REGINE Regularisations in Europe Final Report - European ...

3.3.5 The role of national asylum systems
The relation of asylum systems to the irregular status of resident TCNs is central to the debate, yet has
attracted hardly any serious research. One thing that has always been evident is that while applying
for asylum represented a relatively easy migration route into Northern European countries starting in
1982, 144 the underdeveloped asylum systems of the southern European countries were eschewed in
favour of clandestine migration. 145 With accession of more MS, the variation in protection and
reception conditions accorded by national asylum systems has increased to the point that a few
countries have recently stopped automatic implementation of Dublin II returns (notably, to Greece).
Thus, in some countries migrants gravitate towards the asylum system, whereas in others they mostly
shun it. In both cases, there is an impact on irregular migrant stocks. 146 Table 1 indicates, in a crude
evaluation, those countries where the role of the asylum system in terms of regularisation issues
appears to be significant.
Three strands of the asylum process stand out as being problematic, and all three would benefit from
Community instruments for their regulation:
i. Variable chances of receiving protection, according to MS
ii. Access to long-term residence for those receiving asylum or subsidiary protection status
iii. The length of asylum procedures, which practically and legally require limitation
As with other issues, more effective management of this area would reduce illegal migrant stocks and
make regularisation less needed as a policy instrument.
Various studies and reports have highlighted the highly variable chances of receiving protection in the
European Union. The variation in recognition rates is probably most evident in the case of Chechen
refugees. Recognition rates for Chechens vary between 74.8% in Austria (average 2002–06), 28.3% in
Belgium (average 2004–06), 26.2% in France (average 2000–07), 23.2% in Germany and 5.2% in
Poland. 147 The recent Policy Plan on Asylum recognises the problematic of heterogeneous
administrative practice in spite of harmonised legislation and proposes several measures to make
access to protection more equitable across Europe. 148
In addition, in the context of mass refugee flows following the Bosnian and Kosovo crises in the
1990s, war refugees, a majority of whom had entered their destination countries illegally, 149 were
often accommodated by ad hoc measures outside the asylum system which often amounted to de facto
regularisation. Thus, in response to the refugee crisis, Austria issued temporary permits to Bosnian
144 Baldwin-Edwards, M. (1991): ‘Immigration after “1992”’, Policy & Politics, 19/3.
145 Baldwin-Edwards, M. (2002):‘Semi-reluctant Hosts: southern Europe’s ambivalent response to immigration’,
Studi Emigrazione, 39/145.
146 The complex nexus between regularisations and asylum is by a recent comparison of German and Italian
approaches towards irregular migration. See Finotelli, C. (2007): Illegale Einwanderung, Flüchtlingsmigration
und das Ende des Nord-Süd-Mythos: Zur funktionalen Äquivalenz des deutschen und des italienischen
Einwanderungsregimes.Hamburg: Lit
147
Reichel, D. Hofmann, M. (2008): Chechen Migration Flows to Europe - a statistical perspective.
Forthcoming
148 COM(2008) 360, op.cit.
149 In Germany, for example, an estimated 80% of Bosnian war refugees entered the country illegally. See
K.Buchberger, Die Repatriierung von Kriegsflüchtlingen in Europa nach Bosnien-Herzegowina in den ersten
drei Jahren nach dem Daytoner Abkommen unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der deutschen
Rückführungspolitik. Unpublished Masters thesis. University of Münster, 1999, p.31
54