National

Turkey is part of a migration system that is spread over a large geographical area including Europe, Asia, Middle East and North Africa; which is resulting from geopolitical and historical factors and transformed by local, regional, and international events. The migration flows that Turkey experienced have changed throughout the phases of modern Turkey‟s history. In the Early Republican era from 1923 to 1950, as a part of the nation building process, Turkey saw mass emigration of its non-Muslim populations and the arrival of Muslims from the Balkans. In the period from 1950 to 1980, Turkey was mainly characterized as a country of emigration which attempted to recover its economy by sending thousands of migrants to Europe as a solution to unemployment and in order to receive remittances. The period after 1980‟s saw many developments in the migratory movements. One was the increase in the number of asylum seekers from Turkey, due to the military coup and the Kurdish question. Another development in the 1980s was the arrival of economic migrants into Turkey due to the socioeconomic transformation in the region. Thus, standing at the crossroads of three continents, today, Turkey is a country of emigration, immigration and transit migration. At the same time, the prospect of European Union membership has been an important aspect of Turkey‟s historical modernization project and its political relations to the EU have been very influential in the formation of its migration policy making. Within this context and along the guidelines provided by the EUMAGINE project, this report first gives a historical and socio-economic overview of Republic of Turkey and provides an analysis of migration flows and policies in Turkey. Then, the four research areas of Turkey, namely Emirdağ and Dinar in Afyon; VanMerkez in Van and Fatih in Istanbul selected for EUMAGINE research are described.

Luxembourg is characterized by a very specific demographic situation with 47,9% of its resident population being non-Luxembourgish nationals as of 1 January 2018. This particular circumstance makes Luxembourg the EU Member State with the highest share of non-citizens residing on its territory. At the same time, around 85% of the foreign population are citizens of another EU Member State, leading to the fact that third-country nationals constitute only 7,3% of the total resident population of Luxembourg, the lowest share of foreigners coming from a third-country in the European Union. Integration is defined in national legislation as a ‘two-way process by which the foreigners shows their will to participate on a long-term basis to the host society, which, in turn, takes all the necessary measures at the social, economic, political, and cultural levels, to encourage and facilitate this approach. Integration is a task that the State, municipalities and civil society achieve together’. In addition to this legal provision, several strategic documents, most notably the multi-annual national action plan on integration 2018, or PAN integration, published in July 2018, make reference to integration and its definition. The PAN integration provides the framework for the programs and tools favouring the social cohesion of Luxembourgish and non-Luxembourgish nationals and the overall national integration policy by identifying five priority domains, one of which explicitly relates to the reinforcement of employability of non-Luxembourgish nationals. Generally speaking, employment is viewed as a core element of the overall integration process, making both the access to as well as the integration into the Luxembourgish labour market a key element in becoming a part of society. At the same time, this access to and integration into the labour market pose a challenge, particularly to third-country nationals, as the statistics show that their employment rate is lower than that of Luxembourgish nationals or citizens of another EU Member State. Third-country nationals are predominantly occupied in the accommodation and food service activities sector, followed by the administrative and support service activities sector and the wholesale and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles and motorcycles sector. A closer look at the evolution of the sectors employing third-country nationals over the last years, however, indicates that in particular the information and communication technologies sector, the professional, scientific and technical activities sector and the financial and insurance activities sector register the most significant growth rates, leading to a development that seem to indicate a ‘double immigration’ of (highly) skilled migrants on the one hand and less or low skilled migrants in the more traditional economic sectors on the other hand. In regard to the general integration approach as well as the labour market integration policy, this study shows that Luxembourg does have not have a specific policy/strategic document/model in place that only focusses on third-country nationals. All political documents (laws and strategic documents such as the PAN 2010-2014 and the new PAN integration of 2018) and public measures (Welcome and Integration Contract (CAI), linguistic leave, support measures provided by the National Employment Agency (ADEM), measures facilitating school integration, electoral registration campaigns, etc.) are aimed at all foreign nationals without distinguishing between EU nationals and third-country nationals. It is the Immigration Law that provides the legal framework regarding the various grounds of migration for economic purposes. Additionally, the legislator aims to be attractive for certain categories of migrants coming to Luxembourg for economic purposes in order to meet the needs of the country’s economic development (via legislative measures such as the European Blue Card, the ‘investor’ residence permit or the agreement between Luxembourg and Cape Verde). This being said, this study will present examples of practices that have been identified as good practices in the context of the topic of labour market integration of third-country nationals, despite the fact that they, for the most part, do not fit 100% into the pre-set structure of the study template at hand. In section 2.2, three Member State measure are presented, the first of which is the linguistic leave, a specific form of additional special leave that is accessible for salaried and independent workers of all nationalities, resident or non-resident, to learn or perfect the command of the Luxembourgish language. This legislative measure was introduced by law in 2009 with the intention to facilitate the integration of the beneficiaries into society through the labour market. The second measure is the AMIF-project ‘InSitu JOBS’ by the non-governmental organisation CLAE asbl (with co-financing from the Luxembourgish State). This project, which ended in April 2018 was targeted at third-country nationals within the scope of this study as well as at beneficiaries of international protection by providing them information and counselling in the context of access and integration into the Luxembourgish labour market. The third measure was also an AMIF-project and consists of a practical guide that was developed and drafted by IMS Luxembourg, a network of Luxembourgish companies, in order to provide information on how to hire and integrate third-country nationals. As for the private sector measures in section 2.3. of this study, research of secondary resources as well as consultations with various relevant stakeholders proved to be rather difficult in terms of finding private sector initiatives that specifically target at supporting or facilitating the labour market integration of third-country nationals within the scope of this study. Two measures were selected in this context, the first consisting of a specific recruitment method (simulation-based recruitment method) by a large international company which allows them to evaluate various different profiles of people that are not necessarily detectable through the classic CV-based recruitment methods. The second measure is a business guide developed by the American Chamber of Commerce Luxembourg and aims to promote and facilitate the establishment of new business in Luxembourg by providing information on everything that entrepreneurs and international companies need to know in this context.

