how to respond to the eu family reunion consultation - webinar slides of 7 december 2012

Strategic thinking on equality and mobilityMIPEX: policy indicators and a joined-up approach to policy evaluation in Europe • 27 February 2008 • Prague

Presentation by Thomas HUDDLESTON

MPG Briefing for Green Paper on Family Reunion

• 7 December 2011 • Brussels, Belgium • Webinar for stakeholders

Thomas HUDDLESTON, Policy Analyst, MPG

Which of these two options would you recommend to the European Commission?

• Member States should better implement the existing Directive

• European Commission should propose changes for negotiation

• Don't know

Poll question

Contents

1) Confronting stereotypes, understanding family life

2) Right to family reunion: dynamics between EU law & national policy change

3) Impact of new family reunion tests and requirements on integration process

4) Restrictions ‘in name of integration’ separate families

Today’s online seminar:

•Family reunion in EU Member States

•EU Directive 2003/86/EC, impact, and today’s politics

•Overview for specific questions in Green Paper

Contents

Non-EU family reunion is how most immigrants come to my country.

True

False

Don't know

Poll question

Is non-EU family reunion how most immigrants come to your country? False

Calculated from Eurostat

Family reunion in EU

Is non-EU family reunion how most immigrants come to your country? False

Eurostat


Huddleston: Benchmarking in immigrant integrationHuddleston: Benchmarking in immigrant integration

Are most reuniting non-EU families from Morocco and Turkey? No.

Calculated fromEurostat


Are most family permit holders spouses? No. Family reunion policy affects children as much as husbands or wives.


Calculated from Eurostat

"Family reunification is a necessary way of making family life possible. It helps to create sociocultural stability facilitating the integration of third country nationals in the Member State, which also serves to promote economic and social cohesion, a fundamental Community objective stated in the Treaty.“

Preamble 4 to Directive 2003/86/EC

EU Directive 2003/86/EC

Standards in EU Directive 2003/86/EC

Past impact in old and new MS, potential impact?

Directive

Unclear future…

New restrictions from 2007-2010 on eligibility and conditions in 9 may delay or discourage family reunion

Limited rights to work in Ireland and Malta delays families’ labour market participation

…but fewer problems todayAverage country far beyondDirective’s minimums, someuse several ‘may’ clauses

In most of 24 where applies:

Residence of ≤1 year

No age limits over 18

Some entitlement for otherdependent adult family

Basic housing & economicresource requirements

No language and integrationconditions or pre-entry tests

SEE BRIEFING 2 ANNEX


From MIPEX 2011 (see briefing 2 annex)

1) Long-term & registered partners largely ignored

2) Many conditions for other adult dependents

3) Some impose restrictive family definitions & burdensome conditions

4) Income required often higher than social assistance

5a) Few imposing integration conditions are extending them to spouses in countries of origin, with high costs & less support5b) Hardly any integration condition abroad sets favourable conditions

6) Vague grounds for refusal & withdrawal like public policy, security & health

7) Major waiting periods and conditions for autonomous permit

Green Paper: EU wide problems


Green Paper: EU wide problemsFrom EC Application Report 2008 (see briefing 2 annex)

Incorrect transposition in areas like:•Visa facilitation•Access to autonomous permits•Best interest of child assessments•Access to legal redress•More favourable provisions for refugees

'Too broad or excessive' requirements on age limits, income, integration measures

Integration measures can be 'questioned' as to admissibility under Directive if courses and tests not accessible, not well supported, discriminatory e.g. based on age, disproportionately burdensome (e.g. high fees, insufficient free preparatory materials and courses, hard-to-reach venues), and if impact serves other purposes other facilitating integration of family members

Family reunion mentioned in 2008 French Presidency Pact Promised since 2009 Stockholm programme Pressured from Dutch government Few questions but long time for response (1 March 2012) Public hearing to follow

Who can respond?• EU & intergovernmental institutions• Authorities & other political parties (national, regional, local) in

EU & candidate countries• Authorities & partners in third-countries• All state actors for families• All NGOs, social partners, & private service-providers for families• Academics• Individuals

Green Paper: Background

Which type of proposals do you think your national government would support?

More restrictive conditions

More flexible conditions

Don’t know

Poll question

To cut immigration by 50%, Geert Wilders requires minority govt. topursue his plans for NL and for Europe. Based on DK policies, supportedBy Danish People’s Party, even though new govt. may cut many:

• Non-EU family of EU citizen lose favourable family reunion rules• Higher age limit from 21 to 24 • ‘Sufficient’ level of education• ‘Attachment requirement’ • Higher income requirement (e.g. 120% min. wage)• Lose permit if integration conditions not completed• Deposit bond for any costs that family incurs for state • Only 1 partner every 10 years• Exclude sponsors convicted of certain violent crimes

No public support yet from other MS, suspected from AT, FR, DE, UK…

Green Paper: Dutch government proposals

1) Status quo• Individual cases before ECJ (e.g. EP 2006) but hard to use• Requests for preliminary rulings (so far little used at national level) • Infringement proceedings for improper transposition (none yet)

2) Status quo + Technical guidelines• MS Committees• Commission Communication• Priority for funding & technical cooperation (existing and/or new)

3) Open Directive for renegotiation • Amend• Recast/revise

Green Paper: 3 options for Commission

Green Paper Questions

QUESTION 1

What is the best way to determine who is a potential sponsor to reunite with their family? Should they need to have ‘reasonable prospects for permanent residents’ or wait for 1-2 years?

