What are The Pressures For and Against a Common EU Immigration Policy - Research Paper Example

 What are the pressures for and against a common EU immigration policy? "Our land is being swamped by a flood of fiddlers stretching our resources—and our patience—to breaking point" (The Sun) As seen by the above quotation from the leading newspaper, The Sun, the European Union does indeed take into consideration the flow of immigrants and asylum-seekers that make their way into the their lands hoping for a better and more stable future. However countries such as Spain, with their amnesty policy of 2005 took great advantage of the illegal immigrants and welcomed an economic boom in their economy Dover, R. (2008). So is migration a somewhat problem for the European union or is it an opportunity on their part. More importantly, is there a definite need for a common immigration policy among the members of the Union, which they haven’t yet agreed on3, that must be adopted and thus this flood of immigrants checked? Is the control on immigration really worth the amount and energy being spent in neighboring developing countries such as those in the Sub-Saharan African and Mediterranean regions in order to stop this practice? (Caviedes, 2004). When it is a fact that the countries that have till yet ‘ignored’ the prescence of the immigrants have more what benefited due to their activities, is there a real need for their expulsion? When predications suggest that by 2050 European Union would be in a desperate need for third-world labor, why not cater to it today? Since the establishment of the European union and the declaration of the treaties of Rome, the objective of free trade has always been of great importance. According to the treaties, it was made clear that there would not be any physical barriers between the member countries and the labor would be free to travel and be employed in any country in the union. However, as it is with every policy, it invited with it a darker shade that made the policy makers reconsider the objective. The cross-border movement saw a cross-border transfer of crime and over-exploitation of resources. With it, it was seen that some non-member countries also gave way to influencing these activities in the Union countries. Gradually and ergo eventually, a checking of these transfers was considered. Following the enlargement of Europe, there was a considerable level of migration in and around the ‘fortress Europe’ (Kahanec and Zimmermann, 2008). According to the Accession treaties, a 2-3-2 formula was chosen to better make arrangements of the migration from the incumbent counties to the European Union. However, hesitation was seen by the old Europe in inviting the new member states labor to its markets. However by November 2008, eight more countries; Greece, Spain, Portugal, Finland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Italy also opened their borders to the international labor market. Other countries also relaxed their policies and workers found their places in these job markets too. When the concentration of the migrations was analyzed, Boeri and Brücker (2001) noticed that the transfer of individuals had rather been modest yet the unimpressive handling of them had resulted in unequal burden on different states and exploitation of the immigrants. This then led to a different approach to the topic in question and gave birth to new theories. The populist and security centered arguments, still argue that the European Union is infact a victim to exploitation. They believe that post 9/11, it is essential to check the cross border movement even more vigorously and put pressure so as to bring substantial legislations all for caution purposes5. In the June of 2002, the Framework Decision on combating terrorism was passed that further emphasized the need for the cross border check. Needless to say post 9/11 and the London Subway bombings, there was a spread of general paranoia among the member nations. It was felt that there was a need to ban a certain amount and kind of immigrants from penetrating the European Union soil and hard decisions were taken. While at one side, leaders protested against easy immigration laws, countries such as Swiss chose to ban minerates6 and France chose to ban burqas. This was all attempts to stop a certain element of the immigrant hopefuls so as to avoid risking the country’s security. Other more recent events such as the refusal to entertain the illegal immigrants onboard the Pinar E by the Italy officials (Pop, 2009) gives rise to the claim that immigration is not the most favorite policies of some of the EU members. There was also an approval of legislation by which the government was allowed to set-up anti-crime patrols, and punish nationals for aiding or hiring the immigrants (euractiv.com, 2002). Post 9/11, it is evident that the political forces that have won governance are mostly anti-immigrant parties and this further concretes the perception that there must indeed be a barricade to prevent immigrant inflow. However the question that arises is weather there is a need for a common immigration policy among the whole EU or not. As there is discrimination and variations among the policies, some countries notably Greece and Italy have found themselves at being more adversely affected by the inflow than most.9 This disparity among the policies has pulled the European commission to consider a joint policy among its