EN    EN EN 
EN    EN  COMMISSION OF THE E UROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 17.6.2008 
SEC(2008) 2026 
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
 
Accompanying the 
 
COMMUNICATION FROM THE CO MMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMI TTEE OF THE REGIONS 
 
on A common Immigration Policy for Europe: 
Principles, actions and tools 
   
IMPACT ASSESSMENT  
 
{COM(2008) 359 final} 
{SEC(2008) 2027} 
EN 2   EN TABLE OF CONTENTS 
1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 3 
2. PROBLEMS AND CHALLENGES TO TA CKLE (problem definition) ................... 7 
3. WHAT ARE THE MAIN POLITICAL ORIENTATIONS AND OBJECTIVES? 
(explanatory memorandum)....................................................................................... 42 
4. FUTURE METHODOLOGY: BETTER G OVERNANCE OF IMMIGRATION ... 54 
ANNEX 1 – OVERVIEW TABLE.......................................................................................... 56 ANNEX 2 – STATISTICAL DATA ....................................................................................... 61
EN 3   EN 1. INTRODUCTION 
1.1. Procedural Issues and Consul tation of Interested Parties 
Lead DG: JLS 
Directorate-General Justice, Freedom and Security 
Agenda Planning reference: 
Reference number 2008/JLS/216 of the Comm ission Legislative Wo rk Programme 2008. 
This impact assessment has been prepared among others on the basis of diverse impact 
assessments, including impacts assessments or staff working documents accompanying : 
– the Communication from the Co mmission on policy priorities in the fight against illegal 
immigration of third-country nationals1,  
– the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of th e Council providing for 
sanctions against employers of ille gally staying third-country nationals 2, 
– the proposal for a Directive on the conditions of entry and residence of third-country 
nationals for the purpose of highly qualified employment 3,  
– the proposal for a Directive on a single applic ation procedure for a single permit for third-
country nationals to reside and work in th e territory of a Member  State and on a common 
set of rights for third-country worker s legally residing in a Member State4, 
– the Communication from the Co mmission to the European Parliament, the Council, the 
European economic and social committee and the committee of the regions – Report on the 
evaluation and future development of the FRONTEX Agency5; Examining the creation of 
a European Border Surveillance System (EUROSUR)6- Preparing the ext steps in border 
management in the European Union7. 
Joint Reports on Social Protection and Social Inclusion as  well as Reports on Migration and 
Integration have also been used to frame this Impact assessment. 
This report has been drafted w ith input from a number of cons ultations held between different 
directorates within the Directorate-General for Justice, Freedom and Security and other 
competent services, including EMPL, EAC,  ECFIN, REGIO, TAXUD, TRADE, MARKT 
and SG. This input has been provided through various meetings held between Commission 
officials with responsibility for different files and written contributions. Meetings of the inter-
service steering group on migration were held  on 14 January 2008 (at Director General's 
                                                 
1 SEC(2006)964. 
2 SEC (2007)603. 
3 SEC(2007)1403. 
4 SEC(2007)1393. 
5 SEC (2008)149. 
6 SEC(2008)152. 
7 SEC(2008)154. 
EN 4   EN level), on 17 March 2008 (at Director's level) , on 7 April 2008 (at expe rt level) and on 28 
April 2008 (again at Director General's level)  with representatives of the abovementioned 
DGs as well as RELEX, DEV, AIDCO,  ESTAT, SANCO, RTD, TAXUD and COMM 
attending.  
The Impact Assessment was revised to take in to account the opinions issued by the Impact 
Assessment Board on 7 May 2008 and 10 June 2008. All the comments made by the IAB 
were taken into consideration in the revised Impact Assessment: the IA report structure has 
been modified in order to come closer to th e standard structure, es pecially through adding a 
section on objectives; a cl earer link to the Lisbon Strategy has been inserted; it has been 
emphasized which principles were new and to wh ich problems they responded, notably thanks 
to an overview table; necessity and added va lue of EU action has been systematically 
assessed, the problem definition has been completed and the references to resources needs have been clarified. 
The Communication will primarily focus on sugges tions for political pr inciples and a vision 
for further policy development of a common EU migration policy. The operational bullet 
points are used mainly as a point of illustration only in order to clarify the further steps in 
implementing the principles. This  accompanying report is therefor e a simplified version of an 
impact assessment insofar as it only consists of a problem definition, an overview on the main 
orientations and objectives (explanatory me morandum) and an insight into the future 
methodology. This is without prejudice to the f act that forthcoming measures implementing 
the common principles will be subject to a full impact assessment, when appropriate. 
1.2. Policy framework and context 
Immigration is a complex issue and has become one of the most visibl e challenges posed by 
globalisation to EU Member States. Recognising that a common approach was necessary to manage migration more effectively, the Treaty  of Amsterdam, adopted in 1997, foresaw the 
development of a common immigration policy as  part of an EU-wide area of freedom, 
security and justice. To this end, a new Titl e IV was inserted into  the EC Treaty, which 
included the legal base for EU measures in the field of immigration (Articles 62 and 63 EC).  
Realising that a new approach to managing mi gration was necessary, EU  leaders set out the 
elements for a common EU immigration policy at the October 1999 European Council in Tampere (Finland). The approach agreed in Ta mpere in 1999 was confirmed in 2004, with the 
adoption of the Hague Programme, which has set the objectives for strengthening freedom, 
security and justice in the EU  for the period 2004-2009. This a pproach includes legislation, as 
well as practical cooperation, and requires close and construc tive cooperation between all 
actors involved. This common policy is based on four principles: 
• a comprehensive approach to the management  of migration flows, by tackling all the 
different aspects of migration;  
• fair treatment for third country nationals; 
• the development of partnerships with countries of origin and of tran sit, including policies 
of co-development; 
• a separate common policy for asylum. 
EN 5   EN Since the Tampere European Council of 1999,  the EU has sought to develop a common 
immigration policy that would comprehensiv ely address the phenomenon in all its main 
dimensions, i.e. legal and illegal immigration, integration and cooperation with the countries 
of origin of immigrants. In order to provide a coherent and efficient response to the challenges 
and opportunities related to migr ation, such a comprehensive policy has, for the first time, 
been defined by the European Council in December 2006, building on the Tampere conclusions, the Hague Programme  and the Global Approach to Migration adopted by the 
European Councils in 2005 and 2006. This compre hensive approach focuses on all stages of 
migration, with the aim of harnessing the benef its of legal migration and includes policies to 
fight illegal immigration and tra fficking in human beings. It is based on the general principles 
of subsidiarity, proportionality, solidarity, respect for the different legal systems and traditions 
of the Member States. It is also based on re spect for human rights and fundamental freedoms 
of migrants, the Geneva Convention and due access to asylum procedures. It requires a 
genuine partnership with third c ountries and must be fully integrated into the Union's external 
policies.  
In June 2007, the European Council emphasized  the need to make rapid progress in 
developing such a comprehens ive common policy and called on the Member States and the 
Commission to ensure that adequate human and financial resources are allocated, within the 
existing financial framework, in order to enab le the timely implementation of this policy. 
In December 2007, the European Council stressed that further developing such a 
comprehensive common policy remained a funda mental priority in order to respond to 
challenges and opportunities of gl obalisation. Underl ining the need for a renewed political 
commitment, the European Council asked for fu rther policy developmen ts and rapid progress 
towards a Comprehensive EU Immigration Po licy. This policy should, as underlined by 
European Council Conclusions al so in June 2007, be based on common political principles, 
addressing all aspects of migr ation. These should serve as th e platform for all future 
operational measures further deve loping this policy. The Lisbon Tr eaty, if entering into force 
in January 2009 as foreseen, will  provide new tools and instrument s, as well as a reinforced 
legislative base to achieve the objectives. One key innovation in th is field will be the 
extension of the co-decision proc edure, which is already the procedure utilised in all other 
areas of immigration, to the adoption of legal in struments in the area of legal migration. This 
will bring about an important change in the legal immigration field, as measures will no 
longer be subject to reaching unanimity of 27  Member States. In the past the unanimity 
requirement has lead to the adoption of minimum standards Directives, whose provisions 
often represent the lowest common denominator as  they had to be acceptable to all Member 
States. The co-decision provision,  coupled with the qualified majority vo ting in the Council, 
should allow the adoption of more ambitious Dire ctives with a truly EU dimension and added 
value moving beyond minimum standards. Othe r important changes include the clear 
recognition of the importance of adopting comm on measures to define the rights of legally 
residing third-country nationals, to combat trafficking in human beings, to conclude 
readmission agreements and to support Member  States' actions and measures aimed at 
fostering the integration of legal immigrants (article 63 a). In this respect, it is important to 
underline that measures in the aforementioned fields have al ready been adopted under the 
current legal base: however, su ch explicit wording in the Li sbon Treaty is an important 
recognition of the necessity of EU action in  such a broad and multifaceted area. Other 
examples of change introduced by this Treaty c oncern (article 62) the gradual establishment 
of an integrated management system for ex ternal borders, the measures on short-stay 
residence permits and the provisions relating to passports, identity cards and residence 
permits, although the latter will remain under unanimity and simple consultation of the 
EN 6   EN European Parliament. The principle of solidar ity and fair-sharing of responsibility between 
the Member States, including its financial aspects,  shall be at the basis of borders, asylum and 
immigration policies, as explicitly underlined by article 63 b. In this cas e as well, the Lisbon 
Treaty recognises an already existi ng funding block of the common policy. 
In this context, it shall be recalled that th e area of borders and im migration is one where 
Member States and the EC have shared compet ence: this will not be changed by the Lisbon 
Treaty. When discussing and an alysing the common policy and it s future developments it is 
therefore necessary to be mindful that not all th e measures that are, or will be, necessary to 
further develop and consolidate the comprehensive common policy will require EC intervention. In certain cases, they will fall unde r the exclusive competence of Member States, 
consequently, EU action could only take th e form of political commitments, possibly 
supported by EU coordination and/ or funding. An example of this  is policy relating to the 
integration of legally staying th ird-country nationals, where, (e ven if the Lisbon Treaty enters 
into force) there would be no competence to adopt  any legislative measures to harmonise laws 
or regulations in Member States. Notwithstandi ng the lack of a legal base, the Union has, 
since Tampere, been developing a common framework on integration, based on common 
basic principles agreed by the Council in 2004. It has also enc ouraged regular dialogue and 
exchange of best practices among the Member States, and financially supported their efforts 
to develop their integration policies and measures based on  the common basic principles. 
Another example of shared competence is th e labour immigration policy: the EU has full 
competence to adopt measures on the conditions and procedures for entry and residence of 
labour migrants, but Member States maintain full competence to determine the volumes of 
third-country nationals coming from third-countr ies in order to seek work. This means that 
directives on labour migration can be adopted, but that they can onl y set down eligibility 
criteria for admission, as the fina l decision on the applic ation or the setting out of quotas will 
remain with the Member States. 
Furthermore with the re-launc h of the Lisbon Strategy, the Eu ropean Union and its Member 
States, are committed to a new partnership aimed at securing sustainable growth and jobs. As recognised by the 2008 Spring European Co uncil immigration has become an important 
factor for the development of the EU's Lisbon  Strategy , acknowledging that appropriate 
management of economic immigration is an essential element of EU competitiveness. Moreover and while to a certain extent immigr ation may help to alleviate the challenges 
arising from population ageing, it will play a more crucial role in helping to address future 
labour and skill shortages as well as to increase the EU's growth potential and prosperity,  
complementing ongoing structural reforms. 
One of the four priority areas is "investing in people and modernising labour market". One 
instrument which will assist in  the achievement of this goal is  to support migrants, notably by 
fostering skills development. Migration is also  an emerging policy priority within the next 
three-year cycle of the Integrated Guidelines 2008-2010. 
EN 7   EN  
Box 1 Definition of an (im)migrant 
Following much of the recent liter ature, in most of the following analysis an (im)migrant is 
defined as an individual that resides in anothe r country than the one where he or she was born 
( i.e. a "country of birth" appr oach rather than nationality has been used to identify. The main 
reasons for this are that the foreign born co ncept gives a better picture of migrants by 
including naturalized immigrants and because of the fact that  most of the more recent 
migration literature and research seems to fa vour foreign-born over foreign nationals when 
analysing migrant populations (see for example Munz and Fassmann (2004)). 
However, a major practical drawback of this approach is that harmonised labour force survey 
data available from the European statistical authority (Eurostat) fo r Bulgaria, Ireland and 
especially Germany does not include informati on on specific country of birth, which has an 
impact of the representativeness of th e results for the EU as a whole.  
The total population resident in EU Member St ates can be divided into three basic groups 
based on place of birth, namely, those born in the Member State of residence ("native-born"), 
those born in another EU Member State ("othe r EU born") and those born outside of the EU 
("non-EU born"). The latter two groups, alth ough both foreign-born, may have different 
residence and labour market rights, and diffe r in terms of labour market outcomes.  
2. PROBLEMS  AND  CHALLENGES  TO TACKLE  (PROBLEM DEFINITION ) 
In December 2007 the European Council asked fo r further policy developments and rapid 
progress towards a Comprehensive EU Immigrati on Policy on the basis of a renewed political 
commitment. This policy should be based on common political principles, encompassing all 
aspects of migration.  
To achieve this, in the years to come, the EU a nd the Member States would need to tackle the 
following problems and challenges and to adapt the existing measures already devised in 
response to them:  
2.1. SHRINKING EU POPULATION  AND DEMOGRAPHIC AGEING 
One of the most principal issues that must  be taken into account and analysed when 
examining the future problems and challenges f acing the EU is the impact of demographic 
ageing on EU societies and labour markets, and subsequently, the policies needed to address 
the consequences of this change. 
2.1.1. Definition of the problem  
As a result of diverse shifts in demographic fe atures of the EU population, and further to the 
withdrawal from the labour ma rket of the baby boomers cohort,  the working ag e population  
is projected to face, in the coming years, a sizeable decline. This will have adverse consequences relating to pension expenses, h ealth spending and long-term care, dependency 
ratio and more broadly to the dynamism of economy. 
EN 8   EN Fertility trends  
Life expectancy is currently rated at 75.6 for men and 81.8 for women. Historically, 
progresses in life expectancy, linked to gene ral socio-economic progress, public health 
measures and medical treatment, has been obtai ned through declining mortality rates in the 
early-life, and then in mid-life. The improvement  of life expectancy is now mostly attained 
through improvement in  the late- life.  
Life expectancy is expected to  continue increasing, although th ere is inevitably a degree of 
uncertainty as regards the pace of this change. 
Size and composition of the EU population 
As a result of a declining crude fertility rate, co mbined with a stable crude mortality rate, the 
population rate is not able to grow naturally.  
Because of the rising life expectancy and curr ent rates of migration, the total population size 
will remain broadly at the same level until 2050. However, as a result of both an increase in the total world population from 6.4 billion today to 9.1 billion in 2050, and the zero annual 
population growth rate in Europe, the share of the EU population relative to the rest of the 
world will be decreasing. Acco rding to the UN population project ions (2004), the share of the 
EU-25 in the total world population  is projected to go from 7% today to around 5%, 
compared to the share of 15% a century ago
8.  
In addition to this loss of relative importance in terms of numbers, the structure of the EU 
population is projected to undergo serious shifts . According to Eurostat’s baseline population 
projection, the median age of the EU citizen is expected to increa se between 2004 and 2050 
from 39 to 49 years. In  parallel, according to Eurostat pr ojections, the share of the total 
population over 80 is expected to rise from 4.1% in 2005 to 6.3% in  2025 and to 11.4% in 
2050. 
One of the most striking characteristics of this demographic change that will be most visible 
from an early point will be the de clining age amongst the working population. 
The decline of the working age populatio n- economic and social consequences 
Although the population of working age (aged 15- 64) is already due to decline from around 
2011 onwards, total employment in the EU-25 is expected to continue growing until 
approximately 2017, due to rising labour force participation, ma inly from women and older 
workers9. According to the "baseline" scenario of Eurostat's 2004 population projections, the 
natural decrease of the population (already reported in some EU countries) is expected to be 
registered on a European scale as soon as 2011, whereas our competitors (USA, China and 
other emerging economies) would continue to  demonstrate a more favourable outlook in 
terms of labour supply. The size of the working age population (15-64) is projected to be peak 
                                                 
8 A significant illustration of this loss of influence of the EU population compared to that of its neighbour 
is given by the examples of Italy and Egypt: in 1950 Egypt had less than half the population size of 
Italy; in the early 1990s, both countries were of equal size; by 2050, Egypt's population is likely to be about three times th at of Italy’s. 
9 Female participation is expected to rise from 55% today up to 65% by 2025, while older workers 
employment rates should increase from 40% to 47% for the same period. 
EN 9   EN approximately around the year 2010 (331 million) and then to decline to about 255 million by 
2050. 
The loss for the working age population is estimated to be 53 million (or 17%) by 2050 
compared with 2005 levels (308 million). The balance between the working age population and the retired one will be therefore be deeply  modified. The old-age dependency ratio, which 
compares the number of people over 65 to the number of people aged 15-64, would 
consequently rise from 25% at the present time, to 53% in 2050
10. 
Finally, the reduction in employ ment is projected to result in a declining annual average 
potential GDP growth rate in the EU-25, fr om 2.4% in the period 2004 to 2010 to only 1.2% 
in the period 2031-2050. In fact, in the long -term, productivity improvements would be the 
sole contributor to economic growth.11 Linked with an increasing nu mber of older people, the 
doubling of the old-age dependency ratio, a gr owing pressure on the health-care and long-
term care system, as well as the pension expend iture is projected. Soci al protection will have 
to adapt to this new situation.  
The importance of migration  
Against this backdrop, migration has become a major determinant of demographic evolution 
in the EU.  
While overall the EU was an area of emigration during the 19th century, it became an 
immigration continent during the 2nd half of the 20th century. Migration was boosted by the 
economic boom in the 1950s and 1960s, and then was mainly fed by family migration during 
the 1970s, following the first oil shock and the subsequent rise in unemployment. Average 
annual net entries for the EU-25 more th an tripled from around 198,000 people during the 
1980s to around 750,000 people per year during the 1990s12. Net migration into the EU has 
then seen a substantial incr ease, rising threefold between the mid-1990s and early 2000 to 
reach around 1.5 to 2 million from 2002 onwards (although a sizeable part of this can be 
attributed to regularisation13 of illegal immigrants, notably in Spain)14 
Immigration has constituted the main element of EU demographic growth since 1992, and has 
far outweighed the contribution from  natural change over recent years15. Despite this data, it 
is interesting to note that many Europeans still do  not assume that immigration could turn into 
a necessary progress16. 
The main migratory movement is still, and is li kely to remain, immigrat ion into the EU from 
neighbouring countries, Africa and, increas ingly, South America (into Spain).  
                                                 
10 In some Member States of South Europe, accordin g to projections, one third of workers will have to 
care for two thirds of old people. 
11 See Economic Policy Committee and European Commission (DG ECFIN) (2006), ‘The impact of 
ageing on public expenditure: projections for the EU25 Member States on pensions, health-care, long-
term care, education and unempl oyment transfers (2004-2050)’, European Economy Special Reports, 
No. 1. 
12 Economic papers, DG Economic and financial affairs, Sept. 2006: Labour migration Patterns in Europe: 
Recent trends, Future Challenges, p.5-6 
13 Also known as amnesty or legalisation of residence status in other Member States. 
14 See figure 3 in annex 2 
15 This trend is particularly marked in western German y, eastern Austria, the north  of Italy, Slovenia, the 
south of Sweden and regions in Spai n, Greece and the United Kingdom. 
16 What are the migrants' contributions to employment and growth? A European approach. HWWI, 2007 
EN 10   EN 2.1.2. Existing responses  
Demographic change is high on the European policy agenda. Following a major public debate 
launched by the Green Paper ‘Confronting demo graphic change: a new solidarity between the 
generations’ of March 200517 as well as discussions at the he ads of state level and government 
at the Hampton Court informal summit of Oc tober 2005, the Commission presented its view 
on the demographic challenge in its 2006 Communi cation “The demographic future of Europe 
— from challenge to opportunity”18. 
That Communication explained that the current policies are not viab le in the long term, in that 
they do not address the expected decrease in the active population and the prospect of 
slippage in public finances. The source of the pr oblem is not higher life expectancy as such, 
rather it is the inability of current policies to adapt to the new demographic order and the 
reluctance of businesses and citizen s to change their expectations and attitudes, pa rticularly in 
the labour market. In short, the Member States are facing a problem of re tirement rather than 
a problem of ageing. Of course, it falls above a ll to the Member States to formulate specific 
responses to the demographic challenge. This Communication, however, developed a 
reference framework at Community level for these policies from the Member States. The 
framework set out five areas that respond to a common perspective of restored confidence: 
• Promoting demographic renewal in Europe 
• Promoting employment in Europe: more jobs  and longer working lives of better quality 
• A more productive and competitive Europe 
• Receiving and integrating migrants in Europe 
• Sustainable public finances in Europe: guarant eeing adequate social security and equity 
between the generations. 
According to this communication, immigration cannot be "the" solution to all the problems 
and challenges relating to demographic ageing of EU societies19, but it has been stressed that 
therefore well-managed immigration is likely to bring numerous positive consequences tending to offset the negative consequences  of population ageing, notably by increasing 
labour supply.  
2.1.3. Objectives
 
