Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
E uropEan V iEw                                                    Volume 5 - Spring 2007             EuropE         and  ...
EUROPEAN VIEW       European View is a journal of the Forum for European Studies, published by the European People’s Party...
cONtENts• Editorial: Europe and Immigration .................................................................................
• The Economic Impact of Immigrants on their Home Countries: The Example of Moldova ....................... 95         Iur...
Wilfried Martens                                                            Editorial                                     ...
Editorial: Europe and Immigration      between 2010 and 2030 as a result of this current                    EU members. In...
Wilfried Martenswelcomed in establishing national plans                                 has been an important initiative i...
Editorial: Europe and Immigration      immigrants themselves. Europe’s need for a                           Europe’s borde...
Yasmeen Abu-Laban                North American and European Immigration Policies:                          Divergence or ...
North American and European Immigration Policies: Divergence or Convergence?       200, p. 1). It can therefore be expecte...
Yasmeen Abu-Labaninteresting is that this terrain has been negotiated                       histories, such as France, whi...
North American and European Immigration Policies: Divergence or Convergence?       to be a vehicle for assimilation, where...
Yasmeen Abu-Labansomewhat different patterns. Mexico was the                               for selecting all immigrants an...
North American and European Immigration Policies: Divergence or Convergence?       Vietnamese) are much more likely to acq...
Yasmeen Abu-LabanReferencesAbu-Laban, Y. (1997). Ethnic politics in a           Cornelius, W., Tsuda, T., Martin, P. and H...
North American and European Immigration Policies: Divergence or Convergence?       OECD. (200). Organization for Economic ...
Sali Berisha       commentary: Albanian Migration in Europe—Bridge or Barrier?                                           B...
Commentary: Albanian Migration in Europe—Bridge or Barrier?       But Albanian migrants have also shown a concrete        ...
Thomas Faist and Andreas Ette              Between Autonomy and the European Union:    The Europeanisation of National Pol...
Between Autonomy and the European Union: The Europeanisation of National Policies and Politics of Immigration       The hi...
Thomas Faist and Andreas Etteas consisting of “processes of a) construction,       of change. Absorption refers to a situa...
Between Autonomy and the European Union: The Europeanisation of National Policies and Politics of Immigration       of ins...
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration

4,355

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
4,355
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
46
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Transcript of "European View - Volume 5 - Europe and Immigration Europe and Immigration "

  1. 1. E uropEan V iEw Volume 5 - Spring 2007 EuropE and ImmIgratIon Wilfried Martens Editorial: Europe and Immigration • Yasmeen Abu-Laban North American and European Immigra- tion Policies: Divergence or Convergence? • Sali Berisha Com- mentary: Albanian Migration in Europe —Bridge or Barrier? • Thomas Faist and Andreas Ette Between Autonomy and the European Union: The Europeanisation of National Policies and Politics of Immigration • Diane Finley Canadian Immigra- tion: Building Canada’s Future • Franco Frattini Towards a Stronger European Immigration Policy • Lawrence Gonzi Illegal Immigration: A Maltese View • Simon Green The Challenge of Immigrant Integration in Europe • Jim Kolbe The Immigration Conundrum: Open Borders or Closed? • Ilkka Laitinen Frontex and the Border Security of the European Union • Sandra Lavenex Which European Asylum System? Security versus Human Rights Considerations in the Europeanisation Process • Olena Malynovska Migration in Ukraine: Challenge or Chance? • Brunson McKinley Partnerships in Migration: Engaging Business and Civil Society in a ‘Whole of Society’ Approach • Rinus Penninx Europe’s Migration Dilemma: A Political Assessment • Iurie Rosca The Economic Impact of Immigrants on their Home Countries: The Example of Moldova • Nicolas Sarkozy Im- migration: A Crucial Challenge for the Twenty-First Century • Wolfgang Schäuble New Paths for European Migration Policy • Ioannis Varvitsiotis Is a Common European Immigration Policy Possible? • Jakob von Weizsäcker What Should a Cautious Immigration Policy Look Like? • David Willetts Europe: Is Decline Our Demographic Destiny? • Zhanna Zayonchkovskaya Russia’s Search for a New Migra- tion Policy • Gottfried Zürcher EU Enlargement and Immigration A Journal of the Forum for European Studies
  2. 2. EUROPEAN VIEW European View is a journal of the Forum for European Studies, published by the European People’s Party. European View is a biannual publication that tackles the entire spectrum of Europe’s political, economic, social and cultural developments. European View is an open forum for academics, experts and decision-makers across Europe to debate and exchange views and ideas. EDITORIAL BOARD Chairman: Wilfried Martens, President of the European People’s Party, former Prime Minister, Belgium Carl Bildt, Foreign Minister, Sweden Elmar Brok, Member of the European Parliament, Germany John Bruton, former Prime Minister, Ireland Mário David, Member of Parliament, Portugal Ingo Friedrich, Chairman of the Forum for European Studies, Germany Vicente Martínez-Pujalte López, Member of Parliament, Spain Chris Patten, former Member of the European Commission, United Kingdom Jan Petersen, former Foreign Minister, Norway Hans-Gert Pöttering, President of the European Parliament, Germany Alexander Stubb, Member of the European Parliament, Finland József Szájer, Vice-Chairman of the EPP-ED Group in the European Parliament, Hungary Andrej Umek, former Minister for Science and Technology, Slovenia Per Unckel, former Minister of Education and Science, Sweden Yannis Valinakis, Deputy Foreign Minister, Greece ADVISORY BOARD Antonio López-Istúriz, Christian Kremer, Luc Vandeputte, Kostas Sasmatzoglou, Ingrid Goossens, Guy Volckaert EDITOR-IN-CHIEF Tomi Huhtanen Assistant Editors: Galina Fomenchenko, Mélanie Dursin, Marvin DuBois, Maureen Epp, Richard Ratzlaff, Jennifer Edwards, Eduard Friesen, Nicholas Alexandris For editorial inquiries please contact: European View Editor-in-Chief 10, rue du Commerce - 1000 Brussels email: ev@epp.eu Tel. +32 2 285 41 49 Fax. +32 2 285 41 41 Url: www.europeanview.eu The Forum for European Studies is a think-tank dedicated to Christian Democrat and like-minded political values, which is engaged in open, comprehensive and analytical debate. European View and its publishers assume no responsibility for facts or opinions expressed in this publication. Articles are subject to editing and final approval by the Editorial Board. This publication is partly funded by the European Parliament.2 European View
  3. 3. cONtENts• Editorial: Europe and Immigration .............................................................................................................................................................5 Wilfried Martens• North American and European Immigration Policies: Divergence or Convergence? ............................................9 Yasmeen Abu-Laban• Commentary: Albanian Migration in Europe—Bridge or Barrier? .............................................................................. 17 sali Berisha• Between Autonomy and the European Union: The Europeanisation of National Policies and Politics of Immigration ......................................................................................................................................................... 19 Thomas Faist and Andreas Ette• Canadian Immigration: Building Canada’s Future .................................................................................................................... 27 Diane Finley• Towards a Stronger European Immigration Policy ....................................................................................................................... 35 Franco Frattini• Illegal Immigration: A Maltese View....................................................................................................................................................... 41 Lawrence Gonzi• The Challenge of Immigrant Integration in Europe .................................................................................................................... 47 simon Green• The Immigration Conundrum: Open Borders or Closed? ....................................................................................................... 53 Jim Kolbe• Frontex and the Border Security of the European Union ........................................................................................................ 57 Ilkka Laitinen• Which European Asylum System? Security versus Human Rights Considerations in the Europeanisation Process ...................................................................................................................................................................... 63 sandra Lavenex• Migration in Ukraine: Challenge or Chance? .................................................................................................................................. 71 Olena Malynovska• Partnerships in Migration: Engaging Business and Civil Society in a ‘Whole of Society’ Approach ................................................................................................................................................................. 79 Brunson McKinley• Europe’s Migration Dilemma: A Political Assessment ................................................................................................................ 87 Rinus Penninx 3 Volume 5 - Spring 2007
