Добавил:
ivanov666
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз:
Предмет:
Файл:Управление миграционными процессами в трудовой сфере. Учебно-методическое пособие
.pdf
Europe and a destination for immigrants from its former colonies. Since the
fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, the South-North immigration flows from
North and West Africa have been supplemented by flows from eastern
Europe and the countries of the former Soviet Union and its political
catchment area. While much of the migration has been from eastern Europe
to Germany, other destinations include Austria, Scandinavia and central
European countries with emerging economies such as Poland and the Czech
Republic. Over the last 12 years, more or less, the ease with which it is
possible to leave and re-enter many parts of central Europe has led to
circular flows through countries such as the Czech Republic, Hungary,
Poland and Russia of migrants seeking to earn a living as street traders,
itinerant salesmen or beggars (Sassen 1999: 113-177; see also Tonnelli, in
this issue).
In the 1980s it was relatively easy to distinguish between economic and
political migrants in terms of the countries they migrated to and the period
during which they did so. Southern Europeans looking for work migrated to
countries at the heart of Europe (Germany, France, the UK), whereas
Scandinavia was the preferred destination for political refugees or asylumseekers from countries outside what was then the European Economic
Community and later became the European Union. However, this distinction
is no longer so clear-cut. Economic migrants from outside the European
Union are now heading for countries in every part of Europe, irrespective of
whether they are in the North, Centre or South. In some countries such as
Germany, controls have recently been introduced on the numbers of political
immigrants (asylum-seekers) since in many cases requests for asylum in fact
disguise what is in reality economic migration.
This fact is particularly significant with regard to immigrant
employment. While in the 1980s immigrants were thought of as people in
transit or 'guest workers' (Gastarbeiter), at the start of the new millennium
they are seen as potentially permanent residents who intend to enter the host
society's job market for life. This has an impact on the continuity of illegal
and irregular immigration. Unlike the traditional immigrant destinations, the
migrant flows in countries which have only recently become destinations
consist mainly of people without residence or work permits since these can
only be obtained once an immigrant has entered the country as a result of
frequent legislative initiatives (regularisation initiatives) and ad hoc
51
measures. Huge numbers of this type of immigrant entered Italy in the
1970s, Spain in the 1980s and Greece and Portugal in the 1990s.
Bureaucratic inefficiency and a lack of experience with the
phenomenon of immigration make it impossible to come up with a realistic
figure for the total number of immigrants. Accurate figures are only
available for legal immigrants, since new permits are slow to be recorded
and in many cases permits which have expired are not removed from the
official records. There is also a lack of reliable statistics on the number of
deportations of immigrants arrested by the police which have actually been
carried out in practice, and on the numbers returned to their country of
origin. Furthermore, the statistics do not distinguish between new permits
and renewals. Finally, as Baganha and Reyneri point out, ' ... in the countries
which have only recently become immigrant destinations, workforce surveys
are currently of little use, since they only take account of households
registered with the local authorities and hence they only cover the few
immigrants who are already registered together with their wives and
children, while failing to record immigrants who have come to the country
on their own and are not registered, even if they have a valid residence
permit" (Baganha and Reyneri 2001: 57-59). Nevertheless, it is possible to
estimate the real numbers on the basis of regional and local surveys and
qualitative data on the settlements where the majority of immigrants live.
Immigrant settlements are unevenly distributed throughout the
countries of southern Europe. Notwithstanding these differences between
countries, there are clear similarities between Italy and Greece with regard to
the massive influx of Albanians and women from the Philippines in the
1990s, and between Italy and Spain in the case of North African women who
migrate to these countries on their own for similar reasons. In Italy and
Spain there are a large number of temporary immigrants the majority of
whom have migrated with the intention of sending as much money as
possible back to their country of origin as soon as they possibly can. There is
also a minority of young people who want to live in a less repressive and
more modern society, i.e. who are attracted to the Western lifestyle.
However, Italy and Spain differ in terms of the percentage of total immigrant
numbers coming from North Africa and sub-Saharan Africa. In Spain, for
example, the proportion of Moroccans is lower than in Italy, and the vast
majority are joined by their families once they have settled in Spain.
