REGINE Regularisations in Europe Final Report - European ...
REGINE Regularisations in Europe Final Report - European ... REGINE Regularisations in Europe Final Report - European ...
Conclusion The review of trade union positions suggests that in those countries with a history of (employmentbased) regularisations, they are generally positive – in principle – towards regularisation, if managed well and designed carefully. In several other countries that do not have a significant history of employment-based regularisations such as Ireland (which has become a country of immigration only recently), the UK and Germany (which both used regularisation mainly for long-term asylum seekers (the UK) or rejected asylum seekers and other ‘tolerated persons’ (Germany)), unions have recently become a significant part of broader alliances calling for implementation of regularisation programmes and mechanisms. In most other countries, the main issue of concern for trade unions is irregular work carried out by both citizens and legal immigrants as well as by irregular migrants. However, the common element in all countries is that unions call for measures that help to combat irregular work and the problems associated with it, including vulnerability to exploitation and adverse working conditions on the level of the individual migrant and evasion of taxes and social security payments and hence social dumping and unfair competition on the macro-economic level. In some countries with particularly strong involvement of irregular migrants in undeclared work, such measures may include regularisations. On the whole, however, a broader set of measures is desired, including (as the Slovenian trade union respondent emphasises) the adoption of relevant legal instruments that would help to strengthen protection standards across the European Union. The sparse response to the ICMPD questionnaire – altogether only 11 trade unions, out of which two are from non-EU countries, responded to the ICMPD questionnaires 189 – suggests, however, that regularisation is not a very prominent concern for trade unions in Europe. To some extent, this reflects the fact that only in a handful of countries, and in particular in the four southern European countries (Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain), regularisation is directly linked to broader labour market issues, whereas in the majority of Member States regularisation processes usually have been implemented for humanitarian and other reasons. Although such regularisations ultimately also have effects on the labour market, they are not seen as an issue of primary interest for trade unions. In a way, illegal immigration in general is increasingly seen in humanitarian terms (and also in terms of border management and migration control) rather than as an issue more directly linked to labour market dynamics. Instead, the current focus is on irregular work – irrespective of whether it is performed by illegal residents, legally staying third country nationals, EU citizens or nationals. 5.2.2 The European Level: Positions of the ETUC towards regularisation On the European level, the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) does not have an explicit common position on regularisation policy. This reflects, on the one hand, divergent views of its constituent organisations on regularisations and, on the other, the lack of common European policies on regularisations. However, in an interview with members of the research team for this study, the representative of ETUC’s Working Group on Migrants and Ethnic Minorities noted that overall the ETUC has a pragmatic position and acknowledges that regularisation programmes may be necessary 189 8 responses to the ICMPD TU questionnaire (of which one summary response per e-mail) were received, of which one came from a non-EU country (Norway); 3 NGO questionnaires from trade unions were received, of which one came from a Spanish Trade Union which also completed the TU questionnaire. Another came from a Swiss trade union. 66
and useful, if planned and implemented well. Generally, integrating irregular migrants into the “legal structures” of society – notably as regards formal employment and legal residence – must be a main priority. This said, the ETUC prefers a more open admission policy that includes low-skilled migrants over regularisations (see below). States must accept that it is the prospect of employment in general that constitutes a pull factor for migration and that illegal migration can only be combated if possibilities for legal labour migration exist. 190 The Confederation’s commentaries on recent Commission proposals on legal migration and irregular work, although not commenting on regularisation as such, suggest certain prerequisites for wellmanaged migration, which, by implication would reduce the need for (employment-based) regularisation and would entail a certain measure of harmonisation of regularisation practices. 191 Thus, the ETUC recommends (i) the creation of possibilities for the admission of economic migrants: (ii) the development of a common EU framework for the conditions of entry and residence; (iii) reaching a clear consensus between public authorities and social partners about real labour market needs; and (iv) avoidance of a two-tier migration policy that favours and facilitates migration of the highly-skilled while denying access and rights to semi- and low-skilled workers. Essentially, the ETUC argues for an opening of legal channels for migration for all categories of immigrant workers and strongly discourages a focus on highly skilled migrants. In this respect, the ETUC appreciates the Commission’s proposal of a directive on admission for high-skilled workers, 192 accompanied by a proposal for a general framework directive on rights for all third country nationals who are legally residing in an EU Member State. 193 However, the ETUC observes a slightly contradictory approach. Thus, although a proposal for a directive on sanctions for employers employing irregular migrants 194 has been adopted by the Commission, which in a way targets lower-skilled third country nationals (as undeclared work mostly occurs in the low-skill and low-wage segments of labour markets), there is little or no initiative in the legislative programme of the Commission in offering legal channels for migration for medium or lowskilled labour, other than the initiative on seasonal workers. In the opinion of the ETUC, “without such legal channels, sanctions for employers employing irregular migrants may not only turn out to remain largely ineffective, but may also lead to further repression, victimisation and exploitation of irregular migrant workers”. Furthermore, the ETUC argues, “it is an illusion to think that EU Member 190 Interview with Marco Cilento (ETUC), Brussels, 20 May 2008. 