Migration governance

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.

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.

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).

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

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

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

Since 2014, Turkey has not only hosted the world’s largest refugee population but has also modeled a best practice for the global refugee policy discussion. Turkey’s opening of its health, education, employment, and social services systems to Syrians under Temporary Protection (SuTP) sits at the basis of this successful response. At the start of 2019/2020 school year, 684,253 Syrian children under temporary protection were enrolled in the Turkish schools, while a network of 179 Migrant Health Centers is currently operating in thirty provinces across Turkey. Turkey has been the main funding source of this impressive response, incurring a total cost of more than $40 billion according to official data. In line with the principle of burden-sharing, which is highlighted in the Global Compact on Refugees, the international community has also made resources available to support Turkey in this unprecedented effort; over $4 billion has been mobilized through the Regional Refugee and Resilience Plan for Turkey (3RP) since 2015. Within this framework, Turkey’s experience on the key issues such as jobs and employment should be examined as lessons for both refugee hosting countries and donor countries alike. The country has provided Syrians under Temporary Protection the right to access work permits and formal employment. As a result, a total of 132,497 work permits have been issued to Syrian nationals between 2016 and 2019. This is why the United Nations Development Programme in Turkey (UNDP Turkey), as a long standing development partners in Turkey and the coleader of the Refugee and Resilience Response Plan (3RP), and the Atlantic Council IN TURKEY, the Turkey program of the Atlantic Council, a leading Washington-based think tank, have partnered for this research. The Atlantic Council launched its Turkey program in 2018, which grew out of its engagement with Turkey over ten years and is increasingly involved in migration and refugee issues, to contribute to the ongoing policy debate. Building on the experience and expertise of both organizations, our joint policy report, which is to be released after the June 30 Brussels Conference, aims at outlining pragmatic and innovative options at policy and programmatic levels to facilitate refugees’ access to decent employment. Self-reliance and access to formal employment Facilitating self-reliance for such a large number of refugees’ households remains a daunting task, even in the medium to long-term. This is especially the case in a context where increasing levels of unemployment in Turkey compounded by the socio-economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic have posed a serious challenge to job creation and increased competition for available opportunities. Despite a concerted effort and strong leadership , there have been challenges for refugees to achieve self-reliance, best highlighted by a recent assessment that 1.6 million refugees live below the poverty line. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic has further highlighted the vulnerability associated with informal work and casual labor, with many refugees and host communities facing a sudden and unexpected loss of income. The internationally supported cash response to directly assist the most vulnerable (the Emergency Social Safety Net—ESSN—and the Conditional Cash Transfer for Education—CCTE) has been crucial in allowing refugees to meet their basic needs over the past couple of years. However, given the overall cost of such programs in the long-term, access to income and formal employment remains a key challenge. The Exit Strategy from the ESSN program released by the government in December 2018 marks a step towards a conducive policy framework to facilitate refugees’ access to formal employment. Policy options The main findings of the joint report highlight that: 1. The main challenge remains in matching refugees to the labor market by raising enhancing their skills. While international partners have contributed to this end over the past years, it hasn’t been enough for refugees to become employable options for many large Turkish companies—many of the most skilled Syrians fled to Europe. 2. Businesses’ support programs need to go beyond job placement of refugees in small businesses in exchange for business development support and grants. More integrated structural investments at the local level are needed, particularly, in industrial, manufacturing, and agricultural value chains. 3. While the presence of refugees can be seen as an asset to catalyze local development, host communities need to be supported equitably as well. 4. The current priority towards the formalization of existing jobs is paramount to ensuring decent work conditions for refugees, appropriate access to income, and fair competition between job seekers. The recent inspections to raise awareness of employers on employment regulations for Syrian workers have yielded important results in Istanbul, significantly increasing work permit applications by employers. This could be applied elsewhere. Private sector engagement and digital solutions Based on other international experiences, we also identified deepening engagement with the private sector and exploring digital livelihoods opportunities as emerging solutions to this issue. These two solutions are particularly tailored to the challenges of the situation in Turkey, as they can create opportunities for both Turkish companies and individual Syrians, alleviating pressure on the labor market. Digital solutions (such as digital entrepreneurship, e-commerce, or language and translation businesses) are particularly promising as they create new, sustainable job creation dynamics that have the potential to expand both within Turkey to benefit most vulnerable refugees and internationally by accessing new markets. Given the scale of the task at hand, every possible contribution should be maximized to further unleash the resilience and potential demonstrated by Syrian refugees and their host communities. The COVID-19 pandemic is proving to be an important test on the government’s and their international partners’ relevance and flexibility and their ability to quickly step up efforts in that direction. Pursuing these solutions and policy options would help further promote the refugee response in Turkey as a best practice in implementing the key principles of the Global Compact for Refugees.