Turkey has long been characterized as a country of emigration due to the large-scale migration of Turkish workers to Western Europe beginning in the 1960s. However, Turkey has also increasingly become a country of immigration in recent years. In fact, migra-tion to Turkey is not a new phenomenon: Migration movements had occurred during the Ottoman period and in the immediate years following the foundation of the Republic of Turkey. Yet, it must be stressed that these migratory movements differ both in terms of nature and scale. While former migration move-ments to Turkey consisted of migrants of Turkish ethnicity from neighboring countries, recent migra-tion to Turkey has become much more diverse. At the crossroads of Asia, Africa, and the European Union (EU), Turkey now faces various migration flows such as transit migrants, clandestine immigrant workers, high-skilled personnel, asylum seekers, and refugees from different countries. Among these migrant groups are also German citizens who have settled in Turkey for various reasons. Because of these new migration flows into the country, as well as the EU harmonization process, Turkey, willingly or not, has been forced to adapt its migration legislation. In rela-tion to this, Turkey has entered into a serious reform process in recent years, and many fundamental legal amendments have been made regarding the status of foreigners in Turkey. The Law on Work Permits for Foreigners (Law No. 4817) and Law on Foreigners and International Protection (Law No. 6458) are of significant importance concerning foreigners’ legal participation possibilities in Turkey. Based on the empirical findings of my Mercator-IPC Fellowship, this report investigates the possibilities of German citizens’ legal membership on the “Turkish side” of the transnational German-Turkish space from the migrant’s perspective. In doing so, this report also reflects upon some general characteristics of the Turkish migration policy.

In Luxembourg, family reunification is one of the main reasons for immigration of third-country nationals. In fact, “family member” and “private reasons (family links)” residence permits (first deliveries and renewals) represented more than a third of all residence permits issued during the last three years. While the right to family reunification was solely provided by international law and regulated by administrative practice until 2008, the transposition of Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification led to a much more precise and detailed legal framework. A notable change in legislation has been proposed with the introduction of bill n° 6992 , namely the harmonisation of the conditions that apply to third-country national employees with those of Blue Card holders and researchers. Thus, family reunification requirements for certain categories of applicants shall be alleviated through the abrogation of the 12-month residence requirement for the sponsor. In order to apply for family reunification in Luxembourg, sponsors have to meet a number of requirements for exercising the right to family reunification, which include the provision of suitable accommodation for the size of their family; meeting health and safety standards; health insurance; as well as stable and regular resources to provide for themselves and their family members. As recommended by Directive 2003/86/EC, Luxembourg sets out more favourable conditions to beneficiaries of international protection for the exercise of their right to family reunification. Thus, they do not have to comply with the above-mentioned requirements in case they apply for family reunification within 3 months of being granted the status. Family members who have come to Luxembourg under family reunification have access to education, orientation, vocational training, lifelong learning and professional retraining once their residence permit has been issued. Family members furthermore have access to the labour market. In case the family member has resided in Luxembourg for less than one year when the application is submitted, it will be submitted to the labour market test. Family members can also, under a number of conditions, benefit from guaranteed minimum income, social aid, long-term residence status as well as citizenship. National stakeholders noted that the requirement of finding appropriate accommodation and proving stable and regular resources is one of the main challenges for sponsors. For family members as well as sponsors, having sufficient financial resources to cover the costs of family reunification can be another challenge to accessing family reunification. Family members of beneficiaries of international protection in particular face the more procedural challenge of providing proof of identity and family links, which can be difficult due to lacking documentation, differing administrative practices in the country of origin and/or the lack of cooperation of institutions. Gaining access to family reunification is also particularly difficult for beneficiaries of international protection who arrived in Luxembourg as unaccompanied minors but reached adulthood during the examination of their file, as they must provide proof of their family member’s dependency upon them. The limited number of diplomatic representations of Luxembourg abroad poses a challenge both to family members who must present themselves there, as well as for the Luxembourgish authorities who require information on certain countries. Perceived as a best practice with regard to family reunification are the information that NGOs and the lawyers in the field of migration and asylum provide to beneficiaries of international protection with regard to procedures of family reunification, thereby contributing to the beneficiary’s ability to enter an application for family reunification within the 3-month period. The practice of accepting the submission of an application of family members of beneficiaries of international protection that contains only a commencement of proof of family links and allowing for the finalisation at a later date is also perceived as a good practice, as it enables them to exercise their right to family reunification while benefitting from more favourable conditions. Furthermore, the issuance of a “laisser-passer” for beneficiaries of international protection who cannot obtain travel documents is perceived as a big step forward by national stakeholders. Lastly, Restoring Family Links, a service provided by the Luxembourgish Red Cross, is also considered a reliable tool with regard to tracing missing family members abroad.

Since the late 1970s, international wars and intra-state violence have battered the country of Afghanistan, generating several waves of mass displacement. According to the United Nations Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR, 2011), a tragic consequence of this violent legacy is that currently one out of every four refugees in the world is from Afghanistan – making it the leading country of origin for refugees. Although 2.7 million Afghans are now scattered across 79 countries, the majority of them sought refuge in neighboring or nearby countries such as Pakistan, the Islamic Republic of Iran and Turkey. Finding “durable solutions” to resolve the plight of displaced people has become a priority for the UNHCR and the international community. While voluntary repatriation remains the most preferred solution, continued instability, the threat of persecution, and the inability to access basic services prevent many refugees from returning to their country of origin (UNHCR, 2011). This is particularly the case for Afghan refugees. Since almost half of all Afghan asylum claims have been lodged in Turkey or Germany (UNHCR, 2011), reliance upon the cooperation and protection of these two governments has become critical.Due to its unique geographical location, Turkey has been a key transit country for migrants. UN Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants, Francois Crepeau, noted in his 2012 Human Rights Council report that Turkey has become a hub, particularly for migrants from Asia, the Middle East, Sub-Saharan Africa and Northern Africa. Many refugees cross over Turkey on their way to Europe. It is estimated that approximately 55,000 migrants crossed from Turkey into Greece via the Evros River in 2011 (UNHCR in Turkey: Facts and Figures, 2010). Unfortunately, cooperation between the EU and Turkey to address the issue of these undocumented crossings has primarily focused on securing the border rather than addressing the needs of those migrating. In the last two decades, economic growth and political stability have strengthened Turkey’s appeal as a destination for migrants and asylum-seekers instead of a mere transit country. Continuing upheaval in neighboring countries such as Iraq and Syria has also added to the large influx of asylum seekers and refugees. By the end of 2011, UNHCR had processed 35,000 individuals as a “population of concern” in Turkey and this figure does not include the approximate 200,000 Syrian “guests” now living in camps along its southern border (UNHCR, 2011; Davutoğlu, 2012). Turkey’s geo-political position in the region is significant, and its support of the UNHCR’s goal to seek durable solutions for the thousands who migrate through the area is necessary. However, due to its current migration and border management policies and practices, those who find their way inside Turkey are often caught in a tenuous mixture of uncertainty and bureaucratic entanglements. This article seeks to examine, in particular, the plight of Afghan refugee women who have been caught between Turkey’s internal migration policies and international community’s reluctance to host their resettlement. A team consisting of a scholar-practitioner, two graduate students, and one translator researched how complex humanitarian experiences and exposure to war affected the emotional well-being of Afghan women in their home countries, during their migration to Turkey, upon their arrival in the Turkish city of Van and later during their second displacement to Mersin. In order to conduct this research, focus groups and individual interviews were conducted in the city of Mersin in 2012. A total of 20 Afghan refugee women participated in this project. The women who participated in the project were selected because (a) they had fled from Afghanistan due to the violence and war between 2006 and 2011, (b) they had chosen to come to Turkey and currently awaited resettlement to a third country, and (c) they had survived two earthquakes in Van and were re-settled again in Mersin1. Research analysis indicated that as one of the receiving countries, Turkey has not been particularly flexible throughout this vulnerable group’s migration process. Turkey’s internal border management and migration policies, along with the international community’s reluctance to permanently resettle Afghans have negatively and repeatedly impacted the lives of these refugees.

