Immigration is—politically and economically—one of the most controversial policy issues in Western Europe. Originally a diverse continent, Europe is being criticized for closing its doors to new citizens and becoming a ‘fortress’. There was net immigration in the early post-war era to states such as the United Kingdom, France and Germany which had colonial legacies and/or expanding economies. Other states, such as Spain, Portugal and Ireland, experienced net emigration and declining populations. During the 1980s and 1990s the trend halted as national immigration rules became more restrictive. Regulations placed limits on the number of new immigrants entering countries and the reunion of family members with existing immigrants. In the same period the expanding economies of Ireland, Spain and Portugal experienced net immigration of nationals and non-nationals. Conflicts in Europe (in the former Yugoslavia and Turkey) and the Asian and African continents led to an increase in the number of people seeking asylum in Western Europe. According to the Geneva Convention of 1951, Western European states are obliged to accept asylum-seekers. There were 380,000 applications for asylum in 2001.
The treatment of immigrants varies greatly across the nation states of Western Europe. Although some states (e.g. the Netherlands and Sweden) have a tradition of openness towards immigrants and asylum-seekers, there exists across Western Europe a strong discourse that claims (wrongly) that immigration poses a threat to the cohesion of established communities. Recent debates have focused on the degree of integration of existing immigrants, on states’ policies towards illegal immigrants and asylum-seekers, and on the status of workers from the Central and Eastern European Countries (CEECs) which have recently joined the European Union (EU). Government policy has changed in a number of countries to promote the integration of immigrants through compulsory language or civic lessons and to restrict the inflow of new migrants—including those from CEECs. This debate is even evident in countries such as the Netherlands (which has 2% of the EU population and 10% of the region’s asylum-seekers) where there has traditionally been a liberal immigration regime. There, the established consensus on the multicultural society was disturbed by the views of politician Pim Fortuyn who was assassinated in 2002. Moreover, since the 1970s political parties such as the Austrian Freedom Party, Vlaams Blok in Belgium, the Swiss People’s Party and the National Front in France have emerged which advocate stopping new immigration to their countries and, in some cases, the repatriation of existing established immigrant populations.
Some such parties have enjoyed significant electoral success—particularly, but not exclusively, in regions that have experienced industrial decline and high unemployment. There is evidence that such parties’ policies have also influenced the debate in mainstream political parties. The Austrian Freedom Party and the Swiss People’s Party participate directly in national government.
The current political debate on immigration contrasts with the views of economists. From their perspective Western Europe requires immigration to fill gaps in the labour market, to rejuvenate Europe’s ageing population, and to maintain a level of competitiveness vis-à-vis the USA. While unemployment remains high in a number of Western European states, such as Germany and Spain, there is none the less a demand for migrant labour. European economies require both low-skilled, low-wage labour for activities, such as cleaning and agriculture, that nationals are increasingly unwilling to undertake, and specialists in areas such as information technology (IT) where the supply of domestic skilled workers is too low to meet demand. Moreover, demographers have indicated that EU fertility rates in Western Europe are falling, and that the region requires net immigration of 1.6m. migrants per year to maintain the population at its current level up to 2050. Immigration is also required to bring down the median age of the EU’s population (this is currently 37.7 compared with 35.5 in the USA). At current fertility rates it is projected that the EU median age will have risen to 52.7 by 2050, compared with 36.2 in the USA. National policy-makers have responded to the skills gap with ad hoc policies to accept certain groups of skilled workers. Germany, for example, introduced a Green Card scheme for IT workers. However, there is no systematic policy to increase fertility levels.
At the European level, the Treaty of Amsterdam committed EU member states to develop Europe-wide legislation on immigration. At the European Council summit in Tampere, Finland, in 1999 EU heads of state and government agreed to create, within five years, an area of ‘Freedom, Security and Justice’. To this end they agreed to a common asylum system as well as to tighten controls on external borders to prevent illegal immigration. This meant harmonizing diverse sets of national rules and priorities. Spurred on by the terrorist attacks on the USA on 11 September 2001, and the 11 March 2004 bomb attacks in Madrid, Spain, member states agreed common rules on asylum, immigration and judicial co-operation and agreed to move immigration and asylum into the first pillar of the European Community in 2004. Further discussions are being held on whether to set up asylum transit camps in North Africa. Overall, the EU strategy places an emphasis on keeping people out of the EU and reinforces the region’s image as ‘Fortress Europe’.
This is the complete article, containing 858 words
(approx. 3 pages at 300 words per page).
