Migration Processes in Central and Eastern Europe - Multiple Choices

More documents

Recommendations

Info

——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— Normative and Methodological Discussion of Migration and Integration ——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 1 This piece in an excerpt from a forthcoming dissertation. 2 Act XXXIX of 2001 on the Entry and Stay of Foreigners, Article 18, Para. 1/a. Petr Kafka Petr Kafka is currently completing his doctoral dissertation in the Political Science Department of the University of Toronto in Ontario, Canada. His work is a comparative study evaluating citizenship laws, asylum laws and the treatment of illegal immigrants in the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary and Poland. He can be contacted at: petr.kafka@utoronto.ca BIBLIOGRAPHY •• European Union. The Treaty of Amsterdam, (1997). •• European Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification. •• European Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents. •• European Council of Europe, Convention on Nationality, 1999. 71 •• European The Parliament of the Czech Republic, Act No.326/1999. •• European The Parliament of Hungary, Act XXXIX of 2001. •• European The Parliament of Poland, Act on Aliens of 13 June 2003. •• European The Parliament of the Slovak Republic, Act No. 48/2002. •• Waldrauch, H. Tables from the comparative report on Acquisition and Loss of Nationality in the EU 15 Member States prepared for the NATAC-project. Forthcoming. Migration Processes in Central and Eastern Europe: Unpacking the Diversity
——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— Normative and Methodological Discussion of Migration and Integration ——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 72 ————————————————————————— From Migration Control to Migration Governance Elements for an Inclusive, Dialogical Approach towards Worldwide Migration ————————————————————————————— An Verlinden This paper aims at a critical, normative assessment of current EU-asylum and migration policies, focussing on the subtle paradigm shifts that have led to a migration control policy. A different normative approach, based on the thoughts of some modern Jewish philosophers, will be defended as an alternative perspective that can underpin a new migration paradigm, moving from migration control towards migration governance. The administration of international migration and asylum has long been the exclusive domain of nation-states. Equally, they were never an issue of high politics until the 1970s (Hammar, 2001). 1 However, the economic crisis in the beginning of those years and growing public concern forced European leaders to question their (relatively) liberal migration and generous asylum policies and to resort to more restrictive migration regulations. Ever since, migration and asylum have moved from the periphery to a position at the top of national security agendas; they became a part of 'high politics' (Boswell, 2003; Miles & Tränhardt, 1995). This 'convergence of concerns' within Europe was the starting point for the development of a common policy in the field of migration and asylum. 2 In the following paragraphs, I will briefly describe the main characteristics of the 'Comprehensive Policy towards Asylum and Migration' at EU-level, arguing that it results in what I call the migration control paradigm. After having revealed the normative origins of this paradigm, I will propose a different normative approach that can function as a realistic and more human alternative to the current control paradigm. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE COMMON EU – ASYLUM AND MIGRATION POLICY •• Securitisation The first and most dominant characteristic of the current EU- asylum and migration policy concerns its tendency towards more restrictive and repressive measures towards certain groups of migrants, often described as the creation of a 'Fortress Europe', 'collective restrictivism' or 'the securitisation of migration' (Ucarer, 2001; Bigo, 2001; Brouwer, 2003; Cholewinski, 2000; Huysmans, 2000; Lavenex, 2001). 'Securitisation' can be roughly described as an extreme form of politicisation, defining types of migration as an existential or fundamental threat and therefore justifying exceptional, extra-ordinary 'emergency' measures (Buzan, Weaver & De Wilde, 1998). Starting in the early 1970s, matters of migration and security have indeed become the dominating political issues within Europe. European leaders (thereby stimulated by some parts of the electorate and a sometimes tendentious media coverage) perceive migration as a worrying, destabilizing and disrupting phenomenon, threatening cultural integrity, the internal stability and the public order of both individual member states and the EU as a whole. Therefore, migration is dealt with from a preoccupation with security, the fight against smuggling, trafficking, organised crime and – more recently – the fight against terror (Boccardi, 2002; Bigo, 1998; Den Boer, 1995; Kostakopoulou, 2001; Lavenex, 2001; Mitsilegas, 2003). 3 •• Renationalisation of migration and asylum issues At first sight, the history of European policy-making in the field of asylum and migration seems to be a process of communitarisation, making them matters of supranational decision-making procedures at the loss of national autonomy. However, because of the dominance of the Justice and Home Affairs agenda (cf. securitisation), member states' national security priorities continue to prevail over common, supranational decision-making initiatives (Guiraudon, 2003). 4 Therefore, it is argued, we can speak of a renationalisation of migration and asylum policies (Tomei, 2001). It is this renationalisation, with its one-sided emphasis on internal, domestic policy priorities that has led to a lowest common denominator policy, aimed at convening on agreements which entail maximal engagements rather than minimum standards. Migration Processes in Central and Eastern Europe: Unpacking the Diversity
Page 1 and 2:
Migration Processes in Central and
Page 3 and 4:
Editors Alice Szczepaniková, Marek
Page 5 and 6:
Contents ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 06 INTROD
Page 7 and 8:
Acknowledgments This publication is
Page 9 and 10:
———————————
Page 11 and 12:
———————————
Page 13 and 14:
———————————
Page 15 and 16:
———————————
Page 17 and 18:
———————————
Page 19 and 20:
———————————
Page 21 and 22: ———————————
Page 23 and 24: ———————————
Page 25 and 26: ———————————
Page 27 and 28: ———————————
Page 29 and 30: ———————————
Page 31 and 32: ———————————
Page 33 and 34: ———————————
Page 35 and 36: ———————————
Page 37 and 38: ———————————
Page 39 and 40: ———————————
Page 41 and 42: ———————————
Page 43 and 44: ———————————
Page 45 and 46: ———————————
Page 47 and 48: 03 Refugees in Central and Eastern
Page 49 and 50: ———————————
Page 51 and 52: ———————————
Page 53 and 54: ———————————
Page 55 and 56: ———————————
Page 57 and 58: ———————————
Page 59 and 60: ———————————
Page 61 and 62: ———————————
Page 63 and 64: ———————————
Page 65 and 66: ———————————
Page 67 and 68: ———————————
Page 69 and 70: ———————————
Page 71: ———————————
Page 75 and 76: ———————————
Page 77 and 78: ———————————
Page 79 and 80: ———————————
Page 81 and 82: ———————————
Page 83 and 84: MULTICULTURAL CENTER PRAGUE The Mul
Page 85: The institutional and policy develo
show all

Migration Processes in Central and Eastern Europe - Multiple Choices

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?