REGINE Regularisations in Europe Final Report - European ...

5.4.2 A survey of national level NGO perspectives
Why regularise? Arguments pro-regularisation
Irregular migration is seen as a significant problem by virtually all NGOs that responded to the
ICMPD NGO questionnaire and the majority of NGOs, in principle, support regularisation measures.
The target population of regularisation is complex and varies from one country to another: it might be
illegally resident migrants without any documentation in the narrow sense, but might also include
person with an unclear or precarious legal status such as tolerated persons in Germany. 232 In addition,
as one Czech NGO points out, “The boundary between a legal and an illegal stay is often blurry and a
foreign national with a legal status can easily slip into an illegal status.” 233
The NGOs that have responded to the ICMPD questionnaire do support regularisation for various
reasons, although opinions are divided on the extent to which regularisation should be pursued to
offer irregular migrants a pathway out of illegality. Some organisations, for example NGOs primarily
providing medical care, often do not feel competent to assess whether regularisation should be
promoted as an option or not but emphasise the negative consequences of illegality (such as lack of
access to healthcare, schooling and other basic social rights) and welcome any measures that help to
promote providing irregular migrants with basic access to care services – including regularisations.
Others are explicitly agnostic vis-à-vis regularisations and see their role primarily in upholding the
basic human rights of irregular migrants, as the response of a German NGO illustrates: “The Catholic
Forum Life in Illegality [Katholisches Forum Leben in der Illegalität] does not wish to evaluate the
German regularisation policy for principled reasons. However, [the Forum] is convinced that also in
the future, illegal migration won’t be prevented. It therefore calls for an adaptation of the legislative
framework in a way that irregular migrants are able to realise basic social rights without having to fear
detection and subsequent removal. Against this background the Forum would welcome regularisation
measures insofar as they would reduce the number of irregular migrants and hence the number of
migrants without access to rights.” 234
A Dutch NGO emphasises that any responses to the social problems associated with illegality need to
take into account migrants’ migration projects and, by implication, the likely persistence of illegal
migration, whatever measures governments may adopt to combat irregular migration: “As long as
their 'project' didn't succeed, irregular migrants will stay and struggle on. In this way they often harm
themselves (living on the fringes of society, deprived, vulnerable) and society as well (a source of
cheap labour, criminality, precarity).” 235 La Strada, an international NGO working on trafficking
issues, equally highlights the vulnerability arising from lack of status: “[T]here are large numbers of
people in a irregular situation whose position is very vulnerable due to their status. It is generally
232 See Europäische Vereinigung von Juristinnen und Juristen für Demokratie und Menschrechte in der Welt e.
V. (EJDM), response, ICMPD NGO Questionnaire, 4 May 2008
233 Counselling Centre for Refugees/ Organization for Aid to Refugees, response, ICMPD NGO Questionnaire,
30 April 2008
234 Katholisches Forum Leben in der Illegalität, response, ICMPD NGO Questionnaire, 23 April 2008
235 Stichting LOS (Landelijk Ongedocumenteerden Steunpunt), response, ICMPD NGO Questionnaire, 21 April
2008
80