REGINE Regularisations in Europe Final Report - European ...

stresses that “economic immigration to the EU has to be conceived as a win-win situation for the three
parties involved, the host country, the country of origin and, of course, the immigrant worker.” 220
Illegal migration is referred to in the context of economic migration. UEAPME supports addressing
illegal migration through a mix of policies, which according to UEAPME should include (i) stronger
sanctions and controls; (ii) better implementation of decisions (iii) addressing incentives for illegal
employment (such as overregulation of the labour market, excessive tax and social security
obligations etc) and (iv) planning of a general awareness raising campaign. 221
Regarding EU measures against illegal migration in the labour market, UEAPME agrees with the
European Commission’s proposal for sanctioning employers that employ illegal immigrants.
However, it stresses that the primary responsibility for combating illegal employment lies with public
authorities. Although UEAPME considers it reasonable to give employers a certain responsibility in
regard to work permits, it opposes the proposal that employers should have a more far-reaching role in
controlling the residence status of third country national workers – for example, by obliging them to
keep a copy of the residence permit. “Basically the necessary action in order to pursue companies
which employ illegal immigrants must not lead to more administrative burdens for those companies,
in particular SMEs which comply with the law.” 222 Furthermore, the Association agrees generally
with the usefulness of proportionate and dissuasive financial sanctions but opposes the principle that
the employer should cover the return costs of the illegally employed third country national. 223 In
addition, UEAPME is strongly opposed to the Commission’s proposal for an automatically -triggered
procedure for claiming back outstanding remuneration and the standard assumption in calculating
back-payments, that the employment lasted for a minimum of 6 months. According to UEAPME this
would put illegally-employed migrants in a better position than legal workers and would constitute an
additional pull factor and incentive (on the part of immigrants) to take up illegal work. 224 Similarly,
UEAPME is also strongly against putting illegally-employed migrant workers who co-operate with
authorities in a better position, arguing that this would similarly constitute an incentive, rather than a
disincentive, to engage in irregular work.
Regarding the needs and capacities of SMEs to combat illegal employment, UEAPME recognises that
micro enterprises have more difficulties in getting easy access to and a clear understanding of
information on existing social and legal obligations for third-country nationals. For this reason, it
proposes a three-step approach for the sanctioning of employers who employ illegal immigrants: (i)
prevention and information; (ii) warning: authorities should clearly distinguish between cases where
the illegal employment is the result of disinformation or lack of awareness of relevant regulations and
other cases where the employer willingly employs illegal immigrants in full knowledge of the law;
220 UEAPME (2005): UEAPME’s position paper on the Green Paper on an EU approach to managing
Economic Migration COM (2004) 811. Available at:
http://www.ueapme.com/docs/pos_papers/2005/EconomicMigration.doc , 23 April 2008, p.2
221 UEAPME (2007): UEAPME position paper on the proposal for an EU directive for sanctioning employers
employing illegal immigrants.
Available at: http://www.ueapme.com/docs/pos_papers/2007/070919_pp_sanctioning.pdf , 23 April 2008, p.1
222 Ibid. p.2
223 Ibid. p.3
224 Ibid. p.4
73