Open%20borders%20The%20case%20against%20immigration%20controls%20-%20Teresa%20Hayter
Open%20borders%20The%20case%20against%20immigration%20controls%20-%20Teresa%20Hayter
Open%20borders%20The%20case%20against%20immigration%20controls%20-%20Teresa%20Hayter
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
Border Controls 59<br />
detention centres for migrants and introduced visa requirements. Spain<br />
passed an Aliens Act in 1985, with a labour permit scheme. Both Spain and<br />
Portugal have regularised large numbers of foreign workers and granted<br />
amnesties.<br />
Pressure on these countries to enforce their border controls, and other<br />
attempts to coordinate the policing of immigration policies, took place under<br />
what was called ‘ad hoc’ intergovernmental cooperation. This meant that<br />
discussions were secret and outside the political arena, not open to<br />
questioning by the European Parliament. States were unwilling to hand over<br />
any control of their national borders, which they considered a sensitive<br />
matter of national sovereignty, to European institutions, believing the latter<br />
were too favourably disposed towards migration and the human rights of<br />
migrants. But France, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxemburg<br />
signed an agreement at Schengen in 1985 under which border controls<br />
between themselves were to be abolished by 1 January 1990. A further<br />
agreement on procedures for people crossing the external frontiers of the<br />
Schengen group, and a procedure for determining the country responsible for<br />
considering asylum applications, was signed in June 1990, when the<br />
agreement became the Schengen Convention. Subsequently all other EU<br />
states except Ireland and Britain have joined or stated their intention to ratify<br />
the Schengen Convention. The British objection to Schengen was based on<br />
its unwillingness to abandon immigration controls on people travelling from<br />
the rest of the EU. But the British Home Office was keen to participate in other<br />
Schengen activities, such as the exchange of information between<br />
immigration authorities and sanctions against airlines and shipping<br />
companies carrying undocumented refugees. The British had also been<br />
enthusiastic participants and founder members in the earlier Trevi Group,<br />
set up in 1975 to formulate policies on terrorism, drugs and illegal<br />
immigration.<br />
In 1986 an Ad Hoc Group on Immigration was set up, following a<br />
proposal from the British government. It was concerned with the harmonisation<br />
of asylum policies, to examine ‘the measures to be taken to reach a<br />
common policy to put an end to the abusive use of the right to asylum’, and<br />
also with the harmonisation of visa requirements. In 1987 a list of 50<br />
countries, whose nationals would require visas to enter the EU, was agreed.<br />
By 1993 the list had expanded to 73 countries, with a further 92 countries<br />
from which visas were required by only some European states. The list now<br />
contains virtually all Third World countries, and all the ‘refugee-producing’<br />
countries. In 1990 the Dublin Convention was signed, following closely an<br />
arrangement already agreed by the Schengen countries. This stated that<br />
asylum seekers had the right to make only one application in the territory<br />
of the European Community. Rather than giving asylum seekers a choice in<br />
the matter, the convention laid down that the state responsible for<br />
considering an application should be either the one in which the refugee first<br />
arrived, or the state which had issued a visa or otherwise facilitated entry. If