Migrants at Sea

The EU is considered by some as the stronghold against outsiders, especially those whose fishing grounds we have emptied with our trawlers and whose agriculture we have held small with cheap products thanks to excessive agricultural subsidies.

With one post on the film "Welcome" last week and yesterday's posts on the number of people entering the EU legally and on the Frontex feasibility study it now only seems natural to point to the blog

"Migrants at Sea"

that focusses on the topic of illegal migration via sea from Africa to the EU/Europe on a permanent basis. Apparently it needs an American scholar to write such a blog.

Most appreciated that some don't just write occasionally on that topic, after they have been startled by a film!

(Not) Welcome

I admit that it is too easy to forget those who are among us but who are still excluded.



Haven't come out of a film feeling this guilty and disturbed for a while - so if you can, please watch "Welcome"!

Fingerprints, migrants, and police cooperation between EU member states

Often it is really hard to track member states' positions on crucial issues, like data protection or migration - but sometimes you can find some very interesting things.

In September, the Commission issued a Proposal for a Council Decision on

"requesting comparisons with EURODAC data by Member States' law enforcement authorities and Europol for law enforcement purposes"

This proposal - criticised already in June by the European Council on Refugees and Exiles in a memorandum (PDF) - starts with the following assessment:

"Fingerprint data is especially useful information for law enforcement purposes, as it constitutes an important element in establishing the exact identity of a person. The usefulness of fingerprint databases in fighting crime is a fact that has been repeatedly acknowledged.

Fingerprint data of asylum seekers are collected and stored in the Member State in which the asylum application was filed, as well as in EURODAC.

[...]

However, while Member States successfully access asylum seekers fingerprints on a national level, it seems that access to asylum seekers fingerprint databases of other Member States is more problematic. The reason is that there is a structural information and verification gap since there is currently no single system that is accessible to law enforcement authorities which enables to determine the Member State that has information on an asylum seeker."

As a consequence of this assessment and following the analysis of what is already possible under EU law, the Commission proposes the following:

"The proposed action establishes the basis for the right of Member States as well as Europol to request a comparison of fingerprint data or a latent with EURODAC data. A successful comparison with result in a 'hit' reply from EURODAC, which will be acompanied by all data that is held in EURODAC regarding the fingerprint. Requests for supplementary information following a hit would not be regulated in the proposed Council Decision but rather be covered by existing instruments on the exchange of law enforcement information.

The scope of the proposal will be the fight against terrorist offences and serious criminal offences, such as trafficking in human beings and drugs."

Today, a summary of discussions of the Police Cooperation Working Party of the EU Council on 30 September 2009 has been published. And interestingly, the positions of the member states regarding the proposal have been recorded - and only Belgium seems to be totally against it:

"A vast majority of delegations (AT, CZ, DE, DK, EE, EL, FI, HU, IT, LV, LT, SL, PT, PL, UK, SE, MT, NL) welcomed the proposal and expressed their support to it.

BE indicated that, although significant progress had been made since the discussions on this issue in 2007 which resulted in Council Conclusions on access to Eurodac for law enforcement authorities, it continued to have serious concerns about this proposal.

Various delegations introduced a scrutiny reservation (AT, BE, CY, CZ, EE, EL, FI, IR, LT, MT, NL, PT, SE, SI, SK, UK), and/or a Parliamentary reservation (DK, MT, NL, PL, SE, UK)."

The next meeting of the Working Party is set for Monday, 19 October 2009 - maybe someone in Brussels could try to follow up on this?!

What member states think about CIREFI

You have never heard about CIREFI, the Centre for Information, Discussion and Exchange on the Crossing of Frontiers and Immigration?

Me neither. Until today.

Apparently, it is a forum of national experts meeting every two months to exchange information on legal and illegal immigration. The Centre was created in 1994 and includes all 27 member states plus Norway, Switzerland, Iceland, and Liechtenstein.

Okay, you might say, so what?

Interestingly, all member states have been asked what they think about this Centre, and for once the answers to the questionnaire sent out by the Council secretariat are fully public (pdf), which allows a comparative assessment between 30 states (Liechtenstein didn't answer) on a set of 18 questions.

And although CIREFI is just one of the many groups within the immense field of working groups, expert committees etc. that govern the European administrative space, the comparative reading of all answers still gives some very useful insights.

For time reasons, I just went through question 17:

Considering the activities of other platforms dealing with the issue of illegal migration, do you consider there still to be good reasons for the existence of CIREFI and that it continues to be useful for the participating institutions?

(a) If so, what do you consider to be the main benefit of CIREFI?
(b) If not, what are your suggestions for the future functioning of CIREFI?

and it seems like all member states consider the body a valuable forum for the quick exchange of information on migration, in particular illegal migration, and for the personal contact between professional working in the respective field(s).

Some (like Finland, Germany) point to the fact that there is the possibility to double work with Frontex or that the work of these bodies could be combined, but most answers still indicate that they see an added value in this particular body.

The most interesting statement in the answers to this question comes from Slovenia:

"On the contrary of some other EU bodies working parties with the Council guarantees equal treatment of all Member States."

That sounds like a pretty harsh critique, and it would be interesting to know what Slovenia is referring to...

So if you are interest in European migration policy, trying to understand EU and Schengen politics in this regard, the questionnaire gives a pretty good insight into one rather unknown institution facilitating the flow of information between the member states, thus probably having a significant impact on the political and technical perception of the problem throughout the EU and beyond.

In any case, it good to see such an assessment in a public document, and I would be glad if this was the case for many other documents, too!

Third country workers in the EU

The European Union is working on a

Council Directive on a single application procedure for a single permit for third-country nationals to reside and work in the territory of a Member State and on a common set of rights for third-country workers legally residing in a Member State

The directive goes back to a proposal by the European Commission from October 2007. The French Council presidency has now (in July) presented a compromise proposal, which as far as I can see is the latest version of the text.

In Article 4 (2), as a good summary of what the directive is about, the draft directive reads:

Member States shall examine the application and adopt a decision to grant, to modify or to renew the single permit if the applicant fulfils the requirements specified in national law. The decision granting, modifying or renewing the single permit shall constitute one combined title encompassing both residence and work permit within one administrative act.

When you look at the bold parts of the directive's text indicating changed or compromise formulations, it looks however like the directive has been moved towards more power of the member states, leaving more authority to the national laws and the national authorities.

In Article 12, the "Right to equal treatment" (compared to national workers) is codified in detail and at least here it seems as if at this stage of the process, member states are agreeing.

Altogether, the directive looks like a nice little piece of bureaucracy reduction. However, with all the details and exceptions leaving much room for the member states to manoeuvre, it does not appear to be a big integrationist project.

Moscow to build separate areas for migrant workers

May I hint to a newspaper article titled "Ghetto for guest workers" translated from Russian and presented by Robert Amsterdam. The article reports about plans of Moscow authorities to build separate housing areas for migrant workers from Central Asia and South-Eastern Europe.

The article criticises that this could not only lead to ghettoisation but would also foster racial discrimination and ease xenophobic attacks, which have become more frequent in today's Russia.