Palermo, 18th-25th July 2016

Training e-booklet

CONTENTS 1.FOREWORD ................................................................................................................................................... 3

2.FRAMEWORK ................................................................................................................................................. 4

2.1 Open Space Technology ............................................................................................................................. 4

2.2 Six Thinking Hats......................................................................................................................................... 6

2.3 World Café.................................................................................................................................................. 8

3.MIGRATION ................................................................................................................................................... 9

3.1 Group 1: “The state perspective towards immigration” ............................................................................. 9

3.2 Group 2: “Refugees issue” ........................................................................................................................ 10

3.3 Group 3: “How can individuals (citizens and migrants) contribute with their actions to solve the current

immigration crisis?”........................................................................................................................................ 11

3.4 Group 4: Integration, Xenophobia and Stereotypes ................................................................................. 11

3.5 Group 5: Migration crisis through media.................................................................................................. 12

4. MIGRATION IN UE ...................................................................................................................................... 13

4.1 Group 1..................................................................................................................................................... 13

4.2 Group 2..................................................................................................................................................... 13

4.3 Group 3..................................................................................................................................................... 14

4.4 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................ 14

5. CITZENSHIP ................................................................................................................................................. 15

5.1 Group 1: Does Citizenship give us value as human beings?...................................................................... 15

5.2 Group 2: Locals vs. Citizens ...................................................................................................................... 15

5.3 Group 3: “Buying your citizenship”........................................................................................................... 16

5.4 Group 4: Citizenship influenced by cultural, historical, social and ethinc reasons ................................... 17

6.EUROPEAN CITZENSHIP ............................................................................................................................... 18

6.1 Group 1..................................................................................................................................................... 18

6.2 Group 2..................................................................................................................................................... 19

6.3 Group 3..................................................................................................................................................... 19

6.4 Concllusion ............................................................................................................................................... 20

7.CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................................... 21

7.1 Workshop 1 .............................................................................................................................................. 21

7.2 Workshop 2 .............................................................................................................................................. 22

3

1. FOREWORD

This e-booklet is the output of the training course for youth workers: “New Citizens of the World”

(hereafter “Ne.Ci.Wo.”). The project took place in Palermo (Italy) from 18th to 25th July 2016 and was

financed by Erasmus+, a program of the European Commission for training, education, youth and sport.

“Ne.Ci.Wo.” was implemented by LIFE and LIFE, an international non-profit organization with headquarter

in Palermo, and involved four partner organizations from the Mediterranean Area: Asociacion Building

Bridges (Spain), EUROCIRCLE (France), Volim Volontirati - "VoVo" (Croatia), Lëvizja Europiane në Shqipëri

(Albania).

The main reason to involve Euro-Mediterranean countries is strongly connected to the project topics:

migration and citizenship. As it is well-known, nowadays the migration issue affects more and more the

Euro-Mediterranean area provoking in the last period a real migration crisis. The EU responses to this crisis

are very weak towards the territorial sovereignty of the member states and so more often inefficient and

not well-coordinated.

Anyway, migration is an issue deeply linked to the concept of citizenship and the feeling that it represents.

Migration, as well as globalization and European integration, allowed to overcome the static understanding

of citizenship as legal status given by a state. The contemporary concepts of citizenship have been

expanded and most of them are closely linked to the notion of “civil society” and “sense of belonging”.

There are different socio-political discussions that try to track the definition of citizenship, but this concept

is complex and still not well-defined. At the same time, there are people who migrate and seek to become

citizens and participate in what is the social and political life of another nation.

The overall objective of the “Ne.Ci.Wo.” training course was, therefore, to expand youth workers and

professionals’ knowledge and reflection about migration, citizenship and their connections with the aim to

transmit to young people, they work with, the European values such as tolerance, non-discrimination,

active citizenship, cultural diversity by using non-formal methods.

SUMMARY

- Project title: New Citizens of the World

- Financed: by European Commission’s Erasmus +

program

- Action: Ka.1 Mobility of Youth Worker, Traning

Course

- Participating organizations: Asociacion Building

Bridges (Spain), EUROCIRCLE (France), Volim

Volontirati - "VoVo" (Croatia), Lëvizja Europiane në

Shqipëri (Albania), LIFE and LIFE (Italy)

- Project aim: to stimulate youth workers and

professionals to reflect and get knowledge on

migration and citizenship and to facilitate their work

with young people with different cultural and

migratory backgrounds

4

2. FRAMEWORK

Before going on to the part of the e-booklet, containing participants’ reflections on migration and

citizenship, it is useful to introduce the activities through which the participating youth workers,

professionals and migrants wrote down some instant reports.

The instant reports are the outputs of the three approaches used to stimulate and facilitate participants’

reflections, creative and strategic thinking. The three well-known non-formal approaches used during the

training were: Open Space Technology Six Thinking Hats and World Café. Each of them foresees small

working groups whose members instantly report discussions, debates and reflections and whatever

happens within the group.

