The Problem of Immigration and the European Union
by Terri Smith
Immigration within Europe is viewed with much scepticism. The birth rates in Europe are falling but the concerns about raising citizenship figure brought about by an increasing amount of immigrants into Europe have forced many countries to adopt a much harsher approach to immigration (Peach 336).
The many reasons that many immigrants head to Europe is not as commonly believed to be caused by pull factors, those which attract people to a country, but push factor, those which push people out of their native countries, such as war or persecution (Peach 336).
The economic and social pressures on many countries have necessitated that the rules are tightened up, and considering that once European citizenship is gained the ultimate aim of the European Union is free movement of trade, including labour, that the problem that one country faces may be passed on to others at a later date.
The potential problem is illustrated by the number of legal immigrants each year, currently standing at one and a half million per annum immigrating into Europe (Giarelli 22). In response to this European policy has been to look at designing foreign policy across the Union which is closed and looks inward rather than outward (Islam et al 10). All the nations are agreeing on this change of direction, with the only exception being Ireland, which does not have a problem with immigration anyway, partly due to its’ location (Brubaker.1047). The Maastricht Treaty was designed to promote unity between county members and their policies, and they accept publicly that that there is a common interest in immigration policies, but despite this all the discussions concerning polices concerning such things as asylum are still held as quietly and with as little publicity as possible (Islam et al 10).
The attitude taken by countries can be evidenced by the situation in Algeria a few years ago, where Charles Pasqua, the Interior Minister, who said he would refuse refugees if the Islamic extremists gained power. More recently the situation in Bosnia, which is a European country, was a demonstration of this reluctance. Many refugees fled for their lives, and eventually most European nations did The some refugees, but in comparison with the numbers fleeing the amount taken by each country were very small, and then only on the basis that they would be returned as quickly as possible, despite the condition of the infrastructure of the country.
The cause of many of the fears regarding immigration come from 1989 when the Berlin Wall came down. When this occurred there was a mass migration form the east to the perceived prosperous west. In all in the first few months that the wall was down over one million people immigrated (Islam et al 10).
This number of people will have an effect on even the strongest of economies, let alone one that is also suffering the costs of unification and starting to support and integrate a former poor communist country (Islam et al 10).
With all the changes occurring within the world one factor became evident for all the countries within the European Union that there had to be consensus within the Union on the immigration policy as different policies just did not stand up in isolation (Islam et al 10). However, the European Commission remains limited in its powers on this issue (Islam et al 100) The most common policy now for all countries (with the exception of Ireland) is that if the potential immigrant is seeking asylum and has come by a different European country they will be returned to that country to seek asylum (Islam et al 10). To make matters worse most countries also have schemes where they can keep asylum seekers incarcerated in secure facilities such as prisons or camps (Islam et al 10). Most countries have also changed their state benefit system so that asylum seekers will not benefit from the generous payments that they would have received in the past (Islam et al 10).
If an asylum seeker does enter a country they may face a double problem, as in conjunction with the lower, if any, benefits they are also restricted form working whilst being assessed for asylum (Islam et al 10). Germany changed its asylum laws in 1993 so that any person seeking asylum in the country could be returned to their country of origin as long as the country was deemed safe (Islam! et al 10). It is not only asylum seekers that are seeing immigration rules being tightened up, but also the laws which allow international family reunions (Islam et al 10); The position of the United Kingdom is not that much different from the rest of Europe either. This country once allowed anyone form the commonwealth to come and settle in the country which was the reason that there was a mass migration into the county from the West Indies in the 1950s when the United States tightened up their own boarders. Now even some classes of British citizens do not have the right to settle in the country.
The Conservative party who were in power when the legislation was passed which changed the immigration laws were criticised in the press, by the public, and by the Labour opposition party. However although the press and public opinion did not change immediately the position of the opposition did change quiet quickly, realising what a difficult subject it was. When the conservative party undertook interviews regarding the maintenance of the country’soarders there was little if any criticism on this publicised subject from the opposition, a very unusual occurrence indeed.; There was an incident with a FAX transmitted by Jack Straw to labour members of the European parliament to ensure that none would give any interviews through any of the media (television, radio or newspapers) where the position of the opposition was to be questioned over the maintenance of border controls in the United Kingdom (Palmer 342).
This is an approach that is still not in line with the rest Europe as by the United Kingdom maintaining border controls of this nature as the European Union is designed as a borderless entity, with free movement of people within the boarders (Palmer 342). The European Union has tried to oppose the maintenance of the United kingdom boarders with regards other European citizens, but so far has failed to make the British government back down on this issue, despite the fact that it is part of the agreements set out in the Single European Act (Palmer 342). ; European external boarders throughout the Union are also being strengthened due to the amount of illegal immigrants that are entering the union. The press have even nicknamed this move as ‘Fortress Europe’ (Brubaker 1047). The controversy over this is not the strengthening of the boarders, but what is actually happened to the individuals trying to cross these boarders (Palmer 342).
It has been argued than from a humanist point of view that this is immoral as the human rights of these people are being ignored, as there are thousands of these potential refugees being turned away each month according to The European Council on Refugees and Exiles (Palmer 342). These refugees are being turned away with no asylum hearings or other legal proceedings (Palmer 342).
