Migration and the refugee question are highly sensitive and frequently discussed not only among politicians but also among ordinary people. Do we know who a migrant is? Migrants are usually foreign-born, without a local passport, or people who have come from somewhere else. Do we know why they are there? Are they moving voluntarily? What pushed them out of their home country? Civil unrest, war, poverty, unemployment, or something else? Sometimes we are unable to distinguish between intra-European free movement and migration from third countries. The most important thing is to distinguish between EU internal free movement of people and so-called third-country immigration. Roma people from Romania have a different status compared to undocumented migrants from Mali. However, local people may feel an equal sense of unease towards both. Are they a blessing in times of ageing and declining new generations, or are they a threat? Do they have any social rights, and why?
HUMAN RESOURCES AND MIGRATION CONTROVERSY
The entire world currently suffers from ageing. Ageing mainly means low fertility and therefore weak generational replacement. However, at the global level, Europe is at the forefront of adverse demographic trends. Following a period of almost 40 years of declining demographic dependency, Europe is currently entering a period of workforce ageing and increasing demographic dependency, as the current generation progressively exits the labour market and joins the ranks of the dependent population (Peschner, Fotakis, 2013).
At first glance, the economic downturn and its depressing impact on economic growth and labour demand in particular appear to defer the growing demographic pressure on labour supply. The declining share of the economically active population brings new challenges. Some of the best-performing EU economies are already facing labour supply bottlenecks due to the speed at which their workforces are ageing and the lack of labour reserves.
The shrinking workforce (2015 is a turning point) will hinder employment growth unless spectacular progress is made in a range of relevant policies (activation policies, substantially higher investment in human resources development, incentives for higher intra-EU mobility, and more effective economic migration and integration policies).
Migration is high on both national and EU agendas. The decline and ageing of the European population has contributed to increased awareness concerning the need for immigration. The demographic factor, coupled with its foreseeable implications for various social welfare systems, has provoked increased debate concerning immigration within EU institutions and EU Member States alike.
There is a growing awareness that without immigrants, Europe will not be able to maintain the same standard of living. However, just as European states compete with others (USA, Japan...) for highly skilled third-country nationals, a trend can be seen among some EU Member States towards more restrictive policies regarding other forms of legal immigration, such as family reunification. Not all proposed active migrant policies are without controversy. Member States are struggling to find an approach to migration that is suitable for highly skilled migrants, preventive of irregular migration, and safeguarding the human rights of migrants.
MIGRATION AND SOCIAL JUSTICE
Many desperate people cross the border seas of the European Union. Many of them never reach European shores alive. Mediterranean migration as a main route to a "dream Europe" is neither new nor static. Since the early 1990s, there has been a persistent flow of both irregular migrants and asylum-seekers from across Africa and beyond. The most preferred route is the shortest way from Libya to Italy. Spanish enclaves in North Africa are also popular for immigrants. Humanitarian disaster began after ships set off from Turkey (Syria), bypassing both Greece and Cyprus. Human traffickers are abandoning boats that are frequently occupied by families with small children. Using a much longer route means more days at sea and makes this escape even more dangerous. New routes are now being discovered. On the Black Sea, they have discovered boats that cross the sea to Romania (Collet, 2015).
From the perspective of global protection, maritime migration is a symptom of worldwide humanitarian crises. News is daily filled with information about dead migrant bodies found in the sea or on the shore. The majority of the world's refugees, expelled from their regions of origin, look to the EU for asylum. These claims have risen over the past couple of years. A number of countries are experiencing enormous increases in applications — notably in Germany, Sweden, and Italy. This raises the question of quotas, which are not welcomed by land-locked countries. Each EU Member State so far manages its own asylum system independently. However, responsibilities are divided unevenly across the continent, and this means pressures on national asylum systems. The majority of EU Member States still deal with a very small proportion of the total number of new asylum-seekers each year. National politicians try to "square the circle" of providing effective protection to an increasing number of asylum-seekers in a context of limited public resources and uncertain public support. Immigration is misused by extremist groups and is a part of populist policy everywhere.