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

Le présent rapport fait la synthèse des principaux débats et des évolutions majeures concernant les migrations et l’asile au Luxembourg en 2017. Le nombre de personnes demandant une protection internationale est resté élevé en 2017 (2 322 demandes) par rapport aux niveaux enregistrés avant la « crise migratoire » (1 091 en 2014). Toutefois, ce nombre est resté relativement stable par rapport aux deux années précédentes (2 447 en 2015 et 2 035 en 2016). Cette stabilité relative s’est également reflétée dans le débat public et politique dans le domaine des migrations et de l’asile. Depuis 2016, l’accent n’a cessé de se déplacer d’un discours « d’urgence » axé sur la mise en œuvre de mesures et de conditions d’accueil vers des discussions sur des mesures et des politiques d’intégration à plus long terme. À cet égard, le nouveau parcours d’intégration accompagné (PIA) peut être considéré comme un projet phare de l’OLAI, l’Office luxembourgeois de l’accueil et de l’intégration des étrangers. Le PIA vise à autonomiser les demandeurs et les bénéficiaires d’une protection internationale et à les soutenir dans le développement de leur projet de vie. Le parcours, obligatoire pour tous les demandeurs adultes de protection internationale, se compose d’une composante linguistique et d’une composante civique, et il est divisé en trois phases. Bien que l’augmentation des capacités d’hébergement des demandeurs de protection internationale (DPI) figure parmi les priorités des autorités nationales, le logement des DPI reste très problématique et a déclenché un débat à l’échelle nationale. Outre l’accès à la formation, les problèmes liés au logement des DPI ont été parmi les questions les plus fréquemment soulevées en 2017. La pression sur le logement des DPI et des bénéficiaires de protection internationale (BPI) est importante : le manque de logements abordables sur le marché privé, le nombre croissant de réunifications familiales et la progression du nombre de BPI et de personnes qui ont fait l’objet d’une décision de retour mais qui restent hébergées dans les structures de l’OLAI ont été identifiés comme facteurs de pression. Les difficultés liées à la construction de structures modulaires d’hébergement ont également persisté en 2017. Une certaine réticence de la population à l’égard de la construction de ces « villages conteneurs », prévue en réponse à l’afflux croissant qui a commencé en août 2015, était visible dans les recours introduits devant les tribunaux administratifs pour annuler les plans d’occupation des sols liés aux projets. Les conditions de vie au sein des structures d’accueil ont également fait l’objet de discussions. Elles portaient notamment sur l’absence d’équipement en cuisines de plusieurs lieux d’accueil, les différents systèmes d’approvisionnement en nourriture et les types de nourriture disponibles. Afin de répondre au nombre toujours important de DPI en provenance des pays des Balkans occidentaux, une procédure ultra-accélérée a été mise en place. Cette procédure a été instaurée pour diminuer les pressions sur les structures d’accueil et pour éviter de créer de faux espoirs pour les séjours de longue durée. En avril 2017, la structure d’hébergement d’urgence au Kirchberg (SHUK) a été mise en place, afin d’héberger les DPI pour lesquels le Luxembourg n’est pas compétent pour examiner les demandes en vertu de l’application du règlement de Dublin. Ce nombre a fortement progressé. Le placement à la SHUK correspond à une assignation à résidence, donc à une alternative à la rétention. La structure nouvellement créée ainsi que les conditions d’affectation ont néanmoins été critiquées par la société civile. Plusieurs acteurs de la société civile ont manifesté leur opposition face à une disposition de la loi du 8 mars 2017 qui a étendu la période de rétention des adultes ou familles avec enfants de 72 heures à 7 jours afin de rendre plus efficiente l’organisation du retour. Un premier bilan du fonctionnement du Centre de rétention a été publié en 2017. Une commission chargée d’évaluer l’intérêt des mineurs non accompagnés dans le cadre d’une décision de retour a été créé fin 2017. La commission est chargée de mener à bien des évaluations individuelles concernant l’intérêt supérieur de l’enfant dans le but de prendre une décision de retour ou d’accorder une autorisation de séjour. Parmi les éléments pris en considération lors de cette évaluation et dans le contexte d’une éventuelle décision de retour figurent également les informations fournies par l’Organisation internationale pour les migrations (OIM). Cette dernière a conclu un accord avec la Direction de l’immigration pour rechercher les parents de mineurs non accompagnés dans le pays d’origine. Comme les débats s’orientent lentement vers l’intégration à long terme, le Conseil de gouvernement a également approuvé l’élaboration d’un nouveau plan d’action national sur l’intégration. Le plan sera basé sur deux axes : l’accueil et le suivi des demandeurs de protection internationale et l’intégration des résidents non luxembourgeois au Luxembourg. L’Agence pour le Développement de l’Emploi (ADEM) a créé une cellule BPI au sein de son Service employeurs. Cette cellule fournit aux employeurs des renseignements sur les demandes d’emploi et les évaluations des compétences des BPI. Une