Gouvernance des migrations

Migration governance includes, but is broader than, migration policies. While the latter refers to laws, regulations, decisions or other government directive related to migration, governance encompasses these elements as well as the factors related to decision-making processes and implementation. While the term governance is frequently used in the field of migration studies, it remains ill-defined. Definitions of governance typically focus on the observable outputs of governance processes.: i) norms, rules, policies, laws and institutions that can be binding or non-binding norms and frameworks, at the global, national or subnational levels.; ii) actors, institutions and institutional mechanisms; and iii) processes or methods of decision-making and of governing processes (including implementation and monitoring) that can be formal or informal and occur at different levels (local, national, global) and among diverse actors. 

Migration governance refers to different categories of migration with different policy frameworks: labour migration (high skill, low skill, temporary), family migration, migration for studies, refugee and international protection status, irregular migration. These categories are not regulated in the same way and do not involve the same actors and institutions. Also, there are different fields of policy actions, from integration measures to facilitate access to employment for immigrants, etc.

Different topics related to the field were organised by the key components of migration governance, namely the different actors of governance, the different types and areas of policies – regarding both migration in general and immigration -, and finally the governance processes and key related topics.

Showing page of 58957 results, sorted by

Lost in Transition? The European Standards Behind Refugee Integration

Authors Judith Tanczos, Migration Policy Group (MPG)
Description
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?
Year 2017
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
1 Report

The increasing use of detention of asylum seekers and irregular migrants in the EU

Authors Carmine Conte, Valentina Savazzi, Migration Policy Group (MPG)
Year 2019
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
2 Policy Brief

Cities as Providers of Services to Migrant Populations

Authors Alexander Wolffhardt, Migration Policy Group (MPG)
Year 2018
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
3 Policy Brief

New Asylum Recast May Undermine the EU's Greatest Impact on Refugee Integration

Authors Thomas Huddleston, Judit Tanczos, Alexander Wolffhardt, ...
Description
The EU has had its greatest effects on the integration of beneficiaries of international protection (BIPs) through the stable legal framework of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS). The 2013 Reception Conditions and 2011 Qualification Directives build on the standards set by the 1951 Geneva Convention and aim for its full and effective implementation. As presented in the MPG paper “Lost in transition? The European standards behind refugee integration”, they guarantee a series of standards that shape the integration process, starting from the reception phase until full legal, socio-economic and socio-cultural integration allows refugees to realise their full potential to contribute to society. On 13 July 2016, a set of proposals was presented to reform these standards, including to replace the Qualification Directive with a Regulation and to amend the Reception Conditions Directive.1 The social consequences of these proposals are serious. Since BIPs today are fleeing many protracted conflicts that take on average 25 years to resolve2 , our societies will have to live with the consequences of these proposals for years—if not generations—to come. These proposals largely represent a missed opportunity and a potentially major risk for integration. The minor improvements on reception and qualification standards would only marginally improve the situation on the ground in most Member States. Moreover, several of the recast’s proposals would actually delay and undermine the integration process for asylum-seekers and BIPs by reducing support for potentially large numbers and removing some possibilities for more favourable conditions for integration. Unlike the 1 st and 2nd generation of the CEAS, which consolidated the most common national practices in EU law, several of these proposals are modelled on hasty and politicised recent restrictions in only a few Member States. These restrictions have not yet been demonstrated to be justified, proportionate or effective for improving integration outcomes. Overall, national governments and civil society agreed that better implementation of the current Reception and Qualification Directives would have greater effects on integration, without jeopardising the effectiveness of other proposed reforms to the CEAS. Particularly as the Commission’s 2016 asylum proposals were drafted more hastily than previous EU asylum and immigration proposals, these two proposals would need to be revised or seriously amended by Council and Parliament in order to make integration the top priority of this recast and avoid a de facto race-to-the-bottom where Member States are further demanding integration but not effectively supporting BIPs, Member States and the local, social and civil society actors that make integration a reality.
Year 2017
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
4 Report

