Migration Processes in Central and Eastern Europe - Multiple Choices

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
Normative and Methodological Discussion of Migration and Integration
———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
associations embedding migrants as well in their homelands
as in the host country (Goldring, 1998; Smith, 2001) and in
a range of community-based educational and professional
projects directed towards certain minorities in different
European countries. However, a truly bi-directional policy of
migration governance directed at (re)promoting a true sense
of solidarity, should aim at connecting migrants' practices
with a similarly active involvement of host-countries' populations.
A possible way of achieving such a real cross-cultural
encounter, based on mutual respect and shared responsibilities
consists of the creation of 'Foster Communities', to be
understood as grassroots partnerships between communities
(e.g. cities or towns) in the host countries and (deprived)
communities in countries of origin. These partnerships
create processes of encounter that unite people across different
cultures and increase mutual understanding and solidarity.
Such 'community building encounters' could function as the
cornerstone of a real human system of migration governance
leaving behind the paralysing preoccupation with control
and containment while focussing on the positive aspects of
inter-human encounter.
1 Obviously, economic and 'national' interests always influence the
way in which governments deal with migration and asylum issues.
Nevertheless, in the analysis of Hammar, asylum and migration
hardly were a subject of public discussion until the 1970s: both
phenomena were dealt with in a very administrative, legal way
by specialised institutions. Since the 1970s, however, asylum and
migration became highly politicised, being the subject of heated
political controversies, increased media attention and becoming
a decisive issue in electoral campaigns.
2 The first official step towards such a supra-national approach
was given by the 1985 Schengen agreement, quickly followed by
a range of other initiatives, of which the 2004 Hague Programme
and its subsequent 2005 Action Plan are the tailpiece thus far.
3 Examples of the transformation of migration and asylum into
security issues are the establishment of Eurodac, the use of preventative
detention and preventative exclusion for security reasons.
4 The predominance of individual nation-states' power in European
decision- making on migration is, inter alia, reflected in what is
called 'intensive transgovernmentalism' (Wallace 2000) and the
unwillingness to create supra- national European institutions
dealing with asylum and migration issues (e.g. a European office
dealing with asylum applications or an EU-office offering first
assistance and reception).
5 A concrete illustration of the externalization of asylum and
migration policies can be found in the recent process of
Enlargement, where the 10 candidate countries had to accept
unconditionally the EU-Acquis, as well as all existing EU-decisions
on immigration, asylum and border control policies, in order to
become a full EU-member. A similar mechanism is used in the
European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP).
6 The analysis of these two normative approaches is indebted to
Gibney 2004.
7 Article I-2 of the European Constitution gives the most comprehensive
'official' list of shared European values: “The Union is founded on
the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy,
equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including
the rights of persons belonging to minorities. These values are
common to the Member states in a society in which pluralism,
non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality
between women and men prevail”.
8 The utilitarian calculus refers to the consideration that the costs
to residents in the country of destination may not outweigh the
benefit of migrants and refugees realised by their migratory movement.
9 Migration was seen as a temporary phenomenon and was part of
economic policy.
10 The alternative approach is based on Cohen, 1966; Buber, 1994
& 1997; Lévinas, 1947 & 1961.
11 I prefer to use the term 'Governance' instead of 'Management',
since the latter (defended by international organisations such
as IOM, the Global Commission on International Migration, as
well as by the EU) basically implies the assumption of migration
as a 'problematic' though unavoidable phenomenon, that can
be remedied through a regulative system that channels migration
flows in a rational way (Gosh, 2002). Although the management
approach pleads for more legal migration channels, the emphasis
still is on 'controlling' population movements, since it is argued
that only some kind of regulation of migration will make it
possible to accept more immigrants in European host countries.
'Governance', on the other hand, recognises that immigration
impacts on a range of policy areas, acknowledges the multiplicity
of stakeholders involved and takes into account the longer term
consequence of human migratory movements.
An Verlinden
The author obtained Master's degrees in
Moral Science (2000) and Criminology (2002).
She is an academic assistant at the Department
of Philosophy and Moral Science at Ghent
University (Belgium), where she is preparing
a PhD on 'The Truth Value of the Normative
Content of Refugee and Migration Policies'.
She can be contacted at: an.verlinden@ugent.be.
75
Migration Processes in Central and Eastern Europe: Unpacking the Diversity