Abstract
Second- and third-tier cities in Canada, the United States, Australia, and New Zealand, have increasingly looked to international migration to offset the negative consequences of out-migration and labour market shortages. To make themselves more amenable to migrants, many communities have made deliberate efforts to become more welcoming. These efforts may take the form of narratives, policies, and practices that support diversity and inclusion. Welcoming initiatives have often had limited success, however, with many migrants still preferring to live in larger centres. This chapter provides cross-national comparative and analytical insights on the limitations of welcoming efforts in Canada, the US, Australia, and New Zealand. It argues that when welcoming is used as a means of attracting and retaining migrants in second- and third-tier cities, success may be limited due to the way welcoming initiatives are framed, systemic issues and inequalities increasingly faced by smaller cities, and inadequate attention to what is required for successful integration. The chapter calls for new ways of thinking about ‘welcoming’ cities and puts forward ideas for future research.
You have full access to this open access chapter, Download chapter PDF
Keywords
- Welcoming communities
- Welcoming cities
- Second- and third-tier cities
- Migrant attraction and retention
- Regionalisation
- Canada
- Australia
- New Zealand
- United States
1 Introduction
Most international migrants choose to settle in large urban metropolises (Collins, 2021). These cities, often referred to as ‘gateway’ or ‘first tier’ destinations, are typically thought to have the most opportunities and amenities to offer new arrivals (Jamal, 2018; Kelly & Nguyen, 2023). In recent years, however, second- and third-tier citiesFootnote 1 in many parts of the world have shown an increasing interest in attracting international migrants (Gibson et al., 2017; Boese & Moran, 2021; Williamson, 2018). These cities view international migration as an opportunity to meet multiple goals, sometimes simultaneously. These include filling labour shortages, encouraging economic growth, and revitalising and repopulating cities in decline (Pottie-Sherman, 2020; Wulff et al., 2008). As they work to overcome negative stereotypes about small towns and rural areas, diversity and multiculturalism in themselves sometimes become attractive features that second- and third-tier cities wish to cultivate and market to the world (Forbes-Mewett et al., 2022).
The desire to attract international migrants to second- and third-tier cities has led, in some cases, to changes in immigration policy. In Canada and Australia, for example, special immigration programmes have been introduced to incentivise migrants to go to non-metropolitan areas (Wulff et al., 2008). In these and many other countries, employer-led schemes to recruit sought-after labour have also been introduced. Complementary to immigration policies, however, has been the introduction of ‘welcoming’ initiatives (Tolley et al., 2012). Such initiatives have a range of diversity, multiculturalism, and intercultural objectives. While not always designed specifically to support incoming migrants, they are increasingly being promoted by communities that are eager to make themselves more attractive and open to those coming from abroad and to integrate and retain these individuals and their families when they come (Wulff et al., 2008). They are therefore seen as playing an important role in securing the success of regional immigration policies.
Welcoming initiatives tend to be celebrated by academics, governments, and community stakeholders (Boese & Moran, 2021). Indeed, they have had many positive impacts. They have helped cities of various sizes to improve their welcoming capacity and make themselves more open to multiculturalism and diversity (Gibson et al., 2017; Tolley et al., 2012). However, despite these successes, many communities are still grappling with how to more effectively welcome new arrivals, and some are wondering why their efforts have not translated into a higher level of migrant attraction and retention.
In this chapter, I draw on academic literature to critically reflect on the limitations of welcoming initiatives in Canada, Australia, the US, and New Zealand. The chapter begins with an overview of how the concept of welcoming is commonly understood and the factors researchers have identified that increase the welcoming capacity of cities. This is followed by an overview of welcoming initiatives in Canada, the US, Australia, and New Zealand. I then go on to argue that when welcoming is used as a means of attracting and retaining international migrants in second- and third-tier cities, success may be limited due to the economic reductionism by which welcoming initiatives are framed, systemic issues and inequalities increasingly faced in these cities, and inadequate attention to what is required for successful integration. The chapter concludes with ideas for future research that may help to improve the outcomes of welcoming initiatives and, more broadly, the sustainability and long-term success of regional immigration programs.
2 Understanding the Work of Welcoming
The term ‘welcoming’ is somewhat ambiguous and invites unpacking. To be ‘welcoming’ generally relates to a degree of openness or receptivity to newcomers. A desire to be welcoming may be reflected in political narratives and policies such as multicultural and intercultural policies that encourage countries, states/provinces, and communities to become more open to international migrants and to diversity more generally. Perhaps more commonly, however, welcoming is understood in terms of practical initiatives designed to facilitate the successful reception and social, economic, and civic integration of new arrivals (George et al., 2017). The specific initiatives employed may vary from city to city but may include things like ‘adapting existing services, implementing anti-racism and discrimination programs, or accommodating diverse linguistic, ethnic, and religious backgrounds’ (Tolley et al., 2012).
