**4. Non-Homogeneous Responses to Diverse Needs in Superdiversity**

The notion of superdiversity encompasses changes in the multiple dimensions presented by migration standards. As Wessendorf [26] points out, it is configured as the prism through which to describe "an exceptional demographic situation characterized by the multiplication of social categories within specific localities" (p. 1287 [26]).

This term was first used by Vertovec [5] to describe the changing patterns observed in migration data in the United Kingdom, where not only had the number of people from different countries increased, so had their ethnicities, languages and religions.

It was observed that ethnic diversity alone is not enough by itself to describe the phenomenon of migration; rather, it is characterized by being a dynamic interaction between the different combinations of variables that come into play such as gender, age, generation, legal status, education, and others.

However, "many of those who use the term have referred only to more ethnicities rather than to the more complete original intention of the term to recognize multidimensional changes in migration patterns. This implies a worldwide diversification of migration channels, differentiation of legal states, divergent patterns of gender and age, and a variation in the human capital of migrants" [27].

In this sense, in a context where international migration has changed considerably, the idea of unique forms of diversity centered around a fixed pattern determined by the ethnicity of the migrants in question is now outdated. This phenomenon must be analyzed from the perspective of a multidimensional prism that spans the different variables that come into play. Obviously, between the different groups of emigrants and within each one of them, regardless of their origin, there are significant differences between generations, between women and men, as well as between people with different educational levels. Therefore, a change is needed in the analysis used, one that goes beyond the membership group to encompass the dynamic interaction between the different individual characteristics of each of its members, from a multidimensional prism [28] that goes beyond the limits of the group to consider variables that, until now, were ignored, such as functional diversity.

In order to consider the vulnerability of a migrant, their situation and individual needs must be thoroughly evaluated regardless of their predefined category, since what defines their potential vulnerability is the combination of both intrinsic and extrinsic characteristics and circumstances at a given time.

In Europe, community policies on migration have been posed within the framework of freedom, security and justice considerations, rather than that of the free movement of people, and have focused on limiting entry into community territory of citizens from third countries for professional purposes and on establishing effective borders against irregular immigration. Each Member State has imposed the function of safeguarding the borders of the European Union against uncontrolled migratory flows and ensuring the protection of all the territories of the States against illegal immigration.

The EU's treatment of immigration has a dual role: to ensure the legal integration of the immigrant, placing the individual and their rights (especially minors and women) at the center; and to treat irregular immigration from the perspective of controlling migratory flows, protecting the internal labor market and assuring the gradual integration of immigrants into indigenous society. From this dual

perspective, an attempt is made to design a coherent and integrated framework between national and European policies.

Among all immigrant groups, asylum seekers, refugees and other migrants with disabilities are not properly identified and do not have equal access to services in reception centers, and that is precisely where the problem begins. Additionally, the diversity between the different Member States is not only considerable in terms of the number of applications submitted, but also in terms of public policies, the policies of the respective governments and the response of societies. However, the common denominator in every country is deficiencies in reception systems that pose a serious risk of vulnerability and exclusion. Care systems for international protection applicants and refugees who are disabled and/or dependent are often insufficient, and frequently result from traumatic situations suffered in their countries of origin or during their escape.

Among the deficits identified are the problems in diagnosing the specific needs of people who are disabled and/or dependent, legal restrictions that prevent them from accessing regular care services, lack of accessibility in reception facilities, lack of employment offers, and insufficient cooperation between the systems responsible for receiving refugees and those that are tasked with caring for persons with disabilities.

The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies [29] believes that the best way to support migrants is by helping them be resilient throughout their journey. If they have that capacity, they can better address the risks and overcome the external crises associated with migration. While every aspect of resilience and recovery is important, at certain times of the journey, some aspects are more prominent than others.

#### **5. Building True Citizenship: Global Solutions to the Needs of People with Disabilities**

According to Human Rights Watch research [30], among the deficits identified are the problems with diagnosing the specific needs of people who are disabled and/or dependent, legal restrictions that prevent them from accessing regular care services, lack of accessibility in reception facilities, lack of employment offers, and insufficient cooperation between the systems responsible for receiving refugees and those that are tasked with caring for persons with disabilities.

