Post on 15-Dec-2014
description
transcript
Strategic thinking on equality and mobilityMIPEX: policy indicators and a joined-up approach to policy evaluation in Europe • 27 February 2008 • Prague
Presentation by Thomas HUDDLESTON
MPG Briefing for Green Paper on Family Reunion
• 7 December 2011 • Brussels, Belgium • Webinar for stakeholders
Thomas HUDDLESTON, Policy Analyst, MPG
Which of these two options would you recommend to the European Commission?
• Member States should better implement the existing Directive
• European Commission should propose changes for negotiation
• Don't know
Poll question
Contents
1) Confronting stereotypes, understanding family life
2) Right to family reunion: dynamics between EU law & national policy change
3) Impact of new family reunion tests and requirements on integration process
4) Restrictions ‘in name of integration’ separate families
Today’s online seminar:
•Family reunion in EU Member States
•EU Directive 2003/86/EC, impact, and today’s politics
•Overview for specific questions in Green Paper
Contents
Non-EU family reunion is how most immigrants come to my country.
True
False
Don't know
Poll question
Is non-EU family reunion how most immigrants come to your country? False
Calculated from Eurostat
Family reunion in EU
Is non-EU family reunion how most immigrants come to your country? False
Eurostat
Family reunion in EU
Huddleston: Benchmarking in immigrant integrationHuddleston: Benchmarking in immigrant integration
Are most reuniting non-EU families from Morocco and Turkey? No.
Calculated fromEurostat
Family reunion in EU
Are most family permit holders spouses? No. Family reunion policy affects children as much as husbands or wives.
Family reunion in EU
Calculated from Eurostat
"Family reunification is a necessary way of making family life possible. It helps to create sociocultural stability facilitating the integration of third country nationals in the Member State, which also serves to promote economic and social cohesion, a fundamental Community objective stated in the Treaty.“
Preamble 4 to Directive 2003/86/EC
EU Directive 2003/86/EC
Standards in EU Directive 2003/86/EC
Past impact in old and new MS, potential impact?
Directive
Unclear future…
New restrictions from 2007-2010 on eligibility and conditions in 9 may delay or discourage family reunion
Limited rights to work in Ireland and Malta delays families’ labour market participation
…but fewer problems todayAverage country far beyondDirective’s minimums, someuse several ‘may’ clauses
In most of 24 where applies:
Residence of ≤1 year
No age limits over 18
Some entitlement for otherdependent adult family
Basic housing & economicresource requirements
No language and integrationconditions or pre-entry tests
SEE BRIEFING 2 ANNEX
Huddleston: Benchmarking in immigrant integrationHuddleston: Benchmarking in immigrant integration
From MIPEX 2011 (see briefing 2 annex)
1) Long-term & registered partners largely ignored
2) Many conditions for other adult dependents
3) Some impose restrictive family definitions & burdensome conditions
4) Income required often higher than social assistance
5a) Few imposing integration conditions are extending them to spouses in countries of origin, with high costs & less support5b) Hardly any integration condition abroad sets favourable conditions
6) Vague grounds for refusal & withdrawal like public policy, security & health
7) Major waiting periods and conditions for autonomous permit
Green Paper: EU wide problems
Huddleston: Benchmarking in immigrant integrationHuddleston: Benchmarking in immigrant integration
Green Paper: EU wide problemsFrom EC Application Report 2008 (see briefing 2 annex)
Incorrect transposition in areas like:•Visa facilitation•Access to autonomous permits•Best interest of child assessments•Access to legal redress•More favourable provisions for refugees
'Too broad or excessive' requirements on age limits, income, integration measures
Integration measures can be 'questioned' as to admissibility under Directive if courses and tests not accessible, not well supported, discriminatory e.g. based on age, disproportionately burdensome (e.g. high fees, insufficient free preparatory materials and courses, hard-to-reach venues), and if impact serves other purposes other facilitating integration of family members
Family reunion mentioned in 2008 French Presidency Pact Promised since 2009 Stockholm programme Pressured from Dutch government Few questions but long time for response (1 March 2012) Public hearing to follow
Who can respond?• EU & intergovernmental institutions• Authorities & other political parties (national, regional, local) in
EU & candidate countries• Authorities & partners in third-countries• All state actors for families• All NGOs, social partners, & private service-providers for families• Academics• Individuals
Green Paper: Background
Which type of proposals do you think your national government would support?
