Family reunification policies

Cette note de synthèse présente les principaux résultats de l’étude réalisée en 2016 par le Point de contact luxembourgeois du European Migration Network intitulée «Le regroupement familial des ressortissants de pays tiers: pratiques nationales» ainsi que du rapport de synthèse, élaboré par la Commission européenne à parti r des études nationales de 26 points de contacts nationaux du EMN (AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, DE, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HR, HU, IE, IT, LV, LT, LU, MT, NL, NO, PL, SK, SI, SE, UK). L’étude vise à comparer les politiques et pratiques nationales en matière de regroupement familial entre les différents États (membres). Plus précisément l’étude examine les: • critères d’admissibilité des membres de famille; • conditions pour le regroupement familial, ainsi que les mesures d’intégration avant et après l’admission; • aspects procéduraux de la demande de regroupement familial; • droits accordés aux ressortissants de pays ti ers réunis en famille dans l’Union européenne; • conditions de non-renouvellement ou de retrait du titre de séjour «membre de famille». L’étude se réfère à la situation telle qu’elle s’est présentée depuis 2011 et jusqu’à la fin de l’année 2016. Elle ne porte pas sur les ressortissants de pays tiers membres de famille d’un citoyen de l’Union ou d’un pays assimilé, tombant dans le champ d’application de la libre circulation des personnes.

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)

This project seeks to answer the main research question: how transnational family considerations, combined with labour market conjuncture and migrants' rights to welfare provision in the host country, shape migrant workers' relation to work and welfare? In order to answer this research question from a comparative perspective the project will focus on two groups of Polish migrant workers, living alone or reunited with the family in the host country, in three different welfare and labour market contexts (Norway, Sweden and the UK). The study will explain why some migrant workers fare relatively better at the host country's labour market, while others are more prone to rely on social welfare provision. The project will in particular look at migrants' actual and planned use of welfare provision, tax-reduction strategies, and their plans regarding family reunification, re-emigration or eventual retirement in the host country. The project will use mixed methods. At the beginning, data from available databases will be analysed (WP1). Further, a tailor-made online survey tool will be used to generate data missing in existing databases (WP2). The respondents will be recruited onboard international flights between Poland, Norway, Sweden, and the UK. Finally, the quantitative analyses will be complemented by qualitative analyses of semi-structured interviews with Polish migrant workers collected in Norway, Sweden, and the UK (WP3). A smooth implementation of the project will be ensured by including four overseas research grants between the Project Owner and the two international partners in Sweden and the UK. Apart from its high scientific value, the project will have an explicit practical value for Norwegian and international stakeholders dealing with the issues concerned in this study. Knowledge produced by the project can be used for policy formulation by relevant national organizations, including ministries, tax authorities, labour and welfare organizations.

The database (ImPol) contains 27 quantitative indicators to measure the entry dimension of immigration policies. The indicators are grouped in five dimensions: Immigration policy concerning irregular entry/residence; Short stay entry policy; Family reunification policy; Policies on entry for study; Work immigration policy. The ImPol dataset was originally conceived as a tool to complement the individual survey data collection carried out in the context of the MAFE-Senegal Project. The information collected so far is limited to France, Italy, and Spain, which are the main destinations of Senegalese migrants in Europe and focuses predominantly on the period from the 1960s until 2008. The legal texts consulted reflect the general policy regime in the three European countries and are hence of use for analyses addressing questions about immigration from a variety of origin countries. In addition, authors collected texts (bilateral agreements) addressing the specific case of the Senegalese. The type of information contained in the ImPol dataset can be used for a wide range of both contextual and statistical analyses

This issue paper examines family reunification for refugees as a pressing human rights issue. Without it, refugees are denied their right to respect for family life, have vastly diminished integration prospects and endure great additional unnecessary suffering, as do their family members. The Commissioner for Human Rights calls on all Council of Europe member states to uphold their human rights obligations and ensure the practical effectiveness of the right to family reunification for refugees and other international protection beneficiaries. To do so, states should (re-)examine their laws, policies and practices relating to family reunification for refugees. This issue paper contains 36 recommendations to that end.

The planned study aims at the investigation of the phenomenon what is known as marriage migration (also called transnational marriage) to Germany by male Muslim migrants. By means of biographical narrative interviews with male migrants from North Africa and Turkey, the research project aims at dealing with the multidimensional and multifaceted character of male marriage migration to Germany. The subject male marriage migration can be approached from different perspectives and related aspects. In the frame of this research project, through a sampling which consists of married couples composed of a male migrant from one of the countries mentioned above and a female descendant of a migrant family with a residence permit in Germany, we want to consider this issue in all its complexity and implications regarding the debates on integration of the migrants, integration of male migrants into the labour market, gender relations and dynamics within the migrant family, and (un) chancing conceptions and visions of manhood in migration processes and the contestation/ negotiation of migrant masculinities. Regarding the studies of the last years it is noteworthy that all marriage migration studies are rather focussing on women as migrating subjects. Although it is noticed, too, that there are men as well migrating to their wives, there is no study focussing exclusively on migrating men in context of marriage. This fact may be - especially in Germany - an expression of the emotional public discussion concerning forced marriages. Nevertheless, the marriage migration of men is the desideratum of past and current marriage migration studies. This gap will be filled with the following research proposal. Our hypothesis is that women of the second or third generation of migrant families might be hoping for a realistic chance of founding a family and bringing up children through marrying a partner from the country of origin while they continue to work and remain the bread winners in the country of immigration and thus strengthen their autonomy (while their husbands are waiting for working permits and/or job opportunities and meanwhile have to take over care obligations within the family). In general, we want to show that male marriage migration can be seen both as "cause and the effect" of changing gender orders.