2.1 Open Space Technology

Open Space Technology (OST) is an approach to purpose-driven leadership, including a way

for hosting meetings, conferences, corporate-style retreats, symposiums, and community summit events,

focused on a specific and important purpose or task — but beginning without any formal agenda, beyond

the overall purpose or theme.

Open Space is the only process that focuses on expanding time and space for the force of self-organisation

to do its thing. Although one can't predict specific outcomes, it's always highly productive for whatever

issue people want to attend to. Some of the inspiring side effects that are regularly noted are laughter,

hard work which feels like play, surprising results and fascinating new questions.

The history of Open Space Technology is detailed in the Introduction to "Open Space Technology: A User's

Guide", by Harrison Owen.

In the spring of 1982, Harrison Owen and David Belisle wrote a paper on what he called "organization

transformation". He presented this paper at a traditional management conference, the Boston

regional ODN conference.

Because the agenda of an Open Space meeting is emergent, it is impossible to know exactly what is going

to be addressed during the meeting. That said, there are several important outcomes that always happen,

because they are specifically built into the process, and some other outcomes that can be built in:

1. All of the issues that are most important to those attending will be raised and included in the agenda.

2. All of the issues raised will be addressed by the participants best capable of getting something done

about them.

3. All of the most important ideas, recommendations, discussions, and next steps will be documented in a

report.

4. When the purpose requires, and time is allowed for it, the group can prioritize the issues addressed in

the report.

5. When the purpose requires, and time is allowed for it, the group can draft action plans for the highest

priority issues.

Good documentation design is vital for ideas, recommendations, discussions, and next steps, it is part of

the pre-work to make a good design.

The essential preconditions are:

5

1. A relatively safe neutral environment.

2. High levels of diversity and complexity in terms of the elements to be self-organized.

3. Living at the edge of chaos. Nothing will happen if everything is sitting like a lump.

4. An inner drive towards improvement. e.g. a carbon atom wants to get together with other atoms to

become a molecule.

5. Sparsity of connections.

In his User's Guide, Harrison Owen has articulated "the principles" and "one law" that are typically quoted

and briefly explained during the opening briefing of an Open Space meeting. These explanations describe

rather than control the process of the meeting. The principles are:

1. Whoever comes is the right people ...reminds participants that they don't need the CEO and 100 people

to get something done, you need people who care. And, absent the direction or control exerted in a

traditional meeting, that's who shows up in the various breakout sessions of an Open Space meeting.

2. Whenever it starts is the right time ...reminds participants that "spirit and creativity do not run on the

clock."

3. Wherever it is, is the right place ...reminds participants that space is opening everywhere all the time.

Please be conscious and aware. – Tahrir Square is one famous example. (Wherever is the new one, just

added

4. Whatever happens is the only thing that could have, be prepared to be surprised! ...reminds participants

that once something has happened, it's done—and no amount of fretting, complaining or otherwise

rehashing can change that. Move on. The second part reminds us that it is all good.

5. When it's over, it's over (within this session) ...reminds participants that we never know how long it will

take to resolve an issue, once raised, but that whenever the issue or work or conversation is finished,

move on to the next thing. Don't keep rehashing just because there's 30 minutes left in the session. Do

the work, not the time.

In OST there is just one "Law," called the "Law of two feet" or "the law of mobility", as follows:

If at any time during our time together you find yourself in any situation where you are neither learning nor

contributing, use your two feet, go someplace else.

In this way, all participants are given both the right and the responsibility to maximize their own learning

and contribution, which the Law assumes only they, themselves, can ultimately judge and control. When

participants lose interest and get bored in a breakout session, or accomplish and share all that they can, the

charge is to move on, the "polite" thing to do is going off to do something else. In practical terms, Owen

explains, the Law of Two Feet says: "Don't waste time!".

The steps to conduct and OST are the following:

1. Decide a focusing statement or question. It should frame the higher purpose and widest context for

your discussion in a positive way;

2. Invite the participants to create a circle and to sit down, leaving a space in the center;

3. Choose a blank wall for the Agenda Wall and label it AGENDA: AM, PM across the top. Put blank sheets

of news print (about quarter size of a flip chart page) and markers in the center of the circle.

4. Facilitator explains: the theme, the simple process the group will follow to organize and create a record,

where to put things up and find out what is happening, the Law of Two Feet, and the Principles of Open

Space. Then, facilitator invites people to silently meditate on what has heart and meaning for each of

them.

6

5. Opening the marketplace: the Facilitator invites anyone who cares about an issue to step into the

middle of the circle and write the topic, their name, a time and place for meeting, announce it and post

the offering on the Agenda Wall -- one sheet per topic—as many topics as he/she wants. They will

be convenors who have responsibility for facilitating their session(s) and seeing to it that a report is

made and shared in plenary.

