REGINE Regularisations in Europe Final Report - European ...

programmes (1): exceptional humanitarian programmes; (2) family reunification programmes; (3)
permanent/ continuous programmes regularising irregular migrants on a case-by-case basis; (4) oneoff,
employment based programmes aimed at regularising large numbers of irregular immigrants; and
(5) earned regularisation programmes. The Council of Europe typology thus does away with some of
the inconsistencies of the earlier Odysseus typology and provides a typology that lends itself more
easily as the basis for a systematic classification of regularisation schemes in individual countries. In
particular, two points are noteworthy.
First, the typology stresses that family based programmes constitute programmes in their own right
and need to be seen as different from humanitarian programmes. As our own study shows (see infra),
family based regularisations are indeed an important phenomenon in a number of Member States and
also point to deficiencies in regard to access to the right to family reunification. Secondly, the Council
of Europe typology adds a new category of regularisations, namely ‘earned regularisation’, a term that
has emerged in the US context and also has made its way into British debates on regularisation
programmes. 88 According to the report, “the idea behind these programmes is to provide migrants
with a provisional, temporary living and working permit and to have them “earn” the right to have the
permit extended or become permanent through the fulfilment of various criteria, such as knowing the
language of the host country, participating in community activities, having stable employment and
paying taxes.” 89 A concrete proposal how such a scheme could look like has been developed for the
US by MPI President Demetrios G. Papademetriou and is presented in Box 2, below.
In its review of characteristics of regularisation programmes, their rationale, their implementation and
their possible impact, the Council of Europe report repeats many of the points already made by the
Odysseus study and Levinson. It differs in that it takes a more comprehensive view of regularisation
and explicitly discusses regularisation as part of broader policies on irregular migration. Thus, the
report recommends that “Regularisation programmes should be examined as one policy tool that, in
conjunction with other measures (protecting the rights of migrants, increased internal and external
migration controls, individual return programmes and development partnerships with countries of
origin) could be a valuable tool for managing migration.” 90
88 See Papademetriou, D. (2005): op. cit.
89 It should be noted, however, that in public debates on ‘earned regularisation’, the term is often used in a
different meaning, notably in the sense that integrated, long-term resident illegal migrants should be considered
as having earned a right to residence.
90 Greenway, J. (2007): op. cit., p. 2.
26