Immigrantcitizensurvey jacobs


Published on

presentation of Immigrant Citizen Survey, Belgian results, Brussels 9 May 2012

Published in: Education, Business, Lifestyle
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Immigrantcitizensurvey jacobs

  1. 1. IMMIGRANT CITIZENS Focus on the Belgian resultsDirk JACOBSLouise CALLIERFaculty of Social and Political Sciences – ULBGroupe de recherche sur les Relations Ethniques, les Migrations et l’Egalité (GERME)Institut de
  2. 2. Technical information- Survey among citizens of non-EU origin born outside of Belgium (N=1027)- Cities of Brussels (n=413), Antwerp (n=318) and Liège (n=296)Goal: assess how immigrants experience access to and use ofrights aimed at integration(fields: nationality, long term residence, family reunification, labour market,political participation)- Technique of random walk and focused enumeration in 10+% statisticalwards, response rate of 37%- Multiple languages used- Data-collection at the end of 2011 by IPSoS Belgium
  3. 3. General characteristicsAntwerp sample (N=318)54% men19,6% arrived before age of 1666% foreigner, 34% Belgian22% entered as refugees41% has difficulty to cope financiallyWide diversity of origins (51 countries)Origin biggest groups in sample:- 29,1% Moroccan origin- 15,2% Turkish origin
  4. 4. General characteristicsBrussels sample (N=413)62% men24,5% arrived before age of 1640% non Belgian, 60% Belgian16% entered as refugees42,7% has difficulty to cope financiallyWide diversity of origins (39 countries)Origin three biggest groups:-45,3% Moroccan origin-12,4% Congolese origin-11,6% Turkish origin
  5. 5. General characteristicsLiège sample (N=296)62,5% men29,8 % arrived before age of 1655% foreigner, 45% Belgian27% entered as refugees56,3% has difficulty to cope financiallyWide diversity of origins (47 countries)Origin three biggest groups:-Moroccan origin 27,8%-Congolese origin 10,5%-Turkish origin 9,8%
  6. 6. SATISFACTION LEVELSSelf rating on scale from 0 to 10Items:-Current life-Educational level-Job-Housing-Family life-Health-Social lifeResults:- Overall fairly satisfied with different fields of life- Similar general results in three cities- A bit less satisfied, however, than general population (EQLS 2007)
  7. 7. SATISFACTION WITH LEVEL OF EDUCATIONRegression analysis taking into account Belgian national (or not),arrived less than five years (or not), region of origin, gender, in paidwork (or not) and arrived as refugee (or not)Statistically significant effects (controlling for other effects):Antwerp:- no particular effectBrussels:- those who do not speak the official languages are less satisfied- those who speak more languages are more satisfiedLiège:- Those in paid work more satisfied than those without a job
  8. 8. SATISFACTION WITH JOB SITUATIONRegression analysis taking into account level of education, Belgiannational (or not), arrived less than five years (or not), region of origin,gender and arrived as refugee (or not)Statistically significant effects (controlling for other effects):Antwerp:- Latin American immigrants less satisfied- Women more satisfied than menBrussels:- no significant effectLiège:- Newcomers (less than five years in the country) less satisfied- Women less satisfied than men- Migrants holding Belgian nationality more satisfied- Refugees less satisfied 8
  9. 9. SATISFACTION WITH HOUSINGStatistically significant effects (controlling for other effects):Antwerp:- Newcomers (less than five years in the country) less satisfied- Refugees less satisfiedBrussels:- Refugees less satisfied- Migrants holding Belgian nationality more satisfied- Subsahara African , North African and Latin American migrants lesssatisfiedLiège:-Migrants holding Belgian nationality more satisfied 9
  10. 10. SATISFACTION WITH FAMILY LIFEStatistically significant effects (controlling for other effects):Antwerp:- Subsahara Africans less satisfiedBrussels:-Migrants holding Belgian nationality more satisfiedLiège:-Migrants holding Belgian nationality more satisfied- Refugees less satisfied- Those in paid work more satisfied 10