Future EU funding to support the integration of refugees and migrants

Authors Alexander Wolffhardt, Migration Policy Group (MPG)
Description
Funding support through EU programmes and their objectives is the EU’s main lever to promote the integration of migrants and refugees. Next to the soft law embodied in policy guidelines like the Common Basic Principles of immigrant integration, it is the amounts, binding provisions and concrete spending rules of instruments such as the Asylum-, Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF) or the structural funds including the European Social Fund (ESF) that define EU policy and a joint European approach in the integration domain. In a number of Member States, EU funds are even the sole or nearly only source of support for integration measures and -policies, rendering them crucially important for the outlook and opportunities of migrants and refugees in many places across Europe. Against this background, the proposals and negotiations on the upcoming Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), i.e. the 2021 to 2027 EU programme and funding period, have become the focal point of the EU integration debate since 2018. Local level integration actors including cities and civil society organisations are key stakeholders in these policy debates, whose oucomes will be decisive for the availability of means both for early and longer-term integration, and on local level as much as for mainstreaming integration across all relevant policy areas. This report synthesizes previous ReSOMA briefs in the area of integration that have focused on the unfolding MFF debate. Following an overview of the 2018 Commission proposals which set out scope and structure of the future EU instruments (chapter 1.2), it presents twelve policy debates related to the ‘what’ and the ‘how’ of EU support for integratin and their stickicking points from a local level and civil society perspective (chapter 2). Partly refering to the discourse responding to recent policy trends and how they became incorporated in the Commission proposals, partly referring to long-standing debates between stakeholders and EU institutions, the chapter offers an abridged version of key topics of debate as identified in the previous ReSOMA Discussion Briefs on ‘Cities as providers of services to * By Alexander Wollfhardt, Migration Policy Group 4 migrant populations’, ‘Sustaining mainstreaming of immigrant integration’ and ‘The social inclusion of undocumented migrants’. Against the background of these conversations and controversies, stakeholders came forward with numerous proposals to improve and amend the Commission proposals to better address their concerns. The European Parliament in 2018 has been the key arena of decision-making towards the 2021 to 2027 MFF, with MEPs able to amend the proposed legislation based on the concerns driving the policy controversies and offering stakeholders the opportunity to advocate for their own proposals. Chapter 3 shows how the suggestions for alternative solutions brought forward converge around four mayor policy options for the future of EU spending on integration:  Adequate funding – to ensure sufficient and flexible spending on integration according to changing needs across all Member States  Meaningful needs assessment – to base AM(I)F national programming and Partnership Agreements on structured and standalone assessment of needs and challenges  Mainstreamed, longer-term policies – to promote comprehensive integration policies with a long-term orientation and mainstreaming them on Member State and EU level  Broader participation – to ensure funds can be accessed by civil society and local/ regional authorities, and that these actors are fully involved in the funds’ governance For each of these options main proposals are listed as voiced by stakeholder organisations in the field, including the ReSOMA partners ECRE, EUROCITIES, PICUM and Social Platform. The chapter also shows, in each of the options, how the European Parliament has amended the Commission proposals, thus illustrating the uptake by Parliament of solutions advocated for by stakeholders. References to the previous ReSOMA Policy Options Briefs on ‘High levels of EU support for migrant integration, implemented by civil society and local authorities’ and ‘Comprehensive and mainstreamed, longer-term support for the integration of migrants’ point to more in-depth information on the evidence base supporting these proposals, the details of the various stakeholders positions and a mapping of the EP amendments. Chapter 4.1 sheds light on the state of play as of spring 2019, with the EP positions on the key EU instruments all decided before the EP elections and clarified at time when MFF negotiations are gearing up in the intergovernmental Council arena. Compromises among Member States and with the European Parliament are expected to be reached in late 2019/early 2020. Next to highlighting current debate among governments, the chapter stresses the importance of the preparations taking place already now on Member State level in terms of programming and priority setting. How the national AM(I)F and ESF+ programmes are shaping up even now, in advance of final EU-level decisions on the scope of the instruments, is crucially important for the future availability of EU means for integration support and the possibilities of key actors to benefit from 5 programmes. Across all levels, governments, the Commission, European Parliament and integration stakeholder are called upon to act accordingly, to ensure full exploitation of the new instruments’ potential for integration support, complementarity in programme planning, comprehensive compliance with the partnership principle and a need-based approach to the services funded. Drawing the consequence from the lack of realtime evidence on the actual uptake of EU instruments supporting integration and on the practice of partnershipled implementation, the Synthetic Report culminates in a proposal for a new, independent EU-wide quality monitoring mechanism (chapter 4.2). Led by civil society and local level stakeholders across the EU, the mechanism would provide for ongoing, regular monitoring of how the partnership principle is observed, national programmes are implemented, different funds are used, and of the quality of coordination and coherence among the instruments. Quality assessment of content and effectiveness of projects funded would improve the evidence base for future AM(I)F midterm reviews and allocation decisions for the second tranches of the fund. The new mechanism would thus aim to generate the necessary knowledge for pushing towards  compliance with the partnership principle,  purposeful use of AM(I)F and structural (ESF+) funds to support integration,  coordination and collaboration among the implementing authorities,  robust mid-term review procedures. This recommendation to set up a new, enhanced quality monitoring mechanism not only responds to a core gap identified in activities and analyses of stakeholders, but also builds on ReSOMA’s dialogue with local level and civil society experts, policymakers and researchers. In a very concrete way ReSOMA suggests the contours of a transnational mechanism that brings together implementation monitoring, qualitative evaluation, empowerment and capacity building of stakeholders, as well as EU-wide benchmarking and mutual exchange
Year 2019
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
5 Report

Integration Policies: Who Benefits?

Authors Thomas Huddleston, Elena Sánchez-Montijano, Migration Policy Group (MPG), ...
Year 2015
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
6 Policy Brief

Crackdown on NGOs assisting refugees and other migrants

Authors Lina Lina Vosyliūtė, Carmine Conte, Migration Policy Group (MPG), ...
Year 2018
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
7 Policy Brief

The European Benchmark for Refugee Integration: A Comparative Analysis of the National Integration Evaluation Mechanism in 14 EU Countries

Authors Alexander Wolffhardt, Carmine Conte, Thomas Huddleston, ...
Description
This report presents a comparative, indicator-based assessment of the refugee integration frameworks in place in 14 EU countries. Analysis is focused on legal indicators, policy indicators and indicators which measure mainstreaming, policy coordination, as well as efforts aimed at participation and involvement of the receiving society. Results are being presented in relation to the concrete steps policymakers need to take in order to establish a refugee integration framework that is in line with the standards required by international and EU law, namely the building blocks “Setting the Legal Framework”, “Building the Policy Framework” and “Implementation & Collaboration”. Important conclusions can be drawn from the cross-country comparison in the dimensions of legal integration (residency, family unity and reunification, access to citizenship), socio-economic integration (housing, employment, vocational training, health and social security) and socio-cultural integration (education, language learning/social orientation and building bridges). Countries included in the NIEM baseline research are Czechia, France, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden. Results have been scored on a scale from 0 to 100, ranging from least favourable to most favourable provisions. Analysed data refer to recognized refugees and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection (BSPs), and to the legal and other provisions in place as of April 2017. Future evaluation rounds of NIEM will strive to overcome data gaps, extend analysis to other groups under international protection, monitor changes over recent years, and by including integration outcome, financial and staff input indicators, will move forward towards building a comprehensive index measuring refugee integration.
Year 2019
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
8 Report

Sustaining mainstreaming of immigrant integration

Authors Alexander Wolffhardt, Migration Policy Group (MPG)
Year 2018
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
9 Policy Brief

Asylum Policies and Protests in Austria

Authors Verena Stern, Nina Merhaut
Book Title Protest Movements in Asylum and Deportation
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
10 Book Chapter

Private Sponsorship Programmes and humanitarian visas: a viable policy framework for integration?

