Christian organisations comment proposals on labour migration

While the rights-based approach chosen by the European Commission is to be appreciated, a reference to the ILO and UN Conventions on workers rights as well as to the articles of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union concerning the rights of workers is missing. Despite the objective of the proposal to create a level playing field for all third-country nationals legally working within the EU we would like to express our criticism about the exclusion of seasonal workers (Art.3.2(d)), asylum seekers and people under subsidiary protection (Art.3.2(e) and (f)) from the scope of the directive. We consider this approach as discriminatory. By not setting any limitation to the possibility of extending (in exceptional circumstances) the time limit to process the application and adopt a decision for the issuing of the single permit the proposed directive leaves room for excessive or even abusive extensions of the period foreseen in Art. 5.2. Moreover we are concerned about the fact that Art. 5.3 does not specify the language in which the decision should be notified to the thirdcountry national. Another problem is contained in Art. 8.2: this provision allows challenging before the courts of the Member States concerned, any decision rejecting the application, not granting, modifying or renewing, suspending or withdrawing a single permit but does not provide for a suspensive effect of the eventual appeal.

Furthermore we are concerned that it is largely left to the Member States' discretion to grant equal treatment with regard to working conditions and freedom of association only to those who are employed (Art.12.2(d)) . A right to a similar protection should also be granted to job seekers in the recruitment phase. The exceptions contained in Art. 12.2 would also heavily limit the scope and the effectiveness of the directive, which is intended to be a nucleus of “basic rights”.

Referring to the above mentioned reservations we would like to underline that the other proposals in the area of international mobility of workers must be read in the context of this proposal for directive. Because of its political importance this directive should therefore be adopted before or together with the other legislative proposals.

We also welcome those provisions which facilitate circular migration opportunities by allowing Blue Card holders to return to their country of origin for up to 24 months (Art. 17.4), as well as the proposal allowing to cumulate periods of residence in different Member States (Art. 17.2). In our contribution to the Green Paper “An EU approach to managing economic migration”, COM (2004) 811 we underlined that circular migration can encourage circulation of know-how if persons are given the opportunity to come and work for a certain period of time, and to return to their home country for a successive period without losing the acquired rights (e.g. as longterm resident third-country national).

An aspect which we consider to be very problematic is that the proposal is presented at a time when there is no freedom of movement for all EU citizens, with several restrictions still in place for citizens of new EU Member States even going as far as 2015. This unequal treatment reserved to millions of EU citizens clearly contradicts the principle of community preference. At the same time we would like to underline that the scope of the proposal should be extended to refugees (Art. 3.2), beneficiaries of subsidiary protection and asylum seekers, granting them access to the labour market. By doing so, not only “brain drain”, but also “brain waste” would be avoided. Policies and instruments covering all categories of workers can be implemented more efficiently and contribute to avoiding red tape and excessive bureaucracy.

Besides we see the urgent need for further progress in concluding agreements between Member States and immigrants´ countries of origin with a view to transferring acquired social security rights. Given the increasing globalisation of the labour market and the international mobility of workers, a new approach regarding the portability of acquired social security rights would be advisable. Developing systems calculating social security rights on the basis of the (international) professional career of the individual worker, independently from his/her nationality or citizenship, the country he/she worked in or the “nationality” of the company he/she works for will be inevitable. Also with regard to the mutual recognition of qualifications the status quo is absolutely unsatisfactory (even among EU Member States) and further improvements are urgently required. Otherwise the aim of reducing cumbersome bureaucracy will remain unachievable. In this respect we recommend to assess the existing bilateral and multilateral agreements on transfers of social security rights between EU member states and third countries.

A three month period to look for a new job (Art. 14.1) is definitely too short and unrealistic. We recommend extending this period. We are also concerned that some Member States which are not convinced of this approach might undermine the logic behind the proposal by either setting a very high threshold for the minimum gross monthly salary or by reducing the volume of labour migration to zero.

Moreover, we would like to underline that if the Blue card proposal is intended to compete with other famous examples, like the green card successfully used in the United States, the EU proposal lacks ambition and falls short of creating a competitive instrument.