Op 1 juni 2013 is de Wet modern migratiebeleid (wet MoMi) in werking getreden. De wet MoMi ziet op een modernisering van het reguliere toelatingsbeleid ten aanzien van migranten van buiten de Europese Unie, de zogenaamde derdelanders. Het reguliere toelatingsbeleid is gedifferentieerd naar verschillende verblijfsdoelen zoals werk, studie of gezinshereniging. De wet MoMi heeft geen betrekking op asielmigratie. De centrale probleemstelling van de wetsevaluatie is: Voldoet de wet MoMi aan de doelstellingen zoals deze door de wetgever zijn geformuleerd bij de totstandkoming van de wettelijke regeling? De probleemstelling is uitgewerkt in drie onderzoeksvragen die corresponderen met de drie hierboven genoemde terreinen: de toelatingsprocedures, de referentensystematiek en toezicht en handhaving. 1.Zijn de toelatingsprocedures voor alle reguliere migranten snel, doeltreffend en beheersbaar? 2.Werkt de referentensystematiek en zijn de administratieve lasten voor burgers en bedrijven zo beperkt mogelijk gehouden? 3.Is het toezicht- en handhavingsmechanisme zoals neergelegd in de wet MoMi (gebaseerd op vertrouwen vooraf en controle achteraf) effectief?

The present study examines transformations of family norms through cross-border exposure to different family models. It focuses on the LGBT migrants from selected Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries with a constitutional same-sex marriage ban, but who now live in same-sex families in Belgium, one of the first countries to legalize same-sex marriage and adoption. This case study will explore how intercultural contact can improve reception of an institutional innovation such as same-sex family. This project is based on in-depth interviews with two groups sustaining ties across borders: (1) the CEE gays and lesbians in same-sex marriage or raising children with a same-sex partner in Belgium, and (2) their non-migrant family members, friends and neighbours in home communities. Migrant transnationalism scholars have established that migrants can effect change in their home communities not only by sending remittances, but also by transferring ideas and practices (social remittances). But empirical investigations of this phenomenon are still scarce, and typically focus on democratic ideas and practices. In a novel approach, the present study will analyse social remittances by examining cross-cultural effects of the institutional innovation of same-sex family, and it will further position its findings into the wider framework of social change analysis. In light of the European Parliament's recent decision to include LGBT and same-sex families' rights into the new EU gender equality strategy, the study's conclusions will also inform relevant policy strategies. By developing this study at the Interdisciplinary Research Centre on Families and Sexualities at the UCL, the project will benefit from Centre's multidisciplinary perspective and expertise in transnational migrations, family norms and sexuality, to which the project will add a new perspective on the LGBT migrants from CEE, thus deepening Centre's focus on LGBT studies and widening their regional expertise.

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.

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 book illustrates the results of the new edition of the Migrant Integration Policy Index (MIPEX). MIPEX is a unique tool which measures policies to integrate migrants in countries across five continents, including all EU Member States (including the UK), other European countries (Albania, Iceland, North Macedonia, Moldova, Norway, Serbia, Switzerland, Russia, Turkey and Ukraine), Asian countries (China, India, Indonesia, Israel, Japan, and South Korea), North American countries (Canada, Mexico and US), South American countries (Argentina, Brazil, Chile), and Australia and New Zealand in Oceania. MIPEX analyses integration policies in the following eight areas of integration: Labour market mobility; Family reunification; Education; Political participation; Permanent residence; Access to nationality; Anti-discrimination; and Health. To cite: Solano, Giacomo & Huddleston, Thomas (2020). Migrant Integration Policy Index 2020. Barcelona/ Brussels: CIDOB and MPG. ISBN: 978-84-92511-83-9

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 Indian migration to Sweden began in the twentieth century with students, labour migrants, and asylum seekers settling in the country and children being adopted from India by Swedish parents. In the beginning of the twenty-first century the Indian population in Sweden has increased considerably as an effect of family reunification, natural increase, and an intensified immigration of students and skilled laborers in response to changing immigration policies and internationalization processes of higher education. This case study provides an overview of the migration and the demographic and socio-economic profile of the Indian population in Sweden. As the study illustrates, Indians in contemporary Sweden have diverse migrations histories and constitute a more heterogeneous group of people with different economic, social and cultural backgrounds. While media discourses and perceptions of India have often privilege religion, the Indians in Sweden have used religion and culture as key elements for organizing collective activities and creating representation and visibility in society. In general the Indians have succeeded fairly well in their economic, social and cultural integration into Swedish society, while their political participation has been more restricted.

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.

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

"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."