REGINE Regularisations in Europe Final Report - European ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

understanding of the procedure itself, difficulty in meeting the often stringent income and housing requirements laid down by Member States. Regardless of the desirability, or otherwise, of this phenomenon, the consequence is that there are stocks of ‘illegally staying’ resident TCNs whose presence poses a policy problem for Member States. As with the regulation of labour immigration (see §3.3.4), family reunification requires application from outside the territory. Regardless of their ability to meet other criteria (e.g. housing and income), migrants are unable to apply for family reunification without leaving the territory and risk being refused readmission. Given the current trends in ECHR jurisprudence, particularly involving family rights, we recommend that exceptions to the extra-territorial requirement be permitted. It is highly unlikely that any MS would try to deport such family members (particularly as the legality of doing so is questionable), therefore it seems desirable to amend the family reunification rules to permit what amounts to legalisation of de facto family reunification. 154 Related proposal(s): Option 12 154 This has been done in several regularisation programmes; here, we recommend that it should be a permanent (albeit unadvertised) policy. 56
4 Government positions on policy 155 4.1 Views on national policies for regularisation Concerning the need for policy on regularisation at the national level, 10 Member States either did not express an opinion or failed to return the questionnaire. Three Member States (the Slovak Rep., Romania, Bulgaria) emphasise that a mechanism is sufficient policy; four (Belgium, Portugal, Spain, Greece) identify management of informal employment as a key factor in the need for programmes; and four (France, Greece, Italy, Poland) see regularisation programmes as an important tool in migration management. One Member State (Austria) considers that humanitarian reasons are the only legitimate reason for regularisation; six other Member States emphasise humanitarian reasons, along with several other factors (Belgium, Hungary, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Spain). One Member State (France) considers a regularisation mechanism to be an important tool in dealing with nondeportable aliens; one (Greece) emphasises the criterion of social integration of immigrant populations for its recent regularisation policy. The Member States’ positions more or less correspond with actual practice over the last decade, i.e. with a majority using the policy instrument (albeit with slightly different objectives). Of those Member States expressing extreme reservations about regularisation policy, four (Austria, Belgium, France, Germany) claim that programmes constitute a pull-factor for future illegal migration; one (the Czech Rep.) has the view that it is not an effective policy, or is a last-resort policy (Bulgaria), while Finland is of the opinion that it is not a suitable policy instrument for managing migration. Slovenia considers that regularisation cannot reduce illegal flows, but might cause them to increase. Overall, there are eight expressions of extreme reservation compared with 25 expressions of support for some sort of regularisation policy instrument(s): these total more than the number of MS respondents, owing to complex positions adopted by many MS. 4.2 Views on policy impact on other EU MS There is an important claim, made by several Member States, that regularisation programmes impact heavily on other MS. Despite our insistence in the questionnaire that evidence or research be provided to back up any claims, only three were able to do so. These were the Czech Republic, Ireland and Poland. The Czech Rep. notes that it is a transit route to Italy; Ireland notes new inflows in order to benefit from its regularisation policy for parents of children; Poland notes an impact from Germany’s policy on ‘tolerated persons’. Four countries have no view on the matter; four more (Italy, the Slovak Rep., Slovenia, Spain) are of the opinion that there is no impact. Three Member States (France, Greece, Hungary) state that they “assume” that there is an impact on other countries of such policy. 155 This chapter relies solely on the official positions stated by Member States that returned the REGINE questionnaire. 21 countries returned the questionnaire, although not all stated their policy positions. There remain, therefore, substantial gaps concerning MS views. 57
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 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: efugees under the provisions of the
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?