Immigration into the European Union

Immigration into the European Union
Since the signing of the Amsterdam Treaty in 1999 to the present
There are a few approaches that provide us with insights to explain the patterns of migration flows. First, economic theory considers migration to be a reaction to labor markets and economic incentives. Second, cultural theories predict that migration flows will occur according to the central periphery pattern. And third, social net-work analysis assumes that immigrants follow already established migration networks.[1]
This paper is designed to analyze the immigration policy of the EU in the last 12 years. To have a better understanding of how immigration policy gets created, in this paper I will review the policies and mandates of the Maastricht Treaty since it began in 1993. I will also analyze the Amsterdam Treaty of 1999, The Hague Program of 2004, and of course the European Commission’s 2005 Policy Plan for Legal Migration.
Due to the convincing evidence that in the European Union today the factors that drive immigration are not only political or economic, but rather a mixture of the two and perhaps other factors as well, this paper will not take a specific theoretical approach to explain the flow of immigrants to the Union.
Before getting into the policies of each of the above mentioned treaties, and before discussing the argument that Europe needs new immigrants, it is important to keep in mind that Western Europe has been integrating itself since the Treaty of Paris in 1951. So far integration has been considered an unprecedented success story. It has put in place more than 60 years of peace between countries whose common history, throughout centuries has been marked by iron and blood. If today Western Europe is compared to the rest of the globe, it can be seen that it has enjoyed “exceptional oasis” of continuing prosperity. Seen from the outside, the European Union (EU) is regarded as a strong political entity and a serious partner not only in trade but also in global negotiations, like sustainable development, climate change, and global governance.[2]
Even though the EU has been successful in the integration of its economic areas; “on the issue of immigration, economic interests and political opinions often seem to be in conflict. Europe is an aging continent and public finances are straining with the ever-growing burden of public pensions. Also the fast growing service sector is generating the sort of jobs that most resident workers are reluctant to take.”[3]
To understand today’s policies, it is also important to know why the doors were close to immigrants in Western Europe. “Around 1974, most Western European countries abandoned migrant labor recruitment, and introduced restrictive entry rules.”[4] The restriction on immigration had to see with the decline of jobs once Europe has been reconstructed after WWII, and also with the growing economic crisis.
Today it is argued that the EU needs a massive influx of new immigrants. “Eurostat projections indicate that in the EU population growth until 2025 will be mainly due to net migration, since total deaths will outnumber total births from 2010. The effects of net migration will no longer outweigh the natural decrease after 2025. This will have serious repercussions on the number of employed people in the EU, as the share of population of working age in the total population is expected to decrease strongly, from 67.2% in 2004 to 56.7% in 2050, a fall of 52 million. The decline in the total population is expected by 2025, and in the working age population by 2011. Some member states like Germany, Hungary, Italy, and Latvia are already experiencing a decline in the working age population, while in others it will happen later.”[5]
Eurostat projections show that the population of the EU as whole is likely to fall by 1.5% from 457 to 450 million by 2050. However, no all countries of the Union will be affected in the same degree. For example, in Germany the decline will be 9.6%, in Italy 8.9%, and in the Eastern and central European states the decline will be 11.7%. But the decline in the total population is not the only problem; more serious still is the decline of working age population, which is understood to be between 15 and 64 years of age. Today in the EU 67% of the population is of working age, compared with 16% of 65 years old or older. However, by 2050, a working age population of 57% will have to support 30% aged 65 or older.[6]
Today Eurostat is not the only agency that forecasts shortages of workers in the EU. There are other experts that also share the prediction of Eurostat and the concerns of so many political leaders in the Union. For example, David A. Coleman, from the Center for Migration Studies of New York, says that the EU must have an influx of new workers. According to Coleman; first, immigration is required in order to reinforce the population of working age, and perhaps more specifically to provide a service work force to care for the elderly and, in general demographic terms, to reduce the dependency ratio arising out of aging. Second, the work force is held to need immigrant labor, irrespective of the increase relative burden of the elderly, because domestic supplies of labor are simply insufficient to match labor demand. Third, throughout the European economy there are kinds of jobs that Europeans are reluctant to take, therefore, a migration force is needed to take these jobs. Fourth, economic growth is held to depend on growing population not only to provide work force but also to preserve the size of domestic markets, and the level aggregate demand and investment confidence in the future, as future customer growth will be guaranteed.[7]
In the EU demographics is not the only problem. Today, the world is interconnected and globalization allows the free flow of skill migrants at least in the developed nations. This free flow of skilled migrants have been affecting the EU since a good percentage of educated people move back and forth between the European Union, the United States, Canada and other industrialized countries. For such reasons, the EU not only needs migrants due to its demographic problems but also due to the growing percentage of skilled shortages. (Please see the chart at the end of this paper).
