Euro-Mediterranean Security and Cooperation: Immigration Policies and Implications
Dina Jaccob Department of Euro-Mediterranean Studies Faculty of Economics and Political Science, Cairo University E-mail:
[email protected]
Abstract Immigration is a sensitive issue that has implications on the economic, political and social dimensions. It is practically impossible to effectively control cross-borders in any country especially in nowadays free-market economy which, in order to remain sustainable, have to maintain its borders open for the freedom of goods, services, capital and labour. In general immigration gains are much higher than its costs but countries are more sensitive towards free movement of people in comparison with free movement of trade and capital. Free movements of labour could be understood through push- and pull-factors among countries. Immigration could be explained through three approaches; ecological, behavioural, and systems. The EU concerns towards its external border control have increased especially after the Arab Spring in 2011 based on two main motives humanitarian and security. The council of the European Union has assigned new funds towards the countries that have massive people movements through four policies: readmission, deployment, EU border assistant mission, and capacity building.
JEL Classification: F01, F22, J61, O15, R23.
Keywords: Immigration, Push-factors, Pull-factors, Pact on Immigration, Arab Spring.
1
Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2479970
1. Introduction Economic integration among countries has deepened in recent decades that enhanced globalization. The main drivers of globalization are intensified international trade, increased foreign direct investment (FDI), facilitate technology transfer, enhance inter-country linkages, increase productivity, information technology and communication, free movement of people. There were several waves of globalization but the late 19th century characterised by cross border movement of people (Williamson, 1996), the free movements among countries required no visas nor work permits and allows foreign employment (Ng and Whalley, 2005). Unfortunately, the present era regarded with tenacious control of people movements. Although there is a free movement of skilled labour in well developed countries and economic unions but a lot of barriers for unskilled labour since they result in deleterious economic, social impacts and recently security concerns in terms of immigration linked crime and terrorism. The development of EU common migration policy is rooted in broader political, economic, and societal that articulate a threatened society. The political legitimacy and procedures of societal integration are challenged by EU welfare states including economic globalization, financial integration, upsurge of poverty rates, lower standard of living in cities, resurgence of racist, extremist, and xenophobic movements and parties, the separation of the voting public from the politicians, and the growth of multiculturalism. Therefore, immigration has been progressively emphasized as a hazard to cultural identity, public order, domestic stability and labour market solidity. The EU immigration concern increased especially after the uprising movement of people – the so called Arab Spring - in the South Mediterranean countries that resulted in new political context (European Commission, 2011c). This led the EU leaders to address the short term and long term challenges. The uprising movements of people in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Syria, Yemen and some other Arab countries has resulted in huge residents dislocation in the region which generated a further challenge for these countries that are located in the centre of a political tension. EU supports the countries with massive population displacement based on humanitarian and securitarian concerns as many migrants and refugees headed to North Mediterranean countries (Italy, Malta, and France) seeking a safe haven.
2
Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2479970
2. Cost-Benefit Analysis of Immigration There is an extensive literature on the advantages and disadvantages of immigration. International movement of labour results in several latent reciprocal gains for both destination (receiving) countries and source (sending) countries. Immigration permits the transfer of labour to the countries where they will be utmost productive. The migrants gain from higher wages, the destination countries gain from the so-called immigration surplus that accumulates to the capital holders and the labour with skills matching to immigrants, and the source countries gain from higher marginal product of labour (MPL) and hence the wages of those who migrated (Borjas, 1999a). Chia (2006) conclude that free movement of labour generate more gains than costs for both source and destination countries, however labour movement is much more sensitive compared with trade an capital movements. Table 1 shows the advantages and disadvantages of immigration. Table 1: Advantages and Disadvantages of Immigration
Advantages Reduced Labour Costs Business Expansion (Freeman, 2006) Workforce Diversity (Card, 1990) Accelerated technological advancement (Welch and Zhen, 2005) Economies of scale Increased competitiveness Slowing down of ageing of population (Coppel, Dumont and Visco, 2001) Lower rate of unemployment (Longhi, Nijkamp and Poot, 2005) Labour market flexibility increased Work remittances are a form of development aid (Hugo, 2005) Increased global networking Increased tourism earnings Assists in solving labour shortages Brain gain to countries of destination (Vinokur, 2006)
Factor Economic
3
Disadvantages Short-run inflationary pressures Lower affordability of housing in main cities (Saiz, 2007) Short-run deterioration of the trade balance Employee Resistance Legal Issues Brain-drain from developing countries A rise in capital foreign ownership The urban-rural gap widespread (Zhao and Kondoh, 2007) Loss of some jobs of nationals to the immigrants and lower wages to increased supply in certain industries (Friedberg and Hunt, 1995) Inequality due to uneven distribution of the income and economic gains (Chao and Yu, 2002) Brain drain to sending countries (Baruch, Budhwar
Immigration policy is a sensitive topic and accepting refugees improves the foreign relations and standing in the international community
Political
Cultural and diversity Multiculturalism
Cultural
linguistic
and Khatri, 2007) Increasing skilled labour relative wages due to inflow of unskilled labour (Mayda, 2006). Immigration results in security issues and crime concern Ineffectiveness of planning and policy enhancement due to illegal immigration Language Barriers Racial conflict Immigration could sometimes result in the social cohesion attrition and discrimination (Abella, 2006)
Source: Data compiled by the author.
