Política y ley de inmigración

This paper gives an overview of the current integration standards established within the Common European Asylum System and highlights the possible effects of the changing EU and national legal environment on the integration of beneficiaries of international protection. These integration standards are the starting point of the development of the integration indicators within the project “National Integration Evaluation Mechanism” (NIEM), which aims to support key integration and social actors in 14 EU Member States and Turkey to evaluate and improve the integration outcomes of beneficiaries of international protection. The EU’s greatest impact on the integration of beneficiaries of international protection has been through the stable legal framework of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS). The recast Asylum Procedures, Reception Conditions, Qualification and Family Reunification Directives all build on the standards set by the 1951 Geneva Convention and aim for its full and effective implementation. They set a series of standards that shape the integration process, starting from the reception phase until the full legal, socio-economic and socio-cultural integration allowing refugees to realise their full potential to contribute to society. These binding legislative acts are complemented by the Common Basic Principles for Immigrant Integration Policy in the EU1 and its re-affirmation, 10 Years On2 , which guide Member States on how to respond to the needs and opportunities that beneficiaries of international protection bring to their new homes. However, in the past year, the emergence and strengthening of exclusionary, anti-migrant narratives has threatened to undermine national – and now the EU’s – stable legal framework and level of ambition to promote refugee integration. The negative political discourse induced a surprisingly coordinated race-to-the-bottom reply at national level, whose approach is reflected in the most recent European Commission Communication “Towards a Reform of the European Common Asylum System and Enhancing Legal Avenues to Europe”. This document shows a fundamental change in the approach towards beneficiaries of international protection. These proposals reframe the logic of asylum to a more temporary legal status in its nature and have more often recourse to the cessation clause4 , without assessing the long-term consequences: how will it affect the integration of beneficiaries of international protection?

This paper reviews the comparative multi-level quantitative research on the links between integration policies, the integration situation of immigrants and a wide range of individual and contextual factors. Twenty-one reviewed studies and additional supporting articles indicate that a number of individual and contextual variables explain most of the variation between countries in terms of immigrants’ labour market integration, educational attainment, naturalisation and political participation. Thanks to the use of MIPEX and similar indices, some evidence is emerging that certain integration policies can be related to the specific integration outcomes that they aim to address. So far, only certain general and targeted employment policies can be directly associated with better labour market outcomes for immigrants and a lower incidence of employment discrimination. More indirectly, facilitating naturalisation, a secure residence and a secure family life seems to have positive effects on boosting labour market outcomes for certain immigrants. In the area of employment, studies rarely focus on a specific policy or properly match it to its specific intended target group and outcome. In the area of education, the inclusiveness of the school and education system seems to matter most for immigrant and non-immigrant pupils. Although targeted immigrant education policies adopted at national level do not display consistent results across countries in terms of pupils’ tests scores, most studies conclude that inclusive schools and education systems are more successful when they also target the specific needs of immigrant pupils. Several studies on the acquisition of nationality find that naturalisation policies are perhaps the strongest determinant of the naturalisation rates for immigrants from developing countries. Further research can explore which specific elements of naturalisation policies most help or hinder naturalisation. The few studies on political participation find that targeted policies and the acquisition of nationality may boost participation rates for certain immigrant groups. The fact that studies find no link between the general integration policy (i.e. MIPEX overall score) and a specific labour market outcome (i.e. employment rates for foreign-born) does mean that no causal relationship exist between integration policies and outcomes across countries. Considering that this multi-level research is still in infancy, studies have great room for improvement in terms of their use of databases and methodological tools. A more robust methodological approach using new international datasets can better explore the nuanced links between policies and societal outcomes. Future research needs to pay greater attention to linking a specific integration policy with its actual target group and target outcomes. Studies must also take into account time-sensitive contextual factors and general policies. International surveys can improve their measurement of integration policy outcomes in terms of longterm residence, family reunification, anti-discrimination, language learning, and, to some extent, political participation.

It is only since the beginning of the XXI century, with Law 4/2000, that integration has been incorporated into political and social debates in Spain; still, the current institutional framework took place almost a decade later with Law 2/2009. This legal measure introduced a framework of multi-level governance of migration based on cooperation among central administration institutions, local governments and civil society. The integration model established by Spanish policymakers presents itself as diversified and responsive to the different dimensions related to integration. The main focus is on the areas of reception, education and employment, with employment representing the destination of most financial allocations. The main political tool is represented by the Strategic Plan for Citizenship and Integration (PECI), whose action is complemented by other measures addressing specific immigrant communities. The PECI proved to be a fruitful tool for integration and social cohesion, especially taking into account the context of the economic crisis and the intense growth of migration inflow that characterized this period of implementation.