In line with this 2006 Communication, the overall obj ective - from a migrat ion point of view - 
is to ensure a well managed and transparent mi gration policy and to in tegrate newly arrived 
immigrants into European societies, which requires the design of a common policy on legal 
immigration, organising both legal immigrati on and the integration of immigrants, while 
taking into account the interest s of the countries of origin.  
These objectives are mainly reflected in princi ples 1, 2 and 3, partly in principles 6 and 9. 
                                                 
17 COM(2005)94 final 
18 COM(2006) 571, 12.10.2006 
19 A study by the United Nations has shown that to prevent from population ageing, unrealistic massive 
flows of young migrants would be required19. For example, to keep the age structure in Germany 
unchanged, over 3 million migrants per year would have to be admitted. 
EN 11   EN 2.1.4. Subsidiarity principle (see section 2.2.4 due  to close inter-connexion with section 
2.2 Labour and skill shortages)  
2.2. LABOUR AND SKILLS SHORTAGES 2.2.1. Definition of the problem
 
At the present time, there are around three mill ion vacant jobs in Europe and a number of 
Member States encounter la bour and skills shortages20, exacerbated by a low mobility of 
workers across the EU.21  
The need for more both high-skilled immigrati on and low-skilled labour  is on the rise and 
third-country migrants, already overrepresented at  the highest skill leve ls and at the lowest 
skill levels, are expected to play an increasingl y important role in meeting demands for labour 
at the low and high-skill ends of the labour market. 
Skills and labour shortages 
Partly as a result of economic globalisati on and its consequent re-localisation and 
outsourcing, labour markets are polarizing toward the extreme ends of the skills scale. 
Satisfying job vacancies in high-skill sectors,  such as engineering, information technology, 
pharmaceuticals, healthcare and educational sectors is becoming increasingly troublesome in certain regions
22. The growing importance of a knowledge-based economy, structural 
economic change, the growth of the service s ector, the delocalization of labour intensive 
production¸ the outflows of nationals (brain drain) all contribute to these conclusions. 
Employment growth rates for those with a high level of educational attainment is therefore 
increasing23: between 1996 and 2003, it  increased by 2.9%, while it was actually in the 
negative for those with low educational atta inment. The same pattern is reported for 
employment growth rates24 in high-education sectors25, such as manufacture of office 
machinery and equipment, computers and related activities, education, he alth and social work, 
or activities of member ship organizations.  
From a long-term perspective, according to recen t medium term forecasts of skills supply and 
analyses of possible labour market imba lances in Europe over the period 2006-2015 
(CEDEFOP, 2007), substantial structural change is  likely in the future, with continuing shifts 
away from the primary sector and traditional manufacturing, towards services and knowledge-intensive jobs. Of 13 million additional jobs generate d between 2006 and 2015, distribution, 
transport, hotels and catering together are pr ojected to see employment grow by 3.5 million, 
                                                
 
20 It needs to be recalled that labour shortages occur where the demand for workers in a particular 
occupation exceeds the supply of wo rkers who are qualified, availabl e, and willing to do that job. 
Within this definition, two types of shortages can be distinguished: aggregate labour shortage (where 
the labour market is near to full employment) and shortages due to a mismatch with the labour market 
(due to a skills shortage, regional or pr eference mismatch, information deficits). 
21 Currently EU workers represent only 2,5% of the EU working age population. The recent migration 
flow to the EU of third-country migrants of working age (15-64) measured as a share of the EU 
working age population, has been significantly hi gher (around 2.5 times) th an the recent flow of 
migrants from other EU countries (1.5% versus 0.6%). 
22 In Germany for example, vacancies for engineers rose nearly 30% over the past year to around 23,000. 
23 ISCED 5-6: tertiary education. 
24 equal to 3% per year as compared to 1% in other sectors 
25 I.e. sectors with at least 40 % of their wo rkforce having attained higher education level 
EN 12   EN while employment in non-marketed services, in cluding health and education, is projected to 
grow at a similar rate. Business and miscella neous services have th e best prospects for 
employment, with almost 9 million additional jo bs expected to be created between 2006 and 
2015.  
The main implications for occupational employm ent will be continuing growth in demand for 
many high-skilled non-manual jobs such as ma nagement, professional work or technical 
support of those activitie s but also for some lower-skilled  categories (service workers, 
especially in retail and distribution).  
The key role of third-country migrants 
The current contribution of non EU mi grants to labour and skill shortages 
Non-EU nationals already play an important role in meeting demands for labour at the low 
and high-skill ends of the labour market. At EU level, working age migrants from third 
countries tend to be slightly overrepresented at  the highest skill levels and more significantly 
overrepresented at the lowest skill levels, sugges ting that they potentially play an enhanced 
role in meeting demands for labour at the lo w and high-skill ends of the labour market.26. 
Immigrants’ skills are, however, not evenly distributed between the EU Member States.  
A number of countries have already set up specific scheme s to attract highly skilled 
migrants27 and the incidence of third-country na tionals in the highly skilled occupations28 is 
rapidly increasing. In 2004, the share of non-EU  nationals in highly skilled employment was 
2.3% in EU 15, compared to 1.8% in 1999. Third-c ountry highly skilled workers incidence of 
total employment is even growing at a relativel y higher rate when comp ared to the trend of 
highly skilled EU nationals29.  
On the other hand, most countries continue to  accept rather large numbers of low-skilled 
migrants from outside of the EU30. Compared to native-born, a high share of third-country 
migrants are employed in hotels and restaurant s, private household and construction sectors, 
and also, although to a lesser extent, in real  estate rentals and business activities.  
The untapped employment potential of third country residents 
                                                 
26 While the high skilled ratio of the immigrant populati on born in a country outsid e the EU-27 is slightly 
higher than the one of the natives, the medium-skille d ratio of the foreign-born is significantly lower 
and the low skilled rate significantly higher: What are the migrants' contributions to employment and 
growth? A European approach. HWWI, 2007 
27 The proportion of recent third co untry working age migrants with tertiary education exceeds 25% in 
Belgium, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Fran ce, Poland, and particularly in Sweden (almost 
40%, which exceeds the share of high-skilled EU born by  12.5 percentage points) 
28 According to ISCO 88 classifi cations, categories 1, 2 and 3.  
29 Between 1999 and 2004, in EU 15 , the share of highly skilled work ers (ISCO categories 1, 2 and 3) 
coming from third countries as compared to total num ber of employed increased  at an average annual 
growth rate of 4.8% (0,8% for EU nationals) 
30 More than 40% of the non-EU born of working age who arrived within the last 6 years to Austria, 
Belgium, Cyprus, Denmark, Greece, France, Italy, Po rtugal and Spain had not attained an education 
equivalent to upper secondary school. The gap in th e share of low skilled between EU born and recently 
arrived non-EU migrants is most pronounced in Aust ria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Greece and Italy 
(where shares differ by more than 10 percentage points). 
EN 13   EN In order to cope with these skills and la bour shortages, harnessing the unused employment 
potential among third-country nationals is a ke y priority. Indeed, in many countries, the 
unemployment rate of n on- EU-nationals is almost twice as high for non-EU nationals (17%) 
as for EU nationals (9%) and sometimes th ree times higher than those for native-born.31  
However, migrants' labour market outcomes differ widely across Member States. Two 
groupings of Member States can be identified wi th regard to employment of non-EU migrants 
relative to native-born. In the new immigration countri es (Italy, Greece, Portugal and Spain) 
and the new Member States, third country migr ants have higher employment rates than EU 
born, while in old Member States (and Poland) the reverse is true32.This grouping is not so 
apparent when comparing the non-EU born who have  been resident for less than six years to 
EU-born. Nevertheless, there is a high correla tion between employment rates of recent non-
EU migrants and long-term established no n-EU migrants, suggesting that relative 
performance in terms of ease and rapidity of  migrants' integration into employment has 
effects that persist into the longer term labour mark et outcome for migrants. 
These differences in employment outcomes have to be linked to the various entry channels for 
immigration, since non-economic migrants did no t prepare their access to labour market, also 
possibly hindered by legal restrictions. Th e composition of migrants inflows vary 
significantly from one Member Stat e to another. In most Member States a significant part of 
immigration continues to be la bour migration, but family forma tion and reunification together 
with immigration on humanitarian grounds have taken over as important driving forces for immigration in Europe in recent decades, accoun ting in part for differences in the gender mix 
of migrants
33.  
Moreover, differences in educational level go some way toward explaining the employment 
gaps. In EU-15 in 2005 around 28% of men of working age with EU nationality had only a 
basic level of education, while the figure fo r non-nationals was 42%. 28% of men with EU 
nationality had tertiary edu cation, and only 19% of non-nationa ls. Figures for women show 
lower rates but similar patterns.  
But a number of other drivers co ntribute to this situation, si nce while observing the highest 
employment rates for the highest educated pe rsons across EU Member States, for most of 
them (except for the UK) the employment rate gap between highly educated recent migrants, 
and highly educated EU-born, significantly exceeds the employment gap between lowest 
educated migrants and non-migrants34.  
                                                 
31 This is the case in Austria, Belgium, Finland,  France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Sweden. 
32 in countries, like Belgium, Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, Poland and Sweden, the employment 
rate differential to natives is more than 15 percentage points and the difference between employment 
rates for recent migrants and natives is even more ma rked, particularly in Austria, Belgium, Finland, 
France, the Netherlands and Sweden (all with ga ps of more than 20 percentage points). 
33 According to the OECD SOPEMI 2007 report, the main reasons for immigration33 into EU Member 
States in 2005 were family and work-related. However, there were very wide variations across 
individual Member States. For example, 30% of ne w arrivals in the UK to around 60% in France 
arrived for family reunification, wh ile 40% or more of migrants arri ved for work-related reasons in 
Belgium, Denmark, Portugal and the UK; as for humanitarian migration, this accounted for 15% or more in the Netherlands, Sweden and the UK. 
34 This tendency is confirmed in all OECD countries: see A profile of immigrants populations in the 21st 
century, OECD, 2008 
EN 14   EN Gender and cultural background are key drivers t oo: female non-EU nationals face particular 
difficulties compared to their EU-national counterparts, in particular for highly skilled women where the difference between employment ra tes for non-EU and EU nationals exceeds 20 
percentage points. This differential may be increased by cultural patterns
35. Age is another 
factor, since young people with a migrant b ackground are disproporti onately affected by 
unemployment (12-25 percenta ge points). Difficulty in ha rnessing diplomas acquired 
overseas and discrimination measures are other cr ucial factors to take into consideration. The 
correlation between the employment performan ce of non-EU born and EU -born needs also to 
be underlined, showing that migrants' performance in the labour market is  also a reflection of 
the overall labour market situatio n in general. In addition, the lower employment rates in the 
old Member States probably reflects a lowe r acceptance of irregula r work, and different 
welfare state systems compared to other Memb er States with higher employment rates for 
migrants (where less generous systems may put gr eater pressure on migrants to work in order 
to survive).  
Although improving the labour market performance of non EU residents needs to remain a 
priority, generating a greater social cohesion and avoiding costly dependence on welfare 
payments, "external" human resources will be also needed. 
Attracting new migrants 
• Highly skilled workers36 
In the future, the EU will not be able to rely  exclusively on national human resources. In fact, 
in the EU, people with high educational attain ments have actually reached high employment 
rates37. Furthermore, the different measures foreseen by the revised Lisbon Strategy, 
including the reduction of unemployment le vels and the improvement of educational 
attainments of many young people, require  investment and time to deliver.  
Hence, to be able to adjust labour demand and supply on a relatively short notice, the 
possibility of sourcing skills outside of the EU will be crucial, while paying attention to the 
prevention of possible adverse consequences of such a demand in terms of "brain drain" on 
source countries.  
However, the share of skilled migrant workers remains low, compared to other OECD 
countries. It is evaluated by 1.7% in the EU, co mpared to 9.9% in Australia, 7.3% in Canada, 
and 3.2% in the US. Highly skille d migrants continue to pursue  North America as their main 
destination38. These data reveal a substantial chal lenge for the EU in attracting highly 
qualified workers from third countries with re spect to the main worldwide benchmarks.  
                                                 
35 some immigrant women, notably from Turkey, countries of the Middle East and North Africa who 
witness the lowest employment rates in EU, are reluctant to enter the labour market for cultural or 
religious reasons. 
36 For a detailed analysis of the labour market situ ation and trends in the high segment of the labour 
market, as well as on the impacts of admission an d intra-EU mobility of th ird-country highly skilled 
workers, see the impact assessment accompanying th e proposal for a Directive on highly skilled 
employment (COM(2007)637 and SEC(2007)1403 of 23.10.2007). 
37 In EU 15, the employment rate of highly educated people was 82.5% in 2004 However, it is worth 
noting that labour shortages and high unemployment rates can co-exist in the labour market (e.g. 
Germany and Sweden) 
38 A profile of immigrants populations in the 21st century, OECD, 2008. 
EN 15   EN Different factors account for this situation,  among which: historical ties, the language 
preferences, the high previous labour demand  for low skilled workers in the European 
manufacturing sector, the institutions and expected income differences.. An important element 
influencing the attractiveness of the EU, wi th respect to highly qualified workers, is 
represented by the barriers to EU intra-mobility, which is a driver of both the demand and the 
supply side of highly qualified workers. The po ssibility to work trans-nationally is also 
crucial, by moving back and forth between th e source and the rece iving country without 
losing rights. 
It is also important to take into account the growing demand from multinational companies 
regarding the possibility to transfer temporarily skilled workers to other offices or affiliates. 
In that respect, the WTO General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) already foresees 
favourable treatment for managers and spec ialists temporarily transferred within a 
multinational group ("intra-corporate transferees" ) within the framework of the provision of a 
service. However, in the absence of rules providing the conditions of admission for these 
workers, the implementation of these GATS provisions is only partial.  
Another important factor to factor in to draw highly skille d workers is the perception of EU 
from outside. From prospective immigrants' view, the EU appears too ofte n as a "fortress with 
closed gates", despite shifts in immigration policies performed in some Member States. In 
order to reverse this perception, a higher leve l of information on lega l pathways and rights 
granted to immigrants is required. 
• Non qualified workers 
Typically, this category of workers is offered poor working conditions: high work uncertainty, 
poor working conditions –notably more risks of accidents at work and more frequent access to 
unhealthy occupations39- part-time jobs and low wages.  
While the role of non-EU immigran ts is likely to expand in the fu ture in these growing sectors 
rejected by local workers, this sectoral co ncentration of immigrants may lead to the 
reinforcement of the reluctance of nationals to take these j obs and an accentuation of the 
segmentation of the labour mark et, worsening discrimination and make create difficulties for 
migrants to climb the social ladder. Moreover,  this trend might trigger adverse effects on 
particular groups or sectors, since empirical  findings point towards the concentration of 
undesirable effects on blue-colla r workers in manufacturing i ndustries and on unskilled labour 
in services40.  
In this context, a differential of rights betw een native and migrant work ers is an aggravating 
circumstance for this segmentation, generating unfair competition.  
2.2.1 Existing responses  
Regarding economic migration, a stocktaking of the existing measures evidences a reluctance 
displayed by Member States to limit their sovereignty on this matter. This was demonstrated through the 2001 Proposal for a Council Directive on the conditions of entry and residence of 
                                                
 
39 Literature study on migrant workers, 2008, European Agency for safety and heath at work 
40 What are the migrants' contributions to employment and growth? A European approach. HWWI, 2007; 
European Integration Consortium (2001) The imp act of Eastern Enlargement on Employment and 
Labour markets in the EU member States 
EN 16   EN third-country nationals for the purpose of pa id employment and self-employed economic 
activities41 which proposed a general framework coveri ng all types of economic migrants did 
not receive the necessary support from the Council. This proposal was the first attempt to define a common legal framework at EU leve l specifically concerning economic migrants.  
Apart from the Directive on the researchers
42, the debate fully resumed in January 2005, when 
the Commission re-launched the debate re garding the need fo r common rules on the 
admission of workers from third-countries th rough a Green Paper on  economic migration43. 
Building upon this consultation, the Commission released a polic y plan on legal migration in 
December 200544, announcing five legislativ e initiatives th at would be presented between 
2007 and 2009.  
In October 2007 the Commission presented the tw o first legislative proposals: the general 
Framework Directive45 aims at simplifying procedures fo r admission of third-country workers 
and granting a common set of rights to all thir d- country workers already admitted and legally 
working in a Member State; the Directive on  the admission of highly qualified migrants 
creating the EU Blue Card46, aiming at supporting Member Stat es' efforts in attracting and – 
where necessary – retaining the highly qualified third-country workers needed in their labour 
markets, including not only a fast-track ad mission procedure based on common criteria and 
favorable conditions for residence and family  reunification, but also a possibility for 
exercising demand-based intra-EU mobility without  being penalized in terms of family life 
and of the period necessary to acquire EC long-term residence.  
The remaining proposals on seasonal workers, intra-corporate transferees and remunerated 
trainees will follow in autumn 2008. 
2.2.3. Objectives   
Against this background, and in line with the purely demand-driven policy pursued to date, 
the global objective is to manage migration in  order to alleviate se ctoral and occupational 
shortages of labour, while giving full effect to the Community pref erence and and fully 
tapping and valorising the labour market contribu tion of third-country workers already legally 
resident in the EU. 
The specific objectives consist of: – a comprehensive assessment of present and future labour market needs and the setting up 
of migration profiles, providing a clear picture of the migrants ’ employment potential, with 
a view to enhance the matching of labour mark et needs; this orientation will pave a new 
way in migration policy; 
– enhancing the employment potential of third- country nationals (not ably through measures 
aiming at upgrading their educational attainme nts, enhancing their training to match their 
skills with labour market need s, allowing for a better recogni tion of qualifications, fighting 
against discrimination and il legal work and promotion of  employment for immigrant 
                                                
 
41 COM(2001) 386 final. 
42 Council Directive 2005/71/EC. 
43 COM (2004)811 final. 
44 SEC (2005)1680. 
45 COM(2007)638. See also section 2.2.1.. 
46 COM(2007)637. 
EN 17   EN women, also by means of granting them access to  the labour market within the shortest 
delays); 
– the establishment of a legal framework defini ng clear rules of admission and residence for 
third-country workers, allowing a swift reac tion to labour market needs, enhancing the 
attractiveness of Europe for workers and bus iness and granting a common set of rights to 
non EU workers; 
– an intensified partnership with third countries in order to better conci liate the interests of 
originating and receiving countries; 
– awareness-raising measures, targeting on the one hand the host societies to enhance their 
awareness of migrants' contributions and their acceptance (in this connection, the 
demonstration of a strong will to fight agains t illegal immigration w ill help advance this 
process), on the other hand to the prospectiv e migrants to encourage them to come. 
These objectives are mainly reflected in principles 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 10 and 11. 
2.2.4 Subsidiarity principle  
Legal basis The legal basis for EU action is to  be found in Article 63 of the EC  Treaty and in Article 79 of 
the Lisbon Treaty. 
Necessity for an EU intervention 
A policy implemented in one Member State can ge nerate an indirect impact on other Member 
States; moreover, the lack of homogeneous rules and coordinati on, and the absence of a clear 
message at an EU level, bring about adve rse consequences and consequently call for 
European action  (in partic ular in the Schengen area): 
– the lack of knowledge regarding the migrati on skill composition at an EU level and the 
needs of diverse labour markets can result in  contradictory, non rati onal ("sub-optimal") 
decisions and under-harnessing of EU citizens or  third-country residents (e.g. encouraging 
inflows of new migrants while  neglecting the employment pot ential of migrants already 
settled in another Member State)
47;  
– differences between national legislation on wo rkers (in terms of definition, entry and 
residence conditions) can produ ce distortions in the select ion mechanisms through which 
the third-country nationals decide where to loca lize in EU territory (i.e. they can be more 
attracted either by an easy system of accessi on or by a wider system of recognised rights 
rather than by a demand of occupation); 
– differences in terms of access to the labour ma rket of third-country nationals who have 
been admitted for reasons different from employment, but who nonetheless have a right of access to the labour market (family members, students, etc.) may also create important 
                                                
