REGINE Regularisations in Europe Final Report - European ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

OPTION 10: ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMON STANDARDS FOR THE PROCEDURE OF GRANTING AND RENEWING A NATIONAL RESIDENCE PERMIT Description: This would broadly define a range of conditions, documents and procedures that are required by Member States for the acquisition of a residence permit, without impinging on MS autonomy in the actual granting of such permits. The precise instrument that could be used is left open; ideally, it would specify at least maximum application and renewal fees. 361 Option 10a: Specification of documents and fees required for application for a residence permit Rationale and possible impact: The purpose of the provision is to limit the number of illegal residents left outside the residence permit system by virtue of excessive (and often pointless) bureaucratic and financial requirements. This includes: translations of a large number of official documents, social insurance contributions above the level of those of nationals’, high application fees, and various other bureaucratic demands. Interestingly, all of the MS with high application fees for permits have high (or very high) stocks of illegal residents: fiscal barriers are an important aspect of policy effectiveness, and should not be ignored. What supports EC action? The provisions of the Council of Europe European Convention on Establishment (ETS 019) and the European Convention on the Legal Status of Migrant Workers (ETS 093) specify that fees, if levied, should cover administrative costs only. Constraints on the unreasonable demands of MS in residence permit procedures are a consistent feature of NGO positions communicated to us. What works against EC action? It is likely that certain MS will oppose limitations on their levying of high fees. Option 10b: Permitting applications for employment/residence from within the territory Rationale and possible impact: The failure of a considerable number of countries (especially of southern Europe) to adequately recruit (unskilled) workers from outside their territory is a cause of large stocks of illegal residents. This is partly the result of restrictive legislation, partly through weak administration, and partly through the reluctance of employers to hire unskilled persons without personal contact. Allowing workers to apply for work permission from within the territory (as has been practised by Italy and, earlier, Spain) is a temporary solution to the problem of managing labour migration. It should not be cast as a legalisation, but as a legitimate route to legal employment and residence in the territory. What supports EC action? Those MS with difficulty in constructing labour migration policies may find this a convenient temporary solution that avoids the alleged ‘pull-effect’ of large-scale regularisation programmes. The policy should be set as an option, rather than an obligation for MS. What works against EC action? It is possible that certain northern EU MS will object to the flexibility implicit in this approach, on the grounds that it might encourage more illegal immigration. 361 These standards could be included in the Commission’s Proposal for a COUNCIL DIRECTIVE on a single application procedure for a single permit for third-country nationals to reside and work in the territory of a Member State and on a common set of rights for third-country workers legally residing in a Member State, COM (2007) 638 final. 126
OPTION 11: REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE IN REGARD TO ASYLUM AND SUBSIDIARY PROTECTION AND ELABORATION OF PROCEDURES ENSURING EQUAL ACCESS TO INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION ACROSS THE EUROPEAN UNION. Description: To improve the equal access to asylum and subsidiary protection across Europe, a European asylum review board should be established, which should be charged to evaluate administrative practices in EU Member States. The Commission should elaborate proposals for addressing lack of harmonised practices despite harmonised legislation, including the establishment of a European asylum appeals board whose decisions would have direct effect, or other options. Such an appeals board could be integrated with the proposed European Asylum Support Office (which has a more limited mandate, including possible review). Rationale and possible impact: NGO responses to the ICMPD NGO questionnaire have highlighted that one of the reasons for the presence of illegal immigrants are major protection deficiencies of the asylum system. In turn, addressing these deficiencies would also reduce the need for regularisation, while generally improving the asylum system. According to NGOs, deficiencies are not so much due to gaps in legal protection than to major difficulties in administrative practice, which result in uneven access to international protection in the European Union. Various other evidence, including ECRE reports, UNHCR opinions and highly varying recognition rates for specific groups of asylum seekers 362 corroborates this view. Innovative measures which would focus on the administrative level could potentially have a major impact on improving equal access to international protection What supports EC action? There is, in principle, commitment among Member States to create a common European asylum system. What works against EC action? The implementation of the directives in the area of asylum, in line with