Keeping up with Schengen: Migration and Policy in the European Union Author(s): Andrew Convey and Marek Kupiszewski

Reviewed work(s): Source: International Migration Review, Vol. 29, No. 4 (Winter, 1995), pp. 939-963 Published by: The Center for Migration Studies of New York, Inc. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2547733 . Accessed: 28/05/2012 04:02
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The Center for Migration Studies of New York, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to International Migration Review.

http://www.jstor.org

Keeping and Policy

Up in

with the

Schengen: European

Migration Union

AndrewConvey MarekKupiszewski UniversityLeeds1 of There is an inescapable relationshipbetween the existenceof migration movementsand the resulting policies which are adopted bythe authorities of the area concerned towards encouraging these movements,or more to commonly towardsattempting controlor to reduce them. This in turn means that the migrationresearcher must not only look at the effects of policy and changes in policy, importantthough this is, but must also attempt to understand the changing political factorswhich fuel the formationof policy. This paper aims to bringtogethersome of the wide of variety policy issues and responseswhich may be observedin Europe at the present time and in the recent in particularto make an past, and assessmentofthe approachesbeing takenbytheEuropean Union member states as a whole, and also by the so-called Schengen group of member states.This articlealso attempts look at the perceptionsof thesepolicies to from the point of view of both the "western"and the and their effects "eastern" European countries,as migrationpolicy issues are rarelyone? sided. In conclusion, it considerssome of the research issuesand problems which are raisedbygeographers and others workingin thisarea,difficulties which mightbe implied by our possiblyflippanttide, "Keeping Up with Schengen." The most important milestone for migrationpolicy in recent time in the "western"part of Europe has been the Treatyof Maastricht.The fullyratified Treaty on European Political and Monetary Union (the actual name of the Treaty of Maastricht) with Associated Protocols finallycame into force on November 1,1993, and with it a rangeof agreed provisionswhich will affect migrationbehavior and migrationpolicy in the European area forsome time to come. The Treatyopens by statingcategorically that, of Union ofa state be the every person holding nationality member shall a citizen the 1993) (Maastricht, and that among the rightsand privilegeswhich this incurs is the rightthat within the territory the of everysuch citizen is freeto move and reside freely 1 in Andrew is isa Research Dr. Fellow, Marek Convey an Honorary Kupiszewski Lecturer the of The ofLeeds. School Geography, University IMR Vol.xxix,No.4 939

940

International MigrationReview

which have been enteredinto at various stages since 1985 by all of the then twelvememberstatesotherthan Denmark, Ireland,and the United Kingdom came into being formally on (Le Monde, 1993). The SchengenAccords finally March 16, 1995, for seven of the now fifteen EU member states (i.e., for Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, and and Spain had indicated Spain), even thoughGermany,the Benelux countries, that they were ready to implement Schengen in full on February 1, 1994. France had also intendedto do so on thatdate but was delayed subject to final internalagreementon the legal effect the Schengen Accords on the French of constitution. Italy, Portugal and Greece, having previouslyassented to the Schengen Accord, had agreed that theywould fullyimplement Schengen as soon as certain technical difficulties had been resolved. However, problems connected with the finalcommissioningof the Schengen InformationSystem (SIS) - the main police intelligencenetworkto accompany the Accords - led to considerable delays to this targetdate. Belgium and the Netherlands had theirSIS links in place quite earlyon and France was close to linkingup, but Germany,Luxembourg, Spain, and Portugalwere not readyuntil early 1995, leading to the finaldelayed implementationin March 1995 (Le Monde, 1993; Cane, 1994), minus Italy and Greece which were still not ready. Certain of the mechanisms by which "freemovementof persons"will operate remain to be worked out in detail, takingaccount, forexample, of the fact that a large

member states,with the Council of the European Union empowered to take the necessarysteps to allow this to happen (European Commission, 1992a). This apparendy clear situationhas howeverbeen renderedrathermore com? accords, plex by the existenceof the somewhatparallelSchengen open frontier

proportion of migrants moving within the European area are not formal citizensof the EU and are therefore rules. normallysubject to different However, the Schengen situation has now been further seriouslycompli?

within the Nordic group of countries.

bomb provinces(Le Monde,July11,1995). The more recentwave of terrorist the explosions in the summer of 1995 have only servedto strengthen French governmentsresolveto keep the controls.The remainingsix Schengen states, however,have decided to continue and in addition, the newer EU member to states, Austria,Sweden, and Finland are negotiating join. Even Norway and Iceland, not member states of the EU, have opened talks about joining Schengen in orderto allow themto maintaintheir40-year-oldpassportunion

in citing difficulties controlling illegal immigrationand the movement of drugs, especially at its Benelux borders (Le Monde, July 1, 1995). This was followed,on July8, with an agreementbetween France and Spain to reinforce theircommon border,on thisoccasion quoting terrorist in activity the Basque

cated when France announced on June 29, 1995, that it had decided to maintain its frontier controls with its Schengen neighbors for the present,

Keeping with Schengen:Migrationand Policyinthe EU Up

941

MAASTRICHT-BASED

POLICY

ON MIGRATION

In accordance with the MaastrichtTreaty's concept of subsidiarity, field the with the associated fieldsof of immigrationfromnonmemberstates,together remainswhat is known as an intergovernmental pillar justice and home affairs, of the Treaty, that is to say, the business of individual sovereign member although the European Commission is to be governments workingtogether, The associatedwithdecisionmakingand has some limitedpowersofinitiative. in Commission exercisedthesepowersof initiative 1994 byproducinga major and asylum (Commission of communication on the question of immigration theEuropean Communities, 1994). In the area of immigration, joint positions and joint action may be taken by the Council of Ministers,which can decide that certain measures may be adopted by a qualified majority,though only in Immi? memberstatesthemselves have powersof initiative criminalmatters. been singled out for a 'twin-track' gration into the EU area has effectively approach: the Council of Ministershaving to decide by a unanimous vote on any proposal coming fromthe Commission concerningwhich thirdcountry citizenswill requirea visa forentryto the EU area, though qualified majority January1,1996, dependingupon the decisions of the votingmightapply after EU Intergovernmental Conference (IGC); on the other hand, those coming areas identifiedas being of "common interest"to all member governments include the rules about crossingthe Union's externalbordersand the condi? tions of movement and residenceforimmigrants fromoutside the EU. The Single European Act (SEA), which preceded the MaastrichtTreaty,statesthat of Community, without to powers the prejudice the governments tocooperate, agree in particular regards entry, the of of as movement residence nationals third and in affect countries further nothing theprovisions theSEA]shall the [and that] [of for purpose of states such as consider necessary the right member totake measuresthey ofcontrolling from countries, tocombat trafficdrugs in and crime, immigration third andillicit in of and Communities, 1989) (European trading works art antiques. Questions arise, of course, about how much of this proposed cooperation betweenmemberstatesshould or will actuallytakeplace. It may be arguedthat thereshould be a growthin the willingnessof statesto cooperate, given the transfrontier natureof the act of migrating On internationally. the otherhand, the application of the concept of subsidiarity this fieldimplies that it must in be provenin what way and to what degreea givenmigration situationwill have an effect the EU as a whole, thereby on forjoint action. It will not be allowing for therefore, a member state which is so inclined, to argue that a difficult, itselfprimarily and that given migrationproblem is somethingwhich affects it therefore needs to take or seek to take, directaction. Examples of this kind of action have been seen in the Britishrefusal join in the Schengen Accord, to the maximizationof a unique island situationas a reason,or the original citing in French delay in ratifying Schengen, quoting difficulties relation to the