52
In southern European countries such as Portugal, Italy and Greece, it is
highly likely that refugees and asylum-seekers who initially arrive because
they are fleeing a war in their country of origin will later turn into economic
migrants. As a rule, migration flows into the countries of southern Europe
are characterised by being motivated by the economic, social and cultural
pull factors advertised through different communication channels, from
migration chains to the media. In the case of economic migration, the
decision to emigrate is influenced by the image that the immigrants have of
the host society, irrespective of whether or not this image is based on fact
(Baganha and Reyneri 2001: 105-106).
Job market structure and the informal economy
Certain aspects of the structure of the job market in terms of economic
sectors and activities are different in traditional European immigrant
destinations compared with countries where immigration is a more recent
phenomenon. Industrialisation began later in southern Europe than in central
and northern Europe and never took root so deeply or spread as widely. The
percentage of jobs and people employed in industry is lower, and industrial
development did not last for as long. At the same time there has been a
decline in the number of people employed in agriculture in southern Europe,
whereas in central and northern Europe the percentage of the working
population employed in agriculture has remained constant at around 4% for
several years, particularly in France. This explains why in the 1990s the
service sector grew more rapidly in southern Europe than in the rest of the
European Union (Bagahna and Reyneri 2001: 132-134).
There are also differences between traditional and more recent
immigration destinations in terms of the relationship between employment
and social policies aimed at combating exclusion (Rodriguez Cabrero 2002:
115-121). In accordance with the classic model of welfare state regimes
described by Esping-Andersen (1990), there are three distinct regimes in the
traditional European immigrant destinations: 1) the liberal Anglo-Saxon
model (United Kingdom and Ireland), 2) the social democratic or
Scandinavian model (Denmark, Sweden, Finland and the Netherlands) and
3) the corporatist continental model (Austria, Belgium, France, Germany,
Luxembourg). These regimes differ from what could be described as the
fourth or Mediterranean regime which is found in the more recent immigrant
destinations in southern Europe (see Parella, in this issue). In these countries,
53
the welfare systems are less developed, although this has started to change
since the 1990s, and employment policy is not very active. The institution of
the family plays an important role by providing economic and social support
in the absence of comprehensive welfare policy measures.
With the exception of Portugal, which receives immigrants from
African countries where Portuguese is the official language, immigrants are
faced with the risk, known to them before they migrate, of repeatedly finding
themselves in an illegal situation, either on entering the host country or if
they decide to stay there. While in Portugal many immigrants have relations
or friends in the host society, this is much less likely to be the case for
people migrating to Spain, Italy or Greece which have not been immigrant
destinations for as long as Portugal. The risk of becoming an illegal
immigrant in these countries is therefore higher, and this has clear
repercussions concerning immigrants' chances of finding a regular job, since
none of the recent immigrant destinations allow immigrants to work in the
regular labour market as an employee or to be officially registered as selfemployed unless they have a residence permit. Furthermore, residence
permits are only temporary and need to be renewed periodically in order for
the immigrant to be allowed to continue to live and work legally in the host
country. Renewal is not automatic and a new permit is only granted if the
immigrants have a regular job or can prove that they have a monthly income
high enough to support themselves and their family, if they have brought
their family with them. Only in exceptional cases are residence permits
granted on humanitarian grounds. Even so, having a residence permit is no
guarantee that the immigrant will be able to find a regular job. All too often,
they are forced to work irregularly despite the fact that they are legally
resident in the host country, and they can find themselves repeatedly going
backwards and forwards between regular and irregular employment
(Baganha and Reyneri 2001: 114-115; see also Calavita, in this issue).
