Skip to main content
main-content
Top

About this book

This book analyses the patterns of migration flow since the end of the Cold War and relates these to political and policymaking processes at EU level and among EU member states. It delivers an original and innovative perspective on the new dynamics of migration policy and the policy dilemmas facing European politicians.

Table of Contents

Chapter 1. Studying Migration and Mobility in the European Union

Abstract
‘It was filthy, we had nothing, no water, little food, but it was our only hope,’ said one asylum-seeker from Afghanistan to describe his experiences in a makeshift camp close to the town of Sangatte on the coast of northern France. He spoke as the French government sent bulldozers to destroy the camps set up by people whose hope was to somehow enter the UK. The Guardian newspaper in the UK condemned the approach of the French and British governments by arguing that the governments acted first and only thought about the consequences of their actions later. It also condemned what it called ‘buck-passing’ between European Union (EU) member states seeking to offload immigration problems onto each other (The Guardian 2009).
Christina Boswell, Andrew Geddes

Chapter 2. Migration and Migration Policy in Europe

Abstract
This chapter sets out the approach that we adopt to the analysis of European and EU migration policy and politics. It begins by providing some data on the main forms of migration and then developing a critique of existing approaches to the analysis of European and EU migration and mobility. We then specify key features of the approach to be developed in this book.
Christina Boswell, Andrew Geddes

Chapter 3. The EU Dimension of Migration and Asylum Policy

Abstract
This chapter specifies the EU context of immigration and asylum policy in Europe. It identifies key features of the EU’s legal, political and institutional framework in order to show how this system has evolved, how institutional roles have developed, and how these relate to the growing salience of migration and mobility as EU concerns. It also considers how these EU policies and institutions can then impact on member states as a result of ‘Europeanization’.
Christina Boswell, Andrew Geddes

Chapter 4. Labour Migration

Abstract
This chapter analyses a form of migration that is integral to Europe’s migration history, but for which EU competencies are limited. Article 79(5) of the Lisbon Treaty states that measures on migration ‘do not affect the right of member states to determine volumes of admission of third-country nationals coming from third countries to their territory in order to seek work, whether employed or self-employed’. Despite this limitation, policies on the admission of labour migrants have been a central topic for debate across the EU over the past decade and there have been important EU developments. This is also an area in which the EU has ambitions. The Stockholm programme sets the EU’s migration and asylum agenda until 2014 and talks about a ‘common framework for a flexible admission system … to adapt to increased mobility and the needs of national labour markets’ (House of Lords 2009:7).
Christina Boswell, Andrew Geddes

Chapter 5. Family Migration

Abstract
While much public debate in Europe about immigration focuses on labour migration, asylum-seeking and irregular migration, it is family migration that has been, is and will continue to be a key migration flow. A better understanding of ‘the family’ as a migration unit and of gendered processes linked to understandings of the family can enhance our understanding both of migration and of political and social processes associated with it.
Christina Boswell, Andrew Geddes

Chapter 6. Irregular Immigration

Abstract
At the end of March 2009 a boat capsized off the Libyan coast killing most of the 200 people on board; it was believed to be en route to Italy. Meanwhile, the Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the EU, or FRONTEX as it is known, was reporting that attempted illegal crossings at EU member states’ land and sea border rose by 20 per cent between 2007 and 2008 (European Voice, 16 April 2009). In another incident in April 2009, around 120 people were stranded in the Mediterranean on the Turkish cargo ship the Pinar E, which had retrieved them after the small inflatable boats in which they had been travelling had sunk. Following their rescue the governments of Italy and Malta argued for four days about whose responsibility they were. According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) the boats were carrying 129 Nigerians, 3 people from Niger, 5 from Ghana, 4 Somalis, a Liberian and a migrant whose country of origin was unclear (New York Times, 20 April 2009). By journey’s end a pregnant woman had died and many of the other travellers were ill.
Christina Boswell, Andrew Geddes