The author has developed a nationalist immigration and integration policy index to measure legislative changes with regard to immigration and integration policy. The index measures to what extent the legislative output on immigration and integration of governments in 9 countries has a (radical) right-wing signature. The analysis covers the period 1996–2010. The index focuses on policy changes on citizenship, asylum, illegal residence/regularisation, family reunion and civic integration (language requirements and tests, etc.). The index analyses policy changes based on a series of requirement indicators on requirements (e.g., years required for citizenship acquisition). In order to assess optimally the range and substance of changes implied in new legislation, varying sources have been used. Apart from scrutinising primary legislative sources, expert reports, articles and books have been consulted for contextual information.

In the framework of the EU-funded project CrossMigration, the Migration Policy group produced a set of indicators to comparative analyse migration and integration policies, similar to the Migrant Integration Policy Index (MIPEX). The set of indicators allows researchers and policy makers to compare policies in different areas of migration and integration policies and different countries on that. To allow for a cross-country comparative and longitudinal analysis, the dataset included 39 countries (EU28 and other European countries) for 2014 and 2019. The indicators cover eight policy areas: Family reunion; Citizenship; Permanent residence; Labour market; Education; Political participation; Anti-discrimination; Health.

In the European Union context, indicators have become increasingly important due to growing political commitment on integration policies at all levels of governance. In June 2010, EU Member States approved a number of European indicators of migrant integration, based on the EU2020 indicators and the EU’s Common Basic Principles, focusing on the core areas of employment, social inclusion, education, and active citizenship. The Commission’s July 2011 European Agenda for Integration views these indicators as a way to systematically monitor the integration situation and the EU2020 targets, enhance policy coordination, and make recommendations in dialogue with Member States. ICMPD together with the Migration Policy Group will produce an assessment report to confirm the relevance of current indicators for integration and whether current data sources are robust enough to calculate them. Objectives of the project • Analyse to what extent and whether the different integration realities in various EU Member States are the result of integration and migration policies, immigrant populations, and general contexts and policies. • Strengthen how European indicators of migrant integration capture and monitor the specific outcomes of integration policies. • Improve the way in which policy actors evaluate the effectiveness of integration policies, appreciate the other factors that shape the integration process, engage in the data and policy implications of indicators and mainstream integration into European cooperation and targets, including the EU2020 Strategy. Outcomes • Analysis reports (to explain the data behind the European indicators, test the effectiveness of certain migration and integration policies, and measure the impact of other policies). • Assessment report (to confirm the relevance of current indicators for integration and whether current data sources are robust enough to calculate them. ICMPD and the Migration Policy Group will propose additional indicators and data sources based on the chosen European indicators, the EU2020 strategy, and active citizenship). • Monitoring proposal (to outline how the European Commission can use the current and proposed indicators to monitor the results of integration policies). • Three expert seminars during the course of 2012 on the subjects of Employment, Education, and Social Inclusion and Active Citizenship.

The aim of the paper is to address and analyze the process of integration of migrants and returnees into Ukrainian society while applying the following criteria, set by the Migration Integration Policy Index: anti-discrimination and equity; access to education, social benefits system and healthcare; employment opportunities; grade of execution of the right for a freedom of movement and choice of a free place of residence; level of legally-enforced mechanisms aimed at guaranteeing access to citizenship of Ukraine through the process of naturalization as well as various economic and socio-political rights and lawful interests.

The Asylum Policy Index addressed the change in the nature (restrictiveness) of policies for asylum seekers in 19 OECD countries. It focuses on the changes in asylum and related policies in these countries between 1999 and 2006. The index is based almost entirely on legislation rather than on general impressions about the toughness of asylum policy. Taking 1997 as a baseline, the score decreases by -1 if the policy adopted is open to asylum seekers, or increases by 1 if the policy is restrictive. It is important to stress that this is a crude measure of policy change that does not reflect differences across countries in the finer details of policy change or in its enforcement. Nor is it an absolute measure of toughness but merely the difference in policy stance as compared with the beginning of 1997. The 15 components of policy are divided into three groups, each consisting of five components. Those representing the ability of asylum seekers to gain access to the country’s territory are labelled access; those representing the toughness of the country’s refugee status determination procedure are labelled processing; and those relating to the welfare of asylum seekers during and after processing are labelled welfare. The asylum policy index discussed in the text was constructed from annual country reports on policy developments given in three sources. These are: the OECD’s annual publication International Migration Outlook (Paris: OECD) (formerly Trends in International Migration), the country reports of the European Council on Refugees and Exiles (2006), and the country reports of the US Committee for Refugees and Immigrants.

