REGINE Regularisations in Europe Final Report - European ...

non-deportable aliens should have an absolute right to residence, abrogated only on serious grounds
of public order and security. Access to fundamental rights, notably education and health care, should
be guaranteed irrespective of such provisions.
Rationale and possible impact: As noted above in Option 7, state practices concerning nondeportable
aliens are extremely heterogeneous. However, there needs to be a harmonised approach to
the treatment of such persons. One positive aspect of comprehensively regulating the treatment of
non-deportable aliens would be that the need for responsive regularisation programmes would be
reduced (as, apparently, occurs in France). At the same time, such a policy might imply the
regularisation of considerable numbers of TCNs. Nevertheless, this would be an altogether more
realistic policy and would also be more compatible with notions of combating social exclusion, civic
citizenship, and ‘legal integration’, i.e. the progressive acquisition of rights by non-nationals.
What supports EC action? The ‘Return Directive’ already includes limited provisions related to
non-deportable aliens and regularisation (paragraph 12 in the Recital; Articles 6 (4), 9, 10, 13 (2)). A
limited administrative harmonisation of practices (definitions of different cases, documentation, etc)
may actually be welcomed by Member States,
What works against EC action? A positive definition of minimum rights of non-deportable aliens,
e.g. the extension of the personal scope of the reception conditions directive, is unlikely to get much
support. On the other hand, the Directive includes some references to such basic rights, including
education. Finally, although there seems to be some support for harmonising practices, defining a
pathway for the ‘legal integration’ of non-deportable aliens (e.g. defining a time limit after which
Member States must award a legal status, and a time limit after which such persons should have
access to long-term status) is unlikely to receive much support.
OPTION 9: IMPROVING DATA COLLECTION ON IRREGULAR MIGRATION
(STATISTICS ON APPREHENSIONS, RETURNS, ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS)
Description: The Commission should propose, and in particular through its statistical agency Eurostat
and academic experts working in this area, ways to improve the collection of statistical data on
irregular migration. These measures should include
a) collection of personalised data (rather than simple counts of cases), notably in regard to
refusals, returns, and apprehensions;
b) build-up register based apprehension datasets which can be linked to other relevant databases
(visa database, asylum databases, Eurodac, return database, databases on persons held in
detention pending deportation) 357 ;
c) if the Council decides to opt for a comprehensive border traffic register system 358 , all relevant
datasets should be integrated into this system;
357 It needs to be stressed that detention pending deportation does not necessarily result in the removal of the
detained person after the end of the detention period. Thus, multiple detentions and apprehensions (that may or
may not be counted as such) are likely to be the case.
124