However there is little disagreement being raised any where in the European Union regarding this policy, as all countries appear to be in agreement with each other, afraid of what problems may be brought into the country by the immigrants (Palmer 342). Limited resistant has been seen in the Labour European members of parliament who disagree with this, and with the theory of Morgenthau that they seem to be following, one of non intervention in the affairs of other countries (Heilbrunn 22). Neil Kinnock, the transport minister, and the leader of the socialist in the parliament Pauline Green, both have stated that they feel the amount of fear which exists over the possible problem with migrations taking place within Europe to be misguided and wrong, and therefore that this means that they believe the problems of each boarder should be dealt with by the nation state who has the boarder without interference from the European Union. The right wing parliamentarians all appear to be getting their own way when it comes to policy, but with little object form the left this is hardly surprising.
II. The Projected Problems of Immigration in Europe
The fear of the problems that immigrants will bring to European countries which have been in recession and are only just coming out of that recession have are summed up by Waddle as the economic and social costs that they might incur (Palmer 342). In response to this criticism and concerns Peter Crampton, another British Labour member of the European Parliament has said; "Wardle talks about Turkish workers in Germany moving to take British houses and British jobs. What political jibberish. Labour should be ramming home that Turkish workers in Germany are very often paid much more than many workers in low-wage Britain and that German social security standards are far higher than in the UK." (Palmer 342).
However what he himself is criticised in this is that German citizenship is much harder to obtain than that of the United Kingdom, even after the rules and regulations have been tightened up. Many countries are very concerned about becoming the target of countries that have higher unemployment and lower wages, and cost the citizens of the nation state their jobs forcing hardship that would not occur without immigration. This may seem an extreme view, but when we consider that there are 1.5 million immigrants entering Europe legally ever year (Islam et al 10)., then in 1991 it was estimated that illegal immigrants in Europe totalled 2.6 million were living in Europe, with an additional 1500,000 to 300,000 entering each year (The Economist 55).
When it is considered that there are 18 million unemployed people looking for work in Europe it becomes easier to see why this subject is so sensitive (The Economist 55). The issue of foreigners taking jobs has always been an emotive subject, it was that which helped cause riots in the United Kingdom in the 1940’s, and resulted in violence and deaths with immigration laws tightened up. That was in a time with less media coverage, and lower unemployment, so the social disruption that might follow mass migration may be severe. There are also additional costs associated with immigrants other that the opportunity cost of jobs. That is the cost incurred by the state of having them move to the country. The first cost is the cost to the state in benefits should they not have sufficient income to live on. This can amount to several hundred dollars a week if there are children. If the family are eligible for help in this way they will probably also get help in housing, or housing costs.
This means that they will either be provided with a home, or have their rent paid for them. This is further aggravated by the rules which say that if an asylum hearing is taking place then the individual cannot work whilst waiting for the outcome of the hearing. During this time, some of the benefits are limited, but they are still available, as without them people would starve and have nowhere to live. The moral obligation is obvious, but in practical terms it raises many questions, and the moral arguments get lost in the many cases of asylum seekers that are publicised, whether real or not, which are economic refugees rather than refugees from danger. Although the estimate of economic refugees it is though is probably overstated but does the governments no harm when they are taking a hard line approach to immigration.; The social cost is not limited to the immediate social security benefit costs, but the on going social costs.
Unemployment amongst immigrants tends to be higher due to the language and cultural difficulties many face when moving to another country (The Economist 55). Once within the country there may be additional family members which want access to the county, this again could compound the economic problems (The Economist 55).; Additionally there are also the costs associated with children, not just child benefit costs, but the costs of schooling and other social services provided for the family, and the family sizes of immigrants, although falling, are still higher than those of citizens of the nation state (The Economist 55).
It also appears that many of these arguments may be short term in their perspective, as studies have also shown that with second generation immigrants the position is remedied, with the individuals seeing themselves as truly citizens of that nation state, with over two third saying they would join the armed forces to protect the land in which they live (The Economist 55). As already mentioned the fear of social unrest has also been considered by many states as a significant factor.
The early 1990’s saw the outbreaks of nationalism in many countries, and there was much social unrest in Germany that was struggling to cope with the large amount of immigrants that were coming over from the former East Germany. III.; Conclusion The fear of the unknown is a strong driving force, and against a united front of Europe and its legislation the Union of Europe starts more to look like the fortress that it has been called in the press.
When there are many people turned back without even a hearing the system has to be questioned for fairness in the way in which it is applied. The states that appear to be most paranoid about the invasion of countless immigrants appears to be Germany and the United Kingdom, others have slightly more relaxed immigration polices, with Ireland being the easiest to gain admission to, however it is also the most unlikely cou7ntry for an immigrant to go to because of its location. The fears about the costs are also controversial, as although the majority of parliamentarians appear to agree in quiet collusion, there are some who feel that the potential problems have been overstated, and that as there is no evidence for large migrations within the European Union it should be down to the discretion of each country to enforce their own policies, and not be dictated to by the European Commission.
However it is very early days within the free movement of labour within the European Union, and it may be that these concerns are a reality, especially when we consider the amount of people within Europe who are looking for jobs, and the number of immigrants currently in the region. This would appear to support the view that the jobs may be being taken by the immigrants, which if it continued unabated, could then lead social and civil unrest, which as well as the inconvenience and social problems it causes would also increase other costs such as those of policing and property damage. The major objection is usually based of the cost of state benefits, and the unaffordability of the states to maintain their current level, let alone face further increases, and it is this reason that is the main driving force behind the issue, not only due to the immediate cost, but due to the unknown future liability that may be brought about by the free movement of labour within the European Union.
|
