The Schengen Agreement and Migration - Essay Example

?The Schengen Agreement and Migration 518206) Introduction The European community (EC) which was formed towards the close of 1950 had ideally proposed better co-operation between the member countries so that a more comprehensive movement of products, investment, human services both skilled and unskilled could be achieved. While there was a definite push as far as investment and goods were concerned there were several restrictions on the movement of workers. Efforts on this front culminated in the formulation of a number of agreements known as Schengen. This has resulted in opening up of borders and affected the visa policies between European Member countries.( Bertozzi Stefano, 2008) History In the early 80’s the European Community member countries began to discuss the parameters under which border checks could be done away with allowing for free movement of all commodities and human personnel. This initiated the first step of the dialogue. The next issue discussed was whether this should be applied to people who were outside this European Community. The movement gained momentum when some of the countries decided to push ahead with the proposal and eliminate these borders. (Hiroyuki Tanaka and Trinidad Macias, 2007) The Benelux countries which included Belgium, Luxemborg and Netherlands had already initiated the process of having a common passport much before the idea of Schengen originated. This was formed as early as the 1970’s. France and Germany furthered strengthened their cross border treaties by signing a bilateral agreement in 1984 which decided to do away with the cross border checks. (Gelatt Julia, 2005) This was borne by the protests initiated by truck drivers who were not happy with the long procedural delays these checks were taking. To further strengthen the agreement a number of countries like France, Germany, Luxembourg, Netherlands and Belgium signed the first agreement on June 14, 1985 at Schengen. It was decided to do away with the passports and other red tape including procedural delays which hampered free movement. The process that began in Schengen was considered as a sort of beginning for greater co-ordination between further member states of the European Union so that the idea that was generated in Schengen could be expanded to the whole of the EU. (Kazmierkiewicz, 2005) Source: Hiroyuki Tanaka and Trinidad Macias, 2007, Schengen Member States The Schengen area further consolidated its intentions by eliminating the need for border checks on both travellers from the member countries and also relaxing these norms for visitors from outside the Schengen area. However there was a need for careful monitoring the people who was allowed free access in the Schengen area. The Schengen Convention was further ratified by France, Belgium, Luxembourg, Netherlands and Germany in 1990. (Bertozzi Stefano, 2008) Several key decisions were taken in this convention. The terms and conditions for the issuance of short term visas for less than 90 days were outlined. It also laid out the policies for the travel of people across the Schengen region. Movement of people who intended to stay on for more than 90 days were provided with long term visas. Internal border checks were done away with but external borders were still subjected to the principles of national legislation.( Gelatt Julia, 2005) The Schengen roped in further countries. In 1990 Italy joined in while Portugal entered into the fray 1991. Spain joined next in 1992 supported by Austria in 1995. Finland, Sweden and Denmark completed the formalities of joining in 1996. (Hiroyuki Tanaka and Trinidad Macias, 2007) An interesting facet to this agreement was that although Norway and Iceland were not members of the EU, it supported and became a member to enhance the sanctity of the union. The membership of Denmark into the Union however came with a rider. They could feel free to agree or disagree with decisions that were made from time to time in the Schengen Agreements. Schengen Information System The Schengen Convention also put forth the parameters of the Schengen Information System (SIS). These provided guidelines for bilateral co-operation on six fronts. These are (i) Administrative assistance- The article 39 of the Schengen II convention covers ways in which administrative help can be provided between member states. The relevant ministries of member states can elevate personal contacts on to a higher level so that potential offences could be identified and dealt with. (ii) Observation-This seeks to provide a comprehensive data base about potential law breakers, people having criminal background and those that have been kept under close watch by security agencies. Article 40 of the Schengen convention provides regulations under which an offender can be kept under close surveillance. This source of information helped member countries to keep a tab on offenders who deal in international fraud and also in the trade of stolen articles. If the crime is committed under Article 40 (7) or if the matter is of utmost national security the consent between member countries could be done away with. (Rainer Munz, 2004) Although