Authors Giacomo Solano, Valentina Savazzi, Migration Policy Group (MPG)
Year 2019
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
11 Policy Brief

Comprehensive and mainstreamed, longer-term support for the integration of migrants: Options for the 2021 to 2027 MFF

Authors Alexander Wolffhardt, Migration Policy Group (MPG)
Year 2019
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
12 Policy Brief

National Immigration and Integration Policies in Europe Since 1973

Authors María Bruquetas-Callejo, Jeroen Doomernik
Book Title Integration Processes and Policies in Europe
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
13 Book Chapter

Supporting the social inclusion of the undocumented: Options for the 2021 to 2027 MFF

Authors Alexander Wolffhardt, Migration Policy Group (MPG)
Year 2019
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
14 Policy Brief

Evaluating Impact: Lessons Learned from Robust Evaluations of Labour Market Integration Policies

Authors Özge Bilgili, Barcelona Centre for International Affairs (CIDOB), Migration Policy Group (MPG)
Year 2015
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
15 Report

Strategic litigation: the role of EU and international law in criminalising humanitarianism

Authors Carmine Conte, Seán Binder, Migration Policy Group (MPG)
Year 2019
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
17 Policy Brief

Regulating Movement of the Very Mobile: Selected Legal and Policy Aspects of Ukrainian Migration to EU Countries

Authors Monika Szulecka
Book Title Ukrainian Migration to the European Union
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
18 Book Chapter

Measures to Support Early-Stage Migrant Entrepreneurs

Authors Giacomo Solano, Alexander Wolffhardt, Aldo Xhani, ...
Description
Migrant entrepreneurship has received increasing attention from policy makers, stakeholders and scholars. In both the Action Plan for the integration of third country nationals and the 2020 Entrepreneurship Action Plan, the European Commission emphasises that entrepreneurship represents an alternative form of decent and sustainable employment for migrants. This also follows recent academic and non-academic studies on the topic (European Commission, 2016; Rath, Solano and Schutjens, 2019). There are at least four reasons why policies and measures should focus on supporting migrant entrepreneurs, especially in early stages of the business: • Self-employment represents a way towards empowerment. Although it cannot be taken for granted that self-employment provides migrants with a higher income in comparison to those who opted for a salaried employment (see Bradley, 2004), self-employment represents a way to tackle unemployment, and underemployment - professional downgrading and employment in poorly paid, dangerous and demanding jobs (Rath, Solano and Schutjens, 2019). Furthermore, through migrant entrepreneurship, migrants can improve their social status in the receiving society (Allen and Busse, 2016; Basu, 2001; Solano, 2015). • The impact of migrant entrepreneurship goes way beyond the benefits for the individual entrepreneur. In quantifiable terms, the number of firms, the employment creation, the volume in trade and sales are increasing, something that may benefit the economy in general (Desiderio, 2014). Migrant entrepreneurs also bring about qualitative economic and market changes that result in relatively new products and processes. They gravitate to particular neighborhoods or areas, thereby creating interesting places for leisure and consumption and revitalizing these areas (see, Aytar and Rath, 2012). • A relevant number of migrants starts a business. While many international migrants are economically active as wage workers (i.e., employees), a small but significant number has chosen or would like to start a business. About 13 per cent of all foreign-born migrants in OECD countries are selfemployed (OECD, 2010 and 2013). The same happens for the EU28 countries, in which around the 12% of foreign population is self-employed (Eurostat, 2017). In many countries the rate of self-employment among migrants is higher than the one of natives (Eurostat, 2017; OECD, 2010 and 2013). • Migrant-owned business are likely to fail and to be in low-profitable sectors. Despite self-employment and entrepreneurship represent a promising alternative option for migrants to access the labour market, they need to be adequately supported by policies and initiatives. In fact, migrant enterprises have higher failure rates than nativeowned ones and tend to concentrate in low-profitable sectors (e.g., petty trade) with no possibilities of growth (Desiderio and Mestres 2011; OECD, 2010; Rath and Schutjens, 2016). The difficulties that migrant entrepreneurs have in running the business is due to some specific obstacles that migrants – and, more in general, vulnerable groups -face when they want to start a business. The obstacles are well-known and there is an extensive literature on this (Desiderio, 2014; Rath and Swagerman, 2016): • they have difficulties in accessing credit, especially for financial institutions. As they often lack collaterals (e.g., they do not own a house), financial institutions are likely to deny credit to them. Consequently, migrant entrepreneurs normally receive small loans from relatives, friends and other migrants. This hampers the possibility of entering in sectors that requires a relevant starting capital, which are normally more profitable. • migrant entrepreneurs have difficulties to deal with the bureaucracy of the host country. They have difficulties in understanding all the administrative steps to start the business. • they (often) lack of familiarity with the (business) environment and the market where they start the business. Having only limited knowledge of the context of the destination country – with often information received from other migrants – tunnels them towards ethnic and/or not profitable markets. • a limited personal network, which is often composed of other migrants, does not help in dealing with bureaucracy or accessing information on potential unexplored market – as other migrants have often limited information as well. In conclusion, migrant entrepreneurship may represent an alternative way to access the labour market of the host | 2 country. However, migrant entrepreneurship often results in low-profitable highly-demanding micro businesses, which do not represent a decent form of employment. This is because of the barriers that migrants face when it comes to start a business. Migrant entrepreneurship needs to be supported to become an alternative form of decent employment. Policy makers and support providers (e.g. public employment services, NGOs, microcredit institutions) often face many obstacles in the design and implementation of support policies for migrant entrepreneurs. This handbook is addressed to policy makers in the field and support providers and aims at summarizing the main kinds of support that can be provided to migrant entrepreneurs and the factors for successful support measures. In doing this, we present some good practices.
Year 2019
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
19 Report

Crackdown on NGOs and volunteers helping refugees and other migrants

Authors Lina Vosyliūtė, Carmine Conte, Migration Policy Group (MPG), ...
Description
This report synthesises previous ReSOMA briefs concerning the crackdown on NGOs and volunteers helping refugees and other migrants. Section 1 captures the main issues and controversies in the debate on the policing of humanitarianism and the potential impacts of EU and national anti-migrant smuggling policies on civil society actors. This section has drawn on academic research in this area, and in particular on CEPS expertise in this field. Section 2 provides an overview of the possible policy options to address this phenomenon taking stock of the ongoing policy debate on solutions and alternatives. Section 3 aims to identify and quantify criminal cases of individuals, volunteers and NGOs providing humanitarian assistance to migrants in the European Union. This monitoring exercise has been carried out by MPG through ReSOMA’s collaborative and participatory process involving experts from NGOs, researchers and other stakeholders. Section 4 provides overall summary conclusions and recommendations to end the crackdown on NGOs and to prevent further policing of civil society. The final section proposes approaches to returning responsibility to EU actors, to be further explored by the ReSOMA platform, with a focus on good governance, human rights defenders, and the protection of humanitarian space inside the EU.
Year 2019
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
20 Report

Who Is an Immigrant and Who Requires Integration? Categorizing in European Policies

Authors Marleen van der Haar, Liza Mügge
Book Title Integration Processes and Policies in Europe
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
21 Book Chapter

