In 2013, the partyalso demanded that residence permits require language tests in either the German or Ladinlanguages, for the purposes of protecting the two language groups and fully implementing the auton-omy statute (dF Manifesto 2013). Thus, for the first time, the party engaged directly with the topic ofgroup relations. Although the dF has never explicitly campaigned for the sole interests of the Germangroup, the party currently communicates only in German20 and finds its main base of support inrural areas, which tend to be predominantly inhabited by German speakers. In this sense, the dF’s‘locals first’ approach could also be interpreted as prioritising ‘German speakers first’.

Thus, similar to the SF, the dF proposes a contraction of the boundaries by restricting immigra-tion and the expression of immigrant cultures as much as possible. If, however, restrictions are notpossible, then the party—similar to the SVP and SF—demands that immigrants be assimilated intothe German-speaking group, thereby leading to the expansion of the boundaries of the group.

Parties claiming to represent the Italian speakers and parties cross-cutting the linguisticdivision

The parties claiming to represent the Italian-speaking population within South Tyrol, as well as thoseparties cross-cutting the linguistic division, equally engage with immigration. Like the SNRPs ana-lysed in this article, these parties frame immigration around the boundaries, which separate the tra-ditional autochthonous groups from the newcomers (2014). The local branches of PdL (Popolo dellaLibertà—The People of Freedom), FLI (Futuro e Libertà per Italia—Future and Freedom), and Uni-talia—Movimento Iniziativa Sociale (a local successor of Alleanza Nazionale—National Alliance)claim that the Italian-speaking population in South Tyrol needs protection. For Unitalia, in particu-lar, immigration can, on the one hand, have ‘negative consequences for the Italian speakers through[the] subtraction of resources’, but on the other, it can prop up the Italian education system and ‘saveItalian classes by helping reach the minimum of students needed to form a class’ (Carlà 2014, 86). Inother words, Unitalia’s immigration discourse also centres around the strengthening of the Italianlanguage and culture, thereby mirroring some of the South Tyrolean SNRPs such as the SF and

Figure 6. dF’s discourse on immigration and integration.Notes: All documents of the document families ‘dF’ and ‘election manifesto’ between 1993 and 2013, in the hermeneutic unit‘South Tyrol’, coded on ‘immigration’ (unit of analysis: paragraphs/sentences), and in code family negative, neutral and positive;y-axis: % of codes in relation to total codes on immigration.

14 V. WISTHALER

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Eur

ac R

esea

rch]

at 2

3:16

16

Sept

embe

r 20

15

dF. In contrast, PdL favours intercultural policies as a means of overcoming the boundaries betweenthe linguistic groups, particularly demanding that Muslim migrants adapt to the ‘Christian’ way oflife shared by the three autochthonous linguistic groups. Hence, the PdL emphasises the potential ofmigrants to bridge the different groups in South Tyrol together. Similarly, FLI criticises the estab-lished division of society into three linguistic groups, arguing that migrants should ‘belong toSouth Tyrol [as] their diversity enriches society’ (Carlà 2014, 87).

The local branch of Lega Nord (Northern League) has developed a particular position towardsdiversity. In relation to immigration, it mirrors the anti-immigrant and exclusionary positions devel-oped at the state level; however, in relation to internal diversity stemming from the co-existence ofthe German, Ladin, and Italian speakers, it favours an intercultural approach based on the abolitionof the institutionally established boundaries between the autochthonous groups. In contrast, theVerdi-Grüne-Vërc (the Green Party) consistently demands the creation of a multilingual and multi-cultural society that is inclusive of everyone living in South Tyrol. As Carlà (2014, 94) argues, theparty therefore uses the discourse on immigration to criticise and challenge the rigid system ofpower-sharing and ethnic quotas in South Tyrol.

