Comparative approaches to tackli by wuyunyi


									 Comparative Approaches to Tackling
Illegal Migration and Undeclared Work

                  Dušan DRBOHLAV

                  Charles University in Prague,
                       Faculty of Science,
    Department of Social Geography and Regional Development
      This presentation fits the following projects:

►  Eurocores—ECRP, Project of the Czech Science
Foundation GA CR, No. CPR/06/E001
 ► IDEA - Mediterranean and Eastern European Countries as
new immigration destinations in the European Union - 6th
Framework Programme, No. 44446
► Investigative plan of MSM 0021620831 financed by the
Ministry of Education, Youth and Physical Education of CR.
•   Introduction
•   Mesuring, statistics, definitions, concepts
•   Main forms of illegal immigration
•   The European reality
•   Driving forces
•   Risks and impacts
•   Policies
•   Regularisations
•   Policy recommendations
    Background studies used - selection
    providing for sanctions against employers of third-country nationals who are illegally staying or
    working in breach of their residence status, Brussels, draft, March 2007.

•   CLANDESTINO project, Funded by the European Commission, DG Research, Sixth Framework
    Programme, Thematic Priority 8.1, Policy-related Research. Scientific Support to Policies,
    coordinator – ELIAMEP, Greece.

•   REGINE, Regularisations in Europe, Study on practices in the area of regularisation of illegally
    staying third-country nationals in the Member States of the EU (Ref. JLS/B4/2007/05) done by
    researchers from the International Centre for Migration Policy Development – ICMPD, Austria.

•   Drbohlav, D. (ed.): Nelegální ekonomické aktivity migrantů (Česko v evropském kontextu). Praha,
    Karolinum 2008.

•   … (PROMINSTAT, EC project)
                  Basic thesis I
• Informality is ‗‗alive, well and growing in the post-
  industrial West‘‘ (Waldinger and Lapp, 1993, p. 6).

• … a necessary feature of economic development under
  contemporary capitalism, ‗‗a major structural feature of
  our society‘‘ (Castells and Portes, 1989)
            Basic thesis II
• Illegal immigration subverts a society's
  legal order and undermines or perverts a
  variety of foreign and domestic policy

 … it is something we have to combat!
    Restrictions - „against the wind“
• Globalization, transnationalism …
• Expanding human rights regimes
• Liberalization of markets
• Decentralization of migratory
• Demand on the side of developed
  countries etc.
        Policies and their failure
• Western democracies - their common failure to manage
  migration effectively and efficiently, as demonstrated by
  the widening gap between the migration-policy goals
  they set themselves and the actual results achieved.

• Although expenditure on immigration-control
  mechanisms increased sharply in the 1990s, the
  intended policy goals were not achieved.

• Paradox - the 25 richest countries are probably spending
  US$ 25-30 billion a year on immigration enforcement
  and asylum processing … (Martin 2003)
      Measuring illegal/irregular
• …―it follows that any description of the
  nature and extent of the phenomenon has
  to rely on certain indirect methods, which
  in turn depend on the availability of
  alternative statistical indicators in a given
  country‘ Jandl (2004).
         Measuring illegal/irregular
            phenomena (flows)
• To estimate the extent of annual inflows of illegally resident third-
  country nationals, Member States use a range of indicators linked to
  the phenomenon:

   - the numbers of refused entries and removals,
   - apprehensions of illegal migrants at the border
    or in the country,
   - rejected applications for asylum or other forms of international
   - applications for national regularisation procedures.

   … To these numbers must be added the considerable number of
   those who do not apply for any form of international protection
   (either because they entered legally or they ―overstay‖)
      Measuring illegal/irregular
        phenomena (stocks)
• To infer the size of the irregular population,
  indirect methods are often used such as
  comparing different population censuses
  and registers, including data on births and
  – (The US and several South American countries either
    produce or otherwise do not deny illegal population
    estimates by reputable analysts. Furthermore, in the
    US case, national censuses are thought to capture
    between half and three quarters of that population).
        Measuring „illegal/irregular
• “residual” estimation technique - comparing the census data with
  other registries of immigrants and identifying any differences (USA,
  Spain … the UK).
• the “multiplier” estimation technique as producing better
  estimates of undocumented migrants (Jandl 2004) (based on the
  assumption that there is a stable relation between the unknown
  variable, which is the subject of enquiry, and a variable that can be
• In relation to the stock of third-country nationals with no or limited
  rights to work that are exceeded, demographic methods, such as
  comparing age structures, birth and death rates of illegal residents
  with those of legally resident foreigners have been used in migration
        Measuring “illegal/irregular
           phenomena” (cont.)
• to survey experts on the subject and using their estimations to
  come up with an appropriate multiplier
• ―evidence based on regularisation data‖ can also be used for
  estimations of immigrant stocks in the country and, to some extent,
  the extent to which they are working in various sectors

• Various surveys
• Estimates of the extent of irregular foreign employment often draw
  upon the figures of the national Labour Inspectorates, which
  undertake checks at work sites and other types of enforcement
  activities. …these routine control checks do not constitute a random
  sample of all workplaces (Jandl 2004) …
      … extrapolations
                                                                                    Visa / entries
                                                           Statistics on refusals   Political asylum

                                                                                    Residence, work permits
                                                                                    Entry / border
                                                               Infractions          Stay
                                                                                    Work or job

   Direct                                                   Regularisations         Mass
  measures                                                                          Exceptional

                                                            Without sample          Delphi “method“

                                Surveys                                             “Snowball“ technique
                                                                                    At the time of regularis.
                                                              With sample           On employment
                                                                                    On mobility/border flows