The growing number of EU citizens who have departed to fight with insurgents in the Middle East has catalysed a series of linked policy challenges related to the mobility and cohesiveness of Europe's populations. At the community level, there are initiatives to prevent young people from departing (to war zones such as Syria), as well as efforts to rehabilitate those who return. At the national level, a number of governments have discussed and implemented policies to confiscate travel documents from those who intend to travel in order to train or fight with extremist groups in the Middle East, and to withdraw citizenship from those who choose to return. Discussions are emerging on how to effectively prevent further violent attacks in the absence of internal border controls and with few checks on citizens arriving at the external borders of the EU.
Asylum claims are likely to remain strong within the EU due to proximity to problematic territories. The situation is unstable and unclear in the southern Mediterranean Sea area and in the Middle East (Syria, Iraq, and the deteriorating situation in Libya). Italy continues to be a hot spot for southern arrivals, partly due to its readiness to conduct search and rescue, but also because of opportunities to travel through it to the rest of the EU. Turkey will remain the biggest host of Syrian refugees. The Russian Federation has seen significant asylum applications from Ukraine. Military activities in eastern Ukraine resulted in a growing number of Polish work permit allocations to Ukrainian passport holders.
Germany remains an attractive country for intra-European mobility. This trend is likely to continue for a long time. Traditional mobility from Central and Eastern Europe is now complemented by emigration from crisis-hit countries across the EU, notably Greece, Italy, Portugal, and Spain. Despite expected improvements, unemployment is still high, and this fact forces young people to seek opportunities elsewhere. Old challenges, such as language barriers and recognition of existing skills, continually inhibit free movers from maximizing their potential. There is currently little political support at national level for a major overhaul of legal migration. Deep opposition exists to promoting intra-EU mobility of third-country nationals at a time when free movement for EU citizens is in question.
Stronger economies such as Germany and the United Kingdom accept a large number of third-country national workers. Family migration, including family members of those given refugee status within the EU, remains dominant. Political upheaval is likely to dominate the immigration policy landscape, with questions of public confidence in the ability of incumbent governments to manage immigration and asylum systems emerging more strongly (important public concerns about immigration). Key questions have emerged regarding whether to place numerical limits on the free movement regime and manage access to public benefits more effectively (also in internal EU migration cases). Many of the populist parties have a strong ethnic tone, whether directed towards Muslim or Roma populations. Some parties in governments have already adopted anti-immigration positions.
MIGRATION AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Within the Platform of European Social NGOs (Social Platform), a public consultation is being carried out in Brussels to influence the European Union to ensure that Member States may no longer criminalize humanitarian assistance to undocumented migrants in Europe. EU law, namely, allows criminalization. The European Commission is currently evaluating the Facilitation Directive (2002/90/EC). In Europe, humanitarian services — including the provision of food, shelter, medical care, or legal advice — may be met with sanctions. This may include restrictions on funding, financial penalties, imprisonment, and other forms of punishment. There are also instances where the organization or individual providing humanitarian assistance has a duty to report undocumented migrants to the authorities.
Despite the fact that the Facilitation Directive does not encourage criminalization of those who offer humanitarian assistance to undocumented migrants, statistics compiled by the EU Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA) have found that: 27 Member States punish facilitation of stay (Ireland is the exception, as the Facilitation Directive does not bind it). Thirteen Member States punish facilitation of stay even if there is no financial motive. Eight Member States punish both facilitation of stay that is not for profit and that which is for humanitarian reasons. Only eight Member States exempt at least some forms of humanitarian assistance to irregularly staying migrants (Criminalising Solidarity, 2015).