Dumbrava’s Citizenship Policy Index, which builds on Howard,s citizenship policy index, analyses the citizenship regulations (citizenship laws and additional relevant legislation) in sixteen postcommunist countries in two periods of time (in the 1990s and 2000s). The index focuses on theregulations regarding the acquisition of citizenship- at birth (ius soli, ius sanguinis and overlapping) and through regular naturalization (without facilitations). In discussing the naturalization rules, a numeric scale has been designed to measure the “restrictive”-ness of citizenship rules (0-20). In order to measure the restrictiveness of the naturalization regulations, the present codification took into consideration five categories of requirements: residence (4 points), integration language and society/constitution (2+2 points), personal record criminal and political (2+2 points), loyalty- dual citizenship and oath of allegiance (3+1 points) and welfare income and medical situation (2+2 points). The index represents the sum of the indicators.

Research Questions Every immigrant to a country is the emigrant of another. For the contemporary migrant, the migration policies in both countries of origin and countries of destination define their options to enter, settle and belong to them. Our 3-year project seeks to adopt a comprehensive view of migration policy that includes both its emigrant/emigration and immigrant/immigration sides, bridging for the first time the two sides of migration policy which both the policy and research communities have assumed to exist, but which have not been analyzed in their connections. To wit, our question is: how does policy offer or hinder a path for migrants to become or remain an integral part of the polity? Our theoretical framework will bridge the stages of entry, residency, and access to citizenship and look for patterns of how states manage the process of migrant inclusion in or exclusion from the polity. We will gather cross-regional evidence on the variety and depth of policy configurations governing migration trajectories. With these data we will chart the connections between policies of mobility, settlement and belonging, keeping an eye to underlying principles structuring them, and possibly to threads of coherence across the “two sides”. Using a comparative area study angle, we seek to develop a broadened perspective on the migration policy landscape. Thus, we will look at cases from Europe, Latin America and the Caribbean, and Asia to cover a wide breadth of migratory profiles, institutional contexts and, thanks to that variety, to uncover noteworthy innovations. We hope to refine a theoretical model that can be later piloted in studies for some states in other regions such as Africa and the Middle East, where conflict and limited state capacities have presented challenges to empirical investigations on migration policies. The project’s overarching research question is: How do policies define the chances of immigrants/emigrants to become/remain an integral part of their receiving and sending polities? The partial research questions that we aim to answer are: What are the migration policies of the countries under study across three world regions? How are those migration policies linked to each other (i.e. immigration policy, immigrant policy, access to citizenship, emigration policy, emigrant policies, and retention of citizenship for emigrants)? Are overarching principles observable through the configurations of policies? Is there coherence between policies? What is the interaction that occurs within policy configurations over time? How are guiding principles of migration policy created and institutionalised? Which guiding principles for migration policy are balanced in distinct policy mixes? Contribution to International Research Only recently have a few scholars realised how crucial the “policy nexus” is between “admission”, “settlement” and “access to citizenship” policies. So far, these policies have been studied separately. The first important lacuna this project aims to cover is to look at the intricate links between these policies which roughly correspond to the state regulating the (ideal) stages of migration from mobility to settlement. Of course, not all migrants have the intention to settle and become citizens somewhere else, but we want to look at policies from the perspective of the possibilities they open to migrants to do so, shall migrants want to. We want to see for whom are those paths of entry, settlement and citizenship open, and for whom are truncated and when. Next, what is still missing from the picture of migration policies in international research is to look at the emigration side of policy. We know much about the different policies that regulate immigration. However, in this project we also want to consider the policies that regulate emigration, the rights of emigrants, and their retention of citizenship. By covering this second lacuna it will be possible for us to consider two sides of migration policy in different countries and ask questions of coherence across those two sides. A third lacuna is that we know little about these policies beyond the Western “usual suspects”. Yet, by definition, migration issues span across countries and regions, and our grasp of policy models and options remains poor if we do not take into account a wide range of policies that are decisive along the path from emigration to access to citizenship. Moreover, much innovation in emigration policies emanates from developing countries. Thus, a broad, cross-regional scope is crucial to reveal the range of variations among migration policy configurations. Firmly rooted in comparative area studies, this project aims at gaining policy-relevant insights on this important migration policy nexus. Research Design and Methods To answer the overarching research question we will combine methods of data collection and analysis across three concatenated phases, each refining the partial descriptive and explanatory questions. In the first phase we will create a dataset on the migration policies which will combine existing data and gather additional information for policies not yet surveyed. The dataset will let us explore policy configurations and their relation to variables that define migration systems in a global scale. In turn, these analyses will be the basis on which we will select cases for the second phase of the project: a comparative cross-regional study of up to six cases. In this second phase we will trace the evolution of different policy configurations. After these two phases are completed, the knowledge and explanations generated can be tested on other pilot cases and we will be able to work on policy implications. Preliminary Results The team, consisting now of the three core researchers, plus our highly motivated student assistants is busy compiling the information on emigrant, emigration, immigration, immigrant policies and citizenship policies for both immigrants and emigrants in close to 30 countries. We are looking forward to complete this data collection towards the end of 2018. For the moment, the data questionnaire we are using to compile the information systematically is already a contribution to the comparative study of migration policies, as it has consolidated the questionnaires used for other existing datasets created in recent years for different parts of the comprehensive policy scenario we are putting together. It involved an exhaustive exercise of study of the complementarities and overlaps in these other efforts by colleagues in the discipline. Our data collection tool will be published online by GIGA with an open access license to serve the academic and policy communities by the end of the summer 2018. Also, we have started to give visibility to our project through participations in several international conferences and we have inaugurated our presence in social networks, seeking to reach out to the academic and policy communities interested in migration policies across countries.

