Last week, the European Commission announced reforms to the EU legal migration policy. According to Ylva Johansson, the Swedish socialist in charge of the EUs home affairs, two to three million people per year legally immigrate into the EU. This in contrast to the only 200.000 that arrive irregularly. If this number seems low to you, it is because Johansson only takes into account irregular arrivals that are allowed to stay. As we previously reported, 500.000 people are asked to leave the EU annually. Of those 500.000 only 29% actually leaves. So a critical reader should at least double Johansson’s numbers. That being said, the new policy is only related to legal immigration. Although the proposed reform has some admirable goals, particularly where it concerns the safety and legal position of immigrants, it is unlikely to be positive news for most Europeans. What is more concerning is the absence of transparent communication, the weakness of the Commission’s argument and the lack of democratic input. Behind the facade it seems the new proposal is a gift to employers, at the expense of employees and taxpayers.
That the EU is taking the lead in formulating a common legal immigration policy is not surprising. In a Europe that has no internal borders and free movement of persons a national immigration policy can only be part of a wider context. Recently, the EU took steps to limit the governments of Cyprus and Malta in handing out so-called ‘golden passports’ to high net-worth individuals. A Maltese passport is a European passport and therefore a concern of all member states. The same goes for other forms of legal immigration. If we do not agree on a common policy, a stricter immigration policy would also become impossible. What would prevent the authorities in Portugal from handing out Portuguese passports to those who would like to live and work in France?
So what does the new proposal entail? There are four key proposals:
- A streamlined procedure to apply for a single permit granting both residence and the right to work. This process will include safeguards to prevent labor exploitation and ensure equal treatment.
- The requirements to gain long-term resident status will be reduced, at the same time this status will entail more lenient provisions for family reunification.
- The commission aims to improve cooperation between EU states and with ‘talent partner countries’: those countries that have a surplus of talented workers for the EU labor market.
- The commission is to set up an EU Talent Pool, matching foreign job seekers with European businesses looking to hire.
These four points may seem like minor points, but one can argue that their combination is nothing short of revolutionary. What is positive is that foreign workers are protected from labor exploitation. A key part of the proposal is that labor migrants will be able to change employer. This is a huge boon for immigrant workers. The current rule that a migrant has to stay with their current employer to retain residency rights has a serious impact on the employee-employer relationship. It gives employers an unnatural power that can only lead to low wage growth and substandard labor conditions. As another positive effect of the proposal, the Commission expects that the new framework will ‘reduce irregular migration’. It may very well be that as the commission makes legal migration easier it will convince more migrants to take this route instead of choosing a dangerous irregular solution.
Aside from these lofty goals, an increase in legal immigration is unlikely to benefit the European worker. In an economy where wages have lagged behind profits and, perhaps more importantly, the cost of living, workers need more competition in the labor market like they need a hole in the head. The Commission specifically names the long-term care sector as one in which member states struggle to find employees domestically. Currently this sector employs over 6 million people in the EU, about 3% of the workforce. Let’s make one thing clear: a shortage of labor means that employers cannot find employees with the desired qualifications at the wages and other labor conditions they are willing to provide. As the long-term care sector is notorious for its low pay, would it not be a better idea to see if we can raise wages for these essential workers? With all the billions being disbursed by the Commission and the ECB it should be possible to find a way to more adequately reward the staff in this sector. As most of the workers in this sector are women an increase in salaries here could ameliorate the economic disparity between men and women, something any progressive should be interested in. Instead of doing this, the commission proposes to have these essential workers compete against immigrants willing to work for less, solving the problem without needing to increase wages and labor conditions
The fact that this proposal is a gift to employers at the expense of workers becomes even clearer when we look at the intended countries with which we will form these Talent Partnerships. The first partnerships will be formed with Morocco, Tunisia and Egypt, to be followed by Pakistan, Bangladesh, Senegal and Nigeria. All of those countries have far less attractive labor conditions than member states of the EU. The commission aims to provide employers with an unlimited pool of cheap labor. The commission proposes to make these partnerships go both ways, providing European young people with great opportunities to live and work in different countries. This idea seems like a joke. Although many entrepreneurial youths would relish the opportunity to spend some time working in the US, South-Korea or New Zealand, there is not a single European who would be excited to spent a semester working in a sweat shop in Lahore.
The proposal also aims to make family reunification easier. Family reunification sometimes being a euphemism for immigrants staying aloof from possible Europeans partners and finding a spouse in their region of origin. Apparently, the relationship immigrant workers have with their new home is supposed to be only economic. There is not one word in the proposal about cultural integration of immigrants. They are seen as purely as a solution to an economic problem.
Off course, people are much more than just a production input. They have their own needs in healthcare, education and housing. In the new proposal, if labor migrants become unemployed member states are expected to provide them with social services, thus burdening the taxpayer with the downsides. While employers benefit from cheap labors the associated challenges are to be solved by the wider society.
How did the commission come up with this plan? Well apparently, there were ‘two full rounds of consultations with all Member States, the European Parliament, national parliaments, civil society, social partners and business.’ The proposal now needs to be approved by the European Parliament and the European council. As the council votes anonymously, there will be no way of knowing if your government votes against your interest. We have to rely on the European Parliament, a house elected by only half of European voters. The commission says ‘progress in the area of labor migration will depend on closer cooperation and a better understanding between the migration and the employment sectors.’ I say progress will depend on citizens making themselves heard.