                             Comparison of                                          Expected populations
                               sources                                              Pairing of files

                                                                                    Common law crimes
   Indirect                  Inferences from
  estimates                 secondary events                                        Births and deaths
                                                                                    School attendance statistics
                                                                                    Social/health benefits

                             Work statistics                                        National data
Source: Delaunay, Tapinos 1998 according to Tapinos 1999
                         Data problems
•   Data on irregular migration – including both numbers and also demographic and
    socio-economic profiles - are scarce, often unreliable and not usually comparable
    between states and over time. The types of conceptual problems covered in the
    preceding subsection are one reason why. Different States, for example, define
    irregular migrants in different ways, and migrants can shift overnight between regular
    and irregular statuses.
•   There is also a series of more practical problems. Some irregular migrants can be
    recorded – such as asylum seekers whose applications are rejected, or those
    apprehended at borders without proper documentation. Most estimates of irregular
    migration simply present data recorded from sources like these. The problem is that
    recorded irregular migration represents only a proportion of the totality of irregular
    migration – and estimates of what that proportion is are largely guesswork and vary
    widely. Most sources agree that the majority of irregular migrants are not recorded
    (Clarke et al. 2003), and this is probably unsurprising given the desire of many of
    these migrants not to be identified by the authorities for fear of prosecution or
•   Another problem is access to data – however limited it may be - that has been
    collected. In many states such data are collected by enforcement agencies and are
    not made publicly available. Alternatively, information and data that may establish a
    person‘s irregular status are frequently dispersed between different agencies such as
    government departments, the police and employment offices, making cooperation
    and access to data difficult (Koser 2005, Pinkerton et al. 2004).
                   Data problems
• International cooperation on data collection is even more

• There is no authoritative source on global trends and
  numbers in irregular migration, and the available sources
  are not comprehensive:

   – The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development
     (OECD), through its SOPEMI initiative, for example, collates
     data from various industrialised nations, which usually include
     estimates on irregular migration - although this is not the focus.
     Similarly, the UN Statistics Division collects data on global
     trends that include estimates on irregular migration. And IOM
     regularly publishes data on human trafficking, which comprises
     only a proportion of all irregular migration (Koser 2005).
• Irregular, in irregular position, illegal,
  undocumented, unauthorised, clandestine,
  – used in various ways, in various contexts,
    overlapping …
•   Trafficking of human beings is defined as: ―the recruitment, transportation,
    transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat, or use of
    force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the
    abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving
    of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control
    over another person, for the purpose of exploitation‖.

•   The smuggling of migrants is defined as: ―The procurement, in order to
    obtain, directly or indirectly a financial or other material benefit, of the illegal
    entry of a person into a state Party of which the person is not a national or a
    permanent resident‖
    (Sources: UN Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in
    Persons (2000); UN Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land,
    Sea and Air (2000))

     – A conceptual complexity arises because migrants‘ status can change …
     Terms/Definitions – informal
• what is to be understood as undeclared
  work - the definition is: ―productive
  activities that are lawful as regards to their
  nature, but are not declared to the public
  authorities, taking into account the
  differences in the regulatory system
  between Member States” (Renooy 2004).
Main forms of illegal immigration
•   Undocumented/unauthorized entrants. These are nationals of one state who enter
    another state clandestinely. Most such entrants cross land borders, but sea routes
    are also employed regularly, and wherever inspection regimes are permeable, so
    are air routes. In all instances, the entrant manages to avoid detection and hence,
    inspection. Increasing proportions of such clandestine immigrants are smuggled or
•   Individuals who are inspected upon entry into another state, but gain admission by
    using fraudulent documents. The fraud in question may involve the person's
    identity and/or the documentation in support of admission. A variant of this class of
    entries involves the making of fraudulent asylum claims where issues of identity,
    documentation, and the narrative in support of the asylum claim may be falsified.
•   Violators of the duration of a visa. These include individuals who enter another
    state properly but "willfully" overstay their period of legal stay, thus lapsing into
    irregular status.
•   Violators of the terms and conditions of a visa. Nationals of one state who enter
    another state with the proper documents and procedures, but at some point violate
    the terms of their visa. The most frequent such violation is the acceptance of
    employment (by Papademetriou 2005)
        - Many foreigners also find themselves in temporary technical violation of the
    host nation's immigration laws in what are otherwise legal entries and essentially
    legal stays. For instance, a business visitor may engage in a business activity that
    requires a different visa classification.
Main forms of illegal immigration
•   ―Illegally staying third-country nationals‖ who are in the
    EU and who are either:
•   staying illegally in the EU. These include those who
    entered the EU illegally and ‗overstayers‘ who entered
    the EU legally, but whose rights to stay have expired;
•   staying legally in the Member State but who have no or
    limited rights to work, and the limited rights are being
    exceeded. These include students, researchers,
    tourists and legally present family members of third-
    country nationals who do not have the right to work or
    only have the right to work a specified number of hours
    per week (Proposal 2007).
Main forms of illegal immigration
•   Illegal economic activities carried out by migrants are understood
    to be situations wherein a migrant does not have the appropriate
    residence permit and work/business permit, or has a valid
    residence permit (e.g., tourist visa) but is working illegally (does
    not have a work permit or a trade licence).

•   Quasi-legal economic activities carried out by migrants are
    understood to be situations wherein a migrant has a valid
    residence permit and a work permit/trade licence, but breaches
    laws (Labour Act, Trade Licensing Act, etc.) in a severe manner,
    e.g., works in a different region, branch, profession or for a
    different employer than permitted; smuggles goods; participates in
    disguised employment (“Švarc system”), etc.