In over six years of escalating violence, more than 200,000 Syrians have been killed, and millions more have been forced to flee their homes both within the country and to neighboring states. The repercussions of this ongoing violence have reached Europe, with refugee numbers set to reach 1 million in Germany alone.1 In a desperate bid to stem the flow of people, the EU and Turkey reached a deal in November 2015 to reduce the number of migrants entering Europe from Turkish territory. UNHCR’s Regional Refugee Response estimates that Turkey now hosts 2.1 million registered Syrians refugees.2 This number easily reaches 2.3 million when unregistered Syrians are included. Contrary to the popular image, the majority of Syrians, like other refugee groups, are found outside camps in urban areas. Through interviews with a sample of Turkish NGOs and Syrian people of different religious, ethnic, and socioeconomic backgrounds in Istanbul, this report highlights the daily challenges and insecurity faced by Syrians in urban areas that are not only leading many to leave for Europe but also directly influencing refugees’ choices in how they exit the country. While the Turkish state has spent over 7.6 billion USD on refugees, the overwhelming majority of this goes towards the 25 refugee camps in the country. There is no state support for urban refugees in Turkey outside those near the camps. Inconsistency also exists in the posi-tion, knowledge, and response of the various municipal governments in Istanbul regarding Syrian populations. In consultation with the Istanbul governor’s office and the relevant national agencies, Istanbul’s local munici-palities are responsible for and oversee a number of services in their vicinity from infrastructure and maintenance to health, religious, and water services. Knowledge of the number and needs of the populations in their districts is a necessity for municipal develop-ment in order to plan for emergencies, capacities, and services. In this context, the paradox posed by Syrians in urban areas is that they are a development and legis-lative challenge and not a humanitarian problem. 1T. Porter, “Refugee crisis: Germany has received over 1 million migrants in 2015,” International Business Times, December 10, 2015. Retrieved http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/refugee-crisis-germany-has-received-over-1-mil-lion-migrants-2015-1532674 2Syrian Regional Refugee Response: Inter-agency Information Sharing Portal, United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees, November 2015, accessed November 30, 2015, http://data.unhcr.org/syrianrefugees/re-gional.php.All interviewees for this report highlighted a number of problems and issues with living in Turkey. In the case of one family interviewed, these were identified as push factors that eventually led them to travel to Europe. A lack of documentation such as residence or work permits and the accompanying rights entailed exclude Syrians from simple practices such as opening a bank account, ensuring restitution for their work, legally renting, and in many cases paying their utilities. This creates a fundamental insecurity and instability in the lives of Syrians that prevents them from settling in Turkey. Bureaucratic problems in harmonization and commu-nication result in rules and laws being inadequately announced and inconsistently applied from place to place. These problems range from inconsistency in the application of mobility restrictions on Syrians to knowledge of their rights. Despite legal entitlements and efforts by the Turkish state to enroll Syrian children into schools, there has been limited success outside the camps. In urban areas, there have been reports of some schools rejecting Syrian children due to discrimination, a lack of capacity, or ignorance of the law.3 Similarly, there is inconsistency in the application and acceptance of Syrians by health workers. Inter-viewees have also complained of the speed in which rules governing Syrians in Turkey change and of not being able to find information on this. This inconsist-ency and a lack of transparency in the implementation of laws and regulations governing Syrians make their situation insecure and untenable.

Luxembourg has integrated in the protection system the European legal framework on protection. However, besides the international protection (refugee status and subsidiary protection status) and the temporary protection statuses, the Luxembourgish legal system foresees two humanitarian statuses which are: a) residence permit for private reasons based on serious humanitarian grounds; b) the postponement of removal based on medical reasons. In regard to the latter, there are the following steps: 1) the postponement of removal can be granted and renewed for up to 24 months; 2) after 2 years, if the medical condition persists, an authorisation of stay for medical reasons may be granted and a residence permit for private reasons may be issued. However, it is important to stress at this point that the Luxembourgish authorities do not consider the two aforementioned residence permits issued according to articles 78 (3) and 131 (2) of the Immigration Law as “protection statuses” as such, but precisely as residence permits issued to the applicant. The granting of these two “protection statuses” are based on the discretionary power of the Minister in charge of Immigration and Asylum. The residence permit for private reasons based on humanitarian grounds (Status A of this report) allows for the Minister to grant an authorisation to stay in the country to an irregular migrant if s/he is in in need to stay based on humanitarian reasons of exceptional circumstances. There is not an exhaustive list of reasons on which the Minister can base his/her decision. However, there is an exhaustive analysis of the reasons advance by the applicant. Any third country national irregularly staying on the territory can apply for this residence permit. However, in the case of rejected asylum seekers, the application will be rejected if the applicant advances the same reasons that s/he advanced during the international protection procedure. On the contrary, the residence permit for medical reasons requires that, in the first stage, the applicant had received a return decision and an order to leave the territory. In order to obtain the residence permit, he/she has to obtain first a decision for a postponement of removal for medical reasons that has to be renewed for two years before the applicant can file the application for the residence permit based on medical reasons. This residence permit is not granted automatically and if the applicant does not file his/her application after expiration of the postponement of removal for medical reasons after two years, s/he will be precluded and the return decision will be executed, except if s/he proves that s/he cannot be returned for medical reasons. In this case, the entire procedure will have to start again.