  4. 4. • The Economic Impact of Immigrants on their Home Countries: The Example of Moldova ....................... 95 Iurie Rosca • Immigration: A Crucial Challenge for the Twenty-First Century ................................................................................. 101 Nicolas sarkozy • New Paths for European Migration Policy....................................................................................................................................... 109 Wolfgang schäuble • Is a Common European Immigration Policy Possible? .......................................................................................................... 115 Ioannis Varvitsiotis • What Should a Cautious Immigration Policy Look Like? ................................................................................................... 121 Jakob von Weizsäcker • Europe: Is Decline Our Demographic Destiny? ............................................................................................................................ 129 David Willetts • Russia’s Search for a New Migration Policy ..................................................................................................................................... 137 Zhanna Zayonchkovskaya • EU Enlargement and Immigration........................................................................................................................................................ 147 Gottfried Zürcher4 European View
  5. 5. Wilfried Martens Editorial Europe and Immigration By Wilfried MartensThroughout history, immigration and their culture. This has enabledhas altered the development of not immigrants to maintain their languageonly Europe but also the rest of the and culture. Stronger ties with theirdeveloped world. The basic motivation country of origin have affected the wayof immigration—to seek better life they integrate to their new homelandconditions and a prosperous future— and its culture. Immigration has greatremains unchanged. The challenges connected to potential to support the nation and its culture.immigration have also stayed much of the same, In purely economic terms, educated immigrantsthe main questions being how well immigrants integrated into the labour market result in aintegrate with the native population, what the smaller initial cost to society than a citizen of thepolicies are to facilitate that process and how the same age who has been educated and providednative population perceives immigration—as an with healthcare by public funds.2 Countries withopportunity or a threat. multicultural populations that have managed to resolve their ethnic tensions are obviously moreToday, the majority of American scholars agree apt to succeed in a globalised world.that the large-scale immigration that lasted fordecades is one of the most important reasons for But if mismanaged, immigration—especiallythe growth of the United States, which enabled uncontrolled illegal immigration—has theit to become a major global force in the early potential to create tensions in the host country20th century. Not often is it mentioned that and to put immigrants in an unbearableback then, just as today, the existing population position. Once suspicion becomes establishedhad fears about how the new immigrants between immigrant groups and native citizens,from European countries would transform this negative sentiment is difficult to change.society—fears that were expressed on numerousoccasions through rejection and resentment.1 Is immigration part of the problem or part ofNow, one hundred years later, the United States the solution?is proud of its immigration heritage. The samephenomenon can be seen in Europe throughout Do European politicians face this phenomenonhistory: migration has often been confronted with enough honesty? With enough urgency?with scepticism, but surprisingly, the periods in And most of all, with a real sense of responsibility?which it has occurred have been quickly perceived Clearly, the European Union needs more legalas important chapters in the development of a immigration, but with the same conviction wenation and its citizens. have to say that the European Union cannot tolerate illegal immigration.Obviously, advances in modern technology havechanged the condition of immigrants’ lives. Like the rest of the western world, EuropeCheaper communication and transport costs faces a demographic crisis.3 The demographichave simplified their lifestyle, allowing them projections indicate a decline in the EU workforceto stay in contact with their country of origin in the neighbourhood of one million workers1 Huntington, S. (2004). Who are we? The challenges to America’s national identity. Free Press.2 Sweden’s Bureau of Statistics and Swedish Consumer Agency conducted a study on the average costs to family and society of 20-year-old Swedish citizen with high school education. The average cost was EUR 323,000 (Kuntalehti. 3/2007, Immigration saving millions to the Swedish Society. Maria Palo (translated from Finnish).3 Eurostat ‘Population by age group, gender, in 2000 and 2050, in percentage of total population in each group’, http://www.oecd.org/data- oecd/52/31/38123085.xls. 5 Volume 5 - Spring 2007
  6. 6. Editorial: Europe and Immigration between 2010 and 2030 as a result of this current EU members. In the meantime, it is essential to crisis. Immigration is an opportunity to provide avoid irresponsible legalisation processes which possible solutions for future demographic risk creating instability in the EU as a whole. challenges that Europe is facing. In order for the native population of Europe to Immigration should be used as a tool that better feel the positive effects of immigration supports the development of a strong and and for immigrants to receive a better welcome, prosperous EU economy, in which the benefits of some principles of immigration policy need to immigration are shared across all regions of the be developed and clarified. Essentially, these European Union. Immigration enriches Europe policies need to allow Europe to pursue the economically, socially and culturally. Therefore, maximum social, cultural and economic benefits we need to promote the successful integration of immigration. of legal immigrants into the European Union, while recognising that integration involves But immigration is not a one-way street mutual obligations for new immigrants and EU benefiting only Europe. The countries of origin Member States. also can benefit. For that reason, relations between the European Union and third The EU as a whole has the obligation to offer countries must consider clear migration policies an environment that is welcoming and free of with a strong emphasis on fighting illegal prejudices, respecting the individual rights immigration. This would lead to more stability of immigrants, offering them possibilities, in the countries of origin and would contribute and recognising the potential benefits that to their development. immigration offers to Europe. The question of immigration is a moral It goes without saying that Europe needs to make responsibility that the European Union has not immigration a major priority. The first and most only towards the countries ‘exporting’ migrants important step would be to create a common but also towards itself. For all the reasons European migration policy. It should be done outlined above, we at the European People’s urgently, as the pressures of immigration on Party (EPP) have understood this principle and the EU are incessantly increasing. This is largely have placed immigration high on the agenda of due to the fact that illegal immigration attracts our priorities.4 organised crime and provokes abuses and even the loss of human lives. How to develop policies for legal immigration The idea of a common legislation with regard to immigration is emphasised by the Schengen With regard to legal immigration, it is evident Convention. Because of the freedom of move- that the EU Member States need to implement ment within the European Union, a member a genuinely organised and well-coordinated country practising an irresponsible immigration policy on immigration. For this to succeed, the policy could open the door to illegal immigration responsibilities and financial burdens must be for the whole Union and create major problems shared amongst all Member States. in all the Member Countries. Therefore, there is a clear necessity to establish a process of In order to successfully implement immigration information on national measures in the fields policies, Member States need to involve local of asylum and immigration as an initial short- and regional authorities in their discussions. term step towards greater cooperation between Furthermore, their assistance would be 4 EPP Resolution ‘Illegal Immigration and the European Union’, approved by the EPP Summit in Meise, 14 December 200. European View
