REGINE Regularisations in Europe Final Report - European ...
REGINE Regularisations in Europe Final Report - European ... REGINE Regularisations in Europe Final Report - European ...
Rationale and possible impact: The operation of the Family Reunification Directive is highly variable across the EU, leaving many families with the choice of either living apart or residing as illegal aliens. Given the trend in case law of the European Court of Human Rights, especially concerning the concept of family life (Art. 8), it is reasonable for the Commission to adopt a more active role in pushing for legal status of family members and easier access to family reunification procedures (see §6.2). It is unlikely that there would be increased migration inflows: it is very likely that there would be increased numbers of legal residents from this policy proposal. What supports EC action? Many Member States actually do carry out good practices and minimal restriction on family reunification rights. What works against EC action? Certain MS appear not to favour family unity as a policy objective, or at least consider that setting high minimum standards for this is their national prerogative. 128
9 Conclusions and preferred policy options 9.1 Regularisation practices in the EU(27) As has been demonstrated throughout this study, there is a wide range of specific causes of ‘illegal stay’ across the EU: Table 1 (§1) shows that there is a complex constellation of legal/illegal entry, legal/illegal residence, legal/illegal employment and whether a person is registered (and known to public authorities) or not. A recent Commission memo estimates that about half of the overall stock of illegal migrants results from illegal entry into the territory of a Member State, while another half is due to overstaying of visas and residence permits. 364 Our study, by contrast, suggests that withdrawal and loss of legal status – that is, illegality as a consequence of administrative procedures – is a third and important, albeit difficult to quantify, source of illegal resident populations. 365 Thus, irregular migration is not driven by a single logic, nor can there be simple responses to irregular migration. Most importantly, irregular migration is inextricably intertwined with the overall migration policy framework. There is also a variety of opinions across EU Member States regarding what actually constitutes regularisation of third country nationals who are illegally staying. This diversity of approaches toward, and understanding of, regularisation to some degree reflects the considerable complexity of irregular migration as a social phenomenon: unsurprisingly, there is also a wide range of policies designed to address the problem. Table 5 (§3) summarises the policy positions of Member States, and §3.2.1 hypothesises six clusters or policy groupings – some of which are in ideological competition with others. Nevertheless, few Member States (five out of 27) have absolutely no policies or practices of regularisation – and of these five, three have recently acceded to the EU. Over the last decade, three southern Member States have engaged in large-scale regularisation programmes, all of which seem strongly related to deficits of formal labour immigration channels, although this view is challenged by those Member States. Other (mostly northern) countries have engaged heavily in case-by-case regularisations – usually in order to address a different set of problems, such as rejected asylumseekers or non-deportable aliens. Yet others have attempted to normalise a transition situation, moving from state socialism within the Soviet bloc to western liberal democracies. In total, our conservative estimate for the EU(27) of the number of persons involved in regularisation of one sort or another over the period 1996-2007 is between 5 and 6 million. 366 The sheer magnitude of this figure indicates the importance of regularisation policy for the EU. 364 European Commission (2008): New Tools for an Integrated European Border Management Strategy. Memo 08/85. 13 February 2008. Brussels 365 It is safe to assume that the largest share is made up of rejected asylum seekers. However, as our report shows, there are numerous other cases in which third country nationals lose their previous status and lapse into illegality. Although relatively unimportant in quantitative terms (as compared to rejected asylum seekers), some of these cases highlight important gaps of legislation and deficiencies of administrative procedures regarding issuing and renewing residence permits. 366 See §3.1 et seq. 129
- 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 and 116: 8 Policy Options OPTION 1: REGULATI
- Page 117 and 118: initiative. In the case of permanen
- 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: OPTION 11: REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE
- 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
Rationale and possible impact: The operation of the Family Reunification Directive is highly<br />
variable across the EU, leav<strong>in</strong>g many families with the choice of either liv<strong>in</strong>g apart or resid<strong>in</strong>g as<br />
illegal aliens. Given the trend <strong>in</strong> case law of the <strong>Europe</strong>an Court of Human Rights, especially<br />
concern<strong>in</strong>g the concept of family life (Art. 8), it is reasonable for the Commission to adopt a more<br />
active role <strong>in</strong> push<strong>in</strong>g for legal status of family members and easier access to family reunification<br />
procedures (see §6.2). It is unlikely that there would be <strong>in</strong>creased migration <strong>in</strong>flows: it is very likely<br />
that there would be <strong>in</strong>creased numbers of legal residents from this policy proposal.<br />
What supports EC action? Many Member States actually do carry out good practices and m<strong>in</strong>imal<br />
restriction on family reunification rights.<br />
What works aga<strong>in</strong>st EC action? Certa<strong>in</strong> MS appear not to favour family unity as a policy objective,<br />
or at least consider that sett<strong>in</strong>g high m<strong>in</strong>imum standards for this is their national prerogative.<br />
128
Change language