REGINE Regularisations in Europe Final Report - European ...

to protect vulnerable groups, to compensate for deficiencies in immigration management, to improve
access to basic social rights, or to promote the integration of migrants. Principally, NGOs believe that
they should be more involved in the policy design of regularisation programmes, as they are the bestinformed
on the situation of irregular migrants. NGOs also seem to be supportive of permanent
regularisation mechanisms, particularly in cases of hardship.
9.3.2 Views on an EU role in regularisation policy
Five Member States are, in principle, opposed to any regulation of this policy area: interestingly, these
are all countries that are opposed to regularisation programmes, and two of these do not even have a
regularisation mechanism. Three Member States support an EU legal framework that would respect
national policy needs. Overall, there is little support for a strong EU role in this policy area: what does
seem to command enthusiasm among Member States is a stronger information exchange mechanism
and the development of policy expertise. The latter might consist of identification of good (and bad)
practices, the use of statistical data techniques, and generally learning from other countries’
experiences.
National trade unions – perhaps surprisingly – express views not so very different from those of
Member States: few favour strong EU regulation, some would support a package of broader measures
(such as regulation of legal migration), and most are supportive of a limited role for the EU whilst
respecting different national policy needs. The ETUC, whilst not stating a clear policy position,
implicitly favours a broad Europe policy approach that would reduce the actual need for employmentbased
regularisations: this would include the promotion of economic migration channels, with a
common EU framework for entry and residence; establishing a clear consensus between states and
social partners about labour market needs; and moving away from the current two-tier migration
policy approach that favours high-skilled labour migration and denies the need (and legal recruitment
channels) for low-skilled workers. The ETUC also recommends the limited use of regularisation
mechanisms, or “bridges out of illegality”.
The positions of two major European-level employers associations (BusinessEurope and UEAPME)
are not identical. BusinessEurope, while stressing the principle of subsidiarity, is not opposed to the
elaboration of common procedures and other measures; its emphasis seems to be on the reduction of
bureaucracy and other practical obstacles, which tend to push businesses into irregular employment of
migrant workers. BusinessEurope does seem to be opposed to strengthening and regulating the rights
of legal immigrant workers, while supporting measures against illegal migration – including employer
sanctions, returns, and possible regularisation where return is not possible. UEAPME 371 represents
SMEs, whose involvement with irregular employment of immigrants is undoubtedly greater than for
large enterprises: furthermore, bureaucratic hurdles (both practical and fiscal) represent greater
problems for their members. Thus, UEAPME strongly supports the EU framework directive on a
single application procedure for migrant workers, emphasises the need for national authorities to
determine labour market need for immigrant workers, and considers that over-regulation of the labour
market is a primary cause of irregular employment. Their position on employer sanctions is rather
371 European Association of Craft, Small and Medium Sized Enterprises
132