REGINE Regularisations in Europe Final Report - European ...

amnesty and moreover involved (limited) rights to family reunification. Data on post-regularization
trajectories in the US indeed reveal a significant geographical and occupational mobility of
regularised migrants. Anticipating significant occupational mobility farm workers regularised under
IRCA’s scheme for employees in the agricultural sector, the US government introduced new schemes
for the recruitment of agricultural workers to prevent additional illegal inflows. By contrast,
occupational mobility was not anticipated in the 1981—82 regularisation in France and vacant
positions seem to have been filled with new illegal immigrants. 62
In a review of the effects of regularisation programmes and employer sanctions published in 2000 63 ,
ILO researcher Manolo I. Abella identifies several reasons why states engage in regularisation
programmes. First, “tolerating (…) unauthorized stay and employment of large numbers of foreigners
weakens a state’s ability to impose the rule of law in other spheres” and thus regularisation (or
removal) ultimately can be seen as a measure strengthening the rule of law. 64 Second, regularisation
often aims at preventing exploitation of foreign workers and enforcing – by way of regularisation –
relevant employment regulations. A third objective is to avoid the creation of a dual labour market
and thus to prevent “allocative inefficiencies (…) [whereby] the same labour can command different
prices in different segments of the labour market” and hence also, to prevent illegitimate
competition. 65 In a survey of selected research findings Abella finds that the impact of regularisation
programmes is clearly mixed. Based on the US (and contrary to findings reported by the OECD)
Abella does not see marked occupational mobility and, hence, no significant improvement of the
employment situation of regularised immigrants and argues that overall, experience, qualification and
language skills are more important predictors of occupational mobility. 66 Similarly, he finds little
clear evidence of a positive impact of regularisation on migrants’ wages, with the possible exceptions
also discussed by the 2000 OECD study. 67 Generally, he argues that the wage differentials between
citizens and legal migrants, on the one hand, and irregular migrants, on the other, which have been
observed in the US can be explained by shorter duration of employment, average lower educational
levels and other human capital factors characterising irregular migrants in the US. However, it is
unclear to what extent these findings can be transferred to the European context with highly regulated
labour markets and a much more significant impact of legal status on the social position of
immigrants. 68
62 Ibid., p.63
63 Abella, M.I. (2000): ‘Migration and Employment of Undocumented Workers: Do Sanctions and Amnesties
Work?’ In Çinar, D., Gächter, A., Waldrauch, H.(eds.), Irregular. Migration: Dynamics, Impact, Policy
Options. Eurosocial Reports. Volume 67. Vienna: European Centre for Social Welfare Policy and Research,
pp.205-215.
64 Ibid., p.206
65 Ibid.
66 However, research on post-regularisation trajectories in the US quoted by Abella suggests that regularisation
had a positive impact on human capital accumulation, in particular on acquisition of language skills. See S.
Kossoudji, S.A., Cobb-Clark, D. A.(1992): Occupational Mobility or Occupational Churning? Pre-Legalization
Occupational Change for Male Hispanic Legalization Applicants. Paper presented at the 1992 Annual Meeting
of the Population Association of America)
67 i.e. mobility from the farm sector to low-wage manufacturing and service work in the US, and similar
movement away from agricultural work to urban based service and low wage manufacturing work in France
68 See Van der Leun, J. (2003): Looking for Loopholes. Processes of Incorporation of Illegal Immigrants in the
Netherlands. Amsterdam. Amsterdam University Press. Most research, however, has focused on the economic
17