nouvelle loi sur la nationalité luxembourgeoise est entrée en vigueur le 1er avril 2017. Cette loi s’inscrit dans le contexte démographique particulier du Luxembourg, caractérisé par une augmentation continue de la population totale avec, en parallèle, une diminution de la part des Luxembourgeois dans la population totale. A travers cette loi, le législateur veut favoriser l’intégration sociétale et politique des citoyens non luxembourgeois et renforcer la cohésion au sein de la communauté nationale. Les principaux changements introduits par la loi consistent en la réduction de la durée de résidence pour la naturalisation (de 7 à 5 ans), l’introduction du droit du sol de la première génération, la réinstauration de voies simplifiées d’acquisition de la nationalité luxembourgeoise par « option », ainsi que de nouveaux scénarios pour éviter les cas d’apatridie. La loi maintient les exigences linguistiques antérieures tout en procédant à quelques ajustements afin d’empêcher que les exigences linguistiques ne deviennent un obstacle insurmontable. En vue des élections communales du 8 octobre 2017, le ministère de la Famille, de l’Intégration et à la Grande Région a lancé une campagne d’information et de sensibilisation intitulée « Je peux voter » en janvier 2017. Cette campagne avait pour but d’inciter la population étrangère du Luxembourg à s’inscrire sur les listes électorales pour les élections communales. L’intention du Gouvernement de légiférer sur la dissimulation du visage était sans doute l’un des sujets les plus débattus dans le domaine lié à la vie au sein de la société au Luxembourg et l’intégration au sens large du terme, tant à la Chambre des députés que dans les médias et la sphère publique. Le projet de loi n° 7179 vise à modifier l’article 563 du Code pénal et à créer l’interdiction de dissimuler le visage dans certains espaces publics. Il définit la dissimulation du visage comme le fait de couvrir une partie ou la totalité du visage de façon à rendre l’identification de la personne impossible. Des vues opposées entre les parties prenantes – les partis politiques, les institutions publiques, la société civile ou les médias – se sont exprimées au sujet de la nécessité de légiférer en la matière et dans l’affirmative, sur les motifs et l’étendue de l’interdiction de la dissimulation du visage. Le phénomène des migrations a eu aussi comme conséquence de renforcer l’hétérogénéité de la population scolaire. Pour faire face à cette situation, les autorités scolaires ont continué à diversifier l’offre en matière d’éducation et de formation. Parmi les mesures mises en place, on peut signaler notamment l’élargissement des offres de cours d’alphabétisation et de formation de base, l’extension de l’offre au niveau des écoles internationales et européennes et la mise en place d’un programme d’éducation plurilingue au niveau de la petite enfance. Dans le domaine de l’immigration, les changements les plus importants concernent la politique d’admission de certaines catégories de ressortissants de pays tiers. À cet égard, le projet de loi n° 7188 vise principalement à transposer la Directive européenne 2016/801 du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 11 mai 2016 sur les conditions d’entrée et de séjour des ressortissants de pays tiers à des fins de recherche, d’études, de formation, de volontariat, de programmes d’échanges d’élèves ou de projets éducatifs et de travail au pair. La directive vise à faire de l’Union européenne un centre mondial d’excellence en matière d’études et de formation, tout en favorisant les contacts entre les personnes et leur mobilité, deux éléments importants de la politique extérieure de l’Union européenne. Le projet de loi vise à faciliter et à simplifier les procédures de mobilité intraeuropéenne des chercheurs et des étudiants qui sont des ressortissants de pays tiers. De plus, certaines modifications comprennent des mécanismes incitatifs pour retenir les étudiants et les chercheurs. À cette fin, il propose que les étudiants et les chercheurs, une fois leurs études ou recherches terminées, puissent se voir délivrer un titre de séjour pour « raisons privées » pour une durée maximum de 9 mois en vue de trouver un emploi ou de créer une entreprise. Enfin, le projet de loi entend réglementer le regroupement familial d’un chercheur séjournant au Luxembourg dans le cadre d’une mobilité à court et à long terme. Le législateur a par ailleurs transposé la Directive 2014/36 sur les travailleurs saisonniers et la Directive 2014/66 sur le transfert temporaire intragroupe en droit national, et a adapté le dispositif de l’immigration aux besoins de l’économie en introduisant entre autres, une autorisation de séjour pour les investisseurs. L’organisation de l’admission du séjour et de la délivrance des autorisations de séjour était également un élément clé de l’Accord entre le Luxembourg et le Cap-Vert relatif à la gestion concertée des flux migratoires et au développement solidaire. L’accord approuvé par la loi du 20 juillet 2017 poursuit en outre les objectifs suivant : promouvoir la mobilité des personnes, lutter contre l’immigration irrégulière, préciser les procédures de réadmission, renforcer l’intégration légale des ressortissants concernés, ainsi que mobiliser les compétences et les ressources des migrants en faveur d’un développement solidaire.