Party positions on immigration and the boundaries between groups

This article supports the notion that the relations between the German and Ladin minorities and theItalian speakers living in South Tyrol have been an important element shaping immigration- anddiversity-related debates and discourses. It is particularly the relations between German/Ladinspeakers and immigrants that factored prominently in the immigration discourses of all the partiesanalysed. For the SVP and the SF, immigration posed a challenge to the culture and language of theGerman and Ladin minorities. The boundary separating the German and Ladin minorities from theItalian speakers is strongly reflected in how all these SNRPs frame immigration and integration. AsCarlà (2014) showed the pre-existing boundaries between the German/Ladin and Italian speakersalso influenced the discourses of the parties claiming to represent the Italian-speaking populationin South Tyrol and the parties cross-cutting the linguistic division.

This article therefore confirms Hepburn’s (2014, 54) hypothesis that cultural and linguistic bar-riers within the minority region hinder the SNRPs from developing a positive stance on immigrantintegration, because immigrants constitute a threat to the preservation of the language and culture ofthe minority region. Bartram (2011) similarly emphasises the necessity of differentiating betweenimmigrants based on their country of origin and cultural proximity to the integrating society.Thus, according to him, certain immigrants can exacerbate divisions between autochthonous groups,while others can strengthen them.

This concept of cultural proximity has been introduced into the South Tyrolean discourse in 2001,and is shared by all SNRPs. They conflate cultural proximity with language competences, particularlyGerman language competences, emphasising the importance of sharing a similar, but not explicitlydefined, cultural background and expressing a ‘willingness to integrate’. According to the SVP,

experience has shown that there are differences between migrants from different countries in their ability andwillingness to integrate. With European migrants there are less problems than with Arabic, African or Asianmigrants. This is due to the fact that persons with a European cultural background are closer to our culturethan others. (Grundsatzpapier 2003, SVP).

Similarly, SF expresses a ‘preference for workers from North and East Tyrol, and the rest of Austria,Germany and other countries, with whose population we do not have integration problems’ (SF elec-tion manifesto 2013).

As Gilligan, Hainsworth and Aidan showed in the case of Northern Ireland, the elites in SouthTyrol therefore do not perceive integration as a process that could eventually blur the boundariesbetween the autochthonous groups, but as a factor that further accentuates these boundaries (Gilli-gan, Hainsworth, and Aidan 2011).

JOURNAL OF ETHNIC AND MIGRATION STUDIES 15

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Eur

ac R

esea

rch]

at 2

3:16

16

Sept

embe

r 20

15

The importance of the linguistic divide in South Tyrol is further accentuated by the institutionalframework and, in particular, the consociational arrangements. Critics of consociationalism arguethat power-sharing institutions present additional obstacles to the integration of foreign immigrants,who do not support the development of a shared public identity, but rather a situation of ‘livingtogether but separately’. This article ultimately does not portray consociational arrangements asthe reason for the sharp boundaries between the autochthonous groups, and thus the reason forthe negative approach to immigration. Instead, it views consociationalism as further highlightingand freezing the pre-existing divisions and boundaries in society. Due to their static nature, conso-ciational arrangements also complicate boundary changes.

However, Hilpold (2009) and Lantschner and Poggeschi (2008) argue that the power-sharingmechanisms in South Tyrol have proven to be important for the cultural preservation and politicalrepresentation of all groups, including the Italian group. Thus, one could also ask whether the samemechanism, irrespective of the boundaries between the autochthonous groups and immigrants,could be an added value in the long run that also guarantees the representation and participationof immigrant groups. Future research must therefore focus on the actual integration policies ofthe region, in order to determine whether this path-dependency and ‘thinking in terms of groups’are present in policy making and whether they disadvantage the immigrant population.

Conclusion

This article introduced South Tyrol as a new case in the literature connecting immigrant multicul-turalism and minority nationalism. The aim was to evaluate whether the boundaries between thedifferent autochthonous groups, and thus the internal fractures in South Tyrolean society, shapedthe SNRPs’ positions on immigration and integration.

Literature on Northern Ireland and Israel already suggests that the internal fractures within asociety are an important element for understanding approaches to immigration. However, neitherGilligan, Hainsworth, and Aidan (2011) nor Bartram (2011) claim that sharp boundaries betweengroups lead to a negative stance on immigration and integration. This article ultimately assertsthat the institutionalised fractures and boundaries between the autochthonous groups in SouthTyrol play an important role in how parties deal with the diversity stemming from immigration.It moreover argues that the boundaries factor decisively in the negative—that is, restrictive or assim-ilationist—approaches to immigration and integration in South Tyrol.