Besides demographics and the shortage of skilled workers, there are other factors that contribute to the support of new labor migration policies as well. For example; first, the informal economy, today, there is a strong evidence that the informal economy has grown in recent years, and it is indeed an unintended consequence of official measure to secure a “flexible labor market.” Second, globalization has been marked by growing inequality. Today high income countries have per capita GDPs that are 66 times those of low-income countries, and 14 times those of middle income countries. This inequality is a very powerful force driving migration. Third, the EU must cooperate with managing immigration from the South. The efforts of northern countries to recruit highly skilled personnel from the South have lead to the fears that the “brain drain” would lead to shortages of key personnel in healthcare, education, management, and administration and thus hamper economic development in those areas, contributing this way to the creation of a steady flow of illegal migration. Fourth, the growing number of refugees and asylum seekers; the level of democracy and human rights in less developed countries have increased the number of people seeking refuge and asylum. This sad reality triggers the need of an immigration policy that respects the mandates of the Geneva Convention, and at the same time is able to dress in a human way these and other problems.[8]
It is also argued that an immigration policy that is able to regulate the high number of immigrant entering the Union is needed. Statistics show that “from 1980 to 1990, Europe received, each year, about 1.1 million immigrants while this number increased to an average of about 2 million between 1991 and 2004.”[9]
Leaders of the European Union, aware of the need of a good number of immigrants to replace the aging population and to maintain a vibrant economy, are seeking to come up with an immigration policy that is humane, and that not only benefit the receiving countries but also the countries where immigrants come from. Most importantly, the new leaders are seeking to come up with a policy that can avoid the problems of the past and that is able to greatly benefit the Union.
In order to avoid the same mistakes of the past and design a better policy, European politicians and also some non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are urging; first, the strict enforcement of immigration and laws, especially against employers who illegally employ migrants or violate minimum wage and employment regulations. Second, the regulation of the cost at which migrants are made available to employers through, for example, the charging of monthly work permit fees for each migrant employed. Third, the implementation of effective labor market tests, mechanisms that create incentives for employers to recruit migrant workers only after reasonable effort have been made to recruit local workers. Fourth, the regulation or at least the monitoring of the migrant recruiting industry with an eye that aims to control migrants’ costs of migration. Fifth, the protection of migrants’ rights by making work permits portable within certain sectors or occupations after a certain period of time. And sixth, the creation of mixed incentive-enforcement measures to facilitate the return home of migrants whose temporary work permit has expired.[10]
Immigration Policies; the Amsterdam Treaty of 1999
The Maastricht Treaty of 1993 created the European Union and also a single currency, the Euro. But during the first years of the Union, member states concentrated in political issues, in the creation of political structures, and of course in a better integration system. Therefore, immigration issues were not a priority during the first years of the 1990s. But things started to change with the Treaty of Amsterdam in 1999 which not only amended The Maastricht Treaty, but also emphasized democracy, gave more power to the European parliament, and promoted citizenship and rights of individuals.
What is relevant in the Amsterdam Treaty is that it addressed the most pressing concerns of ordinary Europeans, such as legal and personal security, and immigration and fraud prevention. With the Amsterdam Treaty, the European Union was now able to legislate on migration, civil law or civil procedure, insofar as it is necessary for the free movement of persons within the Union. The emphasis was that the Union must aim to establish an area of freedom, security, and justice for all its citizens.[11]
Once the Treaty of Amsterdam gave the legitimate power to the EU to legislate on immigration issues, – although it had a good number of limitations that will be discussed later – “the EU rules now covered, inter alia, the right of third-country nationals to family reunification; the working rights of third-county nationals; the admission of third-country nationals as students or volunteers; financial and technical assistance to third country nationals facing migration and asylum crises; the temporary protection of persons display by economic, political, or environmental disasters, where member states are responsible for examining an asylum application; standards for the treatment of asylum seekers, and non-discrimination on the grounds of racial or ethnic origin.”[12] As it is evident, with the Treaty of Amsterdam the EU was now in charge from entry, residence, and economic rights of immigrants to societal integration of immigrants and their descendants.
