REGINE Regularisations in Europe Final Report - European ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

countries to develop common strategies to better manage migration flows, it insists that any EU initiative should respect the principle of subsidiarity. Thus, the decisions on the number of economic migrants to be admitted in order to seek work, the types of their qualifications and skills as well as their country of origin are the responsibility of the Member States. Given the differences between labour market needs, companies’ requirements and skills gaps across Europe, the EU should refrain from any attempt to quantify needs at EU level. This is neither feasible nor desirable. Labour market needs should be assessed in Member States at the appropriate level as close to the ground as possible.” 203 In addition, Member States must be able to decide freely whether or not to participate in a mobility partnership and “employers should be fully involved in the discussion and decision on the number of economic migrants to be admitted to seek work and the types of their qualifications and skills” 204 The principle of subsidiarity, particularly in admission of economic migrants, is further related to the flexibility of EU actions – that “will allow national administrations to apply a wide range of admission mechanisms in order to respond quickly to the needs of companies and especially SMEs”. 205 Thus, although BusinessEurope sees a value in developing common instruments for labour migration on the European level, it cautions against their uniform application on the Member State and stresses the need for flexibility at the level of the individual Member State. By implication, BusinessEurope’s position on admission policy, and in particular its strong emphasis on the principle of subsidiarity, suggests that it would oppose policies on regularisation on the European level which would contradict the principle of subsidiarity. In the opinion of BusinessEurope, the Commission proposal for a general framework 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, is in part unwarranted. Defining a common set of rights is “not necessary since workers’ rights are already adequately covered by existing national and/or EU legislation.” 206 In relation to the specific directives on the admission selected categories of economic migrants, BusinessEurope argues that this indeed is a sensible step and corresponds to “the changing economic needs over time and the difference in labour market needs, companies’ requirements and skills gaps across Europe” 207 . Furthermore, European employers welcome the idea of a single application for a joint work/residence permit as it promotes “unbureaucratic, rapid and transparent procedures at national level and [should] simplify administrative procedures.” 208 . In relation to illegal migration, European employers agree with the Commission that, “if well conceived, mobility partnerships and circular migration could be useful instruments to fight illegal 203 Ibid., para.10 204 Ibid. para. 11 and 13 205 UNICE (2006): UNICE position on the Commission policy plan on legal migration, submitted 10 May 2006. Available at: http://www.businesseurope.eu 206 Ibid. para. 32. 207 Ibid. para. 32-35 208 Ibid., summary 70
migration”. 209 In the opinion of BusinessEurope, a key challenge to ensure the long-term benefits of circular migration is the need to design policies in such a way that circular migration remains circular and does not become permanent. In this sense, European employers express doubts concerning the effectiveness and/or feasibility of some of the actions proposed by the Commission – such as the requirement for a written commitment by migrants to return voluntarily, support to help the partner country create sufficiently attractive professional opportunities locally for the highly skilled etc. The Confederation makes note of the “potential contradiction between the strong emphasis put simultaneously on both circular and return migration on the one hand and the efforts to foster integration of third country nationals on the other hand”. 210 Regarding measures against illegal migration, the Confederation supports the objective of the proposed sanctions for those employing illegal workers. Generally, BusinessEurope acknowledges that employment is one of many pull factors for illegal migration.. However, in the opinion of BusinessEurope, the Commission proposal does not comply with the subsidiarity principle: “By introducing EU-wide legal definitions of ‘employment’ and ‘employer’, the proposal directly interferes with national social and labour law. In addition, Member States are best placed to decide on and set effective sanctions for non-compliance with the provisions of the Directive.” 211 According to European employers, the draft directive also fails to respect the proportionality principle: “It would impose overly burdensome and costly administrative requirements on EU companies”. 212 Furthermore, there should be a qualitative element to distinguish between criminal and administrative sanctions. 213 Finally, in the view of BusinessEurope, action against illegal migration must be accompanied by measures aimed at facilitating legal migration – sanctions against those employing illegal workers should not be taken in an isolated way but accompanied by measures such as effective co-ordination with migrants’ countries of origin, action to fight against organised crime, and speedy repatriation of illegal migrants (consistent with their legitimate rights). 214 Furthermore, “to avoid a situation where an employer recruits workers with irregular status due to the lack of qualified or specific human resources and limited possibilities for legal migration, BusinessEurope reiterates the importance of creating unbureaucratic, rapid and transparent procedures at national level to recruit migrant workers”. 215 For the purpose of this study, four points are worth pointing out. First, BusinessEurope strongly emphasises the basic principle of subsidiarity. For the development of regularisation policies on the European level this suggests that any policy that would reduce the flexibility of Member States to design national solutions to national problems is likely to be opposed. Conversely, setting quantitative 209 BusinessEurope (2007): BusinessEurope position on Commission Communication on Circular migration and mobility partnerships between the EU and third countries, submitted 26 October, 2007. Available at: http://www.businesseurope.eu , para.9 210 Ibid. para. 15-16 211 BusinessEurope (2007): BusinessEurope position on Sanctions against employers of illegally staying thirdcountry nationals, submitted 25 October 2007. Available at: http://www.businesseurope.eu , p.1. 212 Ibid. 213 Ibid. para. 18 214 Ibid. para. 8 215 Ibid. para. 8-9 71
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 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 and 72: admission policies. 181 The Danish
Page 73 and 74: and useful, if planned and implemen
Page 75: depend on (unskilled) immigrant lab
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 ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?