TÜBİTAK tarafından desteklenen “Türkiye’nin Uluslararası Göç Politikaları, 1923-2023: Ulus-devlet Oluşumundan Ulus-ötesi Dönüşümlere” konulu bu proje Türkiye’nin uluslararası göç ve sığınma politikalarını tarihsel süreç içerisinde kapsamlı ve sistemli bir şekilde ele alıp, bu politikaların güncel konumunu ve gelecekteki dönüşüm süreçlerini irdelemektedir. Modern Türkiye tarihi Cumhuriyet’in kuruluşundan bu yana farklı şekiller alan uluslararası göç ve sığınma hareketlerine sahne olmuştur. Kuruluşunun ilk yıllarında uluslararası bir nüfus mübadelesi sonucunda nüfusu önemli ölçüde göçle yenilenen Türkiye, aynı yıllarda yine yüksek sayılara varan bir soydaş göçüyle karşılaşmış, bunu köylerden kentlere gerçekleşen iç göçler ve işgücü göçleri izlemiştir. Soğuk Savaş, küreselleşme ve Türkiye’nin Avrupa Birliği’ne üyelik süreci gibi birçok gelişme ulusal ve uluslararası ortamı etkilemiş ve Türkiye’ye yönelen göçmen ve sığınmacı profilinde de belirgin değişikliklere neden olmuştur. Türkiye artık sadece göç veren ve alan bir ülke değil, aynı zamanda başka ülkelere gitmek isteyen ülke vatandaşları için geçiş yapabilecekleri bir “göç geçiş ülkesi” konumuna gelmiştir. Göç ve sığınma politikalarını tarihsel ve güncel düzeyde ele alan kapsamlı bir çalışmanın yokluğundan yola çıkan bu çalışma da, son dönemde uluslararası göç ve sığınma politikalarının Türkiye için artan önemini göz önüne alarak, hem bu politikaların ayrıntılı bir değerlendirmesini yapmayı, hem de tarihsel bir bakış açısıyla bu politikaların toplumsal, siyasal ve ekonomik yansımalarına dolaysız göndermeler de bulunmayı hedeflemiştir.

Unlike many other EU Member States, the higher education system in Luxembourg is marked by a particular characteristic, namely the fact that the University of Luxembourg is the only public university in the country. Established by law in 2003, the University of Luxembourg is therefore the main actor in the higher education system and hosts the large majority of international students in Luxembourg. In addition to the University of Luxembourg, two more types of institutions complement the higher education system in Luxembourg and are recognised by the Ministry of Higher Education and Research as higher education institutions (hereafter referred to as ‘HEIs’), namely: 1. Secondary educational institutions offering educational programmes that award an advanced technician’s certificate (‘Brevet de technicien supérieur’ – ‘BTS’); 2. Private foreign universities having infrastructures or campus in Luxembourg. In order to be able to award higher education diplomas as well as to host international students, all HEIs are mandatorily required to be approved by the Ministry of Higher Education and Research, with the exception of the University of Luxembourg because it was established by law. The admission conditions for international students to study at a HEI in Luxembourg are twofold: First, the international student must apply and be accepted at an approved HEI or at the University of Luxembourg. Second, once accepted at a HEI, s/he needs to apply for a temporary authorisation of stay, and subsequently, if applicable, a Visa D (valid for 3 months), from his/her country of origin before being authorised to travel to Luxembourg and before being issued a ‘student’ residence permit (valid for minimum 1 year and renewable) in Luxembourg. To conclude, the HEIs in Luxembourg, under the overall auspice of the Ministry of Higher Education and Research, as well as the immigration authorities are the main stakeholders in the context of international students studying in Luxembourg. Luxembourg transposed the Directive (EU) 2016/801 by the Law of 1 August 2018, which amended the amended ‘Immigration Law’ and entered into force on 21 September 2018. In this context, the study highlights in particular the introduction of a new residence permit for ‘private reasons’ in view of seeking employment or establishing a business in Luxembourg. This residence permit was newly introduced by the transposition of the Directive and allows international graduates to remain in the country for a maximum duration of nine months in order to find a job or establish a business in relation to their academic training. Prior to the transposition, international students were only able to change their immigration status to ‘salaried worker’ immediately after their graduation. Moreover, the transposition modified a number of legal dispositions, such as the increase of the maximum amount of hours that students are authorised to work, from 10 hours to 15 hours per week. Furthermore, Bachelor students enrolled in their first year of academic studies as well as students enrolled in a study programme awarding them a ‘BTS’ are no longer excluded from exercising a salaried activity as allowed by law. Lastly, the transposition also facilitates the intra-European mobility of international students who follow a European or multilateral programme that contains mobility measures or a convention between two or more HEIs. The attraction and retention of international students are not considered as a national political priority per se by the Luxembourgish authorities, but have to be perceived in an overall national political priority of attracting “talents” to Luxembourg, i.e. (highly) qualified persons, regardless of their nationality and in the interest of the country and its economy. The stakeholders consulted in the context of this study identified several factors that may have positive effects on the attraction and retention of international students. These include, among others: - the geographical position of Luxembourg with an important financial sector and several European institutions - the multilingual environment of the country as well as the University of Luxembourg - the HEI ranking of the University of Luxembourg - the comparatively low levels of tuition fees, particularly of the national public HEIs - the fact that the level tuition fees is the same for every student, no matter his/her nationality, with the exception of examples from private HEIs Furthermore, the consulted stakeholders identified several examples of good practices in the context of this study, such as for example: - A close and diligent collaboration between all stakeholders, in particular between the Directorate of Immigration, the Ministry of Higher Education and Research and the University of Luxembourg - Quality management of private HEI (mainly through the approval procedure) in view of the best interest of students - Affordable tuitions fees in the higher education system At the same time, the consulted stakeholders have identified several challenges, such as: - the languages of instruction (with a strong emphasis on French and German especially at the Bachelor/‘BTS’ levels) and the primary working languages (French and Luxembourgish) - socio-economic factors, particularly the high costs of living and the challenge of finding affordable housing - authenticity and veracity of transmitted diplomas in the context of a diploma recognition - a challenging procedure related to the entrance exam for international students who hold a high school diploma issued in a country that is not a signatory country of Paris/Lisbon conventions - potential misuse of the ‘student’ residence permit in view of trying to stay in the country instead of succeeding in the studies. In addition to the major legislative change introduced by the transposition of the Directive and the various factors and challenges mentioned above, the study also highlights a number of initiatives, offered in particular by the University of Luxembourg, aiming to support international students after their graduation and to encourage them to establish and/or maintain a connection to the national labour market. The study concludes with a section on bilateral and multilateral cooperation with third countries, both at the level of the Luxembourgish State as well as at the level of HEIs, particularly of the University of Luxembourg.