Various kinds of political measures have been taken by European
countries in response to the phenomenon of illegal immigration: 1) border
control measures including deportation of illegal immigrants to their country
of origin after they have been arrested, 2) ordinary or special measures to
regularise illegal immigrants who meet certain conditions and requirements,
3) imposing penalties on businesses which employ immigrants in the
informal sector (Sassen 1999: 104). The difference between traditional and
more recent immigrant destinations as far as illegal immigrant numbers are
54
concerned can be put down to the continued existence of a significant
informal sector in the more recent destinations, which attracts workers who
are prepared to work for any wage and under abominable conditions. Labour
market regulation and the minimum level of working conditions considered
acceptable by the local population have led to immigrants being employed in
labour-intensive sectors where semi-skilled or unskilled workers tend to be
employed (textiles, clothing, building, domestic service, etc). The informal
sector is particularly attractive to immigrants in economies where
unemployment is high. This is especially true of Spain and Italy, where
unemployment is relatively high compared to the European average and the
traditional immigrant destinations, but also of other countries such as
Germany and Portugal, where unemployment is slightly higher than the
European average. Disparities in terms of gender and age vary from one
country to another in line with a country's ability to create jobs.
Unemployment has risen in recent years in both traditional and more recent
immigrant destinations, but this does not mean that the local populations are
competing with immigrants for jobs. Many local job-seekers are either
young people who are able to look for well-paid, skilled work, housewives
who can count on the financial support of their husband or the head of their
family to pay the bills, or people on state unemployment benefit.
Consequently, the overall level of unemployment in a country cannot be
taken as an indication of whether or not there is competition for jobs
between locals and immigrants (Reyneri 1994: 2-7).
Some economists (Gual 2001) have proposed the neoliberal argument
that the labour shortage in certain sectors is in fact caused by economic
regulation and the institutions of the welfare state. According to them, this is
demonstrated by the apparent paradox of high unemployment among local
workers being accompanied by a labour shortage in some segments of the
labour market. The argument is that those people who are able to claim
welfare benefits have no incentive to compete by offering their services on
the labour market, since it is easier and pays better simply to live off
unemployment benefit. Government intervention in the labour market
prevents supply from matching increased demand in sectors where there is a
shortage of labour, causing the cost of labour (wages) to rise. This is what
causes immigrant workers from outside the EU to be recruited. According to
Gual, the shortage of labour and correspondingly higher labour costs can be
expected to lead to a lack of competitiveness in low-tech sectors where unit
55
labour costs are more important, such as the various subsectors of the
clothing industry, agriculture, etc. This in turn can lead to a change in the
structure of a country's economy, with a move away from labour-intensive
sectors where developing countries can be expected to become gradually
more competitive in the future.
This indirect effect is more pronounced when illegal immigrants are
involved and the workers from outside the EU are employed under irregular
conditions. This is the case in certain southern European countries such as
Italy and Spain where there is a large informal economy which attracts
workers from outside the EU who are often unable immediately to get a
residence permit and a regular job in the host society (Solé et al. 2001). This
has the effect of tending to make labour-intensive sectors even more
competitive in these countries, when in fact these sectors should be
prospering in the countries or regions that the immigrants originate from
(Gual 2001: 30). Seen in this way, one paradoxical effect of labour market
inflexibility and excessive state welfare protection is to favour emigration
from poor regions to rich regions, at the expense of the endogenous
development of labour-intensive sectors in regions from which the migrants
originate. Consequently, an immigration policy which has the fundamental
aim of integrating immigrants into a modern industrial society should be
accompanied by a trade policy which provides for investment in the
immigrants' countries of origin.
The final differences between the traditional and more recent
immigrant destinations are access to the welfare state and to employment, as
well as political participation in terms of the right to vote in local elections
and immigrants' ability to obtain citizenship. The idea that immigration
poses a threat to the welfare state (Geddes 2000: 152-153) could be
countered with the argument that it actually contributes to a society's ability
to maintain welfare benefit levels in the future, once the immigrants have
been integrated into the labour market. This view leads to the conclusion that
it is necessary for immigrants to participate in the political decisions which
affect them in the shape of legislation. There are differences between
traditional and more recent immigrant destinations with regard to these
issues too. Despite national differences and their different political and
cultural histories, in the 1990s countries such as Germany, the United
Kingdom, France and the Netherlands saw a shift from immigration control
policies towards policies aimed at integration, with the development of
56
social policies in fields such as education, health, housing and town
planning. They made it easier for resident immigrants to obtain citizenship
and gave them the same basic rights as the local population in areas such as
employment, health and education. In some traditional immigrant
destinations such as Sweden, immigrants' political rights are also recognised
(the right of association, the right of assembly, the right to demonstrate and
the right to vote in local elections). In contrast, the more recent immigrant
destinations continue to pursue immigration control policies over and above
policies aimed at integration. Furthermore, basic integration measures are
only offered to legal immigrants, whereas illegal immigrants only have
discretionary access to basic rights such as healthcare and education.