3. Theoretical Background of Immigration The migration potential arises from regional discrepancies, differences in life chances, and from an obvious welfare gap (Schmid, 2007). Life chances are operationalized by demographic, economic, political and ecological factors. How many potential migrants will follow their inclination and end up with a clear-cut decision to depart, depends on the migrants’ opportunities, their financial situation and the existence of helping networks (Massey, 1999). Theories that explain the reasons behind immigration could be generally analysed through three main approaches: (1) ecological, (2) behavioural and (3) systems. These approaches are generally sequential, but they are complementary in nature and could overlap. The ecological approach focuses on the significance of the features of the sending and receiving countries that influence their decision to migrate. The Gravity model is regarded as the most significant popular model of ecological approach. The Gravity model links immigration to indicators of population size characteristics and distance. Other variables could be added to the model such as fertility and mortality rates. The decision of immigration is better explained by the employment and wages variables based on this approach. The behavioural approach focuses more human behaviour variables. The analysis here is moved from the source or destination countries to the migrants themselves in order to 4
analyse the motives behind movement. Therefore the decision to immigrate is based on the current political, security, economic, social and cultural context that individuals, households and businesses experience in their home countries. Recently, immigration has progressively been regarded in systems approach. Therefore, every immigration network is part of a system that reveals the interactions and complexity of variables within each environment. The decisions about immigration are taken by households, businessmen and individuals who are affected by the environment they live within according to the immigration network. These decisions are affected by several dynamics including the level of economic development, labour force, poverty rates, unemployment rates social environment, and institutional structure. In general, immigration can be explained by push- and pull-factors between regions and by helping migrant networks on both sides. Table 2 shows the south Mediterranean migration potential points out foremost to the push-factors and the migrant networks between sending and receiving countries. Table 2: Push and Pull Factors for Immigration
Push-factors Countries of origin Population growth, young age structure Inadequate educational institutions, medicare and social security Unemployment, low wages Poverty, low consumption and living standard Dictatorships, shadow democracy, bad governance, political upheaval Conflict, (civil) war, terrorism, human rights violation, oppression of minorities Ecologic disaster, desertification, lack of natural resources, water shortage, soil erosion, lack of environmental policy Decisions of the family or the clan Information flows, media,
Migrants Demographic factors and social infrastructure
Economic factors
Political factors
Ecological factors
Migrant flows and migrant stocks
5
Pull-factors Countries of destination Stable population, population decline, demographic ageing Welfare state benefits, educational institutions, medicare, social security Labour demand, high wages Welfare, high consumption and living standard Democracy, rule of law, pluralism, political stability Peace, security, protection of human and civil rights, protection of minorities
Better environment, environmental policy, protection of natural resources and environmental protection Diaspora, ethnic community Information flows, media, transferred picture of
transferred picture of country of origin Possibilities of (ir)regular immigration, routes of trafficking Source: Schmid (2011).