 
47 see also conclusions of the European Council of 13/14 March 2008, point 14 ("it invites the 
Commission to present a comprehensive assessment of the future skills requirements in Europe up to 
2020") 
EN 18   EN distortions in terms of labour market efficien cy. Where standards have  been fixed at EU 
level, EU intervention is necessary to modify them; 
– especially in the case of highly skilled workers,  the obstacles  to inte rnal mobility for third-
country nationals may be a key discouraging el ement in their decision of entering the EU 
economy, although this is by no means the only element driving immigration choices of this category of workers; by the same token, the parceling of rules across Europe may deter 
multinational companies to establish a affiliate  or a headquarter in Europe, knowing that 
the transfer of their employees will be a time-consuming and burdensome process; 
– in those Member States where a low level of rights is granted to third-country workers, 
employers could benefit from the recognition of  poor working condition s (the rights gap), 
as they would avoid a set of responsibilitie s and related costs. Th ese situations would 
create an unfair competition between EU Member States and w ould affect the proper 
functioning of the in ternal market.  
– Finally, the actions of individu al Member States with regard to cooperation with third 
countries is not sufficient and may be contradictory (see chapter 2.5 for further 
developments). 
Added-value of an EU intervention 
– the EU is in a better position than each i ndividual Member State to establish an overall 
assessment of migration profile s allowing for a complete picture of the labour market 
situation and the deta ils of the composition of the labour supply; 
– the building of a legal framework aiming at providing homogeneous rules across Europe in 
terms of entry and residence conditions and introducing intra-EU mo bility at least for 
certain categories of workers will be better ach ieved (or can only be achieved) at EU level; 
– a common message towards prospective migran ts will be clearer and more effective 
released by EU; 
– EU as a block of 27 Member States is also in a stronger position to negotiate with third 
countries than individual Member States. 
2.3. INSUFFICIENT INTEGRATION OF LEGAL IMMIGRANTS  
As a consequence of increasing inflows of immigrants, Europ ean societies are today more 
acutely faced with the questio n of diversity. Although some Me mber States experienced the 
phenomenon earlier, the whole of Europe ha s now gradually become a destination for 
immigrants. In 2006, 18.5 million third-country nationals were registered in Europe, equivalent to just under 3.8% of the total populat ion. If one focuses on migrants rather than on 
foreign nationals, the number is 27.3 million, representing 5.6% of its total population
48. 
A fundamental element of a well-managed migrati on policy is th e successful integration of 
legally residing immigrants, which results in stronger economies, greater social cohesion, an 
increased feeling of security and cultural dive rsity, finally stepping up the Union's position in 
the world. Although a growing numb er of Member States recogni se the vital importance of 
                                                 
48 COM(2007)780. Romania and Bulgaria  are considered as EU nationals. 
EN 19   EN integration policies, which fall within their co mpetence, and despite the increasing supporting 
role played by the EU, many integration challe nges remain and call for a new step change.  
2.3.1. Definition of the problem  
Mainstreaming 
Mainstreaming integration has become an integr al part of policy making and implementation 
across a wide range of EU policies. However, effective sharing of information, coordinating 
with all tiers of authorities and stakeholders and paying due attention to  the mainstreaming of 
gender equality and to the spec ific needs of migrant youth and children, are still major 
challenges. 
Evaluation and indicators 
More detailed data can help to avoid confusion a nd improve the visibi lity of immigrants' 
contribution to the host society's development.  Yet, the capacity to collect, analyse and 
disseminate integration-related information, incl uding gender disaggregated statistics, is still 
not available. Monitoring, evaluation of integration policies and programmes and 
identification of specific indicato rs are to date insufficient. 
Management of diversity 
Integration of third-country nationals has been the subject of a debate focussing on 
discrimination phenomena and cultur al and religious diversity. In some cases, dramatic events 
were crucial in influencing the public perception of immigration.  
Structural initiatives ta rgeting the host population to reinforce its ability to adjust to diversity 
are still underrepresented in national strategies. 
Education and empowering immigrants 
Average educational attainment of non-nationals is  generally substantially lower than that of 
nationals49, which raises concerns about their futu re personal and professional development50. 
In addition, improving the knowledge of the host so ciety and of its langua ge by immigrants is 
a major challenge.  
Shared values 
Not enough is done to actively ensure that all residents, including immigrants, understand, 
respect, benefit from, and are protected on an e qual basis by the full scope of values, rights, 
responsibilities, and privilege s established by the EU and Member State laws, including 
respect for the principles of liberty, democr acy, respect for human rights and fundamental 
                                                 
49 See chapter 2.2  
50 Yet, as seen above, in several countries, because of the presence of high-skilled migrants, the situation 
is reversed for tertiary education. An important factor which accounts for the varying ability of the 
education system to make converge the level of fore ign-born population is th e different composition of 
the foreign population in individual countries, in terms of the national origin and socio-economic, 
educational and linguistic background of the immigrant population. 
EN 20   EN freedoms, and the rule of law, the con cepts of dignity, free dom, equality and non-
discrimination, solidarity, citi zen’s rights, and justice. 
Employment  
The integration of immigrants into the labour ma rket remains a major ch allenge of integration 
policies. It is notably related to recognition of qualifications, discrimina tion at the work place 
and specific difficulties enc ountered by immigrant women. 
Social aspects and access to services 
As reported in a number of National Action Plans for Social Inclusion  and through EU 
studies, there is considerable evidence of the ga ps in social outcomes that persist between the 
host country nationals and migrants, albeit at a different scale according to other factors such 
as country of origin or motives for migration.  
At EU level, non-EU migrants face much highe r risks of poverty than people born in the host 
country (30% against 16%). The gap is ev en greater for households with children.51  
Although in a growing number of cases the capacity of service providers to in teract with 
immigrants and initiatives on equal access to public institutions are launched, many 
immigrants still face barriers when trying to ac cess social protection and essential services 
(health care, housing, etc.) that ar e key for a successful integration.52 Cultural and language 
barriers, lack of knowledge about the existin g system, poverty are am ong the drivers which 
account for this situation. Some reports also  highlight a lack of awareness of anti-
discrimination legislation among health professi onals and administrative staff. Equality of 
treatment in terms of health and safety at the workplace is another important dimension, 
especially when considering that immigrants are employed more often than nationals in the 
so-called "3D" jobs (dirty, da ngerous and demanding work). 
Participation and citizenship 
While participation of immigrants in the demo cratic process is increasingly perceived as a 
significant aspect of successful integration, migr ants' representatives are not often involved in 
the elaboration/implementation of integration policies.  
Host societies and discrimination 
Migrants often face negative stereotypes, whic h are expressed directly or indirectly. The 
promotion of non-discrimination and equal opport unities for all is key in tegration issue. In 
this last respect, the European Un ion Agency for Fundamental Rights53 witness the prevalence 
of direct and indirect ethnic discrimination,  such as discrimination in recruitment and 
redundancy practices and views that  different rates of unemployment, at least partly reflect 
forces of discrimination, rather than simply reflecting factors su ch as differences in education 
                                                 
51 Source: EU-SILC 2005. The size of families, unemployment, low wages, and poor working conditions 
mainly contribute to this situation. 
52 as highlighted during the CLIP conference of C onference European cities integrating migrants of 7 
April 2008 
53 Annual report, 2006 
EN 21   EN or skill levels. This conclusion is shared by the European Agency for safety and health at 
work in a recent study54. 
2.3.2. Existing responses  
The successful integration of lawfully residing  third-country nationals in the societies of 
Member States is one of the greatest challenges of immigration policy and a key element in promoting cohesion within the EU. In the 200 4 Hague Programme, EU Heads of State and 
member state Governments requested the establ ishment of a coherent European framework 
for integration. Following the adoption of Co mmon Basic Principles on integration by the 
JHA Council in November 2004, the Co mmission presented, in September 2005, a 
communication with proposals for a common fr amework (handbooks, website, annual reports, 
NCP meetings, ministerial conf erences, integration forum, in tegration fund, etc.) within 
which, through concrete measures both at EU and national level,  these principles should be 
put into practice. An Integr ation Fund has been created in 2007 to financially support 
integration policies at national and EU level. 
Moreover, EU legislation provi des a strong framework of an ti-discrimination legislation
55. 
The European Year of Equal Opportunities for All in 2007, and the European Year of Inter-
cultural Dialogue in 2008, have co ntributed to raise awareness in these matters, but further 
efforts are needed. 
With regard to the social security rights, the EU has had a quite decisive impact on the 
situation of migrants through the existing provisions or proposals in  the field of social security 
coordination concerning third country natio nals (through extending the EU coordination 
provisions to third country nationals; thro ugh association agreements, or community 
instruments). In 2003, the European Parliame nt and the Council adopted Regulation 859/0356 
which extends the provisions of Regulation 1408/ 71 to third country nati onals who are legally 
residing in the EU and in a cross border situa tion. The objective of this Regulation is to 
provide third country nationals, who fulfil the abovementioned conditions, the same treatment 
as EU nationals as regards coordination of social securi ty schemes across the EU. As 
Regulation 1408/71 will be replaced by Regulati on 883/04, the Commission adopted, in July 
2007, a proposal extending the provisions of Regu lation 883/04 to third country nationals who 
are legally residing in  the EU and in a cros s border situation (COM (2007)439). This proposal 
will have to be adopted before the regulatio n becomes applicable in order to avoid a 
significant setback for the equal treatment of lega lly residing immigrants with regard to their 
social security contributions.  
As concerns the broader issue of granting equal treatment as yet another mean of improving 
immigrant's integration into the labour market and the host  society, in October 2007 the 
Commission presented a legisla tive proposal (the so called "g eneral Framework Directive57") 
which sets down a minimum comm on level of rights for immigran t workers in terms of equal 
treatment in a series of areas. Such equal treatment with nationals of the host Member State entails: working conditions (incl uding pay and dismissal), health and safety at the workplace, 
                                                
 
54 Literature study on migrant workers, 2008 
55 Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons 
irrespective of racial or ethnic origin and directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation. 
56 OJ L 124 of 20.05.2003 
57 COM(2007)638. See also section 2.2.1. 
EN 22   EN education, vocational training, recognition of qualific ations, social security (including health 
care), export of pensions once they are paid, access to goods and services (including procedures for housing) and tax benefits. On ce adopted, this proposal will – amongst other 
things – contribute to improve  the legal status of legally workers third-country nationals. 
2.3.3. Objectives
 
In line with the "Common Basic Principles for Immigrant Integration Policy in the EU", the 
overall objective of European policy is to improve the dynamic , two-way process of mutual 
accommodation by all immigrants and residents of Member States. 
This objective involves: – to develop a more coherent approach to integration,  
– to reinforce the sharing of information and best practices as well as the coordination 
between all stakeholders; 
– to better monitor and eval uate integration policies; 
– to set up targeted language classes and tuit ion to facilitate integration at school; 
– to focus on introduction programmes, including language and civic orientation courses for 
newly-arrived; 
– to prevent unemployment through education and training, a better  recognition of 
qualifications, fight against di scrimination and illegal work and promotion of employment 
for immigrant women; 
– to foster anti-discrimination and info rmation measures and cooperation between 
governmental stakeholders and engagement of companies in debates on integration; 
– to provide specific help and information to a llow migrants’ access to services, especially 
health services; 
– to reflect on active citizenship and naturalisation processes as elements to strengthen 
opportunities for involvement  in the host society. 
The principle 3 elaborates on this general obj ective, although integration into the labour 
market is mainly targeted in principle 2. 
2.3.4. Subsidiarity principle
 
Legal basis The legal basis for EU action is to  be found in Article 63 of the EC  Treaty and in Article 79 of 
the Lisbon Treaty. 
Necessity for an EU intervention 
Immigration is a permanent feature of European society. If the flow of immigrants is orderly 
and well-managed, Member States reap many bene fits. Taken together and across all Member 
States, these benefits advance the European pr ocess and strengthen the Union’s position in the 
EN 23   EN world. A critical aspect of mana ging migration is the successful integration of le gally residing 
immigrants and their descendants. The failure of  an individual Member State to develop and 
implement a successful integration policy can ha ve, in different ways, adverse implications 
for other Member States and the European Uni on. For example, intercultural challenges faced 
in a Member State after a dramatic event mi ght spread to neighbourin g States, as proven by 
the example of the Danish cartoons.  
Moreover, following patent failures to implement successful integration strategies in the past 
(see dramatic events in Denmark, Netherlands and UK), Member States started a process of 
revision of national integration strategies and strongly asked for exchange of information and 
best practice at EU level so as to learn from  each other's mistakes and successful experiences 
in this area. New Member States , which are just now facing in tegration challenges, can also 
greatly benefit from the long expe rience of other Member States. 
The policy proposed by the Commission with respect  to integration also responds to requests 
from the European Council (as regards educati onal field, see conclusions of the EC (13/14 
March 2008), point 15 ("improve the achieveme nts levels of learners with a migrant 
background"), or more broadly EC of 14 December 2007, point 25  ("integration is a pivotal 
element of the comprehensive European migr ation policy. The Europe an Council calls for 
better coordination between migration and integra tion policies"), or EC conclusions of 14/15 
December 2007, point 24 e). 
Added-value of an EU intervention 
The precise integration measures a society ch ooses to implement should be determined by 
individual Member States, howev er, mainstreaming of national pol icies and exchange of best 
practices is better achieved by measures taken at the EU level. An EU intervention allows also 
through the Integration Fund to provide for a common framework and to attenuate the 
differences between Member States approaches. 
Given that integration is a pro cess which has to take place in Member States – at national, 
regional or local level -, most of the actions implementi ng the Common Basic Principles will 
have to be taken by Member States. However, the possible failure of individual Member 
States in successfully integrating third-co untry nationals can have severe negative 
implications for the other Member States and the European Union as a whole. It is therefore in 
the common interest of all th at, throughout the EU, ef fective integration strategies are being 
pursued. For this reason, the issue of integr ation has gained increasing importance on the 
European agenda, commencing in 2002/3 with the JHA Council's request to establish National 
Contact points on Integration and the Thessaloniki Eu ropean Council's invitation to the Commission to 
present Annual Reports on Mi gration and Integration . At the explicit request and/or approval of 
the European Council, a number of further actio ns and measures have been taken at the EU 
level, such as the elaboration of handbooks for practitioners, the organisation of annual 
Ministerial  conferences, the creat ion of an European Website or  the setting up of a European 
Integration Fund. The increased r ecognition of the added-value of  EU interventions is also 
reflected by the Lisbon Treaty which, in Article 79 (4) TFEU, will introduce an explicit legal 
base for all EU measures that provide incentives  and support Member States  in their efforts to 
promote the integration of third-country nationals residing lawfully in their territories. This is however limited to legislative measures that do not harmonise the laws and regulations of the 
Member States which distinguishes this pol icy area from other components of the EU's 
common immigration policy.  
EN 24   EN 2.4. CONTINUOUS PRESSURE OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION  
2.4.1. Definition of the problem  
In spite of the important legislative framew ork and a number of me asures taken, at the 
national or European level, to  combat illegal immigration, this phenomenon is still a major 
concern across Europe, triggering a wide array of adverse consequences that are 
unsatisfactorily dealt with by current policies. 
Diverse impacts of the phenomenon 
Whilst difficult to evaluate, indicative statistic al data has put forward a total number of 
illegally staying migrants of several million and the number of annual inflows into the EU at 
several hundreds of thousands58. A number of drivers are likel y to further increase the 
magnitude of the phenomenon: environmental degradation, possible natural disasters, 
increasing numbers of facilitators that organi ze the smuggling of human beings and continued 
conflicts. Moreover, the continuing high popul ation growth in Europe’s neighbourhood, 
especially in Africa, combined with poor eco nomic performance and political instability, 
could act as a strong push factor. 
In spite of efforts, made either individually by Member States, or in co-operation with other 
Member States at European level, illegal im migration continues to flourish in the EU, under 
its different forms: illegal entr y into the European Union, often on the basis of false or forged 
documents and with the support of organised crim inal networks of smug glers and traffickers; 
overstaying of third-country nationals having ente red legally –e.g. at the expiry of their visa 
or their residence permit or once their asylum request has been definitively rejected; abuse of 
procedures allowing legal entitlement for resi dence (e.g. false marriages/family reunifications, 
false visa applications, misu se of the student status). 
Illegal immigration is a serious conc ern from different points of view. 
From a security perspective, illegal immigrati on may be linked with terrorism, trafficking in 
human beings, drug smuggling, smuggling of w eapons, exploitation, sl avery-like working 
conditions and other serious crimes which therefor e pose a major threat to European societies. 
Besides these security issues, illegal immigr ation is often associated with humanitarian 
tragedies, linked to the conditions of entry into  the EU territory, with the help of criminal 
networks. It is worth noting that  a great number of detected il legal immigration by sea takes 
place through the use of small craft or dinghies  which are not seaworthy and are therefore 
seriously jeopardising the lives of  their occupants. It needs also  to be noted that migrants 
without residency status (asylum seekers a nd undocumented migrants) have no or limited 
access to services that are e ssential to guarantee fundament al human rights (e.g. effective 
access to education for children of illeg al migrants, access to health care). 
                                                 
