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.

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 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.

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.

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

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.

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 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

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.

En France, comme dans la plupart des pays européens, les opinions publiques expriment une défiance croissante à l’égard des gouvernements : leur efficacité en matière de gestion des flux et d’intégration des migrants fait l’objet de questionnements quasi permanents dans les débats publics. L’objectif de ce projet est d’étudier les politiques d’immigration, d'intégration et de lutte contre les discriminations, d’analyser le contexte social de leur production, et d’évaluer leurs effets à la fois en termes d’efficacité (réalisation des objectifs affichés) et de conditions de vie pour les personnes concernées. L’ensemble de cet axe de recherche vise à interroger les relations entre mesures politiques et mesures statistiques. Ce projet-phare est adossé à plusieurs projets financés par l’Union Européenne et l’Agence nationale de la recherche : - le projet européen UPSTREAM analyse la stratégie des pouvoirs publics en matière de politique d’intégration, en étudiant particulièrement sa traduction dans les politiques sociales généralistes aux niveaux national et local. http://www.project- upstream.eu/ - le projet ANR Global-Race couvre les politiques de lutte contre les discriminations dans une approche comparative couvrant, en plus de la France, des pays d’Europe et d’Amérique du Nord. http://global-race.site.ined.fr/ - le projet européen TEMPER (Temporary vs. permanent migration) s’intéresse aux politiques de gestion des migrations, à travers (a) l’analyse des textes réglementaires régissant les migrations temporaires (en particulier étudiantes) dans trois pays européens (Espagne, France, et Grande-Bretagne) et (b) la production d’une base codée et textuelle de données sur les politiques migratoires en Espagne, en France, en Italie et en Grande-Bretagne (IMPOL). http://www.temperproject.eu/ - Le projet MAFE : http://mafeproject.site.ined.fr/ Le projet PolMig comprend quatre axes de recherche : - Le contexte social de la formation des politiques. - L’évaluation des politiques d’intégration et de lutte contre les discriminations - Les effets des politiques sur les trajectoires migratoires - Statut légal et trajectoires socio- économiques des migrants

The index focuses on labour immigration (and related rights) in the EU27. The data reflect the policies in place by 1st of January 2012. IMMEX analyses admission schemes for migrant workers, looking at both general-worker schemes and schemes for high-skilled migrants. The index, which has been developed by the Migration Policy Group (MPG), addresses four domains: identification needs; conditions of admission; security of status acquired; rights associated with status. Dimensions are assessed through a set of indicators and policy options (principles of human rights and good governance). The policy options are designed to capture the scope of immigration policies with the first option representing favourable terms laid down in existing international legal instruments, national practices or NGO proposals, and in some instances EC legislation (enacted and proposed). The second and third options are based on less favourable or unfavourable provisions of EC legislation (enacted or proposed) or national legislation. Legal experts in each of the EU27 countries were asked to assess which of the three policy options comes closest to the situation in their respective country. The index is presented by scheme and country, for general migrant workers and high-skilled migrant workers.

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

The INTEGRIM research training programme aims to establish a multi-site network of early stage researchers (predominantly PhD students) at the eight partner institutions fostering a multidisciplinary research career on International Migration and Integration within the European context. The network will apply a qualification framework with a compatible set of qualifications/knowledge/skills across the national systems for graduates of the INTEGRIM programme. Besides, the INTEGRIM research training programme will address the integration challenges that migration flows pose to policy makers, civil society and industrial partners in Europe. The main features of the proposed research training programme can be described as follows: (1) provide high quality research training on integration policies and processes in the European Union and neighbouring countries. It aims to enhance the quality of the existing knowledge of scholars, policy makers, practitioners, economic actors and civil society dealing with integration. (2) contribute to the creation of an international inter-sectoral and multidisciplinary critical mass on the politics of integration and more specifically on cultural and identity management, citizenship and political participation, labour and social integration and urban integration, residential patterns and mobility. (3) enrich the political and social debate through a transnational multidisciplinary analysis on the causes and conditions leading to migrant integration and economic, social and territorial cohesion. The network aims to bring together key actors with proven experience and knowledge of integration policies and processes from academic, enterprise, civil society and public backgrounds. (4) provide EU policy makers and practitioners with qualitative and quantitative scientific tools to inform their decision making and implementation processes on the four indicated integration policy areas. The proposed programme aims to contribute to the EU’s integration agenda on the basis of the coherent approach to integration pursued at EU level and fostered by the European Commission.