better co-operation of police officers are envisaged it does not abjure the police of carrying out its investigations in a proper manner. They should carry proper identification which confirms their identity as policemen and should carry proper papers to show that they are entitled to carry firearms. The second state on its part should provide a whole hearted support to those seeking its help officially. (iii) Pursuit- SIS also facilitated the police of member EU countries to chase criminals across border countries without the problem of having to overcome red tape. The guidelines for such an exercise are laid down in Article 41 of the Schengen II Convention. (Gelatt Julia, 2005) This enhanced better co-ordination and co-operation between member countries. However, the second state has the right to prevent the first state to engage in pursuit of the offender. However, they should in doing this never lower their guard and follow the leads provided by the first state and try in engaging the enemy in their own capacity. The officers who are engaged in pursuit from one territory to the next should be properly dressed so as to reflect their identities in a proper manner. Weapons to be used only in cases of self defence. After the hot pursuit is over, the police need to properly inform the members of the first Schengen country about the details of the chase and the results obtained. The SIS provided a measure of precaution that was necessitated due to the relaxing of international borders. (iv) Rights of Policemen- Article 42 of the convention stipulate that injury or death to an officer calls for the same compensation amount on the second state. The next article 43, states that if an officer of a particular state is found of wrongdoing in another member state then the member state should adequately pay for the damages cost. (v) Liaison officers are to posted under article 47 of the Schengen II agreement to facilitate better co-operation between member states on matter on international security.( Rainer Munz, 2004) (vi) Article 39; subsection 5 of the Schengen agreement lays down guidelines to step up bilateral co-operation between member states onto the next level. Under this ambit, sharing of common police frequencies and special units that engage in locating offenders beyond borders are envisaged. Implementation The provisions of the Schengen agreement were effected in early 1995. Travellers moving between member Schengen States were not required to produce passports upon exit or on entering a member country. The airport was segregated into two parts; one for people travelling between the Schengen member states and one for people who were coming from outside countries to travel in the Schengen states. This however necessitated passport checks to be carried out when moving from one part of the airport to the other. Train travel between member countries also improved greatly as passport checks were not required at border stations. (Rainer Munz, 2004) However, to maintain a certain degree of security inspectors of either country were allowed to get on the train and inspect the travel documents of people they considered were suspect. This also eased travel restrictions of people inhabiting outside the Schengen area. They were provided temporary visa to travel in the Schengen area which could be used for travel till a period of 90 days. This agreement could only be a success if there was greater understanding and trust between member countries. The immigration policy that was drafted needed to be all encompassing and not create divisions between the member states. Problems that arose would have to be solved through talks held in a peaceful atmosphere. However several restrictions were placed in this accord to de-motivate and prevent potential asylum seekers. Rules were drafted as to enumerate guidelines for people trying to seek asylum in Schengen states. The Dublin Convention that came into effect on September 1, 1997 laid out specific guidelines for accepting asylum seeking applications. Subsequently the Dublin Regulation was formulated in 2003. (Rainer Munz, 2004) These rules laid down by the Schengen agreement were totally flexible. Member countries could again step up their borders once they felt that opening up of borders could lead to total breakdown of law and order and inflow of potential criminals. An example of this event took place in 2004 when the European Football competition made Portugal lay down strict border entry guidelines to check entry of potential troublemakers. Other examples were of France stepping up security after the London bomb attacks. (BBC News 2004) Finland also followed suit during the World Athletics Championship that were conducted in Hesinki. This flexibility allowed the Schengen agreement most of the potential hurdles that could arise during important political events. Conditions of Entry for third-country nationals The rules for third country nationals applying for entry into the Schengen area include the following (Geddes Andrew, 2003) (i) He or she is possession of valid travel documents and have specifically stated their purpose of visit. (ii) A valid visa or residence permit is available with the visitor. (iii) The person who is trying to gain entry into the Schengen state has sufficient money to cover the expenses that are likely to be covered during his stay. (iv) The Schengen Information System does not indicate any sort of threat that could warrant a refusal of entry into the area. (v) The person seeking entry does not pose any health risk or security threat to the Schengen area as a whole. (Geddes Andrew, 2003) The visa granted to potential tourists consists of 6 categories which primarily are (i) Category A- It is required to move between the transit area of the airport during fly stop over’s. This is required when proceeding between two international flights and is called an airport transit visa.