With the Treaty of Amsterdam, the European Union has gained enormous competence in the delicate area of immigration and asylum policies, particularly regarding laws of visa and asylum and refugees issues. All policies were now binding and justifiable, and are superior to national legislation. National veto power on immigration and asylum within the European institutions was gradually reduced, and the European Parliament’s competence was gradually extended.[13]
One thing to keep in mind is that despite the European Parliament having the veto power for the adoption of the above mentioned policies; member states had the absolute power to decide legal migration to their countries. Each country must decide according to its needs the number of people that could enter the country legally.
The Tampere European Council of 1999
Even though the Treaty of Amsterdam was very ambitious, during the first few months little was done about implementing the policies. But things started to change once The Tampere European Council of October 1999 took the lead. The Tampere European Council “was the first to address the development of the European Union as a unified region of freedom, security, and justice. It was considered to be the natural follow up of the Amsterdam Treaty, which emphasized cooperation between member states and integrated specific sectors into the community, like asylum, migration, border control etc. The Tampere European Council was the first EU forum to address the problem of improving the quality of European citizens’ everyday life in practical terms. It determined a number of political priorities, to which member states’ policies should conform by the end of year 2004.”[14]
With regards to immigration issues all the treaties and policies in the EU have emphasized the need to create an area of freedom, security, and justice. In Tampere, the Council stated that it is determined to make full use of the possibilities offered by the Treaty of Amsterdam. “This requires the Union to develop common policies on asylum and immigration, while taking into account the need for a consistent control of external borders to stop illegal immigration, and to combat those who organize it, and commit related international crimes.”[15] Furthermore, in Tampere, the European Council also emphasized that a “common approach must be developed to ensure the integration into our societies of those third country nationals who are lawfully resident in the Union.”[16]
The Tampere European Council calls for a common EU immigration policy and it is the first to deal in dept with immigration issues in the EU. Therefore, it is important to list some of its provisions;
First, the creation of a partnership with countries where immigrants come from; the European Union needs a comprehensive approach to immigration addressing political, human rights, and development issues in countries and regions of origin and transit. This requires combating poverty, improving living conditions and job opportunities, preventing conflicts and consolidating democratic states, and ensuring respect for human rights, in particular rights of minorities, women, and children.
Second, the creation of a common European asylum system; the European Council agrees to work towards establishing a Common European Asylum System, based in the full and exclusive application of the Geneva Convention, thus ensuring that nobody is sent back to persecution.
Third, promote fair treatment of third country nationals; the EU must ensure fair treatment of third country nationals who reside legally in the territory of its member states. A more vigorous integration policy should aim at granting them rights and obligations comparable to those of EU citizens.
Fourth, adequate management of migration flow; the European Council stresses the need for more efficient management of immigration flows at all its stages. It calls for the development, - in close co-operation with countries of origin and transit, - of information campaigns on the actual possibilities for legal migration, and for the prevention of all forms of trafficking in human beings. Also, the European Council calls for closer co-operation and mutual technical assistance between the member states’ border control service, and for assistance to countries of origin and transit to be developed in order to promote voluntary return as well as to help the authorities of those countries to strengthen their ability to combat effectively trafficking in human beings.[17] These and other measures were to be taken within a five year period. (Obviously, the Tampere European Council has other provisions as well but they are not related to immigration.)