We Are a Welcoming Europe is the first European Citizens’ Initiative on migration. Through this direct democracy tool, a million signatures from European citizens can compel the EU to change its migration policies and reclaim our right to help migrants and refugees. Thanks to the campaign’s advocacy, the European Parliament adopted a resolution on guidelines for Member States to prevent humanitarian assistance from being criminalised on 5 July 2018. Hundreds of organisations across Europe joined the campaign’s coalition to empower a welcoming Europe and support citizens and NGOs that are criminalised for offering humanitarian assistance to refugees and migrants.

Illegal immigration, irregular migrants and the processes used by governments and other official bodies to deport, prosecute or otherwise undertake enforcement activities against people on the basis of immigration status form one of the most contentious and vexed element of global migration debate. This report presents findings from an ESRC-funded project examining irregular migration and immigration enforcement in the UK. The study focuses specifically on in-country immigration law enforcement and its effects, impacts and limits, a phenomenon that has so far received very little academic attention. It looks at the impact of increasingly tight legislation and robust enforcement measures on irregular migration and on irregular immigrants; in particular, it investigates: The organisational structure, culture and practices of immigration law enforcement agencies; The political, legal, practical and ethical limits of law enforcement; The interaction between irregular immigrants’ strategies, employer practices and enforcement measures; How irregular migrants navigate internal immigration controls; The impact of enforcement on irregular migrants’ access to fundamental rights; How this suite of processes, actions and impacts are perceived and shape policies. The investigation considers three sometimes overlapping groups – immigration enforcement (29 individuals interviewed)– which are examined at both a managerial and delivery level; stakeholder groups such as public service providers (16 individuals) and employers (18 individuals), who are also charged with the enforcement of migration laws, as well as voluntary sector organisations (21 individuals); and the target groups for enforcement action – notably the irregular migrants themselves (175 individuals).

Family related migration has been the dominant legal mode of entry in Europe for the past decades. Traditionally, granting migrants the right to family union has been considered as promoting their integration into receiving societies. Objectives • To analyse family migration policies in 9 European countries (Austria, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands, Spain and the UK) from two perspectives: • “top-down” approach – analyses legislation, public debates and expert interviews in the context of policies and policy-making of family related migration. • “bottom-up” approach – investigates the impact of conditionalities and restrictions on migrants and their families and the responses and strategies migrants adopt to cope with these and to organise their family lives. Outcomes The project provides evidences that: • Family related modes of entry have been increasingly subject to restrictions, while existing conditionalities have been tightened up. • In current debates about ethnic closure of migrant communities and the alleged “failure” of integration, the “migrant family” is increasingly seen as an obstacle to integration, as a site characterised by patriarchal relationships and illiberal practices and traditions such as arranged and forced marriages.

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

The Immigration Policies in Comparison (IMPIC) database includes data on migration policies for 33 OECD countries and the period 1980-2010. The IMPIC defines immigration policy as “government’s statements of what it intends to do or not do (incl. laws, regulations, decisions, or orders) in regards to the selection, admission, settlement and deportation of foreign citizens residing in the country”. The index covers: 1) labour migration; 2) family reunification; 3) refugees and asylum; 4) co-ethnics (e.g., easy access to co-ethics -e.g., children of emigrants). A total of 69 indicators are identified for the four policies fields. Indicators are coded between 0 (more liberal policies) and 1 (more restrictive polices) capturing the extent to which ‘a regulation limits or liberalises the rights and freedoms of immigrants.

DEMIG POLICY tracks more than 6,500 migration policy changes enacted by 45 countries around the world mostly in the 1945-2013 period. The policy measures are coded according to the policy area and migrant group targeted, as well as the change in restrictiveness they introduce in the existing legal system. The database allows for both quantitative and qualitative research on the long-term evolution and effectiveness of migration policies. DEMIG POLICY was compiled between 2010 and 2014 as part of the DEMIG project (Determinants of International Migration: A Theoretical and Empirical Assessment of Policy, Origin and Destination Effects). It tracks 6,500 migration policy changes (both immigration and emigration) in 45 countries, most of them enacted in the 1945-2013 period. DEMIG POLICY assesses for each policy measure whether it represents a change towards more restrictiveness (coded +1) or less restrictiveness (coded -1) within the existing legal system. Besides this main assessment of change in restrictiveness, every policy change is also coded according to the policy area (border control, legal entry, integration, exit), policy tool (recruitment agreements, work permit, expulsion, quota, regularization, resettlement, carrier sanctions, etc.), migrant group (low- and high-skilled workers, family members, refugees, irregular migrants, students etc.) and migrant origin (all foreign nationalities, EU citizens, specific nationalities etc.) targeted. The database has been compiled by the DEMIG team, in particular by Katharina Natter, Simona Vezzoli and Hein de Haas, and reviewed by national migration policy experts.

