immigration and european immigration policy: myths and realities

25
1 Immigration and European Immigration Policy: Myths and Realities Giuseppe Sciortino (Università di Trieste, Trieste, Italy) [email protected] and Ferruccio Pastore (CeSPI, Roma, Italy) [email protected] Paper prepared for the conference: Extending the area of Freedom, Justice and Security through Enlargment: Challenges for the European Union Europaische Rechtsakademie Trier, July 2002 Preliminary version – do not quote without permission

Upload: independent

Post on 10-Nov-2023

1 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

1

Immigration and European Immigration

Policy: Myths and Realities

Giuseppe Sciortino (Università di Trieste, Trieste, Italy)

[email protected]

and

Ferruccio Pastore (CeSPI, Roma, Italy)

[email protected]

Paper prepared for the conference: Extending the area of Freedom, Justice and Security through Enlargment: Challenges for the European Union

Europaische Rechtsakademie Trier, July 2002

Preliminary version – do not quote without permission

2

Tampere’s promises are quickly fading away. For a while, it seemed that Western Europe

was on the verge of a deep and long sought change in the process, scope and contents of its

immigration policy.

Cashing upon the spaces opened up by the 1997 Amsterdam treaty, which stated a shy step

in the direction of the “communitarization” of immigration and asylum policies, the 1999 EU

meeting in Tampere called for a full- fledged common EU migration policy. On these basis, a

wave of ambitious communications and proposals have been presented by the Commission. Fairly

soon, however, the climate began to change, as revealed by the same scoreboard that the

Commission – perhaps overconfidently – had set up immediately after Tampere. The scoreboard

reveals that long delays have already accumulated for several key proposals1. Press agencies

inform us of open conflicts about others. Since Laeken, the former incremental approach and the

restrictive orthodoxy have taken again center stage, while the dream of a comprehensive common

immigration policy has receded in the background.

There are many possible ways to explain the pendulum-like movements recorded in such

process. Such explanations, of course, are contingent upon the level of analysis selected. As a

short term account, such changes may be explained looking at the changing political environment.

After all, such environment has changed a lot since Tampere, with a new popularity of center-right

governments, immigration panics again in the top of the political agenda and a new wave of

populist movements gaining success in the media and in the ballots boxes. A more structural

account would look at the difficulties of the specific institution-building, the power networks

germinated in past intergovernmental activities, the resource and constraints for the commission

staff to act as “supranational entrepreneurs” to use Moravcsik (1999) term.

Such analyses are by and large correct. They, however, do seem to us unable to tell the full

story with an adequate detail. This paper will argue that, in order to explain such pendulum

movements, it is necessary to focalize also the conceptual framework which has been embedded in

the – by now – long history of the attempt to construct immigration as a “European” issue. In the

first paragraph, we will reconstruct briefly such attempt, stressing how the tensions between the

“intergovernmental” and the “European” approaches cannot be seen only as an organizational

issue: in the last decades, it will be argued, such tension has produced a whole set of rhetorical

structures and binary oppositions, that have become somewhat “embedded” in the institutional

1. The scoreboard is available at http.//www.europa.eu.int/comm/dg/justice_home/pdf/

3

tension (par. 1.2). In the next step, we will describe the conceptual framework that has triggered

the construction of European migration as a common policy issue. We will outline how such

conceptual framework is grounded on several mythical assumptions, that we will quickly confront

with some easily available data (par. 3). On the basis of these analyses we will provide a further

key elements for explaining the difficulties of establishing a full-Europeanized immigration

policies: any attempt to create a common immigration policy - the post Tampere events being only

the last of a series – face the need to challenge the mythical assumptions of the European vision of

immigration. The political difficulties of such task, we will argue, are a key – and

unacknowledged - stumbling block in the way of European policy development.

1. “European migration policy” before Tampere: a brief historical background

All over Europe, the immigration debate is plenty of references to “Europe”. In most

public opinions, it is common place to argue that immigration is a “European” problem and to

complain about the shortcomings of the “European” immigration policy. In the Southern European

countries, politicians in charge argue that immigration reforms are necessary to bring them up to

the “European” standard, while opposition parties claim the same reforms are bringing their

countries “out of Europe”. In other European countries, it is a common charge that europhile

politicians are discussing or accepting immigration decisions that are against the national interests.

In other words, that they fail to secure an adequate action for protecting such interests. According

to public opinion data, European citizens are deeply unsatisfied with their immigration policies.

Still the number of them that consider useful some kind of “European” policy is fairly high. In

other words, the fact that “european immigration policy” is a highly conflictual and highly

contested field should not blind us to the fact that the boundaries of such field – the assumption of

its existence, peculiarity and significance – are firmly established as a political object. Nor should

it be forgotten that frequent oppositions to specific European proposals leave intact the idea that a

common European answer to immigration problems is both desiderable and achievable (if only the

other member states would accept our priorities….). Already in 1989, although with sizeable

national variations, 35% of the European respondents to the Eurobarometer survey advocated a

common legislation that would apply directly to all member states and a further 30% advocated a

4

strict coordination among national legislation through a reciprocal consultation procedure

(Eurobarometer 1989).

This is, indeed, quite extraordinary. For a long part of post-war European history, the

thirty glorious years of economic recovery and state reconstruction, European countries have

witnessed impressive migratory flows (Bade 2000; Sassen 1999). Such era, however, did not

imply any kind of coordination among receiving countries. While a web of treaties did indeed link

sending and receiving countries, the relationships among governments of the European receiving

countries were absent or openly competitive. When a degree of similarity can be identified, it is

usually linked either to participation to international bodies or to informal copycat strategies

(Sciortino 2000a). The first steps toward the construction of a “European immigration” policy

problem took place only in the early ’80s, when the consequences of the immigration stop of the

mid ‘70s had destroyed both the delusions of the previous era and the hopes for country-based

quick solutions (Pastore 2000). Beside a resolution on the problem of migrant workers and their

families in 1976 – where member states were encouraged to consult the commission about their

policies toward resident immigrant workers (Callovi 1992) - the establishment of a European

policy field on immigration had to wait until mid-80s (Papademetriu 1996).

The historical reconstruction of such genetic moment is still fairly incomplete. The

construction of the “European immigration policy” field – of the idea that the control and

management of migratory flows should be considered a European problem - has been facilitated

by several factors. First of all, the clashes with the embedded liberalism regimes - experienced by

many countries in their post-1973 attempts to restrict immigration with country-based measures –

made appealing the existence of a forum where member states could bypass their internal

constraints in the attempt to regulate the forms of migration their policies defined as unwanted

(Geddes 2001). Second, a certain measure of coordination could easily fit with the technical

problems of the establishment of an intensified common market. Third, the policy response to

some historical events –such as the Turkish asylum seekers upsurge in 1979/80 – had taught that

the control of unwanted migration could require measures (such as the introduction of visa

requirements and agreement with neighboring states) whose effectiveness was strictly contingent

upon coordination with other territorially close receiving states2. There is room, however, to argue

2. The Turkish asylum seekers in Germany are the first warning of the coming “asylum seekers crisis” of the early ‘90s. After the coup d’etat in Turkey, the German Federal Republic received in two years more asylum requests than in the whole previous decade. The “crisis” was brought under control through the introduction of visa requirements for Turkish citizens, an agreement with the GDR for stopping Turkish

5

that a basic factor in the establishment of such a field has been the very same adoption of stop

policies in the mid-70s. Although the migratory regimes of the European receiving states were

quite varied – and albeit the immigration stops were introduced independently – the adoption of

very similar decisions had quickly backtracked: from the fact of similar answers could be inferred

the existence of similar problems. At the root of the European immigration policy process, we find

the slow emergence of a common vision of the European immigration system: there is not a

structural demand for unskilled foreign labor any more, their previous large supply has lowered

the adoption of technological and organizational innovation, the actual migration pressure is

largely due to push factors in the sending countries, new waves of arrival would preclude a full

integration of the already present foreigners, would exercise a strain on the welfare state coffers

and could trigger a wave of xenophobic backlashes.