942

International MigrationReview

Frenchconstitution althoughthe FrenchNational Assemblyenthusiastically endorsed French adherence to the Schengen Accord in 1989, the question of the relationshipwhich theAccord should have to the Frenchconstitutionhad not been fullyresolved,mainlyover the question of rightsof asylum. Spanish fromothermemberstates betweenentry immigrationrulesclearlydistinguish ofthe EU and entry fromelsewhere, especiallyfromNorthAfrica(BOE, 1992; such as the develop? Davidson, 1992). On the otherhand, a combined effort, ment of the Union-wide systemof police information exchange (the so-called feelit is worthworkingtogether Europol), is a case wherememberstatesclearly as a whole (European Commission, 1992a). RELATIONSHIPS BETWEENMAASTRICHTAND SCHENGEN

Act, 1986) It is arguable, therefore, that thereare two fairly parallel policy initiatives aimed at increasingthe freedomof movementbetweenmemberstates,which However,it is also probablytrueto saythatthe advent mightseem unnecessary. of Schengen lay in the need feltby the originalfivesignatories presson with to all possible speed towardsthe freeing frontiers, mood which was reflected a of contemporaneouslyin the decisions agreed forthe SEA. On the other hand, if both routestowardsthe same goal are implementedto the letter, formally a internal EU boundary will arise - one which would in the present illegal situation separate Denmark, Ireland, and the United Kingdom (and perhaps Italyand Greece) fromthe rest.While the Schengen countriesclearlyhave no intention of stopping inward movements from the other members of the Union, and could not do so under the Maastricht rules, these nations are committedto bordercontrolsat theouterSchengenfrontier emulatethose that being retainedby the otherEU memberstatesindividually. So faras policy towardsthe question of migrationis concerned therefore, it is possible to see two main parallel trendswithin the EU. Policy towards internalEU migrationis becoming increasingly liberalin line with the provi? sions of the Maastrichtand Schengen arrangements, though it is importantto out thatthe question ofnon-EU citizensmovingbetweenmemberstates point has not yet been fullyresolved,and it has been estimatedthat these movers

To the objective observer,theremightseem to be some degree of anomaly or overlap between the rules formovement agreed under the MaastrichtTreaty and thoseundertheSchengenAccord,even thoughboth are seekingto increase the freedomof movementbetween memberstates(Carvel, 1992a). Schengen has its originsin the Fontainebleau Council of the European Communities in June 1984, which adopted the principle of abolishing police and customs formalities the interior at frontiers the Community area. At the same time, of the SEA of 1986, in Article8A, also establisheswithin the European Union in (then the Community) "an area without internalfrontiers which the free movementofgoods, persons,services and capitalis ensured."(Single European

Keeping with Schengen.Up Migrationand Policyinthe EU

943

number at least 8 million (Brochmann, 1992). At the same time, policy towards non-EU citizens crossingthe externalboundaries of the Union be? comes increasinglycontrolled,fueled perhaps by the increasing severityof which in turn may be being certain national policies towards immigrants, levelsofxenophobia, ifnot byextreme nationalism. pushed bythe recentrising CATEGORIES OF INTERNATIONAL MIGRANTS

It may be helpful to devise various categories of international migrants, althoughthe problem is widerthan that.It is impossibleto exclude short-term travelersfrom our considerationsas they are also subject to any migration visas. policies of the countryof destination,even if these only requesttransit Afteradmission, theycan tryto extendtheirresidencelegallyor alternatively and join the group of clandestinemigrants. This issue will become to overstay even more important as the pressure on national boundaries builds up. Consequently, this articlewill classifytravelers according to their intended of stayin the countryconcerned. From thispoint of view, it is possible length to distinguish short-term and mid- and long-term There are visitors, migrants. for no internationally but agreedtime thresholds each of the above categories, it would seem to make sense to divide them accordingto the typeof visas and permitsrequired. The firstcategory,the short-term visitors,are usually admitted to the based on eithera touristvisa or on a business or scientific receivingcountry visa. These visas are normallyvalid over a period of severalmonths.A current validityof betweenthreeand six monthsis typical,but the conventionsetting visitsshould up the SchengenAgreement(July19,1990) statesthatshort-term not exceed threemonths (Schutte, 1991). In many cases, based on reciprocal visas (but usually not restrictions the length of stay) may be on agreements, abolished for this categoryof travelers. transitpassengers,holiday Typically, short-time businesstravelers, of takers, researchers, representatives culturallife, and so on fall into this category. are usually not allowed eitherto take They employmentor to open a business in the receivingcountry. Mid-termmigrants usuallyintendto stayin the receiving countryformore than a fewmonths.Typicallytheyintendto workor studyand will requirenot permits(Le., residenceand workpermits).They onlyvisas but also the relevant are subject to additional restrictions, such as registration with the police or administrativeauthoritiesand the subsequent reportingof any change of circumstances such as a change of address,passport,or maritalstatus.It is not unusual formigrants to theirstatus belongingto thiscategory seekto regularize in the receivingcountryand to apply fora permanentresidencepermit and eventually for citizenship,therebybecoming a life migrant. Many inward migrantsfromcentralEuropean countriesfallinto this category. Finally,thereis the categoryof migrantsrequestingpermissionto stay for an indefinite for period of time frequently life.Basically,it is impossible to

944

InternationalMigrationReview

claim the rightof life stay unless a person seeks asylum or is a citizen of a receivingcountryor can claim the rightto obtain such citizenship. MIGRATION POLICIES AND EXTERNAL IMMIGRANTS

Shiftingfromone categoryof migrantsto another,or simplyjoining direcdy one of the above categories, requires an authorization from the receiving to on countries.In fact,theright admit or not to admit migrants to theterritory of a given stateis consideredto be one of the main features statesovereignty of is and therefore a verysensitiveissue. From the point of view of international migrationpolicy, each state controlsa number of 'gates' which regulatethe of and process of inflowand of settlement foreigners which protectagainstthe inflowof unauthorizedaliens. States can to a large extentcontrolthe circula? tion of foreigners opening or closingsome of thesegates.Migrationpolicies by also differaccording to the origin of the migrants.Within the EU, three categoriesof aliens are recognized: ? citizensof otherEU countries, ? citizens of the remaining European Free Trade Association (EFTA) countries(these two categoriesformtogethera categoryof citizens of European Economic Area) and, ? citizensof thirdcountries.