6. When ALL offerings are concluded, the Facilitator invites people to sign up for what they are interested

in and take responsibility for their schedules, using the Law of Two Feet.

7. People participate in discussions. The Facilitator takes care of the space.

8. The Facilitator established when the sessions finish. When they finish, each group, formed during the

discussions, will present their reports in plenary.

2.2 Six Thinking Hats

Six Thinking Hats is a system designed by Edward de Bono which describes a tool for group discussion and

individual thinking involving six colored hats. "Six Thinking Hats" and the associated idea parallel

thinking provide a means for groups to plan thinking processes in a detailed and cohesive way, and in doing

so to think together more effectively.

The premise of the method is that the human brain thinks in a number of distinct ways which can be

deliberately challenged, and hence planned for use in a structured way allowing one to develop tactics for

thinking about particular issues. de Bono identifies six distinct directions in which the brain can be

challenged. In each of these directions the brain will identify and bring into conscious thought certain

aspects of issues being considered (e.g. gut instinct, pessimistic judgement, neutral facts). None of these

directions are completely natural ways of thinking, but rather how some of us already represent the results

of our thinking.

Since the hats do not represent natural modes of thinking, each hat must be used for a limited time only.

Also, many will feel that using the hats is unnatural, uncomfortable or even counterproductive and against

their better judgement.

A compelling example presented is sensitivity to "mismatch" stimuli. This is presented as a valuable survival

instinct, because, in the natural world: the thing that is out of the ordinary may well be dangerous. This

mode is identified as the root of negative judgement and critical thinking.

Six distinct directions are identified and assigned a color. The six directions are:

Managing Blue - what is the subject? what are we thinking about? what is the goal? Can look at the big

picture.

Information White - considering purely what information is available, what are the facts?

Emotions Red - intuitive or instinctive gut reactions or statements of emotional feeling (but not any

justification)

Discernment Black - logic applied to identifying reasons to be cautious and conservative. Practical,

realistic.

Optimistic response Yellow - logic applied to identifying benefits, seeking harmony. Sees the brighter,

sunny side of situations.

7

Creativity Green - statements of provocation and investigation, seeing where a thought goes. Thinks

creatively, out of the box.

Colored hats are used as metaphors for each direction. Switching to a direction is symbolized by the act of

putting on a colored hat, either literally or metaphorically. These metaphors allow for a more complete and

elaborate segregation of the thinking directions. The six thinking hats indicate problems and solutions

about an idea the thinker may come up with.

The meeting may start with a focusing issue/statement and a facilitator who will assume the Blue hat to

conducted and to develop the discussion. The discussion may then move to White hat thinking in order to

collect information concerning the issue. Next the discussion may move to Red hat in order to gather all

opinions and reactions to the problem.

This phase may also be used to develop constraints for the actual solution such as who will be affected by

the problem and/or solutions. Next the discussion may move to the Black hat in order to find out all the

negative points views and problems. Then the discussion may move from the Yellow to the Green hat in

order to generate ideas and possible solutions. The duration of wearing each hat is given by the facilitator

who lead the activity.

8

The outcome of the the Six Thinking Hats is a report with a shape of a big mind map containing in the

middle the main issue of the discussion and White, Red, Yellow and Green narrows starting from the center

(Fig.1).

2.3 World Café

World Café is an easy-to-use method for creating a living network of collaborative dialogue around

questions that matter in service to real work. Cafés in different contexts have been named in many ways to

meet specific goals, for example Creative Cafés, Strategy Cafés, Leadership Cafés, and Community Cafés.

World Café conversations are based on the principles and format developed by the World Café, a global

movement to support conversations that matter in corporate, government, and community settings around

the world.

How to conduct a world café conversation:

1) Set the Context: Pay attention to the reason you are bringing people together, and what you want to

achieve. Knowing the purpose and parameters of your meeting enables you to consider and choose the

most important elements to realize your goals: e.g. who should be part of the conversation, what themes

or questions will be most pertinent, what sorts of harvest will be more useful, etc..

2) Create Hospitable Space: Café hosts around the world emphasize the power and importance of creating

a hospitable space—one that feels safe and inviting. When people feel comfortable to be themselves, they

do their most creative thinking, speaking, and listening. In particular, consider how your invitation and your

physical set-up contribute to creating a welcoming atmosphere.

3) Explore Questions that Matter: Knowledge emerges in response to compelling questions. Find questions

that are relevant to the real-life concerns of the group. Powerful questions that “travel well” help attract

collective energy, insight, and action as they move throughout a system. Depending on the timeframe

available and your objectives, your Café may explore a single question or use a progressively deeper line of

inquiry through several conversational rounds.