The UN refugee agency (UNHCR) and international and local relief organizations working with refugee centers in Greece informed Human Rights Watch [30] that they have very few or no programs specifically designed to address the rights and needs of asylum seekers, refugees and other migrants with disabilities. Both asylum seekers and other migrants with disabilities face enormous difficulties obtaining basic services such as shelter, sanitation and medical care, and like other vulnerable migrants, they have limited access to mental health care. Based on research carried out in Greece between 2016 and 2017, Human Rights Watch concluded that in Greece, asylum seekers and refugees with disabilities are not properly identified, partly because the registration process is rushed and the staff lack proper training. Without an adequate understanding of the magnitude and needs, assistance agencies cannot respond effectively.

To end this dual discrimination, the EU should request information from its Member States on the execution of its programs to ensure that the projects they finance benefit people with disabilities and other groups at risk.

All this happens despite the fact that the various European Directives and international standards are unquestionable, urging Member States to take into account these and other especially vulnerable groups; and yet, compliance with them is usually the exception [31–34].

To lay the foundations for a new way forward to correct all these imbalances in the procedure, a hearing on "The situation of refugees and migrants with disabilities" was held in Brussels (2017). The objective of this hearing was to draw attention to this particularly vulnerable group of refugees and immigrants, trying to raise awareness of the rights and needs of people with disabilities through the international organizations that work with them. Most significantly, it was noted that European regulation (Directive 2003/9 of 27 January 2003, laying down minimum standards for the reception of

asylum seekers in Member States) requires Member States to take into account the specific situation of vulnerable persons, especially in relation to reception conditions, individually assessing their particular needs, specifically those related to a disability. One of the problems highlighted is the lack of a homogeneous response by the Member States when it comes to offering protection to vulnerable people who come to Europe in search of asylum, so in many cases, the integration of migrants with disabilities, as well as their access to social rights, is still precarious.

Among the main conclusions of the meeting, we note the following [35]:


The Global Pact on Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration of 2018 [36], together with the International Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in 2006, both of the United Nations [37], are the main bases that establish the reality of migration and disability in Europe, adherence to which would imply undertaking actions aimed at protecting migrants with disabilities within a paradigm of superdiversity. However, since they are not binding regulations, States find shortcuts with which to manage both realities based on their own economic and intervention paradigm.

Although public actors play an important role both in making visible and in ensuring the protection of vulnerable groups, it is the different levels of intervention by the States that are unbalanced in terms of government actions. A lack of coordination in the creation and application of legislation is one of the reasons why migrants with disabilities are currently in a situation of potentially understandable extrinsic vulnerability [38].

#### **6. Creation of New Protocols as a Tool for Coexistence**

For decades, international migration has been one of the factors that has contributed the most to cultural diversity. However, when migratory studies focus on integration, their analysis of intercultural diversity is limited. That is why new paradigms have emerged—although still poorly implemented—with a more holistic vision, which include patterns of relationships, interactions and types of influences between immigrant and native residents. However, much remains to be done before the need for coexistence in global cities is fully conceived [39].

As Berisso and Giuliano [40] point out, the relationship between liberation and interculturality requires coexistence to prevail over competitiveness. This necessitates an educational process that promotes the eradication of the factors that exalt a dominant Western epistemology of humanity's knowledge over that of other cultures.

Observing diversity from a sociological perspective makes it possible to accentuate the painful historical evidence that there is no diversity without power and asymmetry, but at the same time we must not lose sight of the fact that there is a daily component of the difference that passes through the subjective dynamics used in intercultural relationships [41].

In this regard, Amín [42] points out the weight that daily life holds in neighborhoods, workplaces, and public spaces, where historical, global and local processes intersect to make sense of living with diversity.

Given the bi-directionality that integration entails, the structural guidelines of the host society are essential to determine the possibilities of integrating immigrant groups. The characteristics of the labor market and the welfare model are therefore configured as determining elements, but the economic and demographic structure of each region must also be taken into account, as well as the institutional capacity to ensure adequate reception for those arriving from another territory [43].

In the comparative study that Crul [28] performed on diversity and assimilation in the European cities of Amsterdam, Stockholm and Berlin, he points out that "the theory of segmented assimilation maintains that some ethnic groups find themselves more frequently on a descending path, while others find themselves more frequently on an ascending path". This issue is largely explained by the different forms of reception, as well as by the ethnicity and socio-economic peculiarities of the first generation (p. 63 [28]).

