Report_Issue 1/2009 - Jubiläum/ 20 Jahre Mauerfall

Migration researcher Michael Jandl investigates a sensitive topic: migration and illegal employment.
In this interview with "Report" he explains why the option to restrict for a certain transitional
period the free movement of labour as regards workers from the new EU countries (an
option that was availed of by Austria) was only partly successful, and he indicates the form a
sensible migration policy might take in the future.
— Barbara Tóth talks to Michael Jandl —
Barbara Tóth: In the study, partly financed by
the Austrian science fund FWF, you focus primarily
on current developments in the labour
market. What are the initial results?
Michael Jandl: Migration and working in the
black economy in Austria cannot be directly
equated with illegal migration. Illegal residency
status can be a component but does not have to
be. A prime example is the case of nurses from
Slovakia and the Czech Republic who, since 1
May 2004, are EU citizens and are legally allowed
to stay in Austria, but not to work here.
Things are not as simple in the health care
and nursing sector as depicted in the media.
Recruitment takes place through organisations
that claim to be organisations made up of
members who pay contributions, and this is a
grey area.
Are there comparable mechanisms in other
sectors?
We have examined illegal migration in a variety
of areas. The most important one is certainly
the building industry in which one must expand
the term. It ranges from those who work in construction
as a second job to private sector conversions
in the blossoming suburbs of Vienna,
where people are having swimming pools, arbours
and the like built. Here the network and
recruiting function more on an informal basis
through acquaintances and friends and people
they recommend.
Don’t the people who come here from the
neighbouring countries profit also? Otherwise
they would not take on such hardships.
Of course the wage differences offer incentives
to migration. However, – according to previous
research experience and the results of migrant
interviews – it is mostly not the under-qualified
unemployed who are mobile, but other groups,
mostly mobile, young, moderately to highly
qualified people who see no prospects at home
and view migration as a temporary measure.
They all want to go home again. But whether
this will happen is uncertain … generally returning
home is an illusion.
For the so-called “Gastarbeiter” (literally “guest
workers”) of the seventies in many cases it remained
an illusion. Can one compare the migrants
back then with those from the new
neighbouring countries?
I don't think one can compare them directly.
Back then foreign workers were recruited for
certain specific branches of industry in Austria.
We have had a recruitment freeze since 1974.
There also are quite important differences between
the migrants. The new migrants are, to
some extent, more proactive, better educated
and are not primarily brought in for lower
qualified jobs. Whether the classic fate of the
“Gastarbeiter” awaits them, remains to be seen.
However, we shouldn’t forget that many foreign
workers from those times returned home.
Only some have remained. But those who
stayed brought their families to join them. This
represented an important decision to remain in
Austria. The point is this: if children grow up
here, it is extremely unlikely that the families
will return to their native country.
Is there any evidence that migrants from the
new EU countries are beginning to bring their
family members here?
To everyone's surprise migration since the expansion
of the EU is surprisingly low – above
all in comparison to migration from the traditional
migration countries. People from former
Yugoslavia and Turkey still make up two thirds
of the migrants living in Austria and of those
who migrate to Austria. Despite the opening
up of the East, the number of people coming
from the new member states of Poland, Hungary,
Slovakia and the Czech Republic has been
minimal.
Austria shares many common historical and
cultural traditions with its more immediate
neighbours. Wouldn’t increased cooperation in
migration politics make more sense?
Our neighbouring countries do not look exclusively
to Austria. We have missed a number of
opportunities here. They look rather to Brussels
or across the Atlantic. Nor is immigration
such a major topic in the new member countries.
The proportion of immigrants is one to
two per cent of the population. Emigration is
a more important topic there. This is also reflected
in institutions. The issue is not just the
Brain Drain, but the positive contributions emigrants
make to their native country – primarily
in the form of money that they send home. At
the same time, people are learning very quickly.
Several new member countries already have a
more modern migration policy than Austria.
The Czech Republic, for example, has developed
pilot projects to attract highly qualified
people to the country.
In 2005 there were 175 to 200 million migrants worldwide.
56 million immigrants live in Europe.
Michael Jandl, is a migration researcher at the International
Centre for Migration Policy Development (ICMPD),
an international organisation with its headquarters in
Vienna.
www.icmpd.org
Barbara Tóth is a journalist and author in Vienna. She
writes for the weekly newspaper “Falter” and the “Basler
Zeitung” about Austrian politics and Central Europe
The unabridged interview was published in “Report”
online in October 2006.
75