58 The estimates of the total number of illegal migran ts in the EU include two to three million (Global 
Migration Perspectives 2005), 4.5 million (IOM 2000) and seven to eight million (United Nations' 
Trends in Total Migrant Stock: The 2003 Revision ). The estimates of annual increases of illegal 
immigrants into the EU include 500 000 (Wiener Zeitung 2005) and 350 000 (Global Migration 
Perspectives 2005). However, aggregating available estimates for 21 individua l Member States suggests 
that there is an annual inflow of illegal migrants to the EU of between 893 000 and 923 300. It needs to 
be noted that most estimates that are available relate to the period prior to 2004 and the accession of the 
EU-12, where nationals from those countries were considered as third country nationals. 
EN 25   EN Moreover, illegal en try, transit and stay of third-country  nationals who are not in need of 
international protection, undermines the cr edibility of the common Europeans and the 
Member States’, immigration policy. Effectiv e countermeasures against such infringements 
are therefore necessary, and any regularisation programme should take into account the risk of 
creating any pull factors.  
The prevalence of this phenomenon, which does not take into account the reception capacities 
of the Member States, results in multiple and diverse social costs, including costs of assistance and health care (whi lst varying across individual Memb ers States) in the absence of 
legal livelihood; loss of tax reve nue, social security system s, legal employment opportunities 
and unfair competition owing to illegal empl oyment; and added costs of inspection and 
ultimately return procedures. Amnesties/regularisations, even when a work contract is required, do not ensure that th e migrants who benefit are those which are most needed by 
labour markets added to which th eir long-lasting occupational in clusion is often problematic. 
A weak number of returns  
When efficiently tackling illegal immigration, th e return process is of crucial concern. The 
full compatibility of measures  taken being compliant with fundamental rights, including 
refugee protection and human rights obligations  derived from the European Convention of 
Human rights, has to be ensured. In that resp ect, voluntary returns which ensure a dignified 
return for returnees should be given preference, and are, in fact, increa sing. It is also in the 
interest of the Member States as it is the most  cost-effective process. Yet, forced returns are 
the most frequent, which encounter several barr iers, such as: lack of reliable documentation 
which leads to difficulties identifying the thir d-country national; practical difficulties to 
organise return operations; and re luctance of third-countries to readmit their nationals, often 
linked to the absence of readmission agreements . The lack of coordina tion and harmonisation 
at the European level, against contrasting situations in term s of legislation, practices and 
burden-sharing across Member Stat es, also gives rise to speci fic problems. Member States’ 
legislation on returning illega l third-country nationals differs  widely, as regards terminology, 
as well as substantive provisions applying to return, removal, use of coercive force, temporary 
custody and re-entry. This divers ity yields a distorting effect on the distribution of illegally 
staying immigrants within the EU and weakens the effects of a return decision. For example, 
when a MS does not implement its decision refusing a residence permit to a third-country national, it has a potential implication on the terr itory of all other Member States, owing to the 
absence of internal borders. The weak impact of the return decision on the European scale is 
another concern in this area: in the absence of mutual recognition of the return decisions taken 
by a Member State, the third-country national  may comply with his/her obligation to leave by 
simply moving to another Member State, whic h leads to uncontrolled secondary movement 
among Member States and may lead to further i llegal presence in anot her Member State.  
Power of criminal networks: sm uggling and trafficking of migrants 
The crossing of the external bo rders, transit through or  illegal stay on the territory of Member 
States of the European Union is often f acilitated by criminal networks. Third-country 
nationals who are looking for a better life pay such facilitato rs amounts of money that often 
exceeds many times an average annual salary in th eir country of origin. Illegal immigrants are 
also susceptible to human trafficking, for the purpose of sexual or  labour exploitation, 
domestic servitude, begging, or forced marriage. Human traffick ing is a serious crime against 
persons. Moreover, high profits  from labour and sexual exploita tion are often subject to 
money laundering and may enable traffickers to engage in other criminal activities which 
EN 26   EN could lead to the achievement of economic, soci al or even political power. This often has a 
transnational dimension, as numerous trafficked persons move, or are br ought, across  external 
borders. Migrant smuggling and human traffick ing are linked by the fact that they are 
frequently organised by internat ionally operating criminal networ ks, and are part of organised 
crime phenomena linked with the demand for cheap  and illegal services. Many victims, or 
potential victims, of human trafficking ar e women, children and individuals belonging to 
ethnic and minority groups who ma y be subject to discrimination in their country of origin. 
Pull factor: illegal employment 
Another factor that encourages illegal immigration into the EU is the possibility of finding 
work. Within the EU, undeclared work is estim ated to account for between 7-16% of EU 
GDP, although this is of course only partly performed by ille gally residing third-country 
nationals or legal third-country  nationals working in breach  of their residence status. 
Avoidance of tax and administra tive burdens and the low awareness of sanctions constitute, 
according to a recent survey, two main drivers of undeclared work59. 
Illegally staying migrants work mostly in low-sk illed sectors such as c onstruction, agriculture, 
catering or cleaning and housekeeping services to  support themselves. Often they are hired for 
the so-called “3 D”- jobs (dir ty, dangerous and demanding work), which are rejected by the 
domestic labour force. Their wages are often below the official minimum and differ greatly.  
Despite progress reported in a number of Member States in these areas, there is wide scope 
for improvements in the diverse policy branches . A review of the national schemes show that 
the core problem is related to enforcement of the law rather than the absence of legal rules, as evidenced by the fact that the legislation in most EU Member States already provides 
penalties (ranging from public proc urement contracts, to limitations on future recruitment, to 
criminal sanctions, and to the obligation to bear  return costs) and preventive measures (e.g. 
imposing a burden on employers to  verify the immigration status  of third-country nationals 
before offering employment; obliging employees to be able to identify themselves in the work 
place). The risk of being detected by competent authorities is currently very low, both for the 
employer and for the employee. Yet, people who c onsider the risk to be small are more likely 
to be involved in undeclared work. Enforcement of the sanctions is impeded by the following shortcomings: lack of coordination between act ors responsible for combating illegal work 
(social security organisations, labour inspectorates and trade unions), insufficient human and 
financial resources allocated to  enforcement bodies, lack of information to undertake effective 
controls and lack of data to asse ss the outcome of the inspections.  
The insufficient international cooperation, and th e insufficient cross-border enforcement of 
sanctions, especially regarding non-criminal fines, are other main concerns, flowing from a 
growing cross-border business which is at the same time becoming more complex. This 
phenomenon also gives rise to abuses in the prov ision of services aimed at benefiting from a 
lower cost of work and social contributions. Of ten in connection with cr oss-border activities, 
new developments in the labour market (a gency work, sub-contracting, false self-
employment) have not always been taken into account through a legal framework and control 
bodies. A continuous updating of the information relating to illegal work  is all the more a 
concern as this phenomenon tends to become less transparent and more complex, as policies are toughening.  
                                                
 
59 Special Eurobarometer survey (N° 284) 
EN 27   EN As a result, undeclared work is not, at large, in the decline. It could even be on the rise in 
several Member States accord ing a recent study. Furthermore, the growing demand for 
household and care services coul d contribute to extending th e range of undeclared work. 
Pull factor: prospect of a regularisation (amnesties) 
A number of regularisation programmes have been launched recently, often of a large-scale. 
Besides a possible immediate decrease of illegal work, such decisions may trigger two effects: 
in the short term, a "spill-over" effect, namely the entry of regularised third-country nationals 
into the territory of other Member States as a consequence of the aboli tion of internal border 
controls within the Schengen area; and poten tially, a pull effect on  other third-country 
nationals in their countries of origin. 
2.4.2. Existing responses  
The development of a common policy to fight illegal immigration has been shaped by a 
number of Commission Communi cations, the last of which was presented in July 2006 
(Communication on Policy prioritie s in the fight against illegal immigration of third-country 
nationals).  
The EU strongly advocates a comprehensive polic y in this field. This includes, among other 
policy instruments, a common re turn policy. In line with this , Council Directive 2001/40/EC 
of 28 May 2001, on the mutual r ecognition of decisions on the expulsion of third country 
nationals has been adopted, with the aim of allowing the recognition of an expulsion decision 
issued by one Member State against a third-co untry national present within the territory of 
another Member State. Learning from the loop hole of these provisions, namely the lack of 
obligation on a Member State to recognise a re turn decision issued by another Member State 
and the lack of corresponding IT tools, next steps have been taken. In September 2005, the 
Commission presented a proposal for a Directive on common standards and procedures for 
returning illegally staying third- country nationals, which is due to be adopted in the course of 
2008. The objective of this proposal  is to provide for clear, transparent and fair common rules 
concerning return, removal, use of coercive me asures, temporary custody and re-entry, which 
comply with the fundamental freedoms of the pe rson. Contrary to the sy stem foreseen in the 
Directive, on the mutual recognition of expul sion decisions, the proposed return Directive 
therefore obliges Member States to systematically enforce return decisions vis-à-vis any illegally staying third-country national (the ille gally staying third-countr y national, subject to 
return from a Member State, will not be able  to abscond to another Member State), also 
provides the systematic issuing of an entry ban accompanying a return decision and allows for 
inclusion of this information in the Schengen In formation System (SIS) in order to enhance its 
effectiveness. The generalisation, at the Europ ean scale, of the effects of national return 
measures intends to have a preventive effect and foster credibility in a truly European return 
policy. 
These actions are accompanied by a system atic dialogue with th ird countries on the 
management of migration, and the conclusion of  Community readmission agreements, such as 
those in force with Hong Kong, Macau, Sri Lanka , Albania, Russia, Ukraine, Moldova and 
the Western Balkans countries. The December 2006 European Council explicitly requested to 
improve cooperation on return and readmissi on with third-countrie s and to step up 
negotiations on EC readmission ag reements. Cooperation in othe r areas focus on developing 
the use of biometric technologies to make trav el or identity documents more secure and the 
fighting of smuggling and trafficking of migrants . In this latter fiel d, besides international 
EN 28   EN instruments, a 2004 Directive defines the conditi ons for granting a residence permit to third-
country nationals who are victims of human trafficking, or who have been subject of an action 
to facilitate illegal im migration and who cooperate with th e authorities. The EU also adopted 
a Plan on best practices, standa rds and procedures for combati ng and preventing trafficking in 
human beings, adopted by the Council on 1 D ecember 2005, which proposes an array of 
measures aimed at the prevention of trafficking and protecting victims. Further to this Plan, 
the Commission services presented Recommenda tions on the identification and referral to 
services of victims of trafficking in human be ings, calling for the establishment of a national 
mechanism aimed at early identification and as sistance to victims. On 18 October 2007, an 
'Assessment Manual on Measuring responses to THB' was also presented by the Commission 
services in order to help Member States self-a ssess their anti-trafficking policy on the basis of 
comparable criteria.  
Other important measures concern social and eco nomic actors more directly, for example with 
respect to combating undeclared work and ca rriers’ liability. A Council Recommendation was 
adopted on 22 December 1995 with a view to  harmonising means of combating illegal 
immigration and illegal employment. Illegal work is also a part of a comprehensive policy led 
through the framework of the European Em ployment Strategy a nd the employment 
guidelines. The objective is to transform undeclar ed work into formal work, as announced in 
the Council Resolution of 20 October 2003, and to mix preventative measures and sanctions. 
A communication was presented on 20 October 2007 in order to step up the fight against 
undeclared work. In May 2007, the Commission presented a proposal for a Directive on 
sanctions for employers of illegal immigrants. The European Council, in June 2007, explicitly 
stated to be convinced that illegal employment is one main  pull factor driving illegal 
immigration. 
Other important initiatives include the establishment of the Rapid Border Intervention team 
(RABITs), further strengthening of the Bord ers Agency (FRONTEX) and examining the set-
up of a European Patrols Network and European Surveillance system for external borders. To 
support the EU's return policy, a European re turn fund started operating in 2008, on the basis 
of the principle of integrated  return management, and with a view to supporting a fair and 
effective implementation of common standards on return, as  established under Community 
legislation on returns. Its total budget reaches €676M. 
Addressing regularisation is also a priority, in order to both re move a pull factor and to avoid 
secondary movement of migrants within the EU. Following several regularisation 
programmes, many Member States have voice d their concern regarding the absence of 
coordination of such measures , whose action is discretionar y and taken by the concerned 
governments. In response to these concerns , a mutual information system on national 
measures in the area of migr ation and asylum was set up in  2007, pursuant to which, Member 
States must communicate inform ation on measures considered likely to have a significant 
impact on other Member States or on the Eur opean Union as a whole. A web-based network 
is a central element of the information mechan ism. However, this tool is not satisfactory. 
Although the Council Decision provides that th e communication of relevant information 
should take place at the latest  when the measures concerned become publicly available, and 
encourages Member States to transmit it as s oon as possible, Member States neglect to use 
this tool and the objective of mu tual cooperation is therefore not met. In addition, it should be 
noted that the Commission is conducting a st udy on regularisation programmes in Member 
States which shall serve as a basis for future discussions on this issue with the Member States, 
and which may lead to further initiatives in the coming years. 
EN 29   EN 2.4.3 Objectives  
The overarching objective is to pursue current policy aimed at tackling both push factors and 
pull factors of illegal immigration, which can  be further broken down into the following 
specific objectives: 
– stepping up the fight against the smuggling of migrants and trafficking in human beings, 
pursuing a human rights centred approach (w hich requires: amendments to the legal 
framework in order to improve the status of trafficked persons once they escape the 
traffickers and to adapt to new kinds of crimes ; prevention strategies specific to vulnerable 
groups such as women and children; impr ovement of the investigation of human 
trafficking, notably through bett er national and international cooperation; more effective 
implementation of international instruments through reinforced EU action at regional and 
international level) 
– continuing to combat illegal work (through: the adaptation of Comm unity legal framework 
to foresee common sanctions; a better enforc ement of sanctions, through adapted national 
human and financial resources and more effective national an d trans-national coordination; 
a more thorough knowledge of the phenomenon acr oss Member States, thanks to diverse 
instruments ranging from statistics, risk anal ysis tools, new kinds of fraud, comparative 
learning; development of incentives toward declared work) 
– establishment of an effective return policy (through: conclu sion of further EC readmission 
agreements and the creation of common standa rds reinforcing the effect of a national 
return decision (Direc tive); improved cooperation and coordination among Member States, 
including joint return operations; an intens ified partnership with third countries). 
These objectives are detailed in principles 9, 10 and 11. 
2.4.4. Subsidiarity principle  
Legal basis The legal basis for EU action is  to be found in Articles 62 and 63 of the EC Treaty and in 
Articles 77 and 79 of the Lisbon Treaty. 
Necessity for an EU intervention 
– illegally staying third-country nationals can move (including secondary movements) to the 
Member States that treat them most favourably , whatever efficient their external border 
control may be; this s ituation may among other negative cons equences entail distortions of 
competition within the single market;  
– coordinated operational actions are also need ed to fight efficiently against illegal 
immigration (e.g. networks of information); 
– trafficking in human being is often an tr ansnational crime and requires even more 
coordinated policies and measures. A stronge r common EU approach in respect of the 
different responses to be put in  place so better combat this crime and ensure protection of 
victims is also needed in order to traffickers not to take advantages of the different legal 
frameworks and to ensure that victim s are equally protec ted throughout the EU. 
EN 30   EN – the actions of individual Member States with regard to cooperation with third countries are 
not sufficient and may be contradictory; 
– burdens lie unevenly with Memb er States while fight agains t illegal immigration requires 
an homogenous reaction. 
EU added-value 
– EU as a block of 27 Member States is in a stronger position to negotiate with third 
countries than individual Member St ates, e.g. readmission agreements;  
– Coordinated operational actions (e.g. networks of  information; organisation of joint return 
flights) can be better achieved through actions at EU level;  
– An EU intervention allows reallocating res ources according to the need of the Member 
State through the Return and Border F und and to provide for a common framework 
preventing secondary movements and distortion of competition; 
– In a view to tackling the problem at the root , an EU action enables to send a clear message 
to third-country nationals designed to reduc e the impetus for them to leave their home 
countries for an illegal job in the EU. A simila r message can be sent to criminal networks 
engaged in trafficki ng of human beings. 
2.5. AN INSUFFICIENT PARTNERSHI P WITH THIRD COUNTRIES 
2.5.2. Definition of the problem  
In the last decades of the 20th century European Union has become a destination continent for 
immigrants from various parts of the world, but  especially from Africa, Asia and Eastern 
Europe. As presented by subse quent UN calculations, the volume of this migration has been 
growing and until early 2000s. Since the legal ga teways to Europe have been limited, illegal 
immigration grew in volume, r eaching over 1% of the total Eur opean population according to 
the OECD estimates. In 2006 alone Spain inte rcepted 45,000 undocumented immigrants at its 
sea borders (mostly coming from Africa). Even though migrants come to Europe from various 
parts of the world, the push factors dr iving their mobility are very similar. 
As is broadly acknowledged in literature60, economic reasoning underpins all decisions to 
migrate, however the process is complex and su sceptible to a number of additional factors. 
Three broad categories of push f actors can be identified: econo mic, cultural, and migration 
policy-related. 
People migrate to Europe in search of better livelihoods than those available at home. This 
concerns mainly people from the middle strata  of the society, who have enough financial 
capital and/or ski lls to undertak e the migration project. 61 Very often it is a family project, 
where one person goes abroad on the collective f unds. Later the migrant is expected to remit 
enough financial means to meet the needs of th e whole family. These migrants cannot find 
                                                 
60 See e.g. the groundbreaking article by Douglas S. Massey et al. (1993). "Theories of International 
Migration: A Review and Appraisal." Population and Development Review 19: 431-466. 
61 This group of migrants constitute the highest shar e of illegal flows to Europe. The main countries of 
origin are Morocco, Ukraine, Vietnam, Moldova, China, and Russian Federation, Serbia and 
Montenegro. 
EN 31   EN enough possibilities to develop a sustainabl e livelihood at home (as stable employment 
perspectives, investment in SMEs), for a w hole array of reasons. The most important push 
factors include weak and underperforming governan ce, bad business clim ate due to corruption 
and instability, disrupted labour markets. The inability of many governments to meet the 
Millennium Development Goals leaves little hope  for an immediate change in many countries, 
especially of sub-Saharan Africa.  
Another push factor of economic migration is related to the development of individual human 
capital. In the situation where the acquired skills  are not used, or canno t be used, in the home 
country, people will seek opportunities to apply and even improve them el sewhere. This is the 
case with researchers, physicians and other highly-skilled migrants, who often respond to 
legal offers of employment abroad as they ar e unable to perform thei r profession at home – 
mostly due to the lack of f acilities and limited funds. Underd evelopment of specific sectors 
requiring highly-skilled employees is a persiste nt problem in sub-Saharan Africa and Eastern 
Europe, but also in othe r regions of the world. 
The most extreme push factor for migration is  the loss of livelihood. It can occur due to 
natural disasters and conflicts. In these cases, the person faces an imminent life-threatening 
danger. Draughts, floods, aridity due to overuse  of fertilizers can drive people from their 
homes in hope of survival. Thes e factors concern all strata of society and usually do not result 
in immediate international migration, but could indirectly influence propensity to migrate. 
With climate change, the world will see more  environment-induced migration. It must be 
stressed that the relation between climate change and migration has not been thoroughly 
studied yet, however, according to available studies, for many people, especially in the poorest countries of the world, climate cha nge could significantly change their living 
conditions and eventually push them to migrat e. With the temperature rising by two degrees 
centigrade in the next few decades we could witness up to additional ten million people being affected each year by the coastal floods. With the rising sea levels, we might witness the 
disappearance of some island nations - extrem e examples are the Maldives and Tuvalu, 
which, according to the studies, could disappear in the next 40 years. Also the impact on agriculture might be es pecially significant – in Africa, the food production per capita has 
already decreased by 12% since 1981 for a va riety of environment-related reasons.  
There are several ongoing conflicts in th e world today, such as the Iraq war,
 62 conflict in 
Darfur, sudden upsurges of violence in Ke nya or Zimbabwe, which happen on various 
grounds, and each of them is a major push factor  for migration. They can produce hundreds of 
thousands of displaced persons. These tem porary refugees do not become long-term 
international migrants and tend to go back home when the conf lict is resolved. Long-lasting 
conflicts, as the ones in Palestine, Afghanista n, Chechnya, or Sri-Lanka also serve as a strong 
push factor. Internal political st ruggle, especially unde r authoritarian and to talitarian regimes 
such as in Myanmar, Tibet, and North Korea leads to persecution of individuals and groups, 
which then seek refuge from the imminent danger. Failure to intr oduce democratic rules 
creates a push factor persistent in  almost all regions of the world. 
The culture of migration, which can develop in the localities of  the long history of economic 
migration, is the social constr uction independent of the actual economic factors. The studies 
                                                 