Who Ought to Stay? Asylum Policy and Protest Culture in Switzerland

Authors Dina Bader
Book Title Protest Movements in Asylum and Deportation
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
22 Book Chapter

The Dynamics between Integration Policies and Outcomes: a Synthesis of the Literature

Authors Özge Bilgili, Thomas Huddleston, Anne-Linde Joki, ...
Description
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.
Year 2015
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
23 Report

Norms Matter! The Role of International Norms in EU Policies on Asylum and Immigration

Authors Christof Roos, Natascha Zaun
Year 2014
Journal Name EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF MIGRATION AND LAW
Citations (WoS) 9
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
24 Journal Article

Norms Matter! The Role of International Norms in EU Policies on Asylum and Immigration

Authors Christof Roos, Natascha Zaun
Year 2014
Journal Name EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF MIGRATION AND LAW
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
25 Journal Article

EU Immigration and Asylum Law

Authors Nicola Rogers, Steve Peers
Year 2018
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
26 Book

Stuck Between Mainstreaming and Localism: Views on the Practice of Migrant Integration in a Devolved Policy Framework

Authors Silvia Galandini, Silvia Galandini, Gareth Mulvey, ...
Year 2018
Journal Name JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION AND INTEGRATION
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
27 Journal Article

Political Protest in Asylum and Deportation. An Introduction

Authors Sieglinde Rosenberger
Book Title Protest Movements in Asylum and Deportation
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
28 Book Chapter

Sending Country Policies

Authors Eva Østergaard-Nielsen
Book Title Integration Processes and Policies in Europe
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
29 Book Chapter

Speaking Truth to Power? Why Civil Society, Beyond Academia, Remains Marginal in EU Migration Policy

Authors Ann Singleton
Book Title Integrating Immigrants in Europe
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
30 Book Chapter

Protests Revisited: Political Configurations, Political Culture and Protest Impact

Authors Helen Schwenken, Gianni D’Amato
Book Title Protest Movements in Asylum and Deportation
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
31 Book Chapter

Research-Policy Dialogues in Austria

Authors Maren Borkert
Book Title Integrating Immigrants in Europe
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
32 Book Chapter

Migration Statistics in Europe: A Core Component of Governance and Population Research

Authors David Reichel, Albert Kraler, Han Entzinger
Book Title Integrating Immigrants in Europe
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
33 Book Chapter

New Asylum Countries?

Authors Gregor Noll, Rosemary rne, Jens Vedsted-Hansen
Year 2018
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
34 Book

Research-Policy Dialogues in the European Union

Authors Marthe Achtnich, Andrew Geddes
Year 2015
Book Title Integrating Immigrants in Europe
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
35 Book Chapter

Irregular Migration and Human Rights: Theoretical, European and International Perspectives

Authors Ryszard Cholewinski, Barbara Bogusz, Adam Cygan, ...
Year 2018
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
36 Book

Tunisia's Role in the EU External Migration Policy: Crimmigration Law, Illegal Practices, and Their Impact on Human Rights

Authors Vasja Badalic
Year 2019
Journal Name JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION AND INTEGRATION
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
38 Journal Article

What Does the Law Do for Gender: Migrant Women in the European Legislation

Authors Isabelle Carles-Berkowitz
Year 2015
Journal Name Droit et Cultures
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
40 Journal Article

“We Are Here to Stay” – Refugee Struggles in Germany Between Unity and Division

Authors Helge Schwiertz, Abimbola Odugbesan
Book Title Protest Movements in Asylum and Deportation
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
41 Book Chapter

Channels of Entry and Preferred Destinations: The Circumvention of Denmark by Chinese Immigrants

Authors Mette Thuno
Year 2003
Journal Name INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION
Citations (WoS) 5
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
42 Journal Article

The Europeanisation of Integration Policies

Authors Kerstin Rosenow
Year 2009
Journal Name INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION
Citations (WoS) 17
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
43 Journal Article

The Europeanisation of Integration Policies

Authors Kerstin Rosenow
Year 2009
Journal Name INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
44 Journal Article

Migration on the Move

Authors Sandra Mantu, Carolus Grütters, Paul Minderhoud
Year 2018
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
45 Book

Tunisia's Role in the EU External Migration Policy: Crimmigration Law, Illegal Practices, and Their Impact on Human Rights

Authors Vasja Badalic
Year 2019
Journal Name JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION AND INTEGRATION
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
46 Journal Article

Migrant Integration Policy Index 2015

Authors Thomas Huddleston, Özge Bilgili, Anne-Linde Joki, ...
Year 2015
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
47 Book

Temporary Migration Programmes: the Cause or Antidote of Migrant Worker Exploitation in UK Agriculture

Authors Erica Consterdine, Sahizer Samuk
Year 2018
Journal Name JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION AND INTEGRATION
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
48 Journal Article

Human Rights of Migrants: Challenges of the New Decade

Authors Patrick A. Taran
Year 2001
Journal Name INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
49 Journal Article

Temporary Migration Programmes: the Cause or Antidote of Migrant Worker Exploitation in UK Agriculture

Authors Erica Consterdine, Sahizer Samuk
Year 2018
Journal Name JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION AND INTEGRATION
Citations (WoS) 1
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
50 Journal Article

Asylum Policy Index

Description
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.
Year 2006
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
51 Data Set

What Does the Law Do for Gender: Migrant Women in the European Legislation

Authors Isabelle Carles-Berkowitz
Year 2015
Journal Name Droit et Cultures
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
52 Journal Article

International Migration Policy and Law Analysis (IMPALA)

Description
The International Migration Policy And Law Analysis (IMPALA) Database is a cross-national, cross-institutional, cross-disciplinary project on comparative immigration policy. The pilot database version covers 10 years and 9 country cases including Australia, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland, United Kingdom, and the United States of America. It covers The focus is admission policy, although the authors include also acquisition of citizenship, which is generally understood as being part of ‘immigrant policies’, namely what happens after admission. The project classifies and measures tracks of entry associated with five migration categories: economic migration, family reunification, asylum and humanitarian migration, and student migration, as well as acquisition of citizenship. It is the product of an international collaboration between researchers from George Mason University, Harvard University, London School of Economics and Political Science, Paris School of Economics, University of Amsterdam, University of Luxembourg, and University of Sydney.
Year 2008
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
53 Data Set