The shared construction of “Europe” in reference to immigration, however, did leave

open the question of which “Europe”, of the institutional framework of the newly constructed

policy field. Since the beginning, there is a structural tension between the attempt, by the

European Commission, to establish immigration policy as a full- fledged field of action and several

states and state structures, interested instead on a dense network of intergovernmental bodies. In

1985, we witness both the establishment of the first kernel of the Schengen system – bound to

become the quintessential symbol of the intergovernmental approach – and the attempt by the

commission to establish a somewhat binding coordination of member states in matters of entry,

residence, working permits, contrast of irregular migration and cooperation with sending countries

(Commission of the European Communities 1985). While the Schengen system was bound to

grow remarkably in subsequent years, the Commission attempt was quickly defeated by a

challenge in the European Court of Justice by several member states. Even the few areas and

procedures allowed by the ECJ ruling were seldom or weakly implemented (Papademetriu 1996).

A similar conflict appeared during the negotiations of the Single European Act of 1986, where the

Commission’s inclusive interpretation of article 8a was defeated by the member states, unwilling

to reduce their discretionality in the treatment of Third Country Nationals. By 1989, with the Free

Movement of Persons Report, (Coordinators' Group on Free Movement of Persons 1989), it was

clear that immigration policies would be dealt within strictly intergovernmental structures. Such

cooperation should include only restrictive and control issues. A year later, a new discrepancy

appeared at the Council meeting in Rome, where the Commission presented the report of a group

citizens from entering the country via Berlin and forbidding asylum seekers from being employed while

6

of independent experts – accepting the priority of control over integration, but stressing at the

same time the independent importance of integration measures and advocating an easy access to

naturalizations (Commission of the European Communities 1990) – while the Coordinators’

Group stressed how integration could be achieved only in a context of tight and effective

regulations of new entries, postponing consequently integrative measure far away in the future

(Coordinators' Group on Free Movement of Persons 1990).

Since the beginning, we see a processual pattern that will be encountered again and

again: the slow condensation of organizational energies and rhetorical resources in the hands of

the proponents of an EU immigration policy, a decreasing satisfaction with the achieved level of

coordination on immigration control activities, the attempt by supranational bodies to seize the

opportunities opened up by the general institution-building, the production of apparently

successful proposals and a severe defeat at the end, with a rapid Commission’s retreat and a return

to the perspective of intergovernmental coordination on a restricted set of issues. As a matter of

fact, such pattern may be identified in the early ‘90s, looking at the fate of the two 1991

communications on asylum and immigration, and again in the mid-90s, looking at the fate of the

1994 communication on immigration and asylum policies (Commission of the European

Communities 1991a; Commission of the European Communities 1991b; Commission of the

European Communities 1994).

The existence and strength of such recurring pattern is instructive: the structural tension

between intergovernmental and supranational vision of the searched European immigration policy

creates, in a diachronic perspective, a pendulum-like movement. This, however, appear to be

strongly biased in favor of loose coordination among member states on a limited, and control-

based, list of issues. Such pendulum movements, however, do not imply a return of the identical.

Cycle by cycle, the two institutional and organizational options have become charged with a

variety of symbolic meanings, related both to the overall characteristics of the two options and to

the values and priorities such “European” policy should embrace (table 13). This set of rhetorical

binary oppositions – the aura, so to speak – is often more sharply polarized than the actual policy

measures advocated, that are nearly always much more similar than expected4. The rhetorical

their request was evaluate (Martin 1994) . 3. The table has been constructed starting from a (surely non probabilistic) sample of official documents, scholarly papers and press cut-outs. It should be assumed consequently as a sensitizing device, not as a factual description of the situation. 4 . Some warnings are in order. It may be suspected that, at least in some occasion, the communication of the commission, such as the 1991 ones, were meant to accomodate the general political mood or were

7

structure adopted, however, has some consequences also for the actors that adopt it: their agenda

and options becomes – at least partly – constrained by the symbolic attributions they employ to

carve a space for themselves (DiMaggio 1997; Nash 2001). After every downturn, the

Commission structures have found themselves more and more identified with the aim of a a

“global, complementary, comprehensive and realistic” immigration policy (Commission of the

European Communities 1991b).

Tab. 1 The Rhetorical Structure of Institutional Options.

Inter-governmental "supranational" control control and integration

state-centered EU-centered short-term long-term

incremental comprehensive restrictive enlightened

fragmented systemic Lowest-common denominator up-to-the-task

unaccountable accountable Fortress Europe Area of freedom, security and justice rights-reducing rights-enhancing

pragmatic ideological realistic grandiose

common sense elitist 2. Schengen II: the revenge?

From many points of view, the signing of the Amsterdam Treaty introduced a strong

difference in the institutional context of “European” immigration policy. The treaty, after all,

provided the institutional resources for a full “communitarization” (contingent upon a unanimity

vote in 2004) of the main structures of the intergovernmental approach. It is important to stress

that such outcome has made been possible by the very same success of intergovernemental

coordination. From one side, Schengen was by then basically covering all the external Southern

frontiers of the Union. Its main engine – the exchange between the willingness to play the role of a

buffer state and the symbolic recognition granted by the Schengen membership (Convey and

Kupiszewski M. 1995; Sciortino 1999; Pastore 1999) – was consequently running out of fuel. On

the other side, “communitarization” appeared, even to supporters of the intergovernmental

approach, as a reasonable way out from the increasing severity of the approach’s shortcomings:

selected in a way as to maximize attention to the areas were its claims could be pushed more successfully (Papademetriu 1996). On the whole, however, most of the communications here reviewed are basically enlightened versions of the restrictive orthodoxy about immigration in Europe.

8

the extensive dependency on unanimity decisions (producing painfully slow and weak decisions),

the unequal distribution of financial and control burdens that would derive from a real application

of the Dublin treaty (producing widespread delays and endemic subterfuges) and interest in

presenting accession countries a take-it-or-leave-it package of immigration control measures

(necessary to create an Eastern layer of buffer states). Finally, the restrictive orthodoxy seemed to

be breaking down anyway: the need for foreign labor was starting to be openly recognized in

several European political system, and some Mediterranean countries had already introduced a

basic set of active immigration policies5. Such opportunities were appealing, and it is then not

surprising that plenty of initiatives – from different actors and with different purposes – have been

observed since 1997.