4) Encourage Everyone’s Contribution: As leaders we are increasingly aware of the importance of

participation, but most people don’t only want to participate, they want to actively contribute to making a

difference. It is important to encourage everyone in your meeting to contribute their ideas and

perspectives, while also allowing anyone who wants to participate by simply listening to do so.

5) Connect Diverse Perspectives: The opportunity to move between tables, meet new people, actively

contribute your thinking, and link the essence of your discoveries to ever-widening circles of thought is one

of the distinguishing characteristics of the Café. As participants carry key ideas or themes to new tables,

they exchange perspectives, greatly enriching the possibility for surprising new insights.

6) Listen Together for Patterns & Insights: Listening is a gift we give to one another. The quality of our

listening is perhaps the most important factor determining the success of a Café. Through practicing shared

listening and paying attention to themes, patterns and insights, we begin to sense a connection to the

larger whole. Encourage people to listen for what is not being spoken along with what is being shared.

7) Share Collective Discoveries: Conversations held at one table reflect a pattern of wholeness that

connects with the conversations at the other tables. The last phase of the Café, often called the “harvest”,

involves making this pattern of wholeness visible to everyone in a large group conversation. Invite a few

minutes of silent reflection on the patterns, themes and deeper questions experienced in the small group

9

conversations and call them out to share with the larger group. Make sure you have a way to capture the

harvest – working with a graphic recorder is very helpful.

Suggestions:

Seat four (five max) people at small Café-style tables or in conversation clusters.

• Set up progressive (at least three) rounds of conversation, approximately 20 minutes each.

• Engage questions or issues that genuinely matter to your life, work, or community.

• Encourage participants to write, doodle and draw key ideas on their tablecloths (and/or note key ideas on

large index cards or placemats in the center of the table).

• Upon completing the initial round of conversation, you may ask one person to remain at the table as a

“table host” for the next round, while the others serve as travelers or “ambassadors of meaning.” The

travelers carry key ideas, themes and questions into their new conversations, while the table host

welcomes the new set of travelers.

• By providing opportunities for people to move in several rounds of conversation, ideas, questions, and

themes begin to link and connect. At the end of the second or third round, all of the tables or

conversation clusters in the room will be cross-pollinated with insights from prior conversations.

• In the last round of conversation, people can return to their first table to synthesize their discoveries, or

they may continue traveling to new tables.

• You may use the same question for one or more rounds of conversation, or you may pose different

questions in each round to build on and help deepen the exploration.

• After at least three rounds of conversation, initiate a period of sharing discoveries & insights in a whole

group conversation. It is in these town meeting-style conversations that patterns can be identified,

collective knowledge grows, and possibilities for action emerge.

3. MIGRATION

The following instant reports have been filled by the participants of the training course using the OST

approach. The macro-topic was Migration from which the participants found out the sub-themes that were

deepened in small groups discussion.

3.1 Group 1: “The state perspective towards immigration”

States normally have negative connotation regarding immigration. It is usually perceived as an issue which

creates within societies crisis, instability and threatens. Anyway, there are also some states that perceive

the migrants as a resource if they are well-integrated within the hosting society. They may be a resource

not just in terms of economic development, but also at political level. These inflows have the potential to

reshape the political arena, concerning policies to manage immigration and incorporate immigrants.

The perspectives pursued by the states may shape the attitudes and policies towards immigrants, which

may strongly influence the three social spheres:

- Economic sphere: an influx of immigrants increases the supply of low-skilled labor, lowering wages (or

employment) for low-skilled natives while raising wages for high-skilled natives. Indeed, what now is

10

happening in most of the European countries is that migrants initially accept low-qualification jobs with

very low salary causing a job-offer decrease and an unemployment increase of the low-skilled natives. This

situation causes labour market competition and, consequently, may provoke among the native-citizens’

feelings of hate, racism, discrimination. State should pay attention to this situation, trying to regulate the

labour market, to apply a massive control on illegal labour and on the workers’ minimum wages.

- Political sphere: even if the newly migrants don’t have the right to vote because they don’t own

citizenship, the massive inflows of migrants may reshape the policies of a state. They particularly concern

the management of the immigration issue and the integration of the immigrants within the society. Some

European States, supported by European Funds and private and international organizations, incur

expenditures and create special services, which most of the time are not enough compared to the

emergency, to help immigrants during their first arrival and for their social inclusion inside the host

country. Anyway, in countries where government spending in services for the citizens are lower and lower

and the rate of unemployment higher and higher because of the recent economic crisis (such as Spain,

Italy, Greece etc…), this situation may perceive as “inequal” by the citizens. This may create a further

competition between native-citizens and immigrants, by encouraging xenophobic right parties to take over

the political scene through the popular consensus of the most unsatisfied and discouraged native-citizens.