In some EU countries, regional authorities are challenging national legislation through their activities. For example in Utrecht, the Netherlands, and similarly in Tuscany, Italy, far-reaching policies were introduced that go beyond national legislation. At national level, favour still weighs against service providers who assist undocumented migrants (Cyprus, United Kingdom). However, there are some positive examples of people coming together to defend the human rights of undocumented migrants and the rights of service providers to offer humanitarian assistance. The "Let's Save Hospitality" ("Salvemos la Hospitalidad") campaign in Spain successfully lobbied the Spanish government to change its Criminal Code. The Conference of European Churches successfully challenged the Netherlands' social welfare system in the Council of Europe, which found that it violated the rights of undocumented migrants.
EU Member States have ratified the core international human rights treaties with the exception of the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families (ICRMW), signed at the UN in 1990. Most of the rights protected by these treaties apply to everyone, including migrants, whether in a regular or irregular situation. Ratification of the ICRMW faces opposition in numerous European States, principally on the ground that it protects a group of persons not deemed "entitled" to this level of protection (Guilbert, Plaetevoet, 2011). The ICRMW specifically protects the rights of all migrant workers and members of their families, including when they are undocumented or in an irregular situation, because they are more vulnerable to abuse. Ratification of the ICRMW would thus represent one step towards greater recognition and respect of migrants as contributors to European economies. Migration and asylum policies fall within Community competence. Among European countries, only Albania and Bosnia and Herzegovina have so far ratified this international human rights instrument.
The European Platform for Migrant Workers' Rights (EPMWR) launched a petition specifically calling on the Member States of the EU to ratify the Migrant Workers Convention. Hundreds of civil society organizations and networks expressed their support, including among others: European Social Platform, European Network against Racism, Eurostep, European Anti-Poverty Network, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), Solidar, the Churches' Commission for Migrants in Europe, and the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Network (EMHRN). The European Federation of Public Service Unions (EPSU), the European branch of Public Services International (PSI), supports the ratification of the ICRMW and calls for a European framework on migrant workers' rights based on the Convention. In its Action Plan adopted at the Seville Congress of May 2007, the ETUC expressed its commitment to intensify actions and campaigns at both European and national level in favour of ratification and application of all conventions and important instruments on the protection of the rights of all migrant workers and their families (Plaetevoet, Sidoti, 2010).
The European Convention on the Legal Status of Migrant Workers (prepared in the Council of Europe in 1977) is concerned with the principal aspects of the legal situation of migrant workers. The Convention in particular deals with recruitment, medical examinations, occupational tests, travel, residence permits, work permits, the reunification of families, working conditions, the transfer of savings and social security, social and medical assistance, and the expiry of work contracts, dismissal, and re-employment. It personally covers nationals of any contracting party who are legally employed and resident in the territory of another contracting party, provided the duration of a work contract exceeds six months. The Convention forms, together with the (revised) European Social Charter (Articles 18 and 19 in particular) and the European Convention on Social Security, an ensemble of rights that strengthens the protection of migrant workers (Guild, 1999). Since 1977 only 11 Council of Europe Member States have ratified this Convention.
The social inclusion principle is often merely rhetoric by the European Union. Without delivery, it is counterproductive in terms of the EU's own legitimacy (Unequal Europe, 2015). We must be clearer on what social inclusion means in practice and how Member States can deliver it. Universal access to social services is a basic feature of the European social model and should enjoy greater prominence in a social investment strategy, with access to quality childcare as a prime example: Considering a European policy on the overall quality of minimum income protection, with minimum wages, social benefits, and minimum income protection with reference to the economic development of each EU country. Making the economic case for migration must be complemented with a strong social case for minimum standards and against discrimination based on origin or ethnicity.
There are different definitions of the term well-being. As the essential elements of it, Gallup scientists identify five: 1. Career; 2. Social connections; 3. Personal economics; 4. Health; and 5. Community.
