No C 159/12 Official Journal of the European Communities 17. 6. 91 
dards which may be extremely difficult to achieve and, 
some of which, may not really contribute much to the 
Done at Brussels, 24 april 1991. 
1. Introduction 
1.1. In recent years, the Committee has issued three 
Opinions on the situation of third country migrants: 
a) own-initiative Opinion of 25 October 1984 on 
migrant workers ('), 
b) opinion of 29 May 1985 on guidelines for a Com­
munity policy on migration (2). This Opinion largely 
reflects the earlier one, particularly in its comments 
on third countries, 
c) opinion of 12 July 1989 on the Mediterranean policy 
of the European Community (3). The Opinion sets 
out proposals for a policy for migrants from non-
EC Mediterranean countries. 
1.1.1. The Committee's assessment of the limits of 
EC policy in this field, and the recommendations and 
conclusions as to needs set out in the above Opinions, 
have not been taken up by the Council and remain 
largely valid. overall objective of protecting the worker's health and 
safety at the workplace. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Francois STAEDELIN 
1.1.2. Nonetheless, the changes which have since 
occurred in Member States' circumstances and legis­
lation, and the changes wrought the Community inte­
gration and the ensuing need for a new institutional 
framework, suggest to the Committee that further 
assessments and recommendations are needed. 
1.2. The Hanover European Council of June 1988 
recognized that immigration needed more detailed 
Community consideration, and instructed the Com­
mission to draw up a report on the social integration 
of migrants. 
1.2.1. This report, on the social integration of third 
country migrants residing on a permanent and lawful 
basis in the Member States (4), was followed by an 
experts' report (drawn up on the Commission's behalf) 
on policies on immigration and the social integration 
of migrants in the European Community (5). This latter 
report is an important contribution to the subject, and 
its conclusions and recommendations are considered in 
the present Opinion. Own-initiative opinion on the Status of migrant workers from third countries 
(91/C 159/05) 
On 31 January 1991 the Economic and Social Committee, acting under the fourth paragraph 
of Article 20 of its Rules of Procedure, decided to draw up an Opinion on the Status of 
migrant workers from third countries. 
The Section for Social, Family, Educational and Cultural Affairs, which was responsible for 
preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 11 April 1991. The 
Rapporteur was Mr Andrea Amato. 
At its 286th plenary session (meeting of 24 April 1991), the Economic and Social Committee 
adopted the following Opinion by a majority vote, with two abstentions. 
(!) OJ No C 343, 24. 12. 1984. 
(2) OJ No C 188, 29. 7. 1985. 
(3) OJ No C 221, 28. 8. 1989. (4) SEC(89) 924 final, 22. 6. 1989. 
(5) SEC(90) 1813 final, 28. 9. 1990. 
17. 6. 91 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 159/13 
1.3. The Rome European Council on 14 and 
15 December 1990 gave further consideration to the 
subject. Its conclusions call on the Council and the 
Commission to decide on measures relating to the cross­
ing of external borders. The conclusions go on: 
'The European Council took note of the reports on 
immigration and asks the General Affairs Council 
and the Commission to examine the most appropri­
ate measures and actions regarding aid to countries 
of emigration, entry conditions and aid for social 
integration, taking particular account of the need 
for a harmonized policy on the right of asylum.' 
1.4. On the initiative of several governments, the 
extension of Community responsibility in the field of 
immigration has been put on the agenda of the 
intergovernmental conference on political union, laun­
ched in Rome last December. The Commission Opinion 
of 21 October 1990 on the revision of the Treaty with 
a view to political union (!) contained proposals on this. 
1.5. A Court of Justice judgement of 9 July 1987 (2) 
helped to clarify the Commission's existing responsi­
bilities under the terms of the second paragraph of 
Article 118 of the Treaty. The judgement illustrates 
the possible range of Community responsibility for 
immigration matters. 
1.5.1. Furthermore, on 31 January 1991 the Court of 
Justice (3) ruled that the provisions of the EC-Morocco 
Cooperation agreement concerning non-discrimination 
in pay, employment and social security conditions were 
directly applicable to Member State regulations. Logi­
cally, the decision must apply equally to the other 
Cooperation and Association Agreements (with 
Tunisia/Algeria/Yugoslavia and Turkey, respectively) 
containing similar provisions. 