- Civil Society sphere: civil society can be defined as a set or system of self-organized intermediary and non-

governmental groups that manifest the interests and will of the citizens. The lack of effective and efficient

immigration policies and measures conducted by the states and the European Union, pushes the civil-

society of the most European states to be more active in this field. More often, they carry out initiatives

that aim at improving migrants’ lives and fostering their integration in society, included raise awareness

among citizens of migrants’ rights and equality, cultural diversity and social inclusion. Thanks to the civil

society most of the services and support for the migrants are provided and racism, hate and discrimination

towards foreign are combatted.

3.2 Group 2: “Refugees issue”

The UN 1951 Refugee Convention adopted the following definition of "refugee" to apply to any person who

(in Article 1.A.2):

“owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a

particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to

such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and

being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to

such fear, is unwilling to return to it.”

The concept of a refugee was expanded by the Convention's 1967 Protocol. European Union's minimum

standards definition of refugee, underlined by Art. 2 (c) of Directive No. 2004/83/EC, essentially reproduces

the narrow definition of refugee offered by the UN 1951 Convention; nevertheless, by virtue of articles 2

(e) and 15 of the same Directive, persons who have fled a war-caused generalized violence are, at certain

conditions, eligible for a complementary form of protection, called subsidiary protection. The same form of

protection is foreseen for displaced people who, without being refugees, are nevertheless exposed, if

returned to their countries of origin, to death penalty, torture or other inhuman or degrading treatments.

Despite the European Union’s directive and the international conventions on refugees, some of the

member states seem not to be willing to accept refugees in their national territories. Below same cases

from the European countries, involved in Ne.Ci.Wo. project:

11

- Croatia refuses to allow the transit of most refugees through their territory in a bid to seal off the Balkan

route used by hundreds of thousands of people seeking a new life in Europe. This decision is the

consequence of a domino effect that has spread in all the area included Hungary, Slovenia, Serbia and

Macedonia;

- Albania is started, in the last period, to deal with people arriving rather than leaving. Some refugees

from Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq—many of whom are blocked in Greece from entering Europe through

Macedonia— now try their luck through Albania. Anyway at the moment Albania hosts a very small

number of refugees compared to the other European countries and refugee centers are at the moment

very few;

- Spain has pretty much the same situation concerning refugee issue than Italy, Greece and Malta.

Indeed, most of the refugees from Africa and Middle East try to arrive in these frontline countries with

the hope to reach the northern countries, such as Germany, Sweden, France etc… Anyway, despite the

efforts to receipt immigrants by the other European frontline states, in particular Italy and Greece, the

Spanish government has built fences and moats in the towns of Ceuta and Melilla which form part of the

Marocco-Spain border. The fences’ stated purpose is to stop illegal immigration and smuggling, but

actually they become symbol of exclusion and human rights violation in particular towards people who

has the right to seek asylum. Many human rights organizations denounce the violation of migrants’

rights, when they are intercepted and turned away directly on Moroccan soil, without any legal

protection.

3.3 Group 3: “How can individuals (citizens and migrants) contribute with their actions to

solve the current immigration crisis?”

The main contribution identified by this working group is to create social networks which can allow to

realize meetings among locals and migrants. These meetings may be helpful to identified together

problems and solutions related to the immigration issue from a grass-root perspective. In the meanwhile,

they allow to:

- Increase awareness on immigration and on the conditions of the migrants in the origin and host

countries;

- Increase communication between local community and new arrivals;

- Share experiences and good practices concerning migration.

These three results of the meetings are considered by the group the first steps, not just to solve or at

least to appease the migration crisis, but also for a future efficient inclusion of the migrants within the

hosting society.

3.4 Group 4: Integration, Xenophobia and Stereotypes

The group analyzed the issues of integration, xenophobia and stereotypes towards immigrants, starting

from their direct experiences. The analysis focused on the situations in three different Euro-Mediterranean

countries: Albania, Croatia and French.

12

Albania:

- At the moment no national and xenophobic movement or party has been raising in the country,

contrary to what happened in Greece;

- There is a lack of integration of the Chinese community;

- The country lives a different migration than the other European countries. Just few migrants come from

third countries and seek for asylum. In the recent years most of them come from Italy for study or work

purposes. For that reason, there are not very big problems of integration and xenophobia;

- Most of the issues discussed are regulated by the law for foreigners entered into force in 2013.

Croatia:

- Croatian society is very closed, probably due to historical causes and to the fact that migrants are still

very few;

- Migrants normally face difficulty in integrating because they are usually classified as “law-breakers”;

- Migrants receive from the government financial help and medical care. This may make their integration

more difficult because on one side they don’t feel the need to find a job and on the other side this

situation fosters the hate of the locals.

France:

- Xenophobic attitudes from government, media and political parties;

- The immigration history of France is very long comparing to Albania and Croatia. This is due to its

colonial past;

- Financial support, benefits and services are provided to the migrants as well as to the locals;

- Media are often used to negatively affect the perception on migrants, by fostering xenophobia and

stereotypes and by obstructing integration.