More restrictive conditions
More flexible conditions
Don’t know
Poll question
To cut immigration by 50%, Geert Wilders requires minority govt. topursue his plans for NL and for Europe. Based on DK policies, supportedBy Danish People’s Party, even though new govt. may cut many:
• Non-EU family of EU citizen lose favourable family reunion rules• Higher age limit from 21 to 24 • ‘Sufficient’ level of education• ‘Attachment requirement’ • Higher income requirement (e.g. 120% min. wage)• Lose permit if integration conditions not completed• Deposit bond for any costs that family incurs for state • Only 1 partner every 10 years• Exclude sponsors convicted of certain violent crimes
No public support yet from other MS, suspected from AT, FR, DE, UK…
Green Paper: Dutch government proposals
1) Status quo• Individual cases before ECJ (e.g. EP 2006) but hard to use• Requests for preliminary rulings (so far little used at national level) • Infringement proceedings for improper transposition (none yet)
2) Status quo + Technical guidelines• MS Committees• Commission Communication• Priority for funding & technical cooperation (existing and/or new)
3) Open Directive for renegotiation • Amend• Recast/revise
Green Paper: 3 options for Commission
Green Paper Questions
QUESTION 1
What is the best way to determine who is a potential sponsor to reunite with their family? Should they need to have ‘reasonable prospects for permanent residents’ or wait for 1-2 years?
Most need any legal residence permit of ≤ 1 year Pink = ≤ 1 year’s residenceBlue = > 1 yearBlack = ≥ 2 years
Pink = Any residence permitBlue = Certain permits excludedBlack = Only permanent residence
**Note: SI recently removed both restrictions
OECD concludes family reunion should be facilitated as soon as possible (PISA data)
Should newly arrived immigrants have to wait 1-2 years and have prospects for permanent residence before they can reunite?
Yes
No
Don't know
Poll question
Green Paper Questions
QUESTION 2
Is it legitimate to have a minimum age for the spouse which differs from the age of majority in a Member State?
Most married couples over 18 treated like adultsPink = No Age Limit or 18 yearsBlue = 21- age limit with wide exceptionsBlack = 21+ age limit for all**Note: 21 for all now in BE & NL, but UK repealed limit as disproportionate
Evaluations find age limit not effective to raise education or economic integration or fight forced marriages (DK SFI, NL WODC, UK Hester et al)
Disproportionate effect: young people may not apply or marry
Few have luxury to resettle in another country (‘EU route’)
In all European countries, 18 yr-olds can marry. Should a migrant have to be older than 21 to reunite with his/her spouse?
Yes, it helps fight forced marriages and promote integration
No, it does not help
Don't know
Poll question
Huddleston: Benchmarking in immigrant integrationHuddleston: Benchmarking in immigrant integration
Green Paper Questions
QUESTION 4
Are rules adequate & broad enough to take into account the different definitions of family other than the nuclear family?
Huddleston: Benchmarking in immigrant integrationHuddleston: Benchmarking in immigrant integration
Other dependents have some right, but few come in practicePink = Full rightBlue = Some rightBlack = No right
Either/or: 12 of 24Both fully: 6 like CA & AUNone: 6 like US
Few reunite in practice, even where possible
Huddleston: Benchmarking in immigrant integrationHuddleston: Benchmarking in immigrant integration
Green Paper Questions
QUESTION 4
Are rules adequate & broad enough to take into account the different definitions of family other than the nuclear family?
Huddleston: Benchmarking in immigrant integrationHuddleston: Benchmarking in immigrant integration
EU-wide problem: Registered & long-term partners largely ignored
Pink = For registered & long-term partnersBlue = For only one of these groupsBlack = For neither
Only 10 of 24 recognise one or both cases for family reunion, similar to AU or CA
All immigrants have the right to apply for their nuclear family. Is that adequate?
Yes, nuclear family is most important
No, should include dependent parents, grandparents, adults
No, they should have the right to all other dependents
Don't know
Poll question
Green Paper Questions
QUESTION 5
Which integration measures are efficient and effective? Would you recommend pre-entry measures?
