REGINE Regularisations in Europe Final Report - European ...
REGINE Regularisations in Europe Final Report - European ... 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
Box 2: 3-tier earned regularisation scheme Overall objectives of an earned regularisation programme • Alternative to one-off large-scale regularisation programme • Reduce the stock of illegal migrants, and in particular illegal immigrants working in the informal economy • Reduce the size of the informal economy Tiers/ Characteristics Purpose/Advantages Tier 1 • Applicants would qualify automatically for probationary status and would be issued a residence and work permit • Registration of illegal immigrants, bringing illegal immigrants under the control of the state, • Through low thresholds to registration programme would reach the largest possible number of irregular migrants • Through low thresholds to registration biggest social problems associated with irregular residence and work would be removed, including violations of labour regulations, exploitation, disregard for social protection, evasion of taxes Tier 2 • After 3-5 years applicants regularised under Tier 1 would be able to obtain permanent residence (tier 2) • Subject to a number of criteria, including stable formal sector employment, paying taxes, language skills, civic participation, etc. • Applicants would be awarded credits/ points for meeting each (or some) of these criteria; • Permanent residence would be awarded after acquiring a number of points in a given time frame (3-5 years), plus a bonus year for those who have met most, but not all points yet • (Substantial) fees would be covered by immigrants Tier 3 • Would target for those who failed to pass the test under tier 2 • Persons under tier 3 would be granted a two year extension of their residence and work permit and be required to their home country within this period Source: Papademetriou, D. (2005: 12-13) • Would make administration more orderly and manageable, • Would reduce some of the problems associated to large-scale programmes carried out in a short span of time (backlogs, fraud, etc.) • Applicants would be able to apply once they have attained the number of points • Would offer a flexible tool to reward irregular migrants wishing to remain on a longer term basis for their incorporation into the host society • Would provide a transparent and clear mechanism to award residence rights • Creates incentives for ongoing “positive behaviour” • Temporary extension of the work and residence permit would increase the likelihood of voluntary return • Would reduce the negative consequences of immediate enforcement of return The report remarks critically that “[r]egularisation programmes have been largely designed and carried out as standalone policy efforts to control irregular migration, and then often paid little attention to the realities of the labour market needs of employers or to the behaviour of migrants. As a stand-alone policy to control migration, regularisation programmes are doomed to failure, since they 27
- Page 1 and 2: REGINE Regularisations in Europe St
- Page 3 and 4: CONTRIBUTORS Principal authors Mart
- Page 5 and 6: Preface In December 2007, the Europ
- Page 7 and 8: 1 Terms, definitions and scope 1.1
- Page 9 and 10: Table 1: Types of illegal or irregu
- Page 11 and 12: 1.3 Freedom of movement rights and
- Page 13 and 14: 1.4 The meaning of ‘regularisatio
- Page 15 and 16: Regularisation Mechanism A regulari
- Page 17 and 18: 2 Previous comparative studies on r
- Page 19 and 20: Generally, the focus of SOPEMI repo
- Page 21 and 22: enefiting from regularisation has s
- Page 23 and 24: amnesty and moreover involved (limi
- Page 25 and 26: 2. 3 The Odysseus study on regulari
- Page 27 and 28: etween expediency and obligations c
- Page 29 and 30: Sunderhaus identifies several ratio
- Page 31: whether it can be attributed to pul
- Page 35 and 36: measures; it does address questions
- Page 37 and 38: 3.1.1 Regularisation Programmes Ove
- Page 39 and 40: Nine Member States provided details
- Page 41 and 42: Figure 3 Grants of regularised stat
- Page 43 and 44: Box 3: Regularisation policy in Swi
- Page 45 and 46: 3.2 Regularisation as a policy resp
- Page 47 and 48: Table 5: Comparative table of regul
- Page 49 and 50: case in Europe, alongside the more
- Page 51 and 52: that a year after regularisation so
- Page 53 and 54: treatment according to nationality,
- Page 55 and 56: iii. issues of advance planning iv.