3.5 Group 5: Migration crisis through media

It is widely accepted that the nature of the messages communicated by the media in all its forms can have a

discernible impact on overall societal attitudes and policies, which in turn can have a bearing on behavior.

With the increasing rate of international people movement, there are clear implications for policymakers

stemming from how migration is portrayed in the media. First, representations of migration in the media

have been viewed as having a significant influence on public perceptions of migration. Second, it is likely

that the media agenda influences policymaking in destination countries, particularly due to a sense of

‘crisis’ linked to immigration.

It was noticed by the working group that in the European countries the messages of the media on migration

have normally or a positive and emotional perspective either a negative and fragmented one. The media

perceptions on migration vary significantly from one country to another. This reflects, among other factors,

differences in immigration experience, level of economic dependency on immigrants and type of

immigration across Europe

From the negative and fragmented perspective, migration tends more and more to be perceived as a

process out of political control and the connection between migration and criminality is reinforced, leading

to a generalized increase of anti-immigration sentiments and hostility towards immigrants. The scale of this

phenomenon is increasing: many political parties are exploiting the situation and propose restrictive

policies to reassure electoral worries, instead of tackling the roots of the problem and promoting policies

that are able to attract immigrants in a beneficial and controlled way. Following this perspective, the media

13

may prevent the real integration of the migrants. The process of integration of migrants will not be feasible

if locals perceive immigrants as enemies and criminals.

From a positive and emotional perspective, migrants tend to be represented as numbers and numbers of

poor victims who must be constantly help. This often lead to excessive aid attitudes, through which migrant

is never consider as a person able to support himself autonomously. Even if this attitude may be perceived

as positive because it fosters people solidarity and aid, in long-term it can limit the fully integration of the

migrants within the hosting society.

4. MIGRATION IN UE

The following instant reports

have been filled by the

participants of the training

course using the Six Thinking

Hats approach. The four groups

discussed about the Migration

Crisis in UE, focusing on the

information (blue light instead

of white), problems (black),

feelings (red), possible solutions

(green) and optimistic

responses (yellow) to this issue.

4.1 Group 1

4.2 Group 2

14

4.3 Group 3

4.4 Conclusion

Through the Six Thinking Hats approach, each group was able to rationally organize the thinking and come

out with common solutions for the migration crisis within European Union, such as:

- Raising awareness among the locals/citizens and their activism (citizens should foster the integration

prosìcess of migrants)

- Using arts as special technique for integration

- Removing Borders

- Equal opportunities for citizens and migrants

- Common UE migration policy in all member states

- International Cooperation to diminushing the flows of migrants towards Europe.

15

5. CITZENSHIP

The following instant reports have been filled by the participants of the training course using the OST

approach. The macro-topic was Citizenship from which the participants found out the sub-themes that

were deepened in small groups discussion.

5.1 Group 1: Does Citizenship give us value as human beings?

Citizenship, considered as a status given by a state, can give more rights, protection and opportunities to

the individuals. The group reflected on how owning citizenship, in particular given by a powerful state, can

mean to get different advantages within the society but also at international level, such as:

- Security and protection (people feel more safe and not abandoned);

- More and easier opportunities of employment, studies not just in origin country but also abroad;

- More rights and equality

- Easy mobility

Anyway, citizenship may also be considered more than a status given by a state. It doesn’t refer just to get

a passport, to vote or to be protected by a state. According to this second consideration, citizenship can be

connected, on a philosophical perspective, to the senses of belonging or to the identity of an individual. The

identity of individuals is precisely what makes them different from any other person. The identity of each

individual is shaped by many different belongings or senses of belonging to certain groups of people.

This approach rooted in the senses of belonging embraces two important affirmations, on which the group

reflected. Firstly, everybody is different, is influenced by different life conditions, has different values and

needs, and, therefore, needs to be treated as their individual condition determines. At the same time, it

acknowledges that different individuals are connected with different groups and in the end all people are

connected by the very fact of their being human, equality of being. In the words of the Council of Europe

campaign, “All Equal, All Different”.

5.2 Group 2: Locals vs. Citizens

Starting from the consideration that citizenship is considered in the contemporary era as complex issue

closely linked with the notion of “civil society” and the “sense of belonging”, the second group reflected on

the difference between locals and citizens. What does it mean be a local and what does it mean be a

citizen? Is it different?

Yes, normally locals are people born and resident in a certain area, while to be citizens means to have rights

and obligations, a sense of identity, and social bonds towards a society, which could also be the worldwide

society.

