Suchergebnisse

This paper is part of the joint project between the Directorate General for Migration and Home Affairs of the European Commission and the OECD's Directorate for Employment, Labour and Social Affairs on "Review of Labour Migration Policy in Europe". This document has been produced with the financial assistance of the European Union. The views expressed herein can in no way be taken to reflect the official opinion of the European Union. Grant: HOME/2013/EIFX/CA/002 / 30-CE-0615920/00-38 (DI130895) A previous version of this paper (DELSA/ELSA/MI(2015)2) was presented and discussed at the OECD Working Party on Migration in June 2015. This paper presents an overview and analysis of the policy development at the EU level regarding external labour migration (ELM). It reviews the shift in ELM policy at the EU level by examining documents and debates. It looks at the treatment of ELM, setting out from the Amsterdam Treaty and then follows the development up to the present, paying close attention to the evolving rational for increasing ELM. The difference between the horizontal approach and the sectoral approach is explained. The major ELM Directives under the sectoral approach are presented and discussed in terms of how they were negotiated and how they fit into the overall ELM policy strategy. The document concludes by identifying current political challenges for expanding the EU approach beyond its present form.

After expressing concern with the pervasive use of the "fortress Europe" metaphor, tensions & contradictions in EU migration policy are identified along with attempts to manage & resolve these issues. It is contended that the EU is trying to create a beneficial security-economic growth dynamic centered on fighting illegal immigration in a security dimension while fostering large-scale legal labor migration circulation in a growth dimension. EU relations with Africa are discussed to illustrate. Rights & citizenship implications of this immigration policy regime are considered. D. Edelman

For some years, a growing crowd of 'cosmopolitan' Left-liberal scholars and intellectuals have been taking aim at the nation state, holding it responsible for numerous grave problems facing Europe and the wider world, ranging from growing anti-immigrant sentiments to the absence of a counterweight to US neoconservative unilateralism. In this view, 'more Europe', as in more supranational EU integration, is said to be the key solution, paving the way for a progressive, human rights-based 'cosmopolitan Europe' capable of transcending the vices of national self-interest. This article offers a critique of such an EU-based cosmopolitan promise, focusing primarily on asylum policy. Since there has been an increased EU involvement in asylum policy in recent years, it makes for an ideal context to discuss and 'test' the cosmopolitan 'more Europe' thesis. It is argued that, while there are as many good reasons to remain critical of the nation state as there are injustices committed in its name, recognition of this fact cannot be allowed to spill over uncritically into the nowadays fashionable contention that progress will automatically result from diminishing national sovereignty and the shift of policy-making to the EU level. As the case of 'Europeanised' asylum policy demonstrates, there are no guarantees whatsoever to that effect.

For some years, a growing crowd of cosmopolitan Left-liberal scholars and intellectuals have been taking aim at the nation state, holding it responsible for numerous grave problems facing Europe and the wider world, ranging from growing anti-immigrant sentiments to the absence of a counterweight to US neoconservative unilateralism. In this view, more Europe, as in more supranational EU integration, is said to be the key solution, paving the way for a progressive, human rights-based cosmopolitan Europe capable of transcending the vices of national self-interest. This article offers a critique of such an EU-based cosmopolitan promise, focusing primarily on asylum policy. Since there has been an increased EU involvement in asylum policy in recent years, it makes for an ideal context to discuss and test the cosmopolitan more Europe thesis. It is argued that, while there are as many good reasons to remain critical of the nation state as there are injustices committed in its name, recognition of this fact cannot be allowed to spill over uncritically into the nowadays fashionable contention that progress will automatically result from diminishing national sovereignty and the shift of policy-making to the EU level. As the case of Europeanised asylum policy demonstrates, there are no guarantees whatsoever to that effect. ; Original Publication:Peo Hansen, Post-national Europe - without cosmopolitan guarantees, 2009, RACE and CLASS, (50), 4, 20-37.http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0306396809102994Copyright: SAGE Publications (UK and US)http://www.sagepub.co.uk/

Until a few years ago, our chosen multicultural approach allowed some cultural and religious groups to pursue an aggressive strategy against our values. The targets of this ill-conceived 'attack' were individual rights, equality of gender, respect for women and monogamy. We have to combat this dangerous attitude, which can destroy the fabric of our societies, and we have to work hard to build up and pursue a positive integration approach (Frattini, 2007). While this ill-concealed Muslim-baiting statement could have been issued from within any one of the national political establishments in today's Europe, the enunciator in the particular case before us is no one less than 'Europe' herself; that is, the European Commission as represented by its vice-president and Commissioner responsible for Justice, Freedom and Security, Franco Frattini. But as seen, the statement, which was made at the Lisbon High-level Conference on migration in 2007, does not only depict European culture as verging on the edge of being annihilated by an aggressive Muslim 'enemy within'. It also identifies the original cause of this emergency: multiculturalism. ; Original Publication:Peo Hansen, Book Review: Keith Banting and Will Kymlicka (eds) Multiculturalism and the Welfare State: Recognition and Redistribution in Contemporary Democracies Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008, Acta Sociologica, (51), 375-377.http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00016993080510040603Copyright: SAGE Publications (UK and US)http://www.sagepub.co.uk/