destination country Possibilities of (ir)regular immigration (right of residence)
4. EU Immigration Policy EU borders are unstable and are continuously re-bordering and de-bordering according to the current challenges. In 1989, the breakdown of the ‘iron curtain’ has reformed the nature of the borders between East and West. Primarily, illegal immigration was tackled on the national level only and in the late 1970s due to the rise of irregular immigration, efforts are exerted to have a collaboration response. In 2002, the European Commission have paved the way for ‘integrated management of the EU external borders’ (The European Commission, 2002). In 2003, the European Commission introduced two sets of biometric data (facial image and fingerprints) on resident permits and visas for TCNs. Furthermore, in 2005, the EU started to implement the ‘Hague programme’ in order to fight all forms of ‘illegal immigration’ that affect several dimensions including borders security, unemployment, return and cooperation with third countries. These policies are transformed into tangible policies as follows (Düvell and Vollmer, 2011): 1. In 1986, carrier sanctions were developed as integrated transportation businesses to prevent irregular immigration to the businesses. 2. In 2002, joint visa processes were presented to fight against any abuse of visa. 3. In 2007, collaboration of deportations and mutual flights arranged. 4. In 2008, regulation of detention and deportation (Return directive, 2008/115/EC) 5. In 2009, serious sanctions are applied on employers who employ illegal migrants (Employer sanctions directive, 2009/52/EC). Unfortunately, there is no common consensus on regularisation programmes among EU member states as some members such as Germany, France and UK claim that immigration forms a pull-effect which is healthy for their economies. Therefore the regulations are maintained on the national levels.
6
In order to implement the above mentioned policies, there was a significant need to introduce several institutions and agencies as an ‘early warning system for illegal immigration’ (Council of the European Union, 1999): 1. In 1992, the establishment of the Centre for Information, Discussion and Exchange on the Crossing of Borders and Immigration (CIREFI) in order to gather, process, analyse, and predict irregular patterns of immigration. 2. In 1998, the establishment of the High Level Working Group Asylum and Migration (HLWG). This institution is composed of civil servants in order to conclude horizontal analyses of irregular immigration and develop a strategic approach and integrated policies (Council of the European Union, 1998). 3. In 2000, the establishment of the Strategic Committee for Immigration, Frontiers and Asylum Affairs (SCIFA). This institution is developed for collaboration for common European migration and asylum policy. While on the operational level, several institutions were created including: 4. In 1995, the establishment of the Schengen Information System (SIS). It is ‘the largest database on maintaining public security, support police and judicial co-operation and managing external border control and is immediately and directly accessible to all police officers at street level and other law enforcement officials and authorities’ (Council of the European Union, 2010a). 5. In 1998, the establishment of the False and Authentic Documents Online (FADO) which is a databank for gathering documents and information. 6. In 1999, extending the operational level of Europol1 to include definite aspects of irregular migration (Europol, 2010). 7. In 2000, the introduction of Eurodac fingerprint system that allows all European Union Military Staff (EUMS) to identify asylum seekers applicants and irregular migrants who crossed of an external border of the EU (Council of the European Union 2010b, 2010c). 8. In 2002, the establishment of three ad hoc centres preceding FRONTEX, on land, air borders and risk analysis.
1
Europol is the EU law enforcement Agency that handles criminal intelligence.
