REGINE Regularisations in Europe Final Report - European ...

Suggested target groups for regularisation measures
Table 8, overleaf, summarises NGO suggestions of potential target groups for regularisation
measures. The target groups are presented country-by-country, rather than as a synthesis – as the
target groups indicated by NGOs can also be read as broader indications of particularly problematic
categories of third country nationals in individual countries. Switzerland has been included in the
table, since the context for irregular migration – generally speaking – resembles that of countries of
the European Union.
As can be seen from the table, the most often-cited category is that of rejected asylum seekers,
followed by particularly vulnerable groups, notably victims of trafficking, minors and other family
members, including family members of nationals. This indicates that NGOs consider irregular
migrants liable to be deported (if we generalise the notion of rejected asylum seekers) as being a
major category of concern in virtually all countries from which we have received responses.
Furthermore, it suggests that current state practices, notably reliance on return as the only viable
policy option, is seen as seriously wanting from the perspective of NGOs. Similarly, vulnerable
persons, although probably relatively insignificant in quantitative terms, are seen as an important
(suggested) target group for regularisation measures, and indeed have been an important category of
beneficiaries of past regularisations for humanitarian reasons. What is perhaps most surprising is the
extent to which family members, including family members of legal residents and nationals, and
particularly minors have been identified as a major group of concern.
Towards a European policy on regularisations?
In general, NGOs are supportive of adopting policies on regularisation at the EU level. According to
the responses collected in the questionnaires, a policy on regularisation potentially could enhance the
rights of irregular migrants, could define minimum standards and provide common definitions of
regularisation and could help fight social exclusion and exploitation. However, there are also various
concerns. Thus, NGOs argue that there is the danger that any EU level regulations could lead to more
restrictive policies actually preventing, rather than promoting the use regularisation as a policy tool. In
another respect, EU level policies might be problematic in that they might risk insufficiently taking
into account the specificities of individual countries.
86