Each categoryhas a different and unequal legal position when attemptingto pass throughthe gates. These gates may be describedas follows: ? visa requirements, entry ? borderexternalcontrols, ? long-termwork and residencepermits, ? internalcontrols, ? permanentresidencepermitsand regularization systems, ? naturalization (grantingcitizenship). Entry Visa Requirements Citizens of EU memberstatesdo not need visas to enteranotherEU country. Citizens of the formerEFTA and most OECD countries enjoy the same privilegedposition. However, thereare a number of non-EU countrycitizens who need to apply forvisas even fortransit.They need to be able to justify their reason of travel and are normally supposed to present appropriate which provesthattheyare in possession documents, such as a bank statement of a requiredamount of money per day fortheirintendedstay,and references obtained fromthe country destination, of insurancepolicies,return tickets and the like.JacquelineCosta-Lascoux (1990) has shown comparativetablesof the conditions one needs to meetin orderto enter,obtain asylum,reunitea family, and get a temporary staypermit,regularize illegalstay/work obtain citizenship

Keeping with Schengen:Migrationand Policyinthe EU Up

945

in France, Italy, the Netherlands and Germany (Table 1). She noted that, except in Italy,conditions forthe issue of visas varied a greatdeal depending upon the countryof originof the applicant (Costa-Lascoux, 1990). It is also consular quite common that, apart fromthe formaland officialrestrictions, servicesare able to call upon a whole range of unofficialdeterring methods, or rangingfromabrupt or even rude staff, only acceptinga limitednumber of the Italian Embassy in London will accept no more applications per day (e.g., than 100 per day and none by post; Italian Embassy, 1993), up to the use of verylong drawn-outand protracted procedures.In some cases a high visa fee is collected beforethe application is even considered,and the fee is then not in This was, forexample,thepracticeofthe U.K. refundable the case ofrefusal. Embassy in Warsaw beforethe need forvisas between the two countrieswas abolished. In many cases, visa feesare set at a level thatis reasonable in finally the countryofdestinationbut is excessivein comparisonto theaverageincome of the countryof origin. However, the fee level is in many cases based on and may not be a part of migrationpolicy; e.g., on reciprocalarrangements Albania eighteen months ago, of a French, British,and German entering colleague, the U.K. citizenhad to pay the most and the German the least,the of and German chargesbeing an exactreflection the cost chargedbythe British authoritiesto incomingAlbanians. Another element of the policy of closed doors for selected nationals is to impose fines on the carrierthat brings in a passenger without valid travel documents. For example,the U.K. charges?2000 and France up to FF 10,000 (SOPEMI, 1992). The cross-Channel Hoverspeed Company has had to pay out a total of ?484,000 in fines since 1987 when such a regulation was for introduced.This practiceis intendedto make it difficult asylumseekersto arrive in the country of destination. In fact, it actually abuses the U.N. the Convention on Asylumof 1951, as it transfers decision ofwhethera person will have the chance to apply forasylum into the hands of the personnelof a commercial carrier company. The Convention which implements the are Schengen Accord specifiesthat commercial carriers obliged to check the of traveldocuments of aliens and, in the case of a subsequent refusal validity to admit an alien to a "Schengen" country,it is the commercial carriers to responsibility take the person back (Schutte, 1991). from one member country to Within the EU, admission policies differ another. For example, all EU countriesrequirevisas fromcitizens of all the states of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), Romania and Bulgaria, but citizens of Visehrad countries (Poland, Hungary, the Czech Polish citizens,who are most Republic, and Slovakia) are a lot less restricted. limited in theirfreedomof travelingfromamong the Visehrad group, need to visas onlywhen traveling the moreperipheralmemberstatesof the EU: i.e., remainunder the close Portugal,Greece, and Ireland. But these arrangements and continual scrutinyof the governmentsinvolved and can change very

946

InternationalMigrationReview

1 TABLE Work Union Condition Issuing of Permits Residence and Permits Non-European for Citizens Residing Selected European Union States in Initial Conditions and Period Which for Permit isIssued of Conditions Extension Permit of of of Conditions Issuing Permanent Permit valid ten Work permit for after may years; beissued three of years residence.

Member State France

for year. Extension Initiallyone granted Offeremploymentannually, of confirmed Office of by orproof Immigration of own resources required. At discretion of local Extension authorities of (offer annually, for at employment least 24hours week per required). Residence work and valid permits for one year.

Italy

Germany

After year first extension five unlimited After years of residence residence After permit. permit twice two eight of years residence, granted for status' of work 'special upon Extension years. for of economic possible two condition permit of years. self-support, knowledge German language, sending toschools, children and adequate housing, observation ofGerman Work legislation. permit for years either five or for who unlimitedthose status.' 'special acquired Extension annually. Unlimited residence after years permit five for those regular in with employment, offurther prospects for at employment least another with at year salary minimum for the level a and 23-year-old, adequate housing.

Netherlands

for year. Initiallyone

United discretion of Extension at Permanent residence and Kingdom At granted of of discretion work after Department Department permits four on on ofEmployment of Employment years uninterrupted condition that of expiration previous employment, has work applicant been permit. offered employment. Source: information of from authorities concerned. countries Costa-Lascoux, 1990;

Keeping with Schengen:Migrationand Policyinthe EU Up

947

production of a list of those countrieswhose citizenswill need visas in order to enterany of the EU memberstates(SOPEMI, 1992). This is an important measure as it is intended to prevent 'shopping around' for visas from the more 'liberal' member states of the EU. At the same time, the traditionally measure may of course protectthe most liberal countriesagainst an excessive inflowof aliens. Offical Conclusions theMeetingoftheMinisters of Responsible (Council of the European Communities, 1992b) mentioned for Immigration that negotiationson common visa policy were then well under way,and the most recent statementson this area of policy suggest that the European Commission will be readyto presentproposals under the Maastrichtrules to membergovernments late in autumn, 1995. It is relatively easy to agree upon

However,withinthe EU, theVisegradgroup and elsewherein Europe, rapidly. thereis a recognitionof the need to elaborate a common visa policy.At the moment, one of the most important results of these deliberations is the

grant citizens of Commonwealth countries visa-freeaccess for short visits (Owen, 1994), somethingwhich is fiercely opposed by other EU member countries.In a similarway,Francewill also have to loosen its traditionallinks withthe Maghreb countrieson the otherside oftheMediterranean, something which might now look more attractive France than hitherto. to In general,the 1990s have witnessed a rapid reduction in the number of countrieswhose citizensare requiredto apply forvisas in orderto be admitted to EU countries, for mainlybecause ofthe abolition ofvisa requirements many central Europeans. From 1992 however, more EU restrictions have been introduced, partly because some of the arrangementswith Romania and have been placed Bulgaria were canceled and partlybecause new restrictions

a principleforthe creationof the common listof countrieswhose citizenswill be allowed into the EU withoutvisas,but reachingagreement the contents on of the list will not be as simple. The United Kingdom, forexample,wishes to

upon citizensof selectedThird World countries. It should be noted that governments westernEuropean countrieshave of been markedly reluctantto open borders for citizens of central European countries and the formerU.S.S.R. The fearhas been that such an opening mightresultin a massiveinfluxinto westernEurope of unwanted aliens from the east. This policy has of course been in sharpcontradictionto the Western

democracies' criticism the policies of closed doors' implementedby former of Europe, in particularforCzech, Slovak and Hungarian citizens,was witnessed in 1990 and 1991. Poland, despiteitsleading rolein theprocessof dismanding reluctancedue both to the larger communism, was treatedwith even greater size of itspopulation and to the sizable legal and illegalemigrationin previous decades. Citizens of the CIS could not and still cannot travelwithout visas, and theirapplications are subject to detailed scrutiny and delay. communist governmentsuntil 1989. The reluctantopening up of western

