1.
MIGRANT INTEGRATION
POLICY INDEX 2015
KEY INTERNATIONAL FINDINGS &
FAMILY REUNION & LONG-TERM RESIDENCE
THOMAS HUDDLESTON, MIGRATION POLICY GROUP, 29.6.15

2.
LATEST POLICY COMPARISONS:
What are the trends and differences in integration policies in eight areas across
Europe and the developed world?
MONITORING STATISTICS:
Which integration outcomes can and do different integration policies affect? Which
immigrants can and do benefit from these policies?
ROBUST EVALUATIONS:
Which countries have robust evaluations of their policies’ effects on integration?
Which policies are found to be most effective for improving integration outcomes?
Bringing a new level of maturity and evidence to the often politicised debate about the
successes and failures of integration policy

3.
FAMILY REUNION
• Slight area of strength and convergence between West & Central Europe, due to EU law
• Most ‘family-friendly’ in Southwest Europe, Nordics & traditional destination countries
• Countries diverge most on conditions & family definitions, with more exceptions for
high-skilled/wealthy than for vulnerable
• Uncertain future for families given political climate, with improvements in 12 (mostly
due to EU/ECJ) and restrictions in 10
• Same-sex partners (26) and long-term partners (17)
• Age limits for spouses in only 8 (struck down in BE & UK)
• Some restricted entitlement for adult children/parents in 25
• Any basic legal income in 22
• Disproportionate fees in 21
• Post-arrival language courses provided in 27, required in 10 (but fully guaranteed in AT,
FR, NL, CH)
• Pre-entry language test in only 8 (none favourable for learning language, see KR & FR)
• Long and complicated path to autonomous residence, even for vulnerable families

4.
FAMILY REUNION
● Families are not majority of newcomers, diverse, mostly
female and children and rarely non-nuclear
● Non-EU family reunion is rare across Europe: around 2.2 for EU
and 3.0 for EU15
● Family reunion more common and equitable in countries with
inclusive policies (e.g. BE, Nordics, Southern/Central Europe)
and more rare and selective in restrictive countries (e.g. CY,
MT, DK, IE, CH)
● Rise in #s/rate in a few countries now complying with EU law
(CEE, LU), decrease in BE & UK due to restriction and in
Southern Europe due to peak before/with crisis
● Available evaluations suggest that pre-entry tests, age limits
and high income requirements do not actually promote
integration in practice but instead limit family reunion
● Remove obstacles to rapid family reunion, esp. for families
with children, as delays are potentially negative for children to
achieve & stay in school & for spouses’ to catch up with their
sponsor in learning the language & labour market integration
● Identify & inform/orient skilled non-labour migrants
Major topic of debate: CY, FR, GR, IE, MT, UK

5.
FAMILY REUNION

6.
Source: DELSA/ELSA/WP2(2013) “Recent trends in family migration and labour market outcomes of family
migrants in the OECD”
Data: European countries: 2002-2011 European Labour Force Survey, United States: 2010 American
Community Survey.
Figure 20. Labour force participation rates in year of reunification by gender,
family migration & family position
Men Women

7.
LONG-TERM RESIDENCE
• Slight area of strength and convergence across EU due to EU law
• Changes to long-term residence are rarely and usually driven by politicisation of immigration (DK +11 vs. UK -11), with more major
restrictions (10 countries) than minor improvements (8 countries due to EU/ECJ, e.g. BE, GR, IT, NL)
• EC ‘deplores weak impact’ of EU long-term residence (2011 application report)
• 5 years’ legal stay usually required (shorter in HU, Nordics, traditional destinations; longer in JP, TU, CH, IE)
• Several temporary permit-holders excluded (e.g. AT, CY, IE, JP/KR, MT, NL, CH, TU, UK, traditional destinations)
• Countries diverge significantly on conditions (most restrictive CY, GR, LV, MT, CH, UK, difficult for vulnerable groups in AT, CZ, FR, DE)
• Trend to language requirement (from DE in 1999 to 18 in EU in 2014) often demanding (HR, CY, GR, SK, NL) without supporting (see
instead CZ, IT, NO, PT, DK)
• Fees often disproportionately high and rising, sometimes due to austerity (CZ, PT, ES)
• Many do not restrict to only employed/self-sufficient (26), ‘integrated’ (23) or fluent (14)
• Countries diverge most on conditions & family definitions, with more exceptions for high-skilled/wealthy than for vulnerable
• Uncertain future for families given political climate, with improvements in 12 (mostly due to EU/ECJ) and restrictions in 10
• Same-sex partners (26) and long-term partners (17)
• Age limits for spouses in only 8 (struck down in BE & UK)
• Some restricted entitlement for adult children/parents in 25
• Any basic legal income in 22
• Disproportionate fees in 21
• Post-arrival language courses provided in 27, required in 10 (but fully guaranteed in AT, FR, NL, CH)
• Pre-entry language test in only 8 (none favourable for learning language, see KR & FR)
• Long and complicated path to autonomous residence, even for vulnerable families

8.
LONG-TERM RESIDENCE
● EU average: 3/4 are long-settled (5+ years) but only 12m (57%)
are permanent/L-T residents, with major gaps across countries
● Just 2.8m are EU long-term residents (2.1m in IT, majority in
AT, BG, EE, IT, LU, RO, SI vs. almost none in BE, CY, HU, LV, ES
SE)

9.
LONG-TERM RESIDENCE
● Residence & citizenship policies are key, esp. for vulnerable
● Major gaps in access to long-term residence (blue bar)
● ‘Permanently temporary’ (red group), ‘2nd-class citizens’ (blue), ‘equal rights’ (green) &
‘quickly citizens’ (yellow)
● Potentially positive effects for labour market integration (Corrigan 2013) & long-term
settlement (De Waard 2013) though limited for legal secondary movement (EMN report)
Major topic of debate:
CY, GR, MT, IE
FR, SE, UK