/ Articles&Interviews
Immigration Policy in the EU
Immigration was one of the issues that have not been regulated with a common European policy for a long time. Until 1999, member states had exclusive authority over this issue. This was changed with the Amsterdam Treaty, when shared responsibility between the member states and the EU was introduced (Europe Today, by Jochen Lorentzen and Ronald Tiersky, 2004). This pull of sovereignty from the states is more than welcomed in this area, since it introduces a more “democratic control through the involvement of the European Parliament” (Lorentzen). There are many reasons why the supranational control is better than the national one.
First, for many decades immigration has been a solely activity of the member states. Unfortunately, their way of handling it was by setting “zero immigration policies” (Lorentzen). These policies have proved not to be appropriate or humane any longer, at least not in this new era of mobility and globalization. Lorentzen presents a clear picture of how the European protectionist policies have tremendous effects on the developing countries’ economies. His argument justifies emigration from the poor countries, where people have no other choice but to migrate.
Second, even with the existence of “zero immigration policies” the states could not protect themselves from migrants. Instead, this policy had the opposite effect by increasing illegal immigration. Consequently, these illegal immigrants have no other option but to get engaged in the black market or criminal activities. “The rise in crime coincides with the beginning of more restrictive immigration regimes from the mid-1970s” (Lorentzen). The result is that European natives create prejudice about the foreign population in general and they do not “differentiate between foreigners and criminals” (Lorentzen).
Third, politicians, who are driven by the electoral logic, frequently use the immigration issue for winning votes. The way the Danish People’s Party (poster of the prophet Muhammad) and the Swiss People’s Party (poster where white sheep kick a black one) conducted the election campaigns are clear examples of how politicians would kneel down to the pressure from the misguided public rather than take a moderate position (The Economist, 2007).
Fourth, there are many arguments which suggest that the EU needs immigrants. Many people are becoming more critical of the existing domestic policies on immigration. The low birth rate and the increase of the aging population may endanger EU economic productivity. Demographic statistics show that “by 2050 two workers will have to pay for the livelihood of one retired person (compared with four workers today)” (Parliament Backs EU ‘Blue Card’, EurActiv, 27 September 2007).
Finally, the principle of subsidiarity says that “decision should be taken at the lowest level possible for effective action” and the EU should deal only with “those matters that the member states were no longer capable of dealing with efficiently” (Understanding the European Union, by John McCormick, 2005). Over time, due to the issue density and the spillover effect, the EU managed to gain authority over many areas (The Path to European Integration: A Historical Institutionalist Analysis, in Comparative Political Studies, by Paul Pierson, April 1996). Its structure provided it with the ability to rule impartially and reasonably. On the contrary, in the member states we do not see this technocratic way of governing; instead, we have the illiterate mass that exerts immense pressure on domestic politics. Therefore, I support the stance that immigration should be a supranational issue.
In 1999, the European Council in Tampere (Finland) realized the need for a common EU immigration policy. Although the Commission had launched a proposal for a Directive on the condition of admission of third-country workers in 2001, this was rejected by the leaders of the member states. It therefore took about four more years to reach a consensus on the issue, when in 2005 the Policy Plan on Legal Migration was adopted. Then, in 2006, the Commission adopted a Communication about illegal immigration. During this period, many Directives were passed on various issues, such as the right to family reunification, the long-term resident status, and the conditions of admission of third-country nationals for the purposes of study, research or pupil exchange (see http://europa.eu/ for more details).
The common EU immigration policy is mainly concerned with finding “a balance between humanitarian and economic admission” and providing “fair treatment for third-country nationals” (European Commission, Justice and Home Affairs, September 2007). Although there is a clear tendency for expanding its control over this issue, there are a few areas that are in the member states’ domain. For example, the “control over which and how many foreigners get into a country is a traditional right of the nation-state” (Lorentzen).
On 23 October 2007, the Commission launched “a draft Directive on the admission of highly qualified migrants, the so-called EU Blue Card” and “a draft Directive establishing a single application procedure for a single residency and work permit and a common set of rights for third-country workers legally residing in the EU” (‘Blue Card’ Proposal Almost Unanimously Welcomed, EurActiv, 24 October 2007). This means that the EU is taking into account the statistical data about the demographic trends, unlike the member states, which focus only on short-term benefits. Philippe Legrain, freelance analyst, advises that “the European knowledge-based economy needs immigrants to fill the low-end jobs that our aging and increasingly wealthy societies rely on” (Why Europe Should Have Open Borders, EurActiv, 31 July 2007).
There is no doubt that the EU is heading towards a unified immigration policy, which will leave very little flexibility for the member states to do what they want. Especially if the Lisbon Treaty becomes ratified, fifty areas, including immigration, will be regulated with a simple majority vote (lecture). The New Treaty also includes “the removal of the national veto in a number of areas” (Q&A: EU Reform Treaty, The Guardian, by Deborah Summers, 15 October 2007). These reforms ultimately lead towards a more powerful EU that can manage its immigration policy in economically and socially acceptable ways. The supranational control over the immigration is on the way; it is the best solution and it is more than welcomed.
Maja Savevska
--
