The influence of the European Union on the immigration regime of Spain
The search for European identity and the implications for ‘the other’Master Thesis Global Migration Aurora Peters 10469699 2013/2014 Supervisor: dhr. dr. J.M.J. Doomernik Second reader: dhr. dr. J. A. Jeandesboz
“The debate on the place and role of foreigners goes back a long way. The Greeks and Romans, and later the Christians, thought foreigners were barbarians and Rome, according to the historian Bossuet, even became ‘their prey’. What did the Romans do then? And what can the Community do now? As Dante said about the Romans' solution in the 'Divine Comedy ‘: What are we going
to do now the barbarians aren’t there anymore? They may have been the solution…” – Lucien
Table of contents
1. Introduction 1
2. Theoretical Framework 4
2.1 Border governmentality 4
2.2 The EU and the Europeanization of borders 5
2.3 Seeing like a state 8
2.4 The border spectacle 10
3. Methodology 13
3.1 Formulation of the problem 13
3.2 Central question and sub questions 13
3.3 Case selection 13 3.4 Data Collection 15 3.5. Data 16 3.5.1 Data EU 16 3.5.2 Data Spain 16 3.6 Operationalization 17
3.7 Evaluation of the research methods 18
4. Introductory remarks 19
Chapter five 21
5.1 1986-1992: The first Spanish immigration laws and EU citizenship 21
5.2 Theoretical implications 25
Chapter 6 27
6.1 1993-2003 The development of the immigration regime 27
6.2 Citizenship and integration 27
6.4 Immigration management and border control 31
6.5 Theoretical implications 36
Chapter 7 39
7.1 2004-2013 39
7.2 Integration and cooperation 40
7.3 Border control and immigration management 43
7.4 Theoretical implications 48 8. Conclusion 52 9. References 56 9.1 Scholarly literature 56 9.2 Legislation 60 9.3 Internet resources 64 9.4 Media 65 9.5 Official Publications 69 9.6 Statistics 72
1. Introduction
In the spring of 2014 large groups of asylum seekers from Eritrea entered the European Union looking for a safe place to stay. When large groups of Eritreans arrived in the Netherlands the Dutch prime minister made a statement saying that these large flows of asylum seekers would disrupt Dutch society, because the Netherlands didn’t have the capacity to give residence to such large groups of people (Volkskrant, 2014). During the same week, Italy threatened to stop registering asylum seekers entering through the Mediterranean Sea, because it was beyond Italy’s means. In a reaction, the Dutch State Secretary for Security and Justice stated that Italy could not stop because this would mean the bankruptcy of the European asylum system. (NOS, 2014).
The news coverage about states struggling with their geographical position at the external border of the EU has been substantial. Examples are messages about immigrants attempting to climb the border fence of Spanish enclave Melilla (Trouw, 2014), reports about Bulgaria building a 35 km long border fence to stop the flow of refugees (Vrij Nederland, 2014) and news about
Lampedusa and Sicily who are facing an overflow of boat refugees (NRC Next, 2014). Nevertheless only approximately 6.6 % of the total population in the Union is from a foreign origin (Vasileva, 2012; 1) and the total number of non-EU asylum applicants1 in 2013 was 434.160 applications (Bitoulas, 2014; 5). Germany had the highest number of pending asylum applications in 2013 (Ibid., 1) and for example, external member state Spain had 4485
applications in 2013 (Ibid., 4). The abovementioned political statements and news coverage however, do illustrate a sense of urgency in the need for common migration and asylum policy in the EU.
The idea of the external member states being overrun by immigrants and the construction of border fences as employed by, among others, Spain and Greece as a measure against these immigrants are images that speak to the imagination, but this form of border control is only a
1
“Asylum applicant' means a person having submitted an application for international protection or having been included in such application as a family member during the reference period” (Bitoulas, 2014; 23). This number includes new asylum applicants, which is defined as follows: “'New asylum applicant' means a person having submitted an application for international protection for the first time” (Bitoulas, 2014; 23).
small part of the immigration regime that has been developed since the abolition of the internal borders of the European Union. This thesis is a study of the development of the EU’s
immigration regime and its influence on its external member states. Aware that the exterior member states have a different historical development and also a different geographical location, the focus of this study lies on Spain. Possible implications could be relevant for other states who find themselves in a similar situation.
Spain is a relatively new immigration country since it only became a receiving country in the 1990’s. Spain joined the EU in 1986 and has since developed an immigration regime of its own. According to the European Union, migration and border management are a shared responsibility in which solidarity between member states has to be encouraged (European Council, 2010; 32). Nevertheless, much pressure lies on the exterior member states. Since its membership of the EU Spain employed total control of the maritime border and the land border with Morocco. The existing disparity leads to the following research question: How to explain the shift in border enforcement from an open to a closed regime in Spain and what are the implications? The goal of this study is to explore the implications of this strict border control for the boundaries of collective identity in the European Union. Who are allowed to enter the EU and who have to stay outside are questions that are examined when looking at immigration policy.
This study examines the period 1986-2013. The starting point is chosen because Spain joined the European Union in 1986. This time period is divided in three parts distributed by important events in time. The analytical chapter covers the period 1986-1992. The topic of migration became a common concern in 1992 with the signature of the Maastricht Treaty. The second chapter starts in 1993 and ends in 2003, one year before the largest expansion of new EU member states. The year 2004 is the starting point of the third period. Before the analysis an introductory chapter is presented. By executing relational content analysis a diverse collection of data is being analysed. The selected data comprises Spanish legislation and EU legislation, supplemented with official statements, speeches, secondary literature and news coverage. Besides the secondary literature and news coverage, over 200 documents are examined, some more thoroughly than others depending on their relevance.
Before the abovementioned analysis the theoretical framework is presented. The first two paragraphs discuss the general idea of border governmentality, the existence of borders and boundaries and the process of ‘othering’. The third paragraph of the theoretical framework discusses the idea of simplification by the state to manage large projects. Immigration is such an elusive phenomenon that a form of simplification is necessary to make it manageable. The last paragraph describes the idea of the border spectacle and the production of migrant illegality. The third chapter is the methodology chapter in which the used methods and data are further
explained. The chapters based on the different time periods all have different sub-paragraphs. Chapter six is divided in paragraphs about citizenship and integration, labour migration and immigration management and border control. Chapter seven is divided in the subthemes
integration and cooperation and immigration management and border control. All chapters have a summarizing paragraph in which the theoretical implications are set out based on the
2. Theoretical Framework
2.1 Border governmentality
Modern states trying to regulate immigration are all extensively involved in managing their borders. Although globalization meant opening up the markets and the simplification of the circulation of goods, the mobility of people has become more and more constrained (Fassin, 2011; 213). States exercise control in bureaucratic ways, but the use of surveillance technologies such as biometric systems, border fences and electronic databases have become more and more common (Ibid, 219).