7
9. In 2004, the establishment of the General Directors of the European Immigration Services Conference (GDISC). Its main activities include border management and illegal migration (GDISC, 2010). 10. In 2005, the operations commencement of the border agency FRONTEX. Its budget enlarged significantly from €19 million in 2006 to €88 million in 2010. FRONTEX supports the operational collaboration among EUMSs and it has neither enforcement powers nor staff for example coordinating joint deportation flights (FRONTEX, 2010). The French presidency proposed the ‘Pact on Immigration’ that was implemented in 2008 (Council of the European Union, 2008). It is considered as a long term policy to overcome the anomalies of the short term policies addressing irregular immigration. It moderately disassociates itself from the security vision. Its main objective is to detach the European Commission of its powers and to grant more power to the Member States and the Council of the European Union in order to decline the free movement of labour principles and enhance ‘Euro-surveillance’ through regular control of irregular immigration within the union in order to fight illegal immigration and terrorism. This pact aims as eliminating illegal migration especially resulting from 3-months tourist visa and at the same time opening the border to skilled migration in order to benefit from brain drain which is presented as pullfactors In the meantime, these new policies are based mainly on surveillance technical advances, for example: (1) Maritime Security Service project (MARISS) which is by implemented by Telespazio (Transnational Institute, 2009). (2) The development of European surveillance system on the sea-border, this project is an FP7 EU-funded (Kington, 2009). In addition to the general operations of EU external borders security, particular projects and targeted enforcement operations are applied: 1. Centralised Record of Available Technical Equipment (CRATE), it one of the projects of FRONTEX. It is main objective is to enhance FRONTEX operations by a rapid detection of the ‘deployable’ vessels by the EUMSs. 2. Hera (2006), Minerva (2007), and Hermes (2007), it one of the projects of FRONTEX. They effectively succeeded in preventing the entrance of illegal immigrants in boats on the Canary Islands and mainland Spain. On the other hand
8
Nautilus (2007) was less successful due to the inefficient coordination among Italy and Malta with Libya. 3. Rapid Border Intervention Teams (RABITs), it one of the projects of FRONTEX. It is an EU network composed of more 700 staffs and technical apparatus (heartbeat detectors, RADAR, and aircraft). 2010 was the first time to be implied on the GreekTurkish borders. 4. EUROSUR, it enhances border surveillance and security mainly by using technical and technological advances such as unmanned aerial vehicles and earth observation satellites (European Commission, 2008). 5. Operation Hermes (2010), it is a tool for mapping irregular immigration flows and routes in land, sea and air within the EU. Enhance European police networks of traffic police (Tispol), railway police (Railpol), and waterway police (Aquapol) (Belgium Integrated Police, 2010). EU efforts are considered to extend the supranational EU migration control system regime to source, destination transit countries. The European Commission (2011a) recommended some conventional measures with South Mediterranean countries described as a ‘credible, fair and effective EU migration policy’. Due to the radical changes in the South Mediterranean (Arab Spring), the European commission offered a ‘Partnership for Democracy and Shared Prosperity, a Dialogue for Migration, Mobility and Security’ (European Commission, 2011b) and a ‘New European Neighbourhood Policy’ (European Commission, 2011c). These ambitious and general objectives are translated into tangible policies: 1. Readmission: it is an arrangement with origin and transit countries to return and deport, till present 17 agreements have been applied with European, African and Asian countries. 2. Deployment: placement of ‘liaison officers to control migration flows’ (Council of the European Union, 2001). 3. EU Border Assistant Mission (EUBAM): it is a mission for border security and combating illegal immigration on the Ukrainian-Moldavian borders. 4. Capacity building: projects that contribute to providing technical and financial facilities for immigration controls and border security comprising of the establishment 9
of reception for refugees and detention of irregular immigrants to third countries for instance ERIT programme with Ukraine (IOM, 2009).
5. EU Funding and Asylum Policy EU has mobilised financial resources and distributed them into certain programmes including: (1) ARGO (2002-2007), (2) AENEAS (2004-2006), and (3) Framework programme (2007-2013). The ARGO programme has a budget of €25 million. It is an administrative cooperation regarding borders, visas, asylum seekers and immigration. This action program has six aims and the most significant is to ‘strengthen the fight against illegal immigration networks and the prevention of illegal flows of immigrants’ through exchange of data, staff exchange, on-going training, setting of common operative centres and staff and activities in non-EU countries (Council of the European Union, 2002). The AENEAS programme has a budget of €120 million. This program is addressed to the third countries of asylum and migration in order to provide to them the required technical and financial assistance for better border controls. This programme has five aims; two of