Andreu Olesti Rayo on The EU and Migrants

My colleague, Andeu Olesti Rayo, is Catedrático de Derecho internacional público (Derecho comunitario europeo) at the University of Barcelona, has researching the construciton of migration pòlicies and practices in the EU.

Olesti's main area of expertise is in European Union law. Within this area has developed its work especially in the following areas of research: The free movement of persons, in several respects, including those relating to immigration policy, the institutions of the European Union and the Community legal order, the external relations of the European Union and EMU.  His recent books include:  Lecciones de Derecho comunitario europeo (Lessons of European Community Law)), Barcelona: Ariel, 4th ed., 2005; La lliure circulació de treballadors a la Unió Europea i l’exclusió dels llocs de treball a l’Administració pública catalana (The free movement of workers in the European Union and the exclusion of the public administration jobs in Catalunya), Barcelona, 2001.  He has served as Secretary of the Department of International Law and Economics (2001-2004) and Director of Studies, Faculty of Law, University of Barcelona (2004-2008). Since 2008 he has served as the deputy director of the Institute of Public Law at the University of Barcelona.

  (From Ben Leapman, "Canary Islands illegal immigrants heading here, Home Office memo warns," The Telegraph (U.K.), Jan. 21, 2007)

He has recently published an article (in Spanish):  "La Unión Europea y la progresiva creación de un régimen comunitario de extranjería," Revista Catalana de Dret Públic 40 (2010).  The article is also available in  Català     The article is well worth reading especially for those of you interested in issues of the legal regulation of migration outside the United States. The abstract and a brief discussion of the article follows for those who are not Spanish or Català readers.

Abstract:  La Unión Europea, de forma progresiva, ha ido adquiriendo competencias en el ámbito de la extranjería. En este trabajo, tras recordar el origen de las competencias de la Unión Europea y las circunstancias que han condicionado su acción, se examinan los avances más significativos alcanzados por las instituciones europeas en el ámbito de la creación de un régimen comunitario de extranjería. En este sentido, la actividad principal se ha orientado a intentar regular y controlar de forma eficiente los flujos migratorios, así como a configurar un estatuto jurídico europeo que regule los derechos y las obligaciones aplicables a los extranjeros. El resultado ha sido heterogéneo: se han armonizado aspectos muy relevantes, pero, de momento, también se han dejado al margen ámbitos muy importantes necesarios para disponer de un régimen comunitario de extranjería. [The European Union has progressively acquired greater expertise in the field of immigration. Recalling the origin of the powers of the European Union and the circumstances that have framed their actions, this work examines the most significant advances made ​​by European institutions in developing a Community regime for foreigners. The main activity of this development has focused on trying to regulate and control migration flows efficiently, and to set up a European legal statute governing the rights and obligations applicable to foreigners. The result has been mixed: important aspects have been harmonized, but for now, important areas needed to provide a Community regime for foreigners have remained left out.]

The Article is divided into five parts:

I. El marco jurídico comunitario (1. Origen de las competencias de la Unión Europea 2. Condicionamientos de la acción impulsada por la Unión Europea); II. Los mecanismos de control de las fronteras exteriores de la Unión Europea; III. La progresiva creación de un estatuto jurídico europeo que regula los derechos y las obligaciones aplicables a los extranjeros; IV. La lucha contra la inmigración irregular; V. Consideraciones y reflexiones finale. [I. The Community legal framework (1. Origin of the powers of the European Union 2. Conditions of action promoted by the European Union); II. The control mechanisms of the external borders of the European Union; III. The gradual creation of a European legal statute that regulates the rights and obligations applicable to foreigners; IV. The fight against irregular immigration; V. Final Thoughts and Considerations].

Olesti starts with the background.  He points to the origin of EU interest in managing migrant flows to the 1980s when the current forms of Europeanization began to take form grounded on the famous mid-1980s' White Paper (COM (85) 310 final, de 14 de junio de 1985, pp. 9-10).     The focus of the efforts leading to the Single European Act  was grounded in the removal of borders facilitatingOlesti, supra, at 2-3).