When studying the governmentality of immigration and border control scholars often base their ideas on the concepts developed by French philosopher Michel Foucault. His ideas can be applied to the practice of governmentality itself. An example is the concept of liberal
governmentality, which is a process in which limitations and freedoms are being defined and in which the liberal government is actively producing and organizing these freedoms (Kalm, 2010; 30). His ideas are even more relevant when studying borders and boundaries. Although the terms borders and boundaries are used together, it is important to nuance these concepts. The border is a territorial limit to define political entities such as states and boundaries can be defined as social constructs distinguishing between identities (Fassin, 2011; 214). Immigration relates to the construction of these borders and boundaries, i.e. sovereignty and identity and immigrants can be seen as the embodiment of the two (Ibid., 221). Instead of the terms borders and boundaries, the concepts hard borders and soft borders can be used (Eder, 2006; 256). The border has become an important space where the movement of different actors is being controlled, because of the social and political insecurity implications that come with them (Walters, 2006; 188). This degree of control and ‘policing’ performed by the state is legitimised by discourses based on security threats (Ibid., 199).
A useful distinction between types of borders has been made by Andreas (2003). He distinguishes between military borders that exist to prevent military threats between states, economic borders such as protection barriers and taxes and police borders to territorially exclude
development of policing borders (Andreas, 2003; 85). The actors that are being excluded are often called illegal or irregular immigrants, but Andreas developed the more comprehensive concept of the ‘clandestine transnational actor’ that is defined as ‘nonstate actors who operate across national borders in violation of state laws and who attempt to evade law enforcement efforts.’ Their motives differentiate, because they range from refugees to drug traffickers and terrorists, but they are all characterised by being the targets of border control (Andreas, 2003; 78-79). Border controls have a strong deterrent effect, but they also carry a strong symbolic function in displaying the state’s power and authority (Ibid., 110-111).
Emenated from the concepts biopolitics and biopower, the new concept of ‘teichopolitics’ has been developed. This is simply defined as ‘the politics of building barriers on borders for various security reasons’ (Rosière and Jones, 2012; 219). The hardening of the border is due to the strict definition of territories and a strict notion of sovereignty and identity. This is visible in the development of strict immigration laws, but also in the development of border barriers which ‘institutionalise privilege through legal exclusions.’ Hardening of borders can be defined as any kind of system to close the border to prevent the entrance of unwanted immigrants. This can mean complete closure, but more often it means an effort to control border movements in which the most powerful actor decides upon the separation. The use of a barrier is an efficient method to demonstrate authority and it leads to the existence of an ‘asymmetric space’ (Ibid., 218-220). The use of teichopolitics to securitize a border can be accomplished by using frontlines, the construction of fences and walls and by closing up straits (Ibid., 222-228).
2.2 The EU and the Europeanization of borders
The European Union is an important actor involved in teichopolitics to harden its external borders. With the realization of the Schengen Agreement the abolition of internal borders enabled the free movement of people and a softening of the internal borders took place.
Moreover, with the expansion process of the EU in the course of years, new external borders and new neighbouring countries were created (Boedeltje and Van Houtum, 2011; 131). These
developments led to a demand for a common migration policy to regulate the movement of people, with a special focus on the external borders. The European Union developed a ‘migration regime’ to regulate immigration and asylum. A regime can be defined as ‘a set of principles,
norms, rules and decision-making procedures around which actor expectations converge in a given issue-area’ (Balch and Geddes, 2011; 34). The development of a common policy regime is being challenged among other reasons, because individual states are resistant in handing over policy areas connected to security, sovereignty and national borders to supranational actors (Ibid., 34-35).
With the hardening of the EU’s external borders some critics specify the European Union as a fortress (Albrecht, 2002; Alscher, 2005; Carr; 2012; Castan Pinos, 2009). The image of border walls and fences capture the imagination, but this fortress is also created through internal controls and soft border controls in combination with laws and political agenda’s constructing normative concepts (Albrecht, 2002; 21). A comparable vision on these measures of control is the metaphor of the EU as a gated community, because of the selective character of the protectionist immigration policies to protect the insiders from the outsiders (Van Houtum and Pijpers, 2007; 202). In the selection of immigrants a distinction is also being made between immigrants who are a risk or burden to society and immigrants who are a positive addition (Albrecht, 2002; 5).
Due to modern developments and more subtle technologies, the complete spectrum of border control measures can be defined as a surveillance system (Dijstelbloem et al., 2011a; 5). This ‘surveillance regime’ is completely aimed at control performed by the state, professionals and companies specialized in this area (Dijstelbloem et al., 2011b; 170). Critics of the surveillance regime label this phenomenon also as a ‘migration machine’ defined as a ‘cross-border policy apparatus for limiting the movement of aliens and for making choices about the migrants (desirable/undesirable) who report to the borders’ consisting of ‘laws, policy measures and implementation officers and (...) technology’ (Ibid., 172). This continuously expanding machinery is growing in such a way that critics are wondering if this growth can still be controlled. Additionally, these techniques are leading to a simplification process converting problems existing in reality into ‘system requirements’ (Ibid.,173). Some scholars advocate the need for a new balance, because instead of a focus on decision making procedures and the facilitation of movement, the focus lies on the use of new technologies and the screening of
A significant part of literature about migration and the EU is focused on the securitization of the border (Adamson, 2006; Pace, 2010; Huysmans, 2000; Andreas, 2003). Migration has become an important part of the security agenda of the United States and also of the European Union. Contemporary research is often analysed with the terrorist attacks of 9/11 in mind. But according to Adamson (2003), the link between security and international migration has existed since the 1990’s and the terrorist attacks of 9/11 in the United States and later on the bombings in Madrid and London led to a reinforcement of these sentiments. The actual cause of this security focal point is due to the end of the cold war and with that, the end of the bipolar world order (Adamson, 2006; 165-166). In this study Adamson looks at the influence of international
migration on national security on a state level, analysing not only the relationship between direct security threats to states such as internal conflict, organized crime and international terrorism (the nature of violent conflict), but also the influence of migration on the ability of states to ‘exercise and project power’ (the balance of power) and the effect of migration on border control and national identity (state capacity and autonomy) (Ibid., 168). All of these areas of security are influenced by migration flows, but the degree of actual influence on national security is produced by how states respond through policy development and implementation (Ibid., 198). The
securitization of migration can also be seen as a way to connect different policy areas regarding public order, identity formation and market stability (Huysmans, 2000; 770).