These are the main contributors to a person's overall subjective well-being. Other terms to describe this include quality of life, living standards, human development, and happiness. In fact, well-being is a broader concept, encompassing a number of different dimensions. It can be measured by asking people how they feel and their perceptions about different aspects of their lives, such as job satisfaction, personal relationships, and community attachment. It can also be measured through the collection and verification of objective data such as employment rates, salary levels, life expectancy, and housing conditions. It might be expected that a person with higher scores on objective criteria would be happier — that objective well-being correlates with subjective well-being or happiness. However, the linkages between objective and subjective well-being are quite complex and convergence is not complete. Well known is "Easterlin's paradox" or a similar paradox from economist Carol Graham (2009): the paradox of happy peasants and unhappy millionaires (World Migration Report 2013).
Citizens and politicians have to find solutions on how to maintain sustainable decent living in harmony with other parts of the world. What we have in common is the responsibility for ourselves, for our neighbourhood, for our country, for Europe, and for our Earth. Europe is not an island. Our future as humans is interconnected with the future of the people on other continents. Peace and social justice is the way. Migration is not a problem, just as ageing is not a threat; the problem is the weakness of global cohesion and the rise of individual selfishness.
Authors: Asst. Prof. Dr. Miloslav Hetteš President of International Council on Social Welfare (ICSW Europe) www.icsw.org Gabriela Siantova, PhDr. University of SS. Cyril and Methodius in Trnava The lecture Migrants And Social Protection Floors - Facilities and Obstacles to Access to Different Welfare State Services in Time of Crisis is from International Expert Seminar, Madrid, 23 April 2015. The presentation is in the attachment. Bibliography
COLLET, Elizabeth. 2015. Outlook on migration in Europe in 2015. In Migration Policy Practice. ISSN 2223-5248, Vol. IV, Number 5, December 2014–January 2015, pp. 21-28.
Council Directive 2002/90/EC of 28 November 2002 defining the facilitation of unauthorised entry, transit and residence. 2008. In Official Journal of the European Communities, ISSN 0378-6978, L 328, Volume 45, 5.12.2008, p. 17-18.
Criminalising Solidarity [online]. Brussels: Social Platform, 2 pp. [cit. 2015-05-25]. http://www.socialplatform.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Criminalising-Solidarity-state-of-play-and-case-studies.pdf.
GUILBERT, Amandine, PLAETEVOET, Rene. 2011. The U.N. Migrant Workers Convention: Steps Towards Ratification in Europe. Brussels: European Platform for Migrant Workers' Rights (EPMWR). 32 pp. [cit. 2015-05-25]. European Programme for Integration and Migration (EPIM).
GUILD, Elspeth. 1999. The European Convention on the Legal Status of Migrant Workers (1977). An Analysis of its Scope and Benefits. Nijmegen: University of Nijmegen. CDMG (99) 11, 28 pp. [cit. 2015-05-25]. Council of Europe, Strasbourg. http://www.coe.int/t/dg3/migration/archives/Documentation/Legal_texts/CDMG%20_99_11_en.pdf.
HETTES, Miloslav. 2015. Human Rights and Social Protection in Social Work (in Slovak). Bratislava: St. Elizabeth University of Health and Social Work, 242 pp. ISBN: 978-80-8132-128-3.
PESCHNER, Jorg, FOTAKIS, Constantinos. 2013. Growth Potential of EU Human Resources and Policy Implications for Future Economic Growth. Brussels: DG Employment Working Paper 03/2013, 102pp. ISBN 978-92-79-32715-5.
PLAETEVOET, Rene, SIDOTI, Marika. 2010. Ratification of the UN Migrant Workers Convention in the European Union. Survey on the Positions of Governments and Civil Society Actors. 2010. La Strada. European Network against Trafficking in Human Beings, 99 pp. [cit. 2015-05-25].
Unequal Europe recommendations for a more caring EU. Final report of the High-level group on "Social Union". Spring 2015. Brussels: Friends of Europe, 21 pp. [cit. 2015-05-25]. http://www.friendsofeurope.org/media/uploads/2015/02/Social-Report-2015-FINAL-WEB.pdf.
World Migration Report 2013, Migrant Well-being and Development. 2013. International Organization on Migration, Geneva, 220 pp. ISBN 978-92-9068-668-2.