them are related to irregular immigration (Council of the European Union, 2004). The AENEAS programme included several projects as follows: (1) Return to Morocco and Albania, (2) Border controls between Libya and Mali, (3) Preventing irregular migration through regional cooperation among Senegal and other sub-Saharan countries, and (4) Information exchange in order to prevent potential irregular immigrants. The framework programme (FP) has a budget of €5.8 billion, it is main objective is ‘Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows’. FP has four themes including ‘controls and surveillance of external borders’ and ‘return of Non-EU Member Country nationals residing illegally in the EU’. The FP budget has increased by €900 million for an information system and an additional €285 million for Frontex (European Commission, 2005). The FP themes are classified into four funds: 1. External Borders Fund (2007-2013), it has a budget of €1.82 billion. €10 million are allocated annually to FRONTEX in order to support ‘states who endure, for the benefit of the Community, a lasting and heavy financial burden arising from the implementation of common standards on control and surveillance of external borders and visa policy’ (European Commission, 2010a). 10
2. European Return Fund (2008-2013), it has a budget of €676 million. It is mainly a community funding for the return of Non-EU Member Country nationals residing illegally. 3. European Refugee Fund, it has a budget of €699 million. It is mainly a community funding for refugee seekers. 4. European Integration Fund (2007-2013), it has a budget of €825 million. This fund is designed to support the integration process of third countries on the three dimensions; economic and financial, political and security, and social and cultural. The European Council request an ‘immediate response’ to the ‘Arab Spring’ in order to address the current challenge, therefore the Commission presented an action plan of short and medium-term measures that has been endorsed by the Justice and Home Affairs Council (JHA) held on 11-12 April, 2011 and encompasses the following (Council of the European Union, 2011):
Provision of financial support and humanitarian aid to resettlement operations for countries that have massive population movements. In addition enhancing the Regional Protection Programmes (RPR) for asylum seekers from Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and Syria. EU member of states that will have many asylums seekers (France, Italy and Spain) will have an extra support by the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) and the allocation of Solidarity Fund (External Border Fund, Refugee Fund).
The strengthening of Frontex10 through the enforcement of its technical and financial capacities in addition to its operational capacities through enhancing working arrangements with Turkey and Morocco.
Enhancing EU-Tunisia operational project as an immediate response to managing irregular immigration flows from Tunisia. While EU welfare system is traditionally closed to ‘outsiders’ but one group has long
been an exception. Since the emergence of international refugee law, the refugee has been considered a ‘deserving migrant’ and granted certain welfare entitlements. EU refugee law purports to have broadened the definition of the ‘deserving migrant’ by also establishing guarantees for asylum seekers on their arrival in a host state. However, the Directive accords a wide scope of discretion to Member States in their application of its provisions, which has led to diverse practices and uneven and inadequate provision of asylum seekers’ reception
11
conditions in EU. Furthermore, even if reform of substantive internal protection standards is possible, this is insufficient unless the relationship between immigration and border control and asylum is also comprehensively addressed. The result of the interaction between the European Union’s wider migration policy and its refugee law is that the former impedes the functioning and relevance of the latter. The EU’s restrictive migration policy measures undermine migrants’ chances of reaching European shores safely and finding protection (ElEnany, 2013). Table 3 shows the advantages and disadvantages of the EU asylum policy. Gammeltoft-Hansen (2011) has noted that Italy, Spain, France and Greece have all engaged in migration control activity on the high seas. In 2009, the Italian authorities returned 850 individuals to Libya with which it had a bilateral agreement. GammeltoftHansen notes that, ‘Despite the identification of asylum-seekers and bona fide refugees among those returned by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), no screening procedures or opportunity to apply for asylum was provided by Italy’. Spain has agreements with Cape Verde, Senegal and Mauritania which allows vessels intercepted in the territorial waters of these states to be redirected to their departure points. For the 3,665 individuals who, FRONTEX reported, had been returned after having been intercepted in these areas, ‘No possibility of initiating asylum claims with European authorities was provided’. Table 3: The Pros and Cons of EU Asylum Policy Pros
Cons
An inherently cross-border issue that Loss of some national control over a requires cross-border policies.
hugely politically sensitive area.
EU has internal free movement of people; European
Court
Justice
jurisdiction
external borders.
unpredictability in how rules will be
the destination countries for asylum seekers and illegal migrants. Source: Booth, Howarth and Scarpetta (2012).