•   - Studies done in Drbohlav (ed.) 2008

ENTRY                                   LEGAL                                              ILLEGAL (false papers,
                                    (administratively)                                       clandestine passage)

                              Legal                       Illegal                      Illegal                    Legal
RESIDENCE                    (permit)             (invalid or no permit)             (no permit)             (regularisation,

                      Legal and    Illegal (no   Inactive   Illegal        Illegal          Inactive     Illegal (no    Legal and
EMPLOYMENT            inactive     permit,       pop.       (undeclared)   (undeclared)     population   permit,        inactive
                      pop.         undeclared)                                                           undeclared)    pop.

 Source: Tapinos 1999 (modified)
 Presentation of the various
 situations in which foreign
 migrants can find themselves
   •       Proposal for a
           providing for sanctions against employers of third-country nationals who are illegally staying or working in breach
           of their residence status Brussels, draft, version 30.3.2007 11h SEC(2007) XXXX

                 For the employed
                 illegally staying
                 - Underpaid                    For companies e.g.:           For Member State           For EU:                       For third country::
                                                                              (nat / reg / local
                 - Risk of exploitation         (1)   Company                                            - Impacts on national         - Remittances from
                                                      employing:                                         aggregate GDP                 employed illegally
                 - No social security                 lower wages             - Impacts on GDP                                         staying TCNs to
                                                                                                         - etc.
                 For nationals:                                                                                                        countries of origin,
                                                (2)   Other                   - etc.
                 - Downward                           companies:                                                                       - etc,
                 pressure on wages                    distortion of
                 and conditions                       competition

                 - Xenophobia

Illegal employment                                                    Illegal employment                                     Human trafficking victim
(a pull factor for illegal


Illegal immigration
(also driven by other                Enter legally with               Enter on their own           Smuggled by facilitator           Human trafficking
pull factors and by                  valid visa/ study visa,
push factors)                        seasonal work permit
• So-called irregular migrants make up 30–50 percent of
  all migration to Western industrialized countries ...
• The IOM surmises that approximately 4 million people
  are smuggled across borders every year.
• In the United States alone, there may be as many as 12
  million illegal migrants, with approximately 4,000 illegal
  border crossings every day.
• Half of all illegal migrants have some interaction with
  smuggling or trafficking networks—a global industry that
  generates approximately $10 billion per year (Adamson
•   Illegal/irregular migration has been by far the fastest rising single form of
    migration during the past 10 years.
•   A rough estimate about the share of unauthorized immigrants in the world's
    immigrant stock might put it at between 15 and 20 percent of the total (between
    30 and 40 million immigrants). Among these, the US has the largest absolute number
    of irregular immigrants with between 10 and 11 million, about 30 percent of its total
    foreign born population, probably followed by South Africa, where estimates vary
    wildly but all are in the several millions.
•   Continental Europe also has a large number of unauthorized immigrants, with the
    southern parts of the European Union accounting for the largest absolute numbers.
    Altogether, Europe probably "hosts" between seven and eight million irregular
    immigrants, although that number fluctuates in accordance with regularisation
    programs, such as the recent one in Spain. These fluctuations tend to be cyclical
    because large proportions of those who regularize typically fall back into illegal status
    when they cannot meet the conditions for legal status.
•   Mexico, the world's most proficient source of unauthorized (and legal) immigrants,
    also hosts about a million irregular immigrants of its own, many of them American
    retirees who have settled in Mexico without official permission.
•   Canada uses a "working guesstimate" of about half-a-million unauthorized immigrants
    (Papademetriou 2005).
    Reality – stocks (Proposal 2007)
•   Most estimates that have so far been available relate to the period prior to
    2004 and the accession of the EU-10 and include nationals from these
    countries and Bulgaria and Romania as third country nationals. This makes
    it difficult to present a clear overview of the situation in the EU and in
    individual Member States.
•   Estimates of the total number of illegal migrants in the EU vary; 2,000,000-
    3,000,000 (Global Migration Perspectives 2005); 4,500,000 (IOM 2000);
    and, seven to eight million (United Nations' Trends in Total Migrant Stock:
    The 2003 Revision) …
•   Those states with the highest absolute numbers of irregular residents
    include Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Greece, Poland and the United

•   Problem – regularisations …
    Statistics – stocks (Proposal 2007)
•   Estimates of irregular immigrants in Europe in millions - based on
    Düvell (2006) – a selection:
     –   Germany: 0.5-1.1
     –   UK: 0.05-0.5
     –   France: 1.0
     –   Italy: 0.57-1.1
     –   Spain: 0.5-1.0
     –   Netherlands: 0.11-0.16
     –   Greece: 0.35-0.7
     –   Belgium: <0.1
     –   Portugal: 0.04-0.2
     –   Sweden: <0.01
     –   Austria: 0.25
     –   Norway: 0.01-0.02
     –    …… Total: 4.14-7.34
                 Reality – flows
• The number of illegal immigrants in the EU was
  estimated to increase by 500,000 per annum by Wiener
  Zeitung (2005), and by 350,000 according to Global
  Migration Perspectives 2005. However, if the available
  estimates for the individual 21 Member States are
  aggregated the estimate is considerably higher. This
  calculation suggests that there is an annual inflow of
  illegal migrants to the EU of between 893,000 and
  923,300 (Proposal 2007)
                      Statistics – flows
•   According to a new online database on irregular migration established in the
    framework of a European Commission funded research project on irregular
    migration there are between 2.8 to 6 million migrants without a right to
    residence in the European Union and thus many fewer than previously