In lieu of a unified approach, of course, Olesti reminds us that Europe split in effectuating policy in the area of freedom, security and justice.  Unified control was effected in part only among a sub-group of EU Member States through the Schengen Convention, eventually incorporated as part of the complex of treaties framing the E.U.  (Id., 3). The regime of intergovernmental cooperation inaugurated by the Schengen process became the norm in this area.  Treaty of Lisbon made Europeanization easier by shifting some authority, or the potential to assert authority, to the institutions of the EU as part of the areas of shared competence (Art. 2, Art. 4 Treaty of Lisbon).  [  "el Tratado de Lisboa se crean los fundamentos sobre los que será necesario desarrollar una política común de asilo, inmigración y control de fronteras exteriores, apelando a la solidaridad interestatal y al trato equitativo a los nacionales de los terceros Estados. La desaparición de las estructuras de cooperación intergubernamental y la instauración de una única organización internacional que recoja las competencias y poderes que estaban distribuidos en los tres pilares facilita y redimensiona el desarrollo de una verdadera política de inmigración común." Olesti, supra, 5 "Treaty of Lisbon will create the foundations on which it will be necessary to develop a common policy on asylum, immigration and external border control, appealing for solidarity and treatment inter- equal to nationals of third countries. The disappearance of the structures of intergovernmental cooperation and the establishment of an international organization that is now vested with the jurisdiction and powers that had been dispersed among the three pillars will reorient the development of a real common immigration policy."].

Olesti identifies three principal factors that have influenced E.U. activity in this field.  The first is motivated by the consequences of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The attacks reoriented European policy form one that focused principally on the fair treatment of foreigners and a policy of fostering equal treatment of foreigners with citizens of EU Member States to a greater focus on security.  The focus on security was heightened after the Madrid bombings of 2004 and the London bombings of 2005.  The second factor is one that applies to a number of EU programs--the institutional complexity of EU decision making in a context marked by sometimes significant differences among the domestic legal orders of the Member States. This has produced a tendency for something of a patchwork approach to issues in which there is no consensus among the Member States. Lastly, the eastern expansion of the E.U. has changed the complexion of policy as has the expansion of the Schengen acquis to non-EU states--Norway, Switzerland  and Iceland.  (Olesti, supra, 6-7).  

Within this complex system for the movement of border control policy from the Member State to the institutions of the EU Olesti explains: 

"las instituciones comunitarias han adoptado progresivamente medidas orientadas a mejorar el control de las personas en el cruce de las fronteras exteriores. Ello se ha llevado a cabo desde distintas perspectivas, desde el fortalecimiento de los mecanismos de vigilancia de las personas que cruzan las fronteras hasta la gradual instauración de un sistema integrado de gestión de las fronteras exteriores. La vigilancia de las fronteras exteriores se ha convertido paulatinamente en una inquietud común en los países miembros de la Unión Europea. En consecuencia, a medida que la preocupación crecía, se han ido perfeccionando los mecanismos y los instrumentos comunes para controlar eficazmente el movimiento de los flujos migratorios." Olesti, supra, 7 ["EU institutions have taken measures to gradually improve the control of persons crossing the external borders. This has been done from different perspectives, from the strengthening of monitoring mechanisms for people crossing the borders to the gradual establishment of an integrated management of external borders. The surveillance of external borders has increasingly become a common concern in member countries of the European Union. Consequently, as the concern grew, have been refined mechanisms and common tools to effectively control the movement of migratory flows."]

One of these mechanisms is safety systems in the control of external borders and flexibility in the control of internal borders under EU legislation (e.g. Reg. 562/2006 and the Schengen Boders Code; Reg. 539/2001 (visa requirements for third country citizens)).  (Olesti, supra, 7-8).  The second set of mechanisms focus on surveillance grounded in interstate cooperation, evidenced by the creation of the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of Member States  (FRONTEX).  

(Interior Ministers strengthen European Border Management Agency Frontex in the fight against illegal migration, April 20, 2007; "Against the background of recurring migration flows via the Mediterranean and the Atlantic towards Europe, the Council and the Commission consider it a priority to give Frontex the necessary means and competences for supporting the Member States under particular strain to tackle this challenge. Federal Interior Minister Dr. Schäuble said in Luxembourg that “the citizens expect Europe to provide effective protection of its common external borders. Therefore it is the declared aim of our Presidency to further develop the operability of the European Border Management Agency Frontex in order to improve the protection of the external borders of the European Union and intensify border police cooperation. This is why I am pleased to see that we have today succeeded in achieving agreement in the Council on the “Regulation establishing a mechanism for the creation of Rapid Border Intervention Teams”.")