12
an
(ECJ)
therefore it needs coordination of its
Safeguards for countries which tend to be
creates
of
element
interpreted and enforced once agreed.
of
6. Conclusion Illegal immigration is a prominent meta-issue in the EU. It is a contemporary theme due to the current challenges it imposes such as border control, asylum seekers, visa issuance, immigrants’ integration, social entitlements, and cultural diversity especially after the Arab Spring in 2011. European countries are seeking a common collaboration towards borders security and illegal immigration but some EU members namely Germany, UK and France assumes that regular immigration is a kind of pull factor that enhances free market economies and flourish economies, therefore immigration is still tackled on the national levels. EU objectives towards combating illegal immigration have translated into concrete policies including: carrier sanctions (1986), joint visa processes (2002), deportation collaboration (2007), detention and deportation (2008), and sanctions on employers that employ illegal immigrants (2009). Yet, there was a need for establishing institutions that serves as early warning system for illegal immigration such as CIREFI, HLWG, SCIFA, SIS, FADO, Europol wide scope, EUMS, FRONTEX extensions, and GDISC. Therefore, EU has assigned funding resources and distributed them into certain programmes such as ARGO (2002-2007), AENEAS (2004-2006), and Framework programme (2007-2013).
13
References Abella, M. (2006). Policies and best practices for management of temporary migration. International Symposium on International Migration and Development, Turin, Italy, 28-30 June 2006. Baruch, Y., Budhwar, P. and Khatri, N. (2007). Brain drain: Inclination to stay abroad after studies. Journal of World Business, 42, 99-112. Belgium Integrated Police (2010). Operation Hermes, Brussels, Police, http://policeeu2010.be/mueu2010/en/international-police-cooperation/operation-hermes/ Booth, S., Howarth, C. and Scarpetta, V. (2012). Tread carefully: The impact and management of EU free movement and immigration policy, Open Europe. Card, D. (1990). The impact of the Mariel boatlift on the Miami labour market. Industrial and Labour Relations Review, 43, 245-257. Chao, C. and Yu, E. (2002). Immigration and welfare for the host economy with imperfect competition. Journal of Regional Science, 42(2), 327-338. Coppel, J., Dumont, J., and Visco, I. (2001). Trends in immigration and economic consequences. OECD Economics Department, OECD working paper No. 6059. Council of the European Union (1998). Press release, 3 December. Council of the European Union (1999). Terms of references of the High Level Working Group on Asylum and Migration, 22/1/1999, 5264/2/99, JAI1, AG1. Council of the European Union (2001). Illegal immigration via the Western Balkan route, note from United Kingdom delegation to SCIFA:, 5496/01, CIREFI 3, Migr 3, Comix 52, 19/1/2001. Brussels. Council of the European Union (2002). Adopting an action programme for administrative cooperation in the fields of external borders, visas, asylum and immigration (ARGO programme), Decision of 13 June 2002, 2002/463/EC, Official Journal L 161 , 19/06/2002 P. 0011 – 0015. Council of the European Union (2004). Establishing a programme for financial and technical assistance to third countries in the areas of migration and asylum (AENEAS), Regulation (EC) No 491/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2004, Official Journal L 080 , 18/03/2004 P. 0001 – 0005. 14
Council of the European Union (2008). European Pact on Immigration and Asylum, 24 September
2008.
Available
online
at:
http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/08/st13/st13440.en08.pdf Council of the European Union (2010a). Sirene – Schengen information System, Brussels: Council
of
the
European
Union,
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/showPage.aspx?id=1157&lang=en. Council of the European Union (2010b). The Eurodac system, Brussels: Council of the European
Union.
Available
online
at:
http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/justice_freedom_security/free_movement_of_p ersons_asylum_immigration/l33081_en.htm. Council of the European Union (2010c). Council conclusions on 29 measures for reinforcing the protection of the external borders and combating illegal immigration, 2998th Justice and Home Affairs Council meeting, Brussels, 25 and 26 February 2010. Council of the European Union (2011). Council Conclusions on the management of migration from the Southern Neighbourhood, Press Release. Available online at: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/jha/121479.pdf Düvell, F. and Vollmer, B. (2011). Improving EU and US Immigration Systems' Capacity for Responding to Global Challenges: Learning from experiences. Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies, European University Institute. El-Enany, N. (2013). The EU asylum, immigration and border control regimes: including and excluding the “Deserving Migrant”, European Journal of Social Security, Volume 15, No. 2. European Commission (2000). On a Community immigration policy, COM 757 final, Brussels, 22 November. European Commission (2005). Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament establishing a framework programme on solidarity and management of migration flows for the period 2007-2013. COM(2005) 123 final. European Commission (2008). Examining the creation of a European Border Surveillance System (EUROSUR). Communication form the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, COM (2008) 68 final, Brussels, 13.02.2008. 15
European Commission (2010a). Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 2007/2004 establishing a European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union. FRONTEX, COM (2010) 61 final, Brussels, 24.2.2010. European Commission (2011a). A credible, fair and effective EU migration policy: the way forward,
Press
Release,
IP/11/629.