Considering these definitions, the main differences between locals and citizens, summarized by the group

2, are the following:

16

BE LOCALS BE CITIZENS

Limitated to a certain space No spatially limitation (i.e. global citizen, European citizen, Italian citizen etc…)

Emotional attachment

Sometimes emotional attachment

Not implies activism, responsibilities, obligation

Implies Activism, responsibilities and obligations

Small network

Big network

Easier integration

More difficult integration

Few identities related to the local dimension

Variety of identities

Loyalty to a space/community Loyalty to a civilisation

5.3 Group 3: “Buying your citizenship”

The citizenship considered as sense of belonging to a civil society and identity can’t be exchange, given,

bought or sold. It develops throughout experiences and values of each individuals or of a certain society.

Otherwise citizenship considered as legal status can be easily sold and bought to the highest bidder. The

important thing is to have money!

This really happens in some European states, such as Malta, Bulgaria, Austria, Belgium, UK, Cyprus and

Croatia. In these countries there are government’s Citizenship by Investment programs, officially

recognized by the European Commission, and the executive body of the European Union. The programs

consist in obtaining the certificate of naturalization and therefore the passport through a high financial

contribution to the national government to which the “investor” applies for. The contribution varies from

one country to another but anyway just rich people can afford it. Normally the range amount is around

150,000 and 700,000 euro.

Once a candidate is awarded citizenship, which includes EU citizenship, they normally have the right of

establishment in all 28 EU countries and Switzerland. They also have the ability to set up business, to enjoy

visa-free travel to more than 160 countries across the world including the United States.

With these investment programs it seems that those with money to spare are in luck, to obtain directly and

easily citizenship with no residency requirements. It seems that not all individuals are equal and have the

same fundamental rights. Rights and equality are measured by the value of the money. For sure this

situation is not fair towards people that migrate to a country and have to wait more than 10 years (it

depends on state legislation) with a lot of sacrifices to get citizenship. Even it is not fair towards people that

born in country which is not their parents’ origin country, but they aren’t still considered citizens.

17

5.4 Group 4: Citizenship influenced by cultural, historical, social and ethinc reasons

Citizenship is a contested concept (i.e. there are many different understandings of the concept) because

traditions and approaches to citizenship vary across countries, histories, societies, cultures and ideologies.

All these different ideas about citizenship live together in a fruitful and at the same time troublesome

tension with economic, social, ethnic and political implications.

Group 4, helped by two Nigerian participants migrated in Italy, reflected on the different concept of

citizenship, considered as the relationship between the individual and the state, in African countries. This

reflection proved how citizenship can really vary according to the cultural, social, historical situation of a

country.

Citizenship laws in Africa leave many millions of people at risk of statelessness. It is impossible to put an

accurate figure on the numbers affected, but stateless persons are among the continent’s most vulnerable

populations: they can neither vote nor stand for office; they cannot enrol their children in school beyond

primary school, travel freely, or own property; they cannot work for the government; and they are exposed

to human rights abuses and extortion. Statelessness exacerbates and underlies intercommunal, interethnic

and interracial tensions in many regions of the continent.

The factors that are the main contributors to statelessness in Africa are:

- Gender discrimination (women don’t have the right to transmit their nationality either to their foreign

spouses and/or to their children if the father is not a national);

- Racial, ethnic or religious discrimination (the laws of around ten states explicitly discriminate on grounds

related to race, ethnicity or religion);

- Nomadic and cross-border populations (African states’ nationality laws, policies and administration are

often ill-adapted to take account of these realities);

- Weak rights based on birth in the territory (Although the nationality laws in more than half of the

continent’s states provide at least some rights based on birth in the territory for children of non-citizen

parents, the remainder have very weak protections against statelessness, in some cases not even

providing nationality for infants found in the territory whose parents are not known);

- Lack of access to naturalization (another cause of statelessness is the failure by many states to provide

effective access to naturalisation procedures);

- Provisions on state succession (many countries in Africa face continuing problems related to poor

management of attribution and documentation of nationality in the transition from colonial rule to

independence);

Many citizenship problems are, of course, related to Africa’s history of colonisation and the inheritance of

borders that cut through pre-existing political boundaries, and institutions that had been founded on

systematic racial and ethnic discrimination. The nationality laws adopted at independence were based on

European models, all of which were ill-adapted for African realities, including the very low rates of civil

registration bequeathed by the colonial powers, the substantial numbers of people who follow a nomadic

lifestyle, or the effective integration of populations who migrated during the colonial period.

18

6. EUROPEAN CITZENSHIP

The following instant reports have been filled by the participants of the training course using the World

Café approach. Like in a coffee house, the groups discussed about European Citizenship, starting by two

questions: “What does European Citizenship mean?”, “How is it possible to promote European

Citizenship?”.

6.1 Group 1

19

6.2 Group 2

6.3 Group 3

20

6.4 Conclusion

As nation states are perceived as being less influential and less relevant in our globalised lives, Europe can

provide a trans-national space for communication and action. Young people know there is a bigger world

out there, and Europe, as well as European Citizenship, can provide opportunities for exploring, learning

and engaging.