Huysmans (2000) states that the securitization of migration in the EU has been based on internal security, cultural security and the welfare state crisis (Ibid., 758). The fear of immigrants
challenging internal security, European culture and the provisions of the welfare system implies the need for security of the system inside the EU against ‘the other’ destabilizing public order and stability (Huysmans, 2000). This idea of ‘otherness’ can be seen as being the underlying factor of the above mentioned control measures. The external borders separate those outside the EU from the people inside. The EU is creating a homogenous European social order and identity to differentiate their citizens from ‘the others’. Critics describe this distinction as problematic, because the heterogenic group of others is constructed as having a ‘collective identity’
threatening the community inside (Van Houtum and Pijpers, 2007; 296). The collective identity that has to be constructed on the inside can be seen as a ‘soft social fact’ in which the soft
borders or boundaries of the Europeans are being created. In the words of Eder (2006), ‘Borders in a pre-institutional sense are boundaries that define a unity that we call a collective identity’ (Eder, 2006; 256). The construction of soft borders is a dynamic process in which inside boundaries have been redefined throughout history; an example is the boundary construction between countries in Europe’s North and South and East and West which are now all part of the European Union (Ibid., 266). The construction of identity can also be studied from a post-structuralist view often employed in the field of international relations. Diez (2010) describes three characteristics of identities; identities are constructed by discourse, they are never fixed and identities are constructed as opposed to something else (Diez, 2010; 321). The process of
‘othering’ can be seen in a geographical way geopolitical way; being outside or inside a state or political entity and in a temporal way (Ibid., 325).
In the context of the renewed focus on the external borders and the antithesis between inside and outside, the literature about geopolitics and the neighbours of the EU is also relevant. Because of a further enlargement of the EU in 2004 the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) was created to, in words of the European Commission, ‘share the benefits of the EU with neighbouring countries, thus strengthening stability, security and well-being’ (European Commission, 2014). Boedeltje and Van Houtum (2011) scrutinised the ENP and its Europeanization process which is explained as ‘a normative process of sharing European values made concrete through policies of conditionality and socialisation of neighbouring states.’ According to their study a context is created to define the ‘interior’ and the ‘exterior’ of the EU through the promotion of
‘Europeaness’ (Boedeltje and Van Houtum, 2011; 139). In this light the ENP can be interpreted as an addition to a ‘toolbox of bordering, ordering an othering’ (Ibid., 43). Although cooperation and shared interests are part of the core contents of the ENP, the employed discourse also reveals a feeling of superiority of EU values contrasting the inferiority of the neighbours (Ibid., 141).
2.3 Seeing like a state
States and international organizations such as the European Union try to regulate immigration and differentiate between different types of immigrants, such as illegal immigrants, high-skilled workers and international students. Scott (1998) described the process of simplification and
‘why the state has always seemed to be the enemy of people who move around’ (Scott, 1998; 1). But this developed into an exploration of modern statecraft by examining failed attempts of state projects such as the collectivization in the Soviet Union and the construction of a new city like Brasilia (Ibid., 3). His framework and concepts are developed to understand these grand failures, but seem to be current and fitting to examine modern migration management, in this case
performed by the European Union and its member states.
Four conditions that need to be present for grand projects to result in failure are (1) ‘the
administrative ordering of nature and society’, (2) high-modernist ideology, (3) the presence of an authoritarian state capable and willing to use its coercive power to realise high-modernist plans and (4) the presence of a weak civil society not able to resist the state. The idea of ‘high modernist ideology’ is shortly explained as a very optimistic ‘self-confidence in scientific and technical progress’ (Ibid., 4). This is closely related to technocracy used in a context of urban design; ‘the human problem of urban design has a unique solution, which an expert can discover and execute.’
Modern states trying to control large projects such as rural settlement, urban planning and in this case, global migration make use of simplification, legibility and manipulation. This way an abstract idea is created that can be more easily managed (Ibid., 11). For example, by describing the process of forest management in Prussia and Saxony, Scott sets out the viewpoint of an utilitarian state who has an abstract and partial view of the forest (Ibid., 13). An interesting instance of the suitability of this idea on migration management is his notion of the vocabulary that is being used to coordinate nature. He gives examples of this utilitarian discourse; for example the replacement of the term ‘nature’ by the term ‘natural resources’ and replacing valued plants by the term ‘crops’ and stigmatizing competing species with ‘weeds’. This use of discourse to categorize phenomenon’s is also visible in the area of migration management in the distinction between immigrants (plants), high skilled immigrants (crops) and illegal immigrants (weeds) (Ibid., 13). It seems that the state has implemented the idea of utilitarian simplification to make migration something controllable and manageable. State simplification is defined based on two conditions. The first one is the existence of a synoptic view on society in which certain terms lose their ‘particularity’. Furthermore, in the process of creating these synoptic facts, some
details and distinctions existing in reality are being ignored (Ibid., 81). This relates to the idea of state capacity and purpose; administrative systems such as states are never capable to represent society taking into account all its differentiations. Beside this, it is not a states purpose to describe the complete ‘social reality’, but only facts necessary to fulfil their administrative tasks (Ibid., 22-23).
Five characteristics of state simplification are distinguished. First, these simplifications are
interested, utilitarian facts, meaning that they are only the aspects of social life of an ‘official
interest’. Second, documentary facts, meaning that they are written down or documented. The simplifications are also usually static facts; static and uniform, but if necessary they can be adjusted into a new static model. Fourth, they are often aggregate facts to make them practicable and applicable. Fifth, state simplifications are standardized facts: grouped by their differences or similarities (Ibid., 80).
The analysis set out by Scott is very extensive, but not completely applicable to international migration. Lastly, two concepts do need to be mentioned. Internal colonisation is the aspiration of the state to create uniformity, doing so by using ‘imperial rhetoric’ in a ‘civilizing mission’. The intention is not just to standardize reality, but mainly to shape facts fitting into existing ‘techniques of observation’ (Ibid., 82). This is closely related to another purpose of
simplification, namely the creation of a cultural unity (Ibid., 1998; 91).
2.4 The border spectacle
The occurings at the border and measures to regulate immigration are comprehensive and impressive. The inclusion and exclusion of certain ‘bodies’, the image of security fences towering above the borders and the forms of technology employed by governments are
reminiscent to a spectacle and perhaps a theatre. This idea is mostly present in literature about border control measures set out by the United States on the border with Mexico. Some scholars do notice the idea of a spectacle when studying the EU. Huysmans (2000) describes the
‘Europeanization of migration policy’ as a political spectacle, meaning that symbols are created and dispersed to create the emergence of a crisis situation which legitimise political actions
‘policy problems’, such as the protection of the welfare state, the protection of identity and integration or assimilation of immigrants (Huysmans, 2000; 770). The European border as a location of theatre has also been studied in a different research field; in a book covering contemporary theatres in Europe, the border of Europe is analysed by a drama lecturer of the University of London. Nield (2006) describes the process of ‘othering’ and belonging, which is happening at the border, as a ‘theatrical imaginary’ (Nield, 2006; 67). By comparing the stage in a theatre with border crossings by immigrants, she concludes that a special space is created at the border, in which ‘appearance of a particular kind is possible.’ By the theatrical appearances at the border, this peculiar or special space is created and certain ‘convincible’ identities are created that determine actual entrance or exit (Ibid., 65).
