Seminar: “Harmonization in the European Union: Asylum, irregular migration and integration”

.

.

1. Programme

10.00-10.15 Opening comments (Jan-Paul Brekke)
10.15-11.15 Towards a Common European Asylum System - an Update (Vigdis Vevstad)
11.15-11.30 Coffee break
11.30-12.15 Irregular migration in Europe (Ryszard Cholewinski)
12.15-12.45 Lunch
12.45-13.30 Integration efforts in Europe (Sergio Carrera)
13.30-13.45 Coffee break
13.45-14.30 A common European integration policy - in Sweden (Christian Råbergh)
14.30-15.00 European integration policies - a Norwegian perspective (Katarina Heradstveit)

2. Summary

The conference was held at the Institute of Social Research (ISF) in Oslo on 24 November 2009. It was initiated and organised by Vigdis Vevstad and Jan-Paul Brekke for the third consecutive year with financial support from the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The purpose of the conference is to create a meeting point for researchers, NGOs and government officials, and to discuss the harmonization of asylum and immigration policies in the EU. This year, the main topic was irregular migration and integration.

Present were more than 50 representatives from the Norwegian parliament, governmental institutions (including the EU Commission Delegation, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Labour and Social Inclusion, Directorate of Immigration, Immigration Appeals Board and Country of Origin Information Centre), NGOs (including Norwegian Organisation of Asylum Seekers, Amnesty International, and Norwegian People`s Aid) and academia (including the University of Oslo, ISF, International Peace Research Institute in Oslo and FAFO Institute). The broad participation reflected the wide interest in field of migration and integration.

The conference benefited greatly from the presence of Vigdis Vevstad (Vevstad Consulting), Katarina Heradstveit (Senior advisor, The Directorate of Immigration and Diversity), Ryszard Cholewinski (Labour Migration Specialist, Research and Communication, IOM), Sergio Carrera (Head of Section and Research Fellow, Centre for European Policy Studies), and Christian Råbergh (National Coordinator, Swedish National Network Asylum & Integration).

Summaries of presentations

Vigdis Vevstad - “Towards a Common European Asylum System - an Update”

Vigdis Vevstad presented the main legal instruments in CEAS and highlighted the key developments in 2009. She noted that the same ambitions and protection concerns underlying Dublin II regulation were present in the discussion on Dublin III. She addressed the existing flaws and deficiencies in the current legal framework, in particular the derogation clauses in the Procedures Directives, which remains the most contested directive. The evaluation of the common European asylum systems reveals that there is still a long way to go before asylum policies and practices are harmonized. The divergent national practices lead to significant differences in the recognition rate, causing inequalities in the level of protection across the EU. This was clearly the case for Afghan, Iraqi and Chechen asylum seekers. Amendments have been proposed by the Commission. It depends on the will of the member states. There had been some positive achievements. She pointed to the fact that the Qualification Directive represents a development of international law in many ways (non state actors, gender based persecution, best interest of the child and subsidiary protection).

Two preliminary conclusions could be drawn. First, the different interpretations and derogation clauses allow the member states to maintain their national policies and interests. There is a lack of harmonization, both in terms of recognition and reception conditions. This should be a concern for Norway when considering our obligations under Dublin II. Second, asylum, immigration and border control policies should be seen in context. A comprehensive approach is needed.

Furthermore, she emphasized that asylum policies in neighbouring EU member states are relevant for Norway. There is need for cooperation. She briefly touched upon the Norwegian viewpoints on the Stockholm programme, European Asylum Support Office etc.

She addressed various aspects of the Stockholm programme, which will determine the asylum policies from 2010 to 2014, in particular the cooperation with the Mediterranean countries outside EU, access to procedures, resettlement and internal relocation in EU. There is a need for greater solidarity and burden-sharing between member states, supporting those members who are overburdened due to their geographical location. She mentioned that UK and the Netherlands had recently accepted asylum seekers from Malta. Although it was a relatively small number, it was an example of the emerging cooperation between the states.