62 Currently the Iraqis constitute the largest group of as ylum seekers in Europe – in 2007 over 18% of all 
applications were lodged by Iraqis. Other top countries include Russian Federation, Serbia and 
Montenegro, Pakistan, Turkey, Afghanistan, Somalia, Iran, China, Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of 
the Congo, and Bangladesh. 
EN 32   EN of some regions in Eastern Europe (especia lly Moldova and Ukraine), North Africa (Egypt), 
Sub-Saharan Africa (Ghana), Asia (provinces of China), and Latin America (Mexico) often 
enumerate culture as one reason to migrate. For many localities international migration has 
become the easiest and the most natural way to  earn livelihood. This is the direct result of 
strong migration networks linki ng distant localities  and facilitating ex changes. People can 
acculturate to migration patterns as an economic strategy and tend to replicate it with the help 
of the international network – of ten the only network they have. Moreover, the social pressure 
to migrate and prove oneself (especially for me n) is sometimes stronger than actual economic 
need. In some cases, especially  in Eastern Europe, migration can be seen as a method for 
emancipation of women.  
Push factors can also be produ ced by a conscious migration po licy of the source country. The 
examples of India and Philippines provide str ong evidence that a source country can induce 
emigration by providing a range of incentives for emigrants. When emigration is a stable 
element of development policy, push factors will persist. Of course, these policy-encouraged 
flows are usually limited to a given sector (nurses, doctors, IT specialists) and are 
predominantly legal, thus their pressure on the EU is not uncontrollable. 
The above factors build up to a significant migratory pressure on Europe, which is unlikely to 
cease in the foreseeable future. Emigration pr essures will remain high in countries which 
continue to suffer from political  instability, lack of  good governance and the rule of law, lack 
of employment and income opportunities, and hi gh levels of corruption and crime as well as 
human rights violations. Political, social a nd economic aspects are often overlapping and 
intertwined, which requires a pr ocess of dialogue and awarene ss raising in cl ose cooperation 
with the governments in some third countries. The at tenuation of the root- causes of migration 
is thus an important element of the Global A pproach, which should be developed. The partner 
countries should thus be supported in their effo rts to limit emigration and strengthen capacity 
to reap benefits from migration and deve lopment agenda. The added value of closer 
cooperation through partnership lies in the increa sed joint abilities to monitor, assess, steer 
and manage migration flows in the interest of th e European Union, as well as in the in terest of 
the partner countries.  
2.5.2 Current responses  
In the late 1990s, the EU response focused on bo rder management and the fight against illegal 
immigration, thereby addressing only the end-pr oduct of the complex migratory process. The 
Global Approach went beyond this to address the root causes of migration. The Global Approach to Migration, launched in 2005, and refined in 2006, ai ms to formulate 
comprehensive and coherent policies that addres s a broad range of migration-related issues, 
bringing together justice and home  affairs, development and external relations in an effort to 
enhance dialogue and cooperation on migration in partnership. This broader strategy draws 
together all relevant aspects, including asyl um, border control, visa policy, readmission and 
return, migration and development, and measur es against trafficking and smuggling of human 
beings. In addition, streamlined financial inst ruments such as the Thematic Programme on 
Migration and Asylum (successor of AENEAS programme), have been reserved in order to 
put the objectives into  practice and operational results.  Much of this support has been 
focusing on institutional capacity building in  partner countries, as well as adding a 
Community dimension to Member State financin g of migration manageme nt of relevance to 
the external relations.  
EN 33   EN In the first phase, the Global Approach was ma inly focusing on cooperation with countries in 
the Southern Mediterranean and sub-Saharan Af rica. Subsequently, it was also extended to 
cover the regions to the East and South Ea st of the Union as well as parts of Asia63.  
A broad tool box has been developed within the framework of the Global Approach to 
Migration, including the concepts of mobility partnerships, circular migration, migration 
profiles, migratory routes and cooperation platforms64. In the particular context of the 
migration and development nexus, measures  and financing have  focused on making 
remittances more efficient for development; facilitating the voluntary contribution of members of the diaspora to development of th eir former home countries; and mitigating brain 
drain and brain waste. 
Specific political progress has been achieve d in placing the Global Approach on the 
international policy agenda. Two main exampl es are the ministerial conferences during 2006 
in Rabat, focusing on regional migration, and in Tripoli, whic h was the first all-African and 
all EU ministerial dedicated to migration. Fo llow-up work of these mi nisterials, including 
through their related Action Plans, have translat ed into an ambitious range of measures and 
initiatives. Related work includes migration information centres and the establishment of a 
remittance institute as well as migration obs ervatories in migrant source countries.
65  
2.5.3. Objectives  
In line with the Global Approach, the overa ll objective consists of consolidating and 
deepening partnerships with th ird countries in order to improve positive consequences of 
migration for both countries of origin and count ries of destination, including: fostering 
circular migration and brain ci rculation (through broad strate gies addressing the general 
conditions in source countries; recognition of a prio rity for the migrant's further residences in 
Europe; ethical recruitments; so cial security agreements allo wing exports of pensions; fight 
against brain waste); improving the manageme nt of remittances; enhancing the voluntary 
contribution of diasporas; better supporting volun tary returns and econo mic reintegration of 
migrants; focussing on the matching betw een labour supply and demand; addressing 
employment and decent work in developing countries; further developing policies to fight illegal immigration 
These objectives will be met through: – a better implementation of current instru ments (which require s in turn: a better 
coordination; increased or more  efficient use of human and fi nancial resources; more joint 
activities); 
                                                
 
63 See COM(2007)247 final "Applying the Global Approach to Migration to the Eastern and South-
Eastern Regions Neighbouring the European Union" 
64 In particular, see COM(2007)248 final "On circular  migration and mobility partnerships between the 
European Union and third countries" 
65 By the end of 2007, the first Eu ro-Mediterranean Ministerial meeti ng on Migration in November, and 
the Partnership on migration, mobility and employment, in the framework of the First Action Plan of 
the Joint Africa/EU Strategy, adopted at the Afri ca-EU Summit in December, marked other major 
policy developments that will need to be continued in  terms of operational measures with some funding 
implications. A second EU-African Ministerial Conference on Migration and Development is scheduled 
to be held in Paris in October 2008 and will lead to further implementation requirements. 
EN 34   EN – a further integration of migration policy in to the Union's development cooperation and 
other external policies; 
– a transformation of the geographic meaning of  the approach, gradually shifting from a 
region-based perspective to a c ountry-by-country perspective. 
These objectives are mainly reflected in principle 6. 
2.5.4. Subsidiarity principle  
Legal basis The legal basis for EU action is to  be found in Article 63 of the EC  Treaty and in Article 79 of 
the Lisbon Treaty. 
Necessity for an EU intervention 
– the actions of individual Member States with regard to cooperation with third countries are 
not sufficient and may be contradictory; 
– individual Member States are not empowered  to negotiate the clause covering the 
readmission of third country nationals (i.e. natio nals of other countries than the EC and the 
country signing the Agreement) and stateless persons; 
– individual Member States will  face difficulties to expel thir d country nationals illegally 
residing in their territories if these persons have not entered the EU  through these Member 
States, which occur frequently given the absenc e of internal frontiers and easy circulation 
of third country nationals between the Member States; 
– the process of monitoring the application of a readmission agreement is difficult in absence 
of coordinated action at EU level; 
EU added-value 
The Community as a whole has mo re weight when dealing with  particular third countries, 
which normally results in a better negotia ted outcome. The process of monitoring the 
application of a readmission agre ement is also more efficient due  to the fact that all (24-26 – 
depending on the position of the UK and Irela nd) Member States are represented by the 
Commission in the contacts with particular thir d country. Thanks to this, the EC provides the 
third country with a clear and c oherent line on particular proble ms, which facilitates often the 
process of their solution. 
2.6. INSUFFICIENT ADAPTATION OF BORDER MANAGEMENT AND VISA 
POLICY TO THE NEEDS OF A GLOBALIZED WORLD  
2.6.1. Definition of the problem
 
The passenger flows at the external borders of  the European Union have been growing and 
will continue to increase in the future. There are around 300 million EU27 annual external 
EN 35   EN border crossings66 at designated border crossing points. It  is estimated that 160 million of 
these border crossings are made by EU citizens, 60 million67 by third-country nationals not 
requiring a visa and 80 million by third-country nationals requiring visas. Taking into account 
the forecasts for international travel  and its development in the mid-term68, the current 
infrastructure at border crossing points, in part icular at the airports, will face even greater 
challenges when dealing with the gr owing numbers than they do today.  
Given that border controls are a key component in  the fight against illegal immigration and in 
countering cross-border crime su ch as terrorism, trafficking in human beings, drug smuggling, 
smuggling of weapons, etc., it is indispensable to  the EU to ensure an efficient and extensive 
border control. At the same time, most of th e passengers do not pose any threat to security 
and should be able to cross bo rders in a streamlined manner, whilst ensuring the external 
border crossing is not to o burdensome for them. 
An insufficient contribution to th e fight against ille gal immigration 
Efficient, extensive and effective border cont rol makes a significant co ntribution to the level 
of security in the Member States.  
In the light of the current situation, two areas are of particular importance to ensure the 
efficiency of borders controls: identification of  overstayers and strengt hening of surveillance 
at borders. 
Border controls do not cope efficiently at  the present time w ith the phenomenon of 
"overstaying". According recent data there were  up to eight million illegal immigrants within 
the EU in 2006, over half of which entered the EU legally but became illegal or irregular due 
to exceeding their right to stay. This finding underlines the importance of the border check 
and suggests that entry and exit dates be record ed and related to an alert system when the 
third-country nationals overstays. Indeed, it is  today very difficult to identify those third-
country nationals who have overstayed their visa or visa free period. In  theory, it should be 
possible to calculate th e time a third-country national has sp ent in the area of the Member 
States upon reading the stamps on the passport. However, they may be illegible or the target 
of counterfeiting. In addition, there is no record of the time spent in the Schengen area for third-country nationals. Due to these reasons, at  the moment there is at the border crossing 
point no easy, manageable and reliable means of  determining if a thir d-country national has 
overstayed their right to stay, no consistent record of entries and exits of travellers from the 
Schengen area, (which could help to improve border management) security and planning and 
no possibility to gather information on overstayers. 
Another shortcoming in the border controls are th e few parts of the borders that are subject to 
surveillance. For the time being, owing to technical and financ ial limitations, national border 
                                                
 
66 IA SEC(2008)153. The figure was calculated by adding the number of trips of EU residents outside 
EU27 with the number of third-country nationals travelling to EU27.  
67 The figure was calculated on the numbers of trips made into Europe by the most important countries. 
68 http://tinet.ita.doc.gov/view/f-200 0-99-001/index.html. In 2006, the United States hosted 51 million 
international visitors, a 4 percent increase from 2005. The arrivals forecast for 2007-2011 predicts that 
by 2011, international arrivals will reach 61 million, an increase of 20 percent between 2006 and 2011. 
Forecasts are derived from Global Insight, Inc. ec onometric travel forecas ting model and are based on 
key economic and demographic variables as well as DOC consultation on non-ec onomic travel factors. 
The rates of the United States are used, because th ere does not exist comprehensive estimations from 
Europe. 
EN 36   EN surveillance systems are covering (with permanen t and mobile surveillance means) only a few 
selected parts of the EU extern al borders. This situ ation is not satisfact ory, since as soon as 
border controls in one area have been reinforc ed, or one illegal immi gration route has been 
closed down, the smuggling networks use other methods and techniques or re-route their 
operations, and so the transfer of the migrator y pressure to other Member States or third 
country not prepared to face them69.  
Consequently, the surveying of the entire length of  the Union's external borders is not ensured 
so far, especially concerning the southern ma ritime and eastern land external borders.  
Too cumbersome procedures for bona fide travellers 
Most of the passengers are so called bona fide travellers and are granted entry in compliance 
with the existing Regulations and rules. Yet, current integrated border management does not 
allow the distinguishing of them from other pa ssengers, and to decrease the intensity of the 
check. Crossing the external border is there by not enough simple for bona fide travellers, 
which are subject to time-cons uming, burdensome and costly ch ecks at borders (entry and 
exit).  
Several Member States have developed pilot programmes and projects at various airports 
throughout the EU70, however, the different national Regi stered Traveller schemes are not 
interoperable across EU Member States, in absence of common standards and guidelines.  
The concept of an integrated border management  refers to an array of measures regarding 
third country nationals. While the Commission has taken forward important initiatives 
towards a greater degree of harmonisation of the common visa policy th rough the proposal for 
a visa code, the approach of national visas gi ving access to the entire Schengen territory do 
not allow for fully equal treatment of all applic ants, nor a fully harmonised application of the 
criteria for security checks. National visas contin ue also to pose problems in individual cases, 
in regard to which Member State is competen t for dealing with the application, depending on 
the main Member State of destination or entry into the Schengen territory . 
Moreover, in a number of countries applicants ma y have to travel long distances in order to 
reach a consulate of a Member State. Not all Me mber States are represented in all countries 
meaning that sometimes applicants may have to tr avel to another third c ountry just to be able 
to submit their application.  
2.6.2. Existing responses  
Since 1999, a number of common measures have been  adopted to manage the external borders 
of the European Union in accordance with Ar ticle 62 (1) and (2) of the EC Treaty. In 
particular, four Regulations have been adopted: 
                                                 
69 For instance, in 2006, after tightened border control measures in Ceuta and Melilla as well as in 
Morocco, migration flows have partly shifted to Italy, mainly to Lampedusa, but also to Malta. In 
parallel, Sub-Saharan nationals and traffickers have found a new route leading to the Canary Islands. 
70 For example, in the UK at Heathrow, Gatwick, a nd Birmingham airports; in the Netherlands at Schiphol 
airport; in France at Charles De Gaulle airport; in Germany at Frankfurt airport; in Portugal at Lisbon 
airport. 
EN 37   EN – Council Regulation (EC) No 2007/2004 esta blishing a European Agency for the 
Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of 
the European Union (Frontex). 
– The European Parliament and the Council Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 establishing a 
Community Code on the rules governing th e movement of persons across borders 
(Schengen Borders Code). 
– The European Parliament and the Counc il Regulation (EC) No 1931/2006 laying down 
rules on local border traffic at the external bor ders of the Member States and amending the 
provisions of the Schengen Convention. 
– The European Parliament and the Council Regulation (EC) No 863/2007 establishing a 
mechanism for the creation of Rapid Bord er Intervention Teams and amending Council 
Regulation (EC) No 2007/2004 as regards that mechanism and regulating the tasks and 
powers of guest officers. 
There are also several other Regulat ions that are particularly rele vant in this field, notably the 
European Parliament and the Council Regulation (EC) on the Visa Information System (VIS) 
and the exchange of data between Member States on short stay-visas.  
In addition, the Commission Recommendation establishing a common Practical Handbook for 
Border Guards was adopted on 6 November  2006. As regards visas facilitations, the 
Commission has presented a proposal to provid e a legal framework for common application 
centres allowing Member States to  cooperate more closely, with a view to ensuring presence 
in all third countries. It has also sought to support pilot proj ects to this effect , the take up of 
which has however been limited so far.  
The external borders fund (EBF) was set in place on 23 May 2007, which, on the basis of the 
principle of solidarity, supports Member States with specific requirements for checks and 
surveillance of long or difficult stretches of ex ternal borders, and Memb er States confronted 
with special and unforeseen circumstances due  to exceptional migratory pressures on their 
external borders. The EBF is operational already 2007 and it wi ll apply for the financial 
period 2007-2013 with €1.82 billions. 
Addressing at the first the outcomes with respec t to operational coopera tion at the external 
borders, it should be noted that FRONTEX has faced high expectations from EU institutions, 
Member States and the public at large to ta ke forward operational c oordination to counter 
illegal immigration, in particular for the coor dination of operations at  the southern maritime 
borders. During the years 2006 and 2007 FRONTEX  has conducted 33 joint operations and 
10 pilot projects. However, this increase in FR ONTEX powers is not sufficient to meet the 
challenges posed. Because of their short term duration, operations conducted in high risk areas in 2006 and 2007 were not able to ensure effective border controls and surveillance 
which implies a permanent nature of the joint op erations at specific hi gh-risk areas. Moreover, 
whereas one of the tasks of FRONTEX is to pr ovide the necessary assistance for organising 
joint return operations of Member States, the Agency has only been involved in the 
organisation of nine joint return operations, co ncerning 361 returnees. With respect to risk 
analysis, which is central in th e fighting against illegal immigr ation, the level of cooperation 
with other law enforcement agencies such as Eu ropol, Interpol and relevant counterparts in 
third countries is lagging behind. So far only a si ngle joint risk analysis  has been carried out 
with Europol. Finally, cooperation with third co untries, which constitutes a key component of 
EN 38   EN the integrated border management model cont ributing to the successful implementation of 
joint operations, enhancing the added value of  risk analysis, and supporting capacity building 
in third countries, yielded modest results. To date, this cooperation has translated into only 
three working arrangements. 
Drawing on these shortcomings, and in a broa der response to the challenges posed by 21st 
Century travel and movement of  people, three Communications have been put forward by the 
Commission the 13 February 200871, aiming at the reinforcement of all dimensions of 
efficient and managed entry into the territory of  the European Union. Th ey include facilitating 
border surveillance, reinforci ng the operational coordination between Member States through 
FRONTEX, launching a discussion on an entry-exit system to facilitate better oversight of persons entering/exiting the Sc hengen space, and on a Register ed Traveller Programme for 
quick and easy travel for frequent travellers from third countries who satisfy a pre-screening 
assessment. 
2.6.3. Objectives 
 
The overall objectives are to reinforce all dimens ions of border controls and at the same time 
to facilitate and harmonize control checks a nd visa procedures for certain categories of 
travellers, as described in the border package of 13 February 2008. 
These general objectives translate into the following specific objectives: – establishing a European border surveillance system (through improvement in cooperation 
between Member States and use of new technologies); 
– reinforcing the Frontex Agency; 
– analysing the feasibility of an entry-exit system allowing for the identification of 
overstayers; 
– enhancing cooperation with third countries, in particular located  on the southern shores of 
the Mediterranean Sea, in terms of det ection, apprehension, reception and further 
processing and readmission of migrants; 
– preparing the setting up of comm on application visa centres a nd issuing of truly European 
short-stay visas, guaranteeing equal treatment of all visa applicants  and easier access; 
– analysing the feasibility of a re gistered traveller programme to  facilitate border checks for 
certain frequent travellers (pre-screening; automated checks); 
These objectives correspond to principles 7 and 8. 
2.6.4. Subsidiarity principle
 
Legal basis The legal basis for EU action is to  be found in Article 62 of the EC  Treaty and in Article 77 of 
the Lisbon Treaty. 
                                                
 
71 COM(2008)67 final Report on the evaluation and future development of the Frontex Agency; 
COM(2008)68 final Examining the creation for a Eu ropean Border Surveillance System (EUROSUR); 
COM(2008)69 final Preparing the next steps in border management in the European Union 
EN 39   EN Necessity for an EU intervention 
– Isolated Member States are not ab le to fight against overstaying; 
– As it is not tolerable that some Member Stat es do not comply with their obligations and 
given that the control of the 6.000 km of land border and about 85.000 km of coastline lie unevenly with Member States, financial so lidarity mechanisms, resources and human 
pooling are necessary; 
– National visas approach does not allow for fully  equal treatment of all applicants nor a 
fully harmonised application of the criteria for security chec ks; national consulates are not 
regularly established across third countries;  
EU added value 
Effective border control can be better achieved through a coordinated action at EU level. The 
EU is also in a better positi on to initiate the establishm ent of common centres allowing 
economies for Member States and improving the quality of servic e provided to third-country 
nationals, as well as to establish common rules with  respect to visas giving access to the entire 
Schengen territory. 
2.7. UNSATISFACTORY GOVERNANCE OF MIGRATION 
Asylum and immigration measures taken by one Member State are more than likely to have 
an impact (both direct and indirect on other Member States, this is a consequence of the 
absence of border checks in the Schengen area, the common visa policy, the tight economic and social relations between EU Member States  and the development of common immigration 
and asylum policies since the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam. For instance, a 
very restrictive migratory policy in one Member  State may redirect migration flows into a 
neighbouring Member State, whereas a regul arisation procedure may attract illegal 
immigration into one Member State, from which regularised (= legally staying) migrants could afterwards more easily move to othe r Member States. Other national asylum and 
immigration measures, including, among othe rs, changes in procedures for granting 
international protection, determination of safe countries of origin, ad mission programmes for 
third-country nationals (including quotas), and integra tion measures may also have an impact 
on other Member States or on the Community as a whole. 
A parallel and harmonious development of na tional and Community asylum and immigration 
policies is therefore needed. This conclusion happens to converge with  the will expressed by 
EU citizens: according to a recent Eurobarometer poll of November 2007, one third of European citizens want immigr ation-related issues to be  emphasized at EU level. 
Yet, a number of constraints have hindered su ch a development, relating to the policy-making 
process, lack of coordination, insuffi cient solidarity and mainstreaming.  
Difficulty in decision-making and lack of public debate 
Regarding legal migration, the unanimity rule  in the Council has slowed down, or even 
blocked, the adoption of some proposals. This is the case for the 2001 Proposal for a Council 
Directive on the conditions of entry and reside nce of third-country nationals for the purpose 
of paid employment and self-employed economic activities
 which did not receive the 
necessary support from the Council.  With respect to integrati on, the absence of clear legal 
EN 40   EN basis was a significant handicap for the Community which can only act as a driver for the 
exchange of information and good practice in or der to be acceptable to all Member States. 
This is, for instance, the case regarding the Directive on family reunification, which leaves much room for national discretionary power regarding the conditions of admission or the 
rights granted to family members. 
Moreover, the European Parliament's limited role  has confined the range of public debate and 
this tendency has been worsened by the insufficient involvement of social partners in Title IV TEC policies, although they are recognised by the Treaty in a specific role, based on their 
capacity to provide input to po licy-making in the social field, and to take own action in the 
areas of employment and working conditions, wh ich may have an impact on migrant workers 
and their families. 
Insufficient coordination between Member States 
Due to the interplays between Member States migration situations, exchange of information 
between Member States and the Commissi on on important new measures taken by all 
Member States is necessary, to prevent the deve lopment of divergent, and even contradictory, 
national policies. Yet, the mutual information mechanism
72 set out in 2006 and aimed at 
facilitating the exchange of different types of  information between Member States, in the 
areas of asylum and immigration, has not me t expectations, owing to a lack of political 
support and practical use by Member States.  
Establishment of common definitions, statistica l standards and guidelines  are also needed to 
allow the exchange of information between Member States and to improve practical 
cooperation. However, harmonised and comparab le Community statisti cs on migration and 
asylum on the basis of the new 2007 statistics regulation will not be available before 2010.73 
Need for an increased solidarity 
The financial burden arising from the introduc tion of an integrated  management of the 
Union’s external borders and from the impl ementation of common policies on asylum and 
immigration is uneven from one Member State to another, according to their geographical, 
historical and economic position. A fair share of  responsibilities between Member States is 
therefore needed to achieve an even implementation across Europe and to avoid inconsistencies. 
In summer 2007, the Framework Programme on Solidarity and Management of Migration 
Flows has been adopted. The main objective of this  new financial instrument is to address the 
issue of a fair share of responsibilities betw een Member States in the introduction of 
integrated management of the external borders of the Member States of the European Union 
and from the implementation of common polic ies on asylum and immigration. It provides 
financial support to Member States  in proportion to the efforts they undertake for the benefit 
of the Community as a whole. The Framew ork Programme consists of four specific 
instruments, namely: the Eur opean Refugee Fund, th e External Borders Fund, the European 
                                                