As it was mentioned before, ever since the Treaty of Amsterdam, the European Union has been promoting an area of freedom, security, and peace. In 2004, the European Parliament gathered in Brussels also embraced the notion of promoting a genuine common policy of management of migration flows. Parliament leaders said; there must be a realistic approach taking account of economic and demographic needs, to facilitate the legal admission of immigrants to the Union, in accordance with a coherent policy respecting the principle of fair treatment of third-country nationals. These leaders also argued about the right of member states to set the actual number of third-country nationals admitted to work in an employed or self-employed capacity within an overall framework including community reference. Finally, the Parliament leaders also favored that the interest of the countries where immigrants come from should be taken into account. [18]
The EU immigration plan is certainly ambitious, but in order to understand the magnitude of this plan, it is important to review part of the ideals of the Union itself. Even before the 1990s, the free movement of persons within the community has been an integral part of the creation of a Common European Market. “The European Economic Community (EEC) Treaty specifies [the right of free movement], by stating that freedom for workers shall be secured within the Community and shall ‘entail the abolition of any discrimination based on nationality between workers of the member states as regards employment, remuneration, and other conditions of work and employment.’ Furthermore, EEC nationals who have been employed in a member state and their family members, have the right to remain there when they have reached pensionable age or suffer from permanent incapacity.”[19]
In other words, the EEC Treaty Article 48 [2] defined the “right to free movement as a right of a national of one member state to move freely to another member state to accept offers of employment and stay there. Therefore, the Treaty of Amsterdam and all the treaties that came afterwards complemented the things that were previously established in the EEC Treaty. They also extended rights to third-country nationals who legally reside in the Union, and also gave rights to family members of the EU nationals who do not need to have the nationality of one of the member states.
As previously mentioned, the EEC Treaty and the Amsterdam Treaty were designed at least in part to accept the free movement of labor or “economic workers” as they call. However, things did not start to move until late 1999, more specifically until the Tampere European Council took place. After 2000, one can find a number of things that the European Parliament and the other EU organizations promoted to accomplish the immigration goals that were established in 1999.
From 1999 to 2004 evidence shows that the European Parliament took the issue of immigration at least in six different times;
“The first bill, on the equal treatment between persons without racial and ethnic discrimination, aimed to establish an EU-wide definition of discrimination on the grounds of racial and ethnic origin, to shift the burden of proof to the defendant in certain circumstances, and to provide a minimum level of redress for people who suffered discrimination. The second bill, on family reunification of third-country nationals, proposed that third-country nationals residing lawfully in the EU, refugees and other persons enjoying subsidiary protection, and EU citizens whose family are third-country nationals, should have full rights to family reunification. The third bill, aimed to establish a general framework to combat discrimination and ensure equal treatment in employment, and covered nondiscrimination on the grounds of religion or belief as well as disability, age, or sexual orientation. The fourth time that the issue of immigration was taken had to see with the status of third-country nationals who are long term residents of the Union. The bill aimed to facilitate the freedom of movement for resident-third country nationals, to better regulate the status of family members of citizens of the EU, and to define the possibilities for refusing or withdrawing the right of residents. The fifth time that the European Parliament discussed the issue of immigration was with the aim to harmonize EU rules on the entry and residence of third-country nationals for the purpose of paid employment and self-employment. This time the Parliament set out common definitions, criteria, and procedures regarding the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for the purpose of employment and a single national application procedure encompassing both residence and work permit within one administrative act. Finally, the last time the issue of immigration was discussed before the end of the five year period the European Parliament aimed to amend the second bill which has to see with third-country nationals’ rights to family reunification. There were two main changes to the original bill; first, a standstill clause, which would restrict national discretion in the application of the terms of the legislation, and second, a deadline clause, which set a deadline of two years after the transposition of the legislation for the initiation of a more fully harmonized law an family reunification.[20]
As it is evident, the European Parliament has tried hard to regulate the flow of immigration in a five year period. However, not all legislations passed in the European Council and things became a little more complicated when in 2004, 10 new member states came to form part the European Union. For example, member states that joined the Union on May 1st, 2004 and on January 1st, 2007 and whose nationals faced restrictions of entry (meaning visa requirements) in one of the EU member states that formed part of the EU before accession may imposed equivalent restrictions on workers from these member states.[21]
The ten new member states in 2004, and the other two states in 2007, that became part of the EU were aware that up to seven years after accession certain conditions may apply that restrict the free movement of their people for the purpose of taking a job and the restriction may differ from one member state to another. However, it was also established that member states that joined the union in 2004 and 2007 and who are subject to transitional arrangements must be given priority over workers from third countries.[22]
Before moving on to analyze the goals of The Hague Program of 2004, and the policies about the issue of immigration that were taken in the European Parliament since 1999, it is time to clarify that even though the European Parliament gained policy decision on the issue of immigration with the Amsterdam Treaty, states still retain the right to legislate on issues of legal migration. And it is to that issue that we turn now.