The Tampere’s council of 1999 – with its emphasis on the adoption of an “integrated

approach” (Commission of the European Communities 1999)– seemed to many held the promise

that a “communitarized” immigration policy would be something different from Schengen written

large (Pastore 2000). On the basis of the decisions taken in Tampere, the Commission has issued

several communications and legislative proposals addressing a variety of key issues and, more

importantly launching an integrate and medium term strategy for immigration policy in Europe,

including an outline of the institutional process designed to support it (Commission of the

European Communities 2000a; Commission of the European Communities 2000b; Commission of

the European Communities 2001). Such communications, and several more specific ones, dealt –

albeit quite shyly – with troubled issues such as the rights of third country nationals, family

reunification and the introduction of burden sharing mechanisms for asylum-seekers. In a limited,

but significant, breakaway from the restrictive orthodoxy, the Commission recognized the

existence in Europe of a demand for foreign workers and argued in favor of some kind of active

immigration policy The pendulum seemed to have switched definitely towards the supranational

side and the symbols associated with it.

It did not last long. Already at the end of 2001, the commission – reviewing its

scoreboard – stressed how progresses in the field of immigration had been very slow and uneven.

Looking at the measures, the scoreboard revealed fairly clearly that the measures that basically

expanded or revised the Schengen tradition had fairly good chances of acceptance, while the

5 . All the talk of “zero immigration ” notwithstanding, no EU member state has ever stopped completely labor migration. All member states have actually a variety of programs for the entry of foreign labor (Ecotec ). Still, from 1999 on, a growth has been observed in the proposals for explicit programs for foreign workers even in countries that had never recognize before the enduring existence of a demand for foreign workers.

9

chances of the measures targeted to deal with regular immigration – a key dimension of the

Commission’s strategy – were rather gloomy. Immediately after such review exercise, the Laeken

summit brought to light the open resistance of some member states and the existence of significant

amounts of afterthoughts in the others. The same summit operated a fairly strong scaling-down of

the strategy, giving again full priority to control issues and to the standardization of procedures

only in the field of humanitarian acceptance6. This fundamental trend was not only confirmed but

reinforced in Sevilla.

What seems to take place, in short, is the classical putting old wine in new bottles: the

“new” “communitarized” approach assumes more and more the two main structural features of the

former inter-governmental one: it is restricted to few issues managed according to the search for

lowest common denominators, it deals nearly exclusively with control issues and it pursues its

objectives in a fragmented rather than systemic way. At the moment, the choice seems to be

between a communitarized immigration policy that follow rather closely the immigration strategy

and approach of the previous intergovernmental stream – thus basically renouncing the aura

identified in table 1 – and an overarching chance of failure in 2004. If such outcome will prove

true, the significance of the previous explanations centered on the institutional level will need to

be somewhat qualified. Opposition to “communitarization”, in other words, could prove to be less

connected with institutional design and fears for the sovereignty losses than previously assumed.

On the contrary, the systemic, comprehensive, medium-term policy stance, strictly associated to

that project, could turn out to matter more.

Our argument is that – beside the obvious importance of the competing institutional

projects and of the power networks associated with them – an adequate understanding of the

issues involved requires also to pay its dues to the conceptual frame embodied in the very same

construction of an “European immigration policy”, the very taken-for-granted assumptions that

political actors make about the process that aim to regulate. Such assumptions – that have fuelled

the growth of the “European immigration” policy field – have, as we will show in the next

paragraph, largely mythical foundations. Reality notwithstanding, such cognitive frame has

attained a status of orthodoxy that can be challenged – from the political and electoral point of

view - only at great risk. As such foundation would be much more difficult to uphold within the

context of a comprehensive immigration policy, the political pressure to maintain such

foundations– although matched with a growing feeling of unreality among staff and even

6. See point n. 40 of the conclusions, available at http://ue.eu.int/en/info/eurocouncil/

10

decision-makers – force the policy process towards incremental, lowest-common denominator,

negotiations centered mainly on reactive control measures.

3. Myths and Realities

From the point of view of its cognitive framework, the European immigration policy

debate shows a fairly strong continuity. Reading longitudinally the available planning document, it

is striking how stable the set of basic assumption is revealed to be. Such set of assumption may

summarized as follow:

1. Western Europe is a single, albeit internally varied, migration system; 2. EU member states have (at least) a set of common migratory problems, that can (and

should) be managed in similar ways; 3. In Western Europe, there is no structural demand for unskilled foreign labor; 4. The main factor behind irregular immigration are inadequate control systems; 5. Irregular migration toward EU countries is mainly push-driven; 6. The integration of immigrants is difficult and it poses several challenges. To be able to

integrate the already present foreigners, a tight control is necessary; 7. To regulate restrictively the mobility of TCN is necessary given their high mobility

potential. Without such restrictions, foreigners would move to the most generous welfare states;

8. European societies are highly homogeneous and most citizens feel culturally threatened by immigration. Consequently, xenophobic backlashes are an ever-present possibility to be constantly monitored and taken into account;

All these assumptions may be questioned and – indeed – are questioned by several

researches. We will restrict ourselves to public-use, easily accessible data, just in order to show

that such premises are not inference from factual knowledge, but rather a kind of moral discourse

- evolved as a reaction from the guestworkers’ era delusions – that is continually reinforced by its

assertion as a “realistic” frame for policy-making7.

Let’s start with the first crucial assumption: that Western Europe is a single, albeit

internally varied, migration system. In the last twenty years there has been a remarkable process of

convergence among the immigration policies of the EU member countries, at least as far as

7. We do not claim at all that cognitive frameworks determine policies (Sciortino 2000b). We claim they contribute to establish the boundaries of policy menus, as well as creating resources both for launching and contrasting policy proposals. In recent years, the restrictive orthodoxy has increasingly played the latter role.

11

migratory control is concerned (Brochmann and Hammar 1999).Can we say the same for the

migratory systems such policies are meant to regulate? Unfortunately, comparative data are scarce

and sometimes less reliable than they could be. However, if we have a look at the available data

for the last decade (Council of Europe 2000; Eurostat 2000; Oecd 1999), we easily discover a few

significant facts:

- there are only very few and debatable evidence of convergence among European countries as

far as migrants’ countries of origins, destinations and individual characteristics;

- there is very weak evidence of convergence among migratory trends, with only a few countries

experiencing in the last decade structural changes in the flows’ compositions;

- there is an even scarcer evidence of convergence among migratory stock trends, both in

reference to the stock of resident foreign population and its labor market participation rate and

sectoral employment. Most of the recorded convergence is likely to be derived by the

convergence among the countries’ occupational structures;

- sub-regional homogeneities are very limited and nearly never among contiguous units;

- the attractive capacities of countries, and increasingly of their regions, appear to be highly

disomogeneous;

A point that should be stressed is that such results are not surprising from the point of view of

contemporary migration theory8. Given what we know by now about the history of migratory

flows in many European countries (most of them already in the stage where cumulative causation

factors are mature), about the path-dependent and locally-selected nature of many migratory

systems and about the effectiveness and capabilities of immigration policy, such results are

precisely what a sophisticated theory of migration would lead us to expect. This does not imply

that among the set of migratory systems that include Western Europe there are not similarities and

overlappings. Nor that the convergence among control immigration policies will be void of

consequences for such systems. Keeping in mind the plural and fragmented nature of immigration

in Europe, however, should sensitize us to the fact that such convergence among control policies

is perceived as a reaction but is empirically a construction (Sciortino 2000a).