Given the current lack of a single EU policy providing for political
participation for immigrants and thus recognising their status as permanent
residents or denizens (Hammar 1990) rather than purely as workers, the
combination of the different historical traditions of Europe's nation states
gives rise to: 1) 'communitarist' policies such as those in the Netherlands,
which promote immigrants' political participation via recognition of the
various ethno-cultural communities, leading to the development of an ethnic
minorities policy which can paradoxically lead to actions which promote
segregation and which consequently work against effective integration, 2)
'compartmentalised inclusion' policies as seen in Germany, where the
welfare state guarantees coverage of immigrants' material needs such as
employment and housing, and immigrants are able to achieve a temporary
status as permanent residents, and 3) assimilation (as opposed to
integration)10 policies such as those in France, where rights are granted on an
individual basis and there is no recognition of the very real discrimination
suffered by immigrant groups, particularly illegal immigrants, i.e. those
without residence or work permits (Aubarell 2001: 45-46). So much for the
situation in some of the traditional immigrant destinations. In the more
recent destinations, it is not currently possible to speak of policies aimed at
promoting political participation, since the first halting steps towards a
10
By assimilation I mean the complete assumption by immigrants of values, norms,
practices, etc. of the host society: by integration. Í refer to the interplay and
interdependence of autochthonous and immigrants' values, norms, practices, etc.,
forming a new social structure and culture. The process of integration is sociocultural
and has four levels: insertion in the labour market and occupational structure: residency
in the receiving society; acceptance and interchange of cultures; and political
participation through voting and ethnic and mixed associations (Solé. C. et al. (2002).
57
process for achieving political participation for immigrants have been the
result of individual, private initiatives taken by mixed associations, ethnic
organisations, NGOs, etc. As far as the institutions are concerned,
immigrants are not allowed to vote in local elections.
In Spain, the first law regulating the rights and duties of foreigners was
the 1985 Aliens Act, This Act created a vicious circle which was in no way
broken by the two subsequent pieces of legislation: Organic Law 4/2000, for
which the Implementing Regulation was never passed, and its amendment
Organic Law 8/2000 which came into force on 23 January 2001 after the
Popular Party's comprehensive election victory in March 2000 and for which
the draft Implementing Regulation was put before Parliament in midFebruary 2001. The vicious circle in which immigrants are trapped arises
from the fact that employment contracts, work permits and residence permits
are all mutually dependent, in other words immigration policy only treats
immigrants as a source of labour. They cannot obtain a residence permit if
they do not have a work permit, and they cannot obtain a work permit unless
they have a residence permit. The result is that the vast majority of
immigrants from outside the EU end up in irregular forms of employment,
since they can only find work in the informal sector and employers do not
wish to give them proper contracts.
Furthermore, while the reform is in line with Law 4/2000 of 22
December 1999 in that it seeks to achieve effective integration of immigrants
by granting a wide range of rights to people who have lived and worked in
Spain for several years, the amendment, despite being called the Organic
Law on the Rights and Freedoms of Foreigners and their Social Inclusion,
actually only grants these rights to legal immigrants. For example, only
foreign residents have the right to non-compulsory education on the same
terms as Spanish nationals, and the amended law does not grant everyone
personal rights such as the right of assembly, the right of association, the
right to legal aid and the right to court protection against discrimination. In
addition, it makes it harder to obtain a residence permit by raising the
minimum period the immigrant must have lived in Spain from two to five
years, and it only allows the holder of a residence permit to be joined in
Spain by family members who are economically dependent on him or her.
