REGINE Regularisations in Europe Final Report - European ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Acknowledgements We gratefully acknowledge the invaluable information and assistance provided by the many NGOs and trade unions across the European Union that responded to our requests; in particular, we should like to thank Michèle LeVoy and Don Flynn from PICUM and Marco Cilento from the ETUC. We are also grateful to those Member States that spent some considerable time and effort in answering our detailed questionnaire: we especially thank the staff of the Interior Ministry of Greece who provided invaluable corrections to, and guidance concerning, unpublished data. i
Preface In December 2007, the European Commission (DG Justice, Freedom and Security, Directorate B – Immigration, Asylum and Borders) commissioned the International Centre for Migration Policy Development (ICMPD) to undertake a Study on practices in the area of regularisation of illegally staying third-country nationals in the Member States of the EU. The study was commissioned subsequent to the Commission’s Communication on policy priorities in the fight against illegal immigration of third-country nationals (COM(2006) 402 of 19 July 2006), in which the Commission announced that it would undertake a study on regularisation, the purpose of which was to collect concrete factual, statistical, economic and legal information on issues related to regularisations, in order to inform future EU policy in this area. Thus, the aim of the study is to provide a thorough mapping of practices relating to the regularisation of third country nationals illegally resident in the 27 EU Member States, with comparative reflections on regularisation practices elsewhere. In addition, the study investigates the relationship of regularisation policies to the overall migration policy framework, including the diverse interlinkages between regularisation policies, protection issues and refugee policies and also the role of regularisation regarding the framework for legal migration. Moreover, the study examines the political position of different stakeholders towards regularisation policies on the national and the EU levels. Finally, the study examines potential options for policies on regularisation on the European level, incorporating Member States as well as other stakeholders’ views on possible instruments on the European level. This study would not have been possible without the support it received from a wide range of individuals and institutions, including the European Commission, individual Member States, NGOs and trade unions and colleagues at ICMPD. However, the opinions expressed in this study are entirely those of the authors and cannot be taken to reflect any official views of the European Union, individual Member States or ICMPD. It is organised as follows: §1 introduces relevant terms and definitions and also sets the parameters of the study. §2 looks in some detail at earlier comparative studies of regularisations and their impact; §3 presents the empirical findings of the report, with a particular emphasis on policy outcomes. §4 is a summary of Member State positions on regularisation, as identified from ICMPD questionnaire responses, while §5 is a more detailed analysis of the positions of various social actors – mostly derived from questionnaire responses. §6 outlines the major provisions relevant in international and regional (Council of Europe) law, and also identifies the policy stances of relevant international organisations. §7 is a synopsis of the relevant EU legislation and principles. ii
Page 1 and 2: REGINE Regularisations in Europe St
Page 3: CONTRIBUTORS Principal authors Mart
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 and 32: whether it can be attributed to pul
Page 33 and 34: Box 2: 3-tier earned regularisation
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
Page 83 and 84:
NGO/Country Main activities in rega
Page 85 and 86:
NGO/Country Assessment of own role/
Page 87 and 88:
known that this makes them vulnerab
Page 89 and 90:
eaching reforms of the overall fram
Page 91 and 92:
Accord of March 2008 have not yet b
Page 93 and 94:
Table 8: Suggested target groups fo
Page 95 and 96:
policy measures that could be adopt
Page 97 and 98:
followed by the granting of any sta
Page 99 and 100:
for irregular migrants, while Italy
Page 101 and 102:
interpretations of the EU directive
Page 103 and 104:
considered to be “flexible, adapt
Page 105 and 106:
iii. Measures and sanctions against
Page 107 and 108:
of international protection, it is
Page 109 and 110:
7.2 European Union approaches to il
Page 111 and 112:
immigration.” 321 Finally, the st
Page 113 and 114:
involve large numbers. Secondly, th
Page 115 and 116:
8 Policy Options OPTION 1: REGULATI
Page 117 and 118:
initiative. In the case of permanen
Page 119 and 120:
Ultimately, a comprehensive definit
Page 121 and 122:
nor need it be seen as an endorseme
Page 123 and 124:
permits, Member States should take
Page 125 and 126:
OPTION 6: STRENGTHENING THE PRINCIP
Page 127 and 128:
Rationale and possible impact: Upon
Page 129 and 130:
information exchange could contribu
Page 131 and 132:
d) apprehension data should disting
Page 133 and 134:
OPTION 11: REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE
Page 135 and 136:
9 Conclusions and preferred policy
Page 137 and 138:
management of irregular migration s
Page 139 and 140:
more reserved than that of Business
Page 141 and 142:
9.5.2 Policy issues Previously (in
Page 143 and 144:
Option 6a Facilitating access to lo
Page 145 and 146:
Italy Ministerio Interno, Dipartime
Page 147 and 148:
Federacion Andalucia ACOGE, Respons
Page 149 and 150:
11 References - secondary sources 1
Page 151 and 152:
United Kingdom, European Democrat G
Page 153 and 154:
Hollifield, J. (2004): ‘France: R
Page 155 and 156:
Papademetriou, D. (2005): The “Re
Page 157 and 158:
Watts, J. (2002): Immigration Polic
Page 159:
European Commission, Proposal for a
show all

REGINE Regularisations in Europe Final Report - European ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?