948

International MigrationReview

The formallifting restrictions the admission withoutvisas of citizens of on of centralEuropean countriesto westernEuropean countriesand vice versa, was in most cases accompanied by bilateralagreements the returnof those on found to be abusing the system. Two or three years ago, these persons agreementswere deemed to be necessarysecuritymeasures; but such agree? ments may also be regardedas importantfor the futureas precedents and usefulexperiencewhen it comes to the negotiationof the member? extremely of centralEuropean statesinto the EU. ship A much more consistentpolicy seemed to have been elaborated by the Schengen group. They have agreedthat all EU citizenswill not be considered to be aliens. They will therefore enjoy a freedomof movementrestricted solely EU legislation.The membersofthegrouphave notyetmanaged to establish by a fulllist of third(non-EU) countrieswhose citizensneed not apply forvisas. The negotiationsmay be less difficult than in the case of parallel negotiations run by the EU as the number of membersof the Schengen group is smaller and the United Kingdom, apparendy proud of its opt-out' and particularly restrictive migrationpolicies, is not a part of the Schengen process. It should be noted that, in the case of persons fromcountrieswhose citizensrequire a visa in orderto be admittedon to theterritory one Schengenstate,agreement of has been reachedto issue a visa whichwill thenbe valid in all Schengen member countries.This is a veryrealisticsolution and is similarto the one adopted by the Benelux countriesa long time ago. Such a visa will be valid fora period of up to threemonths, and it will allow the alien concerned to circulatefreely within each of the Schengen states(Schutte, 1991). The problem of aliens residingin one of the Schengen signatory countries based on a residence permit has been approached in a similar way. These within other Schengen countriespro? persons are allowed to circulatefreely vided that the total length of theirresidencedoes not exceed threemonths. authorities withinthreedays They also have to reporttheir presenceto relevant of arrival(Schutte, 1991). There seems to be littledoubt that the Schengen group is settingstandards foroverallEuropean migration policy.It is likelyitwill be followedbytheother EU member countries,despite the factthat diverseeconomic and historical links, in particularformercolonial ties, make the establishmentof common for policyquite difficult some ofthesecountriesto accept. So it could be argued thatthe SchengenAccordsarenot so much paralleling duplicatingthemoves or taken by the EU as a whole, but are actingas trailblazers the working for being out of detailed future EU migrationpolicy. Border External Control The EU and western Europe in general faces a growing number of illegal to immigrantswho are trying cross theirborders,usually with the mirage of lucrativeemploymentin mind. It seems thattherehave been two main borders

Keeping with Schengen:Migrationand Policyinthe EU Up

949

under siege: the Spanish Mediterraneancoast, with a new generationof boat people coming fromAfrica,and the easternborder of westernEurope, with U.S.S.R. trying get into to Romanians, Bulgarians and citizensof the former and Austriaespecially(Markiewicz, 1992a). However, in the lastfew Germany monthstherehas been a notable increasein the trans-Adriatic routeinto Italy, in with an apparendy highlyorganizedtraffic illegal immigrants passing from the Montenegranportof Bar towardsBari and itsenvironsin Italy (Le Monde, 1995a). In orderto give an idea of the scale of these movements,it is relevant to acknowledge that at present,some 300,000 illegalAfricanimmigrants are estimatedto be workingin Spain (Davidson, 1993). Reliable estimatesof the inflow into western Europe from the east are not yet available, but it is halfof 1995, at least 30,000 immigrants Albanian estimatedthatin the first of or ex-Yugoslavoriginhave taken the Bar-Bariroute. This is puttinga consid? erable strainupon the Italian authorities and seems to have a bearingon Italy's for non-entry, the present,into the finalstagesof the Schengen Accords. In the face of this scale of inward movement, in July 1991 and before Maastricht,the formerEuropean Community (EC) prepared a Convention on the Crossing of EC ExternalBorderswhich soughtto regulatea numberof technicaland organizationalmattersbut which also stipulatedthe creationof EC visas. The signingof the Convention was suspended due to a British refusal to do away with intra-EC immigrationcontrols.The Britishargued that the geographical situation of theircountrymade it possible for them to control in the inflowof foreigners a veryefficient way.They also argued thattherewas in card system the U.K. and thattherefore internal no identity policing is more than in countrieswheresuch systems exist!This impassewas removed difficult eventuallyby allowing the U.K. to maintain its immigrationcontrols (Hopkinson, 1991). It is probablymore importantto note that in the post-Maas? on tricht nationals era,theEU has now reachedagreement a listof61 countries, ofwhichwill be requiredto possessvisasin orderto travel anyof the member to countries(Hopkinson, 1991). As a corollaryto this,the EU is in the process of creating a system similar to the Schengen SIS, the so-called European InformationSystem(EIS), which will hold some 800,000-1,000,000 entries on unwanted foreigners (Carvel, 1992b). Long-Residence Permits Citizens of the EU do not need work permitsto get a job in anothermember state.The freedomto move withinthe Union means thattheymay setde and take paid employmentanywherewithin the member states. However, there are some limitations.Initially,thisfreedomhas been given only in relationto otherthan employeeshas thosewho were takingemployment, but no category so farbeen mentioned (Article48, European Economic Community Treaty). EC legislationextended this rightto the employees' families(Callovi, 1992) and to thosewho reachedretirement in a country different fromtheirown. age

950

International MigrationReview

They are allowed to stay in the countryin which they have been recendy retired persons,and otherswho employed.The nextstepwas to allow students, withinthe EU (Niessen, were not takingup any gainfulactivity move freely to 1992). The rightto refuseadmission was restricted only to cases in which in or healthwas threatened the receivingcountry.The public policy, security, introductionof common EU citizenship, when and ifit comes into effect, will remove these limitations and will open up the last 'gate,' the presumably granting of citizenship, therebyremoving from EU member countries an importantpart of theirsovereignty. Meanwhile, citizensof thirdcountriesare leftbehind the more or less closed (or in some cases slammed) gates. These citizensare usuallyrequiredto apply forentry slimmerchances of acquiring employment visas; theyhave relatively in and have many more difficulties regularizing theirstay and eventuallyin naturalization.As a result,a thirdcountrynational residingin one obtaining of theEU membercountrieshas neither right resetdein anothermember the to nor even the rightto travelfreely withinthe Union (Niessen, 1992). country The abolition of internalboundariesunderSchengen and/ortheEU proposals will make the implementationof the limitationsto freedomof travelrather moredifficult impose; duringtheMaastrichtSummitConferencea proposal to was put forwardto change this legislationand to allow third-party nationals withinone countryof the Union to travelfreely (but not residingtemporarily settleor take employment)within the whole of the Union (Niessen, 1991). Association agreementsmade between the original European Economic Community (EEC) or the EC and other countriesusually varied in the way the theymade concessions regarding freedomof movementof people. In this respect, agreements signedin thepast withTurkey, Yugoslavia (suspended since 1991), Algeria, Morocco, and Tunisia mentioned that there would be no discriminationwith regardto employment, social security, and social benefits for workers from the countries mentioned above (Niessen, 1992; Callovi, 1992). These agreementswere in fact more liberal than those signed more recendywith the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary and Poland, where no provision forprotectionof nondiscriminationof workershas been agreed at all (Niessen, 1992). A similar solution has been adopted in recendy signed with Romania and Bulgaria. None of these agreements allows for agreements the freedomof movementof people, and all the more specificregulations have been leftforbilateralnegotiationsto resolve. Temporarywork and residence permitsare normallyissued for a specific period of time (Table 1), in the firstinstance usually for one year,with the possibilityof renewal (as in France, Germany,the Netherlands, Italy). The main condition forobtaininga residencepermitis stableemployment(in Italy, at least 24 hours/week).As the length of residence increases,the assurances residence givento a migranttend to grow.For example,Franceoffers privileged permitsforten yearsforthose who have legallyspent threeyearsin France,or