From the first assumption, in the European policy debate, usually follows that EU member

countries have at least some common migratory problem that could and should be managed in a

coordinated way. At first glance, it may appear obvious. Compared with 30 years ago, all Western

European countries – actually most European countries tout court – have become receiving

8 For an accurate review, see (Massey et al. 1998)

12

countries. All public opinions are concerned with a set of apparently similar issues – irregular

migration, security and the migratory consequences of international crises being surely among

them. The policy problem menus seem today much more similar today across European countries

than it used to be 30 years ago. At a closer look, however, such similarities are indeed existing but

far from telling us the full story. Similar flows, in different contexts, may after all still require

different answers as they may produce different answers. The clearest example is the “control

crisis” of the early ‘90s, a main triggering factors in the development of “European immigration

policy” as a policy field (Cornelius W. et al. 1994; Freeman 1994). Most of European coordination

at the time has been targeted to bring under control such crisis, identified mainly with the upsurge

of asylum-seekers and refugees (introduction of visa requirements, externalization of border

controls, sanctions to carriers, involvement of Eastern European countries, the safe heaven

concept, temporary and discretionary protection programs). By and large, such policy – albeit at

the cost of serious strains - has been successful: even if in the rise again, the number of asylum

applications in Europe was in 2001 only slightly more than 50% of the 1992 peak, and the war in

Kossovo has shown that even the flows of displaced persons may be contained quite effectively.

Tab. 2 Asylum Requests in Europe as a % of the total. 1980 1985 1989 1990 1991

France 8,0 16,6 20,7 12,6 9,5 Germany 63,0 47,6 42,8 49,0 52,8 Sweden 7,4 9,3 10,7 7,5 5,6 United Kingdom 5,8 3,5 5,5 6,4 9,2 % of the EU15 total 84,2 77,1 79,7 75,5 77,1

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

France 4,3 5,3 8,4 7,3 7,6 Germany 65,2 62,5 41,3 46,6 51,8 Sweden 12,5 7,3 6,1 3,3 2,6 United Kingdom 4,8 5,4 13,7 20,0 12,4 % of the EU15 total 86,8 80,5 69,5 77,2 74,5

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

France 8,3 7,4 8,9 10,6 13,0 Germany 43,3 32,5 27,5 21,6 24,3 Sweden 4,0 4,2 3,2 4,5 6,5 United Kingdom 13,5 19,1 20,6 20,9 19,7 % of the EU15 total 69,1 63,3 60,3 57,6 63,4 Source: Unhcr for 1980-1981, 2001 and for Greece, Ireland, Luxembourg; Icg for 1992-2000.

13

In retrospect, however, we can easily discover that such “crisis” was hardly

“European”: it was a German (and partly French, Swedish and British) crisis (table 2). Germany

alone, in the heaviest years from 1990 to 1993, received from 49% to 65% of all the asylum

requests in Europe, and the four countries together absorbed from 75% to 86% of all the requests

filed in those years. In doing so, they were confirming a medium-term pattern already well

established long before the geopolitical transformations of the late ‘80s, as the 1980 and 1985 data

show (table 2). Not surprisingly, the policies enacted in the period have changed the situation.

This, however, not only as far as the volumes of overall asylum seekers (the average number of

application from 1990 to 1993 was 517,000, the average number of application in the period from

1998 to 2001 was 344,000 with a decrease of 33%) but also their regional distribution: in the last

years, Germany receives less than a quarter of all European applications, Sweden between 4% and

7% and the absorption rate of the four major countries of the “crisis period” has lowered to 63%.

The policy circle of the early ’90s has consequently been rather effective. But it may be

questioned if the measures adopted and the policy stances taken have been answering to a

“European-wide” problem: Southern European countries, that in the same years were experiencing

a large influx of foreign labor, would have presumably benefited much more by the development

of an active labor policy, matched if possible by a more liberal visa regime, by programs for

seasonal work and tailored employer sanctions. Such items were in fact on the European table, but

they were always given a low – if existent – priority.

The latter point is closely connected to the fourth myth we have identified in the

European vision of migration: the lack of a structural demand for unskilled – or low skilled –

foreign labor. Such item was born in the years prior to the great immigration stop of the early ‘70s,

and it has fossilized ever since. The historical record, however, does indeed show that such great

immigration stop was linked more to political than economic reasons. In fact, it took place while

employers were still frantically recruiting abroad, recurring in Germany even to charter flights

(Münz R. and Ulrich R. E. 1998). As matter of fact, the immigration stop was a political decision,

aimed at establishing a renewed control over the determination of the composition of the

population, on the basis of a perception that the current migration situation was producing benefits

for the entrepreneurs and costs for the political system9. There is a considerable evidence that the

9. This was openly recognized in the very first SOPEMI report, written in 1979: the immigration stop decision is presented as motivated “strictly by political reasons” and it is argued that the oil shock had been an occasion for pushing forward “restrictive decisions grounded in the political and social situation” rather than in the economic one. For a detailed discussion of such interpretation of the immigration stop, see (Sciortino 2000a)

14

immigration stop has not implied the disappearance of the demand for unskilled foreign labor. Of

course, the era of large manufacturing plants hiring thousands of steelworkers at once is ended

and many mature sectors have been loosing large shares of their workforce. But a large demand

for lowly skilled and unskilled work still exists in other sectors, such as construction and small,

tailored-made, production. Actually, it could well be that technological and organizational

innovations do produce in the most innovative firms a deeper segmentation between skilled and

unskilled positions, thus increasing the demand for foreign labor (Bruni 1994). The demand for

elementary occupation in the service sector is also large. Given that European welfare state (with

the exception of the Scandinavian countries) are service-lean and transfer-based, European

households – pressured by a structural increase in women employment - needs to acquire a large

volume of personal services on the market, producing a further demand for lowly skilled jobs.

Agriculture does still need – at least in some points in the circle, often year- long – position

shunned by locals. According to the most recent estimates, more than one agricultural seasonal

worker out of ten is a foreigner, 90% of which arriving from accession countries (table 3). Given

the large proportion of undocumented work in the agricultural sector, such data are very likely to

be heavily underestimated.

Tab. 3 Foreign Seasonal Workers in the Agricultural Sectors (2000).

Germany 250.000 Austria 28.421 Greece 120.000 Finland 2.502 Sweden 2.835 Netherlands 6.328 Italy (data refer to 2001) 80.000 Spain 32.315 Portugal - - France 7.100 Denmark 50 Belgium - - Partial Total 522.685 Source: Coldiretti calculation on GEOPA data (2002).