The emphasis of the new legislation is on border control and increased
penalties designed to get rid of organised criminal groups responsible for
trafficking in human beings. Thus, rather than promoting integration, it
58
actually introduces new obstacles to the entry of immigrants into Spain, an
approach which is totally ineffective as has been demonstrated by the
constant stream of people from Africa, Asia and Latin America who have
been entering the country in recent months.
Immigration control and integration policies in Europe
There is no single, all-encompassing definition of integration, nor is
there a single universal integration model or ideal mechanism for achieving
integration (such as obtaining citizenship) which can be applied to all the
countries of Europe. Consequently it is currently all but impossible to
develop a single integration policy at European level. Despite the political
reality of the European Union, the legislation arising from the various
Treaties and Agreements (Maastricht (1992), Schengen (1985), Amsterdam
(1997) and Nice (2003)), and the European Councils dealing with the issue
(Tampere 1999), there is still no consensus concerning a single European
integration policy. This is largely due to the fact that the nation state
continues to be regarded as the most important political level, both by
governments when they are taking decisions on common issues and by the
citizens of Europe, who identify more closely with their own nation state
than with Europe as a supranational entity.
The result is that legislation and government strategy and policies vary
from one European country to another in keeping with each country's
geopolitical context, degree of economic development, history as a host
society for immigrants, etc. This is why the distinctions between the
countries of northern Europe (traditional immigrant destinations with
economies that drive the European economy) and southern Europe
(traditional exporters of migrants with economies which are lagging behind
those of the North) are still valid and continue to be used on a regular basis.
National legislation concerning immigration (as opposed to a common EU
immigration and asylum policy) can be rendered inneffective by the
existence of the 1985 Schengen Agreement which guarantees free movement
of people within the EU. The countries that form the EU's border are forced
to act as Europe's border police by preventing the entry of non-Europeans or
immigrants from outside the EU. On the one hand, a Fortress Europe has
developed in the face of the 'invasion' of foreigners and immigrants from
outside the EU, while on the other hand these immigrants are needed to do
jobs which are essential for the economy to continue to function normally,
59
and for which there is a labour shortage or which local workers are not
interested in doing because they have very high standards concerning what
sort of employment they are prepared to accept (Cachón 1995).
Until about 1999, immigration control policies were more important to
many European governments than integration policies. Furthermore, since
the middle of 2002, immigration control policies have once again been
tightened in countries which have had relatively relaxed asylum and refugee
policies such as Scandinavia and Germany. This change in trend is
particularly evident in traditional immigrant destinations such as Germany,
the UK, France and the Netherlands, despite national differences and the
different political and cultural histories of these countries. In spite of the
possible negative effects or distorsions caused by inflexible labour markets
and the welfare state in Europe, efforts are being made to try and reduce the
tension between the need for migrant workers in order to meet the demands
of the market, and the need to integrate these workers into the host society.
On the one hand, many small and medium-sized enterprises in sectors in
which local workers do not want to work only manage to survive thanks to
immigrants. In this respect, immigration helps to make the labour market
more flexible. On the other hand, the presence of immigrants in these
businesses, living locally and with their children attending local schools,
leads to the xenophobic attitudes, racist behaviour and problems with
integration which have been experienced by various European countries.
European countries' integration policies are gradually beginning to
converge in some respects, either as a result of the pressure that the process
of European union has brought to bear on the Member States to bring their
immigration policies into line with each other, or because the Member
States' governments have adopted more liberal policies. There are signs of
greater efforts to address the situation of non-EU immigrants who are
resident in the European Union which go beyond simply focusing on their
role as a source of labour and their contribution to the host country's
economy. There is a shared desire to base immigration policy on external
border controls and restricting applications for asylum, as well as tackling
the issue of immigrants who are employed without work permits. On the
whole, all countries also recognise the right of immigrants to take up
permanent residence in the host society and to be joined by their families.
This means that there is no longer the assumption that immigrants are
guest workers or Gastarbeiter who will definitely return to their country of
60
Соседние файлы в предмете [НЕСОРТИРОВАННОЕ]