di
organismi ed associazioni di ispirazione religiosa attivi nel campo
delle migrazioni
ACSE
Caritas Italiana
Comunità di S. Egidio
CSER
Federazione delle Chiese Evangeliche in
Italia
Fondazione Migrantes della CEI
Gruppo Martin Buber - Ebrei per la pace
Jesuit Refugee Service
UCSEI
Comments on Discussion
Paper regarding the proposal for a
Directive concerning the conditions of
entry and residence of third country nationals for the purpose of study or
vocational training
and a
Directive concerning conditions of entry and residence of
third country nationals for other purposes
Some ideas from a Southern European
perspective
1) The immigration scene in Southern Europe is in certain aspects different from the situation in other EU countries:
a)
this
area has been in the past an area of emigration, today it is an area of
immigration and transit
b)
it has
a double geographical role as the South of Europe and the North of the
Mediterranean
c)
there
have always been migration flows in this area
2)
Entry
and residence for reasons other than possession of a work permit:
Especially in Italy, but also in
other Southern EU countries, various possibilities for entering the country
have been developed and experienced. When looking at the possibility of an
entry visa for reasons other than work, this South European experience should
be taken into consideration. To give alternative possibilities of entry to
potential migrants is the most effective instrument to combat clandestine migration
and trafficking in human beings. The discussion paper indicates only one
alternative, which certainly is very important, but limiting the entry
possibility to work, asylum and training is not enough to respond to the
various needs, and to avoid abuse of entry possibilities. We list below some of
these possibilities, foreseen in the Italian law, although we understand that
this discussion paper deals only with one very specific issue, which we comment
upon.
a)
study
and vocational training, foreseen here: we attach some comments from the
Catholic NGO for foreign students, UCSEI, and some notes from the Servizio
Rifugiati e Migranti of the Federation of Protestant Churches in Italy;
b)
family
reunion;
c)
for
religious reasons: mainly for ministers of religious communities and other
special personnel. This has become an important issue in a multi-religious
society, as Europe is today. The laws on entry for work purposes cannot give
sufficient answers to this specific need. The freedom of religion will make it
necessary to give precise rules on this issue;
d)
for
health reasons: there is a need
for entry possibilities for health reasons, for those who are able to cover the
costs, as well as for cases where humanitarian reasons must be respected;
e)
Entry
for employment research, an instrument, that differs from the entry for those who already have
employment. The migrant gets a temporary limited entry visa (1 year) to find a
job, and can convert the permit into a regular working permit, if he/she finds
regular employment. The Italian law foresees this possibility and it seems
today of particular interest, because migrants often go into a sector of labour
which requires direct contact between employer and worker, specially in the
service and caring sector. We therefore attach a special note on this issue, hoping that this important alternative can be
incorporated in the EU legislation, as this would respond to the need of many
employers in sectors where personal contact between employer and employee are
absolutely essential.
Rome, 21.02 2002 for
the Gruppo di Riflessione
Dr. Annemarie Dupré
Segreteria di coordinamento:
Observations by
UCSEI (Catholic NGO for foreign students in Italy)
on conditions of
entry and stay permit for study purposes (European proposal)
The general orientation seems good.
UCSEI believes that:
1)
The
entry permit for study should not be subject to migrant flows.
For Italy there is not a problem of
excessive numbers of foreign students in the universities; the ratio is 0.8% as
against 5/8% in the other European countries. The age limit should not be
taken into consideration for students from developing countries, in particular
for African students who
– as we know – because of wars, population movements, closure of
schools and universities etc. have difficulty in completing their secondary
studies by the age we consider normal (18/20 years).
The same can be said for the
doctorate.
The young or not so young person can
come to study in Italy, whatever their age may be, but it is clear that he/she
must conform to the student “condition”.
2)
The
duration of studies should include at least two years more than that foreseen
in the study programmes. This is necessary because it is difficult – for
Italians too – to obtain a degree in the 3 or 4 years foreseen for the
diploma or university degree.
3)
At the
end of the studies students should be given the possibility of exchanging the
visa for study to a visa for work, especially if the student has a work
contract which relates to the professional degree obtained in the studies.