In the absence of heavy proletarization processes of the native population, such large

demand for unskilled or low skilled work will require the presence of a large number of

foreigners. Not surprisingly, we find across Western Europe immigrants over represented in the

manufacturing, construction and service sectors (Oecd 2001). The same sectors are supposed to

15

harbor the most of undocumented migration jobs, with even a larger presence in the personal

services (Oecd 2000).

As matter of fact, hundreds of thousands of the migrants that, along the last two

decades, were said to “migrate into unemployment” appear actually to be by now firmly

employed10. All in all, market participation rate of male foreign workers is frequently above that

of natives in European labor markets, more remarkably in the younger countries of immigration

such as Italy or Spain11. Differences, moreover, tend to disappear with the length of residence, as

foreigners seem to show over time a remarkable occupational assimilation (Oecd 2001). Although

immigrants may face difficulties in entering the labor market in the short term, they seem to have

a beneficial effect in the medium one (Glover et al. 2001).

A final consideration may be made looking at what the EU member states do, rather

than to what they preach: in recent years, a variety of seasonal workers programs have been

opened or strengthened in some European countries. Under a large variety of labels and schemes,

Germany has employed during the 90s an average of 275,000 foreign temporary workers a year,

France an average of 13,000, the United Kingdom of around 86,000 (Oecd 2001). If we look at the

policy proposals on the table of many European government, there is some chances that a new

guestworker era is slowly starting. The new generation of programs, however, seems to be

designed in a way that secures its temporary character or, more precisely, does not imply the

acquisition of residency rights. It is just too early to say if such programs will turn to be effective

or if they will nurture a new historical delusion about their actual temporariness.

The brief summary of the information available about the demand for foreign labor may

allow the conclusion that the difference between the period before the early '70s immigration stop

and today does not concern so much the volume as the origins of such demands: the demand of

foreign labor by the large industrial plants – the reference point of most traditional corporatist

immigration planning – is very limited or not existent. But there is a strong demand originating

from small and medium sized businesses as well as by households. Such change implies a change

in the effectiveness of internal immigration control: policing the boundaries of the labor market is,

10. We are not saying that the employment of foreigners is a paradise. Data shows firmly that foreigners’ earnings are significantly lower than natives’, that immigrants’ occupations are much more sensible to economic downturns and that first-generation, and sometimes second generation, foreigners are much more represented in elementary occupations. We just want to make the point that the demand for their work is, at least for a large part, structural in the medium term. 11. The comparison of aggregate data as in some countries the base (the number of recorded foreigners in the population) is composed by a significant number of asylum seekers, that in most countries are forbidden to work while their application or their appeal is heard.

16

in the contemporary situation, a much more complicated matter. It is not surprising then that at

least sections of the European migratory system have, rather than stopped, turned from regular to

irregular, from documented to undocumented. As irregular migrants are, by definition (in Europe,

at least), excluded from the official labor market, the existence of a sizable irregular migration

system is largely contingent upon the size, structure and strength of the informal economy in the

different economic systems. According to IMF estimates, the contribution of the informal

economy to the official GDP is estimated as ranging from a minimum of 9% (Switzerland) up to

27% and 30% respectively in Italy and Greece (Schneider and Enste 2000) and the experts

surveyed by Mateman and Renooy estimate a large, although far from being exclusive,

contribution of undocumented migrants to the Western European informal economies (Mateman

and Renooy P. H. 2001). Given this context, the assumption that irregular migration is produced

(or made possible) by weak external controls appear to be rather mythical too.

Since the late ‘80s, most of European government’s attention has been devoted to the

reform of external controls. Visa requirements have been introduced for nearly all sending

countries and significant investments have been made on border police authorities (International

Centre for Migration Policy Development 1999). With a remarkable degree of creativity,

“borders” have been expanded and enlarged, buffer-states and buffer areas have been identified

and a growing number of actors has been made subject to control duties (Lahav and Guiraudon

2000). Such efforts have had a remarkable degree of success in the control of the flows of asylum-

seekers and, more generally, in managing the growing demand for admission. Such success is

perhaps best witnessed by the surge of illegal entries recorded in recent years, and in the

development of a specialised transnational smuggling industry (Pastore et al. 1999). Such a large

investment on external controls could be highly effective if the migratory flows were a flood, a

multitude of atomised persons “pushed” out from their countries desperately. The previous points,

however, have shown how such vision is deeply mistaken, at least for the mainstream of the flow.

Most of irregular migrants have both connections and some kind of job prospects in the receiving

countries. And precisely for this reason a number of them can, given the strength of the demand

for foreign labour, circumvent a system focalised nearly only on external control.

Here we find a further sub-myth: that the main channels of irregular migration are those

based on clandestine entry. Such sub-myth, functional to the overemphasis on border controls,

does underplay the complexities of visa regulations in a highly interconnected world. As matter of

fact, even tight visa requirements still allow for overstaying. Given the absence of comparative

17

data, we will use here the result of a recent survey – on a large (N=7692) sample of foreigners – in

Lumbardy. The survey result show that more than a third of the interviewees have entered the

country with a short-term visa, and subsequently overstayed (table 4). This is even more

significant if we take into account that a quarter of the sample has arrived before the introduction

of visa requirements and others have entered as refugees and temporary protected persons, with

no need for visa. Overstaying, rather than clandestine entry, appear then to be the main channel of

irregular migration for many long term undocumented resident.

Table 4 - When they entered, did they have a visa? Frequency %

Regular, long-term visa 2.121 27,6 Tourist visa 2.818 36,6 No visa 2.754 35,8 Total 7.692 100,0 Source: Fondazione Cariplo-Ismu, Lumbardy survey, 2001.

Nor this can be attributed to a lax implementation of visa requirements by Italian

authorities. The number of visa issued by Italian consulates in the sending countries is quite

reasonable, and perhaps lower than international trade and tourism flows would lead to expect.

Table 5 – Visas granted by some Schengen countries (1998-2000). Country 1998 1999 2000 Var. % 1999/2000 Germany 2,498,000 2,264,131 2,607,012 15.1% France 2,053,443 1,940,000 2,113,632 8.9% Italy 741,077 834,776 1,008,999 20.9% Spain 660,359 542,000 670,949 23.8% Greece … 462,748 … … Austria 419,700 433,867 449,035 3.5% Netherlands + Luxemburg

415,420 369,665 320,847 -13.2%

Belgium 147,684 122,761 … … Portugal 111,859 106,565 122,002 14.5% Total 7,047,542 7,076,513 … … Source: Ministero degli affari esteri, 2001, p. 121.

There is also a large body of documentary evidence that, in many sending countries, to

obtain a short-term visa is difficult, even when there are very good reasons for requesting it. Data

show that some sending countries (such as Morocco and Albania) provide only a small number of

overstayers. Irregular migration from other areas - Central and South America, the Philippines,

Russia and Eastern Europe – seem, on the contrary, to take place mainly through overstaying. The

18

first cause of such difference is the sheer size of mobility among the latter countries and Western

Europe. The second is the existence of geopolitical and historical links between some of these

countries and at least a European country, that function as a gateway for the whole Western

Europe; The third – and likely the most important - is the availability, for the overstayers from

these countries, of irregular employment within households. An effective system of immigration

control in Western Europe should be then focalized in reducing the availability of informal,

undocumented jobs, thus dealing indirectly with the main pulling factor. Western European states,

however, do not seem to place the contrast of irregular occupation on the top of the policy

priority, nor we record in recent years significant investments on work-sites inspections and

employers’ sanctions (Robin and Barros 1999). The European coordination on such issues has

appeared since the beginning in the “European immigration policy” planning documents, but it

has never been object of actual decisions.