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.

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

Legal migration channels are considered to be a critical part of comprehensive migration policy and are often called for as alternatives to irregular migration for individuals not in need of international protection. In light of significant mixed migration flows to Europe, the SVR Research Unit in cooperation with the Migration Policy Institute Europe examined options for third-country nationals who seek to move legally for education, training and/or work. Through a combination of five country case studies (France, Germany, Italy, Spain and Sweden) and an analysis of the European Union’s external migration policy, the study explores existing legal migration options and challenges in policy design and implementation. It also reflects on potential future approaches to legal migration policies and programmes.

National legislation complies with universally recognised norms of the international law, in particular: the definition of the ?refugee? notion, grounds for granting refugee status and subsidiary protection comply with similar provisions of international legal documents (in particular, the 1951 UN Convention ?Relating to the Status of Refugees?). Belarus ratified international treaties on economic, social and cultural, civil and political rights and joined the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and Convention for the Suppression of the Traffic in Persons and of the Exploitation of the Prostitution of Others. Foreign citizens applying for recognition as refugees as well as recognised refugees enjoy special privileges and may count on certain types of aid on behalf of the state. In particular, according to the national legislation in Belarus, socio-economic rights of refugees are equal to the rights of citizens of the Republic of Belarus, refugees are granted free access to the national system of education and health system. Children of refugees enjoy the right to attend preschool facilities. Currently the drawback of the national legislative system in the discussed area is underregulation of issues related to refugee integration, conditions for their active participation in the life of society, ensuring equal rights and opportunities for men and women. Besides, representation of legal provisions in a multitude of statutory acts, including by-laws and decisions of state agencies, makes their application inconvenient. It also has a negative effect on the quality of cooperation and coordination of work of public authorities when addressing issues related to granting asylum.

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

Das Forschungsprojekt "Von der Flüchtlingshilfe zur Fluchthilfe" geht aus von der Problematik des Asylparadoxes und dem Umgang zivilgesellschaftlicher Akteure mit seinen Konsequenzen: Zwar gelten in Deutschland das Grundrecht auf Asyl und die völkerrechtlichen Prinzipien des Flüchtlingsschutzes und viele Staaten gewährleisten Flüchtlingsrechte. Um diese zu erlangen, müssen die meisten Schutzsuchenden allerdings mangels legaler Einreisemöglichkeiten illegal Grenzen überqueren und sich in riskante Situationen begeben. Insbesondere durch die sich in den Jahren 2015 und 2016 zuspitzende Lage entwickeln sich in Deutschland vermehrt gesellschaftliche Auseinandersetzungen um den Zugang zu Flüchtlingsschutz. Das Forschungsprojekt analysiert diese Auseinandersetzungen mit Fokus auf das Engagement zivilgesellschaftlicher Initiativen für die sichere Einreise von Flüchtenden. Daher geht das Projekt der Forschungsfrage nach, welche Handlungsansätze und Strategien zivilgesellschaftliche Initiativen im Kontext von Migrations- und Fluchtregimen entwickeln, um sich angesichts beschränkter Einreisewege und humanitärer Notlagen für einen Zugang zum Schutz für Geflüchtete einzusetzen und Fluchthilfe zu leisten.

