As the future and the strategic guidelines of Europe's migration policy for the post-Stockholm programme were on the agenda of the European Council on 27 June 2014, this Synthesis underlines the main elements discussed during the expert seminar organised by NE-JDI on 27 June 2014 in Paris on the future of the European immigration and asylum policy

Giorgio Garbasso

English

IssueLab

 1 / 4 EU IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM: ARE WE UP TO THE CHALLENGE?Giorgio Garbasso | Research assistant at Notre Europe - Jacques Delors InstituteSYNTHESIS  30 JULY 2014s the future and the strategic guidelines of Europe’s migration policy for the post-Stockholm programme were on the agenda of the European Council on 27 June 2014, this Synthesis underlines the main ele-ments discussed during the expert seminar organised by NE-JDI on 27 June 2014 in Paris on the future of the European immigration and asylum policy.With the tragedy of Lampedusa in October 2013 ending with a tally of 366 migrants drowned and with an increasingly unstable geopolitical situation on Europe’s doorstep, the heads of state and govern-ment met at the European Council on 27 June 2014 to discuss the future and the strategic guidelines of Europe’s migration policy for the post-Stockholm agenda.The Notre Europe – Jacques Delors Institute hosted a seminar of experts to mark the occasion, enti-tled “The future of the European immigration and asylum policy: is the European Council up to the challenge?”.The seminar was attended by António Vitorino, pres-ident of the Notre Europe – Jacques Delors Institute and European commissioner for justice and inter-nal affairs from 1999 to 2004, Yves Pascouau, direc-tor of the European Policy Centre’s “Migration and Diversity” programme, and Corinne Balleix, lec-turer at the Paris-based Institut d’études politiques and the author of a policy paper entitled “Border control and the right of asylum: Where is the EU heading?”1.1.  An overview of the current state of Europe’s migration policyAntónio Vitorino observed that migrant-related issues once again played a central role in the debate ahead of the European elections in May 2014. In giving their vote to certain political groups, the Europeans showed that they believe the EU should boost its intervention in this field (or, on the con-trary, forgo doing so).Introducing the debate, Yves Pascouau pointed out that the European Union has only enjoyed juris-diction in the field of migration policy for the past fifteen years and that it is thus a relatively young policy. Three five-year programmes have followed on from one another, providing a certain number of guidelines in the fields of asylum policy, visas and border management: the Tampere programme in 1999, the Hague programme in 2004, and the Stockholm programme in 2009 which is due to expire in December 2014. What conclusions can we draw regarding Europe’s migration policy? In Yves Pascouau’s view, EU immigration policy can be bro-ken down into three major areas. The first, highly developed area concerns the management of exter-nal borders, visa policy and the struggle against illegal immigration. The second area, which has enjoyed fairly substantial development and harmon-isation, concerns asylum and international protec-tion on the basis of the Geneva Convention of 1951. And the third area, which concerns legal immigra-tion and the definition of the rules governing entry and sojourn on European Union soil, is the area that has been least developed because member states have shown a certain reluctance to move forward together in this sphere.CA 2 / 4 EU IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM: ARE WE UP TO THE CHALLENGE?In the view of Corinne Balleix, migration policy is seeking a dual balance: internally, among the member states, in order to achieve a better bal-ance between solidarity and responsibility; and externally, between the EU and third countries, in order to ensure a better balance between powers of attraction and security. Before considering the spe-cific nature of the post-Stockholm agenda, we will take a look at the crucial issues in Europe’s migra-tion policy strategy.2.  Mutual confidence, a precondition for strengthening external controls and eliminating internal controls Corinne Balleix highlighted the fact that the need for a migration policy is all the more evident in view of the fact that the globalisation process is strengthening migration movements; and its effec-tiveness depends to a large extent on cooperation with other member states and with the migrants’ countries of origin and of transit. The rationale gov-erning an area for freedom of movement demands that we adopt a new principle for regional cooper-ation (Y. Pascouau). The aim is to eliminate inter-nal border controls as much as possible in order to strengthen external border controls. If external border controls are faulty, then the danger is that we may see a revival of internal border controls (C. Balleix).But the current picture between the different member states within the EU – the member states located on the Union’s borders and those which are the migrant flows’ ultimate target destina-tion – is highly asymmetrical. After the tragedy of Lampedusa, Italy and Malta complained of a lack of European solidarity in connection with the cost of handling the migrant influx, calling for a review of the Dublin agreement (whereby a migrant can only apply for asylum in the member state in which he or she first lands, in order to avoid duplication in asy-lum applications) (C. Balleix).Yet former commissioner for justice and internal affairs António Vitorino stressed that while