WELDI baseline report

Welcoming
communities
National /
transnational
Through different means and from
different thematic angles, these networks
and initiatives offer platforms
to build cities’ capacity to improve
their reception and integration
policies, often in collaboration with
civil society and international organisations.
They offer moral support
in working towards a common goal
and technical exchange. They also
have -to varying degrees- an advocacy
function for cities towards states,
the EU and the international level.
WELDI is connected to several of
these networks, and will use synergies
with them to strengthen its
message.
Within the URBACT programme,
WELDI builds on the legacy of the
network “Arrival Cities” (2015-18).
The commonality between both
networks is their aim to foster local
leadership in migrant reception and
WELDI - Baseline report
Based on the initiative of civil society and charities,
“Welcoming communities” platforms have
formed in the US, Australia, in Germany and internationally.
They offer self-assessment and learning
tools as well as a certification for participating
authorities who receive support in meeting standards
on migrant participation and engagement,
fostering interaction and providing equitable
access to services.
integration in times of an increasing
political contestation of migration,
with the nuance that this contestation
has only grown in the meantime.
Both networks also share the ambition
to build strongly on the involvement
of migrants as protagonists, a
need whose urgency has only grown.
WELDI’s specific contributions to
this legacy include its human rights
perspective and its advocacy agenda
on behalf of cities.
The current state
of EU asylum and
migration policies
The 1997 Amsterdam Treaty marks
the starting point for the EU to
develop a common immigration
policy and a Common European
Asylum system (CEAS). This manda-
te was consolidated by the Lisbon
Treaty that made common migration
policies a subject of qualified majority
voting. 3 Since then, the EU has
made efforts to harmonise asylum
decision and reception conditions,
and created common policies in the
area of economic migration (e.g.
through the Single Permit Directive
and the Blue Card for highly skilled
workers), family reunification and
non-discrimination. Over these 25
years, migration has become increasingly
politicised within and between
member states, which led to
a sluggish application of the agreed
EU standards and stalled progress in
many areas. A major cause of conflict
today is asylum, and in particular
solidarity and fair sharing of responsibility
- a core principle of EU migration
policies according to the Lisbon
Treaty. This conflict opposes those
regions of the EU that are the main
places of arrival of asylum seekers
with those that are not and that are
unwilling to see asylum as a common
responsibility.
The smallest common denominator
between member states today has
been a focus on border security and
partnerships with states outside
the EU to curb arrivals and asylum
claims. While the budget for such
policies is constantly increasing 4 ,
their track record in achieving their
objectives is meagre at best. In the
current context of a succession of
wars, political and humanitarian crises,
demographic developments and
climate change, it looks unlikely that
a significant reduction in immigration
can be achieved through stricter
migration controls. 5
Rather a change of perspective is
needed acknowledging that migration
is part and parcel of the EU’s
future, and allowing a focus on how
to organise migration better and
in compliance with human rights
instead. Cities can be protagonists in
leading this change, a task of which
member states seem incapable at
present.
3
This means that in order to approve a legislative proposal, the Council of the European Union does not
need a unanimous vote, but a majority representing 55% of all member states and 65% of the population
and the approval of the European Parliament.
4
The border management and visa instrument has increased by 131% to €6.2 billion in the current
funding period compared to 2014-2020. The budget of the Agency Frontex has increased from an annual
6m in 2006 to 800m today. Also, increasing parts of the European Development Fund and the Neighbourhood
Development Instrument are earmarked for migration control by non-EU transit countries.
Statewatch and the Transnational Institute 2022. At what cost? Funding the EU’s security, defence, and
border policies, 2021–2027 A guide for civil society on how EU budgets work.
5
See, e.g. Crépeau, F. 2017. Why nothing will stop people from migrating. The Sunday Magazine
Setting the context 9