However, according to the author, in addition to the ethnic factor, in the case of Amsterdam, background and contextual factors also play a very important role. Regarding social mobility, the results of the study reflect a dual reality; on one hand, it presents an upward social mobility, in contrast to Berlin, where stagnant or downward mobility prevails. The theory of diversity as reformulated in the aforementioned study weighs the need to observe the discrepancies within groups related to differences in local and national contexts.

Therefore, it is unavoidable to design an action protocol from the praxis of social work for coexistence, governed by three fundamental principles—universality, active integration and intercultural coexistence—in order to offer a global response to the different problems of migrants. This will allow this heterogeneous collective to be freely and fully incorporated and to experience equal rights, duties, and opportunities, just like the rest of the host population.

#### **7. From Observation to Intervention**

As a consequence of the aforementioned facts, our knowledge of the incidence and specific cases involving disability in the group of applicants for international protection is quite poor. Most studies cover different forms of vulnerability and analyze the situation of refugee camps in neighboring countries, comparing them to those of the originating country [44].

An example of this are the reports of the Women's Commission for Refugee Women [45], which describe the situation of refugees in camps located in urban areas in five developing countries and Syrian refugees in Lebanon. The reports analyze the lack of intervention protocols for the population of refugees with disabilities and the need for inventiveness in the face of the various situations they had to endure every day to respond to the situation [46]. Other examples are the studies of Roberts and Harris [47] and Ward, Amas and Lagnado [48], where they analyze the care given to refugees with a disability in the United Kingdom, re-highlighting the need for intervention design; similarly, Mirza and Heinemann [49] detail the situation in the U.S., in which they examine the suitability of existing services in the system to address the different needs of refugees with disabilities. They conclude that these refugees have limited access to resettlement resources due to their doubly vulnerable situation resulting from their status as both migrants and people with disabilities. In addition to concluding that, the main impediment to addressing the reality of refugees with disabilities is the lack of coordination between refugee systems and people with disabilities.

Several studies [50–53] conducted by Handicap International and other institutions detail the challenges facing refugee care, a situation that can be extrapolated to the different EU countries:


The European Commission has identified twelve main challenges, including immigration, as a reality that virtually all European societies have to face [54,55].

In the area of immigration policies, although they have often been framed in the context of national integration models, at present, human mobility is placing immigration at the center of local political agendas. Recent studies [56–61] focus attention at the local level, mainly the city. Cities are becoming increasingly active agents, drawing up their own agendas and developing specifically local political strategies to address the integration challenges of immigrants.

Thus, for example, policies for integrating immigrants belong to the local field of action for several reasons: municipalities are the appropriate administrative level to implement local policies, since the logic of municipal policies is different from that of the central states; and only municipal policy can mobilize local resources, both formal and informal [62].

In terms of immigration and integration, the perspective of municipalities is therefore radically different from that of central governments [63,64]. In fact, in this set of policies, municipalities have played a pioneering role, promoting integration policies, obviating the criticisms of the central government, since they cannot close their eyes to pressing and immediate immigration-related problems [65]. In some countries, such as the Netherlands and Germany [66], central governments have ended up adopting postulates and central instruments of municipal policies.

In short, the commitment to local policies to integrate immigrants implies a new approach to address and promote diversity, overcoming the traditional state model of multiculturalism and assimilationism [67]. This approach has been supported by international organizations and networks of transnational cities, like the Council of Europe, which founded the network of Intercultural Cities. This development clearly points to the relevance of horizontal relationships, from city to city, of local governments [56].

#### **8. Discussion and Conclusions**

The lack of data on migrants with disabilities requires us to tackle a hidden population without an adequate understanding of their magnitude and needs; as a result, the action of the public or private institutions tasked with guaranteeing their rights is not effective. In fact, although national and international standards are unquestionable when it comes to protecting these types of especially vulnerable situations, compliance with them is usually the exception. Therefore, we must commit to a rigorous application of the law in this regard in all countries.

Heterogeneity and deficiencies in the systems for receiving this group of people, who are at serious risk of vulnerability and exclusion, are a common denominator at the international level. The care systems for international protection applicants and refugees with functional diversity, regardless of their origin or cause of the migration process and/or escape, are particularly insufficient. There are minimal programs that do not adequately identify asylum seekers and refugees with disabilities, showing deficiencies in their records and in the training and preparation of the professionals involved.

