IMMIGRATION AND RIGHT OF ASYLUM: TWO COMMUNICATIONS OF THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION
The forthcoming abolition of internal borders as a consequence of the Single European Act in 1993 and the need to assure the free movement of persons within the common territory has led the European Commission to address two communications to the European Parliament and the European Council in order to initiate a discussion on the analyses and practices of the member states confronted with similar questions.
The communications appears to be a hasty attempt of the Commission to meet the European Parliament's criticism:
They confine themselves to a cursory description of ongoing policy developments and insist on the need for harmonization, much on the lines of earlier propositions of the "European Round Table of Industrialists". They call for a both "solidarian" and "realistic" approach to the problems of immigration and asylum. Whereas they contain some quite concrete and detailed propositions aiming at a better common control of migration fluxes, they remain very vague with regard to an eventual common European response to the fundamental problems at the root of the growing migration pressure.
In its communication on immigration the Commission calls for a triple action:
a. integrate migrations in the EC's foreign policy in order to cope with migration pressures;
b. assure a better command of migratory fluxes by a "harmonized" knowledge of these fluxes, the combatting of illegal immigration, a common approach to the right of asylum and a mutual rapprochement with regard to policies of family unification;
c. intensify efforts of integration in favor of legal immigrants.
a: The Commission proposes actions in favor of rural areas and poor suburbs of urban areas that have been identified as principal sources of migration. It insists on the importance of stopping the brain drain which further compromises the chances of development of poor countries "by the creation of networks between professionels of these countries and their European colleagues aiming at motivating them to participate in the development in their countries."
This sounds fine, but nothing is said about the material preconditions giving any chance of success to such networks. The first would be to stop actively recruiting elites from poor countries in order to press down salaries in Europe (Example: Baltic and polish medical personal in Sweden).
The idea of action enabling migrants to participate in development efforts in their countries of origin is regretably enough not either specified.
b: the Commission has earlier proposed the creation of an "observatory" for migratory fluxes as a precondition for getting a better command of migration developments. This function has been taken charge of by the "ad hoc group" on immigration. Moreover a questionnaire prepared by the Commission has been sent to the member states in order to gather information on fluxes in the first half-year of 1991. The Commission also proposes a report on the situation of immigrant populations and integration policies in the various member states.
With regard to illegal immigration the communication points out the importance of the Convention on the crossing of external borders and suggests a mutual adjustment of national legislations against illegal immigration and clandestine labor. The need of more firm action against employers violating labor legislation is timidly mentioned, but no material propositions are made. A harmonization of policies with regard to temporary work permits is called for. But no mention is made of the fact that these policies respond only to the demand for a more flexible labor market and are incompatible with the Commissions insistency on the need to combat social, economical and legal segregation. The declared will of the Commission to fight illegal immigration must be questioned: Experience shows that all legislative and police means of control and repression against illegal immigration fail, as long as potential migrants can have the slightest hope to escape misery in their home countries by entering Europe as temporary workers turning into clandestines, once their contract has expired.
With regard to family unification the communication limits itselves to a call for harmonization of the different national legislations and practices, once more without making any proposition with regard to the level of harmonization.
c: On this point the Commission is more outspoken: "...without leading to a right of residence automaticaly extended to the whole of the Community, the equality of treatment of the immigrants with a regularized status is a fundamental object for the whole of society." This understanding must lead to the "elimination of inequalities and the socio-juridical uncertainties that this status (legal immigrant) can comprise." Quite rightly the communication states that the certainty for an immigrant of having a permanent residence permit is an essential condition for integration and, for once, makes a concrete suggestion: the right to permanent residence should be granted after half of the period required for naturalization. However the question how long this period should be remains without answer. While the necessity of social and legal equality is repeatedly stressed, not even mention is made of the possibility to accord some form of political rights to legal immigrants.
In both communications the correlation between asylum and immigration policies is repeatedly stressed. But already the description of the present situation is questionable. The Commission uncritically adopts the official view of most European governments according to which the large majority of asylum seekers are not refugees in the meaning of the Geneva Refugee Convention of 1951.
This assertion bases solely on the established ever lower recognition quota in all member states (f.e. Germany: 15,94 % in 1986, 8,6 % in 1988, 4,38 % in 1990!). According to the Commission, economical immigrants confronted with the stop set by most European countries to workforce immigration since the late 70ies see the asylum procedure as the only way to legal immigration. This has led to massive abuse of the asylum procedure by "economical refugees." This assessment bases on highly questionable premises: It is certainly true that the immigration stop policies have led many immigrants to claim political asylum. But this does not automatically imply, that they are no Convention refugees. It could just as well signify that genuine refugees tend to rather apply for a normal residence and working permit in a host country whenever possible than seek political asylum and thereby uncover themselves as political opponents of their home countries regime (Under the military dictatorship in Greece e.g., many oppositionals escaped persecution by emigrating to Germany and other countries as "guest workers" or students). The communications also ommit to point out that European governments have adopted an evermore restrictive interpretation of the refugee definition as stipulated by the Convention (whereas it was easy for any Hungarian, Czech or Slowak to obtain asylum in the 50ies and 60ies, this has become all but impossible for a Kurd from Turkey in the 90ies, allthough the state of general and brutal repression of the Kurds is well known). A short glance at the main countries of origin of asylum seekers should suffice to understand, that with the exception of certain Eastern European countries they all come from countries with repressive regimes systematically violating human rights.
By focusing on an alleged "abuse" of the asylum procedure by "false refugees" requiring a better "control" and more harmonization, the communication eludes the big questions at the root of the immigration and refugee problem: What are the responsibilities of an arising superpower Europe with regard to the impoverishment of the Third World? What must be done to support democracy and economical development in Eastern Europe and the crumbling Soviet Union?
Quite correctly the Commission asserts in its communication on immigration that "the setting up by the member states of a restrictive legal-administrative frame has not sufficed neither to control the migratory fluxes nor to assure the integration of the immigrants disposing of a legal status of residence."
Nonetheless both communications limit themselves to point out the differences in the ongoing national practices and regulations and to call for a common approach and harmonization, without setting clear lines for a common level of rights to be granted to immigrants by all member countries. This evident lack of proposals indicates that the Commission does not really intend to meet the Malangré reports demand for a more active role of the Community's institutions with regard to immigration and asylum policies.
Nicholas Busch
Sources: Communication de la Commission au Conseil et au Parlement Européen sur l'Immigration, SEC(91) 1855 final, Bruxelles, 11.10.91; Mitteilung der Kommission an den Rat und das Europäische Parlament über das Asylrecht, SEK(91)1857 endg., Brüssel, 11.1o.91; "Reshaping Europe": a report from the European Round Table of Industrialists (ERTI), Jérôme Monod, Pehr Gyllenhammar, Wisse Dekker, September 1991)