Key findings for Greece

Tool to compare, analyse, and improve integration policy

• Do all residents have equal rights, responsibilities and opportunities to help them improve their integration outcomes?

• Benchmark policies and implementation measures, according to European & international standards on Equal Treatment

• Public “Quick Reference Guide”

• Debate government objectives, progress, and results

Largest and most rigorous study of its kind (148 policy indicators)

7 Policy Areas for immigrants to participate in society:1) Labour market mobility* 2) Family reunion* 3) Education 4) Political participation* 5) Long-term residence* 6) Access to nationality 7) Anti-discrimination

•Covers 27 EU Member States, Norway, Switzerland, Canada, United States of America•7 comparative research partners worked on policy indicators•100+ national independent legal experts answer and peer review, all based on policies passed by 31 May 2010

Key Findings

Just 50%: Halfway favourable Political will counts, more than tradition

Policies similar & strong with EU law

GR +10: Improves most of any country with 3 laws

• Will reforms be well implemented & impact integration?

• What other policy weaknesses may undermine new strengths?

20th

13th

21st

19th

17th

24th

16th

18th

GR @ EU Average; behind established migration countries; in-between ES/PT/IT & MT/CY

Stronger: Citizenship, (like EU15)Average: Education, Political part (EU12)Weaker: LMM, FreU, LTR, AD, below strong EU average, since GR ‘minimum’ access/conditions out-of-touch with societal realities

Education

• In GR, Legal Access at all levels (as in half)

• Not all migrant pupils entitled to ongoing assistance as in established migration countries

• Migrant languages & intercultural ed. could open to all pupils (e.g. ES, PT)

Political participationLaw 3838 opens major reform, limited opportunities (+15), like new mig. countries

• Any implementation & effects in Nov. 2010 election?

• Major weakness: structural support for migrant civil society (see PT, ES)

• Bodies weaker than most, need migrant rep./leadership

• GR one of few with local but no national migrant body

Law 3838 x2 score: 3rd worst to EU15 average (like DE,FR)MIPEX used to inform change •Follow EU reform trends/ objectives on short residence, dual nationality, ius soli• Limit discretion: time limits, Citz. Acquisition Commissions •Implementation & effects?

Access to Nationality

GR naturalisation remains one of most expensive gamblesCost/discretion trade-off: cost effective for migrants, state?

•‘More realistic’ 700, not 1500, EU’s 4th highest, lower in 23

•Reasoned decision: common/ constitutional practice, still security scores 7/100•Independent appeal (in 20)•Limited withdrawal (18)...To meet citizenship criteria, what earlier obstacles to legal integration?

http://eudo-citizenship.eu 2010

Labour market mobility

Once in job, legal workers rights & general support

Slightly unfavourable access to get & keep job & legal status

No measures against migrants’ additional job vulnerabilities

Behind average European country (esp. in South)

Anti-discriminationBefore naturalisation, migrants face additional discrimination based on nationality (unlike in 15)

• Mostly only the EU Minimum standards

• No explicit protections from racial profiling• No class actions (14)• No alternative mechanisms (19)• Limited roles for Ombudsman to help victims access justice (13)

• Countries often chose similar strengths & weaknesses for both

• EU law creates basic security/rights (e.g. GR)

• GR restricts access to secure status more than EU averages, neighbours that give clearer path to legal integration

• GR: Little changed since created (Note: Sept 2010)

Family reunion, Long-term residence & their conditions

Effects: Long-Term Residence

Eurostat statistics

Areas of weakness for legal integration

Despite below-average labour market policies, highest econ. resource requirements (just AT, CY)

Most countries use “equal responsibilities” as benchmark with nationals

Most do not require job; instead basic household income around poverty line or minimum wage

Areas of weakness for legal integration

Law 3838 reduced exorbitant’ LTR fee of 900€ to ‘realistic’ 600€

Still Highest LTR fee in EU

MIPEX finds in most countries, only 50-160€

Commission notes on similar issue that MS should not set fees in a way to undermine Directive’s effect…

Risk of Court/ECJ action

Areas of weakness for legal integration

Long, problematic delays: not in 23, esp. in South

Parents/adult children not entitled (20)

For LTR, need course on ‘integration’ (24, most ask just basic language)

For LTR Greek test, no exemptions for vulnerable groups (most)

No entitlement to free language courses for all (7, e.g. CZ, FR, LV, PT, RO)