All four of the SNRPs analysed in this article portray immigration as a negative element for theGerman and Ladin speakers and their culture and language. Thus, immigration is perceived as athreat rather than an added value, and all SNRPs demand the restriction of immigration flows tothe region. Integration is defined as a process of assimilating immigrants into the German andLadin groups. Only the recent approach of the SVP recognises the multilingual character of SouthTyrol and the need to integrate immigrants into this particular society.

Overall, this article provides suggestive evidence of the salience of boundaries in discourses ofimmigrant integration. Furthermore, it suggests that sharp boundaries might lead to a negativestance on immigration and integration. Thinking in terms of groups and focusing on the need toprotect the German and Ladin groups strongly characterise the South Tyrolean SNRPs’ stanceson immigration.

However, it is too soon to conclude that the boundary between the German and Ladin minoritiesand the Italian speakers in the region exclusively determines the approach to integration in SouthTyrol. This article calls for future research to focus, first, on those parties, which claim to representthe Italian population in South Tyrol, in order to evaluate whether they perceive immigration as athreat or advantage to the group. Secondly, the newly introduced hypothesis on the importanceof group boundaries needs further exploration in cases with varying degrees of boundaries, inorder to analyse whether bright boundaries lead to a negative stance towards immigrant integrationand permeable or blurred boundaries to a more positive stance. Examples include the

16 V. WISTHALER

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Eur

ac R

esea

rch]

at 2

3:16

16

Sept

embe

r 20

15

institutionalised dividing boundary in Northern Ireland and the much more porous and permeableboundaries in, for example, Corsica and the Basque Country.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1. Every Italian citizen residing in South Tyrol has to anonymously declare himself/herself affiliated to one of thethree recognised linguistic groups during the census, which is held every 10 years. Alongside this anonymousdeclaration, a personal declaration also has to be made which is then consulted in the case of requests to entera public post or a request for subsidies. The personal declaration is filled out once at the age of 18. For furtherinformation see Lantschner and Poggeschi (2008).

2. Both expressions, ‘tolerance through law’ and ‘forced cooperation’, refer to consociational power-sharing mech-anisms laid down in the autonomy statute, such as guaranteed representation of all three groups in the South Tyr-olean parliament, the distribution of social benefits according to the numerical strength of the three groups, etc.

3. This article focuses on international immigrants only. This category includes all non-Italian citizens living inSouth Tyrol, but does not include Italian citizens with a migration background or naturalised immigrants.

4. The quota system is a mechanism for regulating the distribution of posts in the public administration, financialresources (especially in the field of housing and culture) and the composition of various political bodies. This isdone proportionally to the strength of the linguistic groups (Lantschner and Poggeschi 2008).

5. Public Schools in South Tyrol also need to apply Art. 19 of the Autonomy Statute and thus provide teaching eitherin German or Italian, for further details see (Hofmann et al. 2014, Art. 13, Südtirol)

6. For the Ladin group instruction is primarily provided on equal terms in the German and Italian languages, along-side some education in the Ladin language.

7. The party system in South Tyrol is characterised by proportional representation and guaranteed representation ofthe three autochthonous groups through ethnic quotas (Lantschner and Poggeschi 2008). Thus, the compositionof the South Tyrolean government needs to reflect the numerical strength of the groups.

8. For more information on the parties claiming to represent the Italian population in South Tyrol see (Pallaver2007).

9. After the dissolution of Democrazia Cristiana (DC) the SVP entered into coalitions with DS and the Partito Popo-lare Altoatesino (1993–1998), DS and Unione Democratica Altoatesina (1998–2003), and since 2003 it has gov-erned together with PD. Thus, the SVP has always entered into a coalition with a partner from the centre or leftwing.

10. Provincial Law Nr. 12, 28.10.2011, published in the official gazette of the Autonomous Region Trentino—AltoAdige, Nr. 45/I-II del 08/11/2011.