•   The database forms part of the CLANDESTINO project in which ICMPD
    was involved as a partner institute. A wide range of background information,
    including country reports on 12 EU Member States and 3 non-EU countries,
    a report on ethical issues in researching irregular migration and a report on
    methods to estimate irregular migration are available from the two project
    related websites. For more information,
           visit: (country reports and research briefs), (database).
          2000-2003: Stocks of Irregular Foreign Residents in the EU15
                                                                     Estimates of irregular foreign residents
    Country                            Population
                                                            minimum                  central            maximum

EU15                          2002        310 208 876            -                      -                       -
                                     Selected countries in descending order of population size

                                                               1 000 000                                   1 500 000
Germany                       2003         82 536 680                                   -                                    table
                                                                   1.2%                                        1.8%
United                                                           310 000                430 000                 570 000
                              2001         58 999 781                                                                        table
Kingdom                                                            0.5%                   0.7%                    1.0%
                                                                 702 156
Italy                         2002         56 993 742                                   -                       -            table
                                                                                                                650 551
Spain                         2002         40 964 244            -                      -                                    table
                                                                     77 721             104 990                 132 262
Netherlands                   2002         16 105 285                                                                        table
                                                                      0.5%                0.7%                    0.8%
                                                                                        400 000
Greece                        2001         10 931 206            -                                              -            table
                                                                     80 000                                     100 000
Austria                       2002          8 065 146                                   -                                    table
                                                                      1.0%                                        1.2%

        High quality          Medium quality                 Low quality               Low quality with plausibility warning

Source: CLANDESTINO project – Database on irregular migration,
                 2004-2006: Stocks of Irregular Foreign Residents in the EU25
                                                          Estimates of irregular foreign residents
       Country                    Population
                                                  minimum                   central              maximum

   EU25                    2005     461 603 958          2 800 000             -                     6 000 000        table

                                                          500 000                                    1 000 000
   Germany                 2004     82 531 671

                                                          200 000                                        400 000
   France                  2005      62 637 596

   United                                                 120 000                  240 000               380 000
                           2005      60 059 900                                                                       table
   Kingdom                                                  0.2%                     0.4%                  0.6%

                                                                                   541 000
   Italy                   2005      58 462 375      -
                                                                                                     -                table

                                                                                                     1 379 751
   Spain                   2005      43 038 035      -                         -

                                                           50 000                                        300 000
   Poland                  2004      38 190 608

                                                           62 320                     88 116             113 912
   Netherlands             2005      16 305 526
                                                            0.4%                       0.5%                0.7%

                                                          230 000                                        330 000
   Greece                  2004      11 040 650

   Czech                                                                                                 100 000
                           2005      10 220 577      -                         -                                      table
   Republic                                                                                                1.0%

                                                           20 000                                         40 000
   Slovakia                2006       5 389 180

     High quality     Medium quality           Low quality       Low quality with plausibility warning
Source: CLANDESTINO project – Database on irregular migration,
             2007-2008: Stocks of Irregular Foreign Residents in the EU27
                                                                 Estimates of irregular foreign residents
     Country             Year       Population

                                                         minimim                    central            maximum

  EU27                      2007     495 090 294             -                         -                    -            in preparation

                                    Selected countries in descending order of population size

                                                                                           349 000
  Italy                     2007      59 131 287             -                                              -                table

                                                                 280 000                                    376 000
  Spain                     2007      44 474 631                                      -                                      table
                                                                   0.6%                                       0.8%

                                                                 172 000                                    209 000
  Greece                    2007      11 171 740                                      -                                      table
                                                                   1.5%                                       1.9%

                                                                  30 000                                        50 000
  Hungary                   2007      10 066 158                                      -                                      table
                                                                   0.3%                                          0.5%

                                                                  15 000                                        20 000
  Slovakia                  2007       5 393 637                                      -                                      table
                                                                   0.3%                                          0.4%

          High quality          Medium quality               Low quality              Low quality with plausibility warning
Source: CLANDESTINO project – Database on irregular migration,
         Irregular work by sectors
• Data have been obtained for twelve Member States (BE, DK, FI, FR,
  EL, HU, IT, LV, NL, PT, ES, UK) on the sectors in which illegal
  immigrants work:

   – Construction, agriculture and horticulture, housework /
     cleaning, catering and other hospitality services are
     repeatedly identified as the sectors most prone to
     undocumented work, in general, and that of illegal migrants, in
   – This reflects in part the nature of the work that is required in
     these sectors (e.g. seasonal and flexible) and in part the
     variations in the presence of sectors in Member States. For
     example, in some Member States the agricultural sector is more
     important than in others, which may lead to a higher number of
     illegal immigrants getting such work (Proposal 2007).
           Irregular work by sectors
• In Finland, France, Hungary and Portugal the highest concentrations
  of illegal migrants in work are found in construction. In Greece and
  Spain, illegal migrants in work are predominantly found in the
  housework/cleaning sector, whereas in Denmark, the employment of
  illegal migrants is particularly high in agriculture. In the Netherlands,
  catering and other hospitality services are a focus of recruitment of
  illegal migrants (Proposal 2007).
Close relations to informal economies

• The sector with the highest incidence of informal
  work is the construction sector. In Pedersen‘s
  study, the sector is rivalled only in Germany by
  agricultural work, including gardening. Next to
  these two sectors, informal work is found mainly
  in the hotel and restaurant sector and in
  personal and domestic services (Renooy 2004).
Close relations to informal economies
• There are no general, universal causes for the
  existence and development of an informal
• It is brought about by a complex interplay
  between various variables that varies between
• Apart from economic reasons like tax burden or
  rigidity on (labour) markets, trust in and the
  quality of government play an important role.
  Furthermore, one should not ignore the role of
  culture in shaping an informal economy (Renooy
   Important patterns - ways into and
           out of illegality

• Various combinations of illegal and legal entry,
  residence and employment may arise. At the
  same time, numerous transitions between
  legality and illegality are possible.