Existing literature about border spectacles based on the case of the United States and Mexico can also be relevant when studying border governmentality in the European Union. The Western
Journal of Communication published an article in which stories about immigrants in popular
media in the United States are being studied. They conclude that the true ‘experience’ of being an immigrant is reduced to the act of border crossing itself; emphasizing the illegal act and creating stereotypes that need a certain amount of sympathy or become the scapegoats of society (Sowards and Pineda, 2013; 77-80). Stereotypes and the border spectacle are also created
through the use of repetition (Ibid., 72). The idea of repetition and the use of symbols is also visible in certain security demands during border crossings, such as the obligatory removal of one’s shoes and belts, and the repeated demand to present official papers by every passenger (Amoore and Hall, 2010; 302).
In his leading work about the production of migrant illegality, De Genova (2002; 2004; 2013) describes the border spectacle as ‘a spectacle of enforcement at ‘the’ border, whereby migrant ‘illegality’ is rendered spectacularly visible’ (De Genova, 2013; 1181). The border is an ‘exemplary theatre’ to stage the spectacle of the illegal alien that is produced by the law (De Genova, 2004; 177). The illegality of these aliens is produced by immigration laws, because the law produces ‘categories of aliens’, but also because laws initiate an active process of inclusion and exclusion (De Genova, 2013; 439). This process is almost invisible, but through the action of border enforcement, illegality is noticed and taken seriously (Ibid., 1190). Interesting is his
notion of the ‘scene of exclusion and the obscene of inclusion’, meaning that the border spectacle on the one hand sets the scene to exclude bodies. On the other hand, by the creation of migrant illegality through this scene of exclusion, an ‘obscene supplement’ is created, that is the creation of a vulnerable and cheap labour force, i.e. the obscene of inclusion (Ibid., 1181).
The above described chapter is the theoretical basis for this study of the governmentality of immigration. This study examines the development of the European Union’s immigration regime and the Spanish immigration regime to see how the first influences the latter. By studying the external borders of the European Union, implications for the boundaries within the Union are being explored. With the ideas of this theoretical chapter in mind, the focus lies on exploring how the diverse phenomenon of global migration is being translated into a manageable
phenomenon and how the process of inclusion and exclusion is formed. The next chapter sets out the methodological approach and the data selection.
3. Methodology
3.1 Formulation of the problem:
While, according to the European Union, irregular immigration and border management are a common and shared responsibility of all member states, most of the pressure and responsibilities are for the account of the ‘exterior member states’ such as Spain, Greece and Italy. The focus of this analysis lies on Spain, because this country started to govern its borders ever since it became an immigration country at the beginning of the 1990’s. For example, the first border fence to stop irregular immigrants from entering the Spanish enclave Ceuta was build in 1993 (Castan Pinos, 2009; 18). Since then further technological measures have been taken to intensify the border enforcement. It is interesting to look at the development of immigration policy of one member state lying at the exterior border of the European Union, because inferences can possibly be made for other countries who find themselves in the same situation.
3.2 Central question and sub questions
Derived from the abovementioned problem the central question of this thesis is:
How to explain the shift in border enforcement in Spain from an open to a closed regime and what are the implications?
To answer this question, the following sub questions must be answered:
- How did the EU’s migration regime develop and what are the main topics? - How did the migration regime of Spain develop and what are the main topics? - Which taken measures in Spain came into existence under influence of the EU?
- Can a shift from a more inclusive migration regime towards an exclusive migration regime in Spain be distinguished?
3.3 Case selection
As shortly mentioned above, the case of Spain has been selected. This is because of several reasons. First, Spain has a relatively long and evolving history of migration. It developed from a
sending country into a receiving country at the end of the 20th century. In the 1970’s and 1980’s the economic situation and high unemployment rates asked for labour migrants to work in Spain and other countries in Europe. Spain started to function as a transit country, but also as the final destination of labour migrants and this is how Spain became an immigration country (Ortega Peréz, 2003).
Secondly, Spain is an interesting case to look at when analyzing the development of its migration regime under influence of the European Union. When immigration entered the Spanish political agenda in 1985, it evolved into an important topic in Spanish politics and in the media by 1995 (Ortega Peréz, 2003). Spain became a member of the EU in 1986 and of the Schengen area in 1991. Furthermore, Spain, just like the other ‘exterior’ member states, recently requested a more extensive ‘Europeanization of their border management.’ (Sánchez-Montijano and Soler i Lecha, 2014; 1) They expect more support from the European Union and its member states to govern their borders, stating that the current border crisis is an European one and not merely their own problem (Ibid.).
The third reason for this case selection is the technological expansion that took place at the Spanish borders. The border fences that were build in the 1990’s have developed into highly equipped triple border fences. Following the example of Spain, Greece decided to build a border fence in 2012. Also Turkey, not a member state but a neighbouring country of the EU decided to build a fence in 2013. The effects of these measures can more easily be analyzed when looking at Spain because of its relative long history of this kind of border control. Furthermore other
technological measures have been taken such as the Integrated System of External Vigilance (SIVE) which was developed to guard the maritime borders of Spain.
This extensive focus on technological border enforcement is remarkable because of the relative open attitude towards immigrants that has existed in Spain, which is the final reason to select this country as the case of analysis. Immigrants have a history of providing the necessary labour to keep economic growth stable and Spanish political culture has been characterized by its open attitude towards immigrants based on the values of equality and liberty (Aranjo, 2013).
The timeframe of the analysis is the period 1986 - 2013. Based on important events the analysis will be divided in three timeframes and consequently four chapters; 1986-1992, 1992-2004 and 2004-2013. The first chapter begins when Spain joined the European Union in 1986 and the second one in 1992 when the Maastricht Treaty was signed, making migration a common EU concern. In 2004 the largest expansion of the EU took place. This remarks the start of the third period. Preceding these three chapters an introductory chapter is presented shortly describing the situation before 1986.