En Belgique, les citoyens de l’UE et les ressortissants de pays tiers ont le droit de voter aux élections locales. Les ressortissants de pays tiers jouissent de ce droit après cinq ans de résidence ininterrompue en Belgique. Les citoyens de l’UE ont également le droit de se présenter comme candidat aux élections locales. De plus, ces derniers ont le droit de voter et de se présenter comme candidats aux élections européennes. Les droits électoraux des citoyens belges résidant à l’étranger sont plus restrictifs. En effet, les citoyens non-résidents ont le droit de voter mais pas de se présenter comme candidats aux élections législatives. Les citoyens belges ont également le droit de voter aux élections européennes s’ils résident dans un pays membre de l’UE ou dans un pays tiers mais seuls les Belges résidant dans un autre Etat Membre de l’UE peuvent se présenter comme candidats. En Belgique, une fois inscrits, tous les électeurs sont obligés de voter. Malgré les campagnes de sensibilisation menées par différentes institutions et des associations de la société civile lors des dernières élections, une difficulté majeure à laquelle restent confrontés les électeurs est le manque d’information concernant les procédures d’inscription et le processus politique de manière plus générale. Une manière d’encourager la participation politique des résidents non-belges serait de formaliser les stratégies de diffusion de l’information et de communiquer avec les nouveaux résidents dans différentes langues.

Illegal employment by third country nationals is a reality in Luxembourg. However, as well as in the case of grey and informal economy, it is rather hard to grasp or quantify to which extent. Nevertheless, the problem is not as significant as the one of the posted workers which is more relevant and worrisome and needs to be situated in the context of a labour market of the Greater Region. In the past, several labour related regularisation measures have been implemented in Luxembourg in order to provide both employers and employees the possibility to regularise situations of illegal employment. The last labour related regularisation measure was implemented in early 2013 in the context of the transposition of the Employers' Sanctions Directive 2009/52 by law of 21 December 2012. During this regularisation, the Directorate of Immigration received 664 applications. These regularisations give a partial indication of the extent of the phenomenon, even though these numbers do not provide a real picture of the problem because the conditions of this regularisation were very strict and in a very short time frame (less than two months) and a certain number of irregular migrants’ workers were not willing to expose themselves by applying and preferred to remain undetected. This regularisation also provided information on the main sectors were the phenomenon is found in order of importance: HORECA, cleaning, crafts, industry and construction. The Ministry of Labour, Employment and Social and Solidary Economy at the end of the regularisation has insisted in the need to increase the number of controls to employers. The law of 21 December 2012 established administrative as well as criminal sanctions for employers who illegally employ irregularly staying third country nationals, particularly in relation to offenses to the Labour Code in aggravating circumstances. This law amended also article 89 of the Immigration Law abrogating the possibility of making labour related regularisations. The Inspectorate of Labour (‘Inspection de Travail et des Mines’, hereafter called ITM), which is in charge of labour inspections and the control of illegal employment of TCNs in Luxembourg, is currently going through a restructuring phase following the latest audit of this administration from January 2015. Particularly the current insufficient number of staff of the ITM, which is in need of a significant short term increase of staff, represents a main challenge in the field of illegal employment in Luxembourg. It is also in the context of this restructuring phase of the responsible administration that the drafting of this study presented a number of challenges, especially in relation to the operational and statistical part of the template. The information regarding the conditions to be fulfilled by both the employers and the employees in the context of an employment relationship are available on the website of the concerned authorities. Furthermore, they are disseminated by the NGOs working in the field, even though there are no specific campaigns targeted to prevent illegal employment of TCNs. The matter was raised in the context of the ‘social identification badge’, which was introduced in 2013 in order to fight against social dumping in particular in the construction sector. One national stakeholder suggested that the ‘social identification badge’ could be revised and adapted to other economic sectors in order to better monitor and prevent illegal employment. In regards to access to justice and enforcement of rights of illegally employed TCNs, Luxembourg foresees the right for illegally employed TCNs to make a claim against their employer, including in cases in which they have, or have been, returned. This claim falls under the general provisions concerning the right to bring a case before civil courts. The Labour Code establishes that the employer who has employed an irregular staying third-country national must pay to the third-country national the following amounts: 1) salaries and any other emoluments, which a similar employee would have benefited for the same employment; 2) the total amount of outstanding remuneration as well as the cost of the transfer of these amounts to the third-country national to the country to which s/he is returned; 3) the total amount of unpaid social contributions and taxes, including administrative fines, as well as, court and legal fees. In addition, the Labour Code establishes that the third-country national who has been illegally employed before the execution of any return decision has to be systematically and objectively informed by the control agents of his/her rights to recover the outstanding remunerations and back payments, as well as the right to benefit from free of charge legal aid in order to attempt a recovery action against the employer, even if the third-country national has already been returned. Labour unions can support and assist TCNs in legal proceedings related to social and labour law, provided that they have been given a mandate to do so. Eventual costs of administrative and civil proceedings can be taken in charge by the labour unions if the TCN is a member of the respective labour union. The Law does not establish fines against TCN’s who were illegally employed. The TCN may be issued a return decision and lose his/her residence rights; however, the Directorate of immigration processes these situations on a case-by-case basis and inform the persons concerned to terminate the illegal employment situation.