Anyway, European integration and, as consequence, being a European Citizen might bring both

opportunities and threats. Opportunities for easier travel and human contact between young people from

all over Europe, for experiencing life in different cultures and societies, for widening horizons and

developing ability to deal with the difference and complexity that we will encounter. Threats will come

from the increased diversity, both on a surface level in terms of ways of doing things, and on a deeper

cultural level. Alongside that, is the challenge that integration into a bigger political block brings to nation

states.

At legal level the citizenship of the European Union is clearly and strictly conditioned: Only someone who

possesses the citizenship of one of its member states is an EU citizen as well. The European Convention on

Human Rights, on the other hand, protects any human being staying within the area covered by the

convention, independent of their nationality. Clearly, European Citizenship, in particular for its history,

can’t just be seen in a legal way. It is a more complex and embracing concept than this limited and exclusive

understanding.

This means that to make Europe closer to its citizens a European passport is not enough. Promoting

European Citizenship and making people feel European may be reached thought personal intercultural

experiences, voluntary service and direct dialogue with young people, intercultural learning in protected

learning environments, working with multipliers and the creation of snowball effects. These are some lines

pursued by the European Union with its policies and programmes.

European identity can only be defined by a set of commonly shared values, an approach calling for a

consensus much more than enforcement. This consensus may be also facilitated thought the European

Citizenship Education. Education for European Citizenship normally has to engage with these issues. An

important element of this will be to ensure that attitudes based on respect underpin the development of a

European identity, to safeguard against it becoming a mere extension of exclusive nationalism. Europe

should be the forum where shared values can be acted upon, within Europe and with regard to those

outside – wherever we should see the boundaries.

European Citizenship should not be developed as an island of rights and privileges. On the contrary, the

privileged living conditions of Europeans – compared with those in other parts of the world – should

facilitate the integration of world-wide aspirations such as peace, democracy, human rights and the

promotion of ecologically sustainable development.

Without falling into any new Euro-centrist position, the specific contribution of a renewed European

Citizenship could consist of this understanding and of a commitment by Europeans to the whole of

humanity. European Citizenship - understood as a citizenship from within Europe and committed to the

world - should help us to achieve peaceful and democratic societies all around the world, which respect

human rights, and live within the framework of ecologically sustainable development.

21

7. CONCLUSION

The youth workers, who participated in the Ne.Ci.Wo. training course, have reflected for four days on

Migration and Citizenship. Each day was dedicated to a macro-topic (such as Migration, Migration in

Europe, Citizenship, European Citizenship), that was discussed using different approaches useful to

facilitate the discussion in small-group. For the two macro-topic Migration and Citizenship was used the

Open Space Technology approach, for Migration in Europe was experimented the Six Hats Thinking

method, while for European Citizenship was employed the World Café approach.

After these reflection moments, the participants designed during the last day of the training some

workshops’ ideas. Starting from deepening and understanding the most current issues in the nowadays

societies, participants elaborated some workshops’ work-plan with the aim to educate young people to

cultural diversity, European citizenship and values. Through these activities, they had the opportunity to

acquire knowledge, skills and competences, useful for efficiently and effectively working with young

people, who come from different cultural backgrounds and live in more and more complex and

multicultural societies.

7.1 Workshop 1

Topic: discrimination

Target group: youngsters from 15 to 18

Location: Santorini (Greece)

Partners: Greece, Spain, Italy, Croatia, Portugal, Hungary, (30 participants)

Context: youth exchange for young people living in a small town

Aims: to help youngsters to accept differences, to keep their minds open, to empower themselves

9:00 Energizer sound blindness Intro to the workshop

9:15 Flower of identity

10.00 Pillar game

11.00 Coffee break

11.30 Video and discussion

13:00 Lunch

15:30 Energizer Exercise and dancing

15:40 Roleplay for a story on discrimination/coffee break

17.30 Evaluation

22

7.2 Workshop 2

Topic: Environmental Responsability

9:00-10:30 Session 1

Introduction to the topic (global warming, legislation) Explain the objectives

Introduction of participants

Respect of environment Understanding and

responsibility for own actions

10:30-10:45 Coffee break

10:45-12:15 Session 2

Importance of CSO in environment

Exsercise: which are the tools to improve the situation

Topic: sustainability and development

Awareness of the role of civic society

Change management

12:15-14:00 Lunch

14.00-15:30 Session 3

How to lobby on environment issue

Role game

Empowerment and participation

Self-organisation, lobbying, skill presentation

Developing social awareness

15:30-16:00 Coffee break

16:00-17:30 Session 4

Raising awareness Planting trees

Problem solving , active participation

17:30-18:00 Evaluation

23

“Thank to all the participants of the Ne.Ci.Wo. training course for their wonderful job.

Thank also to the project partners for their valuable cooperation and collaboration.”

This project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the

views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made

of the information contained therein.