The project will provide a comprehensive comparison of rules regulating the acquisition and loss of nationality in the EU Member States. This will be achieved by collecting information about current legislation and the development of nationality law since 1985, by analysing statistical data on naturalization, acquisition of nationality at birth, and loss or renunciation of nationality, and by investigating administrative practices in the implementation of nationality laws. The project will also examine statuses of quasi-citizenship for third country nationals that are granted in several Member States on the basis of long-term residence or to nationals of certain countries or ethnic background. Apart from providing country reports on these questions the project's main goal is to develop a systematic frame for comparing specific aspects in the regulation of nationality and citizenship across countries. The goal is to find out in which areas there are trends of long-term convergence or persistent divergence between Member States. This will serve as the basis for a broad evaluation of Member States policies in this area and for policy recommendations addressed to both Member State governments and the EU. The main focus for the evaluative part will be on the question how policies concerning the access to citizenship and nationality contribute to or hinder the integration of immigrants. Special emphasis will be laid on dual nationality and the assessment of the impact of recent policy changes towards broader toleration or restrictions in this matter.

The aim of the research is to evaluate the effectiveness of Racial Discrimination Laws from the point of view of the target group and in a gender perspective. The main hypothesis is that differences can exist between the uses made of the law by men and women. This is because they develop different representations of the legal system and experience different forms of discrimination. The second hypothesis is that intersectional experience of discrimination based on race and gender is not recognized and treated properly in legal and institutional frameworks built around single types of discrimination because discriminations are seen as one-dimensional and as affecting all people -men and women- in the same way. The evaluation will be carried out through a study of case law and filed complaints, around 200 semi-directive qualitative interviews of foreign nationals and members of ethnic minorities and 70 interviews of stakeholders ans social partners, including lawyers dealing with complaints. The goal of the project is to improve our undertanding of the phenomenon of double discrimination (race and gender) and to develop practical tools to allow administrations, NGOs and specialised bodies to better assess the effectiveness of policies and practices in the field of antidiscrimination when faced with cases of double discrimination.