“National competence is, above all, retained in the area of legal migration, especially with regard to the attraction of specific groups or migrants.”[23] European States perhaps would have loose power to legislate in this area of immigration too if it was not for Germany who strongly argued in maintaining domestic competence in legal migration issues. Germany took this position because the country is trying to protect its national labor market. Germany also succeeded with its position in the European Convention by embodying domestic instead of European responsibility in the draft of the EU constitution for those aspects that regulate the number of third-country nationals coming to the EU for economic purposes.[24]
The issue of legal migration has not ended once the countries managed to retain jurisdiction on this matter, because it is assumed that since the EU is closely connected among its members, a large number of legal migrants seeking work in one member state would inevitably affect other states in their labor market.[25]
The Hague Program 2004
In part, The Hague Program came to be as a response to the Terrorist attacks of September 11th 2001, and the terrorists attacks in Madrid on March 11th 2004, but also because five years after the European Council Meeting in Tampere it was time for a new agenda on immigration that would help the Union to be able to face effectively the new challenges and new threats.[26]
According to the European Council, the previous five years have been a good step towards integrating the Union. “The foundations for a common asylum and immigration policy have been laid, the harmonization of border controls has been prepared, policy cooperation has been improved, and the groundwork for judicial cooperation on the basis of the principle of mutual recognition of judicial decisions and judgments has been well advanced.”[27]
Aware of the previous achievements, the main aim of The Hague Program is “to improve the common capabilities of the Union and its Member States to guaranty the fundamental rights, minimum procedural safeguards and access to justice, to provide protection in accordance with the Geneva Convention on Refugees and other international treaties to persons in need, to regulate migration flows and to control the external borders of the Union, to fight organized cross-border crime and repress the threat of terrorism, to realize the potential of Europol and Eurojust, to carry further the mutual recognition of judicial decisions and certificates both in civil and in criminal matters, and to eliminate legal and judicial obstacles in litigation in civil and family matters with cross-border implications.”[28]
Just like in the previous program, the Hague Program is extensive and covers not only issues of immigration and the free flow of “economic workers” but also aims at dealing with other issues like peace, integration, and security.
To achieve the established goals from 2004 to 2009, The Hague Program would divide its work in different areas and subsections. First; it will concentrate in the Citizenship of the Union, - the right of all EU citizens to move and reside freely in the territory of member states is the central right of citizenship of the Union -. EU citizens would be able to move within the Union on similar terms to nationals of a member state moving around or changing their place or residence in their own country, in conformity with established principles of Community law. Second, it will deal with asylum, migration, and border policy. A comprehensive approach, involving all stages of migration with respect to the root causes of migration, entry and admission policies, and integration and return policies is needed in the Union. With regards to people seeking asylum and the issue of border control the European Parliament and the Council urged its members to collaborate with one another based on solidarity and fair sharing of responsibilities including its financial implications and closer practical cooperation between member states in the areas of technical assistance, training, and exchange of information, monitoring of the adequate and timely implementation and application of policies, as well as further harmonization of legislation. Third, the advancement of a common European Asylum System; the aim is to establish a common asylum procedure and an uniform status for those who are granted asylum or subsidiary protection. This system would be based in the full and exclusive application of the Geneva Convention on refugees and other relevant treaties, and should be built on a thorough and complete evaluation of the legal instruments that have been adopted in the first place. Fourth, promote legal migration, and fight against illegal employment; the European Council emphasizes that the termination of volumes of admission of labour migrants is a competence of the member states. However, it also emphasizes that employers who violate the law and who do not abide by the rules would be heavily sanctioned. Fifth, promote the integration of third-country nationals; stability and cohesion within our societies benefit from the successful integration of legally resident third-country nationals and their descendants. To achieve this objective, it is essential to develop effective policies, and prevent the isolation of certain groups. Sixth, create a partnership with third countries; the EU policy should aim at assisting third countries, in full partnership, using existing community funds where appropriate, in their efforts to improve their capacity for migration management and refugee protection, prevent and combat illegal immigration, inform about legal channels for migration, resolve refugee situations by providing better access to durable solutions, build border-control capacity, enhance document security, and tackle the problem of return. Seventh, strict enforcement of the return and re-admission policy; migrants who do not longer have the right to stay legally in the EU must return on a voluntary or, if necessary, compulsory basis. The European Council calls for the establishment of an effective removal and repatriation policy based on common standards for persons to be returned in a humane manner and with full respect for their human rights and dignity. Eighth, improve border checks and fight against illegal migration; the European Council stresses the importance of swift abolition of internal border control, and the strengthening of controls at and surveillance of the external borders of the Union. In this respect, the need for solidarity and sharing of responsibility including its financial implications between the member states is underlined.[29]