  11. 11. SATISFACTION WITH HEALTHStatistically significant effects (controlling for other effects):Antwerp:- The more educated, the more satisfiedBrussels:-The more educated, the more satisfied- Newcomers (less than five year in country) more satisfied- Refugees more satisfiedLiège:-Women less satisfied- Those who speak more languages, more satisfied 11
  12. 12. SATISFACTION WITH SOCIAL LIFEStatistically significant effects (controlling for other effects):Antwerp:- Newcomers (less than five years in country) less satisifed- North African migrants more satisfied than other groups- Migrants holding Belgian nationality less satisfiedBrussels:- Migrants holding Belgian nationality more satisfied- The more languages one speaks, the more satisfiedLiège:- North African migrants more satisfied than other groups- Women less satisfied than men- Those who do not speak French more satisfied 12
  13. 13. ACCESS TO NATIONALITY-Ever applied? (Brussels: 71,5% ; Antwerp 47,1% ; Liège63,7%) Logistic regression shows no impact of education level in Brussels Antwerp: lower educated apply less for Belgian nationality Liège: higher educated apply less for Belgian nationality-Foreigners still wanting to become Belgian Antwerp 71,1%, Brussels 61%, Liège 70% WHO DOES NOT WANT TO BECOME BELGIAN? Migrants who do not expect to stay in Belgium Migrants who do not see the added value- Relatively high perceived benefits and highexpectations (positive for getting a job, more localinvolvement, feel to be part of society) Seen as key to integration
  14. 14. PROBLEMS WITH PROCEDURE (NATIONALITY)-> problems with documents24% Antwerp, 21% Brussels, 20% Liège (no particular pattern)-> problems with requirement22,3% Antwerp, 7,8% Brussels, 14,4% Liège (refugees morelikely to complain in Antwerp and Brussels)-> too much discretionary power25,7% Antwerp, 16,6% Brussels, 22% Liège (no gender effect inBXL, in Antwerp and Liège men more likely to complain ; InAntwerp refugees up to 7 times more likely to complain)-> did not understand procedure13,8% Antwerp, 11,1% Brussels, 11,6% Liège (no particularpattern)
  15. 15. PROBLEMS WITH LONG TERM RESIDENCE35% of respondents in Antwerp, 24% in Brussels and 36% inLiège have had experience with a procedure for long termresidence-A substantial part had problems with documents:Antwerp 42,7%, Brussels 27%, Liège 31,6% (more than in anyother studied city)-Problems with requirements?Antwerp 28,7%, Brussels 24,3%, Liège 30,9% (no particularpattern)-Problems with too much discretionary power?Antwerp 42,2%, Brussels 25,2%, Liège 23,8%(more than in any other studied city)(in Antwerp higher educated more likely to complain)-Did not understand procedure?Antwerp 26,3%, Brussels 18,9%, Liège 22,1% (no particularpattern)
  16. 16. LONG TERM RESIDENCERejections?Antwerp 7,2%Brussels 6,3%Liège 6%Relatively high perceived benefits-socio-professional insertion-local involvement-sense of belonging
  17. 17. FAMILY REUNION-Problems with documents?Antwerp 18,5, Brussels 25,8%, Liège 25% (no particularpattern)-Problems with requirements?Antwerp 11,1%, Brussels 6,5%, Liège 37,5% (in Liège refugeescomplain more about this)-Too much discretionary power?Antwerp 15,4%, Brussels 12,9%, Liège 25% (no particularpattern)-Did not understand procedure?Antwerp 14,8%, Brussels 6,5%, Liège 16,7% (no particularpattern)- Relatively high perceived benefits (for family life butalso for socio-professional inclusion, local involvementand sense of belonging)
  18. 18. LANGUAGE AND INTEGRATION-Most migrants are polyglots (in all sorts of combinations,often up to four languages, more than the average citizen)-In Antwerp 70,4% says to master well Dutch, 39% Frenchand 44% English-In Brussels 89% says to master well French, 15% Dutch and33% English-In Liège 89% says to master well French, 11,5% Dutch and38% English- Among job seekers 35% in Antwerp, 34% in Brussels and30% in Liège mention insufficient language skills as aproblem to find a job (in Brussels and Liège this isparticularly the case for refugees)
  19. 19. - Problems for learning an additional languageTime problem: 21,4% Antwerp 27,1% Brussels 25,9% LiègeToo expensive: 15,8% Antwerp 13,7% Brussels 19,7% LiègeProblem of information: 16,4% Antwerp 19,5% Brussels 18,7% LiègeNo motivation: 16,8% Antwerp 19,9% Brussels 24,5% Liège