The EU faces major challenges in asylum and migration policy: reorganize the EU asylum system, secure the external border, curb irregular immigration through cooperation with African governments, and support developing countries that host large numbers of refugees from Syria and elsewhere. These challenges are inter-connected and require a comprehensive approach with broad support by all EU member states. However, member states are affected by immigration in substantially different ways and the political preferences of policy makers and voters also vary widely–necessitating implementable proposals to overcome the EU’s asylum and immigration impasse. The 2018 MEDAM Assessment Report proposes a comprehensive strategy for EU asylum and immigration policies that is both politically feasible and effective, based on the concept of flexible solidarity between EU member states.

Egypt’s capital Cairo hosts one of the five largest urban refugee populations in the world. For this reason, our paper concentrates on the legal aspect of irregular migration, discussing the characteristics of these migrants as asylum seekers and refugees while also examining transit migrants. First, the paper tackles associated concepts and data issues, with reference to the existing literature and international standards. In the second part, an overview of the Middle East and Northern Africa (MENA) situation is given as a prelude to the Egyptian experience. In the third part, the socio-economic profile of refugees and asylum seekers from Sudan, Somalia, Ethiopia, Eritrea, and Iraq is given with reference to their legal status, their rights and their living conditions measured in terms of income and sources of income, access to education, employment, health care and social services. The paper concludes by looking at the socio-economic situation in Egypt and policy recommendations concerning government practices, procedures, mechanisms, policies and laws. Gaps in research have also been highlighted so that these issues can be better addressed in the future.

This paper shows that the different migration policies reflect the national concern with alleviating the burden the increasing population imposes on national resources. On the one hand, Egyptian laws favor temporary labor migration as a labor distress mechanism and seek to create new opportunities via bilateral agreements. On the other hand, Egyptian laws reject the integration of non-nationals in Egypt and impose strict conditions regarding work and residency permits and naturalization. The paper assesses Egyptian migration laws dealing with migration, both into or out of Egypt, against the criteria of circular migration and shows that the existing framework currently enforces a quasi-circular migration at best. In the examination of Egypt as a sending country, the paper shows that migration law does in fact provide a legal framework that meets most of the criteria favoring circular migration. Nevertheless, legislation suffers from shortcomings within the context of management, in terms of readmitting returned migrants or creating incentives for their return. The paper also points to discriminatory provisions regarding fundamental rights among the different groups of foreigners in Egypt, where the most disadvantaged are refugees and asylum seekers. The paper highlights the need for policies that improve the economic and social conditions of migrants, and to include refugees in circular migration programs as well as reduce the recourse to illegal migration among refugees and Egyptians alike.

The Fondazione Rodolfo Debenedetti collected information about migration policy reforms in the EU15 countries (except Belgium, Luxembourg and Sweden) over the period 1990-2005. The attached tables provide information on the sign of each reform, analyzing whether the measure increased the generosity of the immigration policy. We define a reform as permissive if: it lowers requirements for entry and to obtain residence or work permits, it introduces one temporary permits for both residence and work, it reduces the number of years to obtain permanent residence permit, and if it helps the integration of migrants into the community. On the other hand, a reform is considered as restrictive if: it introduces a quota system to entry, it increases requirements for entry and to obtain residence or work permits, it raises the number of years to obtain permanent residence permit and it introduces residence constraints. In order to construct an index of strictness of migration policies, the authors collected information on twelve EU15 countries, from 1990 to 2005, along six different dimensions: 1. The number of certificates and procedures needed to be admitted as a foreigner, whatever the motivations may be. 2. The number of certification or procedures required to legally reside in the territory. This differs from the requirements for entering the country as holding a valid document is typically not sufficient. 3. The number of years required to obtain a permanent residence permit. 4. The number of administrations involved 5. The number of years of stay required to obtain a first residence permit. 6. The existence of a quota system The six dimensions were initially expressed either in different units or in an ordinal scale. To make those measures comparable, the authors converted them in cardinal scores and we normalized them to a range from 0 to 6, with higher score representing stricter regulation. Furthermore, they also incorporated asylum legislation by using the index of strictness from the Asylum Policy Index developed by Hatton. The previous six criteria only apply to immigration for economic reasons. the authors excluded from our classification text laws that strictly concern asylum policy or citizenship. As a last step, the authors computed an overall summary indicator for each country, averaging the values of the six sub-indexes plus the index of strictness of asylum legislation.