 
72 Council Decision of 5 October 2006 (2006/688/EC) 
73 Following a series of "gentlemen's agreements", Regulation (EC) No 862/2007 of the European 
Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on  Community statistics on migration and international 
protection has been adopted with a view to ensure, in a uniform manner, regular, timely and rapid 
delivery and dissemination of harmonised data. 
EN 41   EN Fund for the Integration of Third-country na tionals and the European Return Fund. The 
overall amount foreseen for the Framework Programme on solidarity and management of 
migration flows is €4,020.37 million for the period 2007-2013. 
The allocation of financial resources to Member States within each Fund is based on specific 
and objective criteria, which reflect the curren t and forthcoming situation of the Member 
State, with regard to the obliga tions undertaken on behalf of, or for, the overall benefit of the 
Community for the policy area c oncerned. For this purpose, the in struments foresee the use of 
Community statistics, and where these are not available, national statistics, in compliance 
with the new regulation on migration statistics. Provisions have been ma de, not only to avoid 
any kind of duplication between Funds, but also  to ensure the development of synergies 
wherever possible74. The same provisions have been defi ned for the operation of the four 
instruments: multiannual strategic programming  cycles (with two pe riods defined as 2007-
2010 and 2011-2013) on the basis of guidelines  communicated by the Commission, annual 
allocation of resources and operation al programming, multiannual evaluations. 
In light of this first period of implementa tion, and considering previous comments on the 
difficulty to obtain reliable a nd homogenized statis tical data, the relevance of the total 
appropriations of this recent Pr ogramme, as well as the distribution key to the Member States, 
will have to be assessed and possi bly be subject to modifications. 
Need for an enhanced mainstreaming  
Since it is a cross-cutting policy, migration shou ld aim to become an integral part of policy 
making and implementation across a wide range of EU policies. In fact, mainstreaming 
migration into other policies is indeed al ready a concern and a reality in EU policy75. 
This comprehensive approach of migration issu es must be pursued an d further explored. An 
example can be made with respect to links between employment an d migration policies. 
Indeed, synergies have been insufficiently develo ped (both at EU and na tional level) to date, 
this must change in order to ensure, as far as possible, complementarities between migrants 
and labour markets, and accordingly reap full gains of migration. Due to this lack of linkage 
between employment and migration policies, the employment potential of new-comers, when 
admitted on family or asylum grounds, is in ma ny cases not used and valorised as it could.  
Need for a better evaluation 
As recognized by The Hague Programme (2004)1, “evaluation of the implementation as well 
as of the effects of all measures is, in the European Council's opinion, essential to the effectiveness of Union action”
76.  
Existing monitoring and evaluation mechanisms ar e indeed too fragmented and need to be 
merged into one coherent and comprehensiv e mechanism for evalua tion of EU policies on 
freedom, security and justice. For instance, unlik e the legal migration in struments, none of the 
existing directives in the area of illegal immigration provides for systematic reporting with 
                                                 
74 Particular attention has thereby been given to the issue of complementarity and synergy of actions 
between the Integration Fund and the European So cial Fund (ESF), both in the definition of the 
objectives of the Integration Fund and in its implementation 
75 See, regarding the specific area of  integration, the Third Annual Report on Migration and Integration, 
COM(2007)512 final 
76 Annex 1 to the Presidency Conclusions of the Brussels European Council, November 2004 
EN 42   EN regard to its applicat ion in practice. According to the Action Plan, implementing The Hague 
Programme, a Communication was presented w ith a view to developing an evaluation 
mechanism at EU level77. This mechanism encompasses bot h monitoring implementation, 
which consists of reviewing progress on carryi ng out policies, and eval uation of the results, 
defined as “ judgement of interventions (pub lic actions) according to their  results, impacts and 
the needs they aim to satisfy ”78. This proposal seeks to remedy the current lack of evaluation 
culture and overall evaluation mechanisms, which notably translate into insufficient consultation of the diverse stakeholders, insufficien t availability of statistics, analysis ability 
as well as absence of indicators, and is intende d to allow a comprehensive assessment of the 
results achieved on freedom, security and justice, from a quantitative and qualitative perspective, while contributi ng to the general EU objectives of transparency and better 
regulation. A three-step progressive mech anism is proposed in the aforementioned 
Communication, building on information and subj ect to consultation, then to a reporting 
mechanism and an in-depth evaluation. This information is underpinned by overall policy 
objectives and a set of indicators. It should also be specified that the Open Method of 
Coordination provides a framework for the mon itoring and evaluation of social inclusion 
policies. In the cont ext of the 2008-2010 polic y cycle Member States have agreed to 
mainstream the social aspects of migration in all their activities, including specific monitoring 
on the social situation of migrants. This mon itoring and evaluation framework is going to be 
reinforced in the context of the forthcom ing communication on stre ngthening the OMC.  
Finally, it is worth noting that, with more a nd more legal instruments in the area of 
immigration being adopted and entering into fo rce, monitoring their transposition by the 27 
Member States is becoming more and more  challenging, especially for the European 
Commission. Reinforcing the human resources allocated  to this task is a necessity, in order to 
ensure that, also in this policy area, the Commissi on will continue to live  up to its institutional 
role as the “Guardian of the Treaty”. Howeve r, outsourcing of at least the factual data 
collection parts may prove to be a resource saving complementary action, while bearing in 
mind that the legal and political assessment of the transposition situation in Member States 
will always remain the exclusive responsibility of the Commission, which cannot be transferred to any other body or entity
79. Moreover it is important to recall that also 
"outsourcing" is not for free and would require at  least some additional resources in order to 
follow the external work and to manage the contractual procedures underlying this work. 
3. WHAT  ARE  THE  MAIN  POLITICAL  ORIENTATIONS  AND  OBJECTIVES?  
(EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM ) 
Based on the needs and problems analysis outlin ed in Section II, and on the EC legal and 
political framework in the immigration and borde rs policy area, a series of objectives for the 
further development of the common policy sha ll be set out. Such objectives must respond to 
the overarching global objective of further developing a comprehensive European 
                                                 
77 Communication form the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament, 28 June 2006, 
(2006)332 final, Evaluation of EU Policies on Freedom, Security and Justice  
78 SEC(2000) 1051 
79 The possibilities offered by outsourcing were first test ed in 2007 when a contract was signed with an 
external contractor to do a first substantive conf ormity checking of measures of transposition with 
respect to 10 directives from the immigration and asylum field. This study, which was released at the 
beginning of 2008, will allow an in-depth monitoring  of the current immigration and asylum legislation 
adopted in Member States, facilitate the drafting of application reports and possible infringement 
procedures. Further studies of this kind will have to follow in the future. 
EN 43   EN immigration policy, as clearly requested by th e European Council on several occasions, 
notably in its conclusions of December 2007. In the latter, it was stated that " Further 
developing a comprehensive European migra tion policy complementing Member States' 
policies remains a fundamental priority in order to meet the challenges and harness the 
opportunities which migration represents in  a new era of globalisation. The European 
Council accordingly underlines the n eed for a renewed political commitment "80. They must 
be funded on the clearly recognised fact that " The European migration policy builds on the 
conclusions of the Tampere European C ouncil in 1999, The Hague Programme of 2004 and 
the Global Approach to Migration adopted in 2005. It is  based on the solidar ity, mutual trust 
and shared responsibility of th e European Union and its Member States. It is also based on 
respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms  of migrants, the Geneva Convention and 
due access to asylum procedures. It requires a genuine partnership with third countries and 
must be fully integrated into the Union's external policies "81. 
Against this background, it is clear that  European Council alrea dy decided on a number of 
objectives and policy options with regard to  the further development of the Common EU 
immigration policy. Indeed, with tw o exceptions, all of the objectives – or principles – of this 
policy have already been fixed at the highest political level, starting from the Tampere 
Conclusions of 1999. The only obj ectives not yet considered by the Council or European 
Council relate to th e issue of regulari zation, and the active involveme nt of social partners and 
regional and local authorities. These two objective s have also been translated into principles 
in order to address all probl ems described in section 2.  
These objectives have been compiled and summari sed below in eleven principles which aim 
at covering all aspects of Immigr ation (as demonstrated in annex I)82 . Each of these 
principles shall be translated in concrete policy options and operational measures, which 
should constitute the contribution from the Co mmission's side to the major policy debate 
which shall take place in 2009 in order to define what shall be  the specific contents of the 
successor of The Hague Programme (2009-2014) in the field of immigration. These concrete 
policy options and measures shal l therefore be assessed more in detail in the coming years, 
including by analysing their concrete impact  on human and financial recourses and whether 
they can and should be put in place by mean s of EU action, or whether they fall under 
Member States' competence.  
Principle 1 – Clear rules  
Owing notably to demographic, economic and pol itical factors, migr ation flows are not 
expected to decline over the coming years. Bu ilding on that certainty, migration should be 
managed in the interest of all interested parties, host societie s, sending countries and third-
country nationals.  
Drawing up clear and transparent rules is a pre-re quisite for the definition of an efficient and 
effective migration policy. This could be done  in several ways. Firstly, migrants should 
decide to head for Europe on the basis of re alistic prospects and securely-founded hopes. As 
already called for in the Tampere conclusions , they should be provided with objective and 
clear information on the diverse existing legal ch annels to be admitted in Europe, however, to 
                                                 
80 Presidency Conclusions of the European Council of 14 December 2007, paragraph 16.  
81 Presidency Conclusions of the European Council of 14-15 December 2006, paragraph 22. 
82 These 11 principles have been merged into 10 principles in the Communication on a Common 
Immigration Policy for Europe 
EN 44   EN date, existing channels of information (family  network, smugglers) are biased towards more 
rosy and unrealistic interpretations. Moreover, they should be aware that these legal possibilities are all-comprehensiv e and that illegal immigration is not an alternative to the 
legal pathway. Setting up clear and transparent ru les for entry and residence also means that 
(potential) immigrants and applicants for lega l immigration should be made fully aware of 
their rights when they will become legal resident s, and which rules they have to comply with 
if they intend to remain in the EU. The la tter information should not only cover residence 
conditions, rules under which th e residence permit may be wit hdrawn or not renewed, appeal 
rights and procedures, but also ex plain the realities of life in the EU, the need to respect the 
basic values of the European Union, such as  rule of law, equality, antidiscrimination, 
solidarity, openness, partic ipation and tolerance. 
Information is a necessary, but not a sufficient, measure. As much as possible, migrants shall 
also be provided with concrete and realistic  possibilities to fulfil the requirements enabling 
them to be issued with a visa and a residen ce permit, for instance th rough linguistic courses 
when linguistic skills are required as pre-requis ite for entry. This is particularly important 
when it comes to exercising the right to family reunification. 
The objective of better integration will also follow from an enlarged set of rights. To the 
extent possible, third-country na tionals should benefit from the same rights as an EU citizens, 
as called for in the Tampere European Counc il conclusions of 15- 16 October 1999. Besides 
the direct impact on the economic ability of migrants, these measures would be an important 
signal that the host society rec ognises the positive contribution of  third-country nationals to 
the European economy and its societies. From the host societies' pers pective, a pedagogical 
exercise is also crucial. Re jection of migrants is often fuelled by ignorance and phantasms. 
Raising awareness of the diverse contributions from migrants to European societies will pave the way to a better acceptance by the receivi ng societies and consequently to a better 
integration of the foreign nationals. 
Principle 2 – Economic migration 
 
Against the background of a d ecreasing working age population in Europe and forthcoming 
growing labour shortages, migration is one of  the possible solutions aimed at compensating 
adverse demographic tendencies. Beyond th e demographic and economic challenges, 
migration policy, actively involving social part ners, must strike the balance between the 
interests of third-country nationals, sending co untries and host societies and endeavours to 
meet short-term needs, while anticipating long-term impacts.  
This policy therefore accompanies employment  and educational policies seeking to reduce 
unemployment of national citizens and third-count ry nationals already legally residing in the 
EU, notably through raising of th e level of educati onal attainment, granting further economic 
rights, including training and e ducation, as soon as possible, as  suggested in the proposal for a 
framework Directive, making best use of the atta inment of third-country nationals thanks to a 
better recognition of qualifications and reducing the attractiveness of illegal work. The contributions of the foreign-born entrepreneur s to the European economy should be better 
assessed, and encouraged through a removal of the obstacles they may encounter. Fighting 
against discrimination at the work place remains al so a priority. Within the framework of this 
policy, consisting of the harnes sing of existing potential, effo rts should focus on the female 
immigrants who display low employment rates and suffer the most from "over-qualification". 
EN 45   EN In this context, Member States will also be encouraged to further e nhance their action towards 
improving the labour market situation of migran ts in the context of the Structural Funds83 and 
to strengthen their labour market infrastructure s, above all public employment services (PES), 
in a way that takes account of the opening  of legal pathways to economic migration. 
Furthermore, within the European Employme nt Strategy, comprehens ive lifelong learning 
strategies will be promoted to ensure the cont inual adaptability and employability of workers, 
particularly the most vulnerable;  effective active labour market pol icies that help people cope 
with rapid change, reduce unemployment spells and ease transitions to new jobs, as well as 
modern social security systems that provide adequate income support, encourage employment 
and facilitate labour market, will be encouraged . 
This policy must however be carried out in full respect of the principle of community 
preference, which should translate consequently  and first of all into  the removal of the 
transitional barriers to access the labour market  as soon as possible. 
This policy should also be carried out in paralle l with other complementary actions in order to 
avoid negative side-effects. As regard to th e negative consequences for the sending countries, 
the effect of brain drain should be reduced than ks to measures aimed at  encouraging training, 
harnessing the educational potent ial of third-country  nationals and fostering temporary or 
permanent return.  
Additionally, it is crucial to take advantage of th e enhanced mobility of migrants, and to allow 
an intra-EU mobility where appropriate, in order to maximise the benefits of migration. It is 
fundamental for the EU labour markets to be able  to fulfil relatively quickly changing needs 
in the labour markets of Member States: to make this happen, mobile third-country workers should not only be granted enhanced mobility, but also, they should not be penalised in 
comparison to non-mobile third-country workers in  respect of family life or the acquisition of 
permanent residence. A first step in this direction has already been taken with the 
Commission proposal on entry and residen ce conditions for highly qualified workers. 
The largest benefits of migration will be r eaped on the condition that migrants and host 
society be complementary. The issue of migr ation cannot be limited to a quantitative 
problematic: increased prosperity, rather than an  increased size of the economy, should be the 
end result. 
Benefits of migration are maximized when th e economic needs of the host society are taken 
into consideration, without, of course, prejud ice to forms of migration other than labour 
migration, such as family reunification, stud ents, etc. As regards economic migration, 
conditions of admission should, as far as possible, build on a needs assessment and labour 
matching policies, which require enhanced in formation directed towards third-country 
nationals and possible tr aining in countries of  origin. This more effective matching between 
labour needs and necessary skills will provide a crucial contribution to the promotion of 
labour utilisation and labour pr oductivity, and therefore also gr owth and jobs. At Community 
level, the EU will encourage the coordination of forecasting instruments at both national and 
European levels, to ensure a closer adequ acy between labour demand and supply. Given the 
high demand for highly skilled workers acro ss Europe, simplified and non-bureaucratic 
procedures, such as the scheme proposed in th e EU Blue Card Proposal for a directive, should 
                                                
