Abstract
Background: Migrant integration is frequently measured through employment or languag e acquisition, yet identity and belonging also depend on legal security, family unity, political voice, equal treatment, and recognition by public institutions. Objective: This paper examines how nationa l integration policies structure opportunities for migrants to become secure, participating members o f society. Methods: A secondary comparative reconstruction was conducted using the Migrant Integ ration Policy Index (MIPEX) 2020 global dataset and the MIPEX 2025 European Union update. MI PEX 2020 compares 52 countries across eight policy areas using 167 basic indicators aggregated int o 58 headline indicators and standardized on a 0–100 scale. The 2025 update provides EU-27 scores and policy change from 2019 to 2023. The analysis is descriptive and theory-guided; it does not cla im that policy scores directly measure implementation or individual experiences. Results: The 2020 global average was 50/100. Traditional immigration countries averaged 75, older EU member states 58, newer Central and Eastern European member states 41, and the EU overall 49. Sweden, Finlan d, Portugal, and Canada scored between 80 and 86. In the 2025 EU update, the overall average was 54. Anti-discrimination was strongest at 78 and permanent residence scored 61, while political parti cipation was weakest at 37 and access to nationality scored 44. From 2019 to 2023 the EU average i ncreased by only 0.8 points. Conclusions: Integration policy is best understood as an institutional op portunity structure for membership. Strong anti-discrimination law is important but insufficient whe n political participation and citizenship remain restricted. Coherent policy should combine socioeco nomic access, secure status, family life, voice, and enforceable equality while permitting plural iden tities. Because MIPEX evaluates de jure frameworks rather than lived outcomes, future research sho uld connect national rules with implementation, local institutions, group-specific experiences, and l ongitudinal measures of belonging
References
No references available.