Most need any legal residence permit of ≤ 1 year Pink = ≤ 1 year’s residenceBlue = > 1 yearBlack = ≥ 2 years

Pink = Any residence permitBlue = Certain permits excludedBlack = Only permanent residence

**Note: SI recently removed both restrictions

OECD concludes family reunion should be facilitated as soon as possible (PISA data)

Should newly arrived immigrants have to wait 1-2 years and have prospects for permanent residence before they can reunite?

Yes

No

Don't know

Poll question


QUESTION 2

Is it legitimate to have a minimum age for the spouse which differs from the age of majority in a Member State?

Most married couples over 18 treated like adultsPink = No Age Limit or 18 yearsBlue = 21- age limit with wide exceptionsBlack = 21+ age limit for all**Note: 21 for all now in BE & NL, but UK repealed limit as disproportionate

Evaluations find age limit not effective to raise education or economic integration or fight forced marriages (DK SFI, NL WODC, UK Hester et al)

Disproportionate effect: young people may not apply or marry

Few have luxury to resettle in another country (‘EU route’)

In all European countries, 18 yr-olds can marry. Should a migrant have to be older than 21 to reunite with his/her spouse?

Yes, it helps fight forced marriages and promote integration

No, it does not help

Don't know

Poll question



QUESTION 4

Are rules adequate & broad enough to take into account the different definitions of family other than the nuclear family?


Other dependents have some right, but few come in practicePink = Full rightBlue = Some rightBlack = No right

Either/or: 12 of 24Both fully: 6 like CA & AUNone: 6 like US

Few reunite in practice, even where possible



QUESTION 4

Are rules adequate & broad enough to take into account the different definitions of family other than the nuclear family?

http://www.mipex.eu/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Kiss-In-SOS-Racisme-26-14Feb10-Paris-by-philippe-leroyer.jpg


EU-wide problem: Registered & long-term partners largely ignored

Pink = For registered & long-term partnersBlue = For only one of these groupsBlack = For neither

Only 10 of 24 recognise one or both cases for family reunion, similar to AU or CA

All immigrants have the right to apply for their nuclear family. Is that adequate?

Yes, nuclear family is most important

No, should include dependent parents, grandparents, adults

No, they should have the right to all other dependents

Don't know

Poll question


QUESTION 5

Which integration measures are efficient and effective? Would you recommend pre-entry measures?

XXX

No integration or pre-entry tests for family reunionDark pink = ‘Slightly favourable’ for language learningLight blue = ‘Halfway favourable’Dark green = ‘Slightly unfavourable’Dark blue = ‘Unfavourable’** Updated for new UK & AT tests abroad

German or English abroad is expensive & inaccessible for several countries and families.

Little support for learning Danish – even less for Dutch. Only FR 'slightly' favourable: pass free test or attend free & largely accessible course

XXX

Ineffective test, quality & accessible course needed

Evaluations find minimal effect on language knowledge & none on socio-economic integration.

Instead, limits family reunion & disproportionately impacts most vulnerable (“self-selection”): Elderly, young, less educated, people in certain–often unstable—countries &—to some extent—women are less likely to apply or pass.

Attending quality & accessible course for effective than test.

Which integration measures do you think are effective for immigrant families’ language learning and integration?

Only courses in the EU country

Courses in the EU country or non-EU country of origin

Tests in the EU country

Tests in the EU country or non-EU country of origin

Don’t Know

Poll question



QUESTION 5

Do these measures efficiently promote integration? How can this beassessed in practice? Which are most effective?


Only basic housing & income requiredPink = No housing requirementBlue = General health & safety standardsBlack = Further requirements

Pink = No or income at level of social assistance in countryBlue = At level of minimum wageBlack = Linked to job/no social assistance


Only basic housing & income required

Any legal means to prove basic housing (17/24) & income (18). AT, FR, IT, SK add more housing conditions, while AT, BE, CY, FR, GR, NL restrict income largely to legal job contract.

Level of income required in many is vague & unrelated to individual circumstances

DK & NL studies find no effect on jobs schooling: long-term trend, short-term compliance, other factors, unintended effects



Qs 12 & 13

Should fees be regulated? Is the administrative deadline laiddown in the Directive for examination of the application justified?


Procedure limited to 6-9 months, but fees high

Pink = ≤ 6 monthsBlue = > 6 months but max defined in lawBlack = Not defined in law

Pink = FreeBlue = Similar to regular fees & dutiesBlack = Higher costs


Q14

How could the application of these horizontal clauses be facilitatedand ensured in practice?

XXX

Authorities must make some individual assessmentPink = All elements defined in lawBlue = Some elements defined in lawBlack = Not defined in law** Recent BE law introduced all elements

At least 7 of 24 require that authorities’ decisions to reject or withdraw take into account:•Solidity of family relationship,•Duration of sponsor’s residence,•Existing links with origin country•Evidence of physical or emotional violence.

Some—but not all—elements exist in 11 others. They are absent in 6 in Central Europe


ConclusionsMost restrictions, whatever their integration objective, will likely limit the number of reuniting families, creating separated or broken families.

Restrictions disproportionately impacts on family reunion, especially for vulnerable groups.

If these measures cannot be proven as effective for integration, then they are not justified for family reunion.Very strong correlation for 22 cases:

.733 (Spearman’s rho), p<0.001


ConclusionsConditions should be flexible so that authorities can make an individual assessment.

Sponsors need all legal means to prove that they meet the basic general requirements that are expected of all people in society who want to live together in a family.

Reuniting families need all legal means to show that they are willing to learn & participate in society.

Acting on equality and mobility

www.migpolgroup.orgSubscribe to our newsletter

how to respond to the eu family reunion consultation - webinar slides of 7 december 2012

Documents

family reunion policy

noneu family of eu citizen

false eurostat family

family reunion limited

eu member states eu

ec family reunification

family life possible

eu wide problems