The existence of a demand for foreign labor does not imply automatically that the

enactment of highly restrictive policies is unwise. A large supply of new immigrants, it is argued,

would put an heavy strain on the integrative capacities of Western European societies, thus

menacing the already present ones. The connection between integration of already present

immigrants and tight control of new entries is the hard core of the “European” vision of

immigration. Actually, sometimes the whole restric tive orthodoxy is grounded on the necessity to

make a large effort in order to manage integration successfully. Such assumption is grounded on a

widespread perception that the contemporary conditions for immigrants’ integration are markedly

different from the previous ones: integration is slower and more painful, immigrants display a

stronger feeling of resistance, transnational links and transnational homeland politics make their

“foreigness” more foreign and lasting. Unfortunately, again, this assumption does not seem to fit

well with the available evidence. Far from being characterized by their active “resistance” to

assimilation, contemporary migratory flows are repeating familiar steps. Socio-economically, it

has been seen how immigrants tend in the long term to acquire a profile similar to natives (Oecd

2001). Socially, the evidence seems to point to a reasonable process of “assimilation”: most of

them learn the language of the new country within their lifetime and very few of their offspring

fail to do so12. In the U.S., data seem to show that “the trend lines [for contemporary immigrants]

look similar to those of the Europeans: increasing spatial dispersion away from enclaves, loss of

12. When and where reality seems to diverge from such pattern, we usually find policies that, keeping immigrants uncertain about their settlement, make such goal more troublesome and less worthy. Such is the case of most of the contemporary European policies for refugees and asylum-seekers.

19

language in later generation, and increasing intermarriage”(Fisher 1999). But the same pattern

may be found – although reliable data are sensibly scarcer – in Western Europe: after a decade of

litanies on the failures of assimilation, the now available research shows quite a different story

(Modood et al. 1994; Tribalat 1996). Politically, immigrants’ mobilizations develop, of course,

collective identities. But such identities, far from being foreign implants, are actually developed

within the moulds of distinctive, receiving country-specific, national political cultures (Koopmans

and Statham 1999; Koopmans and Statham 2001). Culturally, the available evidence show that

cultural practices imported or adapted by settled immigrants are – in absence of external definition

and sanctioning – mostly of a “limited liability” characters, where culture-based scripts are

enacted and exposed according to contextual logics. If any, in Europe difference-based arguments

over immigrants seem to be more popular with - and full of implication for - receiving societies’

élites and public opinions, than they are with the immigrant themselves (Rath 1993; Schain 1999;

Silverman 1992). As matter of fact, most of the current debate on cultural differences and

immigration is just a bonfire of the vanities: assimilationists were used to portray some processes

as inevitably leading to incorporation in a common cultural life. Pluralists described the same

processes as leading to a variety of crosscutting networks characterized by a complex mix of

acquired and preserved traits. Multiculturalists describe the same processes as leading to

distinctive groups with vested interest in the protection of their cultures. It is correct to notice the

fact that the accounts have changed. But it is wise to stay agnostic on the fact that such changes in

the social accounts are caused by changes in the empirical processes (Sciortino, forthcoming).

Would such processes be modified by a flow of new entries? It would surely make a difference

from the point of view of the observer: continuing migration does indeed create a perception of

enduring ethnic visibility13. But most of such processes operate at the micro level over time,

largely independently from the flows of new arrivals. Plus, it should be considered that the ‘90s

have already been a decade of heavy new inflows.

The issues of immigrants integration is somewhat linked to the issue of TCN’s mobility

within the union. The Commission has launched several times, and failed to secure, attempts to

include TNCs among the beneficiaries of free movements. Most states, however, have assumed

that such freedom of movement would be a great risk, with large number of TCNs admitted in a

country but more than willing to move quickly to another. According to this logic, freedom of

13. There is even room to argue that the wider process of “ethnic retention” is actually just mis taken vision. What appear as “resistance” is often be the consequence of migratory patterns and “ethnic” migrant groups may just be immigrants groups continuously revitalized by new arrivals (Gans 1997).

20

movement for TCNs would basically be a renounce to state control over the size and

characteristics of new entries. Now, there is for sure a certain degree of intra-european mobility in

the irregular migratory system. A significant section of the early immigrants in Italy, as example,

was made by foreigners that had tried to stay irregularly in the traditional European receiving

countries and failed to do so. As far as legally resident immigrants are concerned, however, the

matter seems more complicated. Most resident foreigners and denizens – the target of TNC

freedom of movement – are settled by many years. And economic conditions across EU member

countries are by and large similar or varying within a limited range. The only simulation available

for international mobility within a free movements space with such conditions – developed using

Scandinavian data – would lead any analyst to a safe bet that, if such freedom were granted, the

movements would be pretty much frictional (Muus P. 1998). This has large implications also for

the assumption that generous welfare conditions do work as welfare magnet, attiring migrants

were they may enjoy the most liberal conditions. Prima facie, the theory of welfare magnet seems

more than reasonable: studies in Germany, Sweden and Denmark have documented an increase in

the rates of welfare dependency of foreign populations, in absolute terms and relative to the native

population. At the same time, however, such analyses document how such difference disappears

once controlled for observable characteristics14 and taking into account the large number of

asylum seekers who are made ‘welfare dependent’ by design (Brucker et al. 2001). Contrary to

the U.S., moreover, in Western Europe welfare dependency decreases with the length of stay:

foreigners assimilate out of welfare assistance. A strain on the welfare purse does indeed exist: but

it is largely linked to the management of asylum-seekers, to whom in most countries it is

forbidden to work. Given the large differences within the welfare regimes of Western European

countries (Esping-Andersen 1999) and the lack of solid comparative data, it is currently not

possible to say if such results would hold true for all EU countries. But they provide a fertile

ground for questioning both the assumption that ‘generous’ welfare countries will exhibit

increased immigration and that migrants are attracted to generous welfare states (Baldwin-

Edwards 2002).