In a few words it can be said that The Hague Program concentrated in combating terrorism, the security aspect of the Union, the exchange of law enforcement information, special border assistance provided by the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Border (established in 2005), the possibility of creating a border guard, and the study of an eventual join processing of asylum applications outside the EU.[30]
Commission on the European Communities
Policy Plan on Legal Migration 2005
The president of the commission on legal migration Jose Manuel Borroso in 2005, emphasized the necessity of creating an economic migration system. Furthermore, the members of the commission aware of the need of economic workers designed a plan addressing four main concerns. First, high-skilled workers, for whom common special procedures and admission would be offered; second, seasonal workers for agriculture, building and catering, who would be allow to come in certain number of months. Third, intra-corporate transfers, people moving within international companies would be granted temporary residence, and fourth, remunerated trainees, who can also be granted temporary residence.[31]
This Policy Plan on Legal Migration, unlike its predecessor specifically aims at attracting high-skilled workers. This policy has created some controversies; on the one hand critics of the policy claim that it leads to “brain drain” key workers from developing nations.[32] But, on the other hand people who support this type of policy emphasize that it “contains proposals to improve information resources for migrants and to improve the economic and social integration or immigrants already in the EU, the policy also stresses the development of win-win opportunities for both the migrant and the countries concerned.”[33]
On 2007, the Commission on the European Communities presented to the European Parliament and Council another project called the Green Paper. This new project deals with the future Common European Asylum System, and it is concerned with the following issues; processing of asylum applications, reception conditions for asylum seekers, and granting of protection and integration.[34]
Unlike other industrialized countries like the US for example, it is evident that the EU is working hard to solve the issue of immigration despite the conflicting interests that exist among its 27 members. The EU not only wants to solve the issue of immigration, it also wants third-country nationals to integrate into the new system and into society, and with this aim in mind, the Union has began to create a comprehensive policy which includes integration into the labour market, education and language skills, and citizenship and respect for diversity (the European Parliament and Council just emphasizes these policies, these measure are to be taken by individual states.)
To better integrate new immigrants into the European system, the EU is also promoting training of immigrants in the countries of origin. “Professional training and linguistic courses in the country of origin could help immigrants to develop skills and better adjust to the labour needs in the EU, thus facilitating their opportunities to find legal employment.”[35]
Overall, it can be said that the EU’s plan on immigration is comprehensive despite political disagreements and economic interests of its 27 members. So far, the discussion and established policies about immigration and asylum issues have been creating precedents for future policies. In the areas that immigration policies have not been advanced it is clear that despite the need of immigrants, politics rather than economics, determines individuals’ and countries’ attitudes towards migration.[36] “Left-wing politicians support liberal migration policies, despite the economic interest of many of their voters, who often compete with immigrants for unskilled jobs. Meanwhile, right-wing politicians support restrictive migration policies, despite the economic interests of many of their supporters, who benefit from increasing returns on capital investment which results from greater immigration.”[37]
Just like in the United States, in the European Union people who strongly oppose new immigrants are the unskilled and unemployed workers, for these groups of people, new immigrants represent a serious challenge.[38]
As it was stated before one of the goals of The Hague Program was the return and repatriation of immigrants who have overstayed their visas or who are in the Union illegally. In an attempt to solve this problem, representatives of the 27 members of the Union passed a bill called “The Directive Return” on June 5, 2008. If this policy is implemented, then it means that people who are illegally in the Union could be detained by a period of up to 18 months before they can be repatriated. These people could be incarcerated without the necessity of a judicial order but only with an administrative order. Furthermore, people under the age of 18 who do not have family in the Union, and even if they do, they could also be deported. Deported people would not be eligible to return to the Union for a period of five years.