3.4 Data Collection
The research strategy used in this thesis is the combination of both thematic analysis and
discourse analysis. Thematic analysis is an activity in which different themes in a text are being discovered (Bryman, 2012; 578). A theme is a category that is related to the research focus. Themes can be used to give a theoretical understanding of the data and to make a theoretical contribution to existing literature (Ibid., 580). The focus lies on the identification and description of implicit and explicit ideas within the data (Guest et al., 2012; 10).
This form of qualitative content analysis will be combined with discourse analysis. Qualitative content analysis is defined as the search for ‘underlying themes’ in the selected data (Bryman, 2012; 557). Discourse analysis is a methodology based on the premise that social reality is created through ‘meaningful interaction’ and that social reality arises from discourse (Hardy et al., 2004; 20). Discourse is defined as ‘the structures and practices that are used to construct meaning in the world’ (Herrera and Braumoeller, 2004; 16). An important difference between the two explains why both methods are relevant to answer my research question; ‘discourse analysis focuses on the relation between text and context, content analysis focuses on the text abstracted from its contexts’ (Hardy et al., 2004; 20). Although both forms of analysis stem from different philosophical fields and they have a conflicting ontology and epistemology, they can also be used complementary (Ibid., 20-22). This complementary view can also be seen as a form of relational content analysis (Wilson, 1993).
The reason for this complementary view is, that to answer the research question, firstly the development of EU and Spanish migration policies must be analysed. Central themes will be
discovered and the interaction between EU migration management and the development of a member state’s migration policy can be discovered. Content analysis is very useful for this purpose, but when exploring the implications of this development and discover patterns of
openness or closeness, discourse analysis can be useful. It helps to place texts in a certain context and to make an interpretation of the content. Linking this to my theoretical framework, content analysis is useful when looking for simplification in the spirit of Scott’s work. But when looking for the process of ‘othering’ and the creation of a ‘border spectacle’, discourse analysis is more qualified.
3.5 Data
To answer the research question a heterogeneous set of data is collected, varying from official documents derived from the state and the European Union, secondary sources such as research papers and mass-media output such as newspaper articles. Over 200 official documents are scrutinized, some more thoroughly than others depending on their relevance. The variety of data leads to triangulation, which is the use of more than one source of data to cross check findings (Bryman, 2012; 717).
3.5.1 Data EU
To give insight in the development of an EU immigration regime only official documents are being analysed:
- Primary law: EU Treaties and conventions
- Secondary law: Regulations, decisions and directives - Non binding laws: Recommendations
- Communications from the European Commission - White Papers
- Green Papers - Press Releases
To give insight in the development of the Spanish immigration regime Spanish legislation and official statements are analysed in combination with secondary literature and news paper articles. The news coverage is used to position decisions and statements in time and to illustrate the developments.
The following sources of data are being analysed:
- Legislation: Organic laws, Regulations by the State Council of Ministers and Royal Decrees. - Official statements from la Moncloa which is the official government news website where statements and press releases are published. Only available from the period 2007-2014. - Official speeches of the Spanish Prime Minister.
- News coverage: The Spanish quality newspaper El Pais.
3.6 Operationalization
In order to answer the research question and to make concepts employed in the theoretical framework measurable a couple of concepts must be defined and explained:
Migration regime
As set out in the theoretical framework a regime can be defined as ‘a set of principles, norms, rules and decision-making procedures around which actor expectations converge in a given issue-area’ (Balch and Geddes, 2011; 34). The given issue-area is migration, consequently: A migration regime is the set of principles norms, rules and decision-making procedures used to converge actor expectation in the policy area of migration. In this thesis two different levels are being analysed: The state level (Spain) and international level (The European Union).
Othering
The concept of ‘othering’ is defined as the creation of the other, despite of the ‘complexity and subjectivity of the individual’. By creating difference between the self and the other not only the difference is constructed, but also ‘sameness’. This leads to the distinction between the ‘in-group’ (self) and the ‘out-‘in-group’ (other) to strengthen and protect the identity of the ‘self’ (Dervin, 2012; 187).
The European Union
The EU will be attended as one unity; aware of the fact that each member state has a different vision on migration and how it should be handled, only official statements presented on behalf of the EU are being analysed.
Spain
The migration policies of Spain will be attended on a state level and not on a local level. Special attention will be paid to the areas lying direct at the border, such as Ceuta and Melilla and also the maritime border areas.
3.7 Evaluation of the research methods
The quality of the abovementioned research methods is important to answer the research question in an accurate way. The purpose of this study is to analyse the development of the European Union’s immigration regime and the Spanish immigration regime and to explore the implications in this development process.
Aware that not all legislation, press releases and media output of the period 1986-2013 can be analyzed thoroughly in the given time with the given means, the quantity of the selected and analysed data is as diverse as possible. The process of relational content analysis is a fluid process and the patterns discovered are always affected by the researcher’s vision and interpretation. Because reality is never completely objective, the purpose of this thesis is to explore the subject of migration governmentality and to place this subject in a theoretically relevant context.
4. Introductory remarks
Before the presentation of the analysis of the period 1986-2013 it is necessary to give some introductory remarks of the situation in the EU and Spain before 1986 and also to give a short outline of the current Spanish governmental system regulating migration and border control.
Before 1981, the European Community only consisted of Germany, France, Italy, the
Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom. Greece joined during that year, followed by Spain and Portugal in 1986 which is when the analysis of this thesis begins. Besides the founding treaty of the European Union .... which established the European Coal and Steel Community in 1951 it is important to mention the Treaty of Rome of 1957, establishing the European Economic Community (EEC) and the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom). This treaty meant more integration and economic cooperation. The need to develop a common immigration policy didn’t appear until the 80’s, but the first mention of a distinction between EU nationals and citizens from outside the EU is visible in a decision of 1968 in which ‘the free movement of nationals of Member States and the right of free movement of nationals from third countries’ is being outlined (Huysmans, 2000; 754).
In the EU, immigration used to be an economic subject related to the labour force, but after the 1980’s immigration and asylum became more ‘politicized’ (Huysmans, 2000; 745-755). This is also the case for Spain. Spain didn’t become an immigration country until the 1980’s and this development was due to economic reasons; labour migrants filled up needed labour positions which made it possible to sustain economic growth (Aranjo, 2013). The subject of immigration didn’t become a real political item until the 1990’s (Ortega Pérez, 2003).
Although the number of immigrants in Spain was relatively low in the 1980’s, a year before the Spanish membership of the EC an immigration law was adopted developed to meet European standards (Pinyol, 2010). This national immigration law ‘the law for the rights and freedoms of aliens’ determined certain rights and limitations for legal immigrants in Spain and it is the first basis for the Spanish immigration regime (Pereda et al., 2001; 5). During 1985 an important decision also took place on the EU level. France, Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg and the
Netherlands founded the Schengen area which led to the complete abolition of internal borders in the EU later on in 1995.