• There are indications in Italy that 75% of
  irregular migrants have entered the country
  legally, 15% have come illegally across land
  borders and 10% across sea borders.
              Duration of stay

• Duration of stay: In the case of irregular
  migration both limited-term stays and circular
  patterns of migration are found, as well as
  people settling for an indeterminate period.

• Stricter border controls tend to lead to an
  extended period of stay because re-entering or
  moving to and from the country is risky.
    Trends (Focus Migration 2008)
• Trend: there has been a general worldwide assumption since the
  end of the 1980s that there has been a sharp increase in irregular

•    Although there are certainly also countries where current estimates
    indicate a declining trend (Germany…)

• At EU level the development has been strongly influenced by twelve
  new states joining the EU since 2004. Firstly, this has reduced
  illegal residency, since a large proportion of irregular migration in the
  EU-15 countries stemmed from accession countries; secondly, it
  appears that illegal residency has shifted from the old to the new EU
    What is behind it? – Driving forces
•   A number of push and pull factors, which are by no means only economic
    in nature; nevertheless, economic motives dominate.

•   Decisions to migrate are based on push factors such as unemployment or
    permanently low wage levels and natural disasters or ecological devastation,

•   and on pull factors such as informal employment with higher wage levels,
    political stability, maintenance of the rule of law and effective protection of
    human rights.

•   Irregular migrants frequently come from nearby countries with a significantly
    lower level of income, from countries with established historical or current
    ties with the receiving country, or from countries in which human rights
    violations or poor economic conditions cause people to emigrate.

•   Illegal migrants make their decisions despite various deterrents, such as
    high costs for the services of smugglers and the risk of interception and
    prosecution by border authorities (Proposal 2007).
                  What is behind it?

• The same motives for migrating are found among both irregular
  and regular immigrants: earning and educational opportunities,
  love, family connections, a desire to travel, the search for protection
  from persecution, or fear of returning to a (former) area of war or
  catastrophe. Of these, the greatest importance is attributed to
  economic motives. Typically, young adults are overproportionally
  represented among irregular migrants (Focus Migration 2008).
         What is behind it?

Also, it is the result of inflexible rules and
  understaffed (and thus overworked)
  immigration bureaucracies). (More than six
  million immigration petitions — many of them
  requests for a change in immigration status —
  were pending in the US in 2004).
           What is behind?

– There is disagreement on whether the major
  independent variable is the wage differential,
  the available benefits for asylum seekers or
  the activities of smugglers (Martin 2003).
            What is behind?

• The arrival of illegal/irregular workers is
  often the response to appeals from certain
  niche areas of economic activity that are
  involved in what are called ―underground
  economies‖ (Pallida 2005).
Illegal migration and migrants‘ irregular activities: accompanied by a
number of risks, which are tied to
      - the migrant,
      - the migrant‘s ―new‖ environment (destination country),
      - the environment through which the migrant traveled (transit
      - the environment the migrant left
The employers, employment agencies, and sometimes even the
migrants themselves – involved in irregular work/business - profit
from breaking the law.


Those who do adhere to the law, pay the required taxes and
insurance, and act in accordance with the regulations (employers,
local citizens, and legal foreign workers) are at a disadvantage.
Risks/Impacts (immigration c.)
             -ECONOMIC risks
- frequent discrimination
- lower wages,
- longer work periods,
- unstable employment,
- and the overall level of subordination that exists in relation to the
employer/employment agent.

- deformation of the labor market in destination countries (the quality
of working conditions decreases;
- non-payment of taxes and other deductions gives companies that
employ illegal workers an advantage, etc.
- a threat that certain branches will become ―unhealthily‖ dependent
on foreign workers
- danger that structural changes required for desirable economic
development will be delayed...
    Risks/Impacts (immigration c.)
                 - risks within the SOCIAL SPHERE
-   enclosed migrant enclaves might be established which might be
    socially marginalized and offer no perspective for improving living
    conditions and integration within the majority population.

    - The existence of such communities can subsequently be linked
      to anti-state activities, including terrorism.
Risks/Impacts (immigration c.)

-   PSYCHOLOGICAL risks are at play
      - including breaking existing social ties,
      - living in a new cultural and social environment,
      - stress caused by the ―illegal‖ nature of their arrival, residence, or work, fear
        of being caught, and the possible subsequent penalties. … a state of
        permanent uncertainty and, often, even danger.
      - increasing xenophobia and rasism
Risks/Impacts (immigration c.)
              - Possibly other factors that threaten the safety of
target countries:

- minor crimes, counterfeit documents, organized crime, human
smuggling, counterfeit consumer goods, weapons, drugs, nuclear
materials, etc.

- overall open tolerance of illegal migration also deforms the ethical
and moral codes of the receiving society.
Risks/Impacts (immigration c.)
However, there are some positive impacts:

- filling unappealing and low-paid jobs,
- a cheap and flexible workforce,
- the development of certain economic entities and sectors.