  7. 7. Wilfried Martenswelcomed in establishing national plans has been an important initiative in developingtargeting integration and employment. Member concrete tools for the EU. However, for theStates need to involve all the pertinent levels of funds to achieve their purpose it is crucial thatgovernment in decisions concerning the quotas they be reviewed and increased periodically,of foreign workers to be admitted into their in accordance with real needs. Also, local andterritories. regional authorities need to be involved in the management of these funds.Another important way for the EuropeanCommission and Member States to help the There are several regions and cities that aredevelopment of policies, with the cooperation particularly affected by an influx of immigrationof local and regional authorities, is by launching and lack the means to deal with the masses ofpublic awareness and information campaigns. immigrants.These should strongly dispel public anxietywith regards to immigration. In tandem, we Based on the principle of solidarity, emergencycould encourage countries of origin to launch financial instruments should be created in ordersimilar campaigns showcasing the benefits of to offer assistance to centres with the greatestlegal immigration and denouncing its falsely immigration influxes. Financial support for aperceived dangers. common immigration policy must take into account the regional differences that existEU Member States should strongly consider amongst Member States. Clearly, this issueframing an active policy to facilitate the must encourage flexible solutions and follow theintegration of immigrants who have entered principle of subsidiarity.the country legally. Again, this should be donein close cooperation with the local and regional Fighting illegal immigrationauthorities. By active policy, we mean a policy thattakes into account the integration of immigrants Illegal immigration into the European Unionin the labour market and that encompasses their is a growing concern for its Member States.educational, social and cultural backgrounds. Throughout the past year, the countries of the Mediterranean in particular were heavily affectedThe EU directives5 relating to immigration by massive numbers of people wanting to enterand integration call for certain programmes their territories. This ongoing and aggravatingthat should be fully transposed and applied in problem has partly been promoted by the massiveMember States. These programmes include legalisation of illegal immigrants in certainfamily reunification, equal treatment and countries and by the economic situation in theirthe statute of long-term residents from third countries of origin.countries. The European Commission needsto secure adequate financial means in order to In a European Union of open borders, illegalreinforce specific programmes needed to integrate immigration does not affect only the countriesimmigrants into the political and social life of the into which the immigrants enter. Often, they onlyhost country. These programmes should include use the countries as transit points to their finallanguage training, cultural and civic training, destination.and the teaching of European values. Illegal immigration cannot be condoned—it isThe creation of the European Fund for neither a solution for immigrants nor for theirIntegration of Third Country Nationals,7 which countries of origin. Illegal immigration createshas been established for the period of 2007–13, marginalisation and dramatic suffering for the5 Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Community statistics on migration and international protection. Council Directive 2003/8/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification.7 Ministry of Freedom, Security and Justice, ‘A common framework for the integration of third-country nationals’, http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/fsj/immigration/integration/fsj_immigration_integration_en.htm. 7 Volume 5 - Spring 2007
  8. 8. Editorial: Europe and Immigration immigrants themselves. Europe’s need for a Europe’s borders need to be efficiently common strategy to fight illegal immigration and controlled. We need stronger cooperation and human trafficking cannot be stressed enough. solidarity among the Member States, especially This can only be achieved by securing the EU’s in reinforcing the capacities of the European external borders and exploring the establishment border protection agency Frontex and in of a European surveillance system, linking up coordinating sea border patrols. In this respect, existing national surveillance systems along with the establishment of a common European implementing a robust return policy. Obviously, Coastguard responsible for securing the sea we also need stronger efforts from the European borders of the Member States, could also prove Union to improve the economic situation in the to be particularly useful.9 In the future, Frontex countries of origin. should support and coordinate the national border police units so that EU borders can be What are the concrete tools for fighting illegal protected efficiently. immigration? To start with, there is a clear need for reliable statistics in order to fulfil Immigration—­an asset of prosperity this task. Reliable statistics would permit the implementation of an effective migration In order for Europe to fully benefit from policy in Europe through the use of comparable immigration, we have to be able to critically information. This needs to be done through the evaluate our policies and be open to learning European Migration Network8 and its National from the success of others. For example, Canada’s Contact Points, including regional and local society is organised in a way that is fairly similar to levels. many European societies. Canada has experienced a major flow of immigration for decades-in fact The EU and its Member States, in cooperation more extensive than the majority of countries in with local and regional authorities, need to move Europe. Nevertheless, in Canada immigration towards a form of immigration that is regulated is not perceived as a problem and immigration in collaboration with the third countries and policies are supported by its population. transit countries involved. In fact, we should Successful actions against illegal immigration aim at signing of joint agreements between EU and setting clear goals and principles for the Member States and the countries of origin in implementation of immigration policies have order to facilitate the readmission of illegal im- benefited both Canada and its immigrants.10 migrants. Immigration has a complex dynamic, influencing Tempting as it may be for a Member State to nations and the way societies perceive themselves. unilaterally legalise its illegal immigrants en At the same time, immigration has very practical masse, this is not a solution to the problem of short-term and long-term consequences on the illegal immigration. This is particularly true if economy and its popula-tion. By focusing on we take into account the absence of a common the real benefits of immigrants, Europe will learn immigration and asylum system. Therefore the to utilise their rich dynamism to its advantage. Commission’s proposal to issue a study in 2007 In the long run, Europeans will realise that on the legalisation practices and effects in the immigrants and a good immigration policy are Member States is indeed welcome. Plans for assets for a prosperous future. legalazing illegal immigrants must be discussed in advance, as they extensively affect other Wilfried Martens is the President of the European Member States as well. People’s Party. 8 www.european-migration-network.org. 9 At the EPP Summit of 15 June 200, Greek Prime Minister Kostas Karamanlis proposed the creation of a European Coastguard. 10 See Diane Finley “Canadian Immigration: Building Canada’s Future.” Brussels: European View, Spring 2007 - Volume 5, 27-34.8 European View
