An EU of all creeds, colours and prejudices?

Two MEPs discuss European immigration policy

Greater co-operation on migration issues is no longer just desirable, but essential, says Claude Moraes

The political obstacles to the development of common EU immigration and asylum policies are many. Although justice and home affairs as a subject area now accounts for around 40% of the EU's new legislation, migration policy remains an area riddled with opt-outs and vetoes and a history of intergovernmental activity often secretive and focused on security rather than the economy. Few member states want to be seen pooling sovereignty on migration issues in the face of hostile public opinion, electoral gains by the right or far-right who exploit immigration fears, or persistent media hostility to more progressive policies.

So what direction should the EU take on migration? First, greater co-operation on migration is no longer just desirable, but essential given that all types of non-EU migration - asylum-seeking, legal and illegal immigration and secondary immigration such as family reunification - increasingly affect more than one member state and those legally resident migrants in one EU country can, generally, move freely throughout the EU25. Second, as the population ages in the EU, calls for green-card style policies, awarding points, merit-based schemes and even lotteries for unskilled migration will increase.

Even in member states with high unemployment there will be skills gaps and the jobs that many Europeans are unwilling to do. Again this phenomenon will tend to increase. Third, initiatives in one member state can often alarm other member states - witness the concern voiced by the German and Dutch governments when Spain implemented its amnesty for up to a million irregular migrants last year. Finally, greater consideration is likely to be given to the links between migration and EU international development policies. The World Bank has confirmed that non-EU immigrants send remittances to their country of origin which far outstrip EU development aid. Immigrants to the EU from developing countries come for one overwhelming reason - to find work. The EU cannot separate development policy from migration and economic policy.

So what is to be done? At some level member states have to deal with the myth that the doors of the EU can be closed completely to non-EU immigration, which will be extremely difficult, dealing as we are with deep-seated notions of sovereignty, fear of foreigners and the different. Second, we need some honesty in the debate about the benefits as well as the costs associated with new immigration - perhaps through the use of independent immigration commissions producing reliable and accurate statistics on immigration numbers and the economic benefits and costs of migration. Third, the EU should explore the idea of green-card style systems. At the moment a complex and often outdated patchwork predominates of work permits, quotas, student schemes and national immigration policies, often modelled on the need to restrict non-white immigration from former colonies.

Together that does not give the general impression that immigration can be a force for good rather than a problem.

It is crucial to share best practice on integration. The past few months have seen riots in France and the UK, the cartoons controversy and the convulsions in the Netherlands over Islam. Millions of non-white Europeans have made a success of their immigration, but in the light of the French disturbances there is a growing appetite to search for the best possible models of integration, citizenship and the balance of rights and responsibilities for the host nation and the immigrant. Within the EU, co-operation on integration policies is essentially non-existent - little sharing of best practice and no formal co-operation. A stark example of this failure is the defensive arguments over which national model of integration is best. Another is the failure of most member states to implement the race equality and employment directives that should be tackling discrimination mainly in the labour market on the grounds of race, ethnic origin or religion.

Integration of migrants is often seen as a matter only for individual member states. As we search for the best solutions, that attitude ought to change. Genuine EU co-operation on migration policy is now long overdue.

• UK Socialist MEP Claude Moraes is a member of Parliament's committee on civil liberties, justice and home affairs and drafted the Parliament's responses to Commission communications on immigration, integration and employment, and on the protection of minorities in the EU.

The EU has to respect the different characteristics of national labour markets, says Frank Vanhecke

Figures from the Euro-Mediterranean Consortium for Applied Research on International Migration unmistakably point to the continuous massive emigration from sub-Saharan Africa and the Maghreb to the countries of the European Union.

The immigration challenge is immense. Because it concerns the whole of Europe, this challenge requires a bold and comprehensive European immigration policy. In this regard, I would like to emphasise that immigration and the internal security of the EU member states are inextricably bound up with each other.

National regularisations of tens of thousands of illegal economic welfare seekers, such as those carried through recently by the Spanish socialist government of Jos�uis Rodríguez Zapatero and earlier by the Belgian government of Guy Verhofstadt, create an enormous suck effect and prejudice the interests of all EU member states. Such policies also render a coherent, effective European immigration policy more difficult. It is ironic that Spain asked the EU for assistance in the crisis over the Spanish enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla whereas the country itself was responsible for this crisis.

Give credit where credit is due. It was Rocco Buttiglione, whose candidacy to become member of the European Commission was rejected for reasons of political correctness, who in 2004 put on the EU political agenda the integration of North African countries in a European strategy against illegal immigration. Not only do we have to involve these countries in a common European immigration policy but we also have to have the political courage and will to put them under pressure if necessary. For example, one can wonder whether the EU is putting enough pressure on Algeria, the most important capstan for illegal Africans on their way to Europe. In my view, a European approach not only consists of the creation and support of all kinds of structures in North Africa but also in regional migration-management through the establishment of regional protection areas in Africa. European re-admission agreements are also an essential part of a European policy. In all these areas, there is not!

enough progress. In line with the paragraph on migration in the Cotonou agreement, the EU should also use its development policy as a pressure tool to force the African countries to readmit their nationals residing illegally in the EU. But also in this matter, both the Commission and the Council are keeping mum.

On the subject of legal immigration, I strongly oppose the proposals of European Justice, Freedom and Security Commissioner Franco Frattini to introduce common European regulations for the admission of economic immigrants after the example of the American green-card system. Frattini regards this as an important step in the fight against illegal immigration, which is in my view incorrect. The EU has to respect the different labour markets, which have their own characteristics. I am of the opinion that every member state has to retain the right to control its own borders. It is argued that Europe is rapidly ageing and that therefore we need millions of immigrants. I dispute this reasoning. The European countries have still not absorbed the massive immigration of non-European foreigners during the last decades. The reason for this is that the European political elites have not emphasised enough the need for the immigrants to adapt themselves to the applicable norms and values. !

The plan to put in motion a new influx of immigrants is thus in my view completely irresponsible.

Opinion polls show that most Europeans (correctly) perceive further immigration as a threat to their welfare and identity and that they are of the opinion that there is a limit to everything. I also stress that on the issue of Turkey the voice of the ordinary EU-citizen has to be heard and respected.

It is simply impossible to talk about a European immigration policy without addressing the issue of the accession of Turkey. The accession of this enormous non-European, Islamic country, numbering at least 90 million inhabitants in 2025, will indeed lead to an additional disastrous wave of migration, making the already difficult present process of integrating immigrants within Europe entirely impossible.

• MEP Frank Vanhecke is president of the Flemish separatist party Vlaams Belang and a member of the European Parliament's committee on civil liberties, justice and home affairs.

Two MEPs discuss European immigration policy.
Article is part of a European Voice Special Report, 'Migration policy'.

• Primary Source