The last mythical review we identified concerns the risk for xenophobic backlasher in

the European populations worried by the loss of cultural homogeneity. Such kind of problems

make the headlines in may European media, and in the post September 11th such worrisome

attitudes has taken a distinct religion-specific emphasis. Racism and xenophobia do exist. And it

14. Particularly age of the households head, education and number of children.

21

is true that in most Western European countries the national narrative tell a story of similar people

bound by the enactment of similar lifestyles. The enduring, constitutive cultural and social

heterogeneity of most European population is precisely one of the dimension of their identity that

national narrative, to quote Renan, doit avoir oublié. This notwithstanding, it is important to

stress that many opinion polls of the European public opinion do document an attitude, at least at

the declaration level, much more open that public discourse would lead us to predict15. Already in

1989, when the restrictive orthodoxy had already coalesced, 45% of European interviewed by the

Eurobarometer wanted to make naturalization easier (against 35% who were against it) and 55%

were in favour of some kind of hate laws not only for hate-motivated actions but also for hate-

expressing communications (against 28%). The Eurobarometer of 1997 document how a majority

of respondents perceived immigrants as producing unemployment (63%), putting a strain on the

welfare system (59%) and causing insecurity (45%). Less than a third, however, perceived such

presence as threatening the European way of life (29%) (Eurobarometer 1997). A survey carried

on behalf of the Vienna-based EUMC in 2000 shows a fairly negative vision of immigration

among European public opinions. The answers, however, are mainly concerned with

unemployment, welfare intake and personal security rather than with “ethnocultural” issues.

Actually, a majority of respondents display what the analysts label a “multicultural optimism”

Only in three countries – Belgium (50%), Germany (69%) and Greece (45%) – respondents feel

that cultural diversity may weaken the country fabric. The same data document how in every EU

member country a majority of the respondents – ranging from 79% to 54% - disagree with any

strongly assimilationist program (Thalhammer et al. 2000). On the whole, the actual negative

vision of immigration that we detect in European public opinion is much more functional than

ethnocultural-based. Western Europe, of course, appear unfortunately to have a fairly large

number of bigots. But for the majority of its citizens, the trouble lies more in the balance between

costs and benefits, and in their distribution. In this sense, an openly functional argument could

turn out to be much more important than a paternalistic attitude.

15. Opinion polls on matter of racism and xenophobia must always be handled with care. There is a very large gap between what human beings say and what they do, and such gap is usually even larger when sensitive issues are concerned. The gap, however, works both ways. As Lapierre demonstrated already in the ‘1930s, strongly discriminatory attitudes towards a collective may go hand in hand with fairly inclusionary behavior at the face-to-face level (LaPierre 1935). As the American joke says, “I hate Jews. Well, Aaron is not jew, he is Aaron”.

22

4. Conclusions

The previous paragraph has argued that most policy discussion in the “European

immigration policy” field are rooted in largely mythical foundations. Reacting to the delusions of

the guestworker’s era, European élites have progressively codified a cognitive framework that has

grown to become a full- fledged orthodoxy. In the last decade, such cognitive framework has been

severely tested by actual trends, and in many instances we find evidence of a growing disaffection

with it among experts and practitioners. Such orthodoxy, however, has become also embedded in

a variety of political cleavages and it is quite popular among public opinion. From the point of

view of each single decision-maker, such cognitive framework may be found less and less useful.

Still, to challenge it is something that can be done only at at great risk. This produces a spiral of

silence effect: as the holders of contrary opinions prefer to stay silent, they make silence more and

more likely along the process, thus ensuring the reproduction of such vision (Noelle-Neumann

1984). In practical terms, this implies a growing distance between what is preached and what is

done, with a constant search for low-profile solutions to labor market shortages able to bypass the

restrictive orthodoxy without challenging it (Pastore 2001).

If such description of the Western European policy context is correct, it is possible to

argue that such political expediencies are easier to manage within the fragmented and scattered

framework typical of the previous intergovernmental era than in the framework of the organic,

systemic and long-term strategies the Commission identified with. Not by chance, the recent

attempt to design precisely a policy with such features (Commission of the European

Communities 2000a), albeit very cautious on the institutional implication, resulted in a fairly

explicit challenge of some basic tenets of the restrictive orthodoxy (Pastore 2000). The post-

Tampere developments of the field may then be interpreted as an attempt to maintain a

“communitarized” institutional focus while rescuing at the issues level the residual and

fragmented structure necessary for matching cognitive definitions and actual practices. The

stumbling block in the way of a common European policy may well turn out to lie less in the

realm of institutions’ vested interests and more in the chiasm between the actions and their self-

description.

Reference List

Bade, K. 2000. Europa in Bewegung. Munchen: Beck Verlag.

23

Baldwin-Edwards, M. 2002. Immigration and the Welfare State: a European Challenge to American Mythology. Universita Pompeu Fabra, conference on Europe-Mediterranean Immigration Policy: Barcelona. Brochmann, G and T. Hammar. 1999. Mechanisms of Immigration Control. Oxford: Berg. Brucker, H., G. Epstein, B. McCormick, G. Saint-Paul, A. Venturini, and K. Zimmerman. 2001. "Managing Migration in the European Welfare State." Fondazione Debenedetti. mimeo. Bruni, M. ed. 1994. Attratti, Sospinti, Respinti. I Lavoratori Immigrati Nelle Aziende Bolognesi. Milano: FrancoAngeli. Callovi, G. 1992. "Regulation of Immigration in 1993: Pieces of the European Community Jig-Saw Puzzle." International Migration Review 26(2):353-72. Commission of the European Communities. 1985. Guidelines for a Community Policy on Migration. Lussenburgo: Bullettin of the European Communities, Supplement 9/85. ———. 1990. Policies on Immigration and the Social Integration of Migrants in the European Community. Experts' Report on Behalf of the Commission of the European Communities. Bruxelles: Commission of the European Communities, SEC[90)1813. ———. 1991a. Communication From the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the Right of Asylum. Bruxelles: European Communities, SEC(91)1857 final. ———. 1991b. Communication to the Council and the European Parliament on Immigration. Bruxelles, European Communities, SEC(91)1855 final. ———. 1994. Communication From the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on Immigration and Asylum Policies. Bruxelles: European Communities, COM(94)23 final. ———. 1999. Presidency Conclusions. Tampere Meeting of the European Council 15-16 October 1999. Bruxelles: SI (99) 800. ———. 2000a. Communication From the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on a Community Immigration Policy. Bruxelles: Commission of the European Communities, COM(2000)757 final. ———. 2000b. Towards a Common Asylum Procedure and a Uniform Status Valid Throughtout the Union for Persons Granted Asylums. Bruxelles: Commission of the European Communities, COM (2000) 755 final. ———. 2001. Communication From the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on an Open Method of Coordination for the Community Immigration Policy. Bruxelles: Commission of the European Communities, COM(2001) 387 final. Council of Europe. 2000. Recent Demographic Development in Europe 1999. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Convey, A. and Kupiszewski M. 1995. "Keeping Up With Schengen: Migration and Policy in the European Union." International Migration Review 29(4):939-36. Coordinators' Group on Free Movement of Persons. 1989. Free Movement of Persons. Report to the European Council by the Coordinators' Group (Palma Document)Coordinators' Group, CIRC 3624/89. ———. 1990. Inventory on Migration. Bruxelles: Coordinators' Group on Free Movement of Persons CIRC/3645/1/90. Cornelius W., Martin P.L., Hollifield J.F., and (a cura di). 1994. Controlling Immigration. A Global Perspective. Stanford: Stanford University Press. DiMaggio, P. 1997. "Culture and Cognition." Annual Review of Sociology 23:263-87. Ecotec. Admission of Third Country Nationals for Paid Employment or Self-Employment Work. http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/justice_home/unit/immigration_en.htm. Esping-Andersen, G. 1999. Social Foundations of Postindustrial Economies. Oxford: Oxford