  9. 9. Yasmeen Abu-Laban North American and European Immigration Policies: Divergence or convergence? By Yasmeen Abu-Laban As transatlantic travel- differences in history and policy detail evident lers can attest, the between North American and many European peoples and cultural countries, and even some differences between landscapes of such Canada and the United States. By identifying varied urban centres as divergence within convergence, not only does a New York, Los Angeles, more nuanced comparative picture emerge, butMontreal, Toronto, London, Paris and Brussels a wider range of policy choices is also uncovered.have been shaped by global migration flows of I will argue that such nuance is beneficial to ourthe post-World War II period. Indeed, since the collective understanding, to informed publicend of that war, one feature common to many and partisan debate, and to policymaking.countries, particularly in the industrialised West,has been the widespread use of immigration to Patterns of convergence in Europe and Northmeet labour market needs. AmericaBy the early twenty-first century, new responses Several points of convergence characteriseto this shared practice gave rise to the suggestion Canada, the United States and countriesthat there are parallel trends in all labour- of the European Union, particularly thoseimporting countries—whether European that were members prior to 2004. First, andor North American—that override seeming not insignificantly, all of these countries aredifferences. Specifically, the ‘convergence demographically diverse in racial, cultural andhypothesis’ holds that there is a growing religious terms as a result of post-war migratorysimilarity between countries as seen variously in flows. By the 1980s in countries across Westernpolicies on integration, immigration and border Europe that had utilised migrant labour, it wascontrol, as well as in popular attitudes towards clear that migrant workers and their descendantsimmigrants (Cornelius Tsuda, 2004, 4). Yet were, to borrow from a well-known book title ofthe convergence hypothesis lacks nuance. Much the period, “here for good” (Castles et al., 1984).as one can point to parallels between countries, Moreover, demographic diversity is in fact themore detailed cross-national historical, policy global norm. Statistics show that only aboutand attitudinal studies to date also find significant 10% of countries of the world can be said to bedifferences between the North American and ethnically homogeneous (MOST Newsletter,European context. 1995, p. 1).Rather than assert a position of divergence or Second, for Canada, the United States and manyconvergence, the purpose of this article is to countries of the EU, immigration itself remains aconsider more closely the ways in which there reality. Thus, despite efforts aimed at ‘controlling’are points of divergence within convergence. To immigration, immigration continues because ofdo so, I take a twofold approach. First, I specify the ‘push’ and ‘pull’ factors that give rise to globalsome key ways in which the United States migration and make countries of these twoand Canada share certain trends with many continents magnets. A 200 OECD report notescountries of the European Union. Second, I that “immigration flows grew rapidly during thespecify ways in which divergence operates within 1990s and are now growing again, using at timesthis convergence by highlighting important irregular or unconventional channels” (OECD, 9 Volume 5 - Spring 2007
  10. 10. North American and European Immigration Policies: Divergence or Convergence? 200, p. 1). It can therefore be expected December 2004, a ‘safe third country’ agreement that the ethnic composition of many national went into effect between Canada and the United populations will diversify further, since one States (van Selm, 2005). The trend towards major feature of contemporary globalisation is increased border control has been reinforced as the qualitatively distinct nature of international a result of the 11 September 2001 attacks in the migratory flows both to and from a much wider United States, since controlling immigration range of countries and world regions than was (illegal or otherwise) has come to be linked with ever the case historically (Held et al., 1999, fighting terrorism (Abu-Laban, 2005). p. 297). In this regard it is interesting to note that newer EU members such as Poland and Fifth, the value or desirability of immigration the Slovak Republic are now receiving asylum and diversity remains the subject of popular and seekers in greater numbers (OECD, 200, pp. political debate in all countries. Since the source 20–13). countries and class composition of immigrants can vary tremendously, the exact details of these Third, countries of Europe and North America, debates can vary. For example, in the 1990s with ageing populations, costly welfare states in Vancouver, Canada, the city council dealt and declining work forces in certain sectors, with complaints about wealthy immigrants are now in a competition with each other, from Hong Kong who were accused of especially for highly skilled labour. This is giving negatively transforming the landscapes of older rise once again to the long-standing concern neighbourhoods by constructing large ‘monster about the possible negative consequences of houses’ at the expense of trees (Abu-Laban, the ‘brain drain’ for countries of the developing 1997). However, it is noteworthy that since 11 world (despite remittances) and generating new September 2001 long-standing debates about concerns about immigrants ending up in jobs the place of Islam in Europe are now finding for which they are overqualified (OECD, 200, an entirely new echo in Canada and the United pp. 1–17). States, as both popular and political debates have come to focus more squarely on Muslim Fourth, since the 1980s there has been increased immigrants and their descendants. This was in attention to border control and a growing evidence in the small rural (and predominantly linkage of immigration control with security at white and French-speaking) town of Hérouxville, both national and regional levels. At the same Canada, when the town council introduced in time that Project 1992 with its goal of a frontier- 2007 a controversial code of behaviour expected free Europe was unfolding, many migration of newcomers that included banning the hijab specialists began to talk about a ‘Fortress Europe’ except on Halloween (CBC News, 2007). in relation to citizens from non-EU countries, especially those in the developing world In liberal democratic countries of Europe and (Huysmans, 2000). Since the 1980s, Canada North America, there is a commitment to has also moved towards extending controls, both human rights (including support of the UN overseas and at home, and has made greater use convention on refugees) as well as individual of detention and deportation of asylum seekers rights (including freedom of religion and (Pratt, 2005). Likewise, the reinforcement of freedom from discrimination based on religion, border control between the United States and ethnicity or race). Nonetheless, these shared Mexico grew steadily over the 1980s and 1990s trends of diversity, continued immigration and and was identified as another plank in the competition for skilled immigrants combined building of a “wall around the West” (Andreas with uncertainty about the value of diversity Snyder, 2000). Certain trends evident within and implementation of increased border control the EU (e.g. the Dublin Convention governing not only seem contradictory, but also mean that refugees) now find parallels in North America: in the policy terrain is far from smooth. What is10 European View
  11. 11. Yasmeen Abu-Labaninteresting is that this terrain has been negotiated histories, such as France, which made heavyin different ways. use of migrant labour from the mid-nineteenth century onwards (Verbunt, 1985, 127), itPatterns of divergence in Europe and North is significant that neither immigration norAmerica recognition of ethnic variation (through census questions, for example) found expressionThe divergences evident between North America in French understandings of nationhood,and Europe pertain to national histories which were profoundly shaped by the Frenchand national self-definitions in relation to Revolution and its implied ‘fusion’ of the peopleimmigration; the nature of legal and illegal (Noiriel, 1992). In contrast, the narratives ofimmigration flows, historically and today; settler colonies tend to be oriented toward theand the manner in which specific aspects of future, rather than the past; that is, ‘the nation’integration policy—such as the actual rules is always becoming, and thus there is somegoverning citizenship acquisition—have been greater space for redefining ‘the nation’ throughapproached. Additionally, contemporary successive waves of immigration (Abu-Laban researchers attuned to globalisation and regional Lamont, 1997).integration have observed how North America,as defined through the 1994 North American In concrete expressions, this has meant that bothFree Trade Agreement between Canada, the American and Canadian politicians and publicsUnited States and Mexico, has produced a frequently link the ideas of immigration andregime governing the mobility of people that nation, and make use of metaphors that highlightis different from that of the European Union. diversity. Consider, for example, AmericanThis is because ‘the free movement of peoples’ is President John F. Kennedy’s book A Nation ofnot a stated goal of the North American project, Immigrants (193); or more recently, Presidentin contrast to the European one. Each of these George W. Bush’s advocation in 200 to be openpoints of divergence will be considered in turn. to the possibility of extending US citizenship to some long-residing illegal immigrants as a way toNarratives of the nation “honor the tradition of the melting pot, which has made one nation out of many peoples” (Office ofAn important aspect of comparative immigration the Press Secretary, 200). While the metaphor ofresearch has been facilitated by attention to ‘the melting pot’ has had long-standing purchasedifferent national narratives concerning the in the United States, the metaphor of choice inconnection (or disconnect) between ‘nation’, Canada has been that of ‘the mosaic’ (reflectedimmigration and diversity. The most evident in the Canadian government’s 1971 policy ofoutcome of this focus shows up in the kind multiculturalism within a bilingual English andof language that structures how countries are French framework).frequently categorised within migration research.For example, countries formed through settler It is also important to note that despite ongoingcolonization—such as Canada and the United polls (e.g. The Dominion Institute, 2005)States—are typically designated ‘traditional’ that frequently find little difference betweenor ‘classic’ immigration countries; countries of Americans and Canadians when it comes toEurope are designated as simply ‘European’, attitudes towards minorities and newcomers, at a‘new’ or even sometimes ‘reluctant’ countries popular level in Canada ‘the mosaic’ is seen to beof immigration.1 Thus while there are some different from ‘the melting pot’. This is becauseEuropean countries with long immigration for many Canadians ‘the melting pot’ is perceived1 See for example, the categorizations used in Cornelius et.al., 2004. 11 Volume 5 - Spring 2007