Since the ratification of the Amsterdam Treaty in 1999 the European Union is emerging as a key actor within migration policy. But in order to understand the current development it is important to have a clear picture of the EU's historical trajectory in the field of migration. In this paper the discussion thus focus esexclusively on the pre-Amsterdam era. It sets out with a brief historical overview of the early decades of European integration and accounts for labour migration's crucial function in the founding logic of the EEC. While supranational competence over migration policy was very limited during this period, the discussion shows that the way in which competence was allocated between supranational and national levels would be highly consequential for the future development. Following this, the major part of the paper is devoted to an examination of the Community's transformation during the second half of 1980s and the first half of the 1990s. The measures introduced under the banner of the Single Market, particularly those pertaining to the free movement of persons, instigated a development whereby immigration and asylum would be progressively treated as 'common' Community matters. Equally important, the paper shows that Community activity in the area of migration also addressed a range of other matters, many of which went beyond the issue of people moving across external and internal borders. From then on, Brussels began to address the situation of ethnic minorities of migrant background, thus bringing the growing problems of ethnic exclusion and racism on to the EU agenda. On the whole, it was the question of how to better 'integrate' 'legal immigrants' and ethnic minorities into Community societies that received the most attention. In this fashion, the present paper examines the EU's interventions in the area of immigration and asylum together with its efforts in the realm of migrant 'integration'. Although very few accounts have undertaken to analyze jointly the EU's approaches to immigration and migrant 'integration', this paper demonstrates that in order to provide a comprehensive analysis of the issues in question, these policy areas need to be approached as inextricably intertwined and as mutually conditioning.

The agreements reached within the frameworks of the Amsterdam Treaty and the Tampere European Council in 1999 would set off a flurry of activity in the areas of EU immigration, asylum and migrant/minority 'integration' policy. In conjunction with these policy areas moving up the EU agenda, moreover, this rapidly growing activity would expand well beyond the confines of the Amsterdam and Tampere programmes. The European Commission's bold move to declare an end to the era of'zero' extra-Community labour immigration, as well as the expanding 'externalization' of the EU's immigration and asylum policies to third countries, are just two of several examples highlighting this dynamic development. This paper focuses on the unfolding EU policies in the fields of 'integration', anti discrimination, immigration, and asylum. In terms of demarcations, it covers the development up until the conclusion of the Tampere Programme (1999–2004), leaving off at the beginning of its multi-annual successor agenda, the Hague Programme (2005–10). The examination proceeds through a double movement, surveying and analysing both internally and externally directed policies, as well as their intimate and often contradictory interplay. The paper sets out by scrutinizing supranational initiatives in the field of migrant/minority integration and anti-discrimination,focusing specifically on the strong interaction of this enterprise with labour-market policy and the issues of citizenship, social exclusion, and 'Europeanvalues'. It then goes on to explore the European Commission's objectives and assumptions concerning its calls for a sizeable increase in labour migration from third countries. Besides relating this to the internal requirements of the EU's transforming labour market, it also discusses the external ramifications of the EU's developing labour migration policy. The remaining sections scrutinize the EU's emerging asylum policy. It attends, inter alia, to the EU's ever-widening smorgasbord of restrictive asylum instruments and security-oriented immigration policies, which, as the paper goes on to argue, together serve to transform the right of asylum into a problem of 'illegal immigration'. Above all, this predicament is discussed in relation to the growing importance of immigration and asylum matters in the EU's external relations.

An exploration of the current debate over how to define the geography & culture of Europe, especially in relation to the European Union (EU), argues that most understandings of "Europeans" are premised on a transnational white ethnicity that excludes millions of EU inhabitants who do not share this ethno-cultural heritage. Individuals who fall outside the "European" definition become stigmatized as "problems," "burdens," or "threats," & are increasingly placed in the racialized & criminalized category of "illegal immigrants." The evolution of relations between the EU & Turkey is examined to point out the negative impact of current delineations of Europe & Europeans on the debate over enlargement of the EU. It is contended that a very different picture of what constitutes "European" would emerge if those who argue that EU enlargement must not change prevalent geo-cultural notions of Europe would look carefully at the "European credentials" of current EU members, especially the influence of colonialism on national European identities & European integration. 30 References. J. Lindroth

The significance of colonialism and decolonization for the dawning of European integration and their subsequent bearing on notions of European identity still constitute a largely unexplored field within research. In seeking to problematize and amend this state of things, this article embarks on charting a set of historical developments which provide a case for arguing that theoretical and empirical studies on the nexus of European integration and European identity need to pay much closer attention to questions pertaining to colonialism and decolonization. As such, the article seeks to offer a glimpse of what it takes to be a critical background against which scholarly debates on contemporary notions of European identity need to be considered. Such an approach, it is suggested, should be of particular value for research trying to come to terms with Brussels' current endeavour to foster a collective sense of European identity in the Union. In expanding on this exact point, the article also broaches the question concerning all those `non-European' territories in Africa, South America and elsewhere that are incorporated into the present-day European Union, but which, nevertheless, hardly ever surface as such in studies on the EU and its politics of European identity.