What impact does migration have on European politics - Essay Example

? What impact does migration have on European politics? Introduction Over the years, Europe has witnessed an increase in population, which has resulted from migration. in London, statistics indicate that Britons who are white have reduced by 45 percent due to this migration. People have migrated to Europe because of the numerous opportunities that are in Europe as compared to other parts of the world. One of the reasons why migration has been common in Europe is because of many job opportunities that are there. Education prospects have also contributed to this migration (Castles 2006, p.745). People have also moved to Europe in order to run away from war and conflict situations in their home countries. There is a common perception that Europe is more peaceful than other continents. The improvement of the economic policy of Europe has also contributed to the movement of people to European cities. More than 32.5 million people within the European Union (EU) are non-citizens (Cesarani and Fulbrook 1996, p.63). The political participation is debatable along context of awards for voting rights within the European countries. This is due to the changes that have resulted in changes of European societies. The political system in Europe allows the flexibility in exercise of political rights, laws and regulations. As a result, the migrants can be incorporated into the translational forms of political participation like the lector politics and other civic engagements (Geddes 1999, p. 12). Effects of migration on European politics Recently, the interest in migrant political transnationalism has increased. Precisely political participation of the immigrants encompasses distribution of resources between members of a political community and acts as an instrument for obtaining other goods and resources. The political participation of immigrants was more than just the need for resources, but acted as a goal of conventional democracy towards seeking the influence from other parties (Geddes 2003, p.251). Migration in Europe triggered the immigrant to participate in parliamentary and advisory committees. The migrant self-society and civil society institutions facilitated political participation of the immigrants. Such initiatives include religious groups, non-governmental organizations and political initiatives. This gave a chance for immigrants to participate in various political dimensions based on the diversity and country they migrated to. More than 32.5 million people within the European Union (EU) are non-citizens. Political and civic participation of immigrants is a key area on the integration of migrants into the European societies. This is accompanied by practices and measures that enhance participation and empowerment of immigrants to enables them exercise their duties and rights in the promotion of values and accountability. This may be constrained by human and social factors due insufficient resources such as finance and time (Cesarani and Fulbrook 1996, p.63). The immigrants participated in procedures and structures of the political systems in Europe. This includes voting, joining a political party of choice, standing for an office or participating in petitioning bodies and political demonstrations. This raises concerns on societal and political relevance in relation to national development. A decision to migrate begins with the decision by the immigrant to move. Immigration to Europe resulted from the need to escape oppression, natural disasters and poverty by people from developing countries. Some of the countries within the European regions experienced dramatic growths due to immigration after the Second World War (Freeman 1995, p.887). Most of the nations in Europe still contain significant populations of immigrants. In most contexts, immigrants have expressed the interest of participating in parliamentary systems for the countries at hand. This is confirmed by the increased number of civil societies. The situation of modern Diaspora and transfer of political issues in the countries of origin to countries of settlement provide a sustained political orientation and development of global formations. The arrival of immigrants in Europe saw the changes in public attitudes and policies in host countries. Research indicates that this affects the development paths in the host countries. The existing networks influence choice for the destination country. Immigrants normally cluster in ethnic communities due to the limited contacts with the host countries (Hampshire 2005, p. 46). Despite the increased economic and social associations, the political engagement was limited by the legal and institutional factors. The migrants cannot participate in national elections unless they acquire citizenship of the host country. The EU law grants the right to vote in local elections conditioned by duration of stay. The internal migration in Europe was triggered by European Union expansion towards the countries on the eastern side. The legislation in Europe had to oversee that immigrants joining the European Union may move freely across the countries. After the accession of EU to include the countries in eastern and central Europe, the Ireland, UK and Sweden allowed their citizens from the new accession to work in labour markets. This facilitated sizeable movements into the countries. For instance, in 2004, Poland recorded a net outflow of more than 300,000citizens. This also enhanced enlargement into countries in Europe such as Spain and Italy. Despite allowing the EU citizens into other countries in Europe, most of them engaged in illegal work relationships. Some countries like Greece and Italy also