The main objectives of this study of the European Migration Network are to provide objective and reliable information about beneficiaries of international protection who travel to their country of origin or come into contact with national authorities of their country of origin, and information on cases where international protection statuses were ceased leading to, for example, the status being ended, revoked or not renewed (as per Article 45 and 46 of the recast Asylum Procedures Directive) and, ultimately, the permission to stay withdrawn. For the Luxembourgish case, it is firstly important to note that beneficiaries of the refugee status and of the status of subsidiary protection are not subject to the same restrictions with regard to travel to the country of origin or contact with national authorities. While refugees are in principle not permitted to travel to the country of origin, beneficiaries of subsidiary protection are not subject to this restriction. In this context, the phenomenon of beneficiaries of the refugee status travelling to their country of origin is currently not considered a policy priority in Luxembourg. While it does occur, there are no statistics providing information on how many refugees undertake this journey or contact the national authorities, on the reasons for travel to the country of origin, nor is there any case law on the cessation of the refugee status for reasons of travel to the country of origin. Luxembourg’s authorities are not systematically informed of such events by the authorities of other Member States. Luxembourg has no external borders with the exception of the international airport of Luxembourg, from where only an extremely limited number of flights to third countries depart. Thus, it is extremely difficult to capture the extent of the phenomenon in Luxembourg. Luxembourg’s Asylum Law establishes the re-availment of the protection of the country of origin and the voluntary re-establishment in the country of origin as grounds for cessation of the refugee status. Travel to the country of origin or contact with its national authorities are not explicitly forbidden by legislation. In principle, refugees are not permitted to travel back to the country of origin. They are provided with this information on multiple occasions: for instance at the moment of the introduction of their application, as well as when they are issued the decision granting them protection. Their travel document also clearly states the restriction. There is no notification or authorisation procedure that would authorise such travel in Luxembourg. When the Directorate of Immigration has the information that a refugee travelled back to the country of origin, it will proceed to an in-depth analysis of the personal situation of the individual. Determining that this travel is proof of the voluntary re-establishment in the country of origin is however considered extremely difficult, as it is nearly impossible to ascertain the reasons for which the refugee returned. Furthermore, a short stay in the country of origin is not necessarily considered like the (permanent) establishment in the country of origin or a proof thereof. This is also due to the fact that the Luxembourgish authorities cannot contact the authorities of the country of origin and have no tools to undertake an investigation there in order to verify that the refugee has re-established him/herself. The travel and the surrounding circumstances can be taken into account if the minister decides to re-examine the validity of the status, which could potentially lead to a withdrawal. The Directorate of Immigration has never considered ceasing protection because a refugee contacted the authorities of the country of origin. Proving that this contact occurred in the first place, and next, proving that it constitutes a re-availment of the protection of the country of origin, is considered nearly impossible. In addition, it is a fact that certain administrative procedures require the production of official documents and that the substitution of these documents with affidavits are in practice not always feasible. As previously mentioned, beneficiaries of subsidiary protection are authorised to travel back to their country of origin and are permitted to contact the authorities of their country of origin. They are even encouraged to contact the national authorities in order to obtain a national passport. These actions can thus not lead to the cessation of the status of subsidiary protection. If the decision to cease the status is taken, the beneficiary is notified of this decision in writing. The decision can be appealed before the First instance Administrative Court. If the decision of the Court is negative, the individual can file an appeal before the Second instance Administrative Court. In principle, the decision to cease international protection carries a return decision. However, the individual can apply for another residence permit if s/he fulfils the conditions established in the Immigration Law. The same is true for family members who got a residence permit through family reunification with the concerned person: the family members will lose their right to stay unless they can gain access to another residence permit under the Immigration Law.

The report presents the main findings of a project funded by the Czech Statistical Office whose principal goal was to gather quantitative data in order to improve the methodology employed to estimate the remittances made by migrants. The primary task of the project implemented by the Institute of Sociology, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic between May 2010 and February 2011 was to conduct a questionnaire-based survey (with 1,000 respondents) which would gather quantitative information on the incomes and expenses of immigrants currently living in the Czech Republic, as well as the remittances they send abroad. In accordance with a Czech Statistical Office request, the survey described in this report targeted 5 groups of economically active non-EU immigrants based on their citizenship: Ukrainians, Vietnamese, Russians, Moldavians and the citizens from the former Yugoslavia (excluding Slovenia which is an EU member state since 2004).

The IRMA project is informed by the wider theoretical framework of globalization studies which point to the erosion of the sovereignty and independence of the nation state. Globalization is a multi-faceted and multi-level phenomenon: economically it involves the elimination of countries’ trade boundaries and the development of global multinational corporations. At the cultural level it signifies to a large extent the spread of a borderless and boundless consumerism. However this also creates opposed movements of return to local cultures and local economies. At the social level, globalization involves a sense that politics and democracy are increasingly less relevant as global market forces seem to take the lead. At the same time the volatility of the global economy creates a crisis of legitimacy for the neo-liberal policies that advocate stripping away the protections that nation states used to provide to their citizens in the name of an unstoppable global model of development (George and Wilding 2002; Holton 2005, Milliot and Tournois 2010). Migration is deeply affected by globalization as the lifestyles, consumer habits, sense of relative deprivation as well as systems of production and politics of developing countries are shaped by the forces of social, political and economic globalization. People become more aware of the better prospects that potentially await them in developed countries. Information travels faster than before, and means to get connected through IT as well as means of transport are also cheaper and faster. The erosion of national boundaries create also more space and scope for local or transnational actors to be involved in irregular migration whether as local or transnational smuggling networks, or as local NGOs or international organisations. Globalization has been the buzzword of the last three decades, so widely used by such a wide range of actors that it often remains too vague and elusive to translate into meaningful content. On the other hand, migration is lately discussed in relation to globalization; yet, little empirical evidence to date clarifies precisely the relationship between the two (King 1995; Castles 2000; Urzua 2000; Tapinos 2000; Stalker 2000; Papastergiadis 2000; Koser 2007; Castles and Miller 2009; Solimano 2010). It is therefore necessary to begin by offering some conceptual definitions of globalization and exploring its links with international migration.