1.6. The time thus seems ripe to frame a fully-fledged 
Community policy on immigration. 
1.6.1. The report of the European Parliament Com­
mittee of inquiry on racism and xenophobia also sug­
gests the need for such a step (4). 
2. Purpose and scope of the Opinion 
2.1. In the light of the above, a Community immi­
gration policy should have three main planks: 
(!) COM 60-90-200 — Luxembourg, 21 October 1990. 
(2) European Court Reports 1987/7, page 3203. 
(3) Judgement C 18/90. 
(4) Rapporteur: Glyn Ford Mep, Doc. A3 — 195/90, 23. 7. 1990. a) planning of migrant flows, and regulation of entry 
and the right to asylum (considered in a separate 
Opinion currently being drafted); 
b) economic and social integration and free movement 
within the Community for legally resident immi­
grants; 
c) voluntary return to the country of origin. 
2.2. The present Opinion focuses on the 'domestic' 
aspects of a Community immigration policy. It will 
concentrate on the questions raised by the presence in 
the Community of migrants from third countries, as 
regards their living and working conditions and their 
impact on the economic and social situation of the 
Community. 
2.3. The term 'migrants from third countries' here 
means people who have moved from their country of 
origin to an EC Member State to work there as 
employees or self-employed, and who are legally resi­
dent there either temporarily or permanently.The term 
extends to family members (spouses, children under 18, 
other dependent offspring, and dependent relatives in 
the ascending line) and workers in receipt of retirement 
or invalidity pensions in a Member State. 
2.4. The present Opinion therefore does not cover 
the special problems of Member State citizens whose 
country of origin is outside the EC, except with refer­
ence to the more general question of practical discrimi­
nation. The Committee has already insisted on the need 
to ensure that: 
'all EC nationals, including those who are from 
ethnic minorities, are assured a share of and a future 
in a "People's Europe", and that rights of residence, 
of freedom of movement and employment, and the 
mutual recognition of diplomas and qualifications 
are applied accross the board' (5). 
2.5. It is clear that the 'domestic' aspects of immi­
gration policy include the conditions governing the 
entry of migrants into the Member States. Various 
forms of coordination of entry conditions are already 
developing. They should be examined by the Com­
munity, with full involvement of the democratic insti­
tutions and representative bodies. 
2.6. The Committee is aware of the link between 
Community immigration policy and development in the 
migrants' countries of origin, particularly those nearest 
the Community. This topic will be covered in the forth­
coming Opinion. 
(5) OJ No C 23, 30. 1. 1989, p. 33. 
No C 159/14 Official Journal of the European Communities 17. 6. 91 
3. Towards a Community statute for migrant workers 
from third countries 
3.1. The social integration (!) of immigrants in the 
EC has become an important matter which must be 
addressed: 
— over eight million migrants from third countries 
now live in the EC, 
— although the presence of these migrants has varying 
implications in individual Member States, partly 
because migration has occurred over differing per­
iods, it may create similar tensions on the labour 
market and in society as a whole. 
3.2. The Community must, as a body, set out to 
encourage the social integration of immigrants; not 
only because this is in keeping with the general values 
which underpin the Community, but also because fail­
ure to integrate has adverse implications for employ­
ment and, more generally, for living and working con­
ditions in the Community. Similarly, a misguided form 
of integration could produce social exclusion and alien­
ation, particularly among young members of migrant 
families. 
3.2.1. Sensitive social insertion, based on equality of 
rights and opportunities, is the key to preventing the 
formation of pockets of social isolation and is essential 
if illegal employment, the underground economy and 
tax and social security fraud are not to be encouraged. 
3.2.2. Discrimination against immigrant workers 
could lead to 'social dumping' within the Community. 
A Community policy for the social integration of immi­
grants is therefore essential to the proper working of 
the single market. 
3.2.3. Granting migrant workers a proper place in 
the labour market, with equal rights and opportunities, 
should not be viewed as a further burden on Member 
States' social systems but rather as an opportunity. For 
example an increase in the workforce could have a 
beneficial effect on the social security system, which is 
currently weakened by negative population growth in 
the industrialized world. 