11. ‘Überfremdung’ is the original term used. Author’s translation.12. Those policies consisted of special benefits for families and industries settling in South Tyrol.13. Ladin is not included as it is not an official language in the whole province, but only in the two Ladin valleys.14. These were Franz Pahl, Martina Ladurner, Seppl Lamprecht and Hanspeter Munter.15. Access to health care, basic welfare services and public school are exempted from these demands.16. However, Medda-Windischer et al. (2011) show that most immigrants are more comfortable speaking Italian.17. The ‘integration contract’ (Accordo d’Integrazione) was introduced by national law Nr. 94/15.07.2009. It forms the

basis for the extension of the residence permit and thus eventually leads to the granting of the Italian citizenship.The integration contract is signed between the Italian state and the individual migrant, and requires from themigrant the acquisition of language competences and knowledge of the Italian history and Constitution.

18. For a more detailed discussion of language tests as a requirement for the integration agreement, see Medda-Wind-ischer (2014).

19. These two parties are Ladins Dolomites and Wir Südtiroler.20. An exception is the constitution for a free state that the party presented in 2013, which has been written in

German, Italian and English.

References

Alba, Richard. 2005. “Bright vs. Blurred Boundaries: Second-Generation Assimilation and Exclusion in France,Germany, and the United States.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 28 (1): 20–49.

Andersen, Jørgen Goul, and Tor Bjørklund. 1990. “Structural Change and New Cleavages: The Progress Parties inDenmark and Norway.” Acta Sociologica 33 (3): 195–217. doi:10.2307/4200798.

JOURNAL OF ETHNIC AND MIGRATION STUDIES 17

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Eur

ac R

esea

rch]

at 2

3:16

16

Sept

embe

r 20

15

Arrighi de Casanova, Jean-Thomas. 2012. “Those Who Came and Those Who Left. The Territorial Politics ofMigration in Scotland and Catalonia.” PhD, European University Institute.

ASTAT (Landesinstitut für Statistik). 2010.Demographisches Handbuch 2009. Bozen: Landesinstitut für Statistik Astat.ASTAT (Landesinstitut für Statistik). 2012. Volkzählung 2011. Bozen/Bolzano: ASTAT (Landesinstitut für Statistik).ASTAT (Landesinstitut für Statistik). 2012.Demographisches Handbuch 2012. Bozen: Landesinstitut für Statistik Astat.ASTAT (Landesinstitut für Statistik). 2014. Ausländische Wohnbevölkerung 2013. Bozen: Astat (Landesinstitut für

Statistik).Banting, Keith, and Stuart Soroka. 2012. “Minority Nationalism and Immigrant Integration in Canada.” Nations and

Nationalism 18 (1): 156–176. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8129.2011.00535.x.Barker, Fiona. 2015.Nationalism, Identity and the Governance of Diversity. Old Politics, New Arrivals. Basingstoke, UK:

Palgrave Macmillan.Barth, Frederik, ed. 1969. Ethnic Groups and Boundaries. The Social Organization of Culture Difference. Long Grooves,

IL: Waveland Press.Bartram, David. 2011. “Migration, Ethnonationalist Destinations and Social Divisions: Non-Jewish Immigrants in

Israel.” Ethnopolitics 10 (2): 235–252. doi:10.1080/17449057.2011.570985.Brubaker, Roger, and Frederick Cooper. 2000. “Beyond Identity.” Theory and Society 29 (1): 1–47.Carlà, Andrea. 2014. “Tensions and Challenges Between New and Old Minorities: Political Party Discourses on

Migration in South Tyrol.” In Migration in Autonomous Territories. The Case of South Tyrol and Catalonia, editedby Roberta Medda-Windischer and Andrea Carlá, 64–99. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill.

Franco i Guillén, Nuria, and Ricard Zapata-Barrero. 2014. “Catalunya, terra d’acollida. Stateless Nationalist PartyDiscourses on Immigration in Catalonia.” In The Politics of Immigration in Multi-level States: Governance andPolitical Parties, edited by Eve Hepburn and Ricard Zapata-Barrero, 261–283. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave/MacMillan.

Gilligan, Chris, Paul Hainsworth, and McGarry Aidan. 2011. “Fractures, Foreigners and Fitting In: Exploring AttitudesTowards Immigration and Integration in ‘Post-conflict’ Northern Ireland.” Ethnopolitics 10 (2): 253–269. doi:10.1080/17449057.2011.570986.

