REGINE Regularisations in Europe Final Report - European ...

known that this makes them vulnerable to exploitation, violence and abuse which are the main
indicators for trafficking.” 236
Several NGOs also point to racism and xenophobia which partly arises out of the ‘demonisation’ of
irregular migration, as a Greek NGO stresses: “In many cases the fact that a great number of irregular
immigrants reside in the country ‘poisons’ the public opinion which is unaware that immigrants want
to be regular in the country of residence. The stereotype of the illegal immigrant frightens public
opinion and creates xenophobic reflexes which act as a deterrent as far as the solution of the problem
is concerned.” 237 Similarly, a Czech NGO argues that “[n]on-regularized migrants residing in the
Czech Republic are often the victims of discrimination, xenophobia, hostility and intolerance.
Although they are aware of their position, they lack the resources and the ability to deal with it
(…)Those foreign nationals that are staying in the country illegally are people who should be
guaranteed certain minimal rights in a democratic system. And, besides fundamental human rights,
certain other factors should also be taken into consideration – such as those related to the right to
enjoy a family life or the availability of healthcare services.” 238
Like other NGOs which responded to the ICMPD NGO Questionnaire, the German Refugee
Council/Viersen (Flüchtlingsrat im Kreis Viersen e.V.) sees the main problem of irregular migrants in
their limited and precarious access to basic social rights, which, as it argues, has been virtually
ignored by the wider public: “Hitherto, [irregular migrants] are barely visible in public debates and
have almost no possibilities to satisfy their basic needs. At least, there are some regional and national
actors who raise the issue from time to time in public debates (…). However, concrete support is
available at most in respect of basic health care provided by NGOs (…). Apart from schooling,
however, where there are special provisions, access to most basic rights is practically impossible
because of sanctions that irregular migrants have to fear if they try to access such rights.” 239
Several NGOs – notably, the NGOs from Greece, Portugal and Spain which answered the
questionnaire – do not want to limit regularisations to particularly vulnerable groups but argue in
favour of broadly-conceived regularisation measures, which would be beneficial both for the
integration of migrants as well as for society at large. This said, they also stress the role of
regularisation in fighting social exclusion, exploitation and improving the situation of vulnerable
groups.
Thus, a Portuguese NGO argues in favour of regularisation “so that the process of social and cultural
integration develops easily.” Regularisation would also help to reduce illegal immigration and would
help fight the exploitation of workers, sexual exploitation and the exploitation of children. “This way,
[one would promote] their rights to better [living] conditions, with better employment opportunities
and [fairer] salaries. 240 A Greek NGO speaks in favour of regularisation of immigrants, because “this
is the only way to estimate the exact number of immigrants who live in Greece, to counter any form
236 La Strada International LSI, Response, ICMPD NGO Questionnaire, 8 May 2008
237 DIAVATIRIO (Greece), Response, ICMPD NGO Questionnaire, 30 May 2008
238 Counselling Centre for Refugees, op. cit.
239 Flüchtlingsrat im Kreis Viersen e.V., Response, ICMPD NGO Questionnaire, 21 April 2008
240 AMI (International Medical Assistance), Response, ICMPD NGO Questionnaire, 5 May 2008
81