4)
Those
with a Pvs diploma and degree, with a regular stay permit, should be able to
work as volunteers and assistants in development projects set up with Italian
and European cooperation.
5)
The
training of Pvs students in Italy should also be considered
“cooperation”, and to this end there should be a possibility of
scholarships, stages, etc. In this
regard it should be remembered that Italy has almost abolished the scholarship
programme (there are only 600 for a total value of 8 billion lire/4million
euro.
|
federazione
delle chiese evangeliche in italia servizio rifugiati e
migranti via firenze 38, 00184 roma tel. (+39) 0648905101 - fax (+39)
0648916959 e-mail: srm@fcei.it |
Comments on Discussion
Paper regarding the proposal for a
Directive concerning the conditions of
entry and residence of third country nationals for the purpose of study or
vocational training
and a
Directive concerning conditions of entry
and residence of third country nationals for other purposes
Some considerations on entry and residence for
study and vocational training:
We cannot agree that this issue can
be completely detached from considerations on the labour market of the hosting
country. The question has to be considered in a more differentiated way.
a) First of all we must look at some of the reasons for
entering for training:
-
the
sending country needs qualified personnel, who cannot be trained within the
country
-
the
hosting country needs qualified labour and provides the necessary training,
covering costs. This is a way to
avoid brain drain, because the hosting country is not calling those already in
the sending country qualified personnel.
-
Individuals
wish to get training, independently from the needs of the sending or hosting
countries.
The different reasons require
different approaches: the first is part of potential development measures.
The second is an instrument of
labour market policy combined with a correct migration policy.
The third is a more individual
approach.
b) linked to the reasons under 1) is
the question of return:
-
people
who have been trained within a development context need return and
re-integration programmes, to facilitate their integration into the labour
market of the sending country.
Although often specialised personnel is needed, there are no structures
where they can be employed, or they are so badly paid that there is no interest
to encourage the trained people to return. In order to allow these persons to
become a bridge between the sending country and the EU, provision should be
made to allow them to move without too many restrictions within the EU and also
in and out of the EU countries, in order to facilitate economic links, they
could build up ( see p. 3 1.
italic paragraph).
-
hosting
EU countries need specialised and highly qualified personnel. Nowadays these
countries call qualified migrants from developing countries, saving training
costs, which must be covered by the sending countries, which normally are poor
(brain drain, exploitation to avoid high training costs). In this case training
programmes must be linked to the programming of migration flows, oriented also
at the labour market. In these cases the people who have been trained cannot be
sent back, but must be allowed to convert their study permit into a labour
permit, as they had been called with this motivation.
c)
control
or tutoring ( p. 3 2.italic
paragraph):
instead of introducing rigid control
measures a effective tutoring system should be foreseen, to take account of the
specific difficulties of foreign students, offering help to overcome these
problems, such as language training, counselling, specific courses to overcome
educational system differences, etc.
d)
sufficient
resources ( p.7/3):
as far as trainees would come within
a development policy, the hosting Governments should foresee a generous
scholarship programme (Italy has reduced this possibility dramatically over
recent years).
As far as training of migrants will
serve the need of the EU country labour market, costs must be covered by the
hosting country, which wishes to benefit from the qualified worker.
Only if a student wishes to get
training for individual reasons can he/she be asked to provide sufficient
resources.
For the other issues we support the comments of
UCSEI.
Rome, 21.2.2002 Dr. Annemarie Dupré
Federation of the Protestant Churches in
Italy
Refugee and Migrant Service (FCEI-SRM)
(Elena Rozzi, Sergio Briguglio
18/2/2002)
OBSERVATIONS ON
THE DISCUSSION PAPER ON THE PROPOSAL FOR A DIRECTIVE ON ENTRY AND RESIDENCE FOR
STUDY AND TRAINING AND ON ENTRY AND RESIDENCE FOR OTHER PURPOSES
The two proposals that are the subject of this Discussion paper should complete the set of proposals on the conditions of entry and residence of foreign citizens in the European Union territory. An evaluation of the contents of the Discussion paper has then to take into account those of the proposals already produced by the Commission. In the present note, in particular, the aspects that connect the announced proposal for a directive on entry and residence for other purposes and the proposal for a directive on entry and residence for emploment and self-employment are examined. Further relevant issues shall be examined in future notes.