Welcoming must be understood as multidimensional and multiscalar. Federal policies and national narratives around migration and diversity impact how both regional and municipal governments approach the welcoming of international migrants on the ground (Forbes-Mewett et al., 2022; Furuseth et al., 2015). Federal governments have increasingly devolved power to the local level, however, arguing that communities are best placed to integrate new arrivals (Wulff et al., 2008). Importantly, while they may receive varying degrees of support from federal and regional governments, in general communities must draw on their own resources and employ their own strategies, especially when it comes to doing the work of receiving and settling incoming migrants. In recent decades, there has therefore been a strong push across the four countries of study to define what it means to be a ‘welcoming community’ and to develop and promote one’s community accordingly.
Communities may have differing capacities to welcome international migrants based on their history, existing level of ethnic and linguistic diversity, as well as socio-economic factors (Tolley et al., 2012). Researchers have nevertheless identified several things communities can do to increase their ability to welcome new arrivals. For example, Guo-Brennan and Guo-Brennan (2019, p. 40) have highlighted the importance of developing communication and ‘a broad consensus’ among local stakeholders such as governments, businesses, non-profits, and migrant communities. Some have argued that local government leadership is best placed to facilitate stakeholder coordination (Jamal, 2018; Tolley et al., 2012) and that strong local leadership can help cement local commitment, bring stakeholders together, and foster a local culture of diversity and inclusion.
While recognising that different communities may have different needs, priorities, and challenges, researchers (Gibson et al., 2017; Tolley et al., 2012) have also argued for the importance of developing frameworks that communities can use as they develop their welcoming capacity. Creating frameworks that outline what communities should be doing to achieve their goals may help them to strategise, plan, and troubleshoot. They may also help to inspire action and give communities a way to measure their ability to attract, settle, and retain incoming arrivals. Such frameworks may also be helpful for developing collaborations and the sharing of best practices within and between cities struggling with similar issues. Evidence-based knowledge on how to develop and implement welcoming initiatives has greatly impacted how welcoming communities are defined and the formal measures taken to create them. These strategies are typically executed at the local level but may have input from stakeholders at other levels of geographical scale, including federal and regional governments. Moreover, increasingly not only cities but also countries have shown an interest in learning from one another’s experiences of welcoming.
3 Welcoming Initiatives in Four Countries
Canada, the US, Australia, and New Zealand are all liberal democratic regimes that have long histories of colonial settlement and European migration. Today, they share several common challenges including ageing populations, post-industrial transformations, and uneven development across their geographical territory. Within this broader context, these four countries stand out in their desire to attract and retain international migrants in second- and third-tier cities, especially those in parts of their respective countries that are losing population or struggling to succeed economically (Collins, 2021; Boese & Moran, 2021; Pottie-Sherman, 2020). Smaller centres across the four countries have become increasingly diverse in recent years, raising questions about how to best integrate established residents and incoming migrant populations. Despite their similarities, few researchers (Wulff et al., 2008) have considered international migration to second- and third-tier cities in these countries by way of a comparative lens.
In terms of policy, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand have all taken a ‘top-down’ approach (see Pottie-Sherman, this volume), using incentives to encourage international migrants to move directly to regional areas. Various immigration programmes and/ or special employment visas have been introduced and tweaked over time, but their purpose is generally to encourage migrants to go to areas where they would not otherwise go and where their labour is particularly in demand. The ‘regionalisation’ of immigration in these countries must be seen in broader context. In all three of these countries, international migration has become increasing defined by its economic imperative (Forbes-Mewett et al., 2022; Haugen, 2022; Simon-Kumar, 2019). Discourses and narratives about the economic and social benefits of multiculturalism have been present in these countries for decades. Nevertheless, it is only in recent years that the economic benefits of international migration have increasingly been stressed to justify the introduction of programmes and visas designed to boost populations outside of major urban centres. Welcoming initiatives, in this context, are viewed primarily as complementary to other policies.
In the US, place-specific visas are being considered, but at present are not in place, so instead a ‘bottom-up’ approach has been employed. Such an approach involves cities and regions competing internally for international migrants by marketing what they have to offer (Pottie-Sherman, this volume). Under the Trump Administration, an anti-migration platform and promises to build a wall polarised voters, making immigration seem like a ‘for’ or ‘against’ issue (Carpenter et al., 2023). Welcoming initiatives therefore became a way to both attract and retain new arrivals in a federal system that has failed to deliver on immigration reform (Rodriguez et al., 2018). Seeing the links between economic development and international migration, Fargo in North Dakota, for example, strived to become a ‘welcoming city’ with the guidance of Welcoming America and the ‘Gateways for Growth Challenge’. With an eye to promoting migrant entrepreneurship, the city assessed how it could better support recent arrivals from abroad. The community improved interpretation services and promoted inclusivity, and generally tried to further a ‘welcoming tone’ in the city (Erickson, 2020).
