The matter at stake

Since the endorsement of the Treaty of Rome in 1957 and since “the progressive implementation of the free circulation of workers (1868)” until today, “the creation of the European migration space underwent different phases”, while Europe, “one of the word’s major recipients of immigrants, is addressing contradicting claims, controlled by the public opinion hit by the security-syndrome”, declared Catherine Withol de Wenden, Research Coordinator at Cnrs (National Centre for Scientific research of the French Government) in the March issue of “Études”, the magazine on contemporary culture of France’s Jesuits. It is estimated that 30 million foreigners currently live in the EU. The first immigration country is Germany with 6.7 million foreigners (9% of the overall population) followed by France (3.5 million, representing 6% of the overall population). Since the 1990s, remarked Withol de Wenden, “the States focused their efforts on border control, on the fight against clandestine immigration, terrorism, organized crime and have been obsessed with challenges linked to integration”. It appears that “security concerns prevail over the will of harmonizing national migration policies”. Europe’s reponses. “The European Union – the expert declared – develops migration flow policies, that are examined at intergovernmental level before passing to the EU decision-making process”. However, “each country strives to give the illusion of being the ‘owner’ of policies developed in this area”. As a result, “a documental Europe witnesses the juxtaposition of different regulations” along with “partially integrated under-systems”. It’s a “confused situation” that represents the framework of the “European Pact on Immigration and Asylum”, adopted October 2008 under French presidency. The document established five commitments to be implemented in the 2010 programme, that will succeed that of La Haye: organizing legal immigration, “taking into account priorities, needs and asylum capacities established by the single Member States” and promoting integration; fighting against clandestine immigration; stepping up border control efficiency; creating a “Europe of Asylum” and lastly, establishing global partnerships with the countries of origin and the transit countries, thereby “promoting synergies between migration and development”. According to the expert, despite “the lack of a legal framework in the form of binding treaties for the States”, the Pact “highlights solidarity”. It isn’t a juridical bond, although it represents States’ political commitment, notwithstanding the respect for their sovereignty”. It is also an attempt at “renovating working methodology at European level (annual debate and report by the Commission) with new proposals (a European Office providing support in the area of Asylum cooperation)”. The response of the States. For Withol de Wenden, most European countries “responded to migration pressure by frequently modifying their current regulations on the entry, residence and nationality of migrants”, along with “regularization flows”, that view migrations as a “historical exception”. “If entry and transit provisions were harmonised – she remarked – residence provisions would still lie in the jurisdiction of the different States, in compliance with the subsidiarity rule”. Our Continent is marked by migration and by the flow of refugees and asylum-seekers; by “diaspora-like settlements” and by “the heritage of colonialism” along with “mobile immigration that is not necessarily aimed at settling down”. In addition, since the year 2000 ongoing debate on Europe’s ageing population – which dawns on the horizon of the year 2030 – on the lack of specialized labour workers and the unbalance between active and non active population, has been eroding the stands of those in favour of “zero immigrants”. A change occurred in favour of reception, which is also bound to the “world competition aimed at attracting qualified staff”, that views youth mobility as part of “world public goods”, the researcher remarked. Emerging rights. “Before the differences between European mechanisms for migration flow management and the developing state of affairs, the Communitisation of decisions taken at European level is a far more efficient tool that national policies. But it is still marked by confusion”, the expert claimed. “The matter at stake is to find a compromise between openness and closure, between the logic of security and the logic of the economy”. At the same time “mobility and the democratization of the borders are part of emerging rights, while attempts at migration flow governance at global level are being conceived, involving the Countries of departure, of arrival, non governmental international organizations and associations of migrants”.