  12. 12. North American and European Immigration Policies: Divergence or Convergence? to be a vehicle for assimilation, whereas ‘the United States has based admission on the right mosaic’ is seen to allow for the coexistence (and to live permanently in the country and to acquire thus expression) of linguistic, cultural and ethnic citizenship. Put differently, although both diversity (Reitz Breton, 1994, p. 81). As a Canada and the United States have made use result, for many Canadians today (especially for of temporary labour, particularly in the area of English speakers outside the province of Quebec) agriculture, such programs have been small. The the mosaic versus multiculturalism distinction is difference in this tradition shows up in the fact believed to be a point of national differentiation that the term ‘migrant’, which is used in many between Canada and the United States. The European countries, has next to no policy or salience of this distinction was captured in an popular purchase in either Canada or the United unusually popular beer advertisement featuring States, since the term of choice is ‘immigrant’. ‘Joe Canadian’ that ran in English in Canada in Additionally, while large-scale labour importation the early 2000s. Joe Canadian’s ‘rant’ (which in European countries declined significantly in was especially well received at sporting events in certain periods (particularly after 1973/74), for Canada) stressed that he had a “prime minister, both Canada and the United States the quest not a president”; that he spoke “English and for workers has remained relatively steady in French, not American”; and that he believed in the post-war period. The 2000 US census shows “diversity, not assimilation”. that 11.1% of US citizens are foreign born, and the 2001 Canadian census shows that a sizeable Notwithstanding the ongoing debate over 18.4% of Canadian citizens are foreign-born whether attitudes are different between (Boyd, 200, p. 1). Canada and the United States, Canada was the first country to introduce an official policy Historically, both Canada and the United States of multiculturalism, which was followed by gave entry and settlement preference to British- the 1982 entrenchment of multiculturalism origin Protestants. However, since 195 in in the Canadian constitution. Although the case of the United States and 197 in the multiculturalism policy has been subject to case of Canada, these explicit discriminatory criticisms from a number of angles and has shifted barriers have been removed. In both countries in response to some of these criticisms, it has immigration legislation developed a new em- long been upheld by its defenders in and outside phasis on attracting immigrants with skills. This government as conducive to fostering inclusion, feature was especially strong in Canada, which avoiding tension and creating national unity. in 197 introduced a point system (still in effect Given these factors, it is perhaps not surprising today) that numerically assesses independent that in 2007 the Canadian Broadcasting applicants (those who are not seeking entry Corporation (a crown corporation of the on the basis of family membership or refugee Canadian government) aired a new television status) on education, training and knowledge comedy entitled Little Mosque on the Prairie. of the official languages of English and French. The show finds humour in the interactions, the As a result, many immigrants to both countries differences, and the many points in common have gone directly into professional jobs without between Muslims and non-Muslims living in a having to first play a more subservient role in fictional small Canadian town. the economy. Immigration flows Additionally, while in many European countries migrants came from former overseas colonies In contrast to the guest worker schemas adopted (accounting for the large numbers of Algerians by many European countries in the years in France and Surinamese in the Netherlands), following World War Two, the primary legislation in the case of Canada and the United States the governing immigration in both Canada and the source countries for immigrants have reflected12 European View
  13. 13. Yasmeen Abu-Labansomewhat different patterns. Mexico was the for selecting all immigrants and refugees abroadlead immigration country for the United States who are destined for Quebec. Like the federalin 2004, followed by India, the Philippines, government, Quebec uses a point system ofChina and Vietnam (OECD, 200, p. 225). For selection, but favours immigrants who are French-Canada, China was the lead country in 2004, speaking. Actual admission to Canada remains afollowed by India, the Philippines, Pakistan and competency of the federal government.the United States (OECD, 200, p. 173). Integration policiesThe United States, like many countries of Europe,has focused heavily on illegal immigration flows Policies addressing integration cover a widesince the 1980s, a feature that is in part tied to its range of spheres, from the economic to thegeographical proximity to Mexico, a major source social to the political, designed to ensurecountry for both legal and illegal immigration. that both newcomers and the host societyIn the case of the United States, concern over make accommodations. There is now muchillegal flows remains strong today, provoking comparative work addressing the relative successpassionate responses (as seen in the large protests of various approaches in all these spheres as aof 200 against proposed legislation raising the result of the international Metropolis project,penalties for illegal immigration and treating which brings together academics, policymakersillegal immigrants and those who aided them and NGOs. Metropolis has been supported by aas felons). In contrast to both the United States number of countries (including Canada and theand Europe, Canada has not been preoccupied United States) as well as by the EU Commission.with illegal immigration flows, a feature that Such research is critically important to a fullmay stem largely from its geographic distance consideration of the similarities, differences andfrom any source country. Indeed, whereas there best practices of countries in Europe and Northis a long tradition of attempting to estimate the America.2numbers of illegal immigrants in the UnitedStates (currently numbering about 10 million), A couple of points stand out, however, inin the case of Canada there is no solid research addressing certain aspects of integration. Canadaon this topic (Boyd, 200, p. ). and the United States share a jus soli citizenship tradition, and both countries allow for thePerhaps as a result of the fact that illegal possibility of dual citizenship (although it is notimmigration in Canada is a relative non-issue, encouraged in the United States). As suggested,immigration itself has not been as divisive the relative ease with which immigrants canan issue within or between political parties acquire citizenship itself and the fact that bothin Canada as it has in the United States, and Canada and the United States view immigrants asparticularly in many countries of Europe. permanent makes for some distinction betweenAnother relatively distinct feature of immigration these two countries and what has transpired inin Canada (a federal state) is that immigration is many countries of post-war Europe.constitutionally defined as a concurrent area offederal and provincial jurisdiction. As a result, Additionally, some recent work addressing thethe province of Quebec, home to a majority question of political integration specificallyof French speakers, has been able to assert its suggests that there may be some importantpowers in the sphere of immigration. These differences between Canada and the Unitedefforts culminated in the 1991 Canada-Quebec States. Irene Bloemraad (200) finds thatAccord, which gives Quebec sole responsibility the same immigrant groups (Portuguese and2 To access Metropolis Canada, as well as Metropolis International, see http://www.metropolis.net. 13 Volume 5 - Spring 2007
