The big idea: Migration forces the hardest identity question in global politics: who belongs? When people move, they carry their identity across borders and settle among others — so states must decide who counts as a member. Citizenship is the formal answer, but belonging is deeper than a passport. And a diaspora shows that identity and political loyalty can stretch across borders, not just inside them.
- Citizenship — legal membership of a state, carrying rights (vote, protection) and duties.
- Belonging — the deeper sense of being accepted as a full member, beyond legal status.
- Integration — newcomers joining a shared common life over time.
- Multiculturalism — recognising and supporting distinct cultures within one state.
- Diaspora — a community abroad keeping ties to its homeland, often acting politically across borders.
Why migration challenges identity: Migration puts the question of membership at the centre of politics. States must decide who can enter, who becomes a citizen, and what belonging requires — and citizens must decide whether they see newcomers as part of "us". Because identity is about who counts as an insider, migration can trigger anxiety about the nation's identity, fuel debates over integration, and become a flashpoint for identity politics. At the same time, migrants and diasporas reshape the identity of both the places they leave and the places they join.
Free preview
This is the free notes preview
You're reading the free notes. Aimnova Pro unlocks the full study experience — and you can try it free for 7 days:
- FlashcardsLock in vocabulary and key terms with spaced repetition.
- Practice questionsAnswer exam-style questions and get instant AI marking.
- Mock exams & past-paper vaultSit full mocks and see exactly how examiners award marks.
- Personalised study planA daily plan built around your exam date and weak areas.
How should a state handle newcomers' identities? Two broad models compete: integration (join a shared common life) and multiculturalism (recognise and support distinct cultures). And diasporas show identity working across borders — sending money, votes and influence back home.
Integration vs multiculturalism
Integration asks newcomers to become part of a shared common life — a common language, civic values and participation — while keeping their private culture; supporters say it builds cohesion. Multiculturalism instead recognises and actively supports distinct cultural identities within one state, treating diversity as a public good; supporters say it respects identity and avoids forced assimilation. The two are not total opposites, but they pull in different directions on how much difference the state should endorse.
Diasporas as cross-border actors
A diaspora keeps its identity and ties to a homeland while living abroad, and often acts politically across borders: sending remittances that dwarf aid, funding parties or campaigns back home, lobbying their host government's foreign policy, and sometimes fuelling — or helping resolve — conflicts in the homeland. Diasporas show that political community is not neatly contained within state borders; identity and loyalty can be transnational.
Case study — a diaspora acting across borders: Imagine a large community that migrated from one country to another over generations. They hold citizenship in their new home, yet keep a strong identity tied to their homeland. They send remittances — money home to relatives — that become a major part of the homeland's economy; they vote in or fund homeland elections; they lobby their host state to support the homeland's cause; and in a crisis, some send aid or take sides. Meanwhile, in their host country, debates rage over whether they have integrated or whether their distinct identity should be recognised. It captures the HL lesson: migration makes identity and political loyalty transnational — a person can belong, and act politically, in more than one place at once, which unsettles the neat idea that each person belongs to one nation and one state.
The key point: Migration forces the question of who belongs. Citizenship is the legal answer, but belonging runs deeper. States choose between integration (a shared common life) and multiculturalism (recognising distinct cultures) — different answers to how much difference to endorse. And diasporas show identity and political loyalty stretching across borders, through remittances, votes and lobbying — making political community transnational, not neatly contained within one state.
See how examiners mark answers
Access past paper questions with model answers. Learn exactly what earns marks and what doesn't.
The hard question: should a diverse society aim for integration (a shared common identity) or multiculturalism (recognising many identities)? And does a strong national identity require newcomers to assimilate? Weigh it — and recommend.
The case for integration and cohesion
A society needs some shared common life — a common language, civic values and a sense of joint membership — to function, trust one another and act together. On this view, integration (not forced sameness, but a genuine shared belonging) prevents parallel, disconnected communities, gives everyone a stake in the whole, and makes a diverse society hold together rather than splinter.
The case for multiculturalism and recognition
Others argue that demanding a single common identity pressures minorities to abandon who they are, and that a fair society should recognise and support distinct cultures as equal members of one state. On this view, identity is not something to be suppressed for cohesion; diversity is a strength, and belonging can be plural — you can be fully a citizen and fully yourself.
Two perspectives — weigh them: One view: a diverse society needs integration and a shared common life to hold together. Another view: fairness requires multiculturalism — recognising distinct identities rather than forcing sameness. Strong HL answers judge that the two are not simple opposites: a society needs both a genuine shared belonging (so it does not fragment into parallel communities) AND respect for distinct identities (so it does not force assimilation) — so the wise path is an inclusive common identity that people can hold alongside their particular one, with recognition of difference within a shared civic frame.
How migration and belonging come up in Paper 3: Paper 3 stimulus might show a migration debate, an integration policy, or diaspora political activity. Analyse the question of who belongs (citizenship vs deeper belonging), the integration vs multiculturalism choice, and how diasporas act across borders, then recommend — usually an inclusive shared belonging plus recognition of difference.
How Paper 3 rewards you (HL)
Understand
Show you understand the challenge and the stimulus material accurately.
base
Analyse
Break the challenge down — causes, actors, perspectives — using the material.
analyse
Recommend
Propose and justify a course of action — the Paper-3-specific skill.
recommend
Synthesise
Pull the material together into a judged, evaluated response.
top
Recommend how a state could build belonging in a society shaped by large-scale migration.
Model answer plan
See the mark-by-mark plan — for / against / judgement, with marking guidance — in study mode.
Common mistakes (Paper 3): 1. Equating citizenship with belonging. A passport is not full acceptance.
2. Treating integration and multiculturalism as total opposites. A society can need both.
3. Ignoring diasporas. Identity and loyalty can be transnational.
4. Confusing integration with forced assimilation. Shared life ≠ erasing difference.
5. Only describing. Analyse + recommend.