the soli-dary that certain member states are calling for may be legitimate, it is nonetheless influenced by com-pliance with legal obligations and by a responsible attitude toward the agreements that those member states have already signed. Greece has benefited from accommodation infrastructure funds on more than one occasion over the past ten years but, as things stand today, those infrastructures no lon-ger meet the minimum standards expected, so that one may question whether those funds have been properly managed. Italy and Greece are in breach of their EURODAC obligations and fail to register the personal data of those who enter their territory, which allows these countries, on the one hand, to shirk their responsibilities and the migrants, on the other, to apply for asylum in other member states (A. Vitorino).Following the arrival of illegal migrants on Italy’s shores in 2011, the authorities allowed the migrants to depart towards other EU member states, trigger-ing a revival of border controls by the French and thus fostering a climate of mutual mistrust among EU member states. António Vitorino pointed out that the Schengen area should not be taken as a given. A European migration policy is needed to protect both the internal market and freedom of movement. To avoid certain abuses, a common migration policy is required, along with strengthened border control (C. Balleix).António Vitorino also stressed that a certain con-fusion often arises on the part of grass-roots opin-ion between freedom of movement and immigration policy. There are instances of the misuse of free-dom of movement when individuals without suffi-cient means to guarantee their livelihood become a burden for their host country’s social security system. But these individual instances are insuffi-cient to justify the reduction in freedom of move-ment among member countries that David Cameron is calling for (A. Vitorino). There is a danger that third country nationals emigrating towards the EU may have a negative impact on freedom of move-ment within the EU. 3.  Strengthening powers of attraction and securityThe three speakers agreed on the need to boost syn-ergies between the internal and external aspects of migration policy. In the view of António Vitorino, it is necessary to ensure that dialogue with third countries does not crystallise over security issues but extends to cover every aspect of a comprehen-sive approach to immigration, including the strug-gle against human trafficking, the promotion of  3 / 4 EU IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM: ARE WE UP TO THE CHALLENGE?asylum systems in third countries and, last but not least, support for development in third countries (in the case of “failed states”). Third countries must be offered negotiation packages on the basis of the “more for more” principle.António Vitorino stressed the fact that our policies’ success is going to depend on the relationship we have with third countries. But as things stand today, the instability affecting numerous neighbouring countries does not offer us the kind of reliable inter-locutors we need to negotiate agreements allowing us to achieve either our or their objectives. Thus António Vitorino warned against nurturing any excessive optimism with regard to cooperation with third countries. In the wake of the transition phase in the Arab countries and of the crisis in Ukraine, Europe has proven incapable of developing a coop-eration policy in the fields of security and defence.The EU’s relations with third countries are thus of crucial importance in seeking a balance between security and the power of attraction. As Corinne Balleix pointed out, the challenge facing migration policy in the future will be to organise and to regu-late legal immigration so as to curb illegal migrant influxes and their attendant risks. Yves Pascouau argued that the EU currently has a security pack-age (comprising border management, visa policy and illegal immigration) which has developed mas-sively and is now unbalanced by comparison with legal immigration, which is far weaker or in any event far less concentrated.There are numerous challenges. The Union’s popu-lation is ageing and it is expected to decline between now and 2060, which requires a rationalisation of legal immigration in economic terms. In the view of António Vitorino, we must be able to attract not only highly qualified and skilled labour by espousing a more proactive university and research policy, but also a substantial labour force for caring for individ-uals with mobility issues. Family reunions fall within the EU’s jurisdiction while economic immigration falls within the jurisdiction of the individual mem-ber states, so that what can be done without being in breach of the treaties is to coordinate admission policies for legal immigrants. (A. Vitorino)And finally, António Vitorino voiced the belief that it is dangerous for the debate on immigration to be hijacked by two visions which, if taken together, are harmful for a rational, pragmatic debate reflecting our common values. On the one hand, there is the issue of people’s real perception of immigration, with opinion polls showing that they generally have a distorted view of the number of immigrants pres-ent in their area. And on the other, there are the demographic forecasts which show that the EU is going to need some 50 million immigrants between now and 2050 if it is to make up for its ageing popu-lation, a figure which is absolutely realistic. On the one hand, people say that there is too much immi-gration, while on the other, they argue that there is not enough. So according to Yves Pascouau, it is necessary to further mobilise civil society, the labour unions and businessmen in order to conduct a proper assessment of the labour markets’ capac-ity for absorption in the individual member states.4.  