REGINE Regularisations in Europe Final Report - European ...

case in Europe, alongside the more normal immigration—asylum input. Malta also has an asylum
system problem, but one stemming from illegal immigration feeding directly into the asylum process
and applicants forbidden to work. None has had any regularisation programme, and none has a
functioning regularisation mechanism: 107 there is, therefore, no policy for the management of irregular
migrant stocks in these countries.
3.2.2 Intervening variables that might explain policy differences
This is necessarily speculative, but we do need some sort of theoretical explanation of why some
countries respond to irregular migration with a particular policy instrument, or indeed do not respond.
Proceeding from the Member State responses to the ICMPD questionnaire (see also §4), the following
observations can be made:
(1) The ideological opponents of regularisation (Germany and Austria) believe that it constitutes
a ‘pull factor’ for future illegal migration flows. This view is also shared by France and
Belgium (and possibly the UK)
(2) The Nordic countries, Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands emphasise humanitarian
reasons as a primary issue for regularisation policy
(3) The southern countries emphasise managing the labour market (including labour recruitment
problems), combating the large informal economy, and trying to maintain the legality of
residence of TCNs
(4) The regularising new MS put forward a variety of reasons for regularisation, including
humanitarian reasons, managing illegal residence, bringing immigrant workers within the tax
and social security regime, and securing long-term integration
(5) The non-regularising new MS appear not to have formulated policy positions, and some (at
least) might be described as agnostic on the issue.
(6) Family reasons constitute an important reason for regularisation, especially in France; family
reasons (often converging with the notion of ‘strong ties’) have also been important grounds
for regularising migrants in an irregular situation in various other countries, including
Belgium and Sweden.
On the basis of the above observations, we can posit the following as possible intervening variables
that can explain policy differences:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
Differing labour market structures – particularly concerning informal employment
The role of ideology and sanctity of law in policy formulation
The degree of pragmatism in policy formulation (contradicts point (b))
The extent and phase of migration – i.e. recentness and lack of state infrastructure
The role of asylum policy, i.e. managing rejected asylum-seekers after extended processes
107 To be accurate, Cyprus, Latvia, Malta and Romania have regularisation mechanisms that amount to
temporary ‘toleration’; it is not known if these have been utilised. See Appendix B country profiles, for more
information.
43