Sirius - National and Regional Round Tables 2018

Authors Claudia Koehler, Mona Ensslin, SIRIUS Policy Network on Migrant Education
Description
SIRIUS builds up on the national (and regional) activities and knowledge creation that took place between 2012 to 2014 with the European Commission’s support. It is expected that the national (and regional) activities within the 2017-2021 strategy have a direct impact on national policy implementation across the European Union (EU) with the goal of enabling inclusive and equitable education environments for children and young people with a migrant background. Such activities create a follow-up to the national-level cooperation and networking, recommendations and knowledge that were created and applied by SIRIUS since 2012. They will enable the transfer of research findings into policies and practice so that practitioners can better use the available evidence and advise to build policy consensus and effective implementation at school and community level. Some SIRIUS partners and policymakers have identified common regional challenges within similar contexts. For example, the Baltic States (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) started the cooperation as a pilot regional activity through SIRIUS. Regional cooperation has proven to be a successful and inspiring experience bringing together various ministry representatives and stakeholders. The Baltic regional cooperation will be consolidated into a partnership to tackle a wider variety of migrant education issues, particularly refugee education. This process will develop a best practice methodology that will then be transferred to other regions, particularly other new migrant and refugee destination countries, such as the Balkans
Year 2018
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
54 Report

Deterrence Index

Description
The Deterrence Index addresses the extent to which policies are a deterrence for asylum seekers. The Index seeks to quantify cumulatively the resulting mix of countries’ changing asylum rules. Five key deterrence measures have been considered from three areas: Three sets of instruments are included: (1) access control policy, which refers to the rules and procedures governing the admission of foreign nationals and its instruments include visa policy, regulations for carriers, safe third country provisions, etc. In this area, the deterrence measure refers to the introduction of so-called ‘safe third country’ provisions, which mean that persons seeking asylum in country A will be refused entry into that country, if on their way to country A, they have travelled through state B, a country which country A regards as a ‘safe country’ and in which the asylum seeker could have applied for asylum. (2) asylum determination procedures. Rules concerning determination procedures relate to entry into a country's refugee recognition system, appeal rights, and rules concerning protection that is subsidiary to the rather narrowly defined Geneva Convention criteria for full refugee status. In this area, the deterrence measure refers to rules concerning the granting of subsidiary protection status which allow asylum seekers to remain in a country of destination even though their application for full refugee status under the Geneva Convention is refused. (3) migrant integration policy. policy is concerned with rights and benefits given to asylum seekers inside a country of destination. Here measures are: freedom of movement vs. a compulsory dispersal policy; cash welfare payments vs. a system of vouchers; and third, the right to work under certain conditions vs. a general prohibition to take up employment as an asylum seeker. Policy-makers can introduce changes in the regulations in these three areas in an attempt to raise the deterrence effect of their policy, which in turn is expected to make their country less attractive to asylum seekers in relative terms. The dataset includes scores for 17 OECD countries for 1985 and 2000. To calculate the index, the researcher analysed two sets of annual yearbooks, the OECD’s ‘Trends in International Migration’ (SOPEMI) and the US Committee for Refugees’ ‘World Refugee Survey’ for the years 1985–2000. For each of the five measures, Thielemann creates a dummy variable (value 1 value whether a measure was in operation in a country). The aggregation is additive, with no weighting applied.
Year 1999
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
55 Data Set

Child migrants at the border

Authors Lourdes Torres
Year 2014
Journal Name LATINO STUDIES
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
56 Journal Article

Migrants and Asylum Seekers: Policy Responses in the United States to Immigrants and Refugees from Central America and the Caribbean

Authors Michael J. McBride
Year 1999
Journal Name INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION
Citations (WoS) 21
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
57 Journal Article

Intersecting Policies of Innovation and Entrepreneurship Migration in the EU and the Netherlands

Authors Tesseltje de Lange
Year 2018
Book Title EU External Migration Policies in an Era of Global Mobilities: Intersecting Policy Universes
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
58 Book Chapter

Introduction

Authors Julia Dahlvik
Book Title Inside Asylum Bureaucracy: Organizing Refugee Status Determination in Austria
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
59 Book Chapter

When "Inclusion" Means "Exclusion": Discourses on the Eviction and Repatriations of Roma Migrants, at National and European Union Level

Authors Dragos Ciulinaru
Year 2018
Journal Name JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION AND INTEGRATION
Citations (WoS) 1
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
60 Journal Article

When "Inclusion" Means "Exclusion": Discourses on the Eviction and Repatriations of Roma Migrants, at National and European Union Level

Authors Dragos Ciulinaru
Year 2018
Journal Name JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION AND INTEGRATION
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
61 Journal Article

The Migration-Development Nexus Evidence and Policy Options State-of-the-Art Overview

Authors Ninna Nyberg-Sorensen, Nicholas Van Hear, Poul Engberg-Pedersen
Year 2002
Journal Name INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION
Citations (WoS) 94
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
62 Journal Article

Humanitarian Bottom League? Sweden and the Right to Health for Undocumented Migrants

Authors Shannon Alexander, Shannon Alexander
Year 2010
Journal Name EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF MIGRATION AND LAW
Citations (WoS) 11
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
63 Journal Article

The Multi-Level Governance of Intra EU Movement

Authors Jonas Hinnfors, Gregg Bucken-Knapp, Andrea Spehar, ...
Book Title Between Mobility and Migration
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
64 Book Chapter

Averting forced migration in countries in transition

Authors S Martin
Year 2002
Journal Name INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
65 Journal Article

Research-Policy Dialogues in Italy

Authors Tiziana Caponio
Book Title Integrating Immigrants in Europe
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
66 Book Chapter

When refugees stopped being migrants: Movement, labour and humanitarian protection

Authors Katy Long
Year 2013
Journal Name MIGRATION STUDIES
Citations (WoS) 31
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
67 Journal Article

Managing Migrant Return through 'Voluntariness'