( Gelatt Julia, 2005) (ii) Category B- This is a transit visa which is generally limited to be used in five days. (Boratynski et al, 2006) (iii) Category C- This is called a short term stay visa. Having this visa entitles travellers to carry out a number of visits within a three month period in a half year. (Boratynski et al, 2006) (iv) Category D- This is a national visa empowers a traveller to move from a non-Schengen country to a Schengen state within a period of five days. After the person has entered into the state and has obtained a residence title would be allowed to travel again to another Schengen country. (v) Category D + C visa- These combine the provisions of both Category D and category C visa. (Gelatt Julia, 2005) (vi) FTD and FTRD- These are special visas that are issued for travel by road and rail and are especially used to transit between Russian federation and Kaliningrad Oblast. Steps to obtain a Schengen visa The following steps need to be taken to obtain a Schengen visa (i) The destination of the Schengen country should be fixed initially. Thereafter the visa application should be forwarded to the relevant embassy of the destination location. (ii) However, in the event that the traveller is unable to decide his destination then the application needs to be forwarded to the Schengen country in which he first intends to enter. (Becker Hilkka, 2005) (iii) In the event of either the entry or destination Schengen country having no embassy, it is the duty of the traveller to forward his application to the embassy of the nearest Schengen country. (iv) The documents should be supported with proper documents like passport and other details like stay, duration and reasons for visit. (v) Support documents showing the capability of the traveller to cover the entire expenses during his period of visit needs to be shown. Sometimes apart from the written applications the reasons need to be explained verbally regarding certain details which they feel require further clarity. (vi) He or she should also have a medical insurance of minimum 30000 Euro’s to deal with unexpected medical contingencies. Integration into the European Union In 1997 the treaty of Amsterdam was signed which formally accepted the Schengen agreements into the regulatory parameters of the European Union. This incorporated all major decisions that were taken in the Schengen agreement of 1985, the Schengen Convention of 1990 as well various other policies that were adopted during various meeting and discussions held under the auspices of the Schenegen agreement. The Amsterdam treaty of 1999 further resolved to give more powers to the Council of Ministers of the European Union. (Hiroyuki Tanaka and Trinidad Macias, 2007) Schengen and EU The Schengen has managed to rope in more countries to expand its network and provide countries without borders to its entire people. Ten new states have taken the initial steps to this fulfilment. (Revue Enlargissiment, 2005) However for a comprehensive opening up of borders member countries must exchange important information regarding potential offenders and the kind of cross border goods that would be dealt with. By 2007, it is expected that Schengen states would have successfully taken steps to do away with internal border checks. Switzerland has also jumped the bandwagon and decided to formulate the Schengen policies by 2008. Schengen II The initial SIS that was formulated only had the database record of few of the participating members of the Schengen agreement. With the addition of new members into this agreement the data base needed to be upgraded which lead to the development of SIS II. This has become functional since 2007. The gambit of the database was further expanded to include photographs, fingerprints and other offences the person had committed in the past.( Becker Hilkka, 2005) It also elaborated on jail sentences if any and the modus operandi of the person in doing the crime. There was improved communication between different areas of border security like the police, customs and other Europol agents. Schengen III The Schengen III was signed by some members of the original Schengen group in May 2005. These included Belgium, Spain, France, Luxembourg and Germany. It was decided that there would be better co-ordination between member countries in dealing with potential terrorist threats and international fraud. Other areas of enhanced security included illegal migration and people involved in counterfeiting, gambling and extortion operations. (Broeders D, 2007) Expert immigration officers were appointed to offer valuable advice to member Schengen countries on how to recognize fraud documents and initiate criminal proceedings again people violating visa guidelines.