24

University Press. Eurobarometer. 1989. Eurobarometer. Racism and Xenophobia. Bruxelles: Commission of the European Communities . ———. 1997. Eurobarometer Opinion Poll 47.1. Bruxelles: Commission of the European Communities. Eurostat. 2000. Pattern and Trends in International Migration in Western Europe. Bruxelles: European Commission. Fisher, C. S. 1999. "Uncommon Values, Diversity and Conflict in City Life." Pp. 213-28 in Diversity and Its Discontents, N.J. Smelser, J.C. Alexander ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Freeman, G. P. 1994. "Can Liberal States Control Unwanted Immigration?" Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences 534:17-30. Gans, H. J. 1997. "Toward a Reconciliation of 'Assimilation' and 'Pluralism': the Interplay of Acculturation and Ethnic Retention." International Migration Review 31(4):875-92. Geddes, A. 2001. "International Migration and State Sovereignty in an Integrating Europe." International Migration 39(6):21-41. Glover, S. G. C., A. Loizillon, J. Portes, R. Price, S. Spencer, V Srinivasan, and S. C. Willin. 2001. Migration: An Economic and Social Analysis. London: Home Office, RDS occasional paper n. 67. International Centre for Migration Policy Development. 1999. Border Management in Europe. Vienna: ICMPD. Koopmans, R. and P. Statham. 1999. "Challenging the Liberal Nation States? Postnationalism, Multiculturalism and the Collective Claim-Making of Migrants and Ethnic Minorities in Britain and Germany." American Journal of Sociology 105(3):653-96. ———. 2001. "How National Citizenship Shapes Transnationalism. A Comparative Analysis of Migrant Claim-Making in Germany, Great Britain and the Netherlands." Revue Eurpéenne Des Migrations Internationales 17(2):63-100. Lahav, G. and V. Guiraudon. 2000. "Comparative Perspective on Border Control: Away From the Border and Outside of the State." Pp. 55-80 in The Wall Around the West, P. Andreas, T. Snyder ed. Lanham: Rowman & Little. LaPierre, R. T. 1935. "Attitudes Vs Action." Social Forces 13:230-237. Martin, P. L. 1994. "Germany: Reluctant Land of Immigration." Pp. 189-227 in Controlling Immigration. A Global Perspective, W.A. Cornelius, P.L. Martin, J. F. Hollifield ed. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Massey, D. S., J. Arango, Hugo G., A. Kouaouci, Pellegrino A., and J. E. Taylor. 1998. Worlds in Motion. Understanding International Migration at the End of the Millennium. Oxford: Claredon Press. Mateman, S. and Renooy P. H. 2001. Undeclared Labor in Europe. Amsterdam: Regionplan publication 424. Ministero degli affari esteri. 2000. Annuario Statistico. Roma: MAE. Ministero degli affari esteri, 2001. Il Ministero degli affari esteri in cifre. Annuario Statistico 2001, Roma, MAE. Modood, T., R. Berthoud, J. Lakey, J. Nazroo, S. Virdee, and S. Beishon. 1994. Ethnic Minorities in Britain: Diversity and Disadvantage. London: Policy Studies Institute. Münz R. and Ulrich R. E. 1998. "Changing Patterns of Immigration to Germany, 1945-1997" [Web Page]. Accessed 1999. Available at http://migration.ucdavis.edu/mm21/moreSanDiego/Munz-Ulrich-ImmtoGermany.html. Muus P. 1998. "A Study on the Expected Effects of Free Movement for Legally Residing

25

Workers From Third Countries Within the European Community." Migrants, Minorities and New Forms of Citizenship in the European Union, Firenze: EUI. Nash, K. 2001. "The 'Cultural Turn' in Social Theory: Towards a Theory of Cultural Politics." Sociology 35(1):77-92. Noelle-Neumann, E. 1984. The Spiral of Silence. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Oecd. 1999. Trends in International Migration. Annual Report 1999. Parigi: Oecd. ———. 2000. Trends in International Migration. Annual Report 2000. Paris: Oecd. ———. 2001. Trends in International Migration 2001 . Paris: Oecd. Papademetriu, D. G. 1996. Coming Together or Pulling Apart?. The European Union's Struggle With Immigration and Asylum. Washington DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Pastore, F. 1999. L’expérience italienne dans la mise en oeuvre de Schengen, in K. Hailbronner - P. Weil, «Von Schengen nach Amsterdam. Auf dem Weg zu einem europäischen Einwanderungs- und Asylrecht», Bundesanzeiger, Köln. ———. 2000. "La Rivoluzione (Incompiuta) Della Politica Migratoria Europea." Europa-Europe 6:117-32. ———. 2001. "La Politica Migratoria." L'Italia e La Politica Migratoria, IAI-ISPI. Bologna: Il Mulino. Pastore, F., P. Romani, and G. Sciortino. 1999. L'Italia Nel Sistema Internazionale Del Traffico Di Persone. Roma: Commissione per le politiche d'integrazione degli immigrati, working paper 5. Rath, J. 1993. "The Ideological Representation of Migrant Workers in Europe: a Matter of Racialization?" Pp. 212-38 in Racism and Migration in Western Europe, J. Wrench; J. Solomos ed. Providence: Berg. Robin, S and L. Barros. 1999. Measures Undertaken to Prevent and Combat the Employment of Foreigners in an Irregular Situation in Certain Oecd Member Countries. DEELSA/ELSA/MI(99)4 . Parigi: Oecd. Sassen, S. 1999. Guests and Aliens. New York: The New Press. Schain, M. 1999. "Minorities and Immigrant Incorporation in France. the State and the Dynamics of Multiculturalism." Pp. 199-223 in Multicultural Questions, C. Joppke; S. Lukes ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Schneider, F. and D. Enste. 2000. Shadow Economies Around the World: Size, Causes and Consequences. Washington, D.C.: International Monetary Fund, working paper WP/00/26. Sciortino, G. 1999. "Le Politiche Migratorie Nel Contesto Europeo." Diritto, Immigrazione e Cittadinanza 1(3). ———. 2000a. L'Ambizione Della Frontiera. Le Politiche Di Controllo Migratorio in Europa. Roma: FrancoAngeli. ———. 2000b. "Toward a Political Sociology of Entry Policies." Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 26:213-28. ———. forthcoming. "From Homogeneity to Difference? Multiculturalism As a Description and As a Filed for Claim-Making." Comparative Social Research. Silverman, M. 1992. Deconstructing the Nation: Immigration, Racism and Citizenship in Modern France. Routledge: London. Thalhammer, E., V. Zucha, E. Enzenhofer, B. Salfinger, and Ogris G. 2000. Attitudes Towards Minority Groups in the European Union. A Special Analysis of the Eurobarometer Year 2000 Survey. Vienna: European Monitoring Center on Racism and Xenophobia. Tribalat, M. 1996. De L'Immigration à L'Assimilation: Une Enquete Sur Les Immigrés Et Leur Enfants. Paris: La Découverte.