191 The following documents were considered: ETUC position regarding European Commission’s proposals on legal and ‘illegal’ migration. Available at: http://www.etuc.org/a/4415?var_recherche=position%20papers , 30 April 2008; - Illegal immigration: ETUC calls for enforcement of minimum labour standards and decent working conditions as a priority. Available at: http://www.etuc.org/a/2699 , 30 April 2008.; Towards a proactive EU policy on migration and integration. Available at: http://www.etuc.org/a/1159?var_recherche=legal%20migration , 30 April 2008; Action Plan for an ETUC policy on migration, integration, and combating discrimination, racism and xenophobia. Available at: http://www.etuc.org/a/1944?var_recherche=legal%20migration , 30 April 2008. 192 Proposal for a COUNCIL DIRECTIVE on the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for the purposes of highly qualified employment COM (2007) 637 FINAL 193 Proposal for a COUNCIL DIRECTIVE on a single application procedure for a single permit for third-country nationals to reside and work in the territory of a Member State and on a common set of rights for third-country workers legally residing in a Member State. COM (2007) 638 FINAL 194 Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL providing for sanctions against employers of illegally staying third-country nationals. COM (2007) 249 FINAL 67
- 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 and 62: efugees under the provisions of the
- Page 63 and 64: 4 Government positions on policy 15
- 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: admission policies. 181 The Danish
- 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
and useful, if planned and implemented well. Generally, <strong>in</strong>tegrat<strong>in</strong>g irregular migrants <strong>in</strong>to the “legal<br />
structures” of society – notably as regards formal employment and legal residence – must be a ma<strong>in</strong><br />
priority. This said, the ETUC prefers a more open admission policy that <strong>in</strong>cludes low-skilled migrants<br />
over regularisations (see below). States must accept that it is the prospect of employment <strong>in</strong> general<br />
that constitutes a pull factor for migration and that illegal migration can only be combated if<br />
possibilities for legal labour migration exist. 190<br />
The Confederation’s commentaries on recent Commission proposals on legal migration and irregular<br />
work, although not comment<strong>in</strong>g on regularisation as such, suggest certa<strong>in</strong> prerequisites for wellmanaged<br />
migration, which, by implication would reduce the need for (employment-based)<br />
regularisation and would entail a certa<strong>in</strong> measure of harmonisation of regularisation practices. 191<br />
Thus, the ETUC recommends (i) the creation of possibilities for the admission of economic migrants:<br />
(ii) the development of a common EU framework for the conditions of entry and residence; (iii)<br />
reach<strong>in</strong>g a clear consensus between public authorities and social partners about real labour market<br />
needs; and (iv) avoidance of a two-tier migration policy that favours and facilitates migration of the<br />
highly-skilled while deny<strong>in</strong>g access and rights to semi- and low-skilled workers. Essentially, the<br />
ETUC argues for an open<strong>in</strong>g of legal channels for migration for all categories of immigrant workers<br />
and strongly discourages a focus on highly skilled migrants. In this respect, the ETUC appreciates the<br />
Commission’s proposal of a directive on admission for high-skilled workers, 192 accompanied by a<br />
proposal for a general framework directive on rights for all third country nationals who are legally<br />
resid<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> an EU Member State. 193<br />
However, the ETUC observes a slightly contradictory approach. Thus, although a proposal for a<br />
directive on sanctions for employers employ<strong>in</strong>g irregular migrants 194 has been adopted by the<br />
Commission, which <strong>in</strong> a way targets lower-skilled third country nationals (as undeclared work mostly<br />
occurs <strong>in</strong> the low-skill and low-wage segments of labour markets), there is little or no <strong>in</strong>itiative <strong>in</strong> the<br />
legislative programme of the Commission <strong>in</strong> offer<strong>in</strong>g legal channels for migration for medium or lowskilled<br />
labour, other than the <strong>in</strong>itiative on seasonal workers. In the op<strong>in</strong>ion of the ETUC, “without<br />
such legal channels, sanctions for employers employ<strong>in</strong>g irregular migrants may not only turn out to<br />
rema<strong>in</strong> largely <strong>in</strong>effective, but may also lead to further repression, victimisation and exploitation of<br />
irregular migrant workers”. Furthermore, the ETUC argues, “it is an illusion to th<strong>in</strong>k that EU Member<br />
190 Interview with Marco Cilento (ETUC), Brussels, 20 May 2008.<br />
191 The follow<strong>in</strong>g documents were considered: ETUC position regard<strong>in</strong>g <strong>Europe</strong>an Commission’s proposals on<br />
legal and ‘illegal’ migration. Available at: http://www.etuc.org/a/4415?var_recherche=position%20papers , 30<br />
April 2008; - Illegal immigration: ETUC calls for enforcement of m<strong>in</strong>imum labour standards and decent<br />
work<strong>in</strong>g conditions as a priority. Available at: http://www.etuc.org/a/2699 , 30 April 2008.; Towards a proactive<br />
EU policy on migration and <strong>in</strong>tegration. Available at:<br />
http://www.etuc.org/a/1159?var_recherche=legal%20migration , 30 April 2008; Action Plan for an ETUC<br />
policy on migration, <strong>in</strong>tegration, and combat<strong>in</strong>g discrim<strong>in</strong>ation, racism and xenophobia. Available at:<br />
http://www.etuc.org/a/1944?var_recherche=legal%20migration , 30 April 2008.<br />
192 Proposal for a COUNCIL DIRECTIVE on the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals<br />
for the purposes of highly qualified employment COM (2007) 637 FINAL<br />
193 Proposal for a COUNCIL DIRECTIVE on a s<strong>in</strong>gle application procedure for a s<strong>in</strong>gle permit for third-country<br />
nationals to reside and work <strong>in</strong> the territory of a Member State and on a common set of rights for third-country<br />
workers legally resid<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> a Member State. COM (2007) 638 FINAL<br />
194 Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL provid<strong>in</strong>g for<br />
sanctions aga<strong>in</strong>st employers of illegally stay<strong>in</strong>g third-country nationals. COM (2007) 249 FINAL<br />
67
Change language