the principle of subsidiarity, is a matter of Member States. Harmonisation of administrative practices by contrast could be seen as breaching this principle. In addition, an asylum review board or a European appeals board may be opposed in principle. OPTION 12: STRENGTHENING THE RIGHT TO FAMILY REUNIFICATION (DIRECTIVE 2003/86/EC) Description: the idea of this proposal is to close gaps with respect to the right to family life. This would include strengthening the rights of de facto family units already resident (i.e., extend rights to persons not formally admitted as family members), permitting family reunification for unmarried partners, 363 setting precise conditions of housing requirements and minimum income (which, are nonexistent in some MS, and set very high in others). The actual operation of the Directive should be reviewed, and policy proposals developed from detailed examination of the highly variable practices across the EU. 362 For example, Chechen asylum seekers with high recognition rates in Austria (one of the main receiving countries for this category of refugees) and low recognition rates in Germany. 363 Unmarried partners are already admitted on this basis by Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, the Netherlands, Sweden and the UK. 127
Page 1 and 2:
REGINE Regularisations in Europe St
Page 3 and 4:
CONTRIBUTORS Principal authors Mart
Page 5 and 6:
Preface In December 2007, the Europ
Page 7 and 8:
1 Terms, definitions and scope 1.1
Page 9 and 10:
Table 1: Types of illegal or irregu
Page 11 and 12:
1.3 Freedom of movement rights and
Page 13 and 14:
1.4 The meaning of ‘regularisatio
Page 15 and 16:
Regularisation Mechanism A regulari
Page 17 and 18:
2 Previous comparative studies on r
Page 19 and 20:
Generally, the focus of SOPEMI repo
Page 21 and 22:
enefiting from regularisation has s
Page 23 and 24:
amnesty and moreover involved (limi
Page 25 and 26:
2. 3 The Odysseus study on regulari
Page 27 and 28:
etween expediency and obligations c
Page 29 and 30:
Sunderhaus identifies several ratio
Page 31 and 32:
whether it can be attributed to pul
Page 33 and 34:
Box 2: 3-tier earned regularisation
Page 35 and 36:
measures; it does address questions
Page 37 and 38:
3.1.1 Regularisation Programmes Ove
Page 39 and 40:
Nine Member States provided details
Page 41 and 42:
Figure 3 Grants of regularised stat
Page 43 and 44:
Box 3: Regularisation policy in Swi
Page 45 and 46:
3.2 Regularisation as a policy resp
Page 47 and 48:
Table 5: Comparative table of regul
Page 49 and 50:
case in Europe, alongside the more
Page 51 and 52:
that a year after regularisation so
Page 53 and 54:
treatment according to nationality,
Page 55 and 56:
iii. issues of advance planning iv.
Page 57 and 58:
iv. the requirement to appear in pe
Page 59 and 60:
denying residence permits to existi
Page 61 and 62:
efugees under the provisions of the
Page 63 and 64:
4 Government positions on policy 15
Page 65 and 66:
5 Positions of social actors 5.1 In
Page 67 and 68:
Since the 1990s - and in some count
Page 69 and 70:
live their lives without fear.” 1
Page 71 and 72:
admission policies. 181 The Danish
Page 73 and 74:
and useful, if planned and implemen
Page 75 and 76:
depend on (unskilled) immigrant lab
Page 77 and 78:
migration”. 209 In the opinion of
Page 79 and 80:
stresses that “economic immigrati
Page 81 and 82: undocumented migrants by the Brusse
Page 83 and 84: NGO/Country Main activities in rega
Page 85 and 86: NGO/Country Assessment of own role/
Page 87 and 88: known that this makes them vulnerab
Page 89 and 90: eaching reforms of the overall fram
Page 91 and 92: Accord of March 2008 have not yet b
Page 93 and 94: Table 8: Suggested target groups fo
Page 95 and 96: policy measures that could be adopt
Page 97 and 98: followed by the granting of any sta
Page 99 and 100: for irregular migrants, while Italy
Page 101 and 102: interpretations of the EU directive
Page 103 and 104: considered to be “flexible, adapt
Page 105 and 106: iii. Measures and sanctions against
Page 107 and 108: of international protection, it is
Page 109 and 110: 7.2 European Union approaches to il
Page 111 and 112: immigration.” 321 Finally, the st
Page 113 and 114: involve large numbers. Secondly, th
Page 115 and 116: 8 Policy Options OPTION 1: REGULATI
Page 117 and 118: initiative. In the case of permanen
Page 119 and 120: Ultimately, a comprehensive definit
Page 121 and 122: nor need it be seen as an endorseme
Page 123 and 124: permits, Member States should take
Page 125 and 126: OPTION 6: STRENGTHENING THE PRINCIP
Page 127 and 128: Rationale and possible impact: Upon
Page 129 and 130: information exchange could contribu
Page 131: d) apprehension data should disting
Page 135 and 136: 9 Conclusions and preferred policy
Page 137 and 138: management of irregular migration s
Page 139 and 140: more reserved than that of Business
Page 141 and 142: 9.5.2 Policy issues Previously (in
Page 143 and 144: Option 6a Facilitating access to lo
Page 145 and 146: Italy Ministerio Interno, Dipartime
Page 147 and 148: Federacion Andalucia ACOGE, Respons
Page 149 and 150: 11 References - secondary sources 1
Page 151 and 152: United Kingdom, European Democrat G
Page 153 and 154: Hollifield, J. (2004): ‘France: R
Page 155 and 156: Papademetriou, D. (2005): The “Re
Page 157 and 158: Watts, J. (2002): Immigration Polic
Page 159: European Commission, Proposal for a
show all

REGINE Regularisations in Europe Final Report - European ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?