Strategic guidelines in the post-Stockholm agendaAntónio Vitorino argued that at a time when anti-immigration forces are gaining ground almost everywhere in Europe, it is important for the post-Stockholm Council’s conclusions to reaffirm the principles and values of humanitarian goals. The short text of the document leaves room for manoeu-vre in order to clarify the political decisions. (A. Vitorino)Yves Pascouau, for his part, was in two minds. The Council’s conclusions do contain aspects that are worth debating and publishing, but at the same time, the strategic guidelines do not look far enough into the future. The Council failed to make full use of the opportunity offered it by the Treaty of Lisbon to make strategic recommendations over ten or fif-teen years, making instead with a traditional five-year plan format for the next five years.EU IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM: ARE WE UP TO THE CHALLENGE?19 rue de Milan, F – 75009 ParisPariser Platz 6, D – 10117 Berlininfo@notre-europe.euwww.notre-europe.euManaging Editor: Yves Bertoncini • The document may be reproduced in part or in full on the dual condition that its meaning is not distorted and that the source is mentioned • The views expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessar-ily reflect those of the publisher • Notre Europe – Jacques Delors Institute cannot be held responsible for the use which any third party may make of the document • Translation from French: Stephen Tobin • © Notre Europe – Jacques Delors InstituteISSN  2257-5510Certain aspects of the conclusions hint at substan-tial progress on the Commission’s part with regard to the notion that legal immigration, international protection and illegal immigration are all inter-linked aspects of migration policy. But according to Yves Pascouau, the European Council, for its part, considers that migration policy is only influenced by international clashes and by European demograph-ics. It has failed to consider that other important factors such as the explosion of the middle class, an increasingly urban society or global digitalisa-tion, mean that people are increasingly mobile. The European Council failed to take these issues on board to a sufficient degree, despite the fact that they have an impact on the way in which migration policies should be handled.Corinne Balleix analysed the progress made in the post-Stockholm agenda. Where border control is concerned, the new strategic programme proposes to develop smart borders (“smart border package”) using modern technologies in an effort to make bor-der control simpler and more effective. The aim is thus to facilitate legal entry and registration for people in good faith but also to allow them to enter and exit the EU; it is also a question of providing information regarding overstayers (who remain on European soil after their visa has expired). The European Council also wishes to strengthen FRONTEX’s operational action, in conjunction with the EUROSUR monitoring system which became operational in December 2013. And lastly, the idea of a European border guard corps was floated once again, with France’s support.Corinne Balleix stressed that where solidarity in the sphere of the right to asylum is concerned, it is basically a matter of strengthening existing leg-islation, and above all, of setting up a European asylum system to issue asylum seekers with proce-dural safeguards and to make it possible to develop a standard statute for protected individuals. The European Asylum Support Office EASO must con-tribute both to the standardisation of the way in which member states handle applications for asy-lum and to the convergence of European asylum policies. Yet a number of issues were not debated, such as the potential place of common defence pol-icy tools in the Union’s migration policy, the estab-lishment of European asylum application centres outside the EU itself and a renewal of the Dublin agreement.Given that the Council has mapped out the strate-gic guidelines for Europe’s migration policy over the next few years, it is now up to the new Commission to implement that strategy’s operational details. According to Yves Pascouau, a new, dynamic European Commission could well cause things to change. 1.  Corinne Balleix, “Border control and the right of asylum: Where is the EU heading?”, Policy Paper No. 114, Notre Europe – Jacques Delors Institute, June 2014.BORDER CONTROL AND THE RIGHT OF ASYLUM: WHERE IS THE EU HEADING?Corinne Balleix, Policy Paper No. 114, Notre Europe – Jacques Delors Institute, June 2014LOOKING FOR AN AMBITIOUS EUROPEAN MIGRATION STRATEGYChiara Rosselli, Synthesis of the debate organised with the European Union Institute for Security Studies, Notre Europe – Jacques Delors Institute, August 2013EU MIGRATION STRATEGY: FROM ZERO TO POSITIVE SUMYves Pascouau, Synthesis on the EU migration strategy in Elvire Fabry (dir.), “Think global, Act European IV. Thinking Strategically about the EU’s External Action”, Studies & Reports No. 96, April 2013SCHENGEN AND SOLIDARITY: THE FRAGILE BALANCE BETWEEN MUTUAL TRUST AND MISTRUSTYves Pascouau, Policy Paper No. 55, Notre Europe – Jacques Delors Institute / European Policy Centre, July 2012On the same themes…

EU Immigration and Asylum: Are We Up to the Challenge?

https://search.issuelab.org/resources/18701/18701.pdf

EU Immigration and Asylum: Are We Up to the Challenge?

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

IssueLab