Graham, Brian, and Catherine Nash. 2006. “A Shared Future: Territoriality, Pluralism and Public Policy in NorthernIreland.” Political Geography 25 (3): 253–278. doi:10.1016/j.polgeo.2005.12.006.

Hepburn, Eve. 2010. “‘Citizens of the Region’: Party Conceptions of Regional Citizenship and Immigrant Integration.”European Journal of Political Research 50 (4): 504–529.

Hepburn, Eve. 2012. “Multi-level Party Politics of Immigration: Explaining Regional Party Competition.” Conference“New European Agenda for Integration. Regions, Multi-level Governance and Immigrant Integration in the EU”,University of Edinburgh, June 18–19.

Hepburn, Eve. 2014. “Multilevel Party Politics of Immigration: Territorial Rescaling and Party Competition.” In ThePolitics of Immigration in Multilevel States, edited by Eve Hepburn and Ricard Zapata-Barrero, 41–64. Basingstoke,UK: Palgrave.

Hilpold, Peter. 2009. “Minderheitenschutz in Italien. völerrechtliche und verfassungsrechtliche Grundlagen.” InMinderheitenschutz in Italien, edited by Peter Hilpold, 3–36. Wien: Braumüller.

Hofmann, Rainer, Doris Angst, Emma Lantschner, Günther Rautz, and Detlev Rein, eds. 2014.Rahmenübereinkommen zum Schutz nationaler Minderheiten. Handkommentar, NomosKommentar. Baden-Baden, Germany: Nomos.

Holzer, Anton, and Barbara Schwegler. 1998. “The Südtiroler Volkspartei: A Hegemonic Ethnoregionalist Party.” InRegionalist Parties in Western Europe, edited by Lieven de Winter and Huri Türsan, 158–173. London: Routledge.

Hsieh, Hsiu-Fang, and Sarah E. Shannon. 2005. “Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis.” QualitativeHealth Research 15 (9): 1277–1288. doi:10.1177/1049732305276687.

Jeram, Sanjay. 2012. “Immigrants and the Basque Nation: Diversity as a New Marker of Identity.” Ethnic and RacialStudies 1–19. doi:10.1080/01419870.2012.664281.

Jeram, Sanjay, and Ilke Adam. 2015. “Diversity and Nationalism in the Basque Country and Flanders: UnderstandingImmigrants as Fellow Minorities.” National Identities 17 (3): 241–257.

Keating, Michael. 1996. Nations Against the State: The New Politics of Nationalism in Quebec, Catalonia and Scotland.London: Macmillan.

Kymlicka, Will. 2001. “Immigrant Integration and Minority Nationalism.” InMinority Nationalism and the ChangingInternational Order, edited by Michael Keating and John McGarry, 61–83. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lantschner, Emma, and Giovanni Poggeschi. 2008. “Quota System, Census and Declaration of Affiliation to aLingusitic Group.” In Tolerance Through Law. Self Governance and Group Rights in South Tyrol, edited by JensWoelk, Francesco Palermo, and Joseph Marko, 219–233. Leiden, The Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff.

Lijphart, Arend. 2004. “Constitutional Design for Divided Societies.” Journal of Democracy 15 (2): 96–109.Manatschal, Anita. 2011. “Path-Dependent or Dynamic? Cantonal Integration Policies Between Regional Citizenship

Traditions and Right Populist Party Politics.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 35 (2): 281–297. doi:10.1080/01419870.2011.573221.

18 V. WISTHALER

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Eur

ac R

esea

rch]

at 2

3:16

16

Sept

embe

r 20

15

Medda-Windischer, Roberta. 2014. “Migration and Old Minorities in South Tyrol: Beyond a ‘NIMBY’ Approach?” InMigration in Autonomous Territories. The Case of South Tyrol and Catalonia, edited by Roberta Medda-Windischerand Andrea Carlà, 100–133. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill.

Medda-Windischer, Roberta, and Rainer Girardi. 2011. Jahresbericht über Einwanderung in Südtirol 2010. Bozen, Italy:EURAC.