Lastly, it is important to outline the current governmental bodies regulating immigration topics in Spain. The main ministry is the Ministry of Employment and Social Security which is
responsible for immigration, employment and social security. Furthermore, the Secretary General of Immigration and Emigration is responsible for immigration and emigration policy. Additionally, managing specific cases of security, migratory control and asylum policy is the task of the Ministry of Interior. Spanish citizenship can only be granted by the Ministry of Justice and the Provincial Aliens Affairs Office is in charge of the distribution of working and residence permits (EU Immigration Portal, 2012).
Chapter five
5.1 1986-1992: The first Spanish immigration laws and EU citizenship
Statistics about the number of immigrants in Spain in this timeframe are not very clarifying, but the National Statistics Institute does provide some insights. In 1987 a number of 5275 foreigners immigrated to Spain and in 1992 this increased into 18219 foreign immigrants. These are the number of ‘immigrations’ by foreigners who are legally staying in Spain with a residence permit. It says nothing about the number of actual immigrants, irregular immigrants or border crossings (Instituto Nacional de Estadistica, 1998). Secondary literature mentions a number of 293.200 foreigners in 1986 and 360.700 in 1991. The number of undocumented foreigners is 200.000 (Levinson, 2005; 2). The percentage of foreigners as a part of the total population is around 1 percent in 1991 (Levinson, 2005; Escribano, 1993).
The Spanish population is not yet so familiar with an existing foreigners problem since the number of foreigners comprises such a small part of the total population. Every year, the Centro de Investigaciones Sociologicas (CIS), an independent investigating body assigned to the Ministry of the Presidency, publishes a national survey containing among other things the attitudes towards foreigners in Spain. The 1990 survey shows that more than 60 percent of the population is not following the news about immigrants and that 90 percent of the Spanish population has no contact at all with foreign workers (Escribano, 1993; 297). It also shows that Spaniards associate immigrants with unemployment; 64 percent believes that they take away jobs, 57 percent of society relates them to ‘drug selling’ and 45 percent associates foreigners with ‘urban insecurity’ (Escribano, 1993; 297). Furthermore, 57 percent of the Spanish
population believes that the government should confine immigration and they also assign a more positive image to immigrants from within the European Community (Escribano, 1993; 298).
The topic of immigration and irregular immigrants in Spanish media emerges increasingly around the 1990’s (Escribano, 1993; 298). Newspaper reports about the number of illegal entries and of expulsions appear many times in the newspaper el País and messages about more border control are more present. (el País, 1989; 1990a; 1990b; 1991a; 1992a) The government starts enforcing the border of Melilla at the frontier with Morocco in 1986 with electronic systems and
a radar system. (el País, 1986) The Spanish People’s Party asks for the construction of a wall to prevent illegal immigrants from entering Spain. (el País, 1990c) Furthermore, the Canary Islands receive extra attention through a special plan to fight illegal migration and the coastlines near Gibraltar receive numbers of immigrants trying to reach the coast in ‘pateras’, meaning small boats (el País, 1990d; 1992b).
The year 1986 was a year full of relevant events on EU and Spanish national level. After a process of eight years on the first of January 1986, Spain and Portugal joined the European Community. Spain joined the European Economic Community, the European Coal and Steel Community and also the European Atomic Energy Community (Geary, 2009; 5-8). In the negotiation process the topics of immigration and border control didn’t emerge, the main topics being the Value Added Tax, trade and free circulation of goods, agriculture and fisheries (Geary, 2009; 5-8). A year before this event the first immigration law was signed by the Spanish
government to meet European standards (Pinyol, 2010). The regulation of 1986 to implement the immigration law enumerates the basic rules for immigrants wanting to enter Spain. Examples of topics are the entrance through official entry points, visa requirements and identification
requirements. The types of residence permits for foreigners who don’t have the intention to establish themselves or work in Spain are also being classified. Asylum is still regulated according to the asylum law of 1984 (Real Decreto 1119/1986). The immigration law also established a regularisation programme that made it possible for foreigners with a work position, present in Spain since the 24th of July 1985, to apply (Levinson, 2005; 2). The application deadline was the 31st of March and only 23.000 immigrants were eventually regularized (Ibid.). More than half of the total qualified population didn’t apply for regularisation (Ibid). The deadline for application was already prolonged with two more months (Orden, 1986).
On European level the Single European Act (SEA) was signed in 1986 to complete the European internal market. The SEA amended the European Economic Community Treaty of 1957 but was also related to the EU’s foreign and security policy (European Union, 2010a). In the section about the internal market in the supplement of the EEC Treaty the goal of establishing an internal market is described with the mention of the establishment of an area ‘without internal frontiers’
Act, 1987; 14). The Treaty Provisions on European Cooperation in the Sphere of Foreign Policy gives notion of the existence of an ‘European identity in external policy matters’ in relation to European security. The High Contracting Parties considered that closer cooperation on questions about European security would contribute in an essential way to the development of an European identity in external policy matters. They stated to be ready to coordinate their positions more closely on the political and economic aspects of security (Single European Act, 1987; 21).
The idea of European identity returned during the European Council Summit in 1989 in
Strasbourg. The conclusions of the presidency describes the desire to create a path of ‘openness and cooperation particularly with the other European States’ (European Council, 1989). The first sentence in the section about the free movement of people is related to identity, stating that all economic and social policies of the EC contribute to ‘a common sense of belonging’ (European Council, 1989). This idea can be expanded by the removal of internal borders ‘which impede the free movement of persons and symbolize division’. In the same sentence a relation is made with terrorism, drugs abuse and crime against which policy measures must be taken (European Council, 1989).
These ideas about open borders are being reflected in the Schengen Convention which was established in 1985, but supplemented in 1990. The contents of the convention will be discussed in the next chapter, because it went into force in 1995. This also applies to the Dublin
Convention because this convention came in effect in 1997. Both conventions are mentioned here because the idea for a common immigration policy and immigration control are rooted in this time period. In 1990 the EC presented a report on immigrant integration saying that 2.4 percent of the community’s population are immigrants. The press release states that this number is even higher when the number of not integrated immigrants with a member state citizenship are included. In the press statement the main pillars of immigration policy are mentioned and also the wish to create a body of basic principles, which shows the demand for more cooperation within the community (European Commission, 1990a). During the European Council in Rome in 1990 the need for more border control is also expressed. The council asks for information about taken measures ‘to reinforce the infrastructure necessary for controls at external borders’
the member states (European Council, 1990b).