Available
online
at:
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/629&format=HTML&a ged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en European Commission (2011b). A Partnership for Democracy and Shared Prosperity, COM(2011)
200
final.
Available
online
at:
http://eeas.europa.eu/euromed/docs/com2011_200_en.pdf European Commission (2011c). A new response to a changing neighbourhood, COM(2011) 303. Available online at: http://ec.europa.eu/world/enp/pdf/com_11_303_en.pdf Europol (2010). Welcome. The Hague: Europol, http://www.europol.europa.eu/. Freeman, R. (2006). People flows in globalisation. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20(2), 145-170. Friedberg, R.M. and Hunt, J. (1995). The impact of immigrants on host country wages, employment and growth. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9(2), 23-44. Frontex (2010), Examples of accomplished operations, Warsaw: Frontex. Available online at: http://www.frontex.europa.eu/examples_of_accomplished_operati. Gammeltoft-Hansen, T. (2011). Access to Asylum: International Refugee Law and the Globalisation of Migration Control, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. GDISC (2010). Home, London: GDISC, http://www.gdisc.org/index.php?id=148. Hugo, G. (2005). Migration in the Asia-Pacific region, Global Commission on International Migration, Geneva. International Organization for Migration (2009). Technical cooperation and capacity building for the governments of Ukraine and Moldova for the implementation of readmission agreements with the European Union (GUMIRA), Geneva: IOM, available online
at: 16
http://www.iom.org.ua/img_collection/file/GUMIRA%20_on_website_ENG_2%209% 202009.pdf. Kington, T. (2009). Libya, Finmeccanica sign border control deal, Defence News, 7/10/2009. Available online at: http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4313996&c=EUR. Longhi, S., Nijkamp, P. and Poot, J. (2005). A Meta-analytic Assessment of the Effect of Immigration on Wages, Journal of Economic Surveys, 19(3): 451-477. Massey, D. (1999). Why does Immigration occur? A Theoretical Synthetis. In: Hirschmann, C., et al. (Eds.): The Handbook of International Migration: the American Experience. New York: Russell Sage Foundation Publications, 34-52. Mayda, A. (2006). Who is against immigration? A cross-country investigation of individual attitudes toward immigrants. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 88(3), 510-530. Ng, C. and Whalley, J. (2005). Visas and work permits: possible global negotiating initiatives. CESifo, Working Paper No. 1614. Saiz, A. (2007). Immigration and housing rents in American cities. Journal of Urban Economics, 61(2), 345-371. Schmid, S. (2007). Analysis of demographic discrepancies between EU-27 and its “periphery”. Development differences and migration potential. Journal of Population Science, 3(4), 667-701. Schmid, S. (2011). Migration Potential from North Africa to Europe. DGD-Arbeitskreis Weltbevölkerung.
Available
online
at:
http://weltbevoelkerung.org/PDFs/Schmid_Migration_potential.pdf Transnational Institute (2009). Neoconopticon. The EU security-industrial complex, London: TI. Available online at: http://www.statewatch.org/analyses/neoconopticon-report.pdf. Vinokur, A. (2006). Brain drain migration revisited. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 4(1), 7-24. Welch, A. and Zhen, Z. (2005). The Chinese knowledge diaspora: Communication networks among overseas Chinese Intellectuals in the globalisation era. Keynote address at the International Congress on Overseas Chinese, October, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong.
17
Williamson, J.G. (1996). Globalization, convergence, and history. Journal of Economic History, 56(2), 277-306. Zhao, L. and Kondoh, K. (2007). Temporary and permanent immigration under unionization. Review of Development Economics, 11(2), 346-358.
18
