This paper links the discussion on superdiversity and its call for multidimensional shifts in migration patterns and the ‘diversification of diversity’ this has led to, to the development of immigrant integration policies that tend to focus on traditional migrant groups. Considered from the superdiversity perspective these groups are an simplification of the diversity within and between the migrant population. Furthermore, the diversification of the society as a whole calls into question who should be targeted for immigrant integration policies at all, and in what direction they should point, in a society that has changed itself as a consequence of immigration (Crul, 2016). How do these questions speak to the world of immigrant integration policy making? This paper links this question to the trend of ‘mainstreaming’ in immigrant integration governance. Across Europe traditional immigrant integration policies have been replaced by universal policies, generic policies, targeted at the entire population, such as broad city-citizenship approaches or incorporating former immigrant integration policies in generic educational or community policies. This paper discusses material from different European cases between 2000-2014 to explore whether this broad, mainstreaming approach can be considered a policy-answer to the questions and challenges the superdiversity discussion raises for immigrant integration policies.

The ‘condition of superdiversity’ creates a dazzling perspective that matches the image of a networking society without unambiguous collective entities. Society consists of a caleidoscopic set of identities, relationships, languages and gods in a context of permeable geographic areas. That brings many problems, but the country that is aware of this diversity does have ultimately the best papers for the future.

Advocates of superdiversity have a potential blind spot for differences in symbolic power that affect integration. Thus, they quickly ignore class inequalities and racism. But the main point of criticism is that superdiversity neglects the mainstream, the dominant ways of thinking and doing in a society. The majority of the Netherlands has become more and more culturally homogenous: after a long time of cultural polarization (the long decade of the sixties), the majority has taken over consensually libertarian ideals. The implication of this is that cultural diversity is experienced as a growing problem. Citizens, including migrants, must show that they feel connected with the Netherlands.

Contemporary cities are increasingly characterised by ‘super diversity’. As Putnam’s thesis about the negative social consequences of ethnic diversity is correct, we may assume that growing diversity also negatively affects crime and fear of crime in cities. After all: the more diversity, the less social cohesion and the less collective efficacy, ultimately resulting in higher crime rates. More diversity also implies less (public) familiarity in neighbourhoods and more fear of crime. On the other hand, some qualitative studies show that particularly residents of relatively homogeneous districts perceive migrants as threatening. Migrants are seen as less threatening when neighbourhood residents are familiarized with ‘the other’ and when there are more interethnic contacts. Various foreign and Dutch studies show an independent effect of ethnic diversity in the neighbourhood on fear of crime. However, this effect disappears when other resident characteristics are included into the analysis. Residents of ethnically diverse and deprived districts are generally less satisfied with their neighbourhood, have less trust in the government and are more often victimized. Precisely these perceptions and experiences explain why they more often feel unsafe in their own neighbourhood.