received illegal immigrants through the uncontrollable sea borders (Huysmans 2000, p.751). The early political unification in England enhanced development of a national feeling though it never became a nation-state within the French model of tightly integrated cultural and political community. The English rule over the Scotland accorded Ireland a composite character kingdom an ambiguous character. This promoted the development of British national feeling, though it never superseded that of Scottish or Irish. Concept of citizenship as a membership of political and legal community remained foreign to British thinking with the legal and political status conceived in terms of vertical lines between the king and individual subjects. The early 1990s in Europe was characterized by an upsurge of migration in Western Europe. The immigrants came from Africa, Middle East, Asia and former Soviet Union among others. This triggered the policy makers in Europe to tighten up the national immigration policies and restrictions as well as increase the cooperation in border control (Joppke 2008, p. 533). The increased restrictions were propelled by the fear of the migrants becoming new ethnic minorities. Also, the new management techniques enhanced mass production activities to countries that offered low wages and highly restricted rights of the workers. The governments in most European countries believed that the low-skilled migrant workers would be required in Western Europe for labour purposes. This led to the formulation and retention of restrictive labour policies pertaining migration throughout the 1990s despite the low-skilled workers coming to Europe as irregular migrants. Moreover, the countries in southern Europe became important immigration stations. This made the governments in Europe start participating in debated on benefits and costs of migration (Kostakopoulou 2001, p.103). Policy Context The heads of state in Europe established the EU migration policy with the aim of formulating the asylum and EU migration policy. This was triggered by the increased consensus on realities associated with labour market demand and pressures from the developing world. The communication through Community Migration Policy, the European Commission proposed for abandonment of zero immigration policies that existed in Europe for more than 30 years. Rather, the formulated and new migration policies meant to regulate migration through regular and orderly channels responsive to the labour markets (Lister and Pia 2008, p.423). The major element of the asylum policy involved the emphasis of partnership with the countries of origin of immigrants. This was accompanied by co-development policies on migration management like handling the irregular migration trends and promoting development-oriented migration approach. This gave migration issues high priority within the bi-regional political dialogues. As a result, European Commission established B7-667 budget line to enhance migration cooperation with developing countries (Preuss et al. 2003, p.3-14). Historically, the predicament for refugees and migrants became the subject between EU and LAC. The concerns on LAC migration populations were considered as purely humanitarian until the policy reorientation by EU. During the declaration of Summit, the commitment of participating government and heads of state in protection of rights of the vulnerable immigrations were addressed. The declaration included the commitment of the participants in combining efforts to combat all organized transnational crimes like trafficking of the migrants. The period between 1999 and 2002 was characterized by intensification of the general debate concerning the EU migration and dramatic deterioration of social and economic situation in most countries in Europe. The resolution by parliament in Europe in 2001 in a run-up summit involved questions on immigration from a perspective of genuine European interests. This enumerated ambitious development of cooperation policy on immigration, home affairs and justice (Castles and Davidson 2000, p.45). The EU-Latin America had a common strategy of enumeration ambitious development cooperation and development to allow for a broader perspective of political dialogue at parliamentary and ministerial levels in order to embrace justice among the migrants. More specifically was the resolution of a common strategy to present innovative immigration policies grounded on recognition of dignity and sovereignty of individuals and countries involved. The developments towards declaration of common values and positions in EU region saw the proposal for developments of policies to promote well being and dignity of the migrants as well as ensure the protection of their rights. The participants in those developments emphasized on the need to develop policies aimed at protecting rights of other vulnerable groups (Schierup et al. 2006, p. 526). The declaration underlined the need for combined efforts in addressing transnational crimes. More importantly, political declaration by governments the heads of state in EU region aimed at carrying out integrated analysis on issues related with migration in various regions to allow for implementation of solutions that guaranteed full recognition of fundamental human rights among the migrants as stipulated in national legislation and international law. The summit at Guadalajara in Mexico in 2002 had the main issues revolving around the issues of social equity and inclusion. The summit also assessed the progress by the partnership and issues of migratory flows. The government experts in the summit identified the necessity for a comprehensive approach towards migration consideration, historical ties and