Keeping with Schengen:Migrationand Policyinthe EU Up

951

for spouses and familiesof French citizens. Special arrangements have been made for Algerian citizens. In Germany,afterfive years of uninterrupted another residence,an alien may apply foran unlimitedresidencepermit.After threeyears(eightaltogether), one may acquire the assuredresidencepermiton the condition that the person has satisfactory command of German, has adequate housing,sends childrento school, and adheresto German law. In the Netherlands, unlimited residencepermitsmay be issued to those who have been thereforat least fiveyears,who have had regularemploymentover this period, and who have the prospectof employmentforat least one yearwith a salary at least equal to the minimum salaryfor 23-year olds, and who have adequate housing conditions. In all cases, the protection of national labor marketsis the focus of the implementationof such policies; with the growing recessionand mountingpolitical pressure, numberof migrants, protracted the these policies may easily become much more restrictive than they originally were. Internal Controls Probablythe most importantrole of internalcontrolsis to protectthe internal labor marketagainst the illegal employmentof a foreignlabor force.Various countriesoperate theirown policies and littleor no international cooperation may be expected in this field. In Germany, in a state of some political of a because of theincreasing influence theextreme uncertainty right, stringent has been introduced requiringall workersto possess a social security system identification card, to be produced on requestby the appropriateauthorities, as well as in Social SecurityOffices.Employershiringforeignlabor have to These measures are supported by reportthis to fact Social Securityofficials. extensivepolicing, sometimesaccompanied by an apparentviolation of some internationalagreements and basic civil rights(Markiewicz, 1992b). It is usual that employersfound hiringillegal foreignlabor are subject to formsof liability. the Netherlands,employershave to cover the cost of any In in France theyhave to return taxesand feesas well as pay fines. all expulsions; If such employersare unable to cover their liabilities,they may even face of forfeiture their assets (Hopkinson, 1991). It is quite characteristic that control in these fieldshas mainly been passed in these legislationtightening countriesrelatively recendy, especiallyin 1991 and 1992. Clearly,these forms of legislationaffect not only illegalworkersand clandestinemigrantsbut also small companies predominandy in services (touristry, catering,restaurants) and in the constructionindustry, where it is importantto keep costs low by saving on wages and social security payments. In many European countries,the police arrest and deport illegal migrants; forexample, the U.K. expelled 4,300 migrantsin 1992, of whom more than halfwere illegal. However,the problem of what to do with illegal immigrants frequendyremainsunresolved.Large-scaledeportationsare expensiveand are

952

International MigrationReview

often criticized,as has happened forexample with the forceddeportationof illegal Romanian migrantsfromGermany. Permanent Residence Permits and Regularization Systems There are a number of ways in which one may acquire a permanentresidence permit. The firstis that a migrant applies on the grounds of prolonged residence and employment.For example, the U.K. requiresfrompermanent residence permit applicants fouryears of uninterrupted, legal residence and in the country. After permitis granted, maystillbe withdrawn a it employment if during the period granted,a migrantstaysformore than two yearsoutside the U.K. One of the most importantstreamsof permanentmigrantsis made withmembersoftheirfamilies who arealreadylawfully up ofthosewho reunite in the receivingcountry.In all EU member countries,spouses and residing juvenile children are admitted,juvenile normallybeing defined as less than also eighteenyearold, though in Germanyit is sixteen.France, exceptionally, and othermembersof the extended family. accepts parents,grandparents, made to combat the flows,EU countriesstillhouse Despite all the efforts numbersofillegalmigrants. The actual numbersare not fully known,but large the recent legalization program in Spain processed 133,000 requests for regularization(SOPEMI, 1992). Policies aimed at the legalizationof clandes? tine migrantsare extremely varied. Some countries,such as Germany or the standfirmly theposition thatabusersofthelaw do not deserve on Netherlands, of any mercyand these countriesdo not allow forregularization aliens unless are on German or Dutch territory Other countries,in particular they legally. those in the south of Europe, have chosen to allow undocumented migrants to regularizetheirsituation.Programsof thistypewere introducedin 1981 in France, in 1985 and 1991 in Spain, in 1987 in Italy,and in 1992 in Portugal (OECD, 1990; Salt, 1991; SOPEMI, 1992). In fourprogramsin these areas, almost 400,000 people have been grantedresidencepermitsand workpermits (OECD, 1990; SOPEMI, 1992). Typical of the requirementsis that which the regularizes position of an alien who arrivedin a countrybeforea specified date and who is able to earn his livingeitheras an employed or self-employed person. Beneficiariesof these programshave frequendybeen in a receiving to countryfora long period of time and are therefore, some degree,integrated with the native population. There is little doubt that these programshave helped them a greatdeal in the integration process and with the stabilization of theirprofessionaland familylives. Naturalization Granting of Citizenship

There are threebasic waysofacquiringthecitizenship a country.Citizenship of by jus soli, meaning that the place of birthdeterminesthe citizenship.This criterionis in use in Spain, the Netherlands,Luxembourg,and Greece. Some

Keeping with Schengen:Migrationand Policyinthe EU Up

953

child. From the point of view of migrationpolicy,the most importantfactoris the acquisition of citizenshipby naturalization.Taking the citizenship of a host countryis a finalstage,at least froma legal point ofview,of the migration process.In fact,thepersonwho obtains new citizenshipis no longera migrant.

countries (Germany, Denmark, Ireland, Portugal) grant citizenship by jus sanguinis,which means that the citizenship of the parents determinesthe citizenshipof a child. In othercases (U.K., France,Italy,Belgium), a mixture of both approaches is oftenused to determinethe nationalityof a newlyborn

between integration jure and de de Evidendy,thereremainsa largedifference facto. Consequendy, all countries preferto have their new citizens as inte? grated as possible into local communities. This is why among the most common requirementsis a long enough period of residence in the receiving country.The requiredperiod of residencediffers among the countriesof the fromfiveyears (France, Ireland, Italy,the Netherlands,the U.K.) up to EU, ten years (Belgium, Germany,Luxembourg, Spain). This period is usually reduced when an applicant is the spouse of a citizen of the countryin which the application is filed and in certain other cases (Costa-Lascoux, 1990). Other conditions are, in the case of France and the U.K., recommendations or a certificateof decency and a blank criminal record. (In France minor are crimes,penalized with less than six months of imprisonment, condoned.) In the United Kingdom, France,theNetherlands,and Germanyit is necessary

renouncing of other citizenships,and all countries require an assurance of loyaltyto the new homeland. Germanyhas a two-tier policy of granting citizenship.On the one hand, it issues German citizenshipto everybodywho is able to prove even the most This is coupled with a policy of open doors forthis distantGerman ancestry. categoryof migrants(the Aussiedkr),which then generatesa large inflow of migrantsclaiming German roots even if theydo not speak any German at all and have no idea of the historyand cultureof Germany.The recentmassive inflow of migrantsfrom eastern Europe and the formerSoviet Union who declared themselvesto be Germans has forced the governmentin Bonn to introduce a quota systemfor this categoryof migrants.On the other hand,

to prove assimilation. The most importantfactorfromthis point of view is good command of language. Germany and the Netherlands require the

Germany is very reluctant to grant citizenship to even second generation migrantsif they are unable to prove their German origin in many cases, when the applicantshave been broughtup in Germany,theirfirst particularly language is German and theircultureis to large extentgermanized.There are some signs of a change in thisrestrictive policy,as the new Aliens Law passed in 1990 makes naturalization easier for established and second generation migrants.