Most importantly, in order to ensure the proposal’s success we feel that a facts-based public debate should be launched with the involvement of all stakeholders: it should not lead to a short-term solution for labour market needs but boost the credibility of migration policies, e.g. by providing integration measures and programmes. In this respect Churches are willing to contribute and share the expertise they have gained in the past.

First of all, we would like to welcome the Commission's approach: it aims at strengthening and deepening international cooperation and dialogue with countries of origin and transit in a comprehensive and balanced manner by exploring ways to facilitate circular and temporary migration and by suggesting to introduce the concept horizontally in legislative proposals. We also appreciate the efforts to address the “…changing patterns of migration around the world”.

We are of the opinion that opportunities for international mobility of workers, also through well-managed circular migration, can potentially bring benefits to all partners involved. It is worthwhile to test the concept of mobility partnerships including circular migration between the EU Member States and third countries by way of pilot partnerships - which should build on the existing bonds between states and provide for close cooperation with all relevant stakeholders, including the migrants themselves.

It is vital to monitor and evaluate the implementation of such projects, like Spain-Mali, but also those funded by the World Bank (between Moldova and Greece, Italy and Albania, Ukraine and Portugal) if the concept is to be successful. Nevertheless, the concept's importance should not be overestimated, as it is only one mosaic stone in a wider picture.

Mobility partnerships could represent an innovative approach capable of bringing added value to the implementation of aspects of the Global Approach to Migration. We welcome the references to the necessity of schemes facilitating economic and social reintegration of returning migrants and of efforts (including co-operation mechanisms) to facilitate the transfer of migrants’ remittances. We fear however that due to the fact that the partnerships are supposed to be broad, tailor-made and balanced, security concerns and the priority given to the fight against irregular migration might unduly influence the contents of individual mobility partnerships and lead to an imbalanced approach. Safeguards must be put in place in order to avoid that the prospect of legal migration opportunities be misused, for instance, as a trade-off for readmission agreements. The priority-aim of the initiative also needs further clarification: is it placed on fostering development in third counties or on preventing irregular migration? The “triple win situation” as expressed in the UN report 2006 on migration and development should be the guiding principle for the development of mobility partnerships.

Circular migration, also as a component of the mobility partnerships can be useful in promoting the development of countries of origin or in mitigating the adverse effect of “brain drain”. Moreover it could allow migrants to gain skills and savings while abroad. We agree with the Council that well-managed, incentive-based movements between countries of origin and destination can foster the positive effects of the contribution of migrants to development when they visit or return to their country of origin on a temporary basis. Still we are concerned about the lack of a legal definition and would recommend further clarification.

It is evident that circular migration can only be facilitated by a legal framework that promotes mobility, access to information and reintegration. Multi-entry visas, portable benefits and flexible residency, for example, could play a crucial role in helping to maintain ties with the country of origin. Therefore we advocate for integration measures for those who come to the EU, even on a temporary basis: language courses, cultural, skills and entrepreneurial training should not only be offered in the pre-departure period, but also continued and intensified after the arrival. These measures, in combination with integration measures aiming at EU citizens will contribute to social inclusion and equal treatment. We also regret the lack of any reference to family life and family reunification: in our opinion this aspect should be considered central for the chances of integration of migrants.

Finally, a set of incentives and safeguards is needed to ensure a successful implementation of circular migration. In particular re-integration assistance should be fostered¹. In any case, only an environment that helps migrants to reach their goals is most likely to foster return².

We welcome the new dynamics which the European Commission's proposals bring into the deadlocked debate on a Common European Migration Policy. We acknowledge the efforts being made to trigger political action and we are aware that concessions need to be made, even though the debate is only at the beginning. However it is of paramount importance that the highlighted shortcomings are tackled and that the required clarifications are provided. As stated above, the courage is needed to say that Europe needs and will have more migration.

¹ Caritas Europa, ICMC and partner organizations currently implement an EC co-funded project aimed at facilitating reintegration of returning migrants, with the support of partner organisations in countries of origin, see www.erso-project.eu

² Dovelyn Rannveig Agunias-Kathleen Newland, Circular Migration and Development: Trends, Policy Routes, and Ways Forward, Migration Policy Institute, Policy Brief, April 2007.