Despite differences in their federal politics and systems of governance, there are striking similarities in terms of how communities in all four countries have recast the value of international migrants to their local economies and how they have attempted to welcome them more effectively. While there are a number of different welcoming initiatives at play in all four countries, some have become particularly popular and well-known in recent years.
Welcoming America, a non-profit organisation committed to promoting inclusive communities across the US, was established in 2009. It created a network of welcoming cities and counties with the aim of initiating a national dialogue on how to better integrate international migrants into local communities by way of plans, practices, and policies (McDaniel et al., 2019; Downs-Karkos, 2016). Welcoming America developed a common set of standards that could be used by communities eager to increase their welcoming capacity. Soon after Welcoming America was introduced in the US, Australia started its own organization, Welcoming Australia, and within it, Welcoming Cities, a network of Australian cities committed to fostering a sense of belonging and inclusion for all local residents. Welcoming Cities created their own set of standards for welcoming communities, with New Zealand following suit with the introduction of a similar program, Welcoming Communities, in 2017.
Canada has taken a slightly different approach by employing a Local Immigration Partnership (LIP) model (Burr, 2011). Like the welcoming initiatives promoted by Welcoming America in the US, Welcoming Cities in Australia and Welcoming Communities in New Zealand, this model encourages a whole of community approach to welcoming new arrivals at the local level. While overseen by the federal government, LIPs are nevertheless place-specific and draw on the local resources available in immigrant-receiving communities. While Canada has long had a strong settlement sector that provides government-funded supports, LIPs were meant to help engage community stakeholders beyond the sector in the support of migrants (George et al., 2017). Running alongside the LIP initiative, is the Pathways to Prosperity Project, which provides relevant research by academics on welcoming communities, including evidence-based frameworks that communities can use to develop their welcoming capacities (Esses et al., 2010).
An increase in organisations being willing to sign up to certain standards, explore new models for intersectoral collaboration, or otherwise adopt welcoming strategies shows the commitment of communities to creating a better environment for new arrivals with diverse backgrounds. Some communities have also successfully boosted their populations by way of welcoming initiatives (Pottie-Sherman, this volume). Despite these successes, however, many communities continue to struggle to fully realise their welcoming objectives insofar as immigrants continue to face settlement and integration challenges in many of the areas that have implemented welcoming initiatives. Social divisions and inequalities persist, and some communities have even experienced tensions between those with migrant and non-migrant backgrounds. Moreover, many communities are not able to attract and integrate international migrants to the degree that they would like and, across all four of the countries, new arrivals tend to eventually move from small to larger centres. While the reasons for this are multifaceted and complex, given the amount of time, effort, and resources put into welcoming initiatives and the continued reliance on these approaches as an economic development strategy, a more in-depth analysis of the limitations of welcoming approaches is needed.
4 The Limitations of Welcoming Efforts
While I do not wish to undermine the importance and value of welcoming initiatives, my goal with this chapter is to better understand the systemic and discursive factors that may be limiting the success of welcoming efforts, particularly those that are using welcoming initiatives in order to attract and retain international migrants in second- and third-tier cities. In what follows I will draw on existing studies to argue that the way welcoming initiatives are framed, systemic issues and inequalities within and between communities, and the so-far unaddressed challenges of migrant integration in many second- and third-tier cities limit what welcoming initiatives, as they are currently conceived, can achieve.
4.1 The Way Welcoming Initiatives Are Framed
Welcoming initiatives may be used in a variety of cities for different purposes. Some larger centres with established multicultural populations may implement welcoming initiatives to further social cohesion and promote diversity. When they are introduced in second and third-tier centres with the specific aim of furthering the attraction and retention of international migrants, however, the welcoming that is extended is based primarily on economic logic (Kelly, 2023). Smaller communities may believe that without migration, their communities will not be able to survive. In the face of ageing populations, out-migration to larger centres and the labour shortages that have occurred as a result, attracting people – and ideally the ‘right mix’ of people – is often seen as the solution (Norman, 2013). People who have the skillsets needed by local communities or an entrepreneurial drive may be deemed particularly desirable. Across all four countries, the increased desire to attract international migrants to second- and third-tier cities is rooted primarily in the economic needs and desires of local communities rather than a genuine desire to embrace diversity and inclusion.
Welcoming efforts have had some positive impacts. It has been noted that the economic argument for international migration has in some cases transformed the perspectives of stakeholders, making them more open to new arrivals from diverse backgrounds. Welcoming community initiatives have, for example, increasingly strived to engage employers, who are also encouraged to play an important role in welcoming as they are among those who are thought to benefit most from regional migration projects (Hagar, 2021). While it may be true that such discourses have paved the way toward more positive views on migration and diversity, they may also oversimplify the needs and experiences of international migrants and run the risk of reducing them to economic actors.
