REGINE Regularisations in Europe Final Report - European ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

programmes (1): exceptional humanitarian programmes; (2) family reunification programmes; (3) permanent/ continuous programmes regularising irregular migrants on a case-by-case basis; (4) oneoff, employment based programmes aimed at regularising large numbers of irregular immigrants; and (5) earned regularisation programmes. The Council of Europe typology thus does away with some of the inconsistencies of the earlier Odysseus typology and provides a typology that lends itself more easily as the basis for a systematic classification of regularisation schemes in individual countries. In particular, two points are noteworthy. First, the typology stresses that family based programmes constitute programmes in their own right and need to be seen as different from humanitarian programmes. As our own study shows (see infra), family based regularisations are indeed an important phenomenon in a number of Member States and also point to deficiencies in regard to access to the right to family reunification. Secondly, the Council of Europe typology adds a new category of regularisations, namely ‘earned regularisation’, a term that has emerged in the US context and also has made its way into British debates on regularisation programmes. 88 According to the report, “the idea behind these programmes is to provide migrants with a provisional, temporary living and working permit and to have them “earn” the right to have the permit extended or become permanent through the fulfilment of various criteria, such as knowing the language of the host country, participating in community activities, having stable employment and paying taxes.” 89 A concrete proposal how such a scheme could look like has been developed for the US by MPI President Demetrios G. Papademetriou and is presented in Box 2, below. In its review of characteristics of regularisation programmes, their rationale, their implementation and their possible impact, the Council of Europe report repeats many of the points already made by the Odysseus study and Levinson. It differs in that it takes a more comprehensive view of regularisation and explicitly discusses regularisation as part of broader policies on irregular migration. Thus, the report recommends that “Regularisation programmes should be examined as one policy tool that, in conjunction with other measures (protecting the rights of migrants, increased internal and external migration controls, individual return programmes and development partnerships with countries of origin) could be a valuable tool for managing migration.” 90 88 See Papademetriou, D. (2005): op. cit. 89 It should be noted, however, that in public debates on ‘earned regularisation’, the term is often used in a different meaning, notably in the sense that integrated, long-term resident illegal migrants should be considered as having earned a right to residence. 90 Greenway, J. (2007): op. cit., p. 2. 26
Box 2: 3-tier earned regularisation scheme Overall objectives of an earned regularisation programme • Alternative to one-off large-scale regularisation programme • Reduce the stock of illegal migrants, and in particular illegal immigrants working in the informal economy • Reduce the size of the informal economy Tiers/ Characteristics Purpose/Advantages Tier 1 • Applicants would qualify automatically for probationary status and would be issued a residence and work permit • Registration of illegal immigrants, bringing illegal immigrants under the control of the state, • Through low thresholds to registration programme would reach the largest possible number of irregular migrants • Through low thresholds to registration biggest social problems associated with irregular residence and work would be removed, including violations of labour regulations, exploitation, disregard for social protection, evasion of taxes Tier 2 • After 3-5 years applicants regularised under Tier 1 would be able to obtain permanent residence (tier 2) • Subject to a number of criteria, including stable formal sector employment, paying taxes, language skills, civic participation, etc. • Applicants would be awarded credits/ points for meeting each (or some) of these criteria; • Permanent residence would be awarded after acquiring a number of points in a given time frame (3-5 years), plus a bonus year for those who have met most, but not all points yet • (Substantial) fees would be covered by immigrants Tier 3 • Would target for those who failed to pass the test under tier 2 • Persons under tier 3 would be granted a two year extension of their residence and work permit and be required to their home country within this period Source: Papademetriou, D. (2005: 12-13) • Would make administration more orderly and manageable, • Would reduce some of the problems associated to large-scale programmes carried out in a short span of time (backlogs, fraud, etc.) • Applicants would be able to apply once they have attained the number of points • Would offer a flexible tool to reward irregular migrants wishing to remain on a longer term basis for their incorporation into the host society • Would provide a transparent and clear mechanism to award residence rights • Creates incentives for ongoing “positive behaviour” • Temporary extension of the work and residence permit would increase the likelihood of voluntary return • Would reduce the negative consequences of immediate enforcement of return The report remarks critically that “[r]egularisation programmes have been largely designed and carried out as standalone policy efforts to control irregular migration, and then often paid little attention to the realities of the labour market needs of employers or to the behaviour of migrants. As a stand-alone policy to control migration, regularisation programmes are doomed to failure, since they 27
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: whether it can be attributed to pul
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 and 132:
d) apprehension data should disting
Page 133 and 134:
OPTION 11: REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE
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?