--------
One of the
main problems related to the Proposal for a directive on the conditions of
entry and residence for employment and self-employment, according to the
criticisms of several different institutions, is the absence of an explicit opportunity to enter
and reside in order to ‘seek employment’. This issue is
particularly important for the insertion of low skilled workers into the labour
market. For these workers, the constitution of a labour contract cannot precede
a direct meeting between employer and employee. It is unthinkable that a
domestic worker, for example, could be employed in someone’s home without
first meeting the employer or seeing his/her place of work. The idea,
therefore, that a worker should wait until after signing a contract before
being allowed entry to a member State appears unrealistic; even the inscription of a worker resident
abroad in a list of employment seekers cannot substitute for a direct meeting
between the parties.
The experience of many European countries (including Italy) has shown that impeding this direct meeting serves only to produce a damaging and useless increase in the flows of unregulated migration, since the primary objective of the two parties is to enter into an employment contract. That this contract be accomplished legally is – so to speak – of only secondary importance.
A positive aspect of the Proposal for a directive on the conditions of entry and residence for employment and self-employment is that it envisions allowing foreign workers already legally residing or legally present (in possession, for example, of a residence permit for study, a tourist visa, a job-seekers visa or a visa for applying for a work permit) in a member State to request and obtain a residence permit – worker or a residence permit - self-employed person. However, in that Proposal, such means of entry (which serve to facilitate a direct meeting between the demand and offer of employment) are not regulated. Unless modifying the Proposal by including provisions on the criteria for entry and residence specifically to seek work, the Proposal for a directive on entry and residence for other purposes should address this lacuna and, more generally, should organise the material in a manner more compatible with allowing access to a residence permit – worker/self-employed person to foreigners legally present or resident for other purposes in the territory of the member State.
In what follows, we offer some considerations relating to entry and residence for the purposes of seeking work and other opportunities for legal access to residence for work resulting from residence or legal presence for other purposes. These considerations may then be relevant both for the definition of a proposal on entry and residence for other purposes and a revision of the Proposal on entry and residence for employment and self-employment.
1) Entry to seek employment should granted to foreigners who
a) do not constitute a menace to public order
or to the security of the member State
b) are in possession of a valid travel document
c) can prove that they are in possession of sufficient means to cover their living and accommodation costs and their eventual return to their country of origin
d) can furnish proof that they are covered by adequate health insurance.
As an alternative to c) and d), offers to cover such expenses by a private individual, legally resident in the member State, or by an entity with a legal existence in the member State, should be considered positively.
2) Where there is a persistent unmet demand for labour in a particular sector of the labour market, and where there is an insufficient spontaneous inflow of applicants meeting the criteria specified above, it should be possible for the member State to permit the entry of a definite quota of workers who, rather than satisfying criteria c) or d),
e) are in possession of the relevant professional qualifications.
Since the member
State will prefer not to leave unmet the demand for labour, the member State
should indeed offer support and assistance during the insecure period of the
search for employment to workers who have entered as part of the
above-mentioned quota. Where the labour shortage is confined to specific regions,
the member State could then direct the workers who enter in this way by
guaranteeing support and assistance only within the relevant regions, without resorting to questionable restrictive measures.
3) The imposition
of a numerical ceiling on persons entering to seek employment represents,
generally speaking, undue State interference in labour market dynamics. Moreover, this policy/strategy
is unable to respond adequately to the rapid variability of economic needs. Such a ceiling could then be justified only on the basis of the
difficulties the host society would face in receiving a larger number of
persons – such as difficulties relating to accommodation, the necessity
of granting forms of public assistance to employment seekers (as in the case
considered in para. 2) or more profoundly, social tensions caused by too large
flows.
The aim of protecting the unemployed resident workers from competition with foreign employment seekers should instead be pursued through the simple application of the criteria of ‘economic needs test’ as specified by Art. 6 of the Proposal for a directive on entry and residence for employment and self-employment (that is, the ascertainment of a shortage of available and suitable skilled indigenous labour).
