PERCEPTIONS OF INTEGRATION BY BOSNIAN REFUGEES

Introduction

The origins of refugee resettlement in the United States officially began at the end of World War II when the simultaneous effects of massive geopolitical human displacement coincided with the massive loss of human life, generally, and the loss of working age males, specifically. While there has been a long history of people seeking refuge prior to WWII (Betts, Loescher, & Milner, 2012), the refugee issue was primarily seen as the need to replenish “domestic labor shortages” (p. 12) post-WWII, which generated the impetus for the U.S. to join other nations in creating the International Refugee Organization (IRO). While the IRO began as a temporary organization to deal specifically with post-WWII displacement, it became a permanent organization under the Refugee Convention of 1951 and was renamed the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). The UNHCR was tasked with refugee protection and reintegration of displaced persons in their country of origin or integration in another country (p. 2). The organization’s shift from temporary to permanent was partially due to post-WWII Cold War politics and the West’s quest to perpetuate an anti-communist agenda. It was during this time that the language “persecution or fear of persecution” (p. 12) was used to formally define a person claiming refugee status as a way to rhetorically fuel anti-communism (p. 15). The language of the early definition for refugees persisted and is evident in the UNHCR’s current internationally recognized definition of refugees:

owing to a 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 to, or owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country (UNHCR, 2001).

The economic and political motivations underpinning the UNHCR and the internationally recognized definition of refugees continues to influence refugee integration and resettlement in the United States.

Since the end of World War II, the United States has resettled refugees as part of its national policy and public identity, stating that, resettlement “reflect[s] our core values and our tradition of being a safe haven for the oppressed” (Office for Refugee Resettlement, 2012). Rhetorically, this statement suggests humanitarian benevolence as the United States’ primary reason for resettling refugees; however, the Refugee Act of 1980, which is the United States’ current legal document regarding refugee resettlement, frames all aide accompanying resettlement in terms of a refugee’s economic ability. The Refugee Act of 1980 states that in order for social service agencies to receive funds for resettlement they must “assist them to achieve economic self-sufficiency as quickly as possible after arrival in the United States” (Refugee Act of 1980). The underscoring of “economic self-sufficiency” as the primary gauge for assessing “effective resettlement” is repeated in multiple paragraphs of the Act (Refugee Act of 1980). In other words, humanitarianism gives way to employment, at least according to the law.

The primacy of “economic self-sufficiency” in resettlement greatly affects a refugee’s long-term integration into his/her new community. The immediacy in which refugees are expected to obtain employment fails to capture the complexity of not only a refugee’s history but also the complexity of resettling in a foreign country. Franz (2005) explained, “When people are subject to a forced displacement involving dramatic separation from specific practices and familiar social environment - as well as involving loss of close family members – their sense of belonging, displacement and alienation may be quite profound” (p. 54). Furthering the complexity of resettlement, Halilovich (2013) found,

In some instances, identities of the displaced have been partially or completely replaced, adapted, hybridized and entangled with new identities, roles and places, while in other instances there is a prevalent feeling of permanent ‘misplacement’, with an inability to reconstruct a sense of belonging in a new social environment (p. 54).

The process of reconstructing a sense of belonging in a new social environment is called acculturation. McBrien (2005) describes acculturation as, “the change in an individual or a culturally similar group that results from contact with a different culture” (p. 330). While acculturation occurs on multiple micro, meso, and macro levels and in multiple environments, Stein (1979) found, “Occupational and economic adjustment is crucial to adult refugees’ acculturation in a new country, much as educational success is essential for refugee children’s acculturation. These group processes affect one’s individual sense of identity and well-being.” (as cited in McBrien, 2005, p. 330-331). This means acculturation is an ongoing and complex process including all aspects of social, cultural, linguistic, and economic adjustment and is not merely limited to job acquisition.

In order to understand the longitudinal effects of refugee resettlement, we chose to study one of the more established refugee groups in our local community - ethnic Bosnians. The focus of this study is to explore the interconnections between self-sufficiency, education, and social integration of Bosnian refugees in the Treasure Valley.

The History of Bosnian Conflict

Bosnia and Herzegovina is located in the former Yugoslavia. The former Yugoslavia was home to multiple ethnic groups: Serbs, Bosnian Muslims ("Bosniaks"), and Croats. According to the Bosnian census in 1991, approximately 44 percent of the Bosnian population was Bosniak, 31 percent was Serb, and 17 percent was Croat. In October 1991, Bosnia and Herzegovina declared independence from Yugoslavia, and by 1992 Bosnia and Herzegovina was in a genocidal civil war, the worst war in Europe since World War II (Bosnia and Herzegovina). As Halilovich (2013) says,

At the outbreak of the war, Bosnian cultural diversity became a matter of ethno-nationalistic politics; students, workers, housewives, farmers, mothers, teachers and children were all primarily defined by ‘their’ ethno-religious identity, which for many became the only basis for persecution of physical extermination and the forced expulsion of whole communities from towns and villages across the country. Almost half of Bosnia’s population of 4.5 million people was forced to leave their homes, with about 1.6 million finding temporary refuge outside the country (p. 54).

During the war, approximately 250,000 Bosnians were killed and approximately 1.2 million fled the country. At the same time, more than 200,000 Bosnians

...