954

International MigrationReview

FURTHER RELATED ASPECTS OF POLICIES TOWARDS MIGRANTS WITHIN EUROPEAN UNION COUNTRIES has into the intendeddestination, Once a migrant passed acrossan EU frontier whetherfromanother EU member countryor fromoutside the Union, the migrant will then come into contact with other 'secondary elements of national or Union policywhich will affect what the personwishes to do. Until the question of work permitsforEU nationals of another member recendy, stateremaineda recurrent problem.Work permits actuallyremainednecessary forotherEU nationals in Spain and Portugaluntil the implementationof the Single European Market in those countriesin January1993, and thesepermits continue to existeverywhere non-European Union migrants.Of the other for 'secondary elements of policy or regulations that apply to migrants,the followingfocuseson fourwhich are of greatconcern to migrants:the equiva? lence ofqualifications;social security provision;healthcare; and policytowards minorities. Equivalence of Qualifications between Member States The comparativevalidityof educational and trainingqualificationsgained in the different member statesof the European Union and elsewherehas been a which has been allied with population movement policy for some question years. The original Treaty of Rome (1958), which in principle provided for freemovement of labor, set in motion discussionswhich were eventuallyto lead to a large measure of agreementin this field.Clearly,it was no use trying to obtain employmentat a certainlevel in another member countryif your qualificationswere not acceptable thereor if,throughignoranceor otherwise, theycould be used as a pretextfornot offering employment.Equally, the EC had alwaysregardedthe generalimprovement standardsin the Community of workforceas being essential in its tradingcompetition with the rest of the world, and especiallywith the United States and Japan. By 1989, agreement had been reached to issue a directive the Higher Education area which stated in that all nationally-baseddiplomas successfully obtained from an EC-based institutionafterat least three years of full-timeadvanced study would be recognized as being valid throughoutthe European Union member states. still such as law, account? Though some difficulties remain,major professions ing,and medicine have moved a considerableway towardscommon agreement about theirprofessionalqualificationswhich is already leading to increased levels of mobility of personnel, especially among accountants. In teaching, though agreementhas been reached concerningthe common acceptance of qualifications,other policy barriers inhibitinglarge-scalemovement remain, the factthat in some member statesteachersare civil servants(e.g., especially France), and in others(e.g.,the United Kingdom) theyare not. The differences in remunerationof teachersbetween the most generous states (e.g., Luxem-

Up Keeping with Schengen:Migrationand Policyinthe EU

955

bourg) and the least generous(e.g.,the United Kingdom and Ireland) createa were it not situationwhich in principlemightstimulatemigrationof teachers, for the other barriereffects mentioned. This kind of situation raises already questions of national policy that conflictsomewhat with European policy, a problem which remains to be resolved at some futuredate (Convey, 1994). Where other vocational qualificationsare concerned, agreementexists for a wide range of over 100 occupations rangingfromthose in hotels and catering to metalworking: is considered it valuable since provides useful details all in suchinformation very with to certificates qualifications and issued Community languages respect diplomas, in eachmember for given state a . the of occupation. . [and]promotes freedom of to which have movement workers helping create conditions under by they equal access employment. to Commission, 1990;1992a) (European Social Security Policy and Freedom of Movement Social security levelshas been a longstanding characteristic provisionat varying of employmentlegislationin all member statesof the EU individually.It has also been an importantplank of policy at the European level since the early days of the EEC. An EC Social Charteron the Fundamental Social Rightsfor Workers was adopted at the StrasbourgCouncil in December 1989. The provisions of this charterhave now been enshrinedin the Social Chapter of the Maastricht Treaty, which highlightsa number of areas for Union-wide initiatives be taken in orderto increasethe efficiency the labor force.On to of the question of movement of workers,the Social Chapter of the Treaty fourmain measuresrelatingto freedomof movement: highlights ? to ensurethatat least minimumlevelsof social security protectionwere afforded migrating to workers; ? a debate about schemes in an attempt to supplementaryretirement workermobility; ensurewider transfrontier ? a proposed amendment to existing legislation(EEC 1408/71) in order to ease the coordination of existingschemes,both national and Euro? pean; ? a communication on the living and workingconditions of citizens in frontier workers.(European Commis? regions,especiallytransfrontier sion, 1993d) Meanwhile, the existingvaryinginternallevels of social security provision with some appearingto be more generousthan throughoutthe memberstates, others- eitherin fact or in the popular imagination- are widely held to be factorsin the stimulationof migrationfromone countryto another,and for migration from outside the Union to selected EU member countries. All memberstateshave social security which,to one degreeor another, regulations make a wide rangeof social security benefits available to everyinwardmigrant

956

International MigrationReview

who has residenceand work permits(European Commission, 1991), though none of these benefitsare formally available to illegal migrants. The degreeto which these situations have actually been factorsin increasing mobility is to difficult demonstrate,but they can also easily lead to attemptsby certain national politicians to reduce inward migrationon the pretextthat incomers would be unfairly drawing upon the national social securitysystem.Perhaps because of this kind of argument,social security and the social protectionof workers remain areas in which unanimous voting is required under the MaastrichtTreaty. Health Care as a Factor in Movement Health care provision, especiallythroughregulationscoveringpublic health and health and safetyat work, now formspart of the Social Charter of the Maastricht Treaty. Normal medical serviceshave been made available to all EU nationals (and to manyothers)on a temporary basis forsome yearsthrough the well-knownEl 11 system, this does not normallycaterto persons though who stay in another countryformore than a year,and it depends upon the persons concerned being social security contributorsin their country of residence (European Commission, 1993b). Consequendy this system,to? gether with the various private health insurance schemes available, while is valuable to touristsand occasional travelers, not especiallyhelpful to mi? are normallytotallydependenton medical care available through grants.They the national social security systems. In the fieldsofpublic healthand ofhealthand safety work,the Maastricht at Treatyis more specific.An enlargementof competence in the area of public health is actuallyone of the policy innovationsin the Treaty. the future In the Council of Ministerswill be able to adopt Recommendations in this fieldby qualifiedmajority voting,withthe aim ofensuringa highlevelofhuman health protection throughoutthe EU (European Commission, 1992b). The Social includesan action programcontaininga seriesofdetailed Chapter of theTreaty health and safety measures which supplement existing provisions. Other initiativeshave included the updating of a schedule originatingin 1962 on occupational diseases and the setting out of principles for compensation. Agreement in principle was reached in June 1993 on a 1991 Commission proposal that a European Health and Safety Agencyshould be created (Euro? pean Commission, 1993d). Since the main motivatingfactorfor most mi? grantsremains the search foremployment,such developmentswill be to the benefitof legal migrantswho are in formal employment,though the same regulationsare less likely to be followed by those who are employing illegal migrantlabor. A further area of increasingimportancewherehealthcare is concerned rests with the increasingnumber of retiredand older persons who are migrating fromone European countryto another,frequendyin search of the sun, but

Keeping with Schengen:Migrationand Policyinthe EU Up

957

also by the process of retour pays,or returnmigration.While such move? au mentsremainwithinone country, problemswiththeprovisionofpublic health care and othersocial security benefitsdo not arise. However,thishas become a problem at the European level,when nationalsof one membercountryretire and Dutch in the south of Spain, permanendyto another.For example,British or Germans in the midi'm France.At present,althoughit is relatively easy for such personsto obtain any appropriateresidencepermitin the countryof their choice within the EU, the authoritiesof the host countryhave the rightto means to show no need to demand that the migrantconcerned has sufficient become a chargeupon the health and othersocial servicesof the host country otherthan via privatehealth insurance(Eurinfo,1993a; 1993b). As 1993 was designated the "Year of the Elderly," and the number of retiredpersons, including migrants,continues to rise across Europe, in due course further developmentsmightreasonablybe expected in thesefields.