In response to this hard policy, and aware that the their compatriots would be greatly affected, the Latin American leaders who gathered in Argentina on 1 July 2008, for the MERCOSUR summit unanimously criticized the decision of the European Union, and asked that the policy be forgotten and not enforced in 2010 as the EU plans to do.[39]

Bibliography

Bendel, Petra. “Immigration Policy in the European Union: Still bringing up the walls for fortress Europe?” 2005: Migration Letters. Vol. 2, No. 1 p 22

Castles, Stephen. “Guest-workers in Europe: A Resurrection?” 2006: Center for Migration Studies of New York. Vol. 40, No. 4 p 741

Coleman, David. “Does Europe Need Immigrants? Population and Work Force Projections.” 1992: International Migration Review. Vol. 26, No. 2 p 414
Commission of the European Communities. “Green Paper, on the future Common European Asylum System.” Jun. 6, 2007 p 3 – 8

Commission of the European Communities. “Policy Plan on Legal Migration.” Brussels, Dec. 21. 2005: p 4

Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament. “Area of Freedom, Security and Justice: Assessment of the Tampere program and future orientation.” Brussels, 2004 p 9
Council of the European Union. “The Hague Program; strengthening freedom, security and justice in the European Union.” Dec. 13, 2004: The Hague. p 3

Embassy of Greece, Washington, DC. “Implementation and Evaluation of the Tampere Conclusions.” Http://www.greekembassy.org/Embassy/content/en/ArticlePrint.aspx.

European Union. “Treaty of Amsterdam.” May 1, 1999

Hix, Simon. “Politics, Not Economic Interests; Determinants of Migration Policies in the European Union.” 2007: Center for Migration Studies of New York. Vol. 41, No. 1 p 182

Hooghe, Mark. “Migration to European Countries: A Structural Explanation of Patterns, 1980 – 2004.” 2008: Center for Migration Studies of New York. Vol. 42, No. 2 p 476

Niessen, Jan. “European Community Legislation and Intergovernmental Cooperation on Migration.” 1992: International Migration Review. Vol. 26, No. 2 p 677
Pernice, Ingolf. “Saving the Constitution for Europe; A Reform Treaty for the EU.” Sep. 2007: Walter Hallstein-Institut. p 1

Tampere European Council. 15 and 16 October 1999, p 1

www.elcomercio.com.pe/ediciononline/htmll; “Sudamerica rechaza la politica migratoria de la Union Europea.” July 1, 2008.
[1] Hooghe, Mark. “Migration to European Countries: A Structural Explanation of Patterns, 1980 – 2004.” 2008: Center for Migration Studies of New York. Vol. 42, No. 2 p 476
[2] Pernice, Ingolf. “Saving the Constitution for Europe; A Reform Treaty for the EU.” Sep. 2007: Walter Hallstein-Institut. p 1
[3] Hix, Simon. “Politics, Not Economic Interests; Determinants of Migration Policies in the European Union.” 2007: Center for Migration Studies of New York. Vol. 41, No. 1 p 182
[4] Castles, Stephen. “Guest-workers in Europe: A Resurrection?” 2006: Center for Migration Studies of New York. Vol. 40, No. 4 p 741
[5] Commission of the European Communities. “Policy Plan on Legal Migration.” Brussels, Dec. 21. 2005: p 4
[6] Castles, Stephen. “Guest-workers in Europe: A Resurrection?” 2006: Center for Migration Studies of New York. Vol. 40, No. 4 p 745
[7] Coleman, David. “Does Europe Need Immigrants? Population and Work Force Projections.” 1992: International Migration Review. Vol. 26, No. 2 p 414
[8] Castles, Stephen. “Guest-workers in Europe: A Resurrection?” 2006: Center for Migration Studies of New York. Vol. 40, No. 4 p 741
[9] Hooghe, Mark. “Migration to European Countries: A Structural Explanation of Patterns, 1980 – 2004.” 2008: Center for Migration Studies of New York. Vol. 42, No. 2 p 483
[10] Castles, Stephen. “Guest-workers in Europe: A Resurrection?” 2006: Center for Migration Studies of New York. Vol. 40, No. 4 p 747 - 748
[11] European Union. “Treaty of Amsterdam.” May 1, 1999
[12] Hix, Simon. “Politics, Not Economic Interests; Determinants of Migration Policies in the European Union.” 2007: Center for Migration Studies of New York. Vol. 41, No. 1 p 183
[13] Bendel, Petra. “Immigration Policy in the European Union: Still bringing up the walls for fortress Europe?” 2005: Migration Letters. Vol. 2, No. 1 p 22
[14] Embassy of Greece, Washington, DC. “Implementation and Evaluation of the Tampere Conclusions.” Http://www.greekembassy.org/Embassy/content/en/ArticlePrint.aspx.
