REGINE Regularisations in Europe Final Report - European ...

eaching reforms of the overall framework governing migration and asylum have to be undertaken to
address some of the root causes of the presence of irregular migrants.
Thus, a Belgian NGO argues that “one-off programmes generally reflect a failure of immigration
policies. Indeed, pursuing a policy of closure and tight border controls in an era of globalizing
economic and social interactions and exchanges must be regarded as inappropriate.” 245 A Spanish
NGO similarly argues that “in principle, regularisation measures are measures of last resort and
indicate that there has been no effective management of migration flows” and recommends that
ultimately, “various legal migration opportunities should be opened” which should be based on
research on the real migration needs and which should take account both of the situation (and needs)
of the Spanish labour market and the goal to promote development through migration and to reduce
the enormous disparities between South and North.” 246 The position that more legal migration
channels should be developed is also supported by another Spanish NGO, which in addition sees a
certain foreign policy rationale in the last major Spanish regularisation programmes which, according
to the NGO, does not reflect the migratory reality. 247 Another Spanish NGO recommends co-operation
agreements with third countries to promote legal and “orderly” migration. 248
A Swiss NGO, by contrast, suggests that there are limits to migration reform: that there will never be
“perfect” migration policies and regularisation measures therefore will always be needed as a
corrective instrument: “Regularisation measures complement admission systems, because
immigration legislation will always have deficiencies. In addition, in spite of preventive measures
taken against irregular migration, there will always be a limit as to how migratory flows can be
controlled and effectively managed. It is against this background that the Global Commission on
International Migration (GCIM) also recommends making use of regularisation measures.” 249
Similarly, the Czech Counselling Centre for Citizenship argues that “the principle to regularise
[irregular situations] is a self-evident complementary measure, not only in immigration legislation but
(…) in many other legal domains, too (for example leniency programmes in anti-trust legislation).” 250
La Strada, an NGO with branches in several EU countries, adds “(…) that regularisations are needed
as long as the restrictive EU immigration policies do exist, but in fact regularisations are not the
solution for the real problem and do tend to be ‘not fair’. It is mostly about groups and there will
always be groups and individuals that are not included.” 251 As an alternative it suggests a
comprehensive approach, which would go beyond finding remedies to immediate problems and would
also address some of the root causes of migration. Although several of the NGOs acknowledge that
regularisation, especially large-scale regularisation, might act as a pull factor, they don’t see this as a
sufficient reason not to undertake regularisations.
245 Centre des Immigrés Namur-Luxembourg ASBL (Antenne de Libramont), response, ICMPD NGO
Questionnaire, 5 May 2008
246 ACCEM, response, ICMPD NGO Questionnaire, 13 May 2008
247 Federacion Andalucia ACOGE, response, ICMPD NGO Questionnaire, 6 May 2008
248 Iglesia Evangélica Española, response, ICMPD NGO Questionnaire, 15 April 2008
249 Schweizerischer Evangelischer Kirchenbund SEK, response, ICMPD NGO Questionnaire, 5 May 2008
250 Counselling Centre for Citizenship/ Civil and Human Rights, response, ICMPD NGO Questionnaire, 4 May
2008
251 La Strada International LSI, response, ICMPD NGO Questionnaire, 8 May 2008
83