REGINE Regularisations in Europe Final Report - European ...

Generally, the focus of SOPEMI reports, as well as more specialised OECD publications, 42 is on
social and economic aspects of regularisation policies. In particular, OECD reports have gone the
furthest in assessing the impact of regularisation exercises on labour markets, most notably the
informal economy and migration patterns. In so doing, the OECD studies have provided important
insights into specific aspects of regularisation policy not sufficiently covered by most other studies. In
the recent 2007 International Migration Outlook 43 , the OECD sees the persistence of regularisation as
an actual or potential policy tool in a number of its Member States. However, it also observes a shift
from general amnesties to targeted regularisations which, according to the OECD, also muster more
support than general amnesties. 44
The OECD points out several possible advantages of regularisation programmes. First, they provide
information to the authorities, for example, “on the number of immigrants meeting the required
conditions, on the networks which have enabled undocumented foreigners to remain illegally and in
the economic sectors most concerned.” 45 Secondly, regularisation programmes “provide an
opportunity to accord a status and rights to foreign workers and residents who have been in the
country for several years in an illegal situation.” Thirdly, “where numbers of illegal immigrants reach
critical dimensions, regularisation can meet public security objectives”, in particular where the
prevention of exploitation and the taking-up of illicit or criminal activities by illegal immigrants is
concerned. 46 Thus, by opening up broader employment opportunities, regularisation programmes may
discourage the pursuit of unlawful activities. 47
However, the OECD notes also various disadvantages and negative consequences of regularisation
programmes. First, they may encourage future illegal immigration. Secondly, they can inadvertently
reward law-breaking and queue-jumping, thus disadvantaging lawful immigrants. Regularisation
programmes may also have negative policy impacts in that frequent recourse to large-scale
regularisation programmes may inhibit the elaboration and improvement of formal admission
systems. Finally, the OECD observes that large scale employment-based regularisation programmes
have often been associated with massive fraud – notably in Spain and Italy – indicating that key
objectives of employment based programmes, namely the formalisation of informal work, have not
42 OECD Secretariat (2000): ‘Some Lessons from Recent Regularisation Programmes’. In: OECD (ed.):
Combating the Illegal Employment of Foreign Workers. Paris: OECD, pp.53-69. See also Garçon, J.P. (2000):
‘Amnesty Programmes: Recent Lessons’. In: Çinar, D., Gächter, A., Waldrauch, H. (eds): Irregular. Migration:
Dynamics, Impact, Policy Options. Eurosocial Reports. Volume 67. Vienna: European Centre for Social
Welfare Policy and Research, pp.217-224.
43 OECD (2007): op.cit. p.106.
44 It is debatable, however, to what extent the perceived shift towards targeted regularisation programmes is
actually a consequence of the shift away from the almost exclusive focus on employment based regularisations
in most earlier publications by the OECD and particular its neglect of regularisations on humanitarian grounds,
family ties, reasons linked to length of asylum procedures, complementary protection, etc. In other words, the
perceived shift towards targeted regularisations may be the consequence of change in perspective on
regularisations as much as it reflects changes in actual practice.
45 OECD (2000): op. cit. p.81
46 Ibid.; for a recent review of European studies on regularisations as a tool to address vulnerability, social
exclusion and exploitation of irregular migrants see A.Kraler (2009), Regularisation of Irregular Immigrants -
An Instrument to Address Vulnerability, Social Exclusion and Exploitation of Irregular Migrants in
Employment? Paper written on behalf of the Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA), forthcoming at
http://fra.europa.eu
47 OECD (2003): op. cit. p.89
13