Social work is one of the best disciplines for learning about and intervening in the phenomenon of disability in the migration process, as it is characterized by intervention in situations of social need and/or problems from which to promote the protection and assertion of social and human rights, paying special attention to those groups that are vulnerable and at risk of social exclusion. For this reason, the link between disability in the migratory process is pertinent as a challenge to be approached through professional practice, since it takes into account the necessary tools with which to favor social transformation [68].

Social work is a key consideration in the challenge to make visible, analyze and act on the reality of migrants who are disabled or who are affected by it due to their own displacement. It is the task of social intervention professionals to give a voice to these people, as well as to demand the response that their situation requires from governments and citizens [69].

Although immigration governance is increasingly Europeanized, the trend regarding integration governance directed at immigrants is more focused on the local level [70], since local policies are more sensitive and responsive to the needs of these groups than central policies. It is committed to proximity and a greater interrelation between the different actors involved in the process (local governments, public and private entities, immigrant associations, Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), etc.)

In short, the phenomenon of migration is not unidirectional; rather, there are many variables and processes that come into play and must be carefully considered. Therefore, intervention and the design of actions by social work and sociology professionals are necessary from a holistic perspective. These actions must be based on social diversity, superdiversity and respect for differences, and pave the way for public authorities, both nationally and internationally, to address the phenomenon of migrants and/or people with disabilities.

From the perspective of superdiversity, we must support action protocols that, while overcoming exclusion in a context of obvious inequalities, allow for the full inclusion of migrants in the hosting society, either from its applicability to social policy or from social innovation as a professional tool in achieving an inclusive society [71].

This review presents a summary of the responses that are being provided in Europe to the needs of migrants through the prism of superdiversity. In addition, the challenges facing agencies and institutions to improve the care given to refugees in host countries are listed. In this way, aspects as important as guaranteeing complete medical coverage for migrants and refugees are emphasized. So far, the institutional response to this phenomenon has been described as suboptimal [72]. Furthermore, this study tries to provide answers to problems related to the Common European Asylum System. There are certain questions presented at the European level that we have attempted to answer, such as "who needs international protection?" If the Member State of first entry is to take primary responsibility for the asylum procedure, what are the legal obligations that Member States have towards asylum seekers and beneficiaries? [73].

The results of this research are of interest to the scientific community and to the rest of the population, since they synthesize those factors that need improvement to guarantee the human rights of migrants and refugees; more specifically, of migrants and refugees who exhibit some kind of functional diversity. Accordingly, we present the political proposals that are being implemented to guarantee protection, security, access to resources, basic rights and to enhance the capacities of local authorities. The role of education as a key tool for coexistence is reinforced and the design of action protocols for coexistence is encouraged. The implications of this study are based on the detection of the various future challenges faced by both migrants and refugees with disabilities, as well as on the political approach to this situation.

Several facets of the migration phenomenon in Europe require more research in the future. It is important that studies in the near future establish a complete statistical record that shows the magnitude of the migration phenomenon in Europe and that is capable of counting the number of migrants with disabilities who arrive from different countries of origin. More scientific evidence is required of the difficulties and challenges facing migrants, both in their countries of origin and destination, as well as of the causes that force migrants to leave their native country. It is appropriate to review in depth the protocols and policies undertaken by different countries to deal with migration from the paradigm of superdiversity.

For destination countries, it is important to offer a synthesis of political proposals that provide guidelines for the future of migration and disability. Accordingly, based on our study, the following political actions are recommended:


**Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, A.J.R.-C. and Y.M.D.L.F.-R.; methodology, C.B.S.-P. and M.d.C.M.-C.; validation, Y.M.D.L.F.-R.; formal analysis, A.J.R.-C., and Y.M.D.L.F.-R.; investigation, M.d.C.M.-C., C.B.S.-P., A.J.R.-C. and Y.M.D.L.F.-R.; resources, C.B.S.-P.; data curation, M.d.C.M.-C. and Y.M.D.L.F.-R.; writing—original draft preparation, A.J.R.-C., C.B.S.-P., M.d.C.M.-C. and Y.M.D.L.F.-R.; writing—review and editing, M.d.C.M.-C. and Y.M.D.L.F.-R.; visualization, A.J.R.-C. and Y.M.D.L.F.-R.; supervision, Y.M.D.L.F.-R. and M.d.C.M.-C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** This research received no external funding.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.