4) The duration of a suitable job-seeker permit should be determined on the basis of the proven availability of economic means to cover living expenses. In cases in which forms of public assistance are provided (cf. para. 2), the duration could be six months. The permit holder should then be normally allowed to renew this permit if it can be shown that the criteria for obtaining the permit still pertain.
5) According to the provisions of the Proposal for a directive on entry and residence for employment and self-employment, the holder of a job-seeker permit could request and obtain a residence permit – worker/self-employed person as soon as s/he satisfies the requirements of such permits. However, it is vital that there is a radical modification of the regulations defined in that Proposal relating to the periods of time for the examination of requests for residence permits (Art.29); more importantly, the statement that the presentation of a request for a residence permit – worker/self-employed person does not confer on the applicant the right to remain in the country until a decision has been reached (commentary on Art. 5, para. 2) should be revised. It is nonsensical that that the successful conclusion of a search for employment can be nullified by the expiration of the job-seeker permit while awaiting a decision on a request for a residence permit – worker/self-employed person: on one hand, the waiting period for a decision seems unreasonably long; on the other, it should be possible to grant the foreigner worker permission to prolong his/her stay until a decision is reached on the request for a residence permit – worker/self-employed person.
Moreover, limited
to the cases of a request for residence permit – worker presented by the holder of a job-seeker permit (already in the territory of the member State) the “economic
needs test”, defined by art. 6 of the Proposal for a directive on entry
and residence for employment and self-employment, should be considered only as
a tool for protecting the resident unemployed workers, not as a bureaucratic
obstacle to the development of the market. Although
the ascertainment of a shortage of resident labour is a necessary condition for
releasing a residence permit – worker, there
is no reason to compel the two parties – employee and employer – to
wait for the output of such a procedure; the job should start, and, only if the
result of the ascertainment showed that a suitable resident
worker is available, should the contract be rescinded.
6) Although the criteria envisaged for a residence permit – worker/self-employed person in the Proposal for a directive for entry and residence for employment and self-employment are quite stringent with regard to the stability of the economical activity, it is worth allowing the holders of a job-seeker permit be engaged in occasional activities or activities of little economic impact: such activities would indeed result in a mechanism for a positive integration in the labour market as well as a legal source of further economic means, relevant for the renewal of the job-seeker permit (cf. para. 4).
7) The risk that the foreign worker may illegally prolong her/his stay beyond the expiry date of the job-seeker permit when no employment has been found, thereby aggravating the problem of illegal migration, can be much reduced by ensuring that identifying data (e.g. fingerprints attached to photocopies of travel documents) is gathered from the foreigner on entry, making repatriation easy such it become necessary.
8) If there is no desire to create an appropriate means of entry for seeking employment, then the objective of facilitating the meeting of labour demand and supply should be pursued by means of regulations that encourage the progressive insertion into the labour market (under the same conditions outlined above) and the ensuing security of residence for the migrant legally present for other purposes in the member State (see commentary on art. 5, para. 2 of the Proposal for a directive on entry and residence for employment and self-employment). In pursuance of this aim, the regulations relating to entry and residence for brief periods (e.g. tourism, visits, business etc.) should be considered analogous to those outlined above in relation to the job-seeker permit, in particular with reference to
i)
availability
of sufficient economic resources
ii)
the
possibility of a third party taking responsibility for the economic support of
the migrant
iii)
the duration
and possibility of renewing the permit
iv)
access, in
order to get economic resources, to occasional or low-impact activities
v)
the taking,
on entry, of the necessary identifying data,
vi)
the
possibility of waiting on the spot for the outcome of a request for a residence
permit – worker/self-employed person.
It should not be necessarily ruled out, of course,
that such regulations relating to entry and residence for brief periods could
coexist with the
institution of an entry for seeking employment. Some of the above provisions
could be modified; in order not to be meaningless, however, at least the
element relating to the possibility of waiting on the spot for the outcome of a
request for a residence permit – worker/self-employed person should be guaranteed.
English translation by Liza Schuster