Family related migration has been a main mode of immigration into the EU over the past few decades. The EU’s Family Reunification Directive for third country nationals and their family members (IRL and UK failing to opt into same) aims to ensure the fair treatment of legally residing migrants from non-EU/EEA countries. Paragraph 4 of the Directive states that family reunification ‘helps to create sociocultural stability, facilitating the integration of third country nationals in the MS which also serves to promote economic and social cohesion’. Despite these aims, government discretion and wide interpretation have resulted in anomalies, unnecessary delays, discriminatory practices, many refusals and in cases, no independent appeals mechanisms for redress. Project aims Although there is a large body of knowledge on the legal framework for family reunification, the impact of legal and administrative rules on the actual reunification process and on the integration more generally remains under-researched. Before this background the project aims to study in depth a) the application of the respective laws in practice, b) the impact on family life and c) compliance with EU and Human Rights Standards. The research will consider how immigration law can present obstacles to or assist integration of third country nationals and their families. As a specific objective, the project will promote admission policies that favor integration. Outcomes The project covers seven countries (UK, IRE, AT, DE, BG, PT, NL). The outputs are based on empirical research on: • The legal and policy framework in the respective countries, • European and national case law, • The impact of regulations and policies on the admission of family members from third countries, • The impact of regulations and policies on the integration of third country nationals and their families. Project partners: Immigrant Council of Ireland, The Aire Centre, Centre for Migration Law Nijmegen, Johann Daniel Lawaetz Foundation Hamburg, High Commissioner for Immigration and Intercultural Dialogue Portugal (AICIDI), Institute for Legal Studies Bulgaria, International Centre for Migration Policy Development (ICMPD)

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 Transatlantic Migrant Democracy Dialogue (TMDD) is a partnership that trains and connects immigrant and refugee leaders in the US and Europe to enable them to organise and build alliances with other civil society movements.

