Europeanisation, National Identities and Migration ... - europeanization

Integrating immigrants and minorities 91
The most problematic issue has been the rights of asylum seekers. Across the EU
there have been attempts to (i) reduce the ability of asylum seekers to access the
territory of EU member states (ii) use internal measures such as dispersal systems,
accommodation centres, the denial of labour-market access, and the use of vouchers
rather than cash-paid welfare state benefits and (iii) construct a central and east
European ‘buffer zone’ to absorb some of the migration pressure. Prominent EUlevel
NGOs such as the European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE)
who contest the asylum sphere have been strong critics of what they see as a race to
the bottom by EU member states that bears only tenuous relation to the international
commitments of the member states. This may also reinforce the point
made earlier. EU cooperation and integration may actually have enabled the
member states to develop new ways of regulating those forms of migration that
their policies define as ‘unwanted’. EU member states can thus retain a symbolic
commitment to the right to asylum while eroding the ability of people who want
to enter the territory of EU member states and exercise this right. The aim of
policies is to reduce the ability of asylum seekers to make a claim on the societies in
which they find themselves. This is designed to ensure that this form of migration,
unlike others in the past, is reversible and does not lead to permanent settlement.
Another consequence is the development of a diversion effect – similar to that which
affects southern Europe – as migrants unable to enter EU member states settle
in central and eastern Europe.
The two other elements of the EU-level migrant inclusion agenda mentioned
above can now be discussed. The extension of anti-discrimination legislation and
the extension of citizenship rights for TCNs can be analysed alongside each other
because the relative progress of each tells us interesting things about the claims
for inclusion enabled at EU level. EU citizenship rights for third country nationals
would shatter the derivative character of EU citizenship by creating forms
of membership that were not dependent on prior possession of the nationality of a
member state. This debate was located on unpromising political terrain given that
the member states had made it very clear that (i) nationality laws were their
prerogative and (ii) the EU citizenship established by the Maastricht Treaty was
derived from prior possession of the nationality of a member state.
In contrast, anti-discrimination legislation had the advantage of drawing from
some existing anti-discrimination provisions (nationality and gender), as well as the
Community legal principle of equal treatment. Although there were not specific
‘race’ or ethnicity measures, these resources could be used to argue that racial
and ethnic-based discrimination should also be tackled. Moreover, these concerns
could be linked to market-making functionality because such discrimination would
hinder the effective operation of the single market.
The two main organisations that contested the area of migrants’ rights have
been the European Union Migrants’ Forum (EUMF) and the Starting Line Group
(SLG). The EUMF was established by the Commission as a representative forum,
but has had a troubled recent history and during 2001 its future was in doubt
because of various questions about its internal organisation. The SLG was discontinued
in rather happier circumstances following the successful incorporation