  14. 14. North American and European Immigration Policies: Divergence or Convergence? Vietnamese) are much more likely to acquire borders (for trade) and reinforcement of borders citizenship, get elected to political office and be (in relation to people). involved in community organising in Canada than in the United States. She attributes this conclusion to the Canadian federal government’s relatively generous support for settlement services, as well Despite evident similarities and differences as to official multiculturalism. This then suggests within and between North America and Europe, that not only planning for permanent settlement the above analysis suggests that realistic policy but also supporting this settlement through responses require at a minimum that the reality government programs is important for ensuring of ongoing immigration be recognised and that positive outcomes. there be long-term planning in keeping with liberal democratic principles supporting human Regional context rights, individual rights and inclusion. In this regard, the evolving European Union, with its A final difference that should be explored relates emphasis on granting mobility and other rights to the regional dimension of Europe and North to EU citizens, offers a distinct regional response America. Although the 1994 North American that finds no parallel in North America—or Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) between anywhere else in the world. On the other hand, the Canada, the United States and Mexico has North American tradition of viewing immigrants led to the growing integration of the national as permanent, of extending them citizenship, and economies of the three member countries, and of defining them as part of the nation (reinforced correspondingly to more attention to both in Canada with a policy of multiculturalism and multilateral and bilateral (US-Canada and US- settlement service programs) offers another set Mexico) mechanisms governing the flows of of practices responding to liberal democratic people, there is a marked difference from the norms. These different approaches provide European Union. The European Union accords citizens and policymakers of both continents the right of mobility and residence to all EU with an opportunity to learn from each other’s citizens (with newer EU Member States being experiences, and hopefully thereby improve on phased in), while the NAFTA arrangement current practices and policies. simply allows for the expedited temporary entry of business people and professionals. Moreover, in its first decade of operation, not only was access to the American labour market through Yasmeen Abu-Laban is an Associate Professor in the NAFTA enjoyed more by Canadian nationals Department of Political Science at the University of than Mexican ones (because Mexicans were Alberta (Canada). required to get visas and because the United States put a cap on NAFTA flows; see Gabriel MacDonald, 2004, p. 78), but the border between Mexico and the United States was fortified. In short, while Mexico and Canada have embarked on signing bilateral ‘smart border’ accords with the United States since 2001 to ensure continued access to the American market, there is nothing approaching a ‘North American citizenship’. North America is instead characterised by the paradoxical erasure of14 European View
  15. 15. Yasmeen Abu-LabanReferencesAbu-Laban, Y. (1997). Ethnic politics in a Cornelius, W., Tsuda, T., Martin, P. and Hollified,globalizing metropolis: The case of Vancouver. J (Ed:). (2004). Controlling immigration: A globalIn T. Thomas (Ed.), The politics of the city: A perspective (Second Edition). Palo Alto: StanfordCanadian perspective (pp. 77–95). Scarborough: University Press.ITP Nelson. Cornelius, W., Tsuda, T. (2004). ControllingAbu-Laban, Y. (2005). Regionalism, migration immigration: The limits of governmentand fortress (North) America. Review of intervention. In Cornelius et.al., 2004 (pp. 3-Constitutional Studies, 10 (1 2), 135–2. 48).Abu-Laban, Y., Lamont, V. (1997). Crossing The Dominion Institute. (2005). Illusionborders: Interdisciplinarity, immigration and the that Canada’s a multicultural mosaic and themelting pot in the American cultural imaginary. United States is a melting pot. 15 May. http://The Canadian Review of American Studies 27 (2) www.dominion.ca/americanmyths/2005_(September-October), 23–43. multiculturalism.pdfAndreas, P., Snyder, T. (Eds.).(2000). The wall Gabriel, C., MacDonald, L. (2004). Thearound the West: State borders and immigration hypermobile, the mobile and the rest: Patterns ofcontrols in North America and Europe. Lanham: inclusion and exclusion in the emerging NorthRoman and Littlefield. American migration regime. Canadian Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Studies 29(57Bloemraad, I. (200). Becoming a citizen: 58),7-91.Incorporating immigrants and refugees in theUnited States and Canada. Berkeley: University Held, D., McGrew, A., Goldblatt, D. of California Press. Perraton, J. (1999). Global transformations: Politics, economics and culture. Stanford: StanfordBoyd, M. (200). Gender aspects of international University Press.migration to Canada and the United States.Paper given at the International Symposium Huysmans, J. (2000). The European Unionon International Migration and Development, and the securitisation of migration. Journal ofPopulation Division, Department of Economic Common Market Studies, 38(5) (December),and Social Affairs, United Nations Secretariat. 751–77.Turin, June. Kennedy, J.F. (193). A nation of immigrants.Castles, S., with Booth, H. Wallace, T. New York: Harper and Row.(1984). Here for good: Western Europe’s new ethnicminorities. London: Pluto Press. MOST Newsletter 3. (1995). June. http://www. unesco.org/most/newlet3e.htmCBC News. (2007). Muslim groups to launchcomplaint over town’s immigrant code. 5 February. Noiriel, G. (1992). Difficulties in Frenchhttp://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2007/02/05/qc- historical research on immigration. In D.L.reasonableaccommodation20070205.html Horowitz G. Noiriel (Eds.), Immigrants in two democracies: French and American experience (pp. –79). New York: New York University Press. 15 Volume 5 - Spring 2007
  16. 16. North American and European Immigration Policies: Divergence or Convergence? OECD. (200). Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, International migration outlook: SOPEMI. Paris: OECD. Office of the Press Secretary. (200). President Bush addresses the nation on immigration reform. May 15. http://www.whitehouse.gov/ news/releases/200/05/2000515-8.html Pratt, A. (2005). Securing borders: Detention and deportation in Canada. Vancouver: UBC Press. Reitz, J.G., Breton, R. (1994). The illusion of difference: Realities of ethnicity in Canada and the United States. Toronto: C.D. Howe Institute. van Selm, J. (2005). Immigration and regional security. In E. Guild J. van Selm (Eds.), International migration and security: Opportunities and challenges (pp. 11–27). London and New York: Routledge. Verbunt, G. (1985). France. In T. Hammar (Ed.), European immigration policy: A comparative perspective (pp.127-14) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.1 European View
  17. 17. Sali Berisha commentary: Albanian Migration in Europe—Bridge or Barrier? By Sali Berisha At last year’s Festival Albanian migrants have indeed been a valuable di Sanremo, Italy’s force in helping Albania develop as an economy most important annual and a democracy and, most importantly, in music event, one of bridging the divide between Albania and other the contestants who European countries that was created over more captivated the hearts than 50 years of communist rule.of Italians was Elsa Lila, a young Albanian girlliving in Italy for the past 10 years. Her success Due to their generally young age, hard workat the Festival is a measure of the integration of and in particular their investment in education,Albanian migrants into European societies and Albanian migrants quickly overcame the imagetheir contribution in bringing together cultures, problem that every migrant group initially faces,people and countries. and soon integrated into the new-found Euro- pean societies.In 1990, Albania emerged out of communismas a country looking for light after almost 50 Today Albanian migrants in all Europeanyears of extreme isolation from the entire world, countries, from Norway to Greece, are diligenta country where religion, western thought and workers, entrepreneurs, intellectuals, entertainersphilosophy, foreign culture, literature, music and more. Albanian migrants have excelled inand western products were strictly forbidden business, art, culture, sports and other areas,and almost unknown. and have won the respect of their peers and the public. The first violins of La Scala in Milan,Since the first days after the collapse of the the Munich Philharmonic Orchestra and thecommunism, waves of migrants have flowed Opera of Paris are Albanians. Many Albaniansout of the country, mainly towards Western today are professors and academics in the mostEurope and in particular to Greece and Italy. important universities and research centresLeaving behind the most totalitarian country in throughout Europe. Albanian workers, engineersEurope, they were forced to migrate mainly due and specialists were the most important workingto poverty, but were also driven by the urge for force in building the venues and facilities forfreedom, knowledge and education. the Olympic Games in Athens, a contribution that was acknowledged and valued by GreekNow, 17 years later, almost one million Albanians authorities. In particular, in Greece and Italy,live and work abroad, more than 90% of them where the concentration of Albanian migrantsin Western Europe. This is 25–30% of Albania’s is the greatest, they have become an importantpopulation, or approximately 35% of its labour contributing factor to society.force.Such a migration flow is unparalleled in every Such achievements have improved the imageregard by that of any other European country. and knowledge of Albania throughout Europe,Also unique has been the role of Albanian helping the country become known to themigration in the country’s development and its peoples of Europe.integration into the rest of Europe. 17 Volume 5 - Spring 2007