Medda-Windischer, Roberta, and Heidi Flarer, Rainer Girardi, Francesco Grandi. 2011. Standbild undIntegrationsaussichten der ausländischen Bevölkerung Südtirols. Gesellschaftsleben, Sprache, Religion undWertebildung. Bozen, Italy: EURAC.

Odmalm, Pontus. 2012. “Party Competition and Positions on Immigration: Strategic Advantages and SpatialLocations.” Comparative European Politics 10 (1): 1–22.

O’Leary, Brendan, and John McGarry. 2004. The Northern Ireland Conflict: Consociational Engagements. Oxford:Oxford University Press.

Pallaver, Günther. 2007. “I partiti politici in Alto Adige dal 1945 al 2005.” In La regione Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirolnel XX secolo. Politica e istituzioni, edited by Giuseppe Ferrandi and Günther Pallaver, 559–599. Trento, Italy:Museo Storico in Trento.

Pallaver, Günther. 2008. “South Tyrol’s Consociational Democracy: Between Political Claim and Social Reality.” InTolerance Through Law. Self Government and Group Rights in South Tyrol, edited by Jens Woelk, Joseph Marko,and Francesco Palermo, 303–327. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill Academic.

Rautz, Günther. 1999.Die Sprachenrechte der Minderheiten. Ein Rechtsvergleich zwischen Österreich und Italien. Editedby Joseph Marko and Francesco Palermo, Minderheiten und Autonomien. Baden-Baden, Germany: Nomos.

Sartori, Giovanni. 1976. Vol. 1 of Parties & Party Systems. A Framework for Analysis. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Sartori, Giovanni. 2005. “Party Types, Organisation and Functions.” West European Politics 28 (1): 5–32.van Spanje, Joost. 2010. “Contagious Parties: Anti-immigration Parties and Their Impact on Other Parties’

Immigration Stances in Contemporary Western Europe.” Party Politics. doi:10.1177/1354068809346002.van der Zwet, Arno. 2015. “To See Ourselves as Others See Us: Identity and Attitudes towards Immigration Amongst

Civic Nationalists.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies. doi:10.1080/1369183X.2015.1082284.Wilford, Rick, and Robin Wilson. 2006. The Trouble with Northern Ireland. Dublin: New Island.Wimmer, Andreas. 2008. “TheMaking and Unmaking of Ethnic Boundaries. AMulti-level Process Theory.” American

Journal of Sociology 113 (4): 970–1022.Woelk, Jens, Joseph Marko, and Francesco Palermo, eds. 2008. Tolerance Through Law: Self Government and Group

Rights in South Tyrol. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill Academic.Wolff, Stefan. 2008. “Complex Power Sharing as Conflict Resolution: South Tyrol in Comparative Perspective.” In

Tolerance Through Law: Self Governance and Group Rights in South Tyrol, edited by Jens Woelk, Joseph Marko,and Francesco Palermo, 329–370. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill Academic.

Zapata-Barrero, Ricard, ed. 2009. Immigration and Self-government of Minority Nations. Diversitas, Brussels: PeterLang.

Zolberg, Aristide R., and Long Litt Woon. 1999. “Why Islam Is Like Spanish: Cultural Incorporation in Europe and theUnited States.” Politics and Society 27 (1): 5–38.

Additional party documents

SVP Grundsatzprogramm, 1993.SVP Manifesto 1998, 2003, 2008, 2010.SVP (Franz Pahl, Martina Ladurner, Seppl Lamprecht, Hanspeter Munter), Integration in Südtirol, 2007.SVP, Grundsatzpapier Zuwanderung – Herausforderung für die Zukunft, 2003.SVP, Fordern und Fördern, 2010.dF Rückblick zur Parteigründung.dF Manifesto 1993, 1998, 2003, 2008, 2010.SF Manifesto 2008, 2013.UfS Manifesto 1998, 2003.BU Manifesto 2008, 2013.

JOURNAL OF ETHNIC AND MIGRATION STUDIES 19

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Eur

ac R

esea

rch]

at 2

3:16

16

Sept

embe

r 20

15