Given the close linking of international migration with economic gain, it becomes difficult to disentangle the economic and social imperatives of welcoming efforts. As illustrated by both Pottie-Sherman and Boese (this volume), efforts to make new arrivals feel welcome are sometimes made only because international migrants are expected to contribute to a community’s economic development. As Alam et al. illustrate in their contribution to this volume, welcoming initiatives were developed in New Zealand after patterns of economic migration were already established. In other words, the economic imperative of welcoming came first, while the desire to create harmonious, diverse communities emerged out of a realisation that ‘foreign’ labour was the solution to economic problems faced by a number of New Zealand’s small towns.
In some cases, hierarchies of welcome have emerged that depict some international migrants – usually skilled immigrants – as more deserving than others. However, communities across the four countries under study have embraced not only those who are invited to relocate on account of their skills and expected contributions to national labour markets, but also undocumented migrants and refugees. In the US, efforts to counter exclusionary federal policies have emphasised the value that both refugees and undocumented migrants bring to local labour markets and the (economic) value they bring to local communities (Nelson & Hiemstra, 2008). Similarly, in Canada, refugees who have been particularly successful at contributing to local communities are promoted as examples of how valuable refugees can be to local economic development. Consequently, humanitarian and economic ambitions become blurred as refugees and undocumented individuals are also depicted as (potential) saviours for communities in decline. In reflecting on this issue, Haugen (2022) argues that in Canada, where private refugee sponsorship is a common undertaking in rural communities, there is a power imbalance, insofar as the refugees that are admitted tend to be quite dependent on their local sponsors for various types of supports. The lack of transportation and services in non-metropolitan areas contributes to this dependency. As a result, refugees may feel particularly indebted to the people who have brought them to the community and supported them as they settled in.
The economic onus put on international migrants to solve communities’ local development problems and to contribute economically, socially, and culturally to second- and third-tier cities has led some migrants to feel that they must constantly perform and fulfil certain expectations. Based on my own research in rural communities in the Canadian province of Saskatchewan, which has increasingly aimed to attract international labour in the face of ageing populations and out-migration from the region, refugees feel compelled to show what they are giving society (Kelly, 2023). As one focus group participant who had a refugee background and was now living in a small rural community put it:
I mean, as a new Canadian, we have to show others that [it is] okay, we are here to stand up for Canada. We are here in this country to work, to show the community…We have to show what’s the positive things about us.
Thus despite positive discourses regarding communities’ desire to attract and welcome international migrants, the reality is that some migrants feel compelled to prove their value and justify their presence; they may also feel that they should become self-reliant as quickly as possible and not make too many demands of the communities they move to. This is actually very unwelcoming, especially for those who are vulnerable or who may otherwise feel that they are unable to contribute in a way that is expected of them. It is therefore a challenge for communities to foster truly inclusive welcoming communities that pay satisfactory attention to human rights and equality, when it is most often economic interests that are placed at the fore.
4.2 Systemic Issues and Social Inequalities
While some second- and third-tier cities have been able to maintain strong economies and population numbers, many others are struggling as a result of systemic and structural changes. Walmsley and Kading (2018) argue that uneven development, economic restructuring, and reduced investment into some public services have had particularly negative impacts on smaller centres. The smaller populations of second- and third-tier cities as well as their tendency to have less diversified economies have made them particularly vulnerable to shifts in public and private investment and have often pitted them against one another in competition. While the specific challenges communities face vary (Norman, 2013), many have experienced increasing levels of social fragmentation and inequality in recent years (Walmsley & Kading, 2018).
Often the reasons communities need international migrants is because the conditions on offer in their communities are undesirable to locals, resulting in high levels of out-migration (Wilson, 2015; Forbes-Mewett et al., 2022). This may relate to the availability of desirable jobs but also the paucity of publicly funded transportation, housing, and services in most smaller centres. It is therefore not surprising that devising welcoming strategies is not enough to address these systemic challenges. International migrants may choose to leave for the same reasons as more established residents and may be similarly motivated to pursue better opportunities (Kelly, 2023).
A second challenge is that in contexts where established residents feel a sense of deprivation and loss (which is the case in many small and mid-sized cities experiencing economic restructuring and disinvestment), competition can occur between new arrivals and more established residents. A perception that resources (such as affordable housing and well-paying jobs) are scarce can lead to considerations around who does and does not deserve to access these resources (Stockemer & Halikiopoulou, 2022). It is not uncommon for political leaders and local employers to see international migration as at least a partial solution to systemic challenges and be eager to welcome new arrivals, while local residents may be less convinced. Instead they may view incoming migrants as competition and may view efforts to welcome them as akin to giving them an advantage over more established residents (Erickson, 2020).
Of course, the notion that international migrants take scarce resources (such as jobs and housing) away from established residents is often based on a lack of evidence (Carpenter et al., 2023). New arrivals are frequently used as scapegoats in the absence of government efforts or capacity to address the very real problems of housing, infrastructure, and social inequality. Regardless, the outcome is that international migrants may receive a formal welcome from some facets of the community but not others. As Williamson (2018, pp. 236–236) writing from the US context notes.