3.2.4. The Community should aim not only to com­
bat and forestall the problems caused by the absence 
(') The term 'social integration' is used as it has become estab­
lished in Community terminology. 'Social insertion' would 
be more appropriate; it avoids confusion with 'assimilation' 
and does not imply a challenge to immigrants' cultural 
identity. of social integration, but also to make the most of what 
immigrants, particularly the younger generation, have 
to offer in terms of economic, social and cultural devel­
opment in a multi-racial and multi-cultural Com­
munity. 
3.3. The completion of the Single Market wll signifi­
cantly alter the immigration situation, and requires 
the Community to approach the problem from a new 
angle: (2) 
— the forthcoming removal of controls at the Com­
munity's internal borders highlights the disparate 
provisions and instruments pertaining in the Mem­
ber States, 
— even if the removal of internal borders allows immi­
grants to move freely within the Community, under 
present legislation this does not necessarily mean 
that they can legally work in all Member States. 
It is likely that an increasing number of immigrants 
will seek to use greater mobility within the Com­
munity as a means of escaping the fluctuations of 
the national labour markets; this could lead to a 
sharp increase in undeclared work. 
3.4. The Community must therefore set itself a two­
fold aim: 
a) to harmonize legislative provisions, regulations, 
instruments and measures for the social integration 
of migrants in the Member States; 
b) to define conditions for implementing freedom of 
movement for migrants from third countries under 
equal conditions to those of Community citizens. 
Failure to pursue these two aims would not only foster 
discrimination (wtih all the moral implications of a 
(2) The ILO has devoted considerable attention to this matter, 
and has issued three papers: 
— Informal summary record of the informal consultation 
meeting on migrants from non-EEC countries in the Single 
European Market after 1992 — Geneva, 27-28 April 1989. 
— Some economic, social and human rights considerations 
concerning the future status of third country nationals 
in the Single European Market by W.R. Bohning and 
J. Werquin (Working Paper in World Employment Pro­
gramme), Geneva, April 1990. 
— Informal summary record of the inter-regional tripartite 
round table on migrant workers from non-EEC countries 
in the internal market, Geneva, 15-17 October 1990. 
17. 6. 91 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 159/15 
Community based on injustice, restricting the rights of 
some of those contributing to its development), and 
hinder the proper working of the single market, but 
would betray the very ideals underpinning it. The aim 
of a single Community employment market, alongside 
a single market in goods, services and capital, would 
effectively be abandoned: national labour markets 
would remain, kept separate by their different treatment 
of third country workers. 
3.5. We should not underestimate the link between 
free movement of migrant workers and harmonization 
of social integration policies in the Community on the 
one hand, and coordination of entry conditions on the 
other. 
3.5.1. The primary factor is time: the harmonization 
of social integration policies and the achievement of 
free movement should not be delayed pending the defi­
nition of common policies to regulate entry. 
3.5.2. There is also a cause and effect factor—the 
future response to the question of migratory flows, for 
example, is bound to affect the chances of success of 
policies for social integration and free movement. Pro­
per implementation would not be feasible if entry con­
ditions were too liberal and the Community was faced 
with a massive influx — but failure would also result 
Done at Brussels, 24 April 1991. if entry conditions were so stringent as effectively to halt 
legal immigration and, inevitably, to generate illegal 
immigration. This would, among other things, put 
benign Community public attitudes towards immi­
grants — a precondition for the successful achievement 
of social integration and freedom of movement — at 
risk. 
3.5.3. The way in which 'domestic' questions are 
addressed will in fact have a decisive effect on immi­
gration controls. For example, if the Community 'pull' 
factor (which combines with the 'push' factor in the 
countries of origin to cause migration) were basically 
positive (e.g. no longer consisting of a market for illegal 
labour), this would inevitably affect the number and 
type of migrants and the measures adopted to regulate 
their entry. 
4. The present Opinion has sought to define the 
rationale, guidelines and general aims of a Community 
immigration policy, and more particularly the status of 
migrant workers from third countries. The Committee 
will shortly issue an additional Opinion offering specific 
proposals on economic and social integration and free 
movement (basic rights, adaptation and harmonization 
of legislation, active policy), voluntary return to the 
country of origin, information, and Community coordi­
nation. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Francois STAEDELIN