She concluded that until we have one asylum body and one procedure, there will be different state practices. The Court could have some impact. But the practices and policies are still left to the discretion of the states. There is a need to ensure a higher degree of harmonization and better substantive and procedural standards of protection, for example through the European Asylum Support Office. While important progress has been made, the work must continue in the next phase of CEAS to establish a real level playing field across the EU, where all asylum seekers will be treated in the same way with high standards, wherever in the EU they make their asylum claim. The future CEAS need to be comprehensive and coherent.

Ryszard Cholewinski – “Irregular migration in Europe”.

Ryszard Cholewinski made a presentation on irregular migration in Europe. He raised concerns about the negative and misleading term “illegal migrants”, which is manifested in the principal EU instruments, e.g. Return Directive and Frontex regulation, and the Stockholm programme. Language matters. The terminology tends to criminalize and stigmatize migrants, and generate stereotypes. A fundamental right is to be recognized as a person everywhere before the law. He underlined the need for neutral wording and preferred the expression “irregular migrants”, which is used by the Commission’s October 2008 Communication on “Strengthening the Global Approach to Migration” and by other international organizations dealing with migration.

He discussed the inevitable linkage between irregular and regular migration, and the recent developments in law and policymaking, in particular Blue Card Directive. A great deal of policy attention tends to fall on the highly qualified workers. The “blue card” scheme is designed to attract highly-qualified workers from third countries. Most skilled migrants prefer US, Canada or Australia to EU. He emphasized that the Blue card scheme is optional. There is no obligation on the member states to replace their own schemes with the Blue card. He raised the question whether the Blue Card system will meet expectations of third countries in terms of regular migration to the EU.

He commented on the Commission proposal for a General Framework Directive on a single application procedure for a single permit for third-country nationals to work and reside in member states. It would encompass admission of low and semi-skilled workers. However, there is no obligation on the states to admit such workers. The bottom line is that if demand for low-skilled workers is not met, employers will turn to the informal labour market, which is also pole of attraction for irregular migrants.

He discussed the human rights dimension of irregular migration. There are currently no legally binding EU instruments devoted to protection of all migrants irrespective of their status. EU measures are silent on the rights of third-country nationals who work in the EU without authorization. They must rely on international human rights instruments (e.g. ECHR) or the goodwill of local authorities and NGOs. The 1990 Migrant Workers Convention affords fundamental rights to all migrant workers and would increase the standards in EU. However, it has not been ratified by a single EU or EEA state.

He addressed the management of mixed flows, which are particularly visible in the Mediterranean (Lampedusa, Malta) and Eastern Atlantic (Canary Islands). Focus is often on asylum-seekers and refugees, but mixed flows also comprise other vulnerable groups. When no explicit legal framework for protection of the rights of all migrants in EU, it is difficult to envisage how asylum-seekers, refugees as well as particularly vulnerable migrants in mixed flows can be adequately assisted and protected.

His conclusion was that politicians often find themselves between a “rock” (of fundamental human rights standards applicable to all) and the “hard place” (of negative media and public opinion). There is still room for policymakers to engage on the issue of irregular migration. This should be done in a positive, honest and holistic manner.

Sergio Carrera - “Integration efforts in Europe”

Sergio Carrera presented his perspectives on integration in Europe and focused in particular on the new concept and legal implication of integration as a control mechanism.

The notion of integration has traditionally been perceived as something positive - promoting social inclusion, equal treatment and access to rights. However, it has evolved (“mutated”) into a condition or derogation clause for access to member states - a way to maintain and justify restrictive immigration policies towards certain groups of immigrants. Civic integration is a condition to acquire regular residence status and access to family reunion, not only citizenship. Migrants must demonstrate their knowledge and respect for traditions, institutions and values in the member state – the national identity and perceived way of life – through programmes, tests and “contracts”. These programmes and tests have become part of the national implementation of EU immigration law (see for example Family Reunification Directive article 7). Integration is still a national domain. There are no legally binding EU policies on integration, only handbooks, guidelines and recommendations. Civic integration programmes are also promoted outside EU – in consulates and embassies, where third-country nationals are required to do tests and courses before entering the member states. When looking at the driving force behind these policies at EU level, he pointed to the decisive role of certain member states, like Germany, The Netherlands and Austria.

