EU-immigration policy

RE: EU-immigration policy, Update

Yeah, but why do they throw up so many legal hurdles to people from civilised countries? And despite their “border security” they don’t seem to notice the hispanic invasion.

The answer is probably that they are scared of educated and civilised people coming – they’ll take all the jobs. The Mexicans can drive taxis, though.

RE: EU-immigration policy, Update

“Funny how the US “allows” poor people with no skills to enter their country, …”

I think the US’s policy on immigration is pretty plain… compare their northern and southern borders… Canadians vs Mexicans.

(Of course I am assuming it is about money or lack of and not race for the high fences and armed patrols on one and not the other…)

RE: EU-immigration policy, Update

Are you serious about the Danish law GF? Sounds too ludicrous to actually be legal.

Funny how the US “allows” poor people with no skills to enter their country, but throws the book at Brits or Europeans who try to get a green card. Are the Americans trying to tell us something?

RE: EU-immigration policy, Update

Well, the EU needs new immigrants, because the demand four highly skilled people is very large these days. What the rightwing gov’ts want is that only people having a PhD will be allowed to enter the Union, but that’s ofcourse racist and has already been condemned by Amnesty International and the UN.

Anyway, it’s time for a new immigration law because things now are too complicated.

Denmark adapted a new lay which prohibited people under 24 to marry somebody who’s not a resident of the EU. So if a boy from Denmark, age 23, wants to marry a girl from Norway, this marriage will be illegal. Damn, but he can always marry an Irish girl }> 🙂

RE: EU-immigration policy, Update

A high level of socialism makes a welfare magnet for illegal immigrants. Here in the US, one in every 25 people is an uneducated, unskilled illegal immigrant (about 11 million in country) and that population grows daily. When they come here they are put on the dole (illegally) because government bureaucrats justify their existence and budget by the number of people they serve. Illegals get free education, free health care, subsities for housing & food, and bus passes. Government workers who are members of the Democratic party encourage illegals to vote (also illegal) for Democrats so the Democrats retain their power base. Many illegals come here to work and integrate into American society. That is good because the US is a nation of immigrants. However many do not want to integrate and what they cannot afford to buy, they steal. The most the US government will do is occasionally deport a truly henious illegal offender. Most of those sneak back across the border to continue their lifestyle of crime.

EU-immigration policy, Update

Huddled masses: stay out

Jun 21st 2002
From The Economist Global Agenda

Following a wave of support for far-right, xenophobic parties, immigration is top of the agenda at the Seville summit of European Union leaders on June 21st and 22nd. European leaders say they want harmonious EU action against illegal immigration. In reality, nearly all governments are still sticking to policies of their own
AP

EUROPE’S leaders have been given a jolt. Across the continent there is growing disquiet over a perceived rise in immigration, or at least in immigrant-related problems. This has manifested itself in rioting, as in the north of England, last summer, and in a surge of support for far-right political parties, including France’s National Front, the Freedom Party in Austria, the Pim Fortuyn List in the Netherlands, the Northern League in Italy and the Danish People’s Party. European leaders are worried that if they are not seen to act against illegal immigration, the far right will gain even more ground. Anxious to address this problem, the Spanish have put immigration top of the agenda for the EU summit in Seville later this week.

There are four different aspects to the package on immigration that will be tackled by the leaders: managing borders; regulating legal immigration; combating illegal immigration and action against third countries from which illegal immigrants come, or through which they pass.

The EU’s best guess is that the Union’s domains absorb 500,000 illegals every year. Although the popular image of these people is formed by television pictures of Iraqis and Afghans trying to hop aboard trains that go through the Chunnel to Britain, or of Albanians struggling to cross the Adriatic to Italy in rickety boats, most illegal immigrants in the EU enter legally and simply stay on when their visas run out. Despite some politicians’ steamy rhetoric, nobody really knows whether the flow of illegal immigrants is going up or down. It is known, however, that the number of refugees claiming political asylum in the Union has slowed sharply over the past decade. Last year 384,530 people claimed asylum, against 675,460 in 1992.

For several years EU leaders have been promising a common policy for both illegal immigration and asylum seekers. Now that the Union (bar Britain, Ireland and Denmark) has scrapped passport controls for travelling within it, logic suggests that a common approach to controlling the EU’s external frontier should be forged. Having 15 different national regimes for asylum and naturalisation has also led to worries that illegal immigrants are “asylum shopping”, and to recriminations between neighbouring countries like Britain and France, and Denmark and Sweden.

But while EU leaders love harmonisation in theory, in practice progress has been very sticky. A senior official at the European Commission, which has been trying to hammer out common policies, laments “a general unwillingness to change national systems whatever they may be.” Britain, for instance, lets asylum-seekers look for work six months after they have lodged their application; Germany makes them wait 12 months and France 18. Trying to find a common approach to family reunification has also proved fraught. Germany wants to prevent children older than 12 joining their parents; others see this as too tough. The Dutch want gays to be allowed to join their partners; the Spanish are dead against the idea. In theory, EU leaders also want a common time-frame for assessing asylum claims; in practice, many home ministers say they cannot give deadlines to judges.