Description
The fundamental weakness of nation state and EU efforts to effectively manage migration to Europe lies in ensuring the return of foreigners who pass or avoid border controls but are then neither granted asylum nor a residence permit. Many Member States thereby increasingly rely on public policies for the so-called ‘voluntary return’ of irregular migrants and (refused) asylum seekers. Very little is known about how these approaches work in practice and whether they meet stated policy goals and discharge state obligations regarding migrants’ human rights. The project REvolTURN addresses this research gap through a close and comparative analysis of ‘voluntary return’ policies in Austria and the UK, including their adoption, implementation and immediate outcome. It examines 1) how voluntariness of return is constructed and framed in law, policy and public discourse, 2) which notions of voluntariness are crucial for policy implementation, and 3) what impact this has on migrants’ own decision-making about their return. My innovative and interdisciplinary mixed-method approach combines comparative policy and discourse analysis, detailed institutional ethnography through observation and in-depth interviews and a survey among potential returnees. REvolTURN addresses a key priority of the Horizon 2020 work programme for 2016-17: to better manage migration, and will also contribute to recent scholarship regarding the in/effectiveness of migration policies and the agency of migrants holding no or highly precarious statuses. The project has three main objectives: 1) to better understand the role and functioning of voluntariness in the context of state-managed migratory return; 2) to develop a framework for assessing and comparing these roles and functions, including their effectiveness; and 3) to thereby contribute to evidence-based and workable policy solutions that increase the number of genuinely voluntary returns without undermining the very logic underlying this approach.
Year 2018
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
69 Project

Klugman and Pereira’ Assessment of National Migration Policies

Description
This set of indicators compares several dimensions of migration policies as of early 2009. For a selected set of 28 countries, both developed and developing, the indicators address admission criteria, policies on integration and treatment of migrants, and efforts to enforce those policies. Irregular migration is a particular area of focus. The analysis distinguishes between different entry regimes, namely: labour migrants (high or low skilled, with a permanent or a temporary permit), those who move with a family-related visa, humanitarian migrants (asylum seekers and refugees), international visitors and international students. The indicators cover three main areas of policy interest: admission, treatment, and enforcement. Most of the 84 questions were multiple-choice, but there were also open-ended questions to allow comments and explanations. The data is drawn from an assessment by country experts as well as by desk-research of Human Development Report Office staff. Information was collected in two parallel and complementary efforts during early 2009: through a questionnaire answered by International Organization for Migration (IOM) country-level staff and other world-wide migration experts, and through internal desk-web research
Year 2009
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
70 Data Set

The Borders Beyond the Border: Australia's Extraterritorial Migration Controls

Authors Asher Lazarus Hirsch
Year 2017
Journal Name REFUGEE SURVEY QUARTERLY
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
71 Journal Article

Contesting Integration, Engendering Migration

Authors Mojca Pajnik, Floya Anthias
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
72 Book

Ukrainian Migration to Poland: A “Local” Mobility?

Authors Marta Kindler, Zuzanna Brunarska, Monika Szulecka, ...
Book Title Ukrainian Migration to the European Union
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
73 Book Chapter

The international migration and foreign policy nexus: the case of Syrian refugee crisis and Turkey

Authors N. Ela Gokalp Aras, Zeynep Sahin Mencuetek
Year 2015
Journal Name MIGRATION LETTERS
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
74 Journal Article

EU Immigration and Asylum Law (Text and Commentary): Second Revised Edition

Authors Violeta Moreno-Lax, Steve Peers, Madeline Garlick, ...
Year 2018
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
75 Book

European Cities in Search of Knowledge for Their Integration Policies

Authors Rinus Penninx
Book Title Integrating Immigrants in Europe
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
76 Book Chapter

The Concept of Integration as an Analytical Tool and as a Policy Concept

Authors Blanca Garcés-Mascareñas, Rinus Penninx
Book Title Integration Processes and Policies in Europe
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
77 Book Chapter

The Manus Island Regional Processing Centre: A Legal Taxonomy

Authors Nikolas Feith Tan
Year 2018
Journal Name EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF MIGRATION AND LAW
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
78 Journal Article

Border Control Politics as Technologies of Citizenship in Europe and North America

Authors Kim Rygiel
Book Title New Border and Citizenship Politics
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
79 Book Chapter

