Migration

Integration as an Opportunity

How do liberals address the global challenge of migration? How can a discourse increasingly reduced to threats, fears, and defensiveness be transformed into a proactive policy that takes risks seriously but places greater emphasis on the opportunities presented by migration? What role does a smart integration policy play in this? These questions were addressed at a conference organized by the Friedrich Naumann Foundation from May 11–13, 2026, in Mexico City, featuring high-level experts.

Under the bold title “México and Turkiye reshaping global migration,” more than 30 experts from various countries analyzed and discussed current trends in the integration of asylum seekers and migrants with a broad professional audience. The focus was on experiences from Mexico and Turkey.

In this regard, the host organizers, Maria-José Salcedo (Friedrich Naumann Foundation Mexico) and Aret Demirci (Friedrich Naumann Foundation Turkey), were correct in their comparative approach. This comparison is particularly interesting because both countries are no longer merely traditional countries of origin or transit. Mexico is increasingly becoming a destination country for asylum seekers and migrants from Latin America, the Caribbean, and beyond. Since 2011, Turkey has been one of the most important host countries for Syrian asylum seekers and, at the same time, a transit country en route to Europe. Both countries thus find themselves caught between humanitarian responsibility, economic reality, and political pressure.

The most important finding of the conference is that migration is neither automatically a burden nor automatically a benefit. What matters is whether it is managed politically, administratively, and economically in such a way that migrants gain access to work, self-employment, financial services, skills training, and legal security. Economic integration is understood as a precursor to social and political integration. Those who work, can start a business, earn an income, and plan for the future are more likely to become part of the host society and less dependent on state or humanitarian support.

The ambivalent nature of informality was highlighted in this context. It is not enough to condemn informal employment on normative grounds; rather, it must be realistically viewed as a means of survival in countries that are already informally organized. Informality is very high in Mexico and also significant in Turkey. For newly arriving migrants, informal work may be the only way to earn an income in the short term. At the same time, it creates dependency, low wages, a lack of social security, risks of exploitation, and limited opportunities for advancement. Therefore, liberal integration policy cannot be based on the permanent tolerance of informality, but must be aimed at a gradual transition to formal employment and regular entrepreneurship.

The examples of Mexico and Turkey show how heavily national migration and integration policies depend on external factors. For instance, the harsh, at times brutal, U.S. policy toward migrants has led Mexico to increasingly evolve from a transit country on the way to the U.S. into a country of residence and destination. Asylum numbers in Mexico have risen sharply. Numerous migrants are attempting to build a long-term future for themselves in Mexico. At the same time, the Mexican labor market is highly regionally differentiated.

On the southern border, for example in Tapachula, migrants often resort to precarious survival strategies, small-scale informal work, or makeshift self-employment. In Tijuana or Mexico City, opportunities are better because these areas have larger labor markets, more institutional structures, and more formal employment options.

For Turkey, the Syrian civil war and the resulting refugee migration since 2011 have been the defining external event that reshaped national policy. Turkey has taken in about four million people seeking protection, but for a long time clung to the idea of temporary status. Work permits for Syrians were not introduced until 2016, and even after that, the hurdles remained high. Many Syrians continue to work in the informal sector. However, many of them have also started businesses in Turkey. Thousands of companies have emerged from the refugee community and are making tangible economic contributions in certain sectors. While the 2016 EU-Turkey Statement and the associated EU funding have enabled programs for education, health, employment, and livelihood support, they have created only limited sustainable formal employment.

It also became clear that political and administrative restrictions directly hinder economic integration. These include travel permits, residency restrictions, closed neighborhoods, difficulties in opening bank accounts, lack of access to credit, and specific property restrictions for Syrians. Various rules are intended to prevent envy and social tensions with the host society and to prevent ghettoization. However, they make it difficult to find work, start a business, and move within the region. As a result, some measures have achieved the opposite of their intended effect. In Turkey, for example, Syrians are often perceived not as economic contributors but as a burden.

It also became clear at the conference that women in particular face special challenges when integrating into the labor market. This is even more true for Turkey than for Mexico. Therefore, an integration policy that aims to enable genuine labor market inclusion must necessarily be gender-sensitive.

Another key finding of the conference was the recognition of migrants’ particular potential for self-employment. They often bring with them a high risk tolerance and a willingness to accept significant changes rather than choosing the path of least resistance. This mindset should be leveraged more specifically to encourage business startups. For migrants returning from the U.S., a wealth of experience was also noted, encompassing practical skills—particularly in the construction, services, logistics, and hospitality sectors—as well as concrete knowledge of how markets and consumer habits functioned in the U.S. This experience can benefit networks of customers and suppliers on both sides.

Various experts lamented the lack of autonomy for local governments in integration policy—not just for labor market integration, but in general. Large cities face different challenges than small communities. For instance, infrastructure and job opportunities are generally greater in metropolitan areas, but so are the anonymity and the risk of getting lost in the urban jungle. Small towns and villages often offer a more personal connection, but usually have poorer infrastructure and fewer job options. Therefore, municipalities should be given the freedom to address different integration challenges in different ways.

Across countries, it is evident that there is a need for lasting coordination among all parties involved in the integration process. This includes not only the various administrative offices—such as immigration offices, schools, social services, housing agencies, and health authorities—but also close coordination with local employers and civil society, including private initiatives, migrant self-help organizations, and church communities. The Participation and Integration Act from North Rhine-Westphalia was presented as a positive example, as it enables close networking and individual support through a genuine case management system in the municipalities. The permanent state-wide statutory funding of the municipal integration infrastructure was also highlighted here.

Even if not all aspects of the different states can be replicated, general recommendations for action can be derived from this conference.

1. Early clarification of a legally secure residency status for migrants is a prerequisite for successful (labor market) integration.

2. Educational and language programs must be expanded and made more flexible with regard to working hours and child care.

3. Bureaucratic barriers such as restrictions on work and housing should be largely removed to promote integration and mobility.

4. Networks among the various governmental and non-governmental integration stakeholders must be strengthened and established on a long-term basis.

5. Supporting entrepreneurial self-employment through easier access to credit, mentoring, and counseling offers opportunities for both migrants and the host society.

6. Gender-specific integration policies increase migrant women’s chances in the labor market.

7. Local governments need more autonomy to address local and regional challenges in integration policy.

8. The experience of returning migrants can be leveraged more effectively by the private sector, for example in transnational networks.

9. Entrepreneurial thinking should be promoted more strongly in migration and integration policy, focusing not only on employability but also on encouraging self-employment and business creation.

10. Politically, fair cooperation must be agreed upon between countries of origin, transit, and destination, enabling more legal pathways into the labor market, reducing incentives for irregular migration, and promoting reintegration.

The conference, chaired by Siegfried Herzog, Head of the Latin America Regional Office of the Friedrich Naumann Foundation, highlighted many successful initiatives but also underscored the enormous challenges that must be addressed for a successful integration policy. The conference’s key approach—viewing migration not merely as a risk but also as an opportunity through intelligently designed integration—undoubtedly deserves to be pursued further.