Issues Navigator

Global Challenges

Strategic Regions

Domestic Debates

Tag cloud

See All Tags

August 27, 2012 |  2 comments |  Print  Your Opinion  

Anna Triandafyllidou

A More Efficient and Just EU Policy

Anna Triandafyllidou: EU illegal immigration policy may have come up short with the Mobility Partnerships, but the Directive has paved the way for success. To improve its approach even more, the EU should realize the inevitability of illegal immigration and justly consider it as the demographic solution to an unfulfilled labor market.

As global economic disparities remain large, irregular migration pressures continue unabated despite the economic crisis that several EU countries are facing. Current irregular migration policies privilege tougher border controls--often at the expense of human rights obligations (and in violation of the European Chart of Fundamental Rights) while seeking to enlist the cooperation of main origin and transit countries through the so-called ‘mobility partnerships'. These partnerships basically promise more legal migration channels, mainly for temporary or circular migration, if sender countries guard their borders more effectively, combat migrant smuggling, and seek to deter emigration.

The carrot offered is, however, too meager compared to the stick meant to discipline. Vague promises or small seasonal migration schemes are not efficient safety valves for countries that have huge issues with poverty, lack of infrastructures or welfare systems, widespread corruption, and often political instability or civil war. Despite the rather non-existent results of this approach so far, the European Commission insists on Mobility Partnerships as a policy tool that will ease out irregular migration pressures from Northern Africa the year after the Arab Spring and aims to sign such agreements with Morocco and Tunisia.

Perhaps what is most promising in the EU policy against irregular migration is, paradoxically, the policy path opened up with the Directive on common standards for returning illegally staying aliens. While the Directive (voted in 2008) was then criticized for being inhuman--the directive of shame, it was indeed called by the relevant NGO campaign--it has actually obliged several EU countries to put in place relevant legislation and guarantee the fundamental rights of irregular migrants. It has led to the development of a new set of instruments such as the ‘formal toleration status' (existing, for instance, in Germany and in Greece) for irregular migrants who cannot be removed. It has strengthened voluntary return schemes (by extending the period given to migrants and their families to prepare their ‘voluntary' departure). Furthermore, it has obliged several EU countries to rethink the plight of people who are undocumented but cannot effectively be expelled. These countries have realized that the illegal immigrants cannot be ‘wiped out' with tougher welfare and residence policies or by making them ever more fearful that they will be caught (and their native employers ever more fearful to employ them). Thus, this directive opens up, through the backdoor, a debate on how to best handle irregular migration in Europe.

Perhaps the step to take in this direction is not too big to create a more effective and just irregular migration policy. In my view, three measures are needed:

  1. Acknowledge openly that a certain level of irregular migration is an endemic feature of democratic liberal societies.

  2. Europe, who needs demographic growth, has several labour market niches where migrant workers can be handy even at times of crisis like this one. Irregular migrants should, under a set of conditions, be integrated into the legal migrant population. The example of Spain with its arraigo procedure (that consists of tacit on a case by case basis regularization after 2 years of residence and demonstrating social and economic integration), the former such policy of France (abolished in 2006) and the relevant policy of Greece (after 12 years of residence).

  3. Human rights obligations should not be forgotten. They are valid also for irregular migrants and pending or rejected asylum seekers (indeed in this respect the Fundamental Rights Agency of the European Union is doing a good job and its role should be further strengthened).

Such a realistic short and medium term policy is necessary so that the more long term approach of closer cooperation with countries of origin and transit (including the dismantling of human smuggling networks and the promotion of growth and stability in these countries) becomes truly effective.

Dr. Anna Triandafyllidou is a Professor at the Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies of the European University Institute in Florence, Italy and Senior Fellow at the Hellenic Foundation for European and Foreign Policy (ELIAMEP) in Athens, Greece.

This article is published as part of the "Border Policies: Lessons for Improvement" theme week.

  • 6
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this Article! What's this?

 
Tags: | Illegal Immigration |
 
Comments
Tabatha  Robinson

September 3, 2012

  • 1
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Anna, thank you for this thoughtful article. Your policy recommendations have a particular realism to them, which adds to their practicality.

From what I understand, it is not that you are against Mobility Partnerships but that they have just not been effective so far due to other policy approaches.

Do you think that these Mobility Partnerships require some improvement on their own? I wonder whether it would be advantageous to link these bilateral agreements with development aid packages. Take France for example. The majority of the population arrested for immigration violations come from its former colonies, to whom it also gives the largest amounts of development aid. Perhaps, this coordination would give sender countries more incentives to monitor their borders. Yet, at the same time, it might definitely open up the stage for corruption and mismanagement.
 
Unregistered User

September 7, 2012

  • 1
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
I think that the Mobility Partnerships tend to overlook that the problem is that countries of origin and transit have administrations that are not very efficient and often highly corrupt. Not that such problems are not there in "developed' countries of Europe but in developing countries they exist at a much higher degree with devastating effects for the plight of their populations. What can be done to avoid this problem? Work directly with local actors and civil society, and less so with governments. Empowering local populations at the town level, community level, regional level can create more development than big development schemes and large aid programmes as it goes directly to the people interested without corruption bribes being paid to many intermediaries. It can help overturn the tide of migration. Naturally as you know this is not easy - more development can also bring more migration as we know well those that are leaving are not the poorest of the poor but the lower middle class. Thus development should make sure that inequalities are not increasing and everyone is better off. again such goals can better be achieved working locally in Africa and Asia. This is my view.

Mobility Partnerships are a good idea in their inception but they are based too much on a 'European' or 'western' conception of what the state is and what it should do. A sustainable reduction of irregular migration depends little on border control. It depends much more on more long term policies for development. It also requires better communication - through civil society inform local actors of what are exactly their job and life prospects in Europe. This is also VERY important. Inform them of what happens when they are arrested without documents. Often people in research interviews tell us that if they knew how bad it would be they would not have left but once they have taken up a 5,000 or indeed 10,000 dollar bond they simply cannot go back. Again these issues are more important than a paper and pencil roadmap on how countries of origin should stop migration at the source.
 

Commenting has been deactivated in the archive. We appreciate your comments on our more recent articles at atlantic-community.org


Community

You are in the archive of all articles published on atlantic-community.org from 2007 to 2012. To read the latest articles from our open think tank and network with community members, please go to our new website