REGINE Regularisations in Europe Final Report - European ...

In her assessment of the impact of regularisation programmes, Levinson distinguishes four
dimensions: (1) political impact; (2) economic impact; (3) impact on patterns and stocks of
undocumented migration; and (4) socio-economic impact.
(1) Political Impact: Levinson observes that most regularisation programmes have been
preceded and accompanied by extensive public debate. In various countries, immigrant
advocacy coalitions composed of migrant organisations, NGOs, religious organisations and
trade unions have emerged through public debate on regularisation programmes which have in
some cases decisively influenced the policy debate on regularisations, as well as the design and
implementation of relevant programmes. This line of argument has been pursued in more detail
by Barbara Laubenthal, whose recent study on the emergence of pro-regularisation movements
in Europe traces the emergence of such movements in France, Spain and Switzerland. 84
Laubenthal shows that in the context of the three countries studied, it was specifically the
imminent revocation of (limited) rights of undocumented migrants that triggered large-scale
mobilisation of pro-immigrant groups, as well as undocumented migrants themselves. In
addition, she shows that in all three contexts, preceding changes in civil society, notably the
increasing attention paid to social exclusion and marginalisation, were important factors
enabling regularisation to be successfully framed as an instrument against discrimination and
social exclusion.
(2) Economic Impact: Levinson concludes from her literature survey that large-scale
regularisation programmes may actually lead to increased informality in the labour market and
thus – as a stand-alone measure – may be insufficient to combat undeclared work and reduce
the size of the underground economy. The main reasons for these at best mixed results are the
unwillingness of employers to pay higher wages for legalised workers and the resulting
structurally embedded high demand for irregular migrant work, along with migrant networks
that channel immigrants into certain sectors of the economy and not others. Levinson stresses
that regularisation – in combination with other instruments – may still be useful: The challenge
is “ integrating migrants well enough into the social and economic fabric so that the
underground economy does not remain a large pull factor.” 85 Finally, large- scale
regularisations may be an excellent tool for obtaining information on labour market
participation and the position of irregular migrants in the labour market.
(3) Impact on undocumented migration: Levinson points out that the success of regularisation
programmes to reduce the stock of undocumented migrants has been mixed. On the basis of
research on the US Levinson argues that undocumented migration has, contrary to the
objectives of the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) 1986, not been reduced and has
further grown after the 1986 legalisation programme carried out under the act. However, she
does not discuss whether the growth of irregular migration to the US has been coincidental or
84 Laubenthal, B. (2006): Der Kampf um Legalisierung. Soziale Bewegungen illegaler Migranten in Frankreich,
Spanien und der Schweiz. Frankfurt: Campus; the main findings of the study have been published also as
Laubenthal, B. (2007): ‘The Emergence of Pro-Regularization Movements in Europe’. International Migration
45/3, pp. 101-133.
85 Levinson, A. (2005): op. cit. p.9.
24