members. While countries such as Italy have a rather violent approach to the immigrants, UN and other humanitarian bodies are pushing the EU to settle on a more subtle approach to the matter in hand. The bodies complain that as there is no single set of policies and rules to cater to this problem, it is likely to be seen that some countries exploit their immigrants more than others. Due to increased nationality among some of the members of the European Union, there is indeed a mistreatment of immigrants who are not even in a position to protest about their unequal rights (Azevedo & Baenziger, 2007). It has been argued that the need of the immigrants for economic as well as social needs of the European Union has given a rise to networks that prey on the illegal immigrants. It is seen that powerful networks, most crossing borders into countries several thousands of miles away, are pouring in a considerable amount of individuals here that hope to seek a better future. This process has thus given rise to smuggling as well as human trafficking. Those in favor of the common immigration policy argue that there must indeed be one single policy that acts as homogeneous rules to access European countries. These rules would not only help in controlling the flow of immigrants but also to make better use of them. If there is one policy, a record of the individuals entering the Union can be kept and all these entrants can then be sent to those parts of the union that require the extra labor. Following this routine would help in efficiently using the needs and desires of the growing demands of the European Union. Another idea, proposed to the concerned authorities was to form a one-rule policy for all countries argues that there must be a joint control of European Union’s external borders. These borders must also include the sea borders that have been indeed the most porous in terms of illegal entrants. (Anon, Europa.eu, 2009) They hoped to consider a common European border task force that would check the entrants and play their part in avoiding terrorism or exploitation. It was also argued that there must be an efficient European government network on migration with all simple yet common migrating policies that avoid exploitation of certain part of the Union. As mentioned before, it is but a fact that Europe does need migrants but that too in specific and certain areas and location. A systemized guidance system would guide the inflow to those targeted areas and take better use of their productivity. However this, in order to be well established, needs more than the consent of the European Union. According to research, the home countries of the illegal immigrants, mostly third-world countries must also play their part in cutting down the transfer of individuals. Those in favor of the common policy, argue that if the whole Union has a single-policy stand, the neighboring third-world countries would eventually seek to make pact with it and be ready to stop and/or receive the entrants in the European Union. The United Nations and the humanitarian bodies support this hoping that there is a proper treatment of the disposed immigrants. The Hugue Program established in the European Council at Tampere (Finland) supports these hopes. (Azevedo & Baenziger, 2007). According to the program, there is a balanced approach to the migration that deals in issues such as battling human trafficking. It bears in mind that there is an absolute need for better relations with the third world countries that excrete this labor. Better understanding and mutual good-will between the two countries is in fact essential when it comes to handling the issue in a more rational manner. It states that the countries must indeed have a mutual understanding when it comes to deportation, return and readmission of the entrants. ‘The Solidarity and Management of the Migration Flows’, has been in consideration in this program and has also won acclaim for its suggestions that include funds such as Integration fund, external border fund, a European Refugee fund and a Return fund. The establishment of the ‘European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (Frontex) has been promising when it comes to handling the issue. It is also an example of the one-rule policy that those in favor of a common immigration policy among the European Union appreciate. Although the check of the immigrants is a responsibility of the member states, the Frontex will facilitate the application and implementation of the policies issued by the European council (Leitner, 1997). The agency seeks to establish following motives: “coordinate operational cooperation between Member States as regards management of external borders; develop a common integrated risk assessment model and prepare general and specific risk assessments; help Member States train their national border guards by developing common training standards, providing training at European level for instructors of national border guards, holding seminars and offering additional training to officials of the competent authorities; monitor research relevant to the control and surveillance of external borders; assist Member States in circumstances requiring increased technical and operational assistance at external borders; provide Member States with the necessary support in organising joint return operations. The Agency may use the Community resources available for this purpose and must draw