Annual report on migration and asylum 2017 – Luxembourg

Authors Sarah Jacobs, Kelly Adao Do Carmo, David Petry, ...
Description
The present report provides an overview of the main developments and debates in relation to migration and asylum in Luxembourg in 2017. The number of people applying for international protection remained high in 2017 (2.322 applications) compared to the levels registered pre- ‘migration crisis’ (1.091 in 2014). However, the number of registrations remained relatively stable if compared to the two preceding years (2.447 in 2015 and 2.035 in 2016). This relative stability in numbers also reflected on the general public and policy debate in the field of migration and asylum. Since 2016, its focus has continuously shifted from an ‘emergency’ discourse axed on the implementation of reception measures and conditions towards discussions on longer-term integration measures and policies. In this regard, the newly introduced Guided Integration Trail (parcours d’intégration accompagné - PIA) can be considered a flagship project of OLAI, the national agency responsible for the reception and integration of foreigners. This multidisciplinary package of measures aims to empower applicants and beneficiaries of international protection and to support them in developing their life project. The trail, compulsory for all adult applicants for international protection, consists of a linguistic component and a civic component and is split into three phases. Although increasing housing capacities for the reception of applicants for international protection was high on national authorities’ agenda, housing remained a challenging aspect of the asylum system and triggered debate on a national scale. Alongside access to training, problems related to housing were among the issues most frequently raised by applicants for international protection in 2017. The lack of affordable housing on the private market, an increasing number of family reunifications as well as the increasing number of beneficiaries and persons who have been issued a return decision who remain housed in structures of OLAI were all identified as interplaying barriers for finding available accommodation for applicants for international protection. The difficulties with the construction of modular housing structures also persisted in 2017. A certain reticence of the population towards the construction of these so-called ‘container villages, planned in response to the increasing influx that started in August 2015, was visible in the appeals introduced into Luxembourg’s First Instance Administrative Courts to annul the land-use plans related to the projects. Living conditions in the various reception facilities were also one of the subjects of discussion in 2017. This included a debate on the (lack of) kitchen infrastructure in reception facilities and the varying systems for provision of food, the types of food available, as well as the availability of internet. As an answer to the resurgence of an increased influx of applicants of international protection from the Western Balkans in early 2017, a new ‘ultra-accelerated procedure’ was put in place for applicants of international protection stemming from the Western Balkans. According to the state authorities, the ultra-accelerated procedure was set up to take pressure off the reception facilities, but also as a deterrent to avoid creating false hopes for long-term stay. In April 2017, a ‘semi-open return structure’ (Structure d’hébergement d’urgence au Kirchberg – SHUK) was put in place, from which people are transferred to states applying the Dublin regulation. Due to home custody (assignation à résidence), the SHUK is considered to be an alternative to detention by national authorities. The newly created structure as well as the related conditions for assignment, were nevertheless criticised by civil society. The outcry among civil society was equally high during and after the adoption the Law of 8 March 2017, which endorses the extension of the permitted period of detention of adults or families with children from 72 hours to 7 days, in order to improve the organisation of the return and ensures that it is carried out successfully. A commission in charge of determining the best interests of unaccompanied minors applying for international protection was decided at the end of 2017. The commission is in charge of carrying out individual assessments regarding the best interest of the child with the aim of delivering an authorisation of stay or a return decision. Among the elements taken into consideration when the best interest of the child is evaluated in the context of a potential return decision is information provided by the International Organization for Migration (IOM). The latter made an agreement with the Directorate of Immigration in 2017 to search for the parents of UAMs in the country of origin. With the focus of debates having slowly shifted towards long-term integration issues, the Council of Government also approved the elaboration of a new multiannual national action plan on integration. The plan will be based on two axes: (1) the reception and follow-up of applicants for international protection and (2) the integration of Luxembourg’s non-Luxembourgish residents. Luxembourg’s National Employment Agency (ADEM) set up a “cellule BPI” (beneficiaries of international protection cell) in its Employer Service in early 2017. This cell provides employers with information regarding job applications and evaluations of the competences of beneficiaries of international protection. A new law on the Luxembourgish nationality entered into force on 1 April 2017. Given the particular demographic situation of Luxembourg characterised by a significant increase in the total population and a decrease in the proportion of Luxembourgers in the total population, the reform intends to promote the societal and political integration of non-Luxembourgish citizens and to strengthen cohesion within the national community. The main changes introduced by the law include a decreased length of residence requirement for naturalisation (from 7 to 5 years), the right of birthplace (jus soli) of the first generation, a simplified way of acquiring Luxembourgish nationality by ‘option’, as well as new scenarios to avoid cases of statelessness. The law maintains previous linguistic requirements but makes some adjustments in order to prevent the language condition from becoming an insurmountable obstacle. Ahead of the local elections held on 8 October 2017, the Ministry of Family, Integration and the Greater Region launched a national information and awareness-raising campaign titled “Je peux voter” (I can vote) in January 2017. This campaign aimed to motivate Luxembourg’s foreign population to register on the electoral roll for the local elections. The government’s intention to legislate face concealment was arguably one of the most debated topics in the field related to community life and integration in the broader sense, both in parliament as well as in the media and public sphere. Bill n°7179 aims to modify article 563 of the Penal Code and to create the prohibition of face concealment in certain public spaces. The bill defines face concealment as the action of covering part of or all of the face in a way of rendering the identification of the person impossible and provides a wide variety of examples, such as the wearing of a motor cycle helmet, a balaclava or a full-face veil. Opposing views among stakeholders, whether political parties, public institutions, civil society or the media, emerged with regard to the necessity to legislate in the matter and if so, on the basis of which grounds and to what extent. The phenomenon of migration has also led to a more heterogeneous population in Luxembourg’s schools. To face this situation, the education authorities continued to diversify Luxembourg’s offer in education and training, creating for instance a bigger offer for youngsters and adults who do not master any of Luxembourg’s vehicular languages, offering more alphabetisation courses or basic instruction courses. The Minister for National Education continued to develop and adapt the school offer to the increased heterogeneity by increasing the international and European school offer, introducing of a new mediation service and putting in place a plurilingual education programme. In the area of legal migration, the most significant changes concerned admission policies of specific categories of third-country nationals. In this respect, bill n°7188 mainly aims to transpose Directive (EU) 2016/801 of the European Parliament and the Council of 11 May 2016 on the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for the purposes of research, studies, training, voluntary service, pupil exchange schemes or educational projects and au pairing. The directive aims to make the European Union a world centre of excellence for studies and training, while favouring contacts between people and favouring their mobility, these two being important elements of the European Union’s external policy. Bill N°7188 intends to facilitate and simplify the procedures for intra-European mobility of TCN researchers and students. Moreover, the proposed changes include incentive mechanisms to retain students and researchers. To this end, it proposes that students and researchers, once they have completed their studies/research, can be issued a residence permit for “private reasons” for a duration of 9 months at most in view of finding employment or creating a business. Finally, bill n°7188 also foresees provisions to regulate the family reunification of a researcher staying in Luxembourg in the context of short- and long-term mobility with his/her nuclear family. The legislator furthermore transposed Directive 2014/36 on seasonal workers and Directive 2014/66 on temporary intragroup transfer into national law, and adapted Luxembourg’s immigration law to the needs to the economy, by introducing, amongst other things, and authorisation of stay for investors. Organising the admission of stay and the issuance of authorisations of stay was also a key component within the agreement between Luxembourg and Cape Verde on the concerted management of migratory flows and solidary development. Other objectives of the agreement include the promotion of the movement of people, detailing readmission procedures, fighting against irregular migration, strengthening the legal establishment and integration of the concerned nationals, as well as the mobilisation of skills and resources of migrants in favour of solidary development.
Year 2018
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
80 Report

Security First: New Right-Wing Government in Poland and its Policy Towards Immigrants and Refugees.

Authors Witold Klaus
Year 2017
Journal Name SURVEILLANCE & SOCIETY
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
81 Journal Article

Averting forced migration in countries in transition

Authors S Martin
Year 2002
Journal Name INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
82 Journal Article

Migration from a gender-critical, postcolonial and interdisciplinary perspective

Authors Sabine Gatt, Kerstin Hazibar, Verena Sauermann, ...
Year 2016
Journal Name OSTERREICHISCHE ZEITSCHRIFT FUER SOZIOLOGIE
Citations (WoS) 2
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
83 Journal Article

The Borders Beyond the Border: Australia's Extraterritorial Migration Controls

Authors Asher Lazarus Hirsch
Year 2017
Journal Name REFUGEE SURVEY QUARTERLY
Citations (WoS) 8
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
84 Journal Article

Deterrence and Protection in the EU’s Migration Policy

Authors Anna Triandafyllidou, Angeliki Dimitriadi
Year 2014
Journal Name The International Spectator Italian Journal of International Affairs
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
85 Journal Article