He expressed deep concerns about the legality of these programmes. There are several legal deficits related to the principles of proportionality, non-discrimination and legal certainty. First, the proportionality of the civic integration tests is highly questionable in countries where the requirements to acquire a legal permit to stay are as high as those applied to future citizens. The mandatory civic integration measures affect migrants in a rather disproportionate manner. They will often need a more comprehensive understanding of the state’s institutions and values than many its citizens. Second, the tests and programmes are primarily designed for certain immigrant groups and can therefore be perceived as discriminatory. This is underlined by the exceptions to the civic test for immigrants from US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan (etc) and for the highly skilled workers. Is it really true that a US citizens or highly skilled worker share our values, while others do not? Third, the concept of national “values” is by definition vague and subject to divergent interpretations and ideologies. The standards are not sufficiently clear and predictable to meet the principle of legal certainty.

Christian Råbergh - “A common European integration policy - in Sweden”

Christian Råbergh made a presentation on the European integration policies from a Swedish perspective. He stated that Sweden had made a U-turn in terms of CEAS and raised the question whether Sweden had made a J-turn in terms of integration.

He provided an overview of the historic background by referring to the number of immigrants in Sweden from 1900-2001, the employment rate for foreign citizens in the last three decades and the early intgration policies. The Swedish government had started reacting to clashes with other cultures in the mid-1970s with realistic legislation supported by all parties, which made it possible to consistently integrate foreign-born citizens. Key elements of the policy were equal access to the Swedish social welfare system and full integration into communities. In 1992 Sweden won the Carl Bertelsmann Prize for this progressive immigration and integration policies.

He ran briefly through the European integration policies from Tampere in 1999 to Stockholm in 2009 and addressed the civic dimension of integration. Civic integration implies respect for the basic values of EU. Basic knowledge of language, history, and institutions was considered indispensable to integration. There were new demands, for example in France for a “contract”, the Netherlands for test and courses and tests and in UK for “Britishness”.

He referred to the European Year for intercultural dialogue, which was supposed to improve communication and understanding between citizens, cultures and religions in Europe. Although culture can include values, customs, traditions, language and norms, it is hard to define. What is “culture”? As he demonstrated, the perception of culture differs greatly from state to state.

In recent years, Sweden has transformed. The traditional focus had been on access to employment. However, the Swedish government had introduced a shared set of values. The aim was to strengthen the social cohesion the respect between individuals and enhance the knowledge about and the respect for democracy and human rights. The mandatory social and civic orientation courses require an understanding of what it takes to live in the Swedish society, and is supposed to give a sort of social and cultural “driving licence”. Had Sweden made a j-turn? Had Sweden spoken with a forked tongue? There were clear discrepancies between the national policies and the Swedish input in the Stockholm programme. In the Stockholm programme, Sweden had emphazised that access to employment is central to successful integration. However, the national programmes were focused on values, traditions, culture and civic education.

Katarina Heradstveit - “European integration policies - a Norwegian perspective”

Katarina Heradstveit examined the various aspects of Norwegian integration policies. She noted that access to work had been a main priority. The preservation of welfare state and social cohesian was also important. In principle, all immigrants should have the same rights and opportunities. However, this was not always the reality. Furthermore, she referred to surveys which indicated that many Norwegian are sceptical to Islamic traditions. She also mentioned that there is today a development towards more obligations on immigrants.

A major component in the integration policies are the mandatory introduction programme for newly-arrived refugees. The programme was established in 2004. It had been quite effective. 53% of the participants continue with work or education after the programme. This would help the immigrants to participate actively in the society. However, she believed that there is room for improvement. The integration system could be better towards women. She also mentioned a recent OECD report where the government had received some critizism. She briefly touched upon the cash benefit for parents staying at home with children (“kontantstøtte”) and the symbolic, welcoming ceremony for new citizen. Although it would not make them fully integrated, it was still a nice event.

Manuscripts/presentations

Cholewinski – Irregular migration in Europe

Råbergh - A common European integration policy - in Sweden

Heradstveit: European integration policies- A Norwegian perspective