‘Efforts to make the case for immigration using facts and figures or generic praise for diversity are usually ineffective and, at least in these new destinations, appear counterproductive’.
Another reason established residents of second- and third-tier cities may feel threatened by international migrants relates to the often-unprecedented level of change their communities are undergoing. The sense of loss and competition that some established residents feel may relate not only to material resources, but also symbolic ones (Pastore & Ponzo, 2016). In particular, the rebranding of cities as ‘diverse’ and ‘multicultural’ that often accompanies efforts to attract international migrants for economic reasons is also not something that is necessarily embraced by all residents of smaller centres. Instead, residents may feel that not only is their economic position under threat, but so, too, is their social and cultural dominance. Across the four countries under study, most second- and third-tier cities have not had very much experience with diversity and may even regard themselves as having homogeneous populations. As Alam et al. (this volume) argue, in New Zealand’s small towns migration, particularly from countries outside Europe, can be perceived by locals as a source of cultural disruption insofar as many of the smaller communities that receive international migrants imagine themselves to be ‘English-speaking’ and ‘English-looking’. Hence, despite an official local culture of ‘welcoming’, many new arrivals may struggle to feel fully accepted as part of communities that perceive a threat to their identity or that are otherwise reluctant to embrace other cultures, religions, and ways of doing things.
As noted earlier, research has found that to be welcoming, a community must develop a shared vision and demonstrate a shared commitment to the welcoming of new arrivals by creating partnerships across sectors and (where appropriate) across different levels of government. This is difficult to do when insufficient efforts have been made to address other systemic issues and inequalities, adequately address community members’ concerns about these, and help them adapt to the changes taking place in their local communities. Research conducted in larger cities has found that communities that are able to successfully adapt to socio-economic change and reinvent themselves in a way that is beneficial to all residents, are generally more open to migration and other forms of difference (Pastore & Ponzo, 2016). Simply telling new arrivals that they are welcome and telling community members that they should be welcoming because it will benefit them in the longer term, may not be enough to achieve a positive outcome.
4.3 Challenges of Immigrant Integration
Finally, it cannot be assumed that adopting welcoming initiatives is sufficient to solve the real integration challenges that international migrants often experience in second- and third-tier cities. Instead, the extent to which welcoming initiatives foster true integration and help new arrivals overcome barriers to integration needs to be carefully considered.
Studies have drawn attention to both the possibilities and the challenges of migrant integration in second- and third-tier cities. Sanchez-Flores (2018) for example, questions the common perception that rural or smaller cities are inherently more ‘racist’ or less open than larger cities, and instead suggests that on the contrary, their smaller size and the close-knit community connections that they often have may be beneficial for new arrivals. Kelly and Nguyen (2023) similarly highlight several reasons why international migrants may find small and mid-sized cities easier to integrate into than large urban centres. These include, in many cases, the presence of more affordable housing, the lifestyle on offer for children, and the perceived friendliness of one’s neighbours.
It is, however, hard to deny that when compared to gateway cities, the integration of international migrants in second- and third-tier cities is more challenging in many respects. Larger centres may be able to offer recent arrivals things that second- and third-tier cities cannot, such as access to tailored settlement supports and in many cases a community of people who share their country of origin who can offer information, social networks, and resources in their first language (Praznik & Shields, 2018). In smaller centres, where there tends to be less funding for integration initiatives and fewer settlement supports available, new arrivals may be more dependent on the ad hoc efforts of the local community for successful integration (Haugen, 2022).
Communities often make great efforts to fill the gaps and meet migrants’ needs (Haugen, 2022; Crowley & Knepper, 2019; Gibson et al., 2017) by providing much needed supports such as language classes, offering services and information in different languages, facilitating access to healthcare, and ensuring that children access education. Yet migrants may still feel that this is not enough to successfully establish themselves in a place. While the community scale may be suitable for offering a warm reception, institutional preparedness is often low. Moreover, some problems that are federal or regional in scope may be experienced more acutely at the local level. Smaller labour markets, for example, may make it harder for international migrants to find a job aligned with their field of study or they may find it difficult to find suitable housing when facing fewer options in a small-scale housing market (Wulff et al., 2008).
Developing meaningful social connections is one of the most important things for new arrivals when they move to a new place. As Lund and Hira-Frisen (Lund & Hira-Friesen, 2013, p. 77) point out, belonging, and sense of community are also important factors. While international migrants who move to second- and third-tier cities may be met with a high degree of warmth, they may still struggle to integrate, socially and culturally (Kelly & Nguyen, 2023). Like their counterparts in larger cities, they may struggle with isolation and lack a strong sense of connection to those around them (George et al., 2017). As with other types of settlement challenges, however, there are additional factors that may make it harder for international migrants to build social connections in second- and third-tier cities. When speaking about the US Midwest, Fennelly (2008, p. 173) argues that ‘interactions between Euro-Americans and immigrants usually occur in formal settings where relationships are defined and circumscribed by role relations, such as manager-worker, owner-tenant, or teacher-student. These scripted roles establish individuals of European origins as the ones who hold the power and immigrants as those at the bottom of the social hierarchy’. Such asymmetries may also occur in larger centres but are more pronounced when there are fewer migrants and also fewer diasporic communities that can help to bring visibility and voice to those who are not originally from the local area.