In the European Union context existing legislation on non-discrimination (Equality Directives of 2000 and various directives on equality of men and women) oblige Member States to eliminate inequalities of treatment on grounds of gender, age, race and ethnic origin, religion, disability and sexual orientation. While there is an increasing awareness and knowledge of how single equality grounds impact on (in-) equality in different societal domains, the intersection of different grounds remains little understood, particularly in the area of health care. Against this background, the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) has launched a study on inequality, multiple and intersectional discrimination in access to health in selected EU Member States (Austria, Czech Republic, Italy, Sweden and the UK). Aim of the study • To gain a better understanding of particular vulnerabilities resulting from the intersection of ethnic origin, age and gender in access to health care and quality of care in five EU-Member States (Austria, Czech Republic, Italy, Sweden and the UK) • To formulate recommendations how this situation can be improved. The empirical research involving more than 300 interviews with health professionals, policy makers and health users is set within a broader analysis of literature, evidence, legal context and mapping of policy initiatives since the 1990s in the 5 Member States and at the EU level. Target group Health care users belonging to vulnerable groups at the intersection of gender, age and ethnic origin Objectives • Identify barriers of access to health care services (ease with which health care can be obtained; quality of health care service) faced by the target group • Map the initiatives undertaken by Member States at policy level to enable and improve access to health services and quality of health for the target group • Identify the ways in which health professionals address the care needs of the target group Outcomes • Summary report (mainly targeted at policy makers; it includes evidence-based advice for tackling issues and cases of multiple and intersectional discrimination) • Comparative report (overview of legal and policy instruments dealing with multiple discrimination across the EU) • 5 Country thematic fact files including recommendations for good practice and policies applicable in the five countries and more widely in the European Union • Good practice handbook based on evidence collected through the research (selection of good practices effectively addressing multiple discrimination across the EU)

"Theoretical background and objectives This project explores how policies regarding immigrant rights and welfare state regimes have affected the socio-economic integration of immigrants. Most of the literature on immigrant integration assumes that the granting of easy access of immigrants to citizenship rights and government recognition and support for cultural diversity promote the socio-economic integration of immigrants. At the same time, existing work (e.g., Borjas, van Tubergen) has shown that immigrants with low human capital resources tend to migrate preferably to countries with equal income distributions and extensive social security protection. This raises the question whether immigrant integration policies that grant easy access to citizenship rights, and thus also full access to welfare state rights, might have the unintended consequence that they produce a high rate of dependence of immigrants on welfare state arrangements and attendant socio-economic marginalisation in other domains. If integration policies in addition do not demand cultural assimilation (e.g., in the domain of language) the risk of lower-skilled immigrants to become dependent on welfare benefits may further increase. This hypothesis of an interaction effect between integration policies and welfare state regimes is confronted with cross-national data on labour market participation, residential segregation, and imprisonment of immigrants. Where possible, these comparisons are controlled for cross-national differences in the composition of immigrant populations by drawing on comparative data for particular ethnic groups. The analysis includes eight West European countries that have turned into immigration countries at roughly the same time in the 1960s and early 1970s, where institutions have therefore had several decades to affect integration outcomes. They vary both strongly regarding integration policies (including the highest, Sweden, and the second lowest scoring country, Austria, in the 2007 Migrant Integration Policy Index) and regarding welfare state regimes (with Sweden and the United Kingdom at the extremes). Research design, data and methodology The study relies on various indicators of immigrant rights, prevalent typologies and indicators of welfare state regimes, and data from the European Labour Force Survey, International Prison Statistics, as well as results from a large number of previous studies on immigrants' labour market participation, residential segregation and imprisonment. To control for composition effects, the labour market data refer to immigrants from non-EU countries, and for specific country contrasts specific ethnic groups (Turks and ex-Yugoslavs). Residential segregation data refer to a few dozen European cities, partly referring to specific ethnic groups (e.g., Turks, Maghrebians, Caribbeans, Pakistani) and partly to more general categories (Muslims, foreigners, immigrants). Findings Across the three domains of socio-economic integration a consistent cross-national patterns is found (with the exception of residential segregation in the United Kingdom) in which the gap or the degree of segregation between immigrants and the native population is largest in the countries that combine easy access to citizenship rights and a large degree of accommodation of cultural differences with a relatively encompassing and generous welfare state (Sweden, the Netherlands, Belgium). Both the United Kingdom, which combines inclusive integration policies with low welfare state provision levels, and the three Germanophone countries (Germany, Austria, Switzerland), which combine restrictive policies with – at least in the German and Austrian cases – moderately strong welfare states, show relatively small gaps between immigrants and natives. These findings are confirmed for contrast comparisons for specific ethnic groups. For instance, compared to the native population, Turks in the Netherlands have much lower rates of labour market participation than German Turks, and similarly ex-Yugoslavs in Austria perform much better than those in Sweden. Because the results are mostly based on aggregate data – although some of the studies that are used do control for individual-level variables – they need to be further tested by taking individual and local context data more systematically into account. This will be one of the aims of the analyses in the context of project 6.3 further below."