Comparison of the Living Conditions of the Immigrant Population in Major European Countries
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI would like to thank author for the comparative study of the living conditions of foreign-born persons in selected European Countries, as well as with the nationals.
I have read the draft with great interest. The topic is highly relevant for the advancement of both policy development and academic research. A study of gaps between the immigrant communities and the local populations merits attention. My major concern is the methodology of the study, which seems loose – several specific considerations for the authors:
26-27: “inter-ethnic wars and conflicts in the Middle East and Central Asia (particularly from Afghan territory)” – a suggestion to remove Central Asia and directly mention Afghanistan, as the scale of inter-ethnic tensions in Central Asia is not comparable to the developments/current situation in Afghanistan and the Middle East. Of greater relevance to Central Asia are a series of technogenic and climate induced disasters, which affected large segments of population.
29-30: “costs and a consumption of public resources for the receiving society, which is generally unwilling to bear them, in any case not always beyond a certain extent” – this statement would need to be substantiated with a comparative overview of expenditures related to the migrant support in the countries under study. Same applies to 32-34, where a proof that immigrants in the selected countries experience a deprivation when it comes to basic needs. The latter may or may not be specific to migrants, as the standard of living for local populations in Europe also varies greatly, including cases of hardship. Furthermore, such claims require a base-line study for the starting conditions before the migratory journey and after, and a comparative study with the local populations in the selected Countries of Destination (CoD).
96-100: this sentence is not clear to me – a suggestion to reformulate.
115-116: scope of what?
131-132: “subjects… will be … conditioned by the primary needs of existence, so that even limited differences between them are to be expected” – this is not clear to me.
133-138: this para is not clear to me.
327-333: this sentence seems contradictory in the part of dual reference to the UK.
366-367: what about a return for the taxes paid in the form of functional infrastructure, medical and educational services, etc.?
412: what about those born in the country? how does immigrant community compare to the natives?
426: there seems to be a typo (Germany rather than Germans)
430-432: how does this parameter compare across the natives in these countries?
546: there seems to be part of a sentence missing.
601, 609, 718, etc: to check the sentences for edits and typos.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
I would suggest to proofread the draft, which I found difficult to read and to follow the argument.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
On 6 May last, I sent my responses to your observations regarding the article "Assessment and Comparison of the Social Sustainability and Living Conditions of the Immigrant Population in Major European Countries", submitted for publication in the journal Societies. In the meantime, several times the MDPI editor has requested me to send the final version of it, but as I have not yet received confirmation from the reviewers of the corrections I have proposed, I cannot draft the final version for publication.
I am sending back the note, which was drafted according to the outline indicated by MDPI, with a reworking of the points to be clarified or revised, with respect to which I have accepted what you have indicated, as far as possible in relation to the object of the data used.
Hoping for a quick confirmation of what is attached here, I send my best regards.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis article is generally well-written and well-researched. It is clearly put together and backed up by a large array of statistical documented evidence.
However, there are various areas where I think that there is some confusion that arises. I think that this comes from a lack of clear definitions of 'immigrant', 'migrant', and 'asylum-seeker', which are interchangeable used throughout the article (at least mostly for the first two definitions). I would suggest using literature to define these words more clearly. It is not clear what type of migrant is being spoken about. Can we classify someone who migrates for lifestyle choices from another EU state as in the same category as someone who might have migrated and remained undocumented, for example? It is doubtful if these are comparable at all. I think that this would clearly add something to the article to define who is being spoken about exactly - the opening suggests that it is about those migrants from the Middle East, North Africa and Central Asia - but their means and cause of entry is important.
The article suggests that it would be beneficial to take the results into consideration in order to have have better sharing of which state receives migrants - so, I presume that we are talking about undocumented migrants, therefore. However there is no mention of present legislation such as the Dublin agreements, for example, or any discussion as to how they are located, relocated to member states.
Why have the countries chosen been selected, exactly? Is it purely because they are the largest? This needs to be explained more at the start.