 
83 Over the last years, the ESF has financed many actions in favour of immigrants and ethnic minorities. 
Present estimates suggest that the ESF trains or supports more than 600.000 immigrants and ethnic 
minorities per year. 
EN 46   EN be put in place to facilitate their entry. Low sk illed workers are also i ndispensable, notably to 
meet the growing needs for childcare and elderly care. An efficient mana gement of migration 
requires, in any event, a strengthened coordi nation between EU and na tional levels, with a 
view to preventing inconsistencies. 
Systems for admission should be able to satis fy shifting labour needs, and to provide 
accordingly a swift reaction in response to this  demand, as clearly underlined in The Hague 
Programme. In order to take efficient and inform ed decisions regarding policy and legislation, 
it is therefore crucial that policy makers in th e EU become fully aware of the real needs and 
gaps in the national lab our markets, of course, to the ex tent possible, as these needs may 
change – also quickly – over time. The first co mprehensive assessment of the future skills 
requirement in Europe until 2020 called by  the European Council of Spring 2008 will 
underpin future immigration policy. On the ba sis of this assessment, immigration profiles 
could be set up, providing a clear picture of need s at a European level. Symmetrically, an in-
depth knowledge and understanding of the ski lls composition of the migratory flow will 
underlie the reviewed management of migra tion. Beyond the direct matching of demand in 
the labour markets, the guiding principle of the policy should be the promotion of labour 
adaptability and mobility, in order to prevent any ulterior mismatch and to improve labour 
market efficiency. 
Principle 3 – Integration  
Integration of third-country nationals is a process of mutual accommodation by both the host 
societies and the immigrants, and an essential factor in realising the full benefits of immigration. There can be no im migration without integration. 
Integration policies should allow migrants to fu lly participate in societ y, to acquire knowledge 
and skills and to integrate on the labour ma rket. This requires a multi-faceted approach 
(access to the labour market, access to housing, soci al protection, education, training, etc) also 
based on non-discrimination, equal oppor tunities and diversity management.  
The EU policy framework is the 'Common Ag enda for Integration', implementing the 
'Common Basic Principles for Immigrant Inte gration Policy in the EU' established by the 
Council. The implementation of the EU framew ork for integration needs to be further 
consolidated. A strong political commitment is needed to achieve further progress. In the 
future, EU co-operation should go beyond the exchange of information and practice. 
There is a common underst anding that the Commission has to pursue its integration agenda 
with determination, focus and coherence. The mainstreaming approach based on the Common 
Agenda for Integration has already been foll owed and should be fu rther strengthened. In 
accordance with one of the most  important elements of good governance, both mainstreaming 
and targets are necessary to ach ieve progress. That is why, at  the same time, strengthening 
migration/integration in other relevant policies is needed, as well as targeting this area and target group of immigrants in a specific instrument.  
The integration of legal immigrants shall be  improved by strengthened efforts from host 
Member States and contributions from immigran ts themselves (“two-way-process”). At each 
step of the migrant journey, and of the integra tion process, different provisions must be taken 
for backing the efforts of the migrants toward s integration and providing for the condition of 
equal opportunities. The Member States already recognised su ch need when, in The Hague 
Programme, they stated that " the European Council calls for the creation of equal 
EN 47   EN opportunities to participate fully in society. Ob stacles to integration need to be actively 
eliminated ". 
The implication for the host society should be recognised, with the formation of specific 
integration programs for newcomers, who should not only be directed the correct way to go, 
but also granted the means to follow it, possibly varying according to their length of stay. In 
this connection, implications of new forms of migration such as circular migration with regard 
to integration policies should be further e xplored. Language tuition and an efficient 
orientation programme, also from the employment services , could be provided by the 
receiving country. Adaptation of pub lic services to migrants partic ularities, in order to enable 
them to make the best use of these provisi ons, fight against discri mination, promotion of 
diversity management at the work place and aw areness raising amongst all actors concerned, 
fall under the obligations of the host society. Gender issues should be paid specif ic attention, 
given on the one hand, the disadvantages that can be faced with respect to unemployment and over-qualification, and on the other hand, the centra l role of migrants mothers regarding the 
socialisation of the children. 
Development of indicators a nd regular evaluation is an i ndispensable prerequisite for 
improving the situation, as illustrated by many studies. Community action will thus continue supporting, notably through The Eu ropean Integration Fund, nati onal actions dedicated to 
measures of performance. 
A crucial element for the successful  integration of immigrants is the exercise of the right to 
family reunification. Family reunification is a n ecessary way of making fa mily life possible. It 
helps to create socio-cultural stability, facilitati ng the integration of third country nationals in 
the Member State, which also serves to prom ote economic and social cohesion, a fundamental 
Community objective stated in th e Treaty. The basic conditions under which such right can be 
exercised by third-country nati onals legally residing in the Me mber States are set out in 
Council Directive 2003/86/EC, which in its Article 19 also foresees that the Commission shall 
report on its application and, if necessary, propose amendments (clause of rendez-vous). Such 
a report is due to be pres ented in the course of 2008. 
Principle 4 – Political solidar ity, mutual trust, transparen cy, shared responsibility and 
information  
In order to achieve efficiency and coherence in migration policies at national and EU level, it 
is necessary to further strengthen coordina tion between the different competent tiers.  
Coordination requires that, at Member State level,  as well as at the EU level, migration policy 
is designed and implemented in a transparent manner, and in full compliance with the competencies of each level. To that end, best use must be made of the Mutual Information 
System mechanism, created in 2006. The utilisati on of this tool must be both more frequent, 
and earlier in the process, of policy-making in order to enhance its efficiency. 
Exchange of information, as well as exchange of  best practices, should be further promoted, 
through working groups including representatives of EU and of Member States, as well as 
wider fora, allowing for the participation of civ il society in the debate. This continuous debate 
is a pre-requisite for the establishment of mu tual trust, and an i ndispensable condition for 
releasing a clear and univocal message at a world level, by means of taking a concerted 
approach in all aspects of immigration policy. 
EN 48   EN Coordination necessitates appropriate and adequa te resources within all relevant national and 
Community financial instruments, constant re view, aiming at preven tion of any overlaps, 
pooling of technical means and human re sources and interoperable systems. 
Principle 5 – Solidarity  
The development of the area of Freedom, Secur ity and Justice requires adequate financial 
resources and appropriate burde n-sharing, which translated into the framework programme 
“Solidarity and management of  migration flows” for 2007-2013. 
Financial solidarity is a valuable tool ensuring a similar application of the community 
legislation, and policies, wit hout imposing a disproportionate task on individual Member 
States. Furthermore, financial solidarity promotes mutual trust through cooperation, 
dissemination of best practice and enhancem ent of knowledge on border management and 
migration policy. When implementing, it is necessary to ensure that EU funds are used for mutual benefit, to face common challenges, and ach ieve results in the in terest of all Member 
States. This is particularly true in respect of  the External Borders' Fund, where a high degree 
of coordination and interoperabil ity is a necessary prerequisite to achieve efficient control of 
the external borders of the EU. 
With a view to ensuring the e ffectiveness of action, a first eval uation on the operation of the 
framework programme will be carri ed out in 2010, at the time of the review of the Hague 
Programme; the results of this evaluation will also feed b ack into the management and 
operation of the programme. Evaluation of the results of the multiannual programmes under 
the Funds will be made available in 2012. 
As the programme is a flexible tool which is likely to adapt to evolvi ng needs and priorities, 
the financial distribution keys in  the areas of integration and ex ternal borders will possibly be 
reviewed, notably, in the case of integration, in light of the resu lts of the final evaluation of 
preparatory actions initiated in 2005. 
Designed as a flexible instrument, implementati on of the Programme needs to be carried out 
at regular intervals. Total appropriations of  the Programme, in the context of the budget 
review 2009, as well as the distribution key for the allocation of the re sources to the Member 
States, could be reassessed  following an eval uation of the implementation, with a view to 
adapt to new national situations. 
Principle 6 – Need for a genuine partnership with third countries 
 
An effective management of migration flow s requires a genuine pa rtnership with third 
countries. This implies that the EU needs to further develop and deep en its relations with 
selected third countries84. The EU needs to work much cl oser during the coming years with 
                                                 
84 " The European Council underlines the importance of closer cooperation with third countries in 
managing migration flows. Specific partnerships on migration with third countries could contribute to a 
coherent migration policy which combines measures aimed at facilitating well managed legal migration 
opportunities and their benefits – while respecting Member States' competences and the specific needs 
of their labour markets – with those fighting illegal migration, protecting refugees and tackling the root causes of migration while at the same time impacting positively on devel opment in countries of origin. 
The possibility of mobility partnerships should be further explored as well as possibilities for circular 
migration in the light of the Commission's communication of 16 May 2007; in this context the European 
EN 49   EN partner countries on opportunities for legal mobility, building capacities for migration 
management, protecting fundamental rights and fighting irregular flows. The EU and its 
Member States will need to invest more hu man and financial resour ces into developing 
mutual trust and a sense of ownership in the pa rtner countries with a view to helping them 
develop policies for well-managed migration, as requested by the European Council85. This 
work will also include a focus on employme nt and labour market policies for improved 
assessment of the match between national labour market trends and human capital 
development, bringing education and vocational training systems more in line with national, 
regional and global labour market needs.  
Moreover, more resources will be focused on compliance with good standards work, and in 
line with 2007 Council Conclusions, the EU will further develop policies on ethical 
recruitment and how to prevent, avoid and mitigate brain drain and brain waste. Other 
initiatives will continue to focus on how to ha rness the development potential of remittances, 
supplementing the involvement of the diaspora s in promoting the development of their 
countries of origin, and facilitate returnee entrep reneur businesses. Attention will also focus 
on facilitating real possibilitie s for circular migration, by setti ng up or strengthening legal and 
operational measures, granting legal immigrants the right, or a priority, for further legal 
residence in the EU, and by ensuring that brain circulation becomes a vi able alternative to 
brain drain, in identified key s hortage sectors. Furthermore, sustainable volunt ary return and 
social as well as economic reintegration in migrants' source countries will require more 
focused work in the border-area between  migration and development policies. 
Exploratory work is taking place through th e concept of mobility partnerships. The 
establishment of a growing number of such partnerships in the coming years may require 
additional resources86. Some of these partnerships should be paving the way towards firm 
arrangements for the management of labour immi gration, with selected long-term strategic 
allies, geared towards mutual benefit. 
The European Union will also further develop its leading role in th e global governance of 
migration, and fully engage in existing and futu re mechanisms for dialogue and cooperation, 
in order to ensure full implementation of exis ting commitments in multinational forums. This 
will also include further integrat ion of EU activities, and pres ence, into regional cooperative 
processes of relevance for migration.  
In sum, the further deepening and strengthenin g of external cooperation on migration with 
third countries will have to focus, to a larg e extent, on the concept of  partnerships. Further 
policy developments will require a consolidatio n of what has already been embarked upon in 
terms of a policy framework, mainly through the Global Approach, but al so with a view to 
further integrate and mainstream migration into  other external policy areas, such as foreign 
and development policies, but also relatively une xplored areas, such as trade, agriculture and 
fisheries and finance policies. This will also be in line with the next generation of the Global 
Approach, and the further refinement of its to olbox of instruments, so that Community and 
                                                                                                                                                         
Council endorses the Council conclusions of 18 June 2007 .", Presidency Conclusions of the European 
Council of 21-22 June 2007, paragraph 17. 
85 " The European Council calls on the Me mber States and the Co mmission to ensure that adequate human 
and financial resources are allocated, within the existing financial framework, in order to enable the timely implementation of the comprehensive migration policy ", Presidency Conclusions of the European 
Council of 21-22 June 2007, paragraph 16. 
86 Idem. 
EN 50   EN Member States resources are used efficiently , in solidarity and pooled in a coherent and 
consistent manner. 
Principle 7 – Enhance security and facilit ate the entry of bona fide travellers  
The development of the integrated four-tier access model, such as was described in the 
Communications and impact assess ment forming part of the border package of 13 February 
2008.  
In relation to visa policy, in the long-term, it is necessary to build on the achievements 
currently under way with a gr eater degree of harmonisation, through the proposed visa code 
and increased cooperation betw een Member States, through common application centres. 
From this perspective, only development towards truly European short-stay visas will ensure an equal treatment of all visa applicants. Th is goal was already included in the Tampere 
Programme, and would entail a full  harmonisation of the criteria for the issuing of a visa, as 
well as of the practical impleme ntation of those criteria. A l ogical and necessary development 
towards managing the visa applications at co mmon European visa centres should accompany 
the move toward European visas, gradually replacing the issuing of visas at national 
consulates. The pooling of resources, and econom ies of scale that would be achieved, would 
also ensure easy access of applicants to the premises where such visas would be issued, as such European centres could be set up in all third c ountries. The further development of these 
centres will need to be coordinated with th e developments of the Common External Action 
Service.. 
Principle 8 – Integrity of Schengen territory
 
The Community policy in the field of EU external  borders aims at an integrated management, 
ensuring a uniform and high level of control, which is a necessary pre-condition to the free 
movement of persons within the European Unio n and a fundamental component of an area of 
freedom, security and justice. 
The measures needed to take forward border ch ecks and new systems, the establishment of a 
European border surveillance system and the reinforcement of the FRONTEX Agency were 
analysed in the impact assessments accomp anying the border package of 13 February 2008. 
This package included measures to reinforce a ll dimensions of border c ontrols, that is, border 
checks, border surveillance and operational coordination: 
– measures to develop border surveillance, by improving cooperation between 
Member States and by using new technology; 
– reinforcement of operational coordina tion between Member States through 
FRONTEX by fully exploiting the current mand ate of the Agency, in particular by 
further intensifying joint operations betw een Member States including sea border 
patrols; 
– the introduction of an entry- exit system to record the dates of entry and exit of 
each third-country national admitted to the Schengen area using biometric identifiers. This will verify that a person is not overstaying;  
– a registered traveller programme to facil itate border checks for certain categories 
of frequent travellers from third countries, by pre-screening travellers wishing to 
EN 51   EN be part of such a programme and by in troducing automated checks to speed up 
their border crossing; 
– launching a discussion on wh ether a system requiring an electronic authorisation 
to travel before arriving at the border itself could be intr oduced for people not 
requiring a visa. 
It is, however, also necessary to ensure cohere nce between internal and external policies in 
the field of border management. Properly ma naged borders in neighbouring regions can 
enhance European security, as well as facili tate travel for third-country nationals, while 
improving access to international pr otection for those in need. A more strategic approach in 
selecting key partners for this purpose is need ed, with a clearer definition of comprehensive 
long-term objectives that go beyond mere technical assistan ce. The setting of objectives 
should take into account the role of effective border management in im proving the stability of 
certain regions, as well as crisis management . A coherent approach to search and rescue 
activities in the maritime domain must involve closer cooperation with third countries, taking 
into account migratory pressure. Moreover, be tter coordination between measures taken at 
national, European and internationa l level must be put in place. 
The financial dimension is not only releva nt for supporting the cooperation with third 
countries described above. The mechanisms fo r ensuring burden-sharing and mutual solidarity 
between Member States in managing the EU's external borders must also be continuously 
refined. These mechanisms must take into ac count the need to support investments and 
capacity-building, as well as a burden-sharing co mponent for the operatio nal costs incurred in 
the daily management of the bord ers, costs which due to the f unctioning of the Schengen area, 
are not evenly distributed. 
Principle 9 – Enhancing the fight agains t illegal employment and undeclared work  
Illegal immigration is driven by a range of push and pull factors, among which the 
presumption that the work will reap higher wa ge levels (including informal employment). 
These phenomena are fairly spread, and they  have negative implications affecting the 
objectives of the Lisbon Strategy, particularly wi th regard to employment, social cohesion and 
credibility of legal migration policies. Comba ting illegal employment of  illegal third country 
nationals, and undeclared work of lawful residents, is therefore as important as integration 
efforts and should complement them.  
Initiatives in this area should focus on prev ention, sanctions and enforcement and must 
involve European institutions and Member States, as well as key stakehol ders, such as social 
partners, at all relevant levels. In relation to the employment of  third-country nationals in an 
irregular position, an important step forward will be made with the adoption of the proposal 
for a Directive providing for sanctions agains t employers of illegally staying third-country 
nationals87, currently under negotiation in the Europ ean Parliament and in the Council. This 
will bring about positive effect s in the form of reduced losses to Member States public 
finances, less pressure on working conditions and less distortion of competition between EU 
businesses. 
As confirmed recently by a Eurobarometer surve y, high levels of taxation, social security 
contributions and administrative red-tape ar e the main drivers of undeclared work, in 
                                                 
87 COM(2007) 249 final of 16.05.2007 
EN 52   EN particular for atypical and seasonal work. Thus , it should be further discussed with Member 
States how they could bolster incentives to wards declared work, including, for example, 
further improvements of the tax and social securi ty system. Exchange of experiences and best 
practices in this respect should be enhanced by EU.  
Further efforts to enforce sancti ons should be undertak en, materialising in additional national 
financial and human resources, in cluding the establishment of speci alised control bodies, risk 
tolls analysis, enhanced coordination (if needed though international cooperation 
agreements88 and possibly under the form of a Europ ean platform) and a better evaluation of 
controls. Moreover, legislation, monitoring and sanctions schemes must adapt to new kinds of 
fraud such as sub-contracting and false self employment and encourag e, with a view to 
curbing efficiently the phenomena. In full comp liance with their respective competencies, the 
EU has a role to play in fostering exchange of good practices and orga nising the trans-national 
cooperation. 
Principle 10 – Fighting smuggling of mi grants and trafficking in human beings  
Combating migrant smuggling and tr afficking in human beings is a central part of the fight 
against illegal immigration and reinfo rces the protection of human rights. 
It requires appropriate legislation adapte d to new forms of criminality, actual law 
enforcement, enhanced intern ational cooperation and central attention paid to victims. 
National and community legislation must be revi ewed in order to better reflect new criminal 
phenomena and to offer a enhanced protecti on to victims. Accordingly, existing legal 
framework on the facilitation of illegal entry a nd stay as well as the sexual exploitation of 
children should be strengthened and adapted to toda y's realities. In the light of the twin aim to 
allow the trafficked person to complete his/he r recovery and to achieve a long-term social 
inclusion (either in the country of  origin or in the host Member State), and in full respect of 
the existing Community legislation, the addi tional cases where the Member States should 
grant a temporary or a permanent residence pe rmit to the victim should be also assessed, 
taking into account the personal situation of the victim con cerned. In this respect, the 
Commission intends to report on the application of Council Directive 2004/81/EC and, if 
necessary, propose amendments (clause de rendez-vous included in Article 16 of the Directive). 
Design of comprehensive regulations is the firs t step to combat smugg ling and trafficking, but 
the practical implementation of the legal material requires most attention. Firstly, it should be 
ensured that investigative tec hniques, civil society organisati ons funding, more generally all 
prosecution and protection measures are endo wed sufficient resources by Member States. 
Secondly, owing to the cross border nature of the phenomenon, regional and international 
level of EU action should be increased, especi ally making use of in ternational instruments 
against human trafficking that ar e in place at regional and inte rnational level. The EU should 
take a stronger role in assisting countries of or igin of trafficked people,  especially those where 
the financial and administrative capacity is not sufficient to the task. 
Building on minimum standards of assist ance measures provided by Community and 
international instruments, unconditional assist ance should be provided to all victims of 
                                                
 
88 Commission recommendation of 31 March 2008 on enhanced administrative cooperation in the context 
of the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services 
EN 53   EN trafficking, regardless of their in terest in the criminal justice process, in a non-discriminatory 
manner and in compliance with basic principl es derived from international human rights 
norms, in particular the respect for privacy, c onfidentiality, self-determination and freedom of 
movement. The safety and protection needs of the victims must be ensured. Following an 
individual needs assessment, ta ilored assistance should be offe red and be based on a cross- 
cultural and gender-sensitive approach, including insights about the effects of physical and 
sexual abuse. Given the particular vulnerability  of children, special a dditional rights must be 
also granted to them, including the representa tion by a legal guardian or  equivalent authority 
as soon as a child victim is identified and the assistance by specialised personnel, in the best 
interest of the child. Service providers for tr afficked persons should develop standards based 
on clear and measurable indicato rs, to regularly monitor and assess the quality of their 
services. 
Principle 11 – Sustainable and effective return policy – regularisations  
Along with the consolidation of legal channels and the long-term  work on the root causes, and 
besides improvement of border management, fight against criminal networks and undeclared work, return policy is a crucial component of  the fight against illegal immigration. These 
measures contribute also to the acceptance by th e EU citizens of a more open legal migration 
policy. 
An effective readmission and return polic y, whilst respecting the human rights and 
fundamental freedoms of the person concerne d, requires an impr oved operational co-
operation among Member States, intensified coope ration and partnership with third countries 
and the setting up of common standards. 
Community rules are in particular indispensa ble for addressing cases where a third-country 
national who is already the subject of a return  decision, removal order and/or re-entry ban 
issued by one Member State, is apprehended in another Member State or tries to enter another 
Member State. The mechanism of a "re-entry ba n", as foreseen in the proposal on common 
standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country 
nationals, has a dissuasive impact and would in principle accompany removal orders.  
As a number of return decisions cannot be implemented because the returnee has no 
documentation, emphasis will be put on measures aiming at facilitating identification of 
undocumented returnees and pr eventing identity theft. 
With respect to joint returns, the imple mentation of the legislative framework
89 must be 
improved and the role of FRONTEX in suppor ting joint return operations must be 
strengthened, in line with the request from  the conclusions of the Council of June 2007. 
Furthermore, experience has shown that is indispensable to go be yond the Council Decision 
of 5 October 2006 on the establishment of a mutual information mechanism concerning 
Member States' measures in the areas of asylum and immigration. Improving the mutual 
exchange of information through a more timely communication of all rele vant information is 
a minimum requirement. This is in particular very important when it comes to regularisation 
                                                 