Sinds de vluchtelingencrisis van 2015-2016 bevindt het Europese asielstelsel zich in een crisis. Het stelsel vertoont grote tekortkomingen. De vluchtelingenkampen in landen aan de Europese buitengrens waar zich mensonterende situaties voordoen zijn daarvan het meest zichtbare gevolg. In de lidstaten van de Europese Unie bestaat tegelijk veel frustratie over het uitblijven van effectieve verwerking van de grote aantallen aankomende asielzoekende migranten. De toedeling van solidariteit en verantwoordelijkheid tussen lidstaten die het stelsel schraagt, hapert in de praktijk. Vanwege de fundamentele onenigheid tussen lidstaten over de richting van een hervorming lukt het nu al jaren niet een uitweg te vinden. Tegen deze achtergrond heeft de minister van Buitenlandse Zaken, samen met de staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid, de Adviesraad Internationale Vraagstukken (AIV) verzocht om te adviseren hoe de politieke impasse op het terrein van het Europese asielbeleid kan worden doorbroken. Zodoende stelt de AIV in dit advies de vraag centraal welke politiek-strategische benadering een kansrijke uitweg uit de patstelling zou kunnen bieden. Het advies beoogt dus niet de diverse aspecten van de wereldwijde asiel- en migratieproblematiek uitputtend te behandelen. Uiteraard kunnen de maatregelen ter hervorming van het Europese asielstelsel in veel gevallen niet los worden gezien van het asiel- en migratievraagstuk in den brede. Relevante aspecten komen daarom aan de orde in zoverre dit de advisering over het doorbreken van de Europese asielimpasse dient. Het asielbeleid in Nederland en Europa is gebaseerd op een normatief kader stoelend op onder meer het Vluchtelingenverdrag en het Europese Verdrag tot bescherming van de Rechten van de Mens. Dit kader vormt onverminderd het uitgangspunt waarbinnen een oplossing gestalte dient te krijgen. Naar het oordeel van de AIV is dit niet alleen een kwestie van medemenselijkheid en juridische verplichting, maar ook van eigenbelang: stabiliteit en rechtsorde aan de buitengrenzen en elders is hiermee in belangrijke mate gediend. Bovendien kan het Europese asielstelsel niet functioneren zonder medewerking van landen van herkomst en transit van wie we vragen een belangrijk aandeel te nemen in het internationale migratiemanagement en die we nodig hebben voor terugkeerbeleid. Samenwerking bij bescherming in de regio en geloofwaardige mogelijkheden voor legale migratie naar EU-lidstaten zullen daarom onderdeel van het asiel- en migratiebeleid moeten zijn. Evenmin echter kan worden voorbijgegaan aan realiteiten die het functioneren van en het draagvlak voor het asielstelsel ondermijnen, zoals de grote aantallen aankomende migranten die een beroep doen op asielbescherming in Europa zonder daar recht op te hebben, en de toenemende problemen met de groep die niet mag blijven (de ‘veilige-landers’) maar niet terugkeert naar het land van herkomst. Er zijn ook veiligheidsrisico’s verbonden aan onvoldoende gecontroleerde binnenkomsten. Daaruit vloeien in noodsituaties soms moeilijke politieke keuzes voort. De AIV stelt vast dat een hervorming van het Europese asielstelsel dringend nodig is. De huidige impasse is riskant, omdat Europa momenteel slecht is voorbereid op een mogelijke volgende grote migratiecrisis – waarvan de COVID-19 pandemie het gevaar bepaald niet verkleint. Tegelijk leidt een falend Europees asielstelsel, en de perceptie onder Europese burgers van verlies van controle op wie er onze landen binnenkomt, tot verlies van vertrouwen in zowel de rechtvaardigheid van het asielstelsel als het functioneren van de EU. De beantwoording van de adviesaanvraag aan de AIV vergt om te beginnen een analyse van de strategieën die kunnen bijdragen aan het vinden van politieke ruimte om de impasse te doorbreken (hoofdstuk 2). Het gaat dan, bijvoorbeeld, om de voor- en nadelen van een pakketbenadering of juist een stap-voor-stap-aanpak. Ook bespreekt de AIV welke gebeurtenissen de impasse deden ontstaan en welke conflicterende politieke drijfveren en onderliggende onevenwichtigheden erin tot uitdrukking komen. Sterke ideologische opvattingen, diepgevoelde overtuigingen en emoties – voor én tegen ruimhartige opname van vluchtelingen – spelen bij dit thema een grote rol. Alleen goed wederzijds begrip van de publieke ervaringen binnen diverse lidstaten en van de weerslag daarvan op standpunten van politieke partijen en regeringen, biedt een basis voor vertrouwensherstel en voor stappen om uit de impasse te komen. Het rapport behandelt vervolgens enkele ontwikkelingen in politiek en rechtspraak, en ook de intrede van de COVID-19 pandemie, die relevant zijn voor de mogelijkheden de impasse te doorbreken (hoofdstuk 3). Politieke dynamiek komt ook van de eind 2019 aangetreden Commissie-Von der Leyen die zoekt naar manieren om het asielstelsel, eventueel geleidelijk, te hervormen. Daartoe presenteerde de Commissie in september 2020 het ‘asiel- en migratiepact’, waarvan een politieke appreciatie wordt geboden (hoofdstuk 4). De AIV verbindt vervolgens de genoemde strategieën en ontwikkelingen aan de onderdelen van de asiel- en migratieketen en aan ‘Schengen’. In het betreffende deel van het advies (hoofdstukken 5, 6 en 7) worden de contouren van de conclusies en aanbevelingen zichtbaar. In de kern is de AIV van oordeel dat een doorbreken van de impasse slechts mogelijk is op basis van twee grote akkoorden: een intern akkoord gebaseerd op een nieuw evenwicht in de solidariteit en verantwoordelijkheden tussen de lidstaten en een extern akkoord dat het interne beleid flankeert middels effectieve afspraken met derde landen over terug- en overname, gebaseerd op gedeelde belangen. Wat betreft het interne akkoord volgt de AIV de denklijn in het voorstel van de Commissie-Von der Leyen om een van de voornaamste struikelblokken richting een akkoord uit de weg te ruimen dankzij ‘flexibele solidariteit’. Voorwaarde voor de AIV daarbij is dat de geleverde solidariteitsinspanning ten gunste van buitengrenslanden zichtbare handelingen betreft (en niet enkel financiële steun) én getuigt van inhoudelijke solidariteit met vluchtelingen en/of derde landen (en zich dus niet beperkt tot steun aan bijvoorbeeld terugkeerbeleid of grensbewaking). Naar het oordeel van de AIV is een inperking van ‘Schengen’ geen goed drukmiddel om de asielimpasse te doorbreken: de politieke en economische kosten zijn onevenredig hoog. Wat betreft het externe akkoord meent de AIV dat de afspraken moeten zijn gekaderd in een brede, omvattende samenwerking. Daarvan moet sociaaleconomische ontwikkeling, inclusief instrumenten van handelsbeleid, deel uitmaken, maar ook gezamenlijke sturing op migratie en wegen voor legale migratie. De Commissievoorstellen zijn op dit punt weinig uitgewerkt; mede daarom ligt juist hier naar het oordeel van de AIV een rol voor Nederland om te zorgen dat dit externe onderdeel in de discussies over de hervorming van het Europese asielbeleid de prioriteit krijgt die het verdient. In de conclusies en aanbevelingen werkt de AIV dit nader uit, met vijf aanbevelingen die het interne akkoord betreffen en vijf aanbevelingen die het externe akkoord aangaan. Zonder extern akkoord zal geen intern akkoord tot stand kunnen komen. Alleen met tastbare en gelijktijdige vooruitgang op beide terreinen kunnen Nederland en de andere leden van de Europese Unie hun handelingsvermogen op het gemeenschappelijk asielbeleid herwinnen en dit toekomstbestendig vormgeven.