The following line references are areas where I thought that the good statistical information could be interpreted, perhaps more accurately. They remain only suggestions, but I think that the paper, which is good, would clearly benefit from that clarity.
l. 29 - can you back up the argument related to initial costs of migration to the host country?
l. 30 - native populations are unwilling to bear them - can this also be backed up?
l. 92-95 suggests A-to-B migration, which is rather rare. those arriving in the EU have usually travelled through many countries to get to their final destination.
l. 129 suggest that all migrants of foreign birth have 'substantially similar circumstances'. This is not true if we take retirees from other western states into consideration, for example. This is where it is necessary to define who is being spoken about.
l. 158 - what are ordinary and indispensable needs of life? This should be backed up with literature related to needs.
l. 160 and line 626 - There is no mention of France's ban on ethnic statistics - this needs to be mentioned - especially since it referred specifically to that in l. 626.
l. 172 - 'normally exposes them to greater hardship' - can you back this up?
l. 180 - there is no explanation as to why some statistics refer to ages 18-64, and others to 15-64.
l. 360 - 'move elsewhere for work' - can the author back this statement up?
l. 378 - immigrants 'who have become part of German society' - what does this mean? There needs to be some backing here related to 'being part of', integrating?
l. 382-385 - 'contribution to their host society remains positive' - what is the criteria being used to evaluate 'positive'?
What is 'crowding' and how is that defined exactly for housing?
l. 454 - despite l. 614 stating that the UK is included in the statistics of the 28 EU countries, it needs to be mentioned much earlier on.
l. 487 - 'regardless of ethnic background' - but ethnicity plays a very high and prominent role in acceptance levels of immigrant populations by the host country.
l. 575 'full integration' - this needs to be defined with scholarly sources.
l. 585 - 'excessive housing costs' - this reads like a value judgement - why 'excessive' and on what criteria levels?
l. 814-827 - these elements are downplayed little too much in the article, they are highly important. Immigration cannot be reduced to a statistical evaluation of wealth/poverty, success/failure, integration-acceptance..the other factors play a crucial role.
l. 860 - 'do not correspond to GDP trends' - how so? can this be explained?
I hope that this is of some help to improving on a good article.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Overall, there are few mistakes and it is well written in terms of academic writing.
Problems of layout, for example, lines 183-196.
Table 2 - 'owned home' - needs to be changed to either 'home owned', or 'own home'. See later line 37à where the author uses 'home owned', correctly.
l. 224)225 - 'in the natives'? - In the 'native-born population'.
l. 234 'as far as labor activity' - this needs to be changed - no verb - 'is concerned'? or remove and put 'as for labor activity'.
l. 249 - double punctuation. '. .'
l. 316 - verb conjugation.
l. 359 citizens low income? Meaning?
l. 382-385 - doesn't make sense.
l. 390 charges?
l. 391 font size is incorrect.
l. 411 - fo reign-born?
l. 423 doesn't make sense.
l. 426 those in Germans?
l. 446 spacing problem.
l. 480 c omparison - spacing issue.
l. 494 - avoid 'we'.
l. 588-590 font size.
l. 601 only is crossed out.
l. 609 it is crossed out.
l. 739 spacing issue.
l. 773 structure of sentence?
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Lo scorso 6 maggio ho inviato le mie risposte alle vostre osservazioni in merito all'articolo “Valutazione e confronto della sostenibilità sociale e delle condizioni di vita della popolazione immigrata nei principali paesi europei”, presentato per la pubblicazione sulla rivista Societies. Nel frattempo più volte il redattore di MDPI mi ha richiesto di inviarne la versione definitiva, ma non avendo ancora ricevuto conferma dai revisori delle correzioni da me proposte, non posso redigere la versione definitiva per la pubblicazione.
Le rinvio la nota, che è stata redatta secondo lo schema indicato da MDPI, con una rielaborazione dei punti da chiarire o rivedere, rispetto alla quale ho accettato quanto da Lei indicato, per quanto possibile in relazione alla oggetto dei dati utilizzati.
Auspicando una rapida conferma di quanto qui allegato, porgo i miei migliori saluti.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI would like to thank the authors for their view and update. The updated manuscript represents an improvement of the original draft. Suggestions were taken into consideration and addressed, and additional sections added.
Author Response
Thank you for your comments.
