REGINE Regularisations in Europe Final Report - European ...

management of irregular migration should be chosen, and used, by the MS in order to avoid such
conflicts. Secondly, where there are issues of principle, or ideology, such as the ‘known’
consequences of regularisation programmes, we insist on relying on evidence as opposed to
formulating policy positions on the bases of unsubstantiated beliefs. The existing literature, and our
own research, provides no evidence of the ‘pull factor’ for regularisation programmes: the situation is
far more complex, and involves many more variables which are typically not under political control.
Thirdly, the policy impasse of the USA – accompanied by massive increases in irregular stocks – is
not such a catastrophe within the US system. Indeed, we might even argue that it supports a particular
form of capitalism that relies upon a plentiful supply of low-cost flexible labour. Such a policy
impasse within the EU would create much more trouble: we thus advise against setting out ideological
political positions on this difficult topic. Evidence-based policy is more likely to engender cross-party
(and cross-national) political support, and it is this approach that we have followed in our study. In
particular, we want to emphasise that any policy debate on regularisation needs to be based on a
thorough understanding of different rationales for undertaking regularisation measures as well as an
understanding of the forms, volume and frequency of such measures.
9.3 Policy positions of Member States and social actors 370
9.3.1 Views on national policies for regularisation
There is no consensus within the EU(27) concerning the need for regularisation policies. Nine
Member States express extreme reservation about the policy instrument – mostly in the belief that it
constitutes a pull-factor for future illegal migration flows. Three newly-acceded MS believe that a
case-by-case mechanism is sufficient. MS generally posit a variety of policy objectives associated
with regularisation – including managing informal employment, immigration management,
humanitarian issues, dealing with non-deportable aliens, inter alia. On the whole, government
positions correspond closely with past practices.
Trade unions tend to see regularisation as an employment-based issue, and in some countries (France,
Italy, Portugal, Spain, Greece and the UK) have been important driving forces for regularisation
campaigns. Current campaigns in Belgium, France, Ireland and the UK are strongly supported by
unions; in general, trade unions are cautious supporters of regularisation policies. Employers
organisations currently seem to be largely indifferent to the issue of regularisation, in contrast to their
position in previous decades; exceptions lie with current campaigns in France and the UK, where
business groups belong to broad coalitions of social partners demanding regularisation programmes.
NGOs are the most active actors concerning mobilisation and campaigns for regularisation
programmes – most notably in Belgium, France, Portugal, Spain, the UK, Ireland and Germany.
However, the sheer diversity of NGO activities is reflected in their differing objectives and target
groups, making it difficult to characterise a ‘typical’ NGO position. Nevertheless, all are agreed that
regularisation is an appropriate policy instrument – whether to manage the extent of illegal residents,
370 The detailed sources for identification of these positions are given in §4 (for Member States) and §5 for trade
unions, employers associations and NGOs.
131