XXX
No integration or pre-entry tests for family reunionDark pink = ‘Slightly favourable’ for language learningLight blue = ‘Halfway favourable’Dark green = ‘Slightly unfavourable’Dark blue = ‘Unfavourable’** Updated for new UK & AT tests abroad
German or English abroad is expensive & inaccessible for several countries and families.
Little support for learning Danish – even less for Dutch. Only FR 'slightly' favourable: pass free test or attend free & largely accessible course
XXX
Ineffective test, quality & accessible course needed
Evaluations find minimal effect on language knowledge & none on socio-economic integration.
Instead, limits family reunion & disproportionately impacts most vulnerable (“self-selection”): Elderly, young, less educated, people in certain–often unstable—countries &—to some extent—women are less likely to apply or pass.
Attending quality & accessible course for effective than test.
Which integration measures do you think are effective for immigrant families’ language learning and integration?
Only courses in the EU country
Courses in the EU country or non-EU country of origin
Tests in the EU country
Tests in the EU country or non-EU country of origin
Don’t Know
Poll question
Huddleston: Benchmarking in immigrant integrationHuddleston: Benchmarking in immigrant integration
Green Paper Questions
QUESTION 5
Do these measures efficiently promote integration? How can this beassessed in practice? Which are most effective?
Huddleston: Benchmarking in immigrant integrationHuddleston: Benchmarking in immigrant integration
Only basic housing & income requiredPink = No housing requirementBlue = General health & safety standardsBlack = Further requirements
Pink = No or income at level of social assistance in countryBlue = At level of minimum wageBlack = Linked to job/no social assistance
Huddleston: Benchmarking in immigrant integrationHuddleston: Benchmarking in immigrant integration
Only basic housing & income required
Any legal means to prove basic housing (17/24) & income (18). AT, FR, IT, SK add more housing conditions, while AT, BE, CY, FR, GR, NL restrict income largely to legal job contract.
Level of income required in many is vague & unrelated to individual circumstances
DK & NL studies find no effect on jobs schooling: long-term trend, short-term compliance, other factors, unintended effects
Huddleston: Benchmarking in immigrant integrationHuddleston: Benchmarking in immigrant integration
Green Paper Questions
Qs 12 & 13
Should fees be regulated? Is the administrative deadline laiddown in the Directive for examination of the application justified?
Huddleston: Benchmarking in immigrant integrationHuddleston: Benchmarking in immigrant integration
Procedure limited to 6-9 months, but fees high
Pink = ≤ 6 monthsBlue = > 6 months but max defined in lawBlack = Not defined in law
Pink = FreeBlue = Similar to regular fees & dutiesBlack = Higher costs
Green Paper Questions
Q14
How could the application of these horizontal clauses be facilitatedand ensured in practice?
XXX
Authorities must make some individual assessmentPink = All elements defined in lawBlue = Some elements defined in lawBlack = Not defined in law** Recent BE law introduced all elements
At least 7 of 24 require that authorities’ decisions to reject or withdraw take into account:•Solidity of family relationship,•Duration of sponsor’s residence,•Existing links with origin country•Evidence of physical or emotional violence.
Some—but not all—elements exist in 11 others. They are absent in 6 in Central Europe
Huddleston: Benchmarking in immigrant integrationHuddleston: Benchmarking in immigrant integration
ConclusionsMost restrictions, whatever their integration objective, will likely limit the number of reuniting families, creating separated or broken families.
Restrictions disproportionately impacts on family reunion, especially for vulnerable groups.
If these measures cannot be proven as effective for integration, then they are not justified for family reunion.Very strong correlation for 22 cases:
.733 (Spearman’s rho), p<0.001
Huddleston: Benchmarking in immigrant integrationHuddleston: Benchmarking in immigrant integration
ConclusionsConditions should be flexible so that authorities can make an individual assessment.
Sponsors need all legal means to prove that they meet the basic general requirements that are expected of all people in society who want to live together in a family.
Reuniting families need all legal means to show that they are willing to learn & participate in society.
Acting on equality and mobility
www.migpolgroup.orgSubscribe to our newsletter