The IMISEM project adopts a comprehensive view of migration policy that includes both its emigrant/emigration and immigrant/immigration sides, bridging the two sides of migration policy. The main research question is: how does policy offer or hinder a path for migrants to become or remain an integral part of the polity? The theoretical framework bridges the stages of entry/exit, residency in/abroad, and access to citizenship and looks for patterns of how states manage the process of migrant inclusion in or exclusion from the polity. IMISEM gathers cross-regional evidence on the variety and depth of policy configurations governing migration trajectories for different profiles of migrants. With these data it charts the connections between policies of mobility, settlement and belonging, looking forward to extracting the underlying principles structuring them, and possibly to find whether or not there are threads of coherence across the “two sides” (emi-/immigrant policies). Using a comparative area study angle, IMISEM develops a broadened perspective on the migration policy landscape across regions. Thus, it looks at 30 cases from Europe, Latin America and the Caribbean, and Asia, to cover a wide breadth of migratory profiles and institutional contexts to which policies can be traced back un further analyses.

Discussions on Greece’s migration and asylum policies have in recent years primarily taken place from a human rights perspective. Through this humanitarian lens, effective migration management means effective protection of human rights.The present report, which brings together the main findings of the MIDAS project, reviews the Greek and at a wider level the EU approach towards irregular migration through the lens of cost-effectiveness. By measuring the human and material resources invested in the management of irregular migration within the time frame of 2008-2013, the present paper discusses three crucial questions: 1 How much do irregular migration control policies in Greece actually cost? 2. Are current policies cost-effective, when compared against their outputs and outcomes? 3. Are there any alternative policy recommendations that could be more cost-effective? The MIDAS report feeds thereby new data to the present debate and opens the floor for a broader discussion through a new lens, that of cost-effectiveness.

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

In our part of the project (Work package 6) will investigate the responses given to migration at different scales. It aims to provide an in-depth understanding of responses provided by actors ranging from urban to rural contexts, from transnational city-city collaborations to local community initiatives. Local scale is one of the first spaces where migration needs to be governed. Cities different than governments include networks of public and private sector leaders and institutions that include citizen initiatives, trade unions, private companies and universities, among others. A multi-scalar approach will be implemented by examining three different types of cases (1) The case of urban-rural development in Sweden, via international migration, (2) The case of local migration ecosystems in Northern Italy, (3) The case of Greek islands in the Aegean Sea, (4) The case of transnational collaborations and social innovations. By engaging in multi-scalar case studies, the aim is to cover both official and unofficial responses to the so called “refugee crisis”, emphasizing the role of the local authorities in facilitating (or hindering) the application of national policies on reception, redistribution and inclusion/exclusion of newcomers as well as the increasing role of communities and innovations in shaping the migration response by also showing opportunities. These areas, with the potential benefits of interdisciplinary research, will seek synergies between the following two goals; SDG Goal 9 on building resilient infrastructure as well as Goal 11 on inclusive cities. By doing so, we will inform policy making in these areas and potentially contribute to the implementation of the UN Sustainable Development Goals.

The authors created an overall index of migration policies, taking into account 38 countries in the period 1996-2014. They constructed an indicator of the restrictiveness of immigration entry policy across countries as well as a more comprehensive indicator of migration policy that also accounts for staying requirements and regulations to foster integration. Specifically, they estimate a Bayesian-state space model to combine all publicly available data sources that are informative on migration policy. Therefore, starting from some of the previously-created indexes, and from a database of over 250 indicators of migration policy, they created three sub-indexes that correspond to three categories traditionally distinguished in migration policy: (1) entry policies (including family reunification); (2) stay policies (permanent as opposed to temporary migration); and (3) integration policies (including migrant rights). They constructed three different migration policy indexes, MPIE; MPIS and MPII, of respectively entry, stay, and integration policies, that asses the restrictiveness of each of these sub-fields of migration policy, as well as a comprehensive indicator MPIC reflecting the overall stance of migration policy.

