Table 2: Regularisation programmes <strong>in</strong> the EU (27), 1996-2008 Year/Period Country Number of applicants Country total <strong>Regularisations</strong> granted Country Total % regularised 1998 IT 250,747 217,000 86.5% 2002 IT 702,156 650,000 92.6% 2006 IT 500,000 350,000 70.0% 1,452,903 1,217,000 1996 ES 25,128 21,382 85.1% 2000 ES 247,598 199,926 80.7% 2001 ES 351,269 232,674 66.2% 2005 ES 691,674 578,375 83.6% 1,315,669 1,032,357 1997 EL 371,641 1998-2000 EL 228,200 219,000 96.0% 2001 EL 350,000 2005 EL 90,000 90,000 2005 EL 96,400 95,800 99.4% 2007 EL 20,000 20,000 1,156,241 424,800 1997 FR 143,948 76,459 53.1% 2006 FR 33,535 6,952 20.7% 177,483 83,411 1996 PT 35,082 31,000 88.4% 2001 PT 185,000 185,000 2003 PT 19,408 19,408 2004 PT 40,000 19,261 279,490 254,669 1999 DE 18,258 18,258 2006 DE 71,857 49,613 69.0% 90,115 67,871 1999-2000 BE 55,000 40,000 70.0% 55,000 40,000 1999 UK 12,415 11,140 89.7% 2000 UK 11,660 10,235 87.8% 2004 UK 9,235 9,235 2005 UK 11,245 11,245 2006 UK 5,000 5,000 49,555 46,855 1999 NL 7,604 1,877 24.7% 2004 NL 2,300 2,300 2007 NL 30,000 25,000 83.3% 39,904 29,177 2005-2006 SE 31,000 17,000 83.3% 31,000 17,000 2005 IE 17,900 16,693 98.1% 17,900 16,693 2000 DK 3,000 3,000 1992-2002 DK 4,989 4,989 7,989 7,989 2003 PL 3,508 2,747 78.3% 2003 PL 282 282 2007-2008 PL 2,022 177 8.8% 5,812 3,206 2001 LU 2,882 1,839 63.8% 2,882 1,839 2004 HU 1,540 1,194 77.5% 1,540 1,194 1996 LT 51 1999 LT 385 2004 LT 103 539 TOTAL 4,684,022 3,244,061 Average 111,524 87,677 80.4% [weighted mean] No programmes: AT, BG, CY, CZ, EE, FI, MT, RO, SI, SK KEY: Official Estimate Own Estimate Incomplete Process Miss<strong>in</strong>g Data 32
N<strong>in</strong>e Member States provided details on criteria used <strong>in</strong> 26 regularisation programmes. The importance of various criteria or conditions is shown <strong>in</strong> Table 3 below. Table 3: Importance of selected criteria <strong>in</strong> regularisation programmes Specific criteria Essential Desired Not relevant Presence <strong>in</strong> the territory 22 0 3 Length of residence 17 3 6 Family ties 3 11 11 Ethnic ties 0 0 25 Nationality 4 1 20 Integration efforts 3 3 20 No crim<strong>in</strong>al record 17 5 3 Employment 8 11 7 Health condition 3 0 22 Other 5 0 20 ‘Presence <strong>in</strong> the territory’ before a certa<strong>in</strong> date stands out as the most important criterion used and has been seen as essential <strong>in</strong> 22 programmes. Length of residence and lack of crim<strong>in</strong>al record both have been regarded as essential <strong>in</strong> 17 programmes and desired <strong>in</strong> three and five programmes, respectively. Employment is another important criterion, be<strong>in</strong>g mentioned <strong>in</strong> respect to 19 programmes as either essential or desired. However, only eight programmes viewed employment as an essential criterion. Family ties – mentioned altogether as important <strong>in</strong> 14 programmes (although only three times as essential) is another frequently cited criterion. Other criteria are much less often mentioned as essential or desired, with <strong>in</strong>tegration efforts (six times, three times as essential) and nationality (five times <strong>in</strong> total, <strong>in</strong> which four as essential) are more important. Health reasons are only cited <strong>in</strong> three programmes, while ethnic ties are considered as irrelevant <strong>in</strong> respect to all programmes on which <strong>in</strong>formation was reported. Figure 2, below shows the criteria seen as ‘essential’ by frequency of occurrence <strong>in</strong> the 26 programmes for which <strong>in</strong>formation was provided. Figure 2 Conditions considered as essential 25 20 15 10 5 0 Other Health condition Employment No crim<strong>in</strong>al record Integration efforts Nationality Ethnic ties Family ties Length of residence Presence <strong>in</strong> the territory 33
- 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: 3.1.1 Regularisation Programmes Ove
- 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