  20. 20. LANGUAGE AND INTEGRATION-Attended language/integration course?40% in Antwerp, 19,3% in Brussels, 22,6% in Liège59,9% not in Antwerp, 80,7% not in Brussels, 77,4% not inLiège WHO MORE LIKELY TO ATTEND? - Newcomers and refugees in Antwerp (legal obligation) - Women in Liège-Assessment benefits course?4,9% no use in Antwerp, 5,3% no use in Brussels, 6,8% nouse in Liège
  21. 21. LABOUR MARKET SITUATIONAntwerp 43% in paid jobBrussels 51% in paid jobLiège 36% in paid jobAntwerp: 53,4% private sector, 23,2% public sector, 8,9%self-employedBrussels: 48,1% private sector, 13,5% public sector, 29,3% selfemployedLiège: 40% private sector, 20% public sector, 28,6% selfemployed% self employed in Brussels and Liège much higher than inother cities (also internationaly)Logistic regressions shows that in Liège migrants withoutBelgian citizenship are more likely to be self employedIn Brussels men, East-Europeans (outside EU) and highereducated more likely to be self employed
  22. 22. Overqualification among the employed35,7% in Antwerp, 29,2% in Brussels, 15,5% in LiègeProblems finding a job because of non recognitionqualifications33,5% in Antwerp, 37,4% in Brussels, 41% in LiègeHolders of a foreign degree in 69% of the cases in Antwerp andin 65% of the cases in Brussels and Liège did not ask forrecognitionAmong those who did apply, the refusal rate was 28% inAntwerp, 8% in Brussels and 16% in LiègeJust as in other countries, migrants should hence be encouragedto ask for recognition
  23. 23. -Stuck in temporary jobs?31,6% in Antwerp, 43% in Brussels, 40% in Liège(no particular pattern, problem for all profiles)-Not being offered a legal contract?16% in Antwerp, 29% in Brussels, 28% in Liège(more likely for non-EU eastern European in Brussels andmigrants who don’t speak French in Liège)-Problems of discrimination in recruitment?24% in Antwerp, 41% in Brussels, 44% in LiègeIn all three cities men more likely to suffer fromdiscrimination at recruitement than womenIn Antwerp Subsahara African report significantly moreproblems than other groupsIn Liège highly educated report significantly more problems
  24. 24. POLITICAL AND CIVIC INCLUSION-Political membership?Antwerp 7,6%, Brussels 9,8%, Liège 3%-Trade Union membership?Antwerp 11,8%, Brussels 19,6%, Liège 19,9%-Member immigrant or ethnic organisation?Antwerp 11%, Brussels 13,5%, Liège 5,7%-Membership other organisationsAntwerp 19,2%, Brussels 24,8%, 17,2% Liège-Knowledge of immigrant led ngo?Antwerp 27,6%, Brussels 39,9%, 15% Liège-Knowledge of advisory board?Antwerp 14,3%, Brussels 12,7%-Knowledge of regional consultative body?Antwerp 5,5%, Brussels 14%
  25. 25. POLITICAL AND CIVIC INCLUSION-Would go voting?Antwerp 71,7%, Brussels 78,4%, Liège 76,5%-Did go voting national election? (Belgians)Antwerp 86%, Brussels 82,9%, Liège 76,4%Non-EU migrants could register to vote in 2006elections if residing five years in the countryIn 2006 in Antwerp 12,20% registered to vote, in Brussels(Region) 15,6% and in Liège 26,9% (official data Ministry ofthe Interior)To participate in the 2012 upcoming elections, non-EUmigrants not holding Belgian citizenship and residing for over5 years in Belgium, should register to vote before the 1st ofAugust
  26. 26. Of all non-Belgians in our sample who in 2006 were eligible to vote (n=94 in Antwerp, n=98 in Brussels and n=41 in Liège), this percentage said they went to vote: 3,2% in Antwerp 20,5% in Brussels 22% in LiègeThe percentage of those who thought they were not entitled to vote was: 16% in Antwerp 4% in Brussels 7% in Liège These figures reflect differential efforts of the local and regional authorities in 2006 to inform immigrants of their rights (individualised letters in Brussels, no government led Flemish information campaign and a state sponsored general campaign in Wallonia)
  27. 27. -Why no use of local voting rights (non-voters)?Not interested 48% Antwerp, 21% Brussels, 24% LiègeNot interested in politics 40,8% Antwerp, 20,8% Brussels, 44% LiègeNot close to a particular party 36,2% Antwerp, 20,8% Brussels, 43,5% LiègeMakes no difference 55% Antwerp, 14% Brussels, 36% LiègeProcedure to hard 43% Antwerp, 4% Brussels, 40% Liège