- Page 57 and 58: iv. the requirement to appear in pe
- Page 59 and 60: denying residence permits to existi
- Page 61 and 62: efugees under the provisions of the
- Page 63 and 64: 4 Government positions on policy 15
- Page 65 and 66: 5 Positions of social actors 5.1 In
- Page 67 and 68: Since the 1990s - and in some count
- Page 69 and 70: live their lives without fear.” 1
- Page 71 and 72: admission policies. 181 The Danish
- Page 73 and 74: and useful, if planned and implemen
- Page 75 and 76: depend on (unskilled) immigrant lab
- Page 77 and 78: migration”. 209 In the opinion of
- Page 79 and 80: stresses that “economic immigrati
- Page 81 and 82: undocumented migrants by the Brusse
Box 2: 3-tier earned regularisation scheme<br />
Overall objectives of an earned regularisation programme • Alternative to one-off large-scale<br />
regularisation programme<br />
• Reduce the stock of illegal migrants,<br />
and <strong>in</strong> particular illegal immigrants<br />
work<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> the <strong>in</strong>formal economy<br />
• Reduce the size of the <strong>in</strong>formal<br />
economy<br />
Tiers/ Characteristics<br />
Purpose/Advantages<br />
Tier 1<br />
• Applicants would qualify automatically for probationary<br />
status and would be issued a residence and work permit<br />
• Registration of illegal immigrants,<br />
br<strong>in</strong>g<strong>in</strong>g illegal immigrants under the<br />
control of the state,<br />
• Through low thresholds to registration<br />
programme would reach the largest<br />
possible number of irregular migrants<br />
• Through low thresholds to registration<br />
biggest social problems associated<br />
with irregular residence and work<br />
would be removed, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g<br />
violations of labour regulations,<br />
exploitation, disregard for social<br />
protection, evasion of taxes<br />
Tier 2<br />
• After 3-5 years applicants regularised under Tier 1 would<br />
be able to obta<strong>in</strong> permanent residence (tier 2)<br />
• Subject to a number of criteria, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g stable formal<br />
sector employment, pay<strong>in</strong>g taxes, language skills, civic<br />
participation, etc.<br />
• Applicants would be awarded credits/ po<strong>in</strong>ts for meet<strong>in</strong>g<br />
each (or some) of these criteria;<br />
• Permanent residence would be awarded after acquir<strong>in</strong>g a<br />
number of po<strong>in</strong>ts <strong>in</strong> a given time frame (3-5 years), plus a<br />
bonus year for those who have met most, but not all<br />
po<strong>in</strong>ts yet<br />
• (Substantial) fees would be covered by immigrants<br />
Tier 3<br />
• Would target for those who failed to pass the test under<br />
tier 2<br />
• Persons under tier 3 would be granted a two year<br />
extension of their residence and work permit and be<br />
required to their home country with<strong>in</strong> this period<br />
Source: Papademetriou, D. (2005: 12-13)<br />
• Would make adm<strong>in</strong>istration more orderly<br />
and manageable,<br />
• Would reduce some of the problems<br />
associated to large-scale programmes<br />
carried out <strong>in</strong> a short span of time<br />
(backlogs, fraud, etc.)<br />
• Applicants would be able to apply once<br />
they have atta<strong>in</strong>ed the number of po<strong>in</strong>ts<br />
• Would offer a flexible tool to reward<br />
irregular migrants wish<strong>in</strong>g to rema<strong>in</strong> on a<br />
longer term basis for their <strong>in</strong>corporation<br />
<strong>in</strong>to the host society<br />
• Would provide a transparent and clear<br />
mechanism to award residence rights<br />
• Creates <strong>in</strong>centives for ongo<strong>in</strong>g “positive<br />
behaviour”<br />
• Temporary extension of the work and<br />
residence permit would <strong>in</strong>crease the<br />
likelihood of voluntary return<br />
• Would reduce the negative consequences<br />
of immediate enforcement of return<br />
The report remarks critically that “[r]egularisation programmes have been largely designed and<br />
carried out as standalone policy efforts to control irregular migration, and then often paid little<br />
attention to the realities of the labour market needs of employers or to the behaviour of migrants. As a<br />
stand-alone policy to control migration, regularisation programmes are doomed to failure, s<strong>in</strong>ce they<br />
27
Change language