REGINE Regularisations in Europe Final Report - European ...
Share Embed Flag
Download ePaper

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

4.3 Views on the operation of the information exchange mechanism Five Member States expressed no opinion on this issue; one (Belgium) considers the mechanism to be working well; three (Estonia, Latvia and Slovenia) consider that it is not working well, as does Italy which considers that the activities within regularisation mechanisms need to be covered. Generally, the majority of respondents approve of the information exchange and would like to see its scope of operations improved and extended. 4.4 Views on possible EU involvement in the policy area Five Member States expressed no opinion on this issue. Three (France, Italy, Greece) would support an EU legal framework so long as it respected national policy needs; two (Estonia and Latvia) advocate the need for a common approach; and three (France, Poland, Spain) suggest the need for information exchange concerning good practices, statistical data techniques, etc. Five countries (Austria, the Czech Rep., Finland, Germany, Slovenia) express opposition to any regulation of this area, on the grounds that it is not needed or is outside the legal competence of the EU. Overall, there is no visible support for strong regulation of this policy area, but a great deal of interest in the development of research, identification of good practices, policy innovations etc. within the framework of information exchange. 58

5 Positions of social actors 5.1 Introduction This chapter reviews the positions of non-state stakeholders towards regularisation policies, including trade unions, employers organisations, NGOs and migrant organisations. In so doing, the chapter draws on desk research on the positions of organisations towards regularisation, and if these are lacking, on their overall positions towards recent EU policy proposals on both illegal and legal migration as well as on irregular work; on questionnaires sent out to NGOs and trade unions; on interviews with representatives from selected organisations; and on documents provided by NGOs and other interested parties in response to our questionnaires. All of these actors have, either in practice or in principle, and to varying degrees, stakes in regularisation processes. Thus large-scale regularisations based on employment criteria naturally fall naturally within the mandate of interest organisations (i.e. employers’ organisations and trade unions) as they are designed to have a major impact on the labour market and to correct certain labour market deficiencies, notably informal employment and the resulting exploitative labour conditions. However, employment-based regularisations might also be implemented to redress problems resulting from inadequacies of legal migration channels, as a result of which some employers resort to informal channels of recruitment and to post-immigration adjustments of migrant workers. 156 Non-governmental organisations working on migration issues, most of which are engaged both in advocacy and provision of services to immigrants, are involved in both employment-based regularisations and those based on family, humanitarian, protection or other grounds. Employers organisations and most trade unions, by contrast, rarely consider non-employment based regularisations as falling within their mandate. Both types of organisation – those with vested interests on the one hand and advocacy NGOs and migrant organisations on the other – have been involved in regularisation processes in several stages of the policy making process and in a number of ways. These include interest formulation, advocacy, lobbying and thus policy formulation in the broadest sense; and in terms of campaigning – disseminating information, mobilisation and monitoring of implementation during regularisation processes Both trade unions and NGOs usually also provide legal counselling and representation to individuals, while employers organisations provide legal information on employer related aspects of employment-based regularisations. Finally, social actors too have an important role to play in regard to the evaluation of the implementation and outcome of programmes and regularisation mechanisms. Indeed, in the absence of systematic post-regularisation evaluations carried out or commissioned by 156 In most continental European states, except perhaps the Nordic countries, post-immigration status adjustment was the rule, rather than the exception. In the early 1970s, for example, more than 60% of immigrants to France obtained a permit only after arrival, despite state efforts to clamp down on informal recruitment (Hollifield, J. (2004): ‘France: Republicanism and the Limits of Immigration Control’. In: Cornelius, W.A., Tsuda, T., Martin, P. L, Hollifield, J. F. (Eds): Controlling Immigration. A Global Perspective. 2 nd edition. Stanford: Stanford University Press, pp. 183-214. In other countries, such as Austria, informal recruitment mechanisms and postimmigration status adjustments have been relevant until the early 1990s. 59

4.3 Views on the operation of the <strong>in</strong>formation exchange mechanism<br />

Five Member States expressed no op<strong>in</strong>ion on this issue; one (Belgium) considers the mechanism to be<br />

work<strong>in</strong>g well; three (Estonia, Latvia and Slovenia) consider that it is not work<strong>in</strong>g well, as does Italy<br />

which considers that the activities with<strong>in</strong> regularisation mechanisms need to be covered. Generally,<br />

the majority of respondents approve of the <strong>in</strong>formation exchange and would like to see its scope of<br />

operations improved and extended.<br />

4.4 Views on possible EU <strong>in</strong>volvement <strong>in</strong> the policy area<br />

Five Member States expressed no op<strong>in</strong>ion on this issue. Three (France, Italy, Greece) would support<br />

an EU legal framework so long as it respected national policy needs; two (Estonia and Latvia)<br />

advocate the need for a common approach; and three (France, Poland, Spa<strong>in</strong>) suggest the need for<br />

<strong>in</strong>formation exchange concern<strong>in</strong>g good practices, statistical data techniques, etc. Five countries<br />

(Austria, the Czech Rep., F<strong>in</strong>land, Germany, Slovenia) express opposition to any regulation of this<br />

area, on the grounds that it is not needed or is outside the legal competence of the EU. Overall, there<br />

is no visible support for strong regulation of this policy area, but a great deal of <strong>in</strong>terest <strong>in</strong> the<br />

development of research, identification of good practices, policy <strong>in</strong>novations etc. with<strong>in</strong> the<br />

framework of <strong>in</strong>formation exchange.<br />

58

logo

products

Resources

Company

Terms of service
Privacy policy
Cookie policy
Cookie settings
Imprint
Change language
Made with love in Switzerland
© 2024 Yumpu.com all rights reserved

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!