- Also, individual households benefit from the presence of
illegal/irregular workers (cheaper home services, construction,
reconstruction, etc.), prices of some goods and services
decrease …
       Impacts (Proposal 2007)
Available information suggests that the employment of
  illegally resident third-country nationals does not
  necessarily crowd out locals from jobs. Instead, there are
  signs that whole industries are already dependent on
  these illegally resident third-country nationals, as the
  kind of jobs they take would not be done by nationals at
  a wage level that would still maintain the international
  competitiveness of the sector concerned (e.g.
      Impacts (Proposal 2007)
• Effects on the product/service market may be
  positive in purely economic terms. Illegally
  resident third country nationals can bring
  substantial economic benefits to their host
  countries in their capacity as workers. Their low
  wages bring down the costs of goods and
  services, making firms and sometimes entire
  industries more competitive, and often have
  important ripple (―up-― and ―down-stream‖)
  economic benefits also for associated firms and
  industries, in form of lower output prices, or
  increased purchases.
      Impacts (Proposal 2007)
• With respect to the effects on competition and
  the single internal market, in countries where the
  informal economy is less strong, employers of
  illegal immigrants pose unfair competition to
  others within certain sectors. In other countries,
  the custom of making use of undeclared work in
  general, and also illegal third country nationals,
  is so wide-spread that all companies within the
  sectors concerned have adapted to this
  situation, and employ illegally themselves or
  cope with unfair competition by other means.
       Impacts (Proposal 2007)
• Illegal immigrants contribute positively
  economically to both the host economies (by
  making companies or even sectors more
  competitive due to low salaries) and the
  countries of origin (in terms of remittances).
  However, there are significant costs that offset
  these benefits, e.g. lack of payment of social
  security contributions, exploitation of many
  illegal migrants, and the distortion of the labour
  market by downward pressure on wages and
• One of the most significant consequences of illegal immigration may
  in fact stem from the increasing strength of smuggling and trafficking
• In general, European migration policy is
  dominated by a restrictive agenda of repelling,
  limiting and controlling immigration.

  – At the beginning of 2002, the cabinet of ministers had
    adopted a plan of action to control illegal
    immigration and human trafficking. Above all, it
    encouraged the development of a joint visa and
    return policy, improved exchange of information
    and the coordination of control authorities, the
    setting up of a European border police, and a
    tightening of sanctions.
• Differences among individual countries:

  – In Germany, illegal residence is a criminal
    offence in the eyes of the law; in some other
    countries, such as the Netherlands, it is not.
• The more strictly all citizens are registered and
  inspected, the easier and less expensive it is to control

   – The spectrum ranges from the Scandinavian countries, where
     everyone is accompanied from the cradle to the grave by an
     identification number that is registered everywhere, through to
     England, where there is no residential register and only since
     2004 has there been a gradual introduction of compulsory
     identity cards. At the same time, there is less control of
     economic life in southern European countries than in
     northern European countries, as a result, for example, of the
     greater significance of agriculture and small business structures.
•   The extent to which existing rights can actually be exercised varies sharply
    from country to country. If schools, doctors and courts check residence and
    cooperate – or are forced to cooperate – with the authorities responsible for
    detecting and deporting irregular migrants, these migrants will be deterred
    from exercising their rights. Germany has the most far-reaching
    regulations on data forwarding and cooperation with the authorities in
    charge of migration control. In the Netherlands, access to state services
    for aliens without status was severely restricted in the 1990s, although
    schooling, medical treatment and legal protection were expressly excluded.
•   Irrespective of residence status, inhabitants of Spain can register with
    the communal authorities and thereby receive access to basic medical
    treatment. In Greece, Sweden and Italy, too, access to medical
    treatment in acute emergencies is assured regardless of residence
    status. Hospitals need only pass on information to police if requested to do
    so in the course of an investigation.
      Policies versus Practices
• One of the main problems - enforcing
  employer sanctions!!!
                   Why does it fail?
•    "law-and-order" measures alone are ineffective throughout the
    world!!! – they do not change the fundamental reasons for
    irregular migration

• Once migration becomes established, its momentum can be very
  hard to stop. In part this is a result of social networks and chain
  migration (Boyd, 1989; Gurak and Caces 1992, Koser 1997). In part
  it is because a multi-billion dollar migration industry has evolved that
  has a vested interest in migration continuing. This industry has both
  a legitimate aspect – including travel agents, recruitment agents,
  and lawyers, and an illegitimate aspect, most obviously including
  migrant smugglers and human traffickers (Salt and Stein 1998).

• Fourth, people fleeing circumstances they consider intolerable will
  enter the illegal migration stream and test various receiving states'
  defenses repeatedly.
                        Why does it fail?
•   a number of challenges that EU Member States face in enforcing their
    policies in relation to undeclared work. These include:
     – 1) Lack of coordination and cooperation between the actors responsible for
       combating illegal work at the local level and between the local, regional and
       national levels;
     – 2) Absence of a structural and/or legislative framework that governs such
       coordination and cooperation;
     – 3) Insufficient human resources allocated to the bodies or units that are expected
       to deter, detect and penalise undeclared work;
     – 4) Inadequate financial resources at the disposal of the competent bodies or
       units to undertake monitoring and act upon violations observed;
     – 5) Obstacles to field operations (e.g. legislation that allows employers to deny
       access to inspectors if they regard conditions on the site as unsafe);
     – 6) Lack of information to undertake effective controls (e.g. few risk analyses,
       limited access to information from tax authorities and banks on companies under
       suspicion, employees reluctant to testify against those who exploit them);
     – 7) Lack of data to assess the outcome of inspections; and,
     – 8) Insufficient international cooperation (Proposal 2007).
                      Number of regularisations
                          (in thousands)

