Droit et politiques migratoires

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 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.

The majority of the Skill Matching mechanisms relating to India EU migration do not provide the full functions that the commercial Skill Matching model seeks to offer. Only commercial Skill Matching can really be regarded as a model that is intentional, sophisticated and leading best practice in the field and that is aiding the matching of skills and jobs from India to the EU. The commercial Skill Matching predominately serves, however, the high skilled and professional migrant. Whilst leading global recruitment companies practice the model worldwide, the size of practice relative to the size of the market is small and only begins to scratch the surface in comparison to the force and size of the market driving mechanism influencing Indian labour migration to the EU. Consequently, both semi-skilled and un/low-skilled migrants generally fail to benefit from such mechanisms of leading Skill Matching. They therefore rely on Skill Matching practices that are indirect or unintentional in their nature. However, even where perfectly organized Skill Matching channels are not in place, market mechanisms and immigration selection systems have had a tendency to create some of the same dimensions that an intentional Skill Matching model comprises. There is a demand particularly for medium skills in Europe and governments globally are beginning to recognize the gap of a Skill Matching mechanism for this skill category of migrants by taking action through the creation of mechanisms with partners such as the private sector to facilitate intentional Skill Matching, however, this work is just beginning to take momentum and substantial work remains.

In this 2019 MEDAM Assessment Report, we present insights from MEDAM research and policy dialogue since 2016 to explain how closer cooperation among EU member states and with countries of origin and transit can improve outcomes for all stakeholders. Crucially, short of establishing a new Iron Curtain on the EU’s external border or continuing to tolerate abuses, there is no way that either individual member states or the EU as a whole can insulate themselves from irregular migrants and asylum seekers. Yet, if crossing the EU border enabled all irregular migrants to remain in the EU for good, the integrity of EU visa and asylum policies would be undermined. Thus, close cooperation with countries of origin for the return and readmission of their citizens who have no right to remain in the EU is crucial. Still, it is typically not in the interest of countries of origin to limit the mobility of their citizens. Cooperation between the EU and countries of origin must therefore cover a wide enough range of policies to ensure that all parties consistently benefit from the policy package and have a strong incentive to meet their commitments. We emphasize more EU support for refugees hosted by low- and middle-income countries and more legal employment opportunities for non-EU citizens in the EU. Rethinking EU asylum and migration policies along these lines requires extensive consultations and negotiations among stakeholders in Europe and in countries of origin and transit. Our ‘insights’ are meant to inform and stimulate such conversations. However, sustainable reforms will come only as the result of stakeholders working out the details and developing a sense of ownership of the necessary reforms. Our first set of insights relates to popular attitudes toward immigration and the structure of public preferences for asylum and refugee protection policies (section 2 of this report). Next, we explain how the EU and countries of origin and transit can all benefit from cooperating on border management, refugee protection, and expanding legal labor migration to the EU (section 3). Finally, we consider the implications for cooperation among EU member states and the long-standing plans for reform of the European asylum system (section 4).

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

The challenges that Europe faces with regard to controlling irregular migration and providing protection to people in need are complex. An effective policy for irregular migration control includes arrest and return (through voluntary, semi-voluntary or indeed forced return) and it may seem to be best served by regular detention of apprehended undocumented immigrants and asylum seekers whose case is pending. At the same time, if this policy is to be in line with international obligations and the European Charter of Fundamental Rights it must provide for adequate services and safeguards so that those apprehended are informed of their rights including the possibility to apply for asylum, and are not routinely detained.

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.

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.

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.