Differences in Subjective Well-being Between Older Migrants and Natives in Europe

Authors Gregor Sand, Stefan Gruber
Year 2018
Journal Name JOURNAL OF IMMIGRANT AND MINORITY HEALTH
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
86 Journal Article

Impacts of refugee flows to territorial development in Europe

Principal investigator ()
Description
The so-called migration and refugee crisis is one of the most contentious topics on the EU agenda in the current context. The recent events related to the Syrian civil war, political turmoil in Libya and the subsequent influx of refugees and other migrants towards Europe as well as perceptions caused by internal migration that led to ‘Brexit’ have had a polarsing effect on Europe. Therefore, territorial evidence on the flows of asylum seekers and refugees, their distribution between and within EU countries, regions and cities, impact on socio-economic development as well as information on crisis management and integration is in high demand. The ESPON applied research activity “Impacts of refugee flows to territorial development in Europe” addresses these issues and aims to provide relevant territorial evidence and policy recommendations. The research aims to answer the following questions: How does the distribution of asylum seekers and refugees look like at regional and urban level and how has this been changing over time as a result of European and national policy decisions in recent decades? What skills and qualifications do the refugees possess and how does the influx of refugees impact the recipient countries´ regional and local labour markets and demographic imbalances (especially concerning regions which are facing the challenges of losing population and ageing)? Do the skills and qualifications meet the needs of local labour markets and how do they compete with local population and regular migrants? How are different European regions and cities located in arrival, transit and destination countries responding to the refugee crisis in terms of providing humanitarian aid, services (accommodation, material support, healthcare provision, education, language courses, labour market programmes), community building, internal distribution of refugees and medium and long term integration? How does the diversity within Europe in terms of integration policies at regional and local levels look like? What are the main challenges and what are the good policy responses and the best practices for successful integration of refugees into the local communities, societies and labour markets at regional and local levels? What kind of support do they need? How successful have the integration measures been in the past? How to improve the use of existing funding opportunities? Is there a need to improve the legislation? What kind of impacts would the implementation of the proposal of European relocation scheme generate to European countries regions and cities? How are countries redistributing refugees internally? What are the main concerns for the host countries and communities? Consortium: VVA Europe, IT (lead contractor), Istituto per la Ricerca Sociale, IT, InTER - Insitute for Territorial Economic Development, SRB Central European University, HU International Centre for Migration Policy and Development (ICMPD), AT Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, BE Bernd Parusel, SE Bastian A. Vollmer, DE Richard Williams, UK Gianni Antonio Carbonaro, UK
Year 2018
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
87 Project

International Refugee Law, ‘Hyper-Legalism’ and Migration Management: The Pacific Solution

Authors Claire Inder
Book Title The Politics of International Migration Management
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
88 Book Chapter

A ‘European Migrant Crisis’? Some Thoughts on Mediterranean Borders

Authors Annalisa Lendaro
Year 2016
Journal Name Studies in Ethnicity and Nationalism
Citations (WoS) 4
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
89 Journal Article

Protecting Women Asylum Seekers and Refugees: From International Norms to National Protection?

Authors Jane Freedman
Year 2010
Journal Name INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
90 Journal Article

Research-Policy Dialogues in the Netherlands

Authors Han Entzinger, Stijn Verbeek, Peter Scholten
Book Title Integrating Immigrants in Europe
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
91 Book Chapter

RESPOND: Multilevel Governance of Mass Migration in Europe and Beyond

Description
With the goal of enhancing the governance capacity and policy coherence of the EU, its member states and neighbors, RESPOND is a comprehensive study of migration governance in the wake of the 2015 Refugee Crisis. Bringing together 14 partners from 7 disciplines, the project probes policy-making processes and policy (in)coherence through comparative research in source, transit and destination countries. RESPOND analyzes migration governance across macro (transnational, national), meso (sub-national/local) and micro-levels (refugees/migrants) by applying an innovative research methodology utilizing legal and policy analysis, comparative historical analysis, political claims analysis, socio-economic and cultural analysis, longitudinal survey analysis, interview based analysis, and photovoice techniques. It focuses in-depth on: (1) Border management and security, (2) International refugee protection, (3) Reception policies, (4) Integration policies, and (5) Conflicting Europeanization and externalization. We use these themes to examine multi-level governance while tackling the troubling question of the role of forced migration in precipitating increasing disorder in Europe. In contrast to much research undertaken on governance processes at a single level of analysis, RESPOND’s multilevel, multi-method approach shows the co-constitutive relationship between policy and practice among actors at all three levels; it highlights the understudied role of meso-level officials; and it shines a light on the activities of non-governmental actors in the face of policy vacuums. Ultimately, RESPOND will show which migration governance policies really work and how migrants and officials are making-do in the too-frequent absence of coherent policies. Adhering to a refugee-centered approach throughout, RESPOND will bring insights to citizenship, gender and integration studies, ensure direct benefit to refugee communities and provide a basis for more effective policy development.
Year 2017
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
92 Project

Migration Policies and Migrant Employment Outcomes

Authors Alessio Cangiano
Year 2014
Journal Name Comparative Migration Studies
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
93 Journal Article

Syrian Refugees, Health and Migration Legislation in Turkey

Authors Perihan Elif Ekmekci
Year 2017
Journal Name JOURNAL OF IMMIGRANT AND MINORITY HEALTH
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
94 Journal Article

European Indicators of Migrant Integration

Principal investigator ()
Description
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.
Year 2013
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
95 Project

Towards a ‘Holding Environment’ for Europe’s (Diverse) Social Citizenship Regimes

Authors Anton Hemerijck
Book Title Debating European Citizenship
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
97 Book Chapter

Introduction

Authors Zana Vathi
Book Title Migrating and Settling in a Mobile World
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
98 Book Chapter

Differences in Subjective Well-being Between Older Migrants and Natives in Europe

Authors Gregor Sand, Stefan Gruber
Year 2018
Journal Name JOURNAL OF IMMIGRANT AND MINORITY HEALTH
Citations (WoS) 3
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
99 Journal Article

The Challenge of Asylum Detention to Refugee Protection

Authors Philippe De Bruycker, Evangelia (Lilian) Tsourdi
Year 2016
Journal Name REFUGEE SURVEY QUARTERLY
Citations (WoS) 5
Taxonomy View Taxonomy Associations
100 Journal Article
SHOW FILTERS
Ask us