According to UNHCR, an estimated 68.5 million individuals are today forcibly displaced worldwide. Around half of the world’s refugees are children and young people under the age of 35. While many students are forced to abandone their studies in their home countries, only one percent of refugee youth is able to access and continue higher education. Evidence shows that despite a fundamental right to education, refugees and similar at-risk populations encounter significant challenges barring access to higher education. The situation also prevails in Europe. When confronted with dramatic increases of mass migration in 2015 and 2016, European countries did little to adjust access to higher education for refugees. With very few exceptions, there are still no specific national policy approaches among European countries. Higher education institutions are mostly left to their own practices to handle the issue. Emergency responses generally focus on providing limited numbers of competitive scholarships, linguistic support, and counseling services. However, large-scale, sustainable broad-based internationalization policies and frameworks are utterly lacking. While effective response to refugees’ higher education needs is a responsibility for all higher education institutions, rather than taking the lead to push for inclusive societies, universities have curbed their activities within the restricted legislative frameworks that create status-related obstacles for refugees. Accordingly, this report provides an overview and descriptive analysis of how selected countries (Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, Norway, UK and Turkey) have responded to the massive inflow of refugees, as well as the policy practices they have developed concerning refugee students’ integration into higher education. Seeking to encourage sustainable policy responses and national frameworks, this report highlights these selected countries’ procedures to ensure access to higher education and also approaches to recognize foreign qualifications. It also examines particular challenges in the case of each country. The report limits its scope exclusively to refugee students, excluding practices developed for refugee academics/university staff. This report offers a contribution to the existing literature on educational policy for refugees and encourages higher education institutions to remember their central role as a driving force for social development and integration.

The national report on the governance of the reception system in Luxembourg is one of the seven country reports that are produced within Work Package 3 of the H2020 project CEASEVAL. The report provides an overview of the Luxembourgish reception system. More specifically, it focuses on recent transformations that have affected the system, processes of implementation at the national and local levels, and sources of heterogeneity within the national system. It is based on document analysis as well as on 19 semi-structured interviews with a range of different stakeholders who are directly or indirectly involved in the Luxembourgish reception system. The report first provides some historical background on the reception of asylum seekers in Luxembourg by paying specific attention to the main legislative instruments that shaped the initial design of the national reception system. Then, the main revisions that affected the system in the period 2009-2018 are explored alongside their related decision-making processes. This paves the way for an overview of the formal structure of the Luxembourgish reception system. After the discussion of the formal organisation of reception policies in the country, the report moves on to explore the actual functioning of the reception system by investigating implementation practices at the national and local levels. Finally, some examples of heterogeneity in the current provision of reception are discussed, in an attempt to identify drivers of convergence and divergence in the implementation of reception policies.

La note de synthèse présente les principaux résultats de l’étude réalisée en 2018 par le Point de contact Luxembourgeois du Réseau Européen des Migrations intitulée : « Attracting and retaining international students in the EU ». Cette étude fournit un aperçu des politiques et pratiques en vigueur au Luxembourg afin d’attirer et de retenir des étudiants internationaux. Elle se base essentiellement sur les informations recueillies jusqu’en novembre 2018 et n’englobe donc que peu d’évolutions qui ont pu se produire après cette date.

Section 1 offers an overview of the Luxembourg immigration legislation which provides for the possibility to switch between categories of authorisations of stay in Article 39 of the amended Law of 29 August 2008 on the Free Movement of Persons and Immigration (hereafter referred to as Law on Immigration). Third-country nationals wishing to stay in Luxembourg for more than three months are required to apply for an authorisation of stay before arriving in Luxembourg. The third-country national applying for a permit for more than three months has to submit to a medical examination before requesting the delivery of the permit. After the medical exam, a certificate is delivered detailing whether the third-country national fulfils the conditions of entry to the territory or not. This certificate has to be enclosed to the residence permit application. The third-country national must also fulfil conditions pertaining to his/her registration in the municipality of his/her future residence as well as appropriate accommodation.In regards to changes of statuses, the third-country national with an authorisation of stay for more than three months has the possibility to apply for a different permit provided s/he fulfils the conditions for the category of permit s/he is aiming to change to. The Law on Immigration sets up this principle in its Article 39 (3) and excludes from its application the following categories: students, trainees, volunteers, au pairs and pupils. The rationale behind those exceptions is that those permits are considered temporary by definition, as they are linked to an activity which is limited in time.A special provision, Article 59 of the Law on Immigration, allows young graduates after the expiry of their student permit to change into the category of salaried worker and have a first work experience in Luxembourg for the limited, non-renewable, duration of two years. After this period the third-country national has to return in his/her country of origin. This provision and its conditions were debated by stakeholders during the elaboration of the Law on Immigration, concerns surrounding the limit of two years’ work experience or the limiting condition of having a contract linked to the diploma obtained in Luxembourg were mentioned. Article 59 is however the result of a compromise between fostering a young graduate’s capabilities with a first work experience and provide for a possibility to fill the gap in the Luxembourg workforce on one hand and on the other mitigate the risk of brain drain for the third-country national’s country of origin.Other considerations to allow for switches between categories of statuses were of humanitarian nature, such as Articles 76 (family member), 89 (1) (authorisation of stay for exceptional reasons), 98 (victim of human trafficking) and 131 (2) (medical reasons) of the Law on Immigration. These articles aim to increase the autonomy and legal security of vulnerable third-country nationals. Section 2 details the different statuses taken into account for the purpose of the present study. The table under question 1 also contains categories that do not exist as such in Luxembourg legislation: the separate category of highly qualified worker was replaced by the European Blue Card with the implementation of the Law of 18 December 2011,the categories of business owner, seasonal workers, intra-corporate transferee and investor do not exist autonomously, but third-country nationals falling under these categories are nonetheless covered by other existing statuses. However, a modification of the current legal framework is under way in order to create the categories of intra-corporate transferees and seasonal workers.Therefore the relevant categories of statuses for Luxembourg at this point in time are family member, education (student), researcher, European Blue Card, salaried worker, self-employed worker, international protection applicant, victim of trafficking in human beings, private reasons, athletes, au pairs and beneficiaries of medical treatment. The authorisation of stay for exceptional reasons was included in this study even if not considered a category of stay.Section 3 delves more specifically into the subject matter of the present study and introduces more in detail the changes of statuses that are possible from within the country. The present study excluded from its scope the change into long-term resident, which is the most common change of status in Luxembourg. Several changes, while theoretically possible, are also unlikely to take place in practice as they would lead to a loss of rights for the concerned third-country national. This loss of rights applies to switches into the categories of students, pupils, volunteers, trainees, au pairs, seasonal workers, posted workers and international protection applicants. As a consequence, the main changes of statuses in practice concern the categories of Family member, salaried worker, European Blue Card, Self-employed and Private reasons.The special consideration given to third-country nationals in vulnerable situations, such as victims of trafficking in human beings or third-country nationals with an authorisation of stay for medical reasons, may obtain a permit for private reasons and, if they engage in a full-time salaried activity, may later switch to salaried worker without having to submit to the labour market test.The study also presents the different actors on a national level that might be confronted with changes of statuses as well as the different channels of communication that are available to circulate the information to third-country nationals. The concerned actors may vary from one category of permit to the next, however the Directorate of Immigration will be involved in nearly every case. The Chamber of Commerce also has a part to play in changes into self-employed workers. The main channel of communication, aside from office hours of institutions dealing with migration, is the website www.guichet.lu which centralises all the relevant information.Taking as a basis the different comments during the elaboration of the Law on Immigration as well as interviews conducted with different stakeholders for the purpose of this study, these changes of statuses are generally perceived in a positive light, with several actors, such as the Chamber of Commerce or Fondation Caritas, arguing in favour of lighter requirements to allow for such switches, especially where changes for humanitarian grounds are concerned.The topic of changes of statuses of immigration has not as of yet attracted interest in Luxembourg. There is no data or study available on the topic and it has not triggered any large debate on the national level.Nevertheless, Section 4 puts forward a number of good practices. In fact, whenever the Directorate of Immigration or another organisation providing advice on immigration, notices a possibility for a third-country national to obtain a permit that is more favourable, this will be brought to the attention of the concerned person. The Directorate of Immigration has also proven flexibility and understanding in situations including children. Alternative solutions are also provided by the Directorate of Immigration when a holder of the authorisation of stay for medical reasons falls into irregularity. A further notable good practice is the extensive support provided to third-country nationals aiming to change into self-employed worker by the Chamber of Commerce. Finally, the constant information sharing between the relevant actors consists a good practice with enormous potential as it draws the discussion into practical concerns faced with the implementation of the Law on Immigration.