The author developed a set of indicators on immigration policies. Data covers 19 countries from the late 18th century through the early 21st century. This is one of the few datasets on immigration policy and is the only one to cover the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries. Immigration policy is an amalgam of several policies, including policies that regulate who gains entry to the state (border regulations), what rights immigrants receive (immigrant rights) and how the border is enforced (enforcement). Within each of these three categories, states have used numerous policy substitutes, that can be sorted in 12 dimensions. Eight of the dimensions regulate entrance to the state, of which four, work prohibitions, family reunification, refugee and asylee policy, could also be considered rights; two cover immigrant rights and two cover enforcement. Each dimension was coded from 1 to 5, with greater restrictions taking lower values. To combine these different policies into a single measure, the author used principal components analysis. The analysis revealed that these dimensions created two different factors: immigration policy and rights of immigrants. The first factor, immigration policy, places more weight on nationality, skill, recruitment, quotas, enforcement and deportation policies than the second, rights of immigrants, which places more weight on family reunification, refugee, asylee, citizenship, rights and work prohibition policies.

The Canary Islands have received significant numbers of unaccompanied minors, especially during 2006. This pheno-menon has resulted in the need to develop an appropriate policy response across the Spanish State and the European Union. The proposals to establish special protected status for unaccompanied migrant children have generated con-siderable controversy within the Autonomous Community of the Canary Islands, since it has assumed competence for taking the necessary measures for the protection of minors within its territory. This paper provides an overview of the relevant legislation and policies on reception, return and integration applicable to unaccompanied minors, analysing the difficulties that policymakers must take into account as they address the phenomenon of child migration

The Canary Islands have received significant numbers of unaccompanied minors, especially during 2006. This pheno-menon has resulted in the need to develop an appropriate policy response across the Spanish State and the European Union. The proposals to establish special protected status for unaccompanied migrant children have generated con-siderable controversy within the Autonomous Community of the Canary Islands, since it has assumed competence for taking the necessary measures for the protection of minors within its territory. This paper provides an overview of the relevant legislation and policies on reception, return and integration applicable to unaccompanied minors, analysing the difficulties that policymakers must take into account as they address the phenomenon of child migration

The Canary Islands have received significant numbers of unaccompanied minors, especially during 2006. This pheno-menon has resulted in the need to develop an appropriate policy response across the Spanish State and the European Union. The proposals to establish special protected status for unaccompanied migrant children have generated con-siderable controversy within the Autonomous Community of the Canary Islands, since it has assumed competence for taking the necessary measures for the protection of minors within its territory. This paper provides an overview of the relevant legislation and policies on reception, return and integration applicable to unaccompanied minors, analysing the difficulties that policymakers must take into account as they address the phenomenon of child migration

Background and aim of the project: Since 2015, migration towards and within Europe has created a ‘stress’ in the EU asylum and migration systems, challenging the adequacy of the legal design of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS). This impacted the implementation of both the CEAS and national asylum systems in practice and called its further harmonisation into question. The notion of harmonisation is not a fixed term, but rather incorporates varied meanings and practices. CEASEVAL will carry out a comprehensive evaluation of the CEAS in terms of its framework and practice. It will make an analysis of harmonisation which goes beyond the formal institutional setting and takes into account the complex relations among the actors engaged from the local and the national levels, to the European level, in order to explain the success and the failure of coordinated action between these varied actors. Research Objectives: Based on an interdisciplinary and multilevel research approach, CEASEVAL will innovatively: 1. combine multiple disciplines in order to explore different perspectives of the CEAS, 2. develop a new theoretical framework of multilevel governance of the CEAS, which will be empirically tested across several EU Member States and third countries, 3. provide a critical evaluation of the CEAS by identifying and analysing discrepancies in the transposition and incorporation of European standards in the area of asylum in domestic legislation, as well as differences in their implementation, and 4. elaborate new policies by constructing different alternatives of implementing a common European asylum system. On this basis, CEASEVAL will determine which kind of harmonisation (legislative, implementation, etc.) and solidarity is possible and necessary. Project Partners: Universiteit van Amsterdam (UvA), Université du Luxembourg (UL), Forum Internazionale ed Europeo die Richerche sull ‘Immigrazione Associazione / International and European Forum on Migration Research (FIERI), University of Sussex (UOS), International Centre for Migration Policy Development (ICMPD), Centre for International Information and Documentation in Barcelona (CIDOB), TÁRKI Tarsadalomkutatasi Intezet Zrt / Tarki Social Research Institute (TARKI), Helsingin Yliopisto / University of Helsinki (UH), European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE), New Bulgarian University (NBU), Koç University (KU), Elliniko Idryma Europaikis kai Exoterikis Politikis / Hellenic Foundation for European And Foreign Policy (ELIEEP/ELIAMEP), Stichting VU / Free University of Amsterdam (STICHTING)

