REGINE Regularisations in Europe Final Report - European ...

immigration.” 321 Finally, the study notes some positive implications of regularisation programmes,
including better population management, reducing undeclared work, and increasing tax revenues and
social security payments. The study, however, also notes that the (long-term) effectiveness of
regularisation measures has been questioned and that there may be other negative consequences.
Despite these words of caution, the overall evaluation of regularisation measures in the study is
positive.
In its Communication of 2006 322 on policy priorities in the fight against illegal immigration of thirdcountry
nationals, within which the present study was announced, the approach towards
regularisation, by contrast, is again more reserved. The Communication notes that large-scale
regularisations, in the context of the abolition of internal controls in the Schengen area and the
introduction of a right to freedom of movement for long-term residents, may have implications for
other Member States and proposes the establishment of a Mutual Exchange Mechanism (subsequently
established). While generally indicating a more reserved approach towards regularisation, the
relevant section of the Communication also provides an important justification for developing a policy
on regularisation at the European level, which would leave open the option of undertaking
regularisation measures. Thus, the Communication states that it is “the difficulties in tolerating the
sustained presence of significant numbers of third-country illegal immigrants on their territories” 323
(our emphasis) which have led some Member States to implement regularisation measures. By
implication, the Communication recognises that the sustained presence of undocumented migrants
should indeed be considered a problem. Although the Communication, like previous communications
and measures adopted by the European Union, clearly signals a preference for return, at the same time
it suggests that inaction – in the event that return cannot be effected – is clearly not a viable option.
In the most recent Communication on principles, actions and tools for the further elaboration of a
common European immigration policy of June 2008, 324 however, the reservation about large-scale
regularisations is repeated and phrased in an unusually open manner, while regularisations are
otherwise not discussed in any of the concrete measures suggested under the heading “Security –
effective fight against illegal immigration”. Thus, the Communication argues that “[i]ndiscriminate
large-scale mass regularisations [sic] of immigrants in an illegal situation do not constitute a lasting
and effective tool for migration management and should be prevented.” 325
A similar attitude towards regularisations – on the whole – also prevails in opinions expressed by the
European Parliament. In the opinion of the Civil Liberties Committee, regularisations are “quite often
a signal of lack of appropriate measures in place to deal with a phenomenon which forms part of
321 Ibid., p. 10
322 Communication from the Commission on Policy priorities in the fight against illegal immigration of third
country nationals, COM (2006) 402 final, pp. 7-8
323 Ibid., p. 7
324 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and
Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. A Common Immigration Policy for Europe: Principles,
actions, and tools. Com (2008) 394/4.
325 Ibid., p. 11
105