” “A principle of dignity

Since 1999, when the European Union acquired a competence in asylum and migration policy with the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam, the Churches in Europe have actively monitored and accompanied the development of a Common European Immigration policy as well as a common European Asylum System. The Churches in Europe have repeatedly submitted comments to specific initiatives within these policy areas, which have mostly been elaborated ecumenically. Despite the fact that migration has been on top of the agenda of several Council presidencies since 1999, progress has not been achieved as foreseen, and some of the deadlines set by title IV of the Amsterdam treaty already risk to be missed. This may look paradox, because the need for a coherent migration policy in a European Union withouth internal borders seems so evident. However, we can notice that migration policy is in the center of public attention in almost all EU Member States. While the European Commission submits the legislative proposals, the Council of Ministers, which is the most important decision-making institution of the EU, has to approve these initiatives by unanimity. The European Parliament has a merely consultative role. And many National administrations are not (yet) ready to accept that the European Common Good might be more beneficial to the European Union as a whole than what they imagine to be their “national interest”. It can only be hoped that the European Parliament’s support for a change in the decision making process will bear fruit. The Church has supported the emersion of a common European policy in this domain since the beginning. One of the starting points of the Church’s teaching on migration is what the Holy Father John Paul II restated in his message to World Migrants’ Day 2001: The Church’s support for the respect of fundamental human rights, specifically “the right to have one’s own country, to live freely in one’s own country, to live together with one’s family, to have access to the goods necessary for a dignified life, to preserve and develop one’s ethnic, cultural and linguistic heritage, to publicly profess one’s religion, to be recognized and treated in all circumstances according to one’s dignity as a human being”. According to the Church, the right to emigrate must be considered in this context. It recognises this right as a dual one, the possibility to leave one’s country and the possibility to enter another country to look for better conditions of life. In this context, the Holy Father clarifies that “the exercise of such a right is to be regulated, because practicing it indiscriminately may do harm and be detrimental to the common good of the community that receives the migrant”. The emerging EU policy on Migration and Asylum respects these principles in general terms. As the European Commissioner responsible for Migration, Mr António Vitorino, confirmed in a speech to the European Parliament at its February plenary session: “Asylum is a right, Migration is an opportunity”. The European Union respects the Member States’ international obligations under the Geneva Refugee Convention as to the right of Asylum. It recognises the benefits that so-called labour migrants can bring to a society. It is aware of the necessity of co-operation with the countries of origin. It sets a framework of harmonised admission procedures for migrants, within which it is up to Member States to decide how many their societies are capable of integrating. However, the EU Council of Ministers, i.e. the assembly of Home Affairs ministers of Member States, is hesitant about certain consequences of these principles, especially in the aftermath of 11 September 2001. For example, “co-operation with the countries of origin” is mainly seen in the context of controlling the borders and preventing emigration instead of being put into the larger framework of conflict prevention or development co-operation in order to address the real root causes of migration. In their statements, the Churches have repeatedly underlined the need to consider migrants as actors – and not objects – of migration. For example, the contribution of migrants’ remittances to the development of their country of origin should not be underestimated, as the examples of the Philippines and Mexico have already shown. This economic contribution of migrants is not complemented by legal guarantees for their rights and social standards. Another field of concern is the current state of negotiations on the EU-wide harmonisation of the right to family reunification. After three years of negotiations in the Council of Ministers, the second amended proposal of the European Commission has downgraded the initiative to a less cohesive approach of identifying minimum standards at a low level with wide discretion for Member States. The present proposal combines a very narrow definition of the family with very strict material conditions. Family life is an essential element to all societies, and the right to family life is a cornerstone for integration of migrants. Member States are obliged by international conventions – and most of them also by their own constitutional law – to safeguard and protect the family. For example, it would be against all legal traditions in the European Union to have waiting periods for minor children before being able to live with their family. However, this would be possible under the draft directive. In the context of the respect of every individual’s fundamental human rights, the Holy Father concludes: “It is necessary to have international norms that are capable of regulating everyone’s rights, so as to prevent unilateral decisions that are harmful to the weakest.” It is to be hoped that the EU Member States will be able to respect this principle also in regard to their common asylum and immigration policy.