"Die Nachwuchsgruppe untersuchte die Einwanderungspolitik aller OECD-Länder. Ist die jeweilige nationale Immigrationspolitik restriktiv oder liberal? Und welche Effekte haben die Regulierungen? Wie können Unterschiede zwischen Ländern und über Zeit hinweg erklärt werden? Um diese Fragen zu beantworten, wurden die formalen Bestimmungen, die Kontroll- und Implementationsmechanismen untersucht. Im ersten Schritt wurden hierzu ausdifferenzierte quantitative Indikatoren zur Messung der Restriktivität von Einwanderungspolitik in allen OECD-Ländern erstellt – aufgegliedert nach Arbeitsmigration, Familienzusammenführung und Asylsuchenden / Flüchtlingen. Der daraus resultierende innovative Datensatz eröffnete neue Forschungsperspektiven und erlaubte die Prüfung bereits bestehender Argumente zu den Hintergründen und Effekten von Immigrationspolitik auf eine systematischere Weise. Im zweiten Teil des Projektes wurde die Implementation von Migrationspolitik mit Hilfe von detaillierten Fallstudien analysiert. Weitergefasst versuchte dieser Teil des Projektes die “Black Box” verwaltungstechnischer Entscheidungsprozesse zu untersuchen. Dies sollte helfen, die Zusammenhänge zwischen formeller Gesetzgebung und den Folgen von Einwanderungspolitik besser zu verstehen."

2015 could be described as historic in terms of migratory phenomena and its effects on Luxembourg society. Although population growth in the Grand Duchy continued to rise in 2015, net immigration accounts for over 80% of demographic growth. Given their prominence in the debates that took place in 2015, this report focuses on the following three issues: international protection, the referendum and more specifically voting rights for foreign residents,as well as the reform of the law on nationality.

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

The authors carry out a cross-country assessment of policies aimed to attract and select high-skilled workers. To capture immigration policy systems, they choose nine policy elements that collectively capture many of the key differences between destination countries’ policy stances. These instruments reflect policy categories comprising skill-selective admission policies (shortage lists, job offer requirements, labor market tests, PBS), and post-entry policy instruments (permanency rights, financial incentive schemes). Methodologically, the authors adopt a set of statements against which a 0 or 1 can be assigned to ensure consistency when coding our policy variables.

Op verzoek van het kabinet heeft de adviesraad de rol van private actoren in het migratiebeleid onderzocht. De centrale vraag daarbij is geweest, hoe en met welke gevolgen privatisering plaatsvindt in het migratiebeleid. Drie casussen zijn voor het onderzoek geselecteerd en zijn in afzonderlijk deeladviezen eerder gepubliceerd. Op 1 juli 2021 is het syntheserapport ‘Grip houden op publieke belangen ‘ gepubliceerd dat de uitkomsten van de drie onderzochte casussen samenbrengt. De overheid blijkt bij het proces en de uitvoering van privatisering binnen het migratiebeleid op een drietal structurele punten duidelijk tekort te schieten: 1) Het borgen van publieke belangen 2) Het realiseren van adequaat toezicht om het gewenste resultaat te kunnen verzekeren en 3) het garanderen van rechtsbescherming. Het eerste advies in deze serie gaat over de verplichtingen bij immigratiecontrole die aan vervoerders (luchtvaartmaatschappijen en rederijen) zijn opgedragen op basis van regelgeving. Het tweede advies gaat over de begeleiding van innovatieve buitenlandse startup-ondernemers in Nederland, de zogenoemde startup-regeling. Het derde advies heeft als onderwerp de borging van de kwaliteit van het inburgeringsonderwijs. Bij het inburgeringsonderwijs is de overheid bijvoorbeeld tekortgeschoten bij het opstellen van kaders. Publieke waarden zijn niet juist geïdentificeerd en gewaarborgd en er is geen toezicht op kwaliteit en effectiviteit. Ook is er sprake van een gebrekkige rechtsbescherming van de inburgeraar. Bij de startup-regeling heeft de overheid eveneens de publieke belangen onvoldoende benoemd, waardoor geen borging mogelijk is. Het beoordelen van de innovativiteit van buitenlandse startup-ondernemingen is volledig aan een private partij (begeleider) overgelaten en de rechtsbescherming van de startup-ondernemer is daardoor beperkt. Uit het onderzoek naar de vervoerdersverplichtingen blijkt dat deze niet bijdragen aan de naleving van de internationale rechtsorde en slechts gericht zijn op het borgen van de nationale veiligheid en openbare orde. Er bestaat voor hen geen verplichting om de weigering van niet of onjuist gedocumenteerde passagiers die asielmotieven aanvoeren, voor te leggen aan de Immigratie- en Naturalisatiedienst. De rechtsbescherming van vreemdelingen komt daarmee in het geding. De drie onderzochte casussen betreffen steeds een andere fase in het migratiebeleid, kennen een andere vorm van privatisering en laten verschillende mechanismen zien om private actoren bij de behartiging van publieke belangen te betrekken. Deze aanpak geeft onderzoekstechnisch een zo compleet mogelijk beeld. De overheid moet volgens de adviesraad nadrukkelijk heroverwegen hoe om te gaan met privatisering binnen het migratiebeleid. Daarom beveelt de ACVZ aan om bij privatisering steeds minstens drie kerncriteria als uitgangspunt te gebruiken: Borging, Toezicht en Rechtsbescherming. Ook bestaande privatiseringen moet de overheid, volgens de adviesraad, op die manier opnieuw beoordelen. Alleen dan houdt de overheid de noodzakelijke grip op publieke belangen.