Internal Policies towards Migrant Minorities Many policies which affectmigrantminoritieshave already been discussed herein. There do remain, however, a number of mattersthat concern the relationshipsbetweenthe population of the host countryand inward migrant groups, many of which have receivedconsiderable publicityin recenttimes. Xenophobic attitudes and actions seem to be on the increase. From the liberal position which developed duringthe 1950s to 1970s period relatively when the need forextralabor was at its maximum, the immigrationpolicies of most EU countries, individually, are evolving to a much less inviting characterat the present,when the European economy as a whole is undergo? and unemploymentis high. The Council of Ministersof ing greatdifficulties the EU, reflecting opinions of member governments, also spending a the is deal of time on the refinement and coordination of immigrationpolicy great throughoutits area of competence (Council of the European Communities, are 1992b); most of theseresults leading towardsmore restrictive immigration formigrantsfromoutside the EU. Individual governments mem? in policies ber stateshold the responsibility combating the racial and other formsof for violence towardsforeigners which have eruptedin recentmonths,though any of policy responses so farhave tended towards restriction entryratherthan amelioration of conditions withinthe country(The Economist, 1992a). Addi? tional strains have been generated by the extreme political situation in and asylum seekers ex-Yugoslavia,producing verylarge numbers of refugees the EU area. It is estimatedthatover the period 1991-92,60,000 throughout persons a month were enteringGermany,which then had no officialbarriers to asylum seekers,and which until recendy has had no law by which the authoritiescould refuseentry,even though afterentryit is correspondingly more difficult obtain German citizenship (The Economist,1992b). This to

958

International MigrationReview

unmanageable situation in Germany inevitablyled to demands for greater in of restriction entry, line with most of Germanys partners. Where migrationbetweenEU countriesis concerned,the situationforEU As member state nationals is verydifferent. alreadyexplained, most if not all recentpolicy and legislationhas moved towardsthe freemovementof persons, the goods, and services thesebeing theprinciplesunderlying Single European Market and the MaastrichtTreaty.It is too earlyto say whetherthe gradual northernmigrantsand othersin the enlargementof concentrationsof retired sun belt of southern France, Spain, and Portugal will lead to any formsof tension.At present,the regionaleconomies are in generalbenefiting fromthis of influx,althoughwhetherthiswill continue if migrationdecreasesand type as these populations gradually become older is open to question. Periodic locally based problems concerninginternalmovementare raised in Belgium, where some attempts have been made by Flemish-speakingcommunes to restrict to stop the inwardmigrationofWalloons (Le Soir,1993), and census or migration returnsin Belgium certainlydemonstrate the small amount of movement between the two linguisticzones, the Brusselsregion apart. In the U.K., the NorthernIrelandproblemhas led to widespreadrelocationof certain sectionsof the community, into concentrations especiallyin the cityof Belfast, of persons on at least nominal religiousgrounds. Of course, neitherof these two cases can be described as policy,though theydo call forpolicy responses fromnational governments. European-levelpolicy on internalmigration All and movement within the Union remainsbased upon the presumptionthat local difficulties such as thesewill not continue to existindefinitely, at least or will not get further of hand. out SOME RESEARCH IMPLICATIONS

In this articlewe suggestedthat working in this field of migrationpolicy in Europe gave rise to certaincharacteristic problems.We have taken as a basic the position that an understanding of policy is of fundamental premise in importanceto geographers migrationresearch.European migrationdata in the formof statistics tend to mask the reasons why those figures have arisen and, in a large majorityof the migrationsituationswhich are to be found in Europe, the question why may well be answeredby the studyof national and supranationalpolicy. While it is easy to assertthispoint, it is anotherthingto tryto keep trackof those policies,especiallyin the recentdecade and especially since the major political changesin Europe after1989. While those researchers who are dealing primarilywith data will continue to complain about the of unreliability much of the data withwhich theyare dealing and will become involved with large amounts of estimating, migrationresearcher the studying must always beware of general elections, governmental migration policy changes,growingxenophobia,disputesbetweennationaland European Union and so on. Definitive statementsabout one policy might representatives,

Keeping with Schengen:Migrationand Policyinthe EU Up

959

become out of date overnightas a resultof political changes in one national withdrawalof area, as happened in the summerof 1995 with the (temporary) France fromthe Schengen Accords, producing an about-facein the policing The geographical researcherinto European migration of French frontiers. therefore to be preparedto spreadhis or her net rather has wide, and to policy tryto bear in mind the followingfiveprinciples: ? The most rapid changes in migrationpolicy, or in the application of existingpolicies, in Europe tend to happen at national government levels. At the European Union level, however, changes occur much more slowly as these depend totally upon the appropriate levels of In they agreement beingreachedbetweennationalinterests. thisrespect, are perhaps more reliableforresearchpurposes. ? The interaction betweendata (L e., the numbersof migrants)and policy (Le., the political responses to those numbers) is not always what it seems. While it mightseem reasonable fora countrythat has received to upon large numbersof inward migrants introducesome restrictions future inward migration (perhaps in the case of Germany), other countriesmay introduce quite severerestrictions against an imagined threatof largeinward migration(the U.K., forexample). ? As the of explained earlier, majority policyresponseto migrationoccurs in respectof externalnot internalmigration, and in the last 20 yearsin most of these policies have been restrictive both at national Europe and at European levels. But it was not always like this. In an earlier post-World War II period, inward migrationwas encouraged in order to provide the numbers required in the labor force.Thus we had the in gastarbeiter Germany and the Netherlands,and the attachmentof the Britishto welcoming theirCommonwealth brethren. the mo? At ment it is difficult see thiskind ofpolicy returning, with an aging to but labor force and at the same time a growingeconomy, why not? (The March 26,1995) Independent, ? The problem of reliablesourceson migration policy changesin Europe is a considerable one. Afterchanges have taken place and have been introduced into law, they then may be consulted via the appropriate statute books - European and/or national. But informationon the reasons for the changes, the deliberations leading to agreement or otherwise,and on implementationtends to come via normallyreliable organs of the press or via the individuals involved. Cross-referencing between the reliable press and other media of different European countriesis oftenhelpful in arriving trulyobjective versions of the at same migrationeventsand situations,as is noting the press comments in one countryon anothercountry'sproblemsor policies. ? The nature of much within and into the European area is migrating if international, not continental;so while individual nations mightsee

