CEPS欧洲政策研究中心-The_Cost_of_Non_210页_4mb

Summary of "The Cost of Non-Europe in the Area of Legal Migration"

Core Content

This research paper, commissioned by the European Parliament's Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE Committee), analyzes the "cost of non-Europe" in the context of legal migration within the European Union. It evaluates the current EU legal migration acquis, identifies gaps and barriers, and assesses their economic and individual impacts. The study also explores potential policy options for improving legal migration frameworks and concludes that a more homogeneous EU approach is essential to uphold fundamental rights and promote fair treatment of third-country nationals (TCNs).

Main Objectives and Scope

• To assess the state of EU legal migration policy and identify its gaps and barriers.
• To evaluate the economic and individual impacts of these gaps and barriers.
• To explore policy options for improving the legal migration framework at the EU level.
• To highlight the need for a more integrated and harmonized EU approach to legal migration.

Key Research Questions

• What are the current gaps and barriers in the EU's legal migration policy?
• What are the individual and economic impacts of these gaps and barriers?
• What are the potential benefits and cost drivers of different policy options?
• What is the preferred policy option for the EU to address these issues?

Current State of EU Legal Migration Policy

1.1. Ambivalent Development

The Tampere Programme (1999) laid the foundation for a common EU immigration policy, emphasizing fair and non-discriminatory treatment of TCNs. However, the implementation of this agenda has been inconsistent, with national governments often resisting harmonization efforts. The European Commission initiated several legislative proposals, such as the Blue Card Directive (2009/50/EC) and the Seasonal Workers Directive (2014/36/EU), but these were not fully implemented due to lack of support from the Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Council.

1.2. Fragmentation and Sectorality

The EU legal migration acquis is characterized by a sectoral and fragmented approach. It consists of a variety of directives, including:

• Blue Card Directive (2009/50/EC)
• Seasonal Workers Directive (2014/36/EU)
• Intra-Corporate Transferees Directive (2014/66/EU)
• Students and Researchers Directive (EU) 2016/801
• Single Permit Directive (2011/98/EU)
• Long-Term Residents Directive (2003/109/EC)
• Family Reunification Directive (2003/86/EC)

These directives have created a "patchwork" of rules, leading to incoherence and complexity. The paper notes that while some directives, like the Single Permit Directive, have improved administrative procedures and transparency, they have not fully protected the rights of TCNs.

International, Regional, and EU Standards

The paper references several international and regional human rights and labour standards, including:

• Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)
• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)
• International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESC)
• International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families (ICRMW)
• European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)
• European Social Charter (Revised) (ESC(r))
• EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (EU CFR)

These standards emphasize equal treatment, non-discrimination, work authorization, secure residence status, and social security coordination. The EU's current legal migration framework has not fully aligned with these standards, creating gaps and barriers for TCNs.

Gaps and Barriers Identified

The paper outlines several gaps and barriers in the EU legal migration policy:

1. Equal Treatment and Non-Discrimination

• Gaps (G1): Lack of comprehensive equal treatment standards across all sectors.
• Barriers (B1): National laws and policies that restrict or limit the rights of TCNs in comparison to EU nationals.

2. Entry, Re-Entry, and Circular Migration

• Gaps (G2): Inconsistent entry and re-entry conditions across Member States.
• Barriers (B2): National restrictions on re-entry and circular migration.

3. Work Authorization

• Gaps (G3): Limited flexibility for changing employers.

• Barriers (B4): National regulations that restrict mobility and rights.

• Gaps (G4): Unemployment consequences not adequately addressed.

• Barriers (B5): Legal barriers that penalize TCNs in case of unemployment.

4. Choice of Residence and Secure Status

• Gaps (G5): Inconsistent residence choices.
• Gaps (G6): Inadequate mechanisms for secure residence status.
• Gaps (G7): Restrictions on intra-EU mobility.

5. Social Security Coordination

• Barriers (B6): Inconsistent social security coordination across Member States.

6. Family Reunification

• Gaps (G9): Inadequate family reunification rights.
• Barriers (B7): National restrictions on family reunification.

7. Recognition of Qualifications

• Gap (G10): Inconsistent recognition of qualifications for TCNs.

Impacts on Individuals and Society

• Public Attitudes: There is a notable difference in public perception of TCNs compared to EU citizens, with some viewing TCNs negatively.
• Discrimination: TCNs face discrimination in employment, particularly in sectors like domestic work.
• Labour Exploitation: TCNs are more vulnerable to exploitation due to legal gaps and barriers.
• Economic Impacts: The status quo leads to lower employment rates, wage gaps, and reduced tax revenue and GDP contributions for the EU.

Policy Options and Recommendations

The paper explores several policy options, including:

• Better Enforcement: Strengthening existing directives to ensure compliance.
• Gradual Extension of EU Legislation: Expanding harmonization to more sectors.
• Binding Immigration Code: A comprehensive, legally binding framework for legal migration.

The Binding Immigration Code is identified as the preferred policy option due to its potential to create a more coherent, harmonized, and rights-based legal migration framework. It would enhance legal certainty, simplify procedures, and increase intra-EU mobility, thereby benefiting the EU internal market, national administrations, and third-country nationals.

Conclusion

The research concludes that a more homogenous EU legal migration policy is necessary to uphold fundamental rights, ensure fair treatment, and improve the economic and social outcomes for TCNs. It emphasizes that the EU's internal market and society would benefit from a unified approach, which would also enhance the EU's attractiveness to potential migrants and improve the overall migration governance framework.

Key Findings

• The EU's legal migration policy is fragmented and sectoral.
• There is a lack of comprehensive equal treatment standards for TCNs.
• TCNs face discrimination and exploitation due to legal gaps and barriers.
• A Binding Immigration Code is recommended as the most effective policy option.
• A more integrated EU approach would lead to simplified procedures, higher mobility, and greater legal certainty.