up an inventory of best practice for the removal of third-country nationals residing illegally in the Member States.” (Anon, europa.eu, 2009) Following the rules and regulations of the policy, it is understandable that the members would than have to act as one sole body, establishing within it a one-rule policy and thus entertain a common migration policy, all under the principles set up by the agency. If there is any act that appears beyond the principles set up, the agency has the right to question the member state. The bodies basically argue that though the immigrants might be illegal, they are but humans and do, in a way or two, contribute to the economy of that certain country ergo deserve appreciation. They argue that the individuals who compete and provide courtesy the Union, must also have some rights that can be termed comparable to the nationals. The right of residence is on the top of their list for after earning, this is the first obstacle that one faces in order to live a care-free life. There must also be a right of protection. This right along with the former one is more socially based and requires the concerned authorities and the governments to cater to these rights. By seeking homes and security, the illegal immigrants would be able to survive in an environment that is humanly suitable and free from exploitation and discrimination in hands of the locals. Thirdly, they argue that as the individuals are but a member of the society they must indeed have the right to make use of an ombudsperson. With the help of the him/her, the individual would indeed be in a better position to justify their claims and rights and prove their worth. Lastly, we see that it is argued that they must also have a right to vote or standup in elections. These all contribute to a better, more humanely approach to the individuals in the union for they believe that if the union considers all these rights and then establishes a one-rule policy among the member states, only than would an able implementation of the policy would be possible (Dell'Olio, 2004). Those in favor of the common policy argue that there must also be a thorough examination of the nationality law among the member states. The belief that there must be one essential yet unbiased law that provides an individual the right to become a national. Their main argument regarding the policy of nationality deals with the attribution of nationality by jus soli (by the place of born) or jus sanguini (nationality of the parents). They claim that awarding of nationality through these measures alone in biased for it makes an individual, born on a member-state soil nationality instantly while others have to work and fight hard for upto 6 years to get it. While the complaints indeed justified, the main obstacle behind implementation and acceptance of a unified policy is the issue of nationalism. Helga Leitner in her book political geography, also argues the same concept. She believes that this need to become one body has led many countries to loose faith in nationalism while others to persue it even more passion.17 This passion restricts many to avoid becoming just one body in fear of loosing their individual self-respect and identity. It is widely feared and observed that the cancellation of borders (internal) has led to spill-overs. There has either been a rush from within or the stampede has founds its way to their individual country(Tanner, 2004). This has led to the mindset of better understanding of the efficient-ness and effectiveness of this policy. There have been questions that have led to the legitimacy of this theory. Questions have been asked if the destruction of nationalism against unionism is the right solution. This, by all standards has indeed been one of the major factors that have resulted in the rather ignorance of the common immigration policy. Boeri and Brücker (2001), argue that “Economic migration typically contributes to a more efficient allocation of production factors, most notably human capital, thereby improving the prospects for economic growth.” They argue that along the effects stated above, the transfer of human knowledge is also to be kept in mind. Considering the fact that migration is also termed as brain-drain, the abundance of knowledge can help improve technology of the host country. “Much of the literature on brain circulation focuses on the economic and growth aspects of geographic mobility, especially when talking about the brain circulation and youth mobility aspects of migration. A number of studies have calculated quite large additional income growth from extending the free circulation of human capital. This overall conclusion is also in agreement with studies attempting to forecast potential migration and any welfare gain or loss resulting from EU enlargement.”