It is unlikely that putting illegal immigration at the top of the agenda in Seville will lead to a breakthrough. The summiteers will look for progress in two specific areas. First, they will ponder the idea of an EU border-police to replace national frontier controls. That will be deemed a step too far for now, so instead there will be moves towards exchanging information on visas and an emphasis on greater co-operation between frontier police. Second, the leaders may try to reach a compromise on an idea, championed by Britain and Spain, of trying to link foreign aid to countries’ willingness to take back refugees whose asylum applications have been rejected. This may generate the headlines that EU leaders want about “tough action”. But opposition from a number of EU countries means the reality will be messier, and will probably emphasise rewards for co-operation rather than punishments. No one will subordinate aid to the fight against illegal immigration.

So a genuine harmonisation of asylum policies will have to wait for another day. Commission officials hope that in about six months they may secure agreement on family reunification. Establishing common procedures for processing applications and appeals is likely to take much longer. In any case, some officials reckon that even if a fully harmonised set of EU rules is eventually achieved, it would be unlikely to ensure that all EU countries share a proportionately equal burden of asylum-seekers. That is because the laxness or otherwise of national regimes is only one factor determining where asylum-seekers make their claims: family and cultural ties, work opportunities and language are just as important.

Liberals within the commission and elsewhere are hoping that the Seville summit will not strike too punitive a tone. “We might get something into the 13th paragraph of the summit statement, acknowledging that EU countries actually need immigrants,” says one official wryly. But the argument that allowing more legal immigration is both the way to stem illegal immigration and to solve the problem of the EU’s ageing population is widely viewed as too simple. As the same official points out, “We know from America’s experience that allowing lots of legal immigration does not put a stop to illegal immigration.” EU studies have also suggested that immigration alone will not be enough to make Europe’s population younger.

So in calling for the harmonisation of EU policies on illegal immigration, European leaders are engaging in a great deal of double-talk. The number of asylum-seekers does not bear out talk of a worsening crisis. And the actions of political leaders do not suggest a great desire to surrender control of national immigration in favour of a common EU approach.

On the contrary. In the weeks before the Seville summit, several EU governments have taken unilateral measures to tighten up their own immigration regimes. Denmark has brought in a law cutting benefits to asylum-seekers and making it harder to bring in spouses or elderly relatives. Italy will soon have one that would make non EU-citizens be fingerprinted if they want to live in the country. Britain’s government has proposed educating the children of asylum-seekers outside the main school system. In Austria, immigrants will have to try harder to learn German. Other countries may well follow suit. EU governments can talk till they are blue in the face about a common approach. For now, unilateral action is still the order of the day.

RE: EU-immigration policy

this is avery dangerous and doggey issue in all of europe.

this IMHO is one area where brtiain feels euope can work to our advantage. the rest of europe scrapped its customs ages ago but we kept our cos we knew this would happen. once i get onto the ailand europe there are no border checkpoints till i leave the eu. this means that refuges have got through the alrge and porus borders of said coutries (span and intaly) and made their way norht to as geforce ahs indicated the rivh north. now we in the uk are not too pleased about econmic imigrants coming in despite the fact that in a limited case we need them for jobs like fruit picking.

refuges all meet up in the red cross camp in france and then come here. what pisses everyone offf in the uk is that if they were real asylumseekers then they would stiop in the first western democracy eg france (where they are) or italy or spain (which they travelled through).

so stopping them before they get here is to the average brit a great idea

rabie :9

RE: EU-immigration policy

As a cynical Brit (Europe is out to get us), I have no problem in beleiving that the ultimate aim of the EU is a federal super-state. Various EU leaders admit this from time to time.

If this is going to happen, then it will presumably be on a multi-tiered basis; what former UK Prime Minister, John Major, descirbed as “variable geometry Europe”.

The clear implication is that there must be border controls between the inner core of Europe and the rest.

If there are going to be internal borders between the inner EU and the outer EU, then there is no conflict with having a third “outer” border between the EU and non-EU countries.

A common EU immigration policy is designed partly to set the scene for the above scenario.

RE: EU-immigration policy

A EU border police is asked by Spain (and Italy) not as a way of reducing inmigration (or at least that´s how I see it) but because of the cost of the strait of Gibraltar surveilance. Spanish Guardia Civil and SVA (border police) deploy a lot of people and machines (fast boats, helicopters, etc) which could be used in other places but nowadays are stopping (and saving, something frequently forgotten by the media) inmigrants from Africa. Much money has been inverted in the strait with radars, IR cameras, etc but the problem remains.
Maybe Europe should pay part of this cost, as many of these people came to Spain in order to reach other european countries.

I guess the same happens with Italy.

RE: EU-immigration policy

Recent studies have learned us that immigration in the EU is actually lower than in most other industrialised countries. For Spain and Italy, the countries who have to give shelter to the bulk of refugees, this is however a worthless argument. But the Benelux and the Scandinavian countries shouldn’t complain on too much immigration, still, it are these nations that also request for a strong, defensive immigration policy.

RE: EU-immigration policy

I find that we have to be solidarious with poor countries, but certain control measures have to be established. We can´t provide shelter to anyone wanting to come in. It´s impossible to absorb the mumber of people wanting to get into Europe. In the case of Spain the number of people who enters illegally is terribly high since we are in contact directly with problem, and expoused to the African coasts. Hundreds of emigrants are risking their lives (like in the US) to cross the strait or even from the African coasts to the Cannary Islands. So I am for the control measures. I find it more effective helping poor countries and improving their stardards of living in their enviroment.