The Member States were careful to avoid creating the seed for what could have been an EU police force--rather the institution was created to facilitate cooperation.   By 2007 FRONTEX Regulation was amended to allow the creation of a rapid intervention teams at borders (Rabitz), to provide a temporary, technical assistance and operating a Member State is faced with an exceptional and urgent situation, such as the arrival of a large number of third-country nationals trying to enter illegally by certain points of the external borders of the European Union.(Olesti 9).  

(From Frontex, the EU migrant hunting agency)

Additional cooperative agency institutions were also created to meet vulnerabilities at other frontiers.  These included the  Coastal Patrols Network in the Mediterranean (European Border Patrols Network, EPN), or the anticipation of a European surveillance of external borders (European Border Surveillance System, EUROSUR), which involves the creation a centralized network monitoring and exchange of information between the authorities involved in the control of external borders, and taking the example of the Integrated External Surveillance (SIVE).  ((Olesti 9).  Olesti identifies as a third set of mechanisms the monitoring and surveillance systems that were developed to more closely follow people flows in and out of the EU, for example the Schengen Information System Second Generation (SIS II) . (Olesti 10-11). Some of these systems mirror those being implemented in the United States. 

(From Schengen Information Systems)

But Olesti argues that all of these measures are a warm up to the creation of a European statute regulating the admission of third country citizens into the EU. (Olesti 11-13). 

La Unión Europea ha avanzado significativamente en la configuración de un estatuto jurídico aplicable a los extranjeros que residen en el territorio de los Estados miembros. La solución obtenida no abarca todos los ámbitos que pueden ser regulados. Existen dificultades a la hora de consensuar las condiciones generales de entrada y residencia de los extranjeros, y ello ha comportado una segmentalización de los requisitos de admisión de los extranjeros en la Unión Europea. En cambio, se ha alcanzado una notable acción común en la configuración de un estatuto jurídico para los residentes de larga duración y en las condiciones necesarias para ejercer el reagrupamiento familiar. (Olesti 11) [ The European Union has progressed significantly in the configuration of a statute applicable to aliens residing in the territory of the Member States. The solution obtained does not cover all areas that could be regulated. There were difficulties in getting agreement on the general conditions of entry and residence of foreigners, and this has led to a segmentalization of requirements for admission of foreigners in the European Union. On the other hand, the Member States achieved a remarkable level of common action in the configuration of a legal status for long term residents and the conditions for achieving family reunification.]

Olesti, examines the difficulty of establishing a single procedure for admission of nationals of third countries in the territory of Member States.  He is especially sensitive to the effect of the Member State protection of its power over the maintenance of public order and public safety in the mix.  (Olesti 13).  

All of this institution building, all of this supra-nationalization, of course, is increasingly meant to serve the Member States in their fight to control their borders against the rising tide of global migration that is aimed in the direction of the EU.   (Olesti 14).  The focus on irregular immigration is not limited to economic migrants from developing states.  It also includes coerced labor migration and other movements in the context of the operation of criminal enterprises.But the debates over economic migration and its control has generated the most controversy.

La lucha contra la inmigración irregular constituye uno de los objetivos principales de la acción de la Unión Europea y probablemente es la actividad central sobre la que ha dedicado sus recursos normativos. También es un ámbito en el que se aprecia un cambio en la aproximación que las instituciones europeas y los países miembros realizan con respecto al tratamiento de las referidas cuestiones. (Olesti 14 [" The fight against irregular immigration is one of the main objectives of the action of the European Union and is probably the core activity on which policy has dedicated its resources. Is also an area which shows a change in the approach that the European institutions and member countries made on treatment of those questions. "]

The effort to manage migration, of course, has produced the greatest debate and the least consensus.  As in the United States, migration issues and the absorption of migrating peoples in small and large numbers, has served as a site of conflict among distinct and irreconcilable ideological differences about the most fundamental conceptions of the state, citizenship, the political order and the construction of a social order within a state.  Olesti offers as evidence the debate that preceded the adoption of Directive No. 2008/115 (17 Dec. 2008) (Olesti 15) on the repatriation of migrants.  The Directive is a masterpiece of movement between ideological poles--seeking to apply the full set of protections of human rights available in the EU while creating an effective system for detaining and forcing people to return to where they came. Olesti notes that while the Directive retains some of the fragmentary characteristics that have marked Member State approaches to harmonization, the Directive might well serve as a basis for the development of a common policy on migration.