( Papademetriou Demetrios, 1996) These comprehensive actions that are being undertaken by the member states are slowly being accommodated into the parent Schengen agreement so that opening up of borders does not in any way compromise security. Judicial Co-operation (i) Legal assistance- Article 49 of the Schengen II Convention lays down provisions for granting help in legal matters that involve major offences including tax evasion crimes and money laundering. Article 52 of the Schengen II convention also states that legal documents can be provided between member states of the Schengen with proper translation attached. Article 53 also states that legal help could be provided between judicial institutions on a direct level without the requirement of any interference from diplomatic sources.( Geddes Andrew, 2003) A person who has once been convicted cannot be charged with the same offence again in another Schengen country. These rules have been laid down in article 54 to 58. The next set of articles from Article 59 to 69 deals with the rules of extradition between Schengen states and the prison sentences that given for various offences committed. (ii) Controlled Substances- The rules for barring banned drugs like narcotics and heroin are laid down in article 67 to 76 of the Schengen II Convention. (Geddes Andrew, 2003) However better police co-ordination between members states also need to be carried out to prevent the production of these banned drugs in the member states itself. However if proper documentation is available then carrying of some drugs which are used in medicinal applications for painkillers might be authorized. (iii) Weapons and ammunition- These lay down specific rules for the carrying of certain arms which require proper licenses and some which do not require any kind of documentation. Carrying of weapons into Schengen member states are further supplemented by the European Firearms Pass which further helps the traveller in carrying arms between member states. (Bieniecki M, 2007) Conclusion The Schengen agreement has paved the way for better co-ordination between EU citizens and people from non European Union member states. Bilateral agreements on trade and commerce developed a rapid increase with these new formulations. Tourism also increased multi-fold as tourists were made comfortable with the relaxing of visa norms. However the openings up of borders also lead to the free access of criminals and people of shady character. Improvements were made in the management of visas and grating of asylum status to people who had illegally immigrated. The positive note in which Schengen III ended points to the fact that enhanced co-operation while being extended between several new member states of the Schengen area also needs a greater security interchange to upgrade databases of people indulging in unlawful activity. Reference List 1. Bertozzi Stefano, 2008, Schengen: Achievements and Challenges in Managing an Area Encompassing 3.6 million km^2, Centre for European Policy Studies 2. Hiroyuki Tanaka and Trinidad Macias, 2007, Europe’s Disappearing Internal Borders, Migration Policy Institute. 3. Becker Hilkka, 2005, Guide to Selected EU Legal and Policy Instruments on Migration, IOM International Organization for Migration. 4. Gelatt Julia, 2005, Schengen and the Free Movement of people Across Europe, Migration Fundamentals, Available at http://www.migrationinformation.org, [accessed on 7th April 2011] 5. BBC News 2004, France boosts security for D-Day, available at http://www.bbcnews.com, [Accessed on 7th April 2011] 6. Geddes Andrew, 2003, The politics of Migration and immigration in Europe, Sage Publications. 7. Rainer Munz, 2004, Briefing at Migration Policy Institute:Towards a common European Migration regime. 8. Revue Enlargissiment, 2005, The Schengen Acquis and new member states 9. Papademetriou Demetrios, 1996, Coming together or pulling apart?: The European Union’s struggle with Immigration and asylum, Washington DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. 10. BBC News 2005, Swiss vote to ease border control, available at http://www.bbcnews.com, [Accessed on 7th April 2011] 11. Bieniecki M, 2007, Ukranian Labour Migration to Poland, On migration in central Europe. 12. Broeders D, 2007, The New digital Borders of Europe: EU databases and the surveillance of Irregular migrants, International Sociology. 13. Boratynski et al, 2006, Visa Policies of European Union Member States, Monitoring Report, Warsaw: Stefan Batory Foundation, available at http://www.batory.org.pl, [accessed on 6th April 2011] 14. Kazmierkiewicz, 2005, The Visegrad States between Schengen and Neighbourhood, Institute of Public affairs: Warsaw. 15. Report on the migration situation in the Czech Republic for 2005, 2006, The Ministry of the Interior of the Czech Republic, available at http://www.mvcr.cz, [accessed on 7th April 2011] Read More