960

International MigrationReview

a situation or a problem from its own perspective,the researcher the studying actual movementsappreciatesthefactthattherealproblem has a total European or internationaldimension. The interactionof individual national policies within the European context therefore becomes of prime importancein the studyof migrationpolicy in the European area. CONCLUSION It is clear thatmigrationpolicywithinthe area and competenceof the EU and its membersstatesremainsverycomplex and is also stillin a stateof consider? able flux.The pushes towardsgreater controlson movementsfromthe outside describedin thisarticleare in directcompetitionin policy termsnot onlywith the equally important push towards greaterease of movement within the Union but also withthe drivetowardsgreater economic success.The harmoni? zation of legislationand policy seems to be one of the major concerns of the EU member states,and the processof harmonizationis apparendy gaining in momentum. If at the same time the EU were to develop a 'fortress Europe' mentalityas far as population migrationis concerned, this could well have with outside stateswhich go farbeyond the question of political ramifications who gets entry visas and who does not. An enlightenedapproach which may work to graduallylessen the pressureof inward migrationmight be for the Union to seek to reduce the push factorsexistingin third countries and to commence various formsof cooperation with them,which would include the formulationof policies aimed at the managementof migration,the develop? ment of skillsto manage these policies, and the more generalencouragement of positivepublic and individualattitudes towardsinwardmigrants. However, such moves would requirethe developmentof policies thatshow considerable While thereis not much sign of this as yet, it is to be hoped that foresight. European politicians will show themselvesto be capable of moving in this directionand not to be relying moves. solelyupon restrictive REFERENCES "RealDecreto de Item15288in BOE No.156.Ministerio Relaciones 766/1992," conlasCortes de la Secretaria Gobierno, del Madrid. 30. June y G. Brochmann, "Control Control Immigration in in Making?" vs. A Policies: Closed 1992 Europe the Paper in at "MassMigration Europe," Vienna. March. presentedtheConference G. Callovi, of in 1992 of "Regulation Immigration1993:Pieces theEuropean Community Jig-Saw International 26: Puzzle," Review, 353-372. Migration Cane,A. "Caseof'Deja Vu on EU Travel," 1994 Financial 28. Times, January BOE 1992

Up Keeping with Schengen:Migrationand Policyinthe EU

961

Carvel, J. HaveYour Guardian 1992a "Please Manchester, 22. July Passports Ready....!"The (Society), 1992b to "Million Aliens BanonEntry EC," TheGuardian Face Manchester, 3. July (Society),

A. Convey, L. in In and Law;Interna? "Some of 1994 Mobility Europe." Education the Aspects Teacher London: Ed.W and tional Perspectives. Tulasiewicz G. Strowbridge. Roudedge. Costa-Lascoux, J. a l'Horizon 11: "LesPolitiques 1990 1993."L'Evenement Europeen, 61-77. Migratoires Council theEuropean of Communities in of Council Lisbon, 26-27. 1992a "Conclusions thePresidency." June European 1992b for Council of Meeting the of Ministers "Conclusionsthe Responsible Immigration." November General Secretariat 30. (10518/92(Presse London, 230)),

P. Davidson, of for Makes Spain," Independent, 30. The "Wave Illegals 1993 August The Economist Lineon the If Had to Countries BeenQuicker Takea Tough 1992a "At Gates: European to WhatWas Once Now be Kinder PeopleFleeing They Asylum-seekers, Might December 5. London, Yugoslavia," 1992b December 5. London, Strains, Fears," "Germany's Europe's

Eurinfo March. 1993a "Libre Oui, 173, Circulation; Mais_!" EurinfoNo. Bruges, 1993b "Le Citoyen No. Retraite," Europeen April. Eurinfo 174,Bruges,

Commission European in European ExclusionPoverty Other and Social Problemsthe 1993a "Social Community." London: Commission theEuropean of ISEC/B11/93. Communities, 6. April 1993b of Com? Travel." London: Commission theEuropean ISEC/B14/93. "Community munities, 11. May of "TheEnlargement Community." ofthe London: Commission the ISEC/B15/93. Communities, 19. European May of Com? Second London: ISEC/B25/93. Report." "ApplicationtheSocialCharter; of 20. mission theEuropean Communities, August Luxem? of Final Qualifications." Document, "ComparabilityVocational Training February. bourg, of European "TheMaastricht London: ISEC/ Commissionthe Agreement." B25/92. 29. Communities, September

1993c

1993d

1992a

1992b

962

InternationalMigrationReview

1991

into Southern of ofCitizens Third Member States from Countries the "Immigration No. the European SocialEurope, Community," Supplement 1/91.Luxembourg: for Relations Social and Affairs. Directorate General Employment, Industrial from Commission the Council."(COM(90)225 final), the to "Interim Report Brussels, 12. June

1990

Communities European "TheSingle No. 1989 Act," Communities,L:169, Journalthe European Official of European Brussels, 30. June Financial Times in LandofUnification," November 1992 25. "Strangersthe E. Honnekop, Movements Central Eastern from and The 1991 "Migratory Europe: CasesofGermany andAustria." of of on at ConferenceMinisters "Move? Paper given Council Europe of ment Persons from Central Eastern and Countries," Vienna, Coming European of Council Europe. 24-25.Strasbourg: January N. Hopkinson into 1991 HMSO,London. Europe," "Migration Western Italian recorded Embassy's telephone message "Italian in 1993 Embassy London" January. Liberation sans Fera avecle Printemps," December 1994 23. "L'Europe Frontieres SesDebuts Maastricht of Preamble. 1993 Treaty Maastricht, W Markiewicz, 1992a "Przez 19. Zielona," Polityka, September 1992b "Atak Budowe," na 22. Polityka, August

A. Marr, the and March The 1995 "Keep MixSalty Strong," Independent, 26. A. Marshall, as Raises Drawbridge," Independent. the The 1992 Pay "Refugees a HighPrice Europe LeMonde "LesNouvelles Portes l'Europe," 27. de 1995a June 1995b 1995c 1994 Reactions Moderees Partenairesla France." des de "Schengen: "La Frontiere Va Etre July Franco-Espagnole Renforcee," 1. La "L'Ouverture Frontieres des de Devrait Europeennes: Convention Schengen Entrer Vigeur Printemps en au 22. December 1995,"

"L'Accord Schengen?" de October 20. 1993 Niessen, J. and 1992 on "European Community Cooperation Migra? Legislation Intergovernmental International 26: tion," Review, 676-684. Migration

Keeping with Schengen:Migrationand Policyinthe EU Up OECD 1990

963

in of Analysis Regularisation Italy, "Comparative Experience France, Spainandthe USA,"Paris. D. O'Keeffe, Posed Asylum The December "TheDilemma 31. 1992 by Policy," Independent, M. Okolski, and Movements Countries Central Eastern from of 1991 Europe." Paper "Migratory given of at Council Europe of of on Conference Ministers "Movement Persons Coming from Central Eastern and 24-25.Strasbourg: Vienna, Countries," January European of Council Europe. I. Owen, Hit VisaList The 1. "Lords atEC Over 1994 Times, Plan," Financial August A. Sage, Stresses Benefits Co-operationJustice," Independent, of in The 1. October 1992 "Mackay Salt, J. 1995 in for "International Control Europe: and Perspectives the Migration Migration at 1990s." Conference, January. Paper Newcasde-upon-Tyne, given theIBGAnnual

"Current Future and International Trends Affecting Europe." Paper Migration given at Fourth Conference European of Ministers for Affairs, Responsible Migration of Council Europe. 17-18.Strasbourg: Luxembourg, September Schutte,J.E. J. of Its for Movement Persons Europe," in Common 1991 "Schengen: Meaning theFree Market Review, 549-570. Law 28: Act European Single Preamble. 1986 1991 Le Soir "Un Walen en II Prouver 'Interet un Buiten and 1993 Deloyal S'installer Flandre?Faudrait 24. Suffisant,'" Brussels, February SOPEMI "Trends International in Paris: 1992 Migration." OECD. N. Thierry, Puts Strain Pensions," European, on The November 1994 3. Population the "Aging B. Wierzbicki, Wobec 4: 71-86. 1991 Uchodzcow," Polityka "Europejska Sprawy Miedzynarodowe, Willman,J. Protests EU over to 1994 3. Law," Financial Times, "Hoverspeed August Immigration The