And indeed it may. In April 2011, the First Chamber of the European Court of Justice issued its ruling in Hassen el Dridi alias Soufi Karim, Case C-61/11 PPU (OJ C 113, 9.4.2011) in which it ruled that Directive 2008/115 precluded the application of an Italian law which provides for a sentence of imprisonment to be imposed on an illegally staying third-country national on the sole ground that he remains, without valid grounds, on the territory of that State, contrary to an order to leave that territory within a given period.

 The Directive therefore pursues the objective of limiting the maximum duration of detention in the context of the return procedure and of ensuring the observance of illegally staying third-country nationals’ fundamental rights. In that regard the Court of Justice takes account of, inter alia, the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights.
The Court observes, next, that the Directive on return has not been transposed into Italian law 3 and states that, in such a situation, the provisions of a directive which are, so far as their subject-matter is concerned, unconditional and sufficiently precise, as is true of Articles 15 and 16 of the Directive on return, may be relied on by individuals against the Member State which has failed to transpose them. In that regard the Court considers that the Italian removal procedure differs significantly from that provided for by that directive.
The Court further observes that, although in principle criminal legislation is a matter for which the Member States are responsible, and although the Directive allows them to adopt measures, including criminal measures, for cases where coercive measures have not led to removal, the Member States must in any event adjust their legislation in order to ensure compliance with European Union law. Thus they may not apply rules, even criminal rules, which are liable to jeopardise the achievement of the objectives pursued by a directive and deprive it of its effectiveness.
The Court considers therefore that the Member States may not, in order to remedy the failure of coercive measures adopted in order to effect a forced removal, provide for a custodial sentence, such as that provided for by the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings, on the sole ground that a third-country national continues to stay illegally on the territory of a Member State after an order to leave the national territory was notified to him and the period granted in that order has expired. Those States must continue their efforts to enforce the return decision, which continues to produce its effects.
Such a custodial sentence, due inter alia to its conditions and methods of application, risks jeopardising the attainment of the objective pursued by the Directive, namely, the establishment of an effective policy of removal and repatriation of illegally staying third-country nationals in a manner in keeping with fundamental rights. (From Judgment in Case C-61/11 PPU, Hassen El Dridi alias Soufi Karim, Court of Justice of the European Union, PRESS RELEASE No 40/11, Luxembourg, 28 April 2011)

The Court, then, appears to be creating a unified legal order for the repatriation of migrants that is grounded on the human rights norms of the EU.  

 (From İlke Göçmen,Judgment in Case C-61/11 PPU Hassen El Dridi alias Soufi KarimEU Law News.eu, April 30, 3022) 

It will serve to further harmonize EU lawmaking, and the interpretation of EU law, within an international law and norm matrix that has been developing at increasing speed over the last generation.  This last point was brought out well by contrasting the reactions of the representative of the Italian Republic with that of the United Nations:  

Interior Minister Roberto Maroni criticised the decision saying that it risks making expulsions difficult or impossible. UNHCR spokeswoman Laura Boldrini said that the ECJ decision was consistent and in harmony with what has already been expressed by the Italian courts, specifically the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court, and expressed the hope that the EU Directive would soon be implemented. (From ECJ Rules Italy May Not Criminally Punish Illegally Staying Migrants Who Fail to Depart, Migrants at Sea, April 29, 2011).

Olesti notes that, like the US, the EU has also sought to apply pressure along the migrant value chain.  He examines efforts to put pressure on employers.  He explains the perverse effects of enforcement, and with it throws a light on the fundamental difficulty of migrant control--the regulatory incoherence of a system founded on free movement of goods, services, and capital being used to inhibit the free movement of workers.  That regulatory incoherence creates governance problems that may be beyond rational solution. He explains:   "Dichas actividades tienen asimismo implicaciones colaterales que no son menores, tales como: el falseamiento de las condiciones de libre competencia en el mercado interior, reduciendo ilegalmente los costes sociales y disminuyendo el nivel de protección de los trabajadores; el aumento de la defraudación a la Administración del Estado; y, en último término, el incremento de la vulnerabilidad de los trabajadores irregulares. En todo caso, en el año 2009 se adoptó normativa comunitaria que sanciona a los empleadores de nacionales de terceros países que se encuentren en situación irregular." (Olesti 15) [" These activities also have important collateral implications, such as distortion of the conditions of free competition in the internal market, illegally reducing the social costs and lowering the level of protection of workers, increasing the potential for fraud in government and, ultimately, increasing the vulnerability of irregular workers. In any case, in 2009 the Community adopted legislation penalizing employers of nationals of third countries who are in situation irregular "].  That legislation,  Directive 2009/52 (18 June 2009) establishes minimum norms for sanctions applicable to employers of undocumented migrants.