The issue of non-return of rejected international protection applicants does not enjoy a high political profile on its own, but has been discussed as part of a global debate on asylum. Significant efforts are required when considering the wide spectrum of possible reasons of non-return, some reasons depending on the countries of destination, others on the returnee himself/herself. In this respect, reasons of non return range from the non-respect of deadlines, the issuance of travel documents, postponement of removal for external reasons to the returnee, for medical reasons, the resistance of the third-country national and the lack of diplomatic representation of Luxembourg, to name but a few. In regards to the procedure, in Luxembourg the rejection of the international protection application includes the return decision. The Minister in charge of Immigration, through the Directorate of Immigration, issues this decision. The return decision only becomes enforceable when all appeals are exhausted and the final negative decision of rejection of the competent judicial authority enters into force, as appeals have suspensive effects. This decision also sets out the timeframe during which the rejected international protection applicant has to leave the country. In case the applicant does not opt for a voluntary return, the decision will also include the country to which s/he will be sent. In general, the decision provides for a period of 30 days during which the applicant has the option to leave voluntarily and to benefit from financial support in case of assisted voluntary return through the International Organization for Migration (IOM). There are two exceptions to this rule: the applicant who is considered a threat to national security, public safety or homeland security and the applicant who has already been issued a return decision before. The declaration and documentation provided during the procedure of international protection can be used to facilitate return. Subsequent applications are possible, in particular if new evidence of facts appears resulting in an increased likelihood of the applicant to qualify for international protection. For rejected international protection applicants who did not opt for voluntary return and did not receive any postponement of removals, a certain (limited) support is available while waiting for the execution of the enforceable return decision. As such, they continue to stay in reception facilities and to receive certain social benefits unless they transgress any internal rules. If an urgent need exists, rejected applicants may be granted a humanitarian social aid. However, they are not entitled to access the labour market or to receive ‘pocket money’ or the free use of transport facilities. They benefit from an access to education and training, however this access cannot constitute a possible reason for non-return. These benefits are available to rejected applicants until the moment of their removal. In order to enforce the return decision and prevent absconding, the Minister may place the rejected international applicant in the detention centre, especially if s/he is deemed to be obstructing their own return. Other possible measures include house arrest, regular reporting surrendering her/his passport or depositing a financial guarantee of 5000€. Most of these alternatives to detention were introduced with the Law of 18 December 2015 which entered into force on 1st January 2016. As a consequence, detention remains the main measure used to enforce return decisions. A number of challenges to return and measures to curb them are detailed in this study. A part of these measures have been set up to minimize the resistance to return from the returnee. First and foremost is the advocacy of the AVRR programme and the dissemination of information relating to this programme but also the establishment of a specific return programme to West Balkan countries not subject to visa requirements. Other measures aim at facilitating the execution of forced returns, such as police escorts or the placement in the detention centre. Finally, significant efforts are directed towards increasing bilateral cooperation and a constant commitment to the conclusion of readmission agreements. No special measures were introduced after 2014 in response to the exceptional flows of international protection applicants arriving in the EU. While the Return service within the Directorate of Immigration has continued to expand its participation to European Networks and in various transnational projects in matters of return, this participation was already set into motion prior to the exceptional flows of 2014. As for effective measures curbing challenges to return, this study brings to light the AVRR programme but especially the separate return programme for returnees from West Balkan countries exempt of visa requirements. The dissemination of information on voluntary return is also considered an effective policy measure, the information being made available from the very start of the international protection application. Among the cases where return is not immediately possible, a considerable distinction has to be made in regards to the reasons for the non-return. Indeed, in cases where the delay is due to the medical condition of the returnee or to material and technical reasons that are external to the returnee, a postponement of removal will be granted. This postponement allows for the rejected applicant to remain on the territory on a temporary basis, without being authorized to reside and may be accompanied by a measure of house arrest or other. In cases of postponement for medical reasons and of subsequent renewals bringing the total length of postponement over two years, the rejected applicant may apply for a residence permit for private reasons based on humanitarian grounds of exceptional seriousness. Nevertheless, apart from this exception, no official status is granted to individuals who cannot immediately be returned. Several measures of support are available to beneficiaries of postponement to removal: they have access to accommodation in the reception centres they were housed in during their procedure, they may be attributed humanitarian aid, they continue to be affiliated at the National Health Fund, they continue to have access to education and professional training and they are allowed to work through a temporary work authorization. The temporary work authorization is only valid for a single profession and a single employer for the duration of the postponement to removal, although this is an extremely rare occurrence in practice. OLAI may allocate a humanitarian aid might be allocated if the individual was already assisted by OLAI during the procedure of her/his international protection application. All of these measures apply until the moment of return. The study also puts forth a number of best practices such as the Croix-Rouge’s involvement in police trainings, their offer of punctual support to vulnerable people through international networking or the socio-psychological support given to vulnerable people placed in the detention centre among others. A special regard has to be given to AVRR programmes and their pre-departure information and counselling, the dissemination of information and the post-arrival support and reintegration assistance. Indeed, stakeholders singled the AVRR programme out as a best practice and the Luxembourgish government has made voluntary return a policy priority for a long time. However, this increased interest in voluntary returns has to be put into perspective as research shows that sustainable success of voluntary return and reintegration measures is only achieved for a very restricted number of beneficiaries (namely for young, autonomous and dynamic returnees with sizeable social networks and who were granted substantial social capital upon return). Hence, returning women remains a sensitive issue, especially if they were fleeing abusive relationships. Another factor contributing to hardship set forth by research is the difficult reintegration of returnees that have lived outside of their country of return for a prolonged period of time and are therefore unable to rely on social networks for support or for a sense of belonging. Based on these considerations, NGOs and academia cast doubts on the ‘voluntary’ nature of these return programmes, their criticism targeting the misleading labelling of these policy measures.

The report provides a description of the main policy documents, initiatives and actors dealing with immigrant integration in Croatia. After introductory remarks concerning the context and recent migration flows to Croatia – which are composed mainly of citizens from the countries of former Yugoslavia – the report identifies main target groups and the focus of integration measures, as well as the main policy tools implemented thus far. The third section focuses on forms of engagement by civil society organisations concerning integration – providing services and various forms of assistance, primarily to asylum seekers, refugees and persons under subsidiary protection. Given that the main policy measures are in the early stages of development or planned for upcoming periods, it is premature to fully assess their implementation. However, since most of the current measures target asylum seekers, asylum grantees and subsidiary protection beneficiaries it will be necessary to develop new integration instruments or extend the applicability of the existing ones to different categories of immigrants, to correspond to the envisaged future role of Croatia as an immigration country.