root causes. They also expressed the importance of combating migrant smuggling and irregular migration. They proposed for analysis of forms and approaches towards handling of the migration laws and expressed the importance of remittances as a source of income for most countries. Furthermore, the experts emphasized of the need for transfers and recognition of migrants in social and economic development in Europe (Brubaker 1992, p.23). The political dialogues saw the formulation of Cooperation on Migration agreement that reaffirmed the need for joint management of the migration flows and provided the national strategies to address the migrants’ concerns. The association agreements between EU and LAC countries promoted cooperation and enhanced handling of issues related with migration. This saw the opening of channels that allowed regular labour migration efforts to prevent the exploitation of immigrants (Bigo 2001, p.52). The increased participation of immigrants in European politics posed threats to the political parties in Europe. The parties struggled to incorporate them in their electoral processes. Most immigrants experienced informal barriers towards their political participation. Political parties never monitored their electorate and candidates to determine the migration grounds. The restricted political participation of migrants denied them full integration into the society and promoted alienation (Van der Brug, and Van Spanje 2009, p. 312). This triggered emergence of parallel societies based on ethnicity and propelled the differences in European political system. Lack of political cohesion triggered the development of violent responses from the society. Also, the political parties missed out on electoral potential of the migrant voters. Political integration of immigrants remains a crucial component for the functioning of the government. Despite the parties within the political spectrum facing such challenges, the European People’s Party (EPP) emphasizes on fundamental equality of human beings irrespective of their backgrounds. There is the tendency in Europe for migrants to vote for left-of-centre parties such as France (Bale 2008, p.315). Conclusion Research indicates that migration had direct political impact to the societies in Europe. This resulted in the establishment of civil society institutions to facilitate the political participation of immigrants. Such developments included political initiatives that allowed migrants take part across all political dimensions in Europe (Joppke 1999, p.629). This ensured that they remained active in predominant autochthonous organizations in the civil society. The rates of participation of immigrants confirmed the shift in European politics to accommodate the migrants. However, the anticipation of migrants may be critical in enhancing transfer of political views and enhance the development of an oriented political approach. References List Bale, T. (2008). Turning Round the Telescope. Centre-Right Parties and Immigration and Integration Policy in Europe, Journal of European Public Policy 15 (3), pp.315-330. Bigo, D. (2001). Migration and Security. In Guiraudon, V. and Joppke, C. (eds.) Controlling a New Migration World, London, Routledge. pp.50-60. Brubaker, R. (1992). Citizenship and Nationhood in France and Germany, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press. pp.20-25. Castles, S. (2006). Guest workers in Europe: A Resurrection? International Migration Review 40 (4), pp.741-766. Castles, S. and Davidson, A. (2000). Citizenship and Migration: Globalization and the Politics of Belonging, Basingstoke, Macmillan. Pp.44-50. Cesarani, D. and Fulbrook, M. (1996). Introduction. In: Cesarani, D. and Fulbrook, M. (eds.) Citizenship, Nationality, and Migration in Europe, London, Routledge. pp.60-70. Freeman, G. P. (1995). Modes of Immigration Politics in Liberal Democratic States, International Migration Review 29 (4), pp.881-902. Geddes, A. (1999). Immigration and European Integration: Towards Fortress Europe? Manchester, Manchester University Press. pp.10-20. Geddes, A. (2003). The Politics of Migration and Immigration in Europe. London: SAGE. Guiraudon, V. (2000). European Integration and Migration Policy: Vertical Policy- Making as Venue Shopping, Journal of Common Market Studies 38 (2), pp.251-271. Hampshire, J. (2005). Citizenship and Belonging: Immigration and the Politics of Demographic Governance in Post-War Britain, Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan. Huysmans, J. (2000). The European Union and the Securitization of Migration, Journal of Common Market Studies 38 (5), pp.751-777. Joppke, C. (1999). How Immigration Is Changing Citizenship: A Comparative View, Ethnic and Racial Studies 22 (4), pp.629-652. Joppke, C. (2008). Immigration and the Identity of Citizenship: The Paradox of Universalism, Citizenship Studies 12 (6), pp.533-546. Kostakopoulou, T. (2001). Invisible Citizens? Long-Term Resident Third-Country Nationals in the EU and Their Struggle for Recognition. In: Bellamy, R. and Warleigh, A. (eds.) Citizenship and Governance in the European Union, London, Continuum. Pp.100-105. Lister, M. and Pia, E. (2008). Citizenship in Contemporary Europe, Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press. pp.420-430. Preuss, U. K. et al. (2003). Traditions of Citizenship in the European Union, Citizenship Studies 7 (1), pp.3-14. Schierup, C.-U., Hansen, P. and Castles, S. (2006). Migration, Citizenship, and the European Welfare State: A European Dilemma, Oxford, Oxford University Press. pp.520-535. Van der Brug, W. and Van Spanje, J. (2009). Immigration, Europe and the 'New' Cultural Dimension, European Journal of Political Research 48 (3), pp.309- 334 Read More