89 Council Directive 2003/110/EC of 25 November 2003 on assistance in cases of transit for the purposes 
of removal by air and Council Decision 2004/573/EC of 29 April 2004 on the organisation of joint 
flights for removals 
EN 54   EN measures enacted by Member States, which coul d have spill-over e ffects on other Member 
States. In this respect, ea rly information sharing should be improved as a first step. 
4. FUTURE  METHODOLOGY:  BETTER  GOVERNANCE  OF IMMIGRATION 
4.1. Coordinated and coherent action 
Immigration, being a complex and multifaceted  phenomenon, requires a mixture of policy 
actions which covers a wide range of issues and fields: demographic constraints, economic 
needs, social expectations, health impacts, tr ade commitments, development musts, education 
opportunities, security dimension, etc. Any fu rther development of the common Immigration 
Policy, in order to be effective, will have to  ensure that migration issues are factored 
(“mainstreamed”) into all related policies.  Moreover, as a cons equence of a shared 
competence policy area and taking into account th is variety of issues, coordination between 
the EU and the national level, especially in the area of economic, social and development 
policies, must be sign ificantly fostered.  
Timely, transparent and systematic consultation of  all relevant stakehol ders on further policy 
developments has to be ensured. In the immi gration area, stakeholder consultation between 
each others Member States’ experts, third countr ies, international organizations, but also civil 
society with the non-profit sector, the industry (namely through public-private partnerships), 
academia, relevant EU agencies such as the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights 
or the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External 
Borders (FRONTEX) is essential. These stake holder consultations shoul d also be used to 
gather and cross-check relevant information. 
4.2. Common methodology 
Any further policy development will have to take into account the immigration situation in 
each Member State with regard to stock and fl ow data. To this end, specific immigration 
profiles should be developed for each individual Member State, in order to establish the skills 
composition of the existing immigrant population, and possible future labour needs. The 
comprehensive overview needed for drawing up su ch profiles would have to be fuelled by a 
multitude of sources, including state agenci es, social partners, academic expertise, 
international organisations, immigran t associations and civil society. 
On the basis of individual immigration prof iles, multiannual guideline s and objectives should 
be defined in order to ensure that, in future , the skills available within the existing immigrant 
population and the concrete labour market need s of the host Member State better match. 
Setting up clear guidelines and objectives cove ring a multiannual period constitute important 
steps towards further common action as they give a meaning to the day-by-day policy. 
Once the multiannual guidelines and objectives ar e set, it is also necessary to devise 
evaluation and monitoring mechanisms providi ng regular feedback to policy makers. To 
allow for policy improvements, quantifiable performance indicators and benchmarks should 
be developed, ideally per Member State. Availa bility of statistics and of the necessary 
analytical capacity is a key component in th e development of any evaluation system. Indeed, 
statistics will be required as baseline data  to assess whether ex isting needs are being 
addressed and, ultimately, to be able to draw  conclusions about the impact of policies. 
Improvements should be made in three areas: qu ality, availability and analysis. The overall 
EN 55   EN aim of better evaluation and monitoring should be to ensure a more determined enforcement 
of political commitments and legislative obligations. 
Annual immigration reports by the European Commission should be pr esented to provide a 
comprehensive overview, analyse possible lab our market needs and allow the Council to 
make a political assessment and issue policy re commendations. Submission of these reports to 
the European Council should be envisaged, preferably to the Spring European  Council  to 
strengthen the link with the Lisbon Agenda. 
EN 56   EN ANNEX 1 – OVERVIEW TABLE  
Problem 
 Existing 
measures Objective 
 Correspondin g princip l
and solutions 
Challenge: shrinking EU population and demographic ageing  
decline of the working 
age population and increasing number of 
old people, translating 
into a growing pressure on the health-
care and long-term 
care system, pensions expenditures and a 
decline of growth rate 
  -2005 Green Paper 
-2006 
Communication on 
the demographic 
future of Europe 
 Designing a common policy on 
legal immigration, organising both legal immigration and the 
integration of immigrants, 
while taking into account the interests of the countries of 
origin 
 - mainly principles 2 an
d
but also partly principles 
6 and 9  
Challenge: labour and skill shortages  
Labour and skills 
shortages - directives on family 
reunification, on the admission of 
students and 
researchers, and on the status of long 
term residents 
-2005 Policy Plan on 
Legal Migration 
-2007 Proposals for 
the general Framework Directive 
and the Directive on 
the admission of highly qualified 
migrants 
  
 To manage migration in order 
to alleviate sectoral and occupational shortages of 
labour:  
- assessment of present and 
future labour market needs  
 
- enhancing the employment potential of third-country 
nationals  
 - legal framework defining 
clear rules of admission and 
residence for third-country nationals 
 
- intensified partnership with third countries  
 
- awareness-raising measures targeting both the host societies 
and the prospective migrants 
 -mainly principles 2 and 
but also partly principles 
6, 7, 9, 10 and 11  
 
EN 57   EN Challenge: a better integration of legal immigrants  
insufficient integration 
of foreign-born nationals 
 -2004: Common 
basic principles 
-2005 Common 
Agenda 
Communication 
-2007 Integration 
Fund 
-anti-discrimination 
legislation 
- Annual reports on 
migration and integration 
- Handbooks for 
practitioners (2 editions) 
- 2006 – 2008 
Development of an Integration website 
- Regular NCP 
meetings  
- Ministerial 
Conferences on 
Integration (Groningen 2004, 
Potsdam 2007)  To improve the dynamic, two-
way process of mutual accommodation by all 
immigrants and residents of 
Member States 
- to develop a more coherent 
approach to integration 
to reinforce the sharing of information and the 
coordination between all 
stakeholders  
- to better monitor and evaluate 
integration policies - to set up targeted language 
classes and tuition to facilitate 
integration at school  
- to focus on introduction 
programmes, including language and civic orientation 
courses for newly-arrived 
 - to prevent unemployment 
through education and training, 
a better recognition of qualifications, fight against 
discrimination and illegal work 
and promotion of employment for immigrant women 
 
- to foster anti-discrimination and information measures and 
cooperation between 
governmental stakeholders and engagement of companies in 
debates on integration 
 - to provide specific help and 
information to allow migrants’ 
access to services, especially health services 
 
- to reflect on active citizenship and naturalisation processes as 
elements to strengthen 
opportunities for involvement Mainly principle 3 
EN 58   EN in the host society 
Challenge: continuous pressure of  illegal immigration  
High level of illegal 
immigration, posing 
security, humanitarian problems, 
undermining 
credibility of the immigration policy 
and generating diverse 
social costs 
 
 -regulations on 
mutual recognition 
of expulsion decisions, on the 
prevention of the 
facilitation of unauthorised entry, 
transit and residence, 
on residence permits granted to victims of 
trafficking or 
smuggling, on joint flights, creation of 
Frontex,  
-2005 Proposal for a 
Directive on return 
-2007 proposal for a 
Directive on sanctions against 
employers 
-2006 
Communication on 
illegal immigration 
-2007 
Communication on 
undeclared work  
-creation of a web-
based information 
network, MIM and 
ICONet 
- readmission 
agreements 
-2007 Border Fund, 
Return Fund to pursue current policy aimed 
at tackling both push factors 
and pull factors of illegal immigration 
- stepping up the fight against 
the smuggling of migrants and trafficking in human beings, 
(amendments to the legal 
framework to improve the status of trafficked persons and 
to adapt to new kinds of fraud; 
prevention strategies specific to vulnerable groups; 
improvement of the 
investigation of human trafficking, notably through 
better national a nd international 
cooperation; more effective implementation of international 
instruments) 
 - continuing to combat illegal 
work (adaptation of Community 
legal framework to foresee common sanctions; better 
enforcement of sanctions, 
through adapted national human and financial resources and 
more effective national and 
trans-national coordination; more thorough knowledge of 
the phenomenon across 
Member States; development of incentives toward declared 
work) 
 - establishment of an effective 
return policy (creation of 
common standards reinforcing the effect of a national return 
decision; improved cooperation 
and coordination among Member States, including joint 
return operations and 
regularisation; intensified partnership with third Mainly principles 9, 10 a
n
11 but also par t
principles 1, 2 and 6 
 
 
 
EN 59   EN countries). 
Challenge: An insufficient partnersh ip with third countries  
significant migratory 
pressure on Europe, 
flowing from an array of factors The Global 
Approach to 
Migration launched in 2005 and refined 
in 2006 aims to 
formulate comprehensive and 
coherent policies that 
address a broad range of migration-
related issues In line with the Global 
Approach, the overall objective 
consists of consolidating and deepening partnerships with 
third countries in order to 
improve positive consequences of migration for both countries 
of origin and countries of 
destination, incl uding: fostering 
circular migration and brain 
circulation; improving the 
management of remittances; enhancing the voluntary 
contribution of diasporas; better 
supporting voluntary returns and economic reintegration of 
migrants; focussing on the 
matching between labour supply and demand; addressing 
employment and decent work in 
developing countries; further developing policies to fight 
illegal immigration 
These objectives will be met 
through: 
- a better implementation of 
current instruments (which requires in turn: a better 
coordination; increased human 
and financial resources; more joint activities); 
 
- a further integration of migration policy into the 
Union's development 
cooperation and other external policies; 
 
- a transformation of the geographic meaning of the 
approach, gradually shifting 
from a region-based perspective to a country-by-country 
perspective. Mainly principle 6 
EN 60   EN  
Challenge:  insufficient adaptation of border management and visa policy to a streamlined management o f 
migration 
Insufficient contribution of border controls to the fight 
against illegal 
immigration and too burdensome border 
crossing for the 
passengers do not pose any threat to security  
 -regulations 
establishing Frontex, a Schengen Borders 
Code, creating the 
Rapid Border Intervention Teams, 
regulation on the 
Visa Information System (VIS) and 
the exchange of data 
between Member States on short stay-
visas, Schengen 
convention  
-2006 Commission 
Recommendation 
establishing a common Practical 
Handbook for Border 
Guards 
-The external borders 
fund (EBF) was set 
in place on 23 May 2007 
 To reinforce all dimensions of 
border controls and at the same time to facilitate and harmonize 
control checks and visa 
procedures for certain categories of travellers 
- establishing a European 
border surveillance system (through improvement in 
cooperation between Member 
States and use of new technologies); 
 
- reinforcing the Frontex Agency; 
 
- analysing the feasibility of an entry-exit system allowing for 
the identification of 
overstayers;  
- enhancing cooperation with 
third countries,  
- preparing the setting up of 
common application visa centres and issuing of truly 
European short-stay visas, 
guaranteeing equal treatment of all visa applicants and easier 
access; 
 - analysing the feasibility of a 
registered traveller programme 
to facilitate bor der checks for 
certain frequent travellers  principles 7 and 8 
 
EN 61   EN ANNEX 2 – STATISTICAL DATA 
Figure 1 - Projected working-age po pulation and total employment, EU25  
180200220240260280300320
2003 2008 2013 2018 2023 2028 2033 2038 2043 20485860626466687072total employment w orking-age population employment rate (right scale)
period 2003-201 1 :
rising  employment  but slow growth in 
working-age 
populationperiod 201 2-
201 7:rising  
employment   
despit e t he 
decline in 
workin
g-age from  201 8 onward:
 em ploym ent  and workin g-age population both declining
 
Figure 2 - Projected working age population (aged 15-64) in the EU-25, 2005 to 2050 
Projected working age population (aged 15-64) 2005 to 2050
100150200250300350
2005
2007
2009
2011
2013
2015
2017
2019
2021
2023
2025
2027
2029
20312033
2035
2037
2039
2041
2043
2045
2047
2049
Source : Eurostat, Population projections, baseline and no migration variantsmillionsBaseline No migration
 
EN 62   EN Figure 3 - Net migration to the EU-25, 1980-2007  
Chart: Net migration to the EU25, 1980 to 2007 (in millions)
-0.50.00.51.01.52.02.5
1980
1981
1982
198319841985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
199119921993
1994
19951996
1997
1998
199920002001
2002
20032004
2005
2006
2007 Source: Eurostat, demographic statistics
Net migration (millions)
 
EN 63   EN Table 4 - Populations by gr oups of citizenship, 1.01.2006 
Annual Data collection 
Source: Eurostat 
 
EN 64   EN Table 5 - Indicators of the recent feminisation of migration flows 
 % of women among 
immigrants 
arrived for 10 years or less 
2004  
 
 
1994 
Austria  56  48 
Belgium  54  52 
Czech republic  54  .. 
Germany  53  48 
Denmark  48  42 
Spain  51  .. 
Finland  53  .. 
France  54  54 
Greece  52 54 
Hungary  54 ... 
Ireland  50 51 
Italy  55 49 
Luxembourg  51 46 
Netherlands  53 48 
Norway  56 .. 
Poland  61 .. 
Portugal  57 57 
Sweden  53 50 
United Kingdom  50 54 
Notes: Data for Germany are for 1992 and for Austria and Sweden for 1995 
Source: Oso and Garson (2005) 
EN 65   EN Figure 6- Percentage of Non-EU citizens in EU Member States 
 
source: Eurostat 
Figure 7- Most numerous groups of non-EU citizens in EU, 1.01.2006 
 
EN 66   EN Source: Eurostat 
Figure 8- Immigration to EU25 in 2005 by previous country of residence 
 
EN 67   EN Figure 9 - International migrat ion by category of entry, 2005 
International migration by category of entry, 2005, standardised data
0 2 04 06 08 0 1 0 0FRNLSEATDEITBEPTDKUK
% of total inflow sEmployment A c c ompany ing f amily  of  w orkers Family Humanitarian Other
Source: OECD, SOPEMI 2007. 
 
Figure 10 - Share of foreign nationals in  resident working-age population, 2005  
 
EN 68   EN Figure 11 – Sectors of empl oyment non-EU born and native-born in the EU, 2006  
Sectors of employment non-EU born and native-born in the EU, 2006
05101520
Agriculture and fishing
Industry (except construction)
Construction
Wholesale and retail trade
Hotels and r estaurants
Transport storage and communication
Financial intermediation
Real estate re nting and business activities
Public administration
Education
Health and social wo rk
Other community social and personal service
Private households% of sector in respective groupResident >5 Resident <= 5 yrs Native-born
Source: Eurostat, EU LFS annual data. Note: BG, DE and IE excluded.
 
EN 69   EN Figures12 – Employment rates of non-EU migrants relat ive to native-born, 2006  
Source: Eurostat, EU LFS, annual data.Non-EU born vs. EU born
PLBEFRFIMT
LUSENLHU DK
ATUKITELCZSI
ESLT EELVPT CY
304050607080
50 60 70 80
EU bornNon-EU born
Non-EU born resident <= 6 yrs vs. EU 
born
FIBENL FRSEATPL LUSIITHUDKUKEEELCZESPTCY
304050607080
50 60 70 80
EU bornNon-EU born resident <= 6 yrsNon-EU born resident > 6 yrs vs. EU born
EELVPT ES
CY IT
LTCZ ELSI
ATUKDK
FI SEHU
NL LUFRMT
BE
PL
20304050607080
50 60 70 80
EU bornNon-EU born resident > 6 yrsNon-EU born resident <= 6 yrs vs. Non-
EU born resident > 6 yrs
FI
BENLFRSEAT
PLLUSIIT
HUDKUKEE
ELCZ
ESPT
CY
20406080
20 40 60 80
Non-EU born resident <= 6 yrsNon-EU born resident > 6 yrs
 
EN 70   EN Employment rate of non-EU  born vs. EU-born, 2006
020406080% of WAPNon-EU born resident <= 6 yrs Non-EU born resident > 6 yrs EU born
Source: Eurostat, EU LFS, annual Gap in employment rates to EU born, 2006
-40-20020
CY
PT
EE
SI
LV
CZ
ES
LT
EL
IT
HU
MT
DK
NL
SE
UK
AT
FI
FR
LU
BE
PLpp diff.
 
Table 13 
 Shares of employment, employment, unemployment and activity rates, 2006
TotalResident 
<= 5 yrsResident 
> 5 yrsTotalResident 
<= 5 yrsResident 
> 5 yrsTotalResident 
<= 5 yrsResident 
> 5 yrsTotalResident 
<= 5 yrsResident 
> 5 yrs
BE 5.3 0.8 4.6 62.7 44.9 35.1 47.1 7.0 23.5 31.1 22.0 67.4 58.7 51.0 60.4
CZ 0.6 0.1 0.5 65.4 68.1 63.2 70.0 7.1 9.0 : 8.8 70.4 75.0 67.9 77.0DK 3.9 0.8 2.1 78.4 61.3 (59.7) (63.3) 3.7 8.3 (10.1) (8.1) 81.4 66.9 (66.3) (68.9)EE 14.4 : 14.0 67.4 72.6 : 72.5 5.6 7.8 : 7.9 71.5 79.0 : 79.0EL 6.5 1.1 5.5 60.5 67.9 61.7 69.3 8.8 9.2 11.5 8.8 66.5 74.8 69.7 75.9ES 10.3 4.1 4.9 63.9 69.2 (66.7) (71.4) 8.0 12.7 (14.1) (12.3) 69.6 79.3 (77.6) (81.4)
FR 6.7 0.8 5.9 64.4 54.0 35.9 57.8 8.7 18.2 30.0 16.3 70.6 66.1 51.2 69.2
IT 6.2 1.2 5.0 57.9 65.8 52.5 70.1 6.6 8.4 13.1 7.1 62.0 71.8 60.4 75.5CY 11.1 6.4 4.7 69.3 75.1 77.5 72.0 4.3 5.2 (5.1) (5.3) 72.6 79.2 81.7 76.1LV 10.5 : 10.3 65.7 72.6 : 72.4 7.0 5.9 : 6.0 70.7 77.1 : 76.9LT 4.1 : 3.9 63.3 69.7 : 69.7 5.5 (7.6) : (7.9) 67.1 75.4 : 75.8LU 5.0 0.9 4.1 60.0 55.0 48.7 58.3 3.3 15.7 : (12.8) 62.0 65.3 61.1 66.9
HU 0.5 0.1 0.4 57.3 59.1 57.8 59.5 7.5 : : : 61.9 63.8 59.1 65.0
MT 3.0 : 2.8 54.8 54.9 : 57.0 7.2 : : : 59.1 59.7 : 61.9NL 7.9 0.4 7.5 75.8 56.7 37.2 58.3 3.7 11.8 18.7 11.4 78.7 64.2 45.7 65.8AT 10.0 1.5 8.5 71.6 61.8 45.6 65.9 3.8 11.5 19.7 9.9 74.4 69.8 56.7 73.1PL 0.2 (0.1) 0.1 54.6 34.2 (52.2) 30.1 13.9 : : : 63.5 37.4 (54.7) 33.3PT 6.0 1.5 4.5 67.6 72.9 75.3 72.1 7.5 9.5 7.5 10.1 73.4 80.6 81.5 80.4
SI 6.9 (0.1) 6.8 66.6 68.5 (53.3) 68.7 5.9 7.1 : 7.1 70.8 73.7 (56.4) 74.0
SK : 0.0 : 59.5 : : : 13.4 : : : 68.7 (67.6) : (70.0)FI 1.4 (0.2) 1.3 70.2 54.1 (33.1) 59.6 8.6 23.4 (43.3) 20.0 77.0 70.7 58.4 74.4SE 7.8 0.9 6.9 75.1 56.6 39.4 60.0 6.1 16.8 25.9 15.5 80.1 68.1 53.1 71.1UK 7.6 2.2 5.4 72.0 62.8 60.7 63.8 5.0 8.6 10.3 8.0 75.9 68.8 67.6 69.5Non-EU bornEmployment rates Unemployment rates Activity rates
Native-
bornNon-EU bornNative-
bornNon-EU bornNative-
bornNon-EU born
Source: Eurostat, EU LFS annual data. Note: ":" Data not available. Data in brackets uncertain due to small sample size. The to tal shares may differ from the sum of shares 
by groups due to 'No answers' regarding the length of stay in the country.Share of employment
EN 71   EN Figure 14– Participation rates by gender, 2004 
 
Note: 2003 data for Belgium, Greece , Spain, Ireland, Italy, Portugal 
Source: OECD 
EN 72   EN Figure 15-: Education of EU born and non-EU born, 2006 
Education level of native and foreign-born population aged 15-64 in the EU, 2006
0 2 04 06 08 0 1 0 0 Resident <= 6 yrs Resident > 6 yrsNon-EU born Total Resident <= 6 yrs Resident > 6 yrsOther EU born
TotalNative-born 
%Low Medium High
Source: Eurostat,  EU LFS annual data. Note: BG, DE and IE excluded .overrepresantation at low and high edu cation levels compared to native-born-10 -5 0 5 10
pp diff.-10 -5 0 5 10
pp diff.
 
Figure 16- Shares of tertiary educatio n among EU-born and non-EU born, 2006 
Share of population w ith tertiary education for EU born and non-EU born, 2006
010203040
EE HU CY UK CZ SE LU LV FR PL EU* MT PT DK BE ES FI LT NL EL SI A T ITshare pf population aged 15-64Non-EU born EU born
Source: Eurostat, EU LFS annual data. Note: EU* excludes BG, DE and IE.
 
EN 73   EN Table 17– Occupational structure in EI by ma in occupational grouping (as % share of 
total employment) 
 
EN 74   EN Table 18– Highly Skilled Workers non-EU na tional as percentage of total HSW, 1995-
2004 
 
EN 75   EN Table 19 – Employment rates of non-EU nationals population with high education, as 
percentage of relative population, 1995-2004 
 
EN 76   EN Table 20 – Highly Skilled Workers non-EU na tionals as a percentage of total employed 
non-EU nationals, 1995-2004 
 
EN 77   EN Figure 21 – Composition of Highly Skilled Workers non-EU nationals by gender, 1999-
2004.