Woods (2022), who has written extensively on the integration of international migrants in rural areas, suggests that often deliberate efforts at welcoming are frequently more about migrants adapting to their new environment than the other way around. Despite the eagerness with which Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the US attract migrants to smaller communities, it is typically assumed that migrants and their families should be doing the work of integration, while the work of welcoming is meant to accelerate this process. This contrasts with a more cosmopolitan ethic that embraces difference beyond the superficial and encourages adaptation on both sides (McDaniel et al., 2019). As a result, it is assumed that communities know what is best for new arrivals, in contrast to a more migrant-centred approach that would give due consideration to the needs, desires, and aspirations of migrants themselves (Woods, 2022).
While welcoming initiatives may help international migrants feel at ease in their new environment, they do not compensate for the real work of integration. Given the close links between migrant integration and retention, it is no surprise that welcoming efforts alone are not enough to lead to the successful integration and longer-term retention of migrants.
5 Concluding Remarks and Future Research Directions
The notion that communities should be ‘welcoming’ to international migrants has become a very popular and attractive one across liberal democracies that see migration as a key solution to address ageing populations and labour shortages, particularly in second- and third-tier cities. While the true meaning of ‘welcoming’ continues to be somewhat illusive, significant efforts have been made to define what communities can do to make themselves more amenable to international migrants, with the hope of successfully attracting and retaining them over time. The reliance on this approach must be understood within the broader context of the devolution of responsibility for migrant attraction and integration to the local level and the pervasive belief that problems experienced locally are best solved locally (Forbes-Mewett et al., 2022).
It is perhaps because of the notable appetite communities have for advice on what they can do to become more welcoming that most of the academic research in this area has focused on welcoming in terms of practice. Studies have emphasised the importance of fostering coordination between different stakeholders and levels of government, creating benchmarks and frameworks that communities can aspire to, and ways to educate the public to counter racism and discrimination. Significant steps have been taken to use this evidence to implement and institutionalise welcoming initiatives. With time, more and more communities have shown an interest in joining the welcoming movement and implementing welcoming initiatives of their own. This has yielded some positive outcomes in terms of rebranding cities and making them more open to multiculturalism and diversity, yet it has often been insufficient for meeting the outcomes communities are hoping for in terms of attracting, integrating, and retaining migrants.
In this chapter, I have argued that the success of welcoming initiatives employed by second- and third-tier cities in Canada, the US, Australia, and New Zealand have been limited for a number of reasons that, in many cases, are difficult for communities on their own to overcome. The economistic focus on the utility of international migration advanced primarily (but not only) at the level of federal governments comes at the expense of building communities that put human rights and inclusivity at the forefront. Moreover, ongoing systemic challenges, including unaddressed inequalities around access to services and basic needs, reduce community buy-in for regional immigration projects and limit the kind of engagement in welcoming initiatives that successful welcoming efforts require. Finally, the challenges of integration are deeper than welcoming initiatives on their own can often address.
To bring a new understanding to welcoming that can help communities overcome the challenges they face, new directions in research are needed. More should be done to reveal the very real challenges communities face when they attempt to welcome international migrants and not only what local communities can do to alleviate these challenges, but also what can be done by governments and stakeholders at other levels of scale. Such an approach is aligned with calls to de-migratise migration research (Dahinden, 2016) by shifting the focus from migrants and what makes them different from non-migrants to the broader structural factors shaping the contexts in which welcoming, integration, and retention are taking place. This may require breaking free of the usual frames used to study migration and integration, and to instead employ theoretical concepts at the heart of social theory (Dahinden, 2016). It may also involve carrying out more interdisciplinary work that helps to further understanding of the various systems and structures impacting second- and third-tier cities.
While it is important to understand structural factors, it is also vital to study the agency of the international migrants that communities are ultimately trying to attract, integrate, and retain. The limitations of current welcoming initiatives have helped to reveal that these individuals are not simply passive actors who can be inserted into existing systems, but rather active decision-makers keen to realise their own ambitions. If their needs are not met in smaller centres, they may choose to leave. As Boese (2023) notes, overlooking migrants’ needs and desires may lead to policy failure as migrants may not stay or contribute fully to a place if their own needs are not met. There is clearly a need for more research that centres the perspectives and experiences of migrants in second- and third-tier cities.
