REGINE Regularisations in Europe Final Report - European ...
REGINE Regularisations in Europe Final Report - European ... REGINE Regularisations in Europe Final Report - European ...
What supports EC action? There is a minority of Member States who are strictly against large-scale regularisations and have reservations against other Member States using large-scale regularisation programmes as a policy tool. In a similar vein, the migration pact which drafted on the initiative of the French government recommends that Member States “use only case-by-case rather than general regularisation for humanitarian or economic reasons, within national legislation.” 338 What works against EC action? The great majority of Member States are opposed to such regulations, as are all NGOs and other stakeholders. In addition, an effective blanket ban would require the drafting of a directive or regulation, agreement over which will be difficult to achieve, given the negative attitude of major Member States (see §4) to adopt strong regulatory frameworks. Option 1b: Requirement for consultation with the Commission and the Council on planned regularisation programmes Rationale and possible impact: This would require more serious planning and consideration of regularisation programmes, notably in the context of potential impact on other MS. Given the extent to which a few MS have utilised regularisation mechanisms, there is a case for including notifications of policy in that respect as well as for programmes. Such a consultation procedure would facilitate transfer of expert knowledge gained from other MS regularisations, at the same time as allaying the fears of other MS concerning such programmes. One concrete recommendation would be to confine regularisation programmes to employment-based criteria and directly involve employers and civil society; irregular residents without strong earning capacity should then be addressed with individual applications under regularisation mechanisms (focused on humanitarian issues, long residence, integration efforts, health condition, lengthy asylum procedures etc.). Although various Member States have resorted to regularisation programmes in the case of asylum seekers and rejected asylum seekers, as in the Netherlands (2007) and Sweden (2005/6), we recommend the integration of such programmes into the regular legal framework and establishment of permanent mechanisms for regularising similar cases. [See Option 1d, below] What supports EC action? This would have to be a new component of EC policy and also would require setting up a legal basis or incorporating such a requirement in the Mutual Information Exchange Mechanism (Council Decision 2006/688). 339 What works against EC action? It is unlikely that many MS will support this action, even though it might be welcomed by NGOs and other stakeholders. Option 1c: Definition and notification system for regularisations Rationale and possible impact: Although this would not constrain MS in their policy management, it would provide a very clear definition of what actually constitutes a regularisation programme or mechanism on a formal basis, and would require MS to provide advance notice of any regularisation 338 European Pact on Immigration and Asylum, version II, dated 4 th July 2008, section II, (a). 339 Council Decision 2006/688/EC of 5 October 2006 on the establishment of a mutual information mechanism concerning Member States' measures in the areas of asylum and immigration 110
initiative. In the case of permanent mechanisms, Member States should provide regular reports on nature and outcome of regularisation mechanisms and any relevant legislative changes. The process should also include improved statistical data collection and post hoc provision of those data to other MS. Thus, this would represent a small step towards some degree of harmonisation in the European management of illegal residents. Any definition of regularisation should aim to define the meaning of regularisation as precisely as possible. To do so, we suggest not only to define regularisation in the narrow sense, i.e. in the way we have defined regularisation for the purposes of this study, but also to define status adjustments that strictly speaking do not qualify as regularisations, because they a) do not result in the award of a fully fledged legal status (but only formalise documented illegal stay pending removal) or b) target persons who were strictly speaking not illegally resident. A systematic categorisation of regularisations and other status adjustments should thus consider at least three dimensions, namely (1) the nature of the status adjustment; (2) the nature of the adjustment procedure and (3) the target population, i.e. criteria for regularisation. Based on the definitions developed by this study, two basic types of regularisation procedure should be distinguished. 340 (1) Regularisation programmes (2) Regularisation mechanisms In addition, two other forms of status adjustment should be distinguished, namely (3) ‘Normalisation’, i.e. the adjustment of a limited or transitional status (asylum applicant status or other limited temporary statuses) to a more permanent regular status, which could be further distinguished by the type of procedure used (programme or mechanism). (4) Suspensions of removal decisions and residence bans not addressing the illegality of stay but providing some limited access to rights and protection from expulsion. Defining reasons for regularisation will require careful examination of Member States’ regularisation practices, in particular insofar as grants of residence permits on ‘humanitarian grounds’ through regularisation mechanisms are concerned. Here our study suggests that authorities enjoy a wide range of discretion and it is often not clear on which criteria regularisation is based. We suggest distinguishing the following basic criteria: - Length of residence - Employment - Family ties - Health - Length of the asylum procedure 340 See the definitions in §1 111