Lastly, Olesti discusses efforts to stem the flow of migrants through agreements with countries of origin. The principal targets have been countries on the Eastern periphery of the EU--Albania, Russia, Moldova, Ukraine and the states of the former Yugoslavia.  Agreements were also reached farther afield, with Sriu Lanka and the administrative regions of China. (Olesti 16). The price paid included simplification of short stay visas.   But agreement have yet to be concluded with the largest sources of economic migration--Pakistan, China, Morocco. Algeria and Turkey.  (Id.).

For Olesti, the current state of migration affairs, and the principal focus of those activities on economic migration, bounded by an increasingly transnational human rights regime transposed into the law of the EU Member States through the institutions of the European Union,  produces a number of concluding observations. (Olesti, supra, 17-19).  First, it is clear that while the movement in the EU is toward greater centralization and harmonization of the control of external borders, the process remains highly fragmented.  This reflects fundamental differences in policy among EU Member States that is unlikely to change soon. Expect more harmonization and greater segmentation in the coming years. Second, harmonization, when it comes, will tend to focus on the mechanics of control of migration.  This is especially the case with respect to economic migrants.  This approach has the potential to produce, through the greater flexibility in the post-Lisbon Treaty EU, a gradual establishment of an integrated management of external borders.  It may also lead to the establishment, even if initially in administrative respect only, a common legislative framework for the management of migrants. Third, that movement toward harmonization will be successful only to the extent it embraces the "least common denominator" approach.   In effect, the price of harmonization will be a built in flexibility that might be gradually tightened as Member State policies move closer together.  But the price of formal harmonization will remain functional fragmentation in important policy areas. Lastly, Olesti notes the importance of formal harmonization to achieve functional goals.  The history of EU legislation suggests that the hardest battle is for acquiescence in a formal harmonizing framework,.  Once that occurs, law at the EU level takes on a life of its own. 

Es el Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea (TJUE) quien interpretará el alcance y el contenido jurídico de la norma comunitaria y verificará que los órganos de los Estados miembros aplican adecuadamente los derechos y las obligaciones previstos. En consecuencia, la doble conjugación de las normas comunitarias y su interpretación por el TJUE comporta, en la práctica, una importante tendencia a la armonización y uniformización del estatuto del extranjero dentro de la legislación interna de los Estados miembros. En este sentido, podría considerarse que las disposiciones comunitarias actúan como si fueran el límite de una función continua, ya que las legislaciones estatales internas tienden a parecerse a los preceptos incluidos en el derecho derivado. (Olesti 18) [ It is the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ), who interpreted the legal scope and content of Community legislation and verify that the organs of the Member States apply properly the rights and obligations provided. Consequently, the double conjugation of EU rules and their interpretation by the ECJ implies, in practice, a significant trend towards harmonization and standardization of the status of foreigners in the domestic legislation of the Member States. ].

And thus the great lesson of a treaty based federalism--once Member States cede even formal authority up to the EU level, they will lose control sooner or later.  Migration policy within an internally border-less EU system requires a single approach to its management.  In this respect, all the the Member States will enjoy the benefits and suffer the consequences of every Member State's decisions.  Harmonization, at least at some level is required.

(From Undocumented Worker Transitions, GEMMA PROJECT, "Country Fiche - Spagna Migrant regularisation programmes. Regularisation programme introduced in 2005 and over half a million migrants were regularised."). 

The time it will take to produce consistent and effective harmonization, and the character of that harmonization remains to be seen.  While it is likely to privilege internationalized human rights values in its construction, it is not clear how those considerations will be bent to the realities of the preservation of the integrity of the EU as a functional political unit.