REGINE Regularisations in Europe Final Report - European ...

REGINE Regularisations in Europe Final Report - European ... REGINE Regularisations in Europe Final Report - European ...

pedz.uni.mannheim.de
from pedz.uni.mannheim.de More from this publisher
18.05.2014 Views

‘Nationality’ and ‘Ethnic ties’ are definitely not relevant for benefiting from regularisation mechanisms, as they are mentioned most often as ‘not relevant’ and hardly at all as ‘desired’ or ‘essential’. In general, ‘length of residence’ and ‘presence in the territory before a certain time point’ are essential only for five mechanisms, but are seen as not relevant in 10 and 14 mechanisms respectively. Figure 6, below, shows the criteria or conditions seen as ‘essential’ by frequency of occurrence in the 21 mechanisms for which information has been provided. Figure 6 Conditions considered as essential 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Presence in the territory before a certain date Length of residence Family ties Ethnic ties Nationality Evidence of integration efforts Lack of a criminal record Employment Health condition Other 36

Box 3: Regularisation policy in Switzerland From 1945, Switzerland followed a temporary worker immigration programme to fill its economic demand for unskilled labour, with rotation of workers to avoid settlement of migrant groups. Until very recently, Switzerland denied the existence of long-term immigrant residents – even though the phenomenon had started to appear in the 1970s. Immigration practice was changed in 1991 and again in 1998 to conform to EEA (European Economic Area) rules, such that persons from countries outside the EU or EFTA (European Free Trade Area) could not be given work permits, unless they were highly qualified. A 2005 immigration law, replacing the previous one of 1931, strengthened the restrictions on immigration from outside EFTA (by setting quotas) and increased the maximum detention term for illegal immigrants and asylum-seekers from one to two years, while also introducing criminal and other sanctions for human smuggling, irregular employment, and marriages of convenience. At the same time, draconian rules on asylum were introduced (effective from 2007) along with reduced benefits for asylum-seekers – making it the harshest asylum law in Europe, according to UNHCR. The 2000 Census recorded 22.4% of the population as foreign-born and 20.5% with a foreign nationality; the principal immigrant group is now citizens of the former Yugoslavia (24% of foreigners) followed by Italians, at 22%. Illegal residents (the term used is sans papiers) are thought to number between 50—300,000 according to government estimates, which averages 2.4% of total population. (This makes Switzerland, according to our classification in Table 5, a country with a very high (VH) stock of irregular migrants.) According to expert opinion, these irregular migrants are mostly from Latin America, former Yugoslavia, Eastern Europe, and Turkey; they tend to be of prime working age (20-40), with unequal distribution across the country of genders and family status. Some entered Switzerland on tourist visas; others lost or failed to renew their legal residence status. However, the term sans papiers is most frequently used to denote temporary workers who have lost their legal status, family members of these, and rejected asylum-seekers who have remained and work informally. It was not until a particular situation occurred in the latter half of the 1990s – involving nationals of the former Yugoslavia – that regularisation became a matter of political contention and public interest. Since 1991, seasonal workers from countries outside of the EEA had been denied work permits: the Yugoslav seasonal workers were threatened with deportation as they could not complete the four years required for a one year residence permit. In 1998, the government rejected a proposal made by the National Council for a mass amnesty; instead, they opted for individual regularisation on the basis of ‘hardship’. In 2001, a circular was issued (the ‘Metzler’ Circular) outlining the criteria used for case-by-case regularisations. Since the cantons are responsible for case-by-case regularisations (subject to approval by the Confederation) and also execute federal deportation orders, the position adopted by each canton is crucial. Over the period 1996—2000, the Frenchspeaking canton of Vaud supported regularisation of Bosnian migrants on the basis of hardship, although the federal government refused to do so. In 1997 the canton refused to implement deportation orders; eventually, in 2000, 220 families were granted permits by the federal government. A second political mobilisation also involved the canton of Vaud, and concerned Kosovar migrants; they were former seasonal workers who had applied for asylum at the outbreak of the Kosovo war and were now threatened with deportation. Again, the political mobilisation – which involved trade unions and publicity campaigns – was successful and the Swiss Federal Council regularised 6,000 Kosovars who had spent more than eight years in the canton. Although these regularisations are ostensibly case-by-case, in reality they are collective programmes. Since 2001, there have been 14 parliamentary inquiries into the matter of sans papiers. Left politicians demanded large-scale amnesties, while most centre parties insisted on case-by-case regularisation on the grounds of ‘hardship’. The latter is seen as the only solution to the problem, although there have been criticisms of the lack of transparency of the process. Since 2001, 3,694 persons from various countries of the world applied, with an acceptance rate of 57%. A regularisation campaign aimed at non-deportable rejected asylumseekers in 2000, with onerous criteria for applications, benefited 6,500 Sri Lankans: each case was reviewed individually by the Federal Office for Refugees (FOR). Rejected asylum-seekers from other countries were not eligible, and had to ask their canton to request the FOR to re-examine their cases. In 2006, the Federal Commission for Foreigners called for harmonisation across the cantons of treatment of cases of hardship; whilst in December 2007, a new call for mass regularisation of irregular migrants has been made by socialist politicians in Zurich. The official position on regularisation taken by the Federal Council is unstintingly one of opposition to largescale amnesties, on the grounds that they promote future illegal migrations, encourage illegal employment, reward illegality, and might increase recorded unemployment (inter alia). Thus, they insist on case-by-case evaluations on the humanitarian basis of ‘hardship’. Many cantons, Swiss trade unions and other sectors of civil society take a different view, tending to emphasise the important economic role of undocumented workers and their integration in society. Thus, there is no consensus on policy, except at the federal political level. SOURCE: REGINE country study on Switzerland 37

‘Nationality’ and ‘Ethnic ties’ are def<strong>in</strong>itely not relevant for benefit<strong>in</strong>g from regularisation<br />

mechanisms, as they are mentioned most often as ‘not relevant’ and hardly at all as ‘desired’ or<br />

‘essential’. In general, ‘length of residence’ and ‘presence <strong>in</strong> the territory before a certa<strong>in</strong> time po<strong>in</strong>t’<br />

are essential only for five mechanisms, but are seen as not relevant <strong>in</strong> 10 and 14 mechanisms<br />

respectively.<br />

Figure 6, below, shows the criteria or conditions seen as ‘essential’ by frequency of occurrence <strong>in</strong> the<br />

21 mechanisms for which <strong>in</strong>formation has been provided.<br />

Figure 6<br />

Conditions considered as essential<br />

14<br />

12<br />

10<br />

8<br />

6<br />

4<br />

2<br />

0<br />

Presence <strong>in</strong> the territory<br />

before a certa<strong>in</strong> date<br />

Length of residence<br />

Family ties<br />

Ethnic ties<br />

Nationality<br />

Evidence of <strong>in</strong>tegration<br />

efforts<br />

Lack of a crim<strong>in</strong>al record<br />

Employment<br />

Health condition<br />

Other<br />

36

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!