[15] Tampere European Council. 15 and 16 October 1999 p 1
[16] Tampere European Council. 15 and 16 October 1999 p 2
[17] Tampere European Council. 15 and 16 October 1999 p 2 - 6
[18] Communication From the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament. “Area of Freedom, Security and Justice: Assessment of the Tampere program and future orientation.” 2004: Brussels p 9
[19] Niessen, Jan. “European Community Legislation and Intergovernmental Cooperation on Migration.” 1992: International Migration Review. Vol. 26, No. 2 p 677
[20]Hix, Simon. “Politics, Not Economic Interests; Determinants of Migration Policies in the European Union.” 2007: Center for Migration Studies of New York. Vol. 41, No. 1 p 189 - 190
[21] http://www.Ec.erupa.eu/employment_social/free_movement/enlargement_en.htm.-24k
[22] http://www.Ec.erupa.eu/employment_social/free_movement/enlargement_en.htm.-24k
[23] Bendel, Petra. “Immigration Policy in the European Union: Still bringing up the walls for fortress Europe?” 2005: Migration Letters. Vol. 2, No. 1 p 27
[24] Bendel, Petra. “Immigration Policy in the European Union: Still bringing up the walls for fortress Europe?” 2005: Migration Letters. Vol. 2, No. 1 p 23
[25] Commission of the European Communities. “Policy Plan on Legal Migration.” Brussels, Dec. 21. 2005: p 4
[26] Council of the European Union. “The Hague Program; strengthening freedom, security and justice in the European Union.” Dec. 13, 2004: The Hague. p 3
[27] Council of the European Union. “The Hague Program; strengthening freedom, security and justice in the European Union.” Dec. 13, 2004: The Hague. p 2
[28] Council of the European Union. “The Hague Program; strengthening freedom, security and justice in the European Union.” Dec. 13, 2004: The Hague. p 3
[29] Council of the European Union. “The Hague Program; strengthening freedom, security and justice in the European Union.” Dec. 13, 2004: The Hague. p 7 - 14
[30] Bendel, Petra. “Immigration Policy in the European Union: Still bringing up the walls for fortress Europe?” 2005: Migration Letters. Vol. 2, No. 1 p 24
[31] Castles, Stephen. “Guest-workers in Europe: A Resurrection?” 2006: Center for Migration Studies of New York. Vol. 40, No. 4 p 757
[32] Castles, Stephen. “Guest-workers in Europe: A Resurrection?” 2006: Center for Migration Studies of New York. Vol. 40, No. 4 p 757
[33] Castles, Stephen. “Guest-workers in Europe: A Resurrection?” 2006: Center for Migration Studies of New York. Vol. 40, No. 4 p 758
[34] Commission of the European Communities. “Green Paper, on the future Common European Asylum System.” Jun. 6, 2007 p 3 - 8
[35] Commission of the European Communities. “Policy Plan on Legal Migration.” Dec. 21. 2005: Brussels, p 11
[36] Hix, Simon. “Politics, Not Economic Interests; Determinants of Migration Policies in the European Union.” 2007: Center for Migration Studies of New York. Vol. 41, No. 1 p 185
[37] Hix, Simon. “Politics, Not Economic Interests; Determinants of Migration Policies in the European Union.” 2007: Center for Migration Studies of New York. Vol. 41, No. 1 p 184
[38] Hix, Simon. “Politics, Not Economic Interests; Determinants of Migration Policies in the European Union.” 2007: Center for Migration Studies of New York. Vol. 41, No. 1 p 184
[39] www.elcomercio.com.pe/ediciononline/htmll; “Sudamerica rechaza la politica migratoria de la Union Europea.” July 1, 2008.