Finally, more comparative research may help to push knowledge on welcoming forward. The research on welcoming initiatives tends to be rooted in methodological nationalism (Amelina et al., 2012), and points to the importance of understanding the multiscalar realities facing cities in individual nation-states. However, as this chapter has illustrated, trends such as the devolution of responsibility for welcoming initiatives to the local level and the tendency to promote narratives about the economic benefits of diversity are occurring across multiple countries, even if they have different governance systems. Furthermore, researchers have not considered the transnational dimensions of welcoming initiatives. The sharing of best practices through, for example, the Welcoming America movement, has shown how narratives, policies, and practices of welcoming travel across contexts. The contributions by Moghadam and Molho (this volume) similarly highlight how ideas and policies related to diversity and diversity management circulate transnationally. Adopting a comparative perspective therefore makes it possible to identify trends and patterns that might not be easily identifiable with a single-country focus.
Population ageing and an increasingly globalised competition for talent will likely lead to an ongoing demand for international migrants in many parts of the world. On the supply side, sustained refugee flows and widespread dislocation caused by climate change will only serve to increase the number of people forced to move and rebuild their homes. Learning how to build inclusive, multicultural communities that bring people together in a mutually beneficial way will therefore continue to be an important priority. Reflecting on what it means to truly ‘welcome’ people from diverse backgrounds is an important first step.
Notes
- 1.
Definitions of what constitutes ‘second’ and ‘third’ tier vary across countries. In Canada, second-tier cities generally have populations of 500,000–1,000,000, while third-tier cities have populations under 500,000 (Williams et al., 2015). The scale is very different in New Zealand, where cities tend to be much smaller. For the purposes of this paper, second- and third-tier refer to all cities that are not recognised as long-established gateways for international migrants (usually the largest cities in a given country or region).
References
Amelina, A., Nergiz, D., Faist, T., & Glick Schiller, N. (Eds.). (2012). Beyond methodological nationalism: Research methodologies for cross-border studies (Vol. 24). Routledge.
Boese, M. (2023). Migrant retention in regional Australia at the intersection of structure and agency. Journal of International Migration and Integration, 24, 1145–1166.
Boese, M., & Moran, A. (2021). The regional migration-development nexus in Australia: What migration? Whose development? Frontiers in Sociology, 6.
Burr, K. (2011). Local immigration partnerships: Building welcoming and inclusive communities through multi-level governance. Local immigration partnerships: A Canadian innovation in multi-level governance (p2pcanada.ca). Horizons Policy Research Initiative.
Carpenter, M., Kelly, M., & Schmidtke, O. (2023). Introduction – Integrating conceptual and comparative perspectives on Borders and migration. In M. Carpenter, M. Kelly, & O. Schmidtke (Eds.), Borders and migration: The Canadian experience in comparative perspective. University of Ottawa Press.
Collins, F. (2021). Temporary migration and regional development amidst Covid-19: Invercargill and Queenstown. New Zealand Geographer, 77(3), 191–205.
Crowley, M., & Knepper, P. (2019). Strangers in their hometown: Demographic change, revitalization and community engagement in new Latino destinations. Social Science Research, 79, 56–70.
Dahinden, J. (2016). A plea for the ‘De-Migranticization’ of research on migration and integration. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 39(13), 2207–2225.
Downs-Karkos, S. (2016). A transatlantic perspective: Welcoming cities and the policy and practice of refugee and immigrant integration. In Issue brief 54. American Institute for Contemporary German Studies, The John Hopkins University.
Erickson, J. (2020). Race-ing Fargo: Refugees, citizenship, and the transformation of small cities. Cornell University Press.
Esses, V., Hamilton, L., Bennett-AbuAyyash, C., & Burstein, M. (2010). Characteristics of a welcoming community. University of Western Ontario.
Fennelly, K. (2008). Prejudice toward immigrants in the Midwest. In D. Massey (Ed.), New faces in new places: The changing geography of American immigration (pp. 151–178). Russell Sage Foundation.
Forbes-Mewett, H., Hegarty, K., & Wickes, R. (2022). Regional migration and the local multicultural imaginary: The uneasy governance of cultural difference in regional Australia. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 48(13), 3142–3159.
Furuseth, O., Smith, H., & McDaniel, P. (2015). Belonging in Charlotte: Multiscalar differences in local immigration politics and policies. Geographical Review, 105(1), 1–19.
George, G., Selimos, E. D., & Ku, J. (2017). Welcoming initiatives and immigrant attachment: The case of Windsor. Journal of International Migration and Integration, 18(1), 29–45.
Gibson, R., Bucklaschuk, J., & Annis, R. (2017). Working together: Collaborative response to welcoming newcomers in Brandon, Manitoba. In G. T. Bonifacio & J. Drolet (Eds.), Canadian perspectives on immigration in small cities (pp. 35–53). Springer.
Guo-Brennan, M., & Guo-Brennan, L. (2019). Civic capacity and engagement in building welcoming and inclusive communities for newcomers: Praxis, recommendations, and policy implications. Journal of Community Engagement and Scholarship, 11(2), 31–42.