Chapter 7. Asylum

Abstract
In April 1999, when the refugee crisis in Kosovo was reaching a head, EU governments met in Luxembourg to discuss how they would handle a potential mass influx of Kosovar refugees into the EU. The idea was to learn from previous experience during the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia (1991–5), when coordination between states had been haphazard and some countries, particularly Germany, ended up receiving far more refugees than others. This time, the aim was to establish some sort of ‘burden-sharing’ arrangement, whereby countries would pledge to admit and protect refugees in a more equitable fashion. Yet the EU was unable to impose any binding arrangement for distributing refugees, and all pledges were made on a strictly voluntary basis. There was no real or effective EU response. In the end, Germany ended up absorbing around 28 per cent of all those evacuated from the region to EU countries, France taking 12 per cent, Italy 11 per cent, Austria 9.6 per cent and the UK 8.2 per cent (van Selm 2002).
Christina Boswell, Andrew Geddes

Chapter 8. Mobility, Citizenship and EU Enlargement

Abstract
In this book we have argued that patterns of population movement in the EU cannot be understood without reference to people moving between EU states as well as those moving from outside the EU. We now analyse EU mobility, beginning with an example that illustrates some of the issues at stake. In 2000, Mrs Chen, a Chinese national who was living and working in the UK, travelled to Northern Ireland to give birth to a daughter, Catherine. At that time, the citizenship law of the Republic of Ireland had a rather unusual provision: it granted the right to citizenship to anyone born on Irish territory, including Northern Ireland. Thus the fact that Catherine was born in Northern Ireland — even though her parents did not live there — meant that she was entitled to citizenship of the Republic of Ireland. As an Irish citizen, she then had a right to reside in any EU state, provided she had adequate means of support. Thus her mother Mrs Chen was also entitled to residence in the UK as Catherine’s primary carer. When the UK Home Office refused Mrs Chen a residence permit, she appealed to the ECJ, which upheld her right to UK residence in 2004. The only condition was that Mrs Chen be able to demonstrate she had the means to support herself and her family (which she was able to do), so would not be dependent on social or welfare services in the UK. Irish citizenship law was subsequently changed so that it would no longer be possible to acquire nationality simply by being born on Irish soil, but the right of EU nationals to mobility within Europe remains robust.
Christina Boswell, Andrew Geddes

Chapter 9. Immigrant Integration

Abstract
This chapter shifts the focus to analyse immigrant integration. We have thus far concentrated on extra- and intra-EU population movement. We now look at ‘what happens next’ by analysing diverse responses to immigrant integration across the EU, their link to diverse models of nationality and citizenship and at how the EU now plays some role in these debates through, in particular, the two anti-discrimination Directives introduced in 2000 and a 2003 Directive on the rights of long-term residents as well as ‘softer’, non-legally-binding measures such as its integration handbook and funding instruments for integration projects (CEC 2004). We see integration as a two-way process involving adaptation by both migrant newcomers and members of the host society. The balance between the two and the associated expectations are, of course, central to the content of policy. We also show that, despite tendencies to overemphasize the cultural and ideological components of debates about integration, identity and citizenship, it is multiple adjustments in everyday life in relation to education, work, housing and health that play a key role in shaping identities and understandings of the effects of immigration.
Christina Boswell, Andrew Geddes

Chapter 10. Conclusions

Abstract
At the beginning of this book we noted that it is something of a challenge to try to analyse various forms of migration across the 27 EU member states and account for the growing role that EU law and policy now plays. To undertake this task we needed to think seriously about the shape, scope and dynamics of the EU system and the types and forms of interaction that now occur within it. We established an analytical framework that focused on variation by migration type because we thought that this left us best placed to consider the ways in which power and authority were distributed across levels of governance in the EU system. We also developed a framework that sought to develop a non-linear approach to the policy process through which we specified the importance of looking across the policy process at ‘talk’, ‘decision’ and ‘action’ while leaving scope for deliberate malintegration or other inconsistencies whereby policymakers may say one thing and do another as they seek to appease competing — perhaps even contradictory — interests. This meant that we were sceptical about aggregate and undifferentiated notions of policy failure that didn’t look at the more complex structures of winners and losers, costs and benefits within the process. We were particularly sceptical about extrapolating from the outcome of process to ascribe failure without actually looking closely at the nature of the process.
Christina Boswell, Andrew Geddes
Additional information