( Kahanec & Zimmermann, 2009) While we see countries such as the Great Britain avoiding being part of the one-rule policy just because of its lost in faith in the forces that can harness immigration, other countries take the cheap labor as an advantage and base their theories on the following three factors: labor markets, welfare systems and growth. They believe that the immigrants have done more good than harm when it comes to speaking economically. Not only have countries such as Spain experienced economic growth due to them but also experienced booms that could only be brought down with such drastic business cycles as the recession brought by the credit crunch. They argue that the labor market in the countries have less labor that leads to un-elasticity of the supply of labor. Due to this, not only is there less labor available but also the wages skyrocket. By allowing the immigrants to enter the labor markets, the countries have seen their labor forces not only increase in number but also compete in efficient-ness. The wages of labor has also seen a downfall for the demand has indeed become more elastic and this gives the rather facile industries an opportunity to better make use of the resources available and reach their individual and industrial, economies of scale. Ergo, suffice to say, some would prefer a freer movement of the labor and worker population (Gibney & Hansen, 2005). Boeri and Brücker (2001), claim that throughout their research, “any negative effects in the labour market on wages or employment are hard to detect. Infact, there is evidence that post-enlargement migration contributes to growth prospects of the EU by ensuring a better allocation of human capital, that these migrants are strongly attached to the labour market, and that they are quite unlikely to be among welfare recipients.” It is also pointed out that the transfer of genius brains through the brain drain and the migration of highly skilled labor into the countries are nothing short of an asset the country must indeed treasure. To conclude, there may indeed be many sides to the picture in question however one thing that has been understood is that an adequate amount of immigrant’s inflow into an economy is healthy. However as we find an increase in the immigrants, we see the local economy get discouraged and also find social and political agitation. Thus, even if the European union decides to make a one-rule policy, with the help of which there would be one migration policy in the whole of union, they must seek to better allocate and take advantage of the labor and cater to its needs. The fact of the matter is that both the sides of the paradox are in need for each other’s help and only through rational and far-sighted thinking can one strike the right ‘equilibrium’ balance and take full advantage of the situation at hand. References Dell'Olio, F. (2004). Immigration and Immigrant Policy in Italy and the UK: Is Housing Policy a Barrier to a Common Approach Towards Immigration in the EU?. Journal of Ethnic & Migration Studies, 30(1), 107-128. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database. Dover, R. (2008). Towards a Common EU Immigration Policy: a Securitization Too Far. Journal of European Integration, 30(1), 113-130. doi:10.1080/07036330801959523. Caviedes, A. (2004). The open method of co-ordination in immigration policy: a tool for prying open Fortress Europe?. Journal of European Public Policy, 11(2), 289-310. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database. Towards a common European Union immigration Policy. (2007) Retrieved from europa.eu/justice_home/fsj/immigration/ Fischer, P. A., Straubhaar T. (1996) Is migration into EU countries demand based? Economic and European Union Migration Policy pp. 37 Niessen, J. (2001). Overlapping Interests and Conflicting Agendas: The Knocking into Shape of EU Immigration Policies.European Journal of Migration & Law, 3(3/4), 419-434. doi:10.1163/15718160120959339. Q&A, EU Immigration Policy. (2008) Retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7667169.stm Leudtke, A. (2009) Fortifying Fortress Europe? Immigration Policy and Security pp. 133 Policy priorities in the fight against illegal immigration. (2007) Retrieved from http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/justice_freedom_security/free_movement_of_persons_asylum_immigration/l14525_en.htm Azevedo, A. B., Baenziger, D., (2007) The Need for a Common European Immigration Policy. Retrieved from http://www.thenewfederalist.eu/The-Need-for-a-Common-European-Immigration-Policy Pop, V. (2009) Italy approves harsh anti-immigration bill. Retreived from http://euobserver.com/9/28124 Ministers prepare EU anti-immigration plans for Seville Summit. (2002) Retrieved from http://www.euractiv.com/en/future-eu/ministers-prepare-eu-anti-immigration-plans-seville-summit/article-113737 Tanner, F. (2004) North Africa Partnership, exceptionalism and neglect. European Union Foreign and security policy. Pp. 146 Ministers prepare EU anti-immigration plans for Seville Summit. (2002) Retrieved from http://www.euractiv.com/en/future-eu/ministers-prepare-eu-anti-immigration-plans-seville-summit/article-113737 The Hague Programme: 10 priorities for the next five years. (2009) Retrieved from http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/human_rights/fundamental_rights_within_european_union/l16002_en.htm European External Borders Agency – Frontex. (2008) Retrieved from http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/institutional_affairs/institutions_bodies_and_agencies/l33216_en.htm Kahanec, M. Zimmermann, K, F. (2009). Migration in an enlarged EU: A challenging solution? European Economy. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/publication14287_en.pdf Leitner, H. (1997). Political Geography of Scale, 16(2), 123-143. Gibney, M. J., Hansen R. (2005) European Union. Immigration and Asylum, 1, 219 Boeri, T. & Brucker, H. (2001) Eastern Enlargement and EU-Labour Markets: Perceptions, Challenges and Opportunities: World Economics, Vol. 2, No. 1 (Jan/Mar 2001) Read More