In the ACP-EU development magazine (African Caribbean and Pacific group of states and European Union) Courier, published by the Development Directorate General of the European Commission, the field of immigration was further explored in a 38 pages immigration dossier. This indicates that the subject was alive during this time. Topics covered are among other things trends in world migration from an EU perspective, Britain’s ethnic minority communities, 30 years of immigration from Turkey to Germany and an ACP view on immigration to the EU (The Courier, 1991). The immigration debate is said to be a ‘powder keg’, because there is an actual immigration problem (Pagni, 1991; 40). The economic capacity for more inhabitants from outside the EU has reached a ‘saturation point’ (Pagni, 1991; 40). The introduction of the immigration dossier outlines the emerging debate about citizens from outside and inside the EU stating that the idea of insiders and ‘others’ goes back to the time of the Greeks and Romans (Pagni, 1991; 41). The immigration dossier also covers a sociological article, profoundly discussing the status of citizenship of immigrants from outside the EU living in member states. The way they should be addressed is being questioned: Are they foreigners or immigrants? What should children born in a member state from foreign parents be called? The article touches upon integration, assimilation and ‘difference-exclusion’ and one section of the article is called ‘The ‘Others’ and the fantasy of the Others’. It concludes by saying there are ‘as many risks of
discrimination, exclusion and marginalisation in tomorrow’s Europe as there are laws on foreign populations and codes on nationality and non-Community nationalities in every country of Europe’ (Marie, 1991; 41).
Meanwhile, the Spanish government is handling immigration by establishing a second
regularization process in 1991. Immigrants eligible for regularization were asylum seekers with declined or pending asylum applications and immigrant workers meeting certain specific demands. A number of 109.135 persons were regularized (Levinson, 2005; 3). The resolution establishing the regularization process mentions a communication to the Congress of Deputies in 1990 about the situation of foreigners in Spain (Resolución, 1991). The resolution states that this communication confirms the government’s decision to look for efficient solutions against the
national society (Resolution, 1991).
The debate about the sentiments towards foreigners and citizenship is important to mention here because in 1992 the Maastricht Treaty was established. The treaty created the European Union based on three main pillars: the European Communities, a common foreign and security policy and police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters. Besides the introduction of the economic and monetary union it also introduces the concept of European citizenship (European Union, 2010b). The treaty mentions the right of every EU citizen to move and reside freely within the territory of member states (Treaty on European Union, 1992; 7). It also states that the European community shall contribute to the culture of the member states while respecting its diversities but it will also bring forward their ‘common cultural heritage’ (Treaty on European Union, 1992; 24).
5.2 Theoretical implications
During the period 1986-1992 the idea of the need for immigration management came into being both on Spanish national level and on the level of the European Union. Three reasons can be indicated for the emergence of a Spanish immigration regime. The first reason is the accession of Spain to the European Union in 1986. Secondly, Spain became a receiving immigration country during the 1980’s and political awareness of the topic came into being in the 1990’s (Ortega Pérez, 2003). Third, the Schengen Convention was extended in the year 1990. As mentioned above, the actual enforcement of the Schengen area took place in 1995. This all reflects in the implementation of the first immigration law and the start of border enforcement at the external land and maritime borders of Spain. There is no question of a complete Spanish immigration regime, but the foundations are made. Both the EU and Spain start with actively defining the limitations and freedoms of citizens and non-citizens and actively producing and organizing these freedoms. On Spanish level this is visible in the regulation of 1986 in which rules for foreigners are set out including two regulation programmes which define who is allowed to legally reside in Spain and who is not.
The process of the construction of identity meets the three characteristics of identity as set out by Diez (2010) as mentioned in chapter 2.2 of the theoretical framework. First, identities are
constructed by discourse. Examples are the mentioning of ‘a sense of belonging’ (European Council, 1989) and the existence of ‘a European identity in external policy matters’ in the Single European Act (Single European Act, 1987; 21) Identities are never fixed which can be applied in three ways. New member states can become part of the European Union as happened with Spain in 1986, which made the Spanish citizens part of the community inside separated by a territorial limit, meaning the border. Furthermore, foreigners can become part of the inside by applying for Spanish citizenship which makes them also citizens of the EU. Next to it, when expressing the number of immigrants in the European Community, the European Council is rather ambivalent. The actual given percentage is 2,4 percent, but according to the press release, the real number is even higher when not integrated immigrants with a member state citizenship are included (European Commission, 1990a) This suggests that it is not the legal status that counts, but the level of integration. In other words, even if a foreigner obtains legal citizenship, he is still considered ‘foreign’ unless he or she is sufficiently integrated. It also implies that 2,4 percent is not sufficiently impressive; by stating that the number of immigrants in the EU is higher in reality, it is made more urgent. The third characteristic of identities is that identities are constructed as opposed to something else. The European identity is constructed as opposed to everyone on the other side of the exterior border which is further reinforced with the idea of the abolition of the interior borders. The hardening of the exterior borders by immigration laws and border barriers are actively institutionalising privilege through legal exclusions (Rosière and Jones, 2012) expressed in rights for EU citizens and limitations for ‘the others’. This is distinctly put during the European Council Summit in 1989 in Strasbourg in the motivation for the
abolition of the internal borders where is stated that borders ‘symbolize division’. (European Council 1989). The division between EU member states is thus dissolved, but the division between the EU and non member states is being accentuated.
Chapter six
6.1 1993-2003: The development of the immigration regime
By 1993 Spain had become a true immigration country. The foreign population with a residential status residing in Spain comprised 15.489.41 persons2 in 2001. Out of this population 357.979 persons came from within the European Union and 329.696 persons from the African continent. The majority of the foreign population originated from the American continent, mostly Latin America, the number being 626.646 persons (Statistical Yearbook of Spain, 2004). The number of permitted foreign workers in 1996 was 126.407 and this number increased into 271.776 foreign workers in 2003. Although the number of foreign workers from within the EU in 1996 was only 8018, it became 52.656 in 2003. The number of foreign workers from the African continent declined in the period 1996-2004 from 70.578 persons to 50.232 persons (Statistical Yearbook of Spain, 2006). Statistics about irregular immigrants during this period are limited. The Spanish Ministry of the Interior did publish a document about ‘the fight against illegal migration’ in 2010 providing some ambivalent numbers. The number of illegal entries in 2003 is an estimate of 19.176 persons. The document provides no explanation of how these numbers were composed (Ministerio del Interior, 2010).
The number of new regulations, laws and communications both on EU-level and Spanish national level during 1993-2003 is very extensive. This makes a chronological overview of the happenings not useful or clarifying. This is why this chapter is divided in three subsections based on the three main themes: citizenship and integration, labour migration and the entry of
immigrants and border control.