- Page 65 and 66: 5 Positions of social actors 5.1 In
- Page 67 and 68: Since the 1990s - and in some count
- Page 69 and 70: live their lives without fear.” 1
- Page 71 and 72: admission policies. 181 The Danish
- Page 73 and 74: and useful, if planned and implemen
- Page 75 and 76: depend on (unskilled) immigrant lab
- Page 77 and 78: migration”. 209 In the opinion of
- Page 79 and 80: stresses that “economic immigrati
- Page 81 and 82: undocumented migrants by the Brusse
- Page 83 and 84: NGO/Country Main activities in rega
- Page 85 and 86: NGO/Country Assessment of own role/
- Page 87 and 88: known that this makes them vulnerab
- Page 89 and 90: eaching reforms of the overall fram
- Page 91 and 92: Accord of March 2008 have not yet b
- Page 93 and 94: Table 8: Suggested target groups fo
- Page 95 and 96: policy measures that could be adopt
- Page 97 and 98: followed by the granting of any sta
- Page 99 and 100: for irregular migrants, while Italy
- Page 101 and 102: interpretations of the EU directive
- Page 103 and 104: considered to be “flexible, adapt
- Page 105 and 106: iii. Measures and sanctions against
- Page 107 and 108: of international protection, it is
- Page 109 and 110: 7.2 European Union approaches to il
- Page 111 and 112: immigration.” 321 Finally, the st
- Page 113 and 114: involve large numbers. Secondly, th
- Page 115: 8 Policy Options OPTION 1: REGULATI
- Page 119 and 120: Ultimately, a comprehensive definit
- Page 121 and 122: nor need it be seen as an endorseme
- Page 123 and 124: permits, Member States should take
- Page 125 and 126: OPTION 6: STRENGTHENING THE PRINCIP
- Page 127 and 128: Rationale and possible impact: Upon
- Page 129 and 130: information exchange could contribu
- Page 131 and 132: d) apprehension data should disting
- Page 133 and 134: OPTION 11: REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE
- Page 135 and 136: 9 Conclusions and preferred policy
- Page 137 and 138: management of irregular migration s
- Page 139 and 140: more reserved than that of Business
- Page 141 and 142: 9.5.2 Policy issues Previously (in
- Page 143 and 144: Option 6a Facilitating access to lo
- Page 145 and 146: Italy Ministerio Interno, Dipartime
- Page 147 and 148: Federacion Andalucia ACOGE, Respons
- Page 149 and 150: 11 References - secondary sources 1
- Page 151 and 152: United Kingdom, European Democrat G
- Page 153 and 154: Hollifield, J. (2004): ‘France: R
- Page 155 and 156: Papademetriou, D. (2005): The “Re
- Page 157 and 158: Watts, J. (2002): Immigration Polic
- Page 159: European Commission, Proposal for a
<strong>in</strong>itiative. In the case of permanent mechanisms, Member States should provide regular reports on<br />
nature and outcome of regularisation mechanisms and any relevant legislative changes. The process<br />
should also <strong>in</strong>clude improved statistical data collection and post hoc provision of those data to other<br />
MS. Thus, this would represent a small step towards some degree of harmonisation <strong>in</strong> the <strong>Europe</strong>an<br />
management of illegal residents.<br />
Any def<strong>in</strong>ition of regularisation should aim to def<strong>in</strong>e the mean<strong>in</strong>g of regularisation as precisely as<br />
possible. To do so, we suggest not only to def<strong>in</strong>e regularisation <strong>in</strong> the narrow sense, i.e. <strong>in</strong> the way we<br />
have def<strong>in</strong>ed regularisation for the purposes of this study, but also to def<strong>in</strong>e status adjustments that<br />
strictly speak<strong>in</strong>g do not qualify as regularisations, because they a) do not result <strong>in</strong> the award of a fully<br />
fledged legal status (but only formalise documented illegal stay pend<strong>in</strong>g removal) or b) target persons<br />
who were strictly speak<strong>in</strong>g not illegally resident.<br />
A systematic categorisation of regularisations and other status adjustments should thus consider at<br />
least three dimensions, namely (1) the nature of the status adjustment; (2) the nature of the adjustment<br />
procedure and (3) the target population, i.e. criteria for regularisation. Based on the def<strong>in</strong>itions<br />
developed by this study, two basic types of regularisation procedure should be dist<strong>in</strong>guished. 340<br />
(1) Regularisation programmes<br />
(2) Regularisation mechanisms<br />
In addition, two other forms of status adjustment should be dist<strong>in</strong>guished, namely<br />
(3) ‘Normalisation’, i.e. the adjustment of a limited or transitional status (asylum applicant status<br />
or other limited temporary statuses) to a more permanent regular status, which could be<br />
further dist<strong>in</strong>guished by the type of procedure used (programme or mechanism).<br />
(4) Suspensions of removal decisions and residence bans not address<strong>in</strong>g the illegality of stay but<br />
provid<strong>in</strong>g some limited access to rights and protection from expulsion.<br />
Def<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g reasons for regularisation will require careful exam<strong>in</strong>ation of Member States’ regularisation<br />
practices, <strong>in</strong> particular <strong>in</strong>sofar as grants of residence permits on ‘humanitarian grounds’ through<br />
regularisation mechanisms are concerned. Here our study suggests that authorities enjoy a wide range<br />
of discretion and it is often not clear on which criteria regularisation is based.<br />
We suggest dist<strong>in</strong>guish<strong>in</strong>g the follow<strong>in</strong>g basic criteria:<br />
- Length of residence<br />
- Employment<br />
- Family ties<br />
- Health<br />
- Length of the asylum procedure<br />
340 See the def<strong>in</strong>itions <strong>in</strong> §1<br />
111
Change language