Using the latest statistical data from six GCC states and recent publications of the GCC Secretariat, a detailed profile is presented of immigration and employment across the region. Evaluation is made of the available data sources (listed in the appendix) and the actual extent of immigrant presence in both population and labour market is critically examined. Employment according to public/private sector, and also for fifteen economic sectors, is shown for each country (where available) by citizenship type and gender. Previously unpublished indicators, such as unemployment and participation rates, are calculated where possible by citizenship type, gender and age groups; a few countries provide data on actual nationalities or regional groupings of foreign employees, and these are reproduced here. Previously neglected issues that receive some attention are foreign births, family presence, foreign schoolchildren and duration of residence (the latter available only for the UAE). The emergence of the kafala system is examined in historical context; in particular, emphasis is placed on its role in promoting irregularities in the migration, residence and employment of foreigners across the GCC. Trends in government policies are described, including the recent and significant doubts in some countries about the ability of the kafala system to produce satisfactory outcomes. Some attention is paid to the important policies of nationalization’ of GCC labour markets: a conceptual categorization of such policies is made, according to five different policy objectives. Using both the broad and more detailed sectoral employment data previously presented, evaluation is then made of the degree of success of each country’s initiatives in this area. The paper concludes with an exposition of the commonalities and differences across the GCC in managing their labour markets and immigration. The structural specificities of each country are outlined, along with tentative prognoses of their future needs for immigrant workers.

Applications for international protection significantly increased in Luxembourg from August 2015 onwards, the total number of applications in fact more than doubling when compared to the previous year (2.447 applicants in 2015; 1.091 in 2014). The number of applications remained high in 2016 (2.035 applications) and 2017 (2.322 applications) albeit slightly decreasing when compared to 2015. These figures are not unprecedented. The number of applications introduced in Luxembourg have fluctuated since 1999, the peaks and declines correlating with specific events. Luxembourg received 2.920 applications for international protection in 1999, an effect of the conflict in Kosovo. Later, the country saw two more peaks in applications after the turn of the century (2003 and 2004 with 1.550 and 1.577 applications respectively, 2011 and 2012 with 2.171 and 2.057 applications respectively). On the other hand, 2005 to 2010 can be characterised as a period of relative calm.The current period of higher arrivals of applicants for international protection is characterised by a change in cultural profile. Previously, most of the time, a majority of people applying for international protection in Luxembourg stemmed from European countries. The influx of applicants in 2015 and 2016 was characterised by the arrival of people stemming from Arabic-speaking countries, populations which had been relatively small in Luxembourg up to that point.While not necessarily unprecedented in magnitude,high numbers of monthly arrivals, especially in the last months of 2015, put those in charge of registering applications as well as of housing and providing social follow-up to the test and led to a number of measures being taken.Generally speaking, fromthe beginning of the increased arrivals in Luxembourg in 2015, the government adopted a relatively open and welcoming position. This position is illustrated for instance in the government’s stance in favour of a solution for the reception of applicants for international protection that is based on European solidarity and the government’s investment in relocation and resettlement.

Greece since 2015 is faced with an unprecedented humanitarian crisis as well as management crisis. As the number of arrivals increased and then reduced, the country was challenged to find ways of adequately addressing the needs of asylum seekers. The present report seeks to map out how the reception system of Greece is governed, and the role of localities (Cities) in this governance process. The report highlights the presence of a complex national reception system that is still in its infancy with high levels of centralisation as regards decision-making processes and high levels of decentralisation as regards implementation. The pioneering role of cities is also discussed, in seeking to contribute to the reception system, often beyond the limits of their mandate.