                    1981-1988      1990-1993      1996-1998      2000-2005      TOTAL

   France               121.1                         77.8                        198.9
   Greece                                             371              351         722
   Italy                118.7          217.7         461.6            634.7       1 432.7
   Portugal                            39.2           21.8            182.2       243.2
   Spain                43.8           110.1          21.3            947.2       1 122.4
   TOTAL                283.6           367          953.5            2 115.1     3 719.2
   United States                                      405              400         805

Source: OECD/Sopemi 2006 according to Diez Guardia, Pichelmann 2006
• The study entitled ‗REGINE – Regularisations in Europe.
  Study on practices in the area of regularisation of
  illegally staying third-country nationals in the Member
  States of the EU‘ (2009) has been commissioned by the
  European Commission and has been conducted by a
  team of researchers at the International Centre for
  Migration Policy Development (ICMPD), with additional
  contributions from external experts
• See

• The EU Member States currently use, or
  have used, some sort of regularisation
  measure in the recent past, although the
  extent to which they use regularisation as
  a policy tool varies greatly.

• In the study, regularisation is defined as
  any state procedure by which illegally
  staying third country nationals are
  awarded a legal status …, although actual
  practices are more complex …
•   1) There are various regularisation procedures that allow illegally staying
    migrants to acquire a legal status from within their current country of
•   2) regularisation measures sometimes target various categories of
    technically legally staying migrants on transitional or restricted permits.
•   3) regularisations sometimes award statuses short of a fully fledged legal
    status, notably in cases in which a removal order is formally temporarily
    suspended (‗toleration‘).
• Between 1996 and 2008 available data show that in total
  some 3.5 million persons were regularised in the EU27
  in the period under review, with the actual number likely
  to be substantially higher (5.5-6.0 mil).

  (43 regularisation programmes have been implemented
  in 17 EU Member States) (see REGINE 2009)
• European Union Member States regularise irregular migrants
  through two basic types of regularisation measures – regularisation
  programmes and regularisation mechanisms.

  Mechanisms are part of the regular migratory policy framework and
  are thus permanent measures;

  Programmes - specific measures - run for a limited period of time
  and typically target specific categories of non-nationals in an
  irregular situation, typically involve larger numbers of persons and
  frequently target employed irregular migrants, often in an attempt to
  clamp down on irregular employment more generally.
       Criteria for regularisations: transparent and clearly defined.
  Among the most frequent criteria used are: residence in the country
  before a certain date, length of residence, proof of employment.
• Criteria and procedures in regularisation mechanisms,
  by contrast, are often less well defined, leaving
  substantial room for administrative discretion.
   – typically these are small-scale measures, regularising only
     relatively small numbers of irregular migrants and are focused
     largely on humanitarian cases.
• Italy (under 1.5m applications);

• Spain with 1.3m, and Greece just under 1.2m - mostly broadly
  designed regularisation programmes targeting undocumented
  migrant workers

   - these three countries account for 84% of known applications in
   regularisation programmes.

• In Northern European countries typically have targeted humanitarian
  cases, including long-term and rejected asylum seekers, non-
  deportable aliens, family members, amongst others.
• In contrast to programmes, many statistics on regularisation
  mechanisms are either not collected or not available.

   … regularisations through mechanisms are usually administered
   through the regular framework for issuing residence permits.
• In EU Member States - regularisation follows two distinct logics:
    – 1) a humanitarian and rights based logic
        • regularisation is typically based on a broad set of
          humanitarian criteria and generally is informed by human
          rights considerations

    – 2) a non-humanitarian, regulatory and labour market oriented logic
       • regularisation is a means to achieve wider objectives, and in
          particular to address the nexus of irregular migration and the
          informal economy…aim at combating undeclared work, ensuring
          compliance with tax, social security obligations and at enforcing
          social rights and labour standards, and thus, fighting social
          exclusion, vulnerability and other ills associated with undeclared
          work. In addition, there is an aim to promote the integration of
          regularised migrants
• The study suggests that the overall impact of regularisation
  programmes is positive, with small but permanent reductions in
  irregular residence/employment.

• The study finds only limited evidence for a pull effect of
  regularisations, although there is evidence that regularisation
  measures have a negative impact on return programmes.

• Regularisation mechanisms generally seem to provide a useful and
  flexible tool to address humanitarian cases, although
  nontransparency of rules and administrative practice stand out as
  major problems.
   Regularisation- policy recommendations
• The study recommends that policy responses should adopt a long
  term perspective and put efforts into reforming recruitment and
  admission policies.

• However, in the short term and in particular in countries with large
  irregular migrant stocks, regularisation is often a necessary and
  unavoidable option to address the presence of irregular

• Fourthly, the study finds that the asylum system is closely linked
  to the “creation” of irregular migrants, particularly in Northern
  European countries, reflecting considerable differences in access
  to protection across European states.
   – a need to elaborate clear rules regarding the treatment of
      the small but significant number of persons who cannot be
      removed over an extended period of time, many of whom are
      rejected asylum seekers not qualifying for Convention status or
      subsidiary protection.
   Regularisation- policy recommendations
• The study identifies family-related reasons as increasingly
  important grounds on which irregular migrants are regularised,
  suggesting deficiencies of the existing legal regulations for family
  reunification and a need for more flexible approaches in this regard.
• Besides the national level - regularisation clearly falls within the
  scope of the competence of the EU in the area of migration as
  defined by Article 63 (3) of the Amsterdam Treaty)

• There is no consensus within the EU-27 concerning the need
  for regularisation policies.

   Given the diversity of positions over the need for regularisation,
   governments on the whole, are not in favour of regulation at the
   European level. However, there is considerable support among
   governments for increased exchange of information, including
   the exchange of good practices.