Asielzoekers die de EU op irreguliere wijze inreizen, blijven vaak niet in de lidstaat waar zij aankomen. Doormigratie van asielzoekers in de EU is niet helemaal te voorkomen, maar kan wel beter worden aangepakt. De Adviescommissie voor Vreemdelingenzaken adviseert daarom een bredere aanpak in EU-verband. Het aantal asielzoekers dat na aankomst in de EU doorreist naar een andere lidstaat is de laatste jaren sterk toegenomen, terwijl het aantal asielaanvragen in de EU sinds 2016 weer op het niveau van 2014 ligt. Tijdens de ‘vluchtelingencrisis’ in 2015 reisden de meeste asielzoekers door van Zuid- naar Noord- en van Oost- naar West-Europa. Sinds 2016 vindt er juist meer ‘secundaire migratie’ van asielzoekers plaats tussen de Noordwest-Europese lidstaten. Doormigratie van asielzoekers in de EU zet de asiel- en opvangstelsels van de lidstaten onder druk, tast de solidariteit tussen lidstaten aan, ondermijnt het maatschappelijk draagvlak voor migratie, houdt mensensmokkelnetwerken in stand en kan tot langdurige verblijfsonzekerheid en verdere uitzichtloosheid voor asielmigranten leiden. Lidstaten proberen het doorreizen van asielzoekers onder meer tegen te gaan door: 1) Het herinvoeren of intensiveren van grenscontroles; 2) Meer toezicht op vreemdelingen; 3) Het versoberen van de opvang; 4) het invoeren van verblijfsrechtelijke beperkingen; 5) Het toepassen van vreemdelingenbewaring (waar mogelijk). Nationale beleidsaanscherpingen kunnen asielzoekers afschrikken, maar dat leidt tot meer doormigratie naar andere lidstaten. Voor de EU als geheel is dat dus geen oplossing. De implementatie van de EU-Turkije verklaring en het sluiten van de Balkanroute hebben geleid tot een vermindering van het aantal asielzoekers dat direct na aankomst in de EU doorreist. Tegenwoordig reizen vooral asielzoekers door die ergens nog een asielaanvraag hebben openstaan of van wie de aanvraag is afgewezen. Het Dublin-systeem, dat is ingevoerd om te bepalen welke lidstaat verantwoordelijk is voor het behandelen van een asielaanvraag, werkt niet goed om het doorreizen van asielzoekers tegen te gaan. Met name de omgang met evident kansarme aanvragen van asielzoekers uit veilige landen van herkomst vormt een probleem. Ook lukt het niet goed om afgewezen asielzoekers terug te sturen naar hun land van herkomst. Doormigratie van asielzoekers in de EU kan effectiever worden tegengegaan door: 1) een overtuigende aanpak van de grondoorzaken van asielmigratie, zowel buiten als binnen de EU; 2) Positieve prikkels te introduceren voor zowel asielzoekers als lidstaten om zich aan de regels te houden. Zorg voor een verschillende behandeling van asielzoekers die al sociale, economische of culturele banden met lidstaten hebben, die afkomstig zijn uit veilige landen van herkomst en die evident kansarme aanvragen indienen en die niet onder de eerste twee groepen vallen; 3) Door onder meer in de relaties met landen van herkomst niet eenzijdig te focussen op het tegengaan van irreguliere migratie.