  18. 18. Commentary: Albanian Migration in Europe—Bridge or Barrier? But Albanian migrants have also shown a concrete We are optimistic that in the coming years sense of solidarity with their country and their Albanian migrants in Europe will become an even families. Their remittances have been a major stronger force, not only for the development of source of income for thousands of Albanian the country, but also for our efforts at European families and the entire economy. Without such integration. To this end, the Government will support, which counts for approximately 10–15% continue to give all its support to emigrants for of the country’s GDP every year, our economic their integration into European societies and domestic progress would not have been possible. their eventual return to Albania. Albanian migrants in Europe have at the same time been a very strong source of Europeanism for Albanians. If Albania is the most pro-EU country in Europe, this is also a credit to our Sali Berisha is the Prime Minister of Albania. emigrants. They have been the ones promoting European culture, values and attitudes to their families and their countrymen. This contribution has increased dramatically in the past years, due to the fact that many mi- grants are returning to Albania after years of work and education in Europe. Many of them are investing the savings and skills gained abroad in economic activities, very often together with European businessmen. Others who are West- ern-educated are being reintegrated into public administration, civil society and private sector management positions. In such positions they are instilling European approaches and values throughout Albanian society, acting as real am- bassadors for our European integration. Conscious of their valuable contribution, the Albanian Government, in cooperation with other European governments and international organisations, is developing special policies and programmes to incentivise investments in Albania by Albanian emigrants. At the same time, a major Brain Gain Programme1 is already in place and is assisting hundreds of western- educated Albanians to be involved in the public sector. In addition, this programme has also enlisted the support of many Albanians who work in academic and research positions in Europe, involving them in policy discussions for the country’s major programmes. 1 Programme jointly sponsored by the Albanian Government and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).18 European View
  19. 19. Thomas Faist and Andreas Ette Between Autonomy and the European Union: The Europeanisation of National Policies and Politics of Immigration By Thomas Faist and Andreas Ette In comparison to other is known about the extent of the impact that policy areas, migration international and European influences, in and residence have particular, have had on these national reforms. only recently begun What role does and can the EU play in the to acquire a Euro- increasingly multilevel approach to regulating pean dimension. Thus, migration? If there is a European influence,recent years have seen significant changes in what is the nature of that influence: are nationalthe direction of stronger European regulation, immigration policies moving toward a similar,accompanied by a transfer of competencies from shared model, or does the Europeanisation ofthe national to the European level and shifts in national policies lead to greater divergence?the modes of European policy-making. What Studies of the process of policy Europeanisationbegan as intergovernmental cooperation among in other areas have shown that it varies greatlyMember States has become a form of ‘intensive from one country to another. Do these findingstransgovernmentalism’, with further moves hold true for immigration policies as well, and,toward the traditional Community method as if so, how can these differences in the Europeanpowers have increasingly been transferred from impact be explained?the national to the EU level (Lavenex Wallace,2005). Furthermore, past discussions of the theory of European integration of immigration policiesIn parallel with these developments at the have concluded that national political constraintsEuropean level, over the last two decades all provided a major rationale for policymakers tothe European countries with significant levels ‘escape to Europe’. How does the establishmentof immigration have overhauled their national of a harmonised policy at the European level goimmigration policies. Thus, Germany revamped on to affect the domestic politics of immigration?its asylum policy in 1992 and introduced its The research available to date is contradictory onfirst-ever comprehensive immigration act in these questions, mainly because there is “littleJanuary 2005. In the United Kingdom, four systematic empirical research on how Europeanmajor immigration acts have been produced developments ‘hit home’ at the national level”since 1999. Likewise, the Spanish ‘Alien Law’ (Vink, 2005, p. 4).has undergone three major reforms in recentyears; the government of Poland introduced key In order to shed light on these questions, we havelegislation in 2001 and 2003; and work is in undertaken a systematic comparative analysisprogress in Turkey on a new ‘Law of Settlement’ of the Europeanisation of national policies andto replace the existing act, which dates back to politics of immigration (Faist Ette, 2007).1934. The study looks at core Member States of the European Union, such as Germany, the UnitedImmigration experts have devised different Kingdom, Sweden, Spain and Greece, and alsomodels to explain the varieties of national analyses the impact of the EU on New Memberimmigration policies (for a recent review, see States such as Poland, and potential futureHollifield, 2000). However, comparatively little accession states, such as Turkey and Albania. 19 Volume 5 - Spring 2007
  20. 20. Between Autonomy and the European Union: The Europeanisation of National Policies and Politics of Immigration The history of European integration of communitarisation, marked by the Treaty of immigration policies Amsterdam. The Treaty brought immigration policies into the Community pillar by creating European integration of national immigration a new Title IV, and incorporated the Schengen policies has progressed in four periods. The first, Agreement into the acquis communautaire. from 1957 to 198, was characterised by minimal Determined to increase the degree of integration, involvement in national immigration policies. the European Council summit in Tampere in Immigration policies fell under national control, 1999 set out a five-year action programme on and initiatives by the European Commission the central measures of a common European toward closer EU cooperation within the immigration policy. Five years later, in June 2004, traditional community method of decision- the Commission published its final assessment making were regularly declined. During this of the original Tampere programme, stating that period, however, significant cooperation on these “substantial progress has been made in most questions took place outside the EU’s traditional areas of justice and home affairs.” Because of the structures. Examples include the Trevi group, intergovernmental decision-making procedures which was established by European Member based on unanimity in the Council of Ministers, States during the 1970s to cooperate on internal however, “it was not always possible to reach security measures, and, crucially, the 1985 agreement at the European level for the adoption Schengen Agreement concerning cooperation on of certain sensitive measures relating to policies the mutual abolition of internal border controls which remain at the core of national sovereignty” and the development of compensating internal (Commission of the European Communities, security measures. 2004, p. 3–4). These intergovernmental forms of cooperation Major obstacles relating to the decision-making helped to shape cooperation during the second structures and the scope of integration were period, from 198 until 1993. That period was overcome in December 2004, when the Council characterised by informal intergovernmentalism, decided that, beginning on 1 January 2005, in which representatives from the Member decision-making on EU immigration policies States engaged in a process of closer cooperation. (with the exception of legal immigration) would Examples are the Ad Hoc Working Group become subject to qualified majority voting on Immigration, established in 198, and (QMV) and the co-decision procedure with the the group of coordinators that prepared the European Parliament (EP), thus providing for Palma Programme, dealing with the security serious supranationalisation of this policy area. implications of the free-movement measures in Finally, attempts by migrants to enter the EU the Union’s Single European Act. illegally through the Spanish enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla in autumn 2005 lent urgency to the The third period, from 1993 until 1999, was desire for further integration, by showing the shaped by the Maastricht Treaty and its structure weaknesses of a migration policy that focuses of formal intergovernmental cooperation. The primarily on migration control while neglecting three-pillar structure of the EU made integrated the root causes of migration (Boswell, 2003). immigration policies under the EU a reality, and recognised immigration issues as being of com- Defining Europeanisation mon interest. The decision-making structures in the third pillar, however, ensured that cooperation For our comparative analysis, we broadly defined remained strictly intergovernmental. Europeanisation as the impact that the European Union has on its Member States. More specifi- The current period, beginning in the late cally, we followed the work of Bulmer and Radael- 1990s, has been characterised by increasing li (2004, p. 4), who defined Europeanisation20 European View