   - In general, trade unions are cautious supporters of regularisation
   - NGOs are the most active actors concerning mobilisation and
   campaigns for regularisation programmes—most notably in Belgium,
   France, Portugal, Spain, the UK, Ireland and Germany.
Regularisations (Laubenthal 2007)
•   The recent pro-regularisation movements
    in France, Spain and Switzerland
    emerged in the context of three common
    preconditions that encouraged their
    – 1) The first common precondition was the
      factual acceptance of illegal migration as
      a mode of immigration. …
Regularisations (Laubenthal 2007)
  2) The second precondition was that
  before the protests, changes in the
  national civil societies had taken place
  leading to the presence of new actors
  who were available to support the illegal
  migrants‘ cause.
Regularisations (Laubenthal 2007)
•   In France, under the leitmotif of social exclusion, a network of new actors
    emerged which put forward the demand for regularisation and linked it to
    claims for social rights for other socially vulnerable groups.

•   Spain, too, the core supporters of the protests were newly founded
    actors. These were antiracism and human rights groups that represented
    a new segment of civil society that criticized Spanish immigration policy
    from a human rights and/or anti-globalisation perspective and endorsed
    an unconventional action repertoire.

•   In Switzerland, established actors in the field of immigration supported
    the demand for regularisation. Swiss trade unions were well-organized
    and numerically strong allies which, because of their historical
    development, were strongly disposed to act as representatives of
    migrants‘ interests.
Regularisations (Laubenthal 2007)
  3) The third precondition for the emergence of
  the pro-regularisation movements was the
  existence of historical linkages between the
  countries of origin and the countries in
  which the protests took place. These
  linkages were rooted either in the countries‘
  colonial past or in their recent migration
  history, and could be used by the movements
  to legitimate their demands.
    Recommendations (Proposal 2007)
Policy options at the EU level
    A multi-criteria analysis has been used to assess and compare impacts,
    –      The preferred option
•       On the basis of the comparison of the options and their
        impacts on meeting policy objectives and contributing
        to and respecting fundamental rights, and in the light of
        Member States‘ and stakeholder views, and
        practicality and costs, the preferred option is a
        combination of:
•       Option 4: Harmonised employer sanctions and
        preventive measures for employers to relevant
        documentation (residence and work permit) and to
        notify a competent national body; and,
•       Option 6: Identification and exchange of good practice
        between Member States.
    Recommendations (Proposal 2007)
•     It is proposed that this preferred policy option would be accompanied by
      the following supporting measures at Member State level:
•     Each Member State would
    –      identify the competent authorities
    –      develop/refine the procedures to be followed by the employers
    –      data protection
    –      compliance with the requirement to submit relevant
    –      establishment of protective measures for illegally employed
           third-country nationals in case of sanctions for the employer,
    –      awareness raising campaigns
    Recommendations (Koser 2005)
A typology of state policy instruments to address irregular migration
Pre-frontier measures
•   Visa requirements
•   Pre-boarding documentation checks in countries of origin and transit
•   Information campaigns
•   Carrier sanctions
•   Liaison officers
•   Interdiction and interception
•   Regional processing
•   Punitive measures against human smugglers

Measures relating to border management
•  Strengthened physical borders (fences, electronic surveillance)
•  Strengthened border controls and inspections
•  Documentation with enhanced security features
•  Biometric data
•  Training border guards
  Recommendations (Koser 2005)
Post-entry measures
• Detention
• Workplace inspections
• Internal ID inspections
• Accelerated procedures
• Employer sanctions
• Dispersal and restrictions on mobility
• Restrictions on the right to work, access to housing, legal advice and social
  welfare benefits
       Policy recommendations
Policy should usually incorporate the following key components
(Koser        2005)
 – Control measures and law enforcement
 – Regular and organised migration programmes
 – Return programmes
 – Strategies for combating migrant smuggling and human trafficking
 – Special programmes for ensuring the protection of refugees within
    broader migration movements

 Policy should be guided by the following underlying principles:
 – A long-term approach that takes account of the causes and effects of
   irregular migration
 – A balanced approach that reconciles state sovereignty with the rights of
 – A unified approach that incorporates dialogue between different parts of
   government; between government, NGOs and civil society, and
   between governments in different countries
    Policy recommendations – summary
•   Governments should systemically and regularly review internal controls in
    order to reduce opportunities for irregular immigrants to gain footholds
•   It is necessary to focus upon real and would-be employers in order to
    substantially limit the ―comparative advantages‖ of irregular/illegal
•   Higher effectiveness of sanctions and preventive measures
•   Law enforcement must be improved (low number of prosecutions …)
•   The procedures that employers are to follow must be short and flexible
    enabling rapid responses to changes in the (labour) market.

•   To standardize as much as possible fines for employers of illegally staying
    third-country nationals

•   Channeling much more illegal immigration into regulated pathways -
    governments should widen and deepen legal immigration channels of
    various forms
•   Effective migration management requires better coordination and
    cooperation among and within governmental, intergovernmental and non-
    governmental agencies dealing with migrants.
 Policy recommendations - summary
• More intensive international cooperation, more intensive regional
  dialogue and partnerships
• More robust, long-term and better targeted economic assistance for
  countries or regions (education, development etc.) that are the
  source of illegal migrants

• Better research and data collection
• Services for the victims of trafficking

• Identification and exchange of good practices on the implementation
  of employer sanctions between Member States (like systems of
  employer inspections; the training of employers; methods for
  regularising/removing third country nationals identified as working
  illegally; the application of sanctions; the detection of systematic and
  large scale illegal employment; the links between illegal employment
  of third country nationals without the right to work and the wider
  informal economy.

To top