Hagar, H. (2021). Just the tip of the iceberg: The first few months of the rural and northern immigration pilot (Research report 48). The Northern Policy Institute. https://www.northernpolicy.ca/just-the-tip-of-the-iceberg
Haugen, S. (2022). Exploring rural citizenship through displacement: An analysis of citizenship in the context of refugee resettlement and integration in rural Canada. In K. Foster & J. Jarman (Eds.), The right to be rural (pp. 289–302). University of Alberta Press.
Jamal, A. (2018). A welcome place for newcomers. Mid-Sized Cities Research Series, 5, 70–77.
Kelly, M. (2023). Cultivating welcoming communities in a neoliberal era: Narrative meets practice in rural Saskatchewan. Journal of International Migration and Integration., 24, 939–956.
Kelly, M., & Nguyen, M. (2023). Choosing to stay: Understanding immigrant retention in four non-metropolitan counties in southern Ontario. Journal of International Migration and Integration, 24, 1055–1075.
Lund, D. E., & Hira-Friesen, P. (2013). Measuring the welcoming capacities of host urban and rural communities. Canadian Ethnic Studies, 45(3), 65–80.
McDaniel, P. N., Rodriguez, D. X., & Wang, Q. (2019). Immigrant integration and receptivity policy formation in welcoming cities. Journal of Urban Affairs, 41(8), 1142–1166.
Nelson, L., & Hiemstra, N. (2008). Latino immigrants and the renegotiation of place and belonging in small town America. Social & Cultural Geography, 9(3), 319–342.
Norman, J. (2013). Small cities USA: Growth, diversity, and inequality. Rutgers University Press.
Pastore, F., & Ponzo, I. (2016). Boundaries, barriers and bridges: Comparative findings from European neighbourhoods. In F. Pastore & I. Ponzo (Eds.), Inter-group relations and migrant integration (pp. 177–201). Springer.
Pottie-Sherman, Y. (2020). Rust and reinvention: Im/migration and urban change in the American Rust Belt. Geography Compass, 14(3), e12482.
Praznik, J., & Shields, J. (2018). An anatomy of settlement services in Canada: A guide. https://bmrc-irmu.info.yorku.ca/files/2018/07/An-Anatomy-of-Settlement-Services-in-Canada_BMRCIRMU.pdf
Rodriguez, D. X., McDaniel, P. N., & Ahebee, M.-D. (2018). Welcoming America: A case study of municipal immigrant integration, receptivity, and community practice. Journal of Community Practice, 26(3), 348–357.
Sanchez-Flores, M. J. (2018). The inadequacies of multiculturalism: Reflections on immigrant settlement, identity negotiation, and community in a small city. In C. Walmsley & T. Kading (Eds.), Small cities, big issues: Reconceiving community in a Neoliberal era (pp. 213–233). Athabasca University Press.
Simon-Kumar, R. (2019). The multicultural dilemma: Amid rising diversity and unsettled equity issues, New Zealand seeks to address its past and present. Migration Policy Institute.
Stockemer, D., & Halikiopoulou, D. (2022). Multiple routes to immigration Scepticism: The association between individual grievances and anti-immigrant attitudes in Canada, Germany and the USA. International Migration, 61, 126–141.
Tolley, E., Biles, J., Andrew, C., Esses, V., & Burstein, M. (2012). Introduction: From Metropolis to welcoming communities. In E. Tolley, J. Biles, C. Andrew, V. Esses, & M. Burstein (Eds.), Immigration, integration, and inclusion in Ontario cities (pp. 1–22). Queens University School of Policy Studies.
Walmsley, C., & Kading, T. (2018). Small cities, big issues: Reconceiving Community in a Neoliberal era. Athabasca University Press.
Williams, A. M., Kitchen, P., Randall, J., Muhajarine, N., Newbold, B., Gallina, M., & Wilson, K. (2015). Immigrants’ perceptions of quality of life in three second-or third-tier Canadian cities. The Canadian Geographer/Le Géographe Canadien, 59(4), 489–503.
Williamson, A. F. (2018). Welcoming new Americans? Local governments and immigrant incorporation. University of Chicago Press.
Wilson, T. (2015). The demographic constraints on future population growth in regional Australia. Australian Geographer, 46(1), 91–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/00049182.2014.986786
Woods, M. (2022). Refugees, race and the limits of rural cosmopolitanism: Perspectives from Ireland and Wales. Journal of Rural Studies, 95, 316–325.
Wulff, M., Carter, T., Vineberg, R., & Ward, S. (2008). Special issue: Attracting new arrivals to smaller cities and rural communities: Findings from Australia, Canada and New Zealand. Journal of International Migration and Integration, 9, 119–124.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.
Copyright information
© 2024 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kelly, M. (2024). Reflections on ‘Welcoming’ Second- and Third-Tier Cities in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States. In: Triandafyllidou, A., Moghadam, A., Kelly, M., Şahin-Mencütek, Z. (eds) Migration and Cities. IMISCOE Research Series. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-55680-7_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-55680-7_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-55679-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-55680-7
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)