  21. 21. Thomas Faist and Andreas Etteas consisting of “processes of a) construction, of change. Absorption refers to a situation whereb) diffusion and c) institutionalisation of domestic policies or politics adapt to Europeanformal and informal rules, procedures, policy requirements without real modification of theparadigms, styles, ‘ways of doing things’ and essential national structures of policies or politics.shared beliefs and norms which are first defined Transformation occurs if there is a change in theand consolidated in the EU policy process and fundamental logic of the domestic policy orthen incorporated in the logic of domestic political behaviour. Finally, retrenchment means(national and sub-national) discourse, political that the situation in a Member State becomesstructures and public policies.” less ‘European’ than it had been.This definition provides us with a broad The second research question concerns howframework for understanding multi-level the European impact is felt, and what thegovernance interactions in Europe, and makes differences are in the European impact amongit clear that Europeanisation is a two-way the different countries under consideration.process—bottom-up and top-down—between Theoretical attempts to account for varyingthe Member States and the EU. It acknowledges patterns of Europeanisation focus mainly onthat any comprehensive explanation of Member the ‘quality of fit’ between policies and politicsState responses to the EU requires an analysis of at the European and the domestic level (for anhow the two processes interact (see, for example, overview, see Mastenbroek, 2005 and Risse,Börzel, 2005). For purposes of clarity, we 2001). By contrast, our analysis follows the worklimited our research to the top-down process of done by Scharpf (1999), differentiating betweenMember State adaptation to the EU, as opposed two fundamental modes of Europeanisation toto European integration, understood as the account for the differences in the EU’s impactbottom-up process of Member States projecting on the national policies of Member States andinfluence. We therefore followed the usual three- other countries. The two modes—prescriptivestep approach. The process of Europeanisation and discursive Europeanisation—are differentstarts with the development of a governmental “types of interaction” (Scharpf, 1999) orsystem and particular policies at the European “steering modes” (Knill Lenschow, 2005) thatlevel. These political structures and European characterise ideal-type patterns of governance inpolicies then create pressure for domestic policies the multi-level European immigration policy.and policy-making processes to be adapted. The They differ according to the degree of coercivethird stage, or endpoint, of this process consists pressure the EU can exert on a particular state toof national policies and politics being adapted to change its policies.EU-level developments. The first mode—prescriptive Europeanisation—Extent and modes of Europeanisation is concerned with national re-regulation in cases where the EU provides institutionalFollowing on from this definition, we formulated models for domestic compliance. Prescriptivetwo substantive research questions for our Europeanisation is a form of coercive governance,comparative work. The first was to determine defined as legally binding European legislationthe extent of Europeanisation, and the second, that leaves little or no discretion to the nationalto improve our understanding of why and how implementer. Member States are obligated toEuropeanisation occurs in national policies and ensure that these supranational policies arepolitics of immigration. For the first question, put into practice. In this mode the EU exertswe followed the typology developed by Radaelli considerable coercive pressure on a Member(2003), who differentiates between four types of State. In contrast, the second mode—discursivechange: inertia, absorption, transformation and Europeanisation—largely dispenses withretrenchment. Inertia describes a situation of lack coercion. There is no legally binding prescription 21 Volume 5 - Spring 2007
  22. 22. Between Autonomy and the European Union: The Europeanisation of National Policies and Politics of Immigration of institutional models for domestic compliance; led to the Dublin Convention and the London rather, these models offer non-binding sugge- resolutions. In contrast, the years after 1999 stions to guide national policy-makers in the have seen minimal national policy changes search for regulatory solutions to certain policy resulting from EU initiatives. The sole exception problems. In such a situation, the EU serves is policies on human trafficking and smuggling, mainly as an arena for the exchange of political for which the UK adopted the European policy ideas and promotes information exchange in framework, in the absence of an existing British transnational networks. The best-known example policy on the matter. is the open method of coordination. In the case of all other European policies, the ‘Old’ versus ‘new’ Member states: different British government responded to European national experiences with Europe requirements by introducing minor changes only, or by opting out. The British case provides With regard to the impact of the EU on national a prime example of the usefulness of the modes policies and on the politics of immigration, of Europeanisation in explaining the European two main findings will be discussed here. The impact on national immigration policies. The first concerns differences between countries in relationship between the extent and mode the extent of the European impact on national of Europeanisation is even more obvious in immigration policies, which form a continuum the case of Germany. Germany is often seen ranging from inertia or minor changes in as the ‘poster child’ of European integration, domestic policies, to transformative and actively participating in the process of European comprehensive changes at the other end of the integration in general and showing particular spectrum. The six Member States in our study interest in a common European immigration can be situated along this continuum, the most policy. In line with this image, European extreme positions being those of the UK, with activities during the 1990s profoundly altered only minor alterations, and Poland, with major Germany’s immigration policy. In particular, the changes to its policy. In between are Germany fundamental revamping of Germany’s asylum and Sweden, which are closer to the British policy with the change in its basic law can be pole, and Greece and Spain, which are closer directly attributed to European involvement. to the experience of Poland. Furthermore, the The Amsterdam Treaty, however, marks a analysis shows a reciprocal relationship between turning point for Germany’s involvement in the mode and the extent of Europeanisation: the common European immigration policy, as discursive modes of interaction lead to greater Germany changed “from a vanguard to a laggard” national policy change in the case of traditional (Hellmann et al., 2005). In contrast to the earlier Member States, while prescriptive modes result period, European developments after 1999 have in a greater extent of Europeanisation in the case not, overall, significantly affected Germany’s of new Member States. immigration policy. Neither are any major policy changes expected to come out of the new draft Of the countries analysed, the UK shows the least bill, announced by the German government in EU influence on the original British approach January 200, which will incorporate several to immigration control, although the situation European directives. has evolved over time. Overall, the influence of European policy approaches on Britain’s At the other end of the spectrum is Poland, a immigration and asylum policy was greater relatively new Member State that joined the during the 1990s, prior to the Amsterdam EU in the course of the eastern enlargement Treaty. Examples from the early 1990s include in 2004. Generally, those countries that the changes to British asylum policy that came joined the club recently have experienced about as a result of European initiatives that the most comprehensive Europeanisation of22 European View

×