The notion of European citizenship, the abolition of internal borders and the perception that immigration flows should be managed by member states and therefore also in Spain came into being in the period before 1993. After this, with the Maastricht Treaty taking effect and the new adopted immigration law in Spain, these ideas were converted into actual policy measures.
2
6.2 Citizenship and integration
The connection between the free movement of people within the European Union and European citizenship is a returning theme in EU communications, papers and legislation. A White Paper published by the European Commission states that the free movement of people within the Union will contribute to ‘a concrete and practical expression of European citizenship’ (European
Commission, 1994; 26). This is recurrent in a Green Paper of 1996 in which the ‘freedom to come and go’ is described as ‘one of the fundamental conditions for the existence of a true ‘citizens’ Europe’ (European Commission 1996; 4). In a section about the establishment of the European labour market, the ability to move freely within the Union is described as a ‘right’ that should be within reach for all citizens, including settled third-country nationals who are facing difficulties ‘under conditions of high unemployment’(European Commission, 1994; 26). Subsequently it is stated that this reality will be improved because of ‘the European tradition of openness’ and the ‘historical successes of Europe in integrating immigrants and the contribution this has made to economic success and demographic and societal vitality (European
Commission, 1994; 26). These examples illustrate the value attached to immigrants in Europe who are successfully integrated, so that they can enjoy the same rights as European citizens and can contribute to the European economy and society.
The strengthening of European identity by the abolition of the internal borders officially took place in 1995 with the enforcement of the Schengen Convention. According to the Schengen Acquis, the freedom to move without internal borders will contribute the strengthening of ‘the solidarity between their peoples’ (Council of the European Union, 2001; 20). In the Acquis, different policy measures are described to strengthen the external borders in order to make the abolition of the internal borders possible in a secure way. Examples are measures related to border crossings, visas, residence permits and the governance of the movement of aliens. The unauthorised entry and residence of persons is officially approached as a crime. The Acquis prescribes the reinforcement of cooperation between police authorities and member state customs, ‘to combat crime, particularly illicit trafficking in narcotic drugs and arms, the
unauthorised entry and residence of persons, customs and tax fraud and smuggling’ (Council of the European Union, 2001; 22). The complete third section of the Acquis is focused on security
provide the member states with an ‘automated’ information system and search procedure to ‘maintain public policy and public security’ (Council of the European Union, 2001; 69).
In 1996 a reformation of Spanish immigration law took place. The reasons for the adaption of the immigration law are among others, the changes that took place related to migration such as the growth of the foreign population since 1986 and the necessary adaption to international
agreements which obliged the Spanish government to adjust their legislation, especially relating to the European Union and the Schengen Agreement. (Real Decreto 155, 1996; 6949) Following the adapted immigration law new regularization procedures took place in Spain. Foreigners residing illegally in Spain before the first of January 1996 with a residence or working permit issued after May 1985 and family members of foreigners in Spain were eligible for this
regularization period (Real Decreto 155, 1996; 6951). Out of about 25.000 applications 21.300 persons were granted a permit (Levinson, 2005; 3).
In the year 2000 there was a new momentum regarding Spanish immigration policy with the introduction of the new law ‘for the rights and freedoms of aliens’. Article 2 of the law states that all public administrations will base their work performances regarding immigration in respect of the coordination of the politics of the European Union (Ley Organica 4/2000, 2000; 2).
Principles set out in the law regarding integration and citizenship are the social integration of immigrants, equality of men and women, the principle of the prohibition of discrimination. Furthermore it is stated that the complete integration of foreigners in Spanish society should take place in a situation of coexistence of identities and diverse cultures only restricted by the Spanish constitution (Ley Organica 4/2000, 2000; 2). Also, a new regularization procedure took place regarding foreigners present in Spain before the first of June 1999 in the possession of a work or residence permit in the last three years (Ley Organica 4/2000; 44). A total of 153.463 persons were given a permit (Levinson, 2005; 3). Less than a year later the new immigration law was modified. Part of the motivation for the adjustment is that Spanish immigration law must be conform the situation in Spain, but also conform decisions made on the level of the European Union. The law is consequently adjusted to the ‘international agreements acquired by Spain, especially as a member of the European Union (Ley Organica 8/2000, 2000; 45508).
Besides the regularization programmes other provisions were made to integrate immigrants legally resident in Spain. Examples are the Resolution for the family reunification of third country nationals in Spain (Resolucion 4243, 1994; 6117) and a decision for the social integration of foreign workers in Spain with the purpose of integration in the labour market (Orden 9416, 1993; 10500). Furthermore a regulation was established to set up programmes for the distribution of values of tolerance and provisions against racism and for the distribution of a positive view regarding immigration (Orden 2283, 1996; 3632). In 1995 the special Forum for the Social Integration of Immigrants was established (Real Decreto 490/1995, 1995) and the government launched a national plan in 2003 against the violence against legal resident immigrants in Spain (Ley Organica 11/2003, 2003; 18088).
Due to large developments on the EU level, such as the Schengen Convention and Dublin
Covention taking effect, an amendment of the Treaty on the European Union was necessary. The Amsterdam Treaty came into being in 1997 and went into force in 1999. The Amsterdam Treaty adjusted the Maastricht Treaty and implemented the Schengen Acquis into the European Union’s legal framework (Treaty of Amsterdam, 1997; 97) The goal to implement a common foreign and security policy was developed. The notion of a common security policy was again linked to the reinforcement of European identity (Treaty of Amsterdam, 1997; 11). In the Treaty of the European Union a chapter called ‘Visa, Asylum, Immigration and other policies related to free movement of persons’ is included which made immigration policy part of the European Union’s framework and a member state’s obligation (Treaty of Amsterdam, 1997; 32).
6.3 Labour migration
In 1994 and 1996 guiding principles were set out by the European Council regarding the admission of third-country nationals to the territory of the European Union for employment (European Communities; 1994). In this Resolution the contribution of labour migrants to the economic development of the Union’s member states is recognized, but the attitude of member states is criticized by the statement that ‘no Member State is pursuing an active immigration policy’ (Ibid., 4). The Resolution sets out basic principles related to third country nationals and employment and the main principle prescribes that no third country nationals are allowed entry
considered before admission to the territory (Ibid., 6). These principles are not legally binding, but member states do have to ‘endeavour to ensure’ that national legislation is adjusted to these national principles before 1996 (Ibid., 3).
The European Council formulated a special Directive in 2000 to ensure equal treatment in employment and occupation. Direct or indirect discrimination based on religion, disability or sexual orientation were forbidden in the European Community. This also applies to third-country nationals, but does not apply to difference of treatment based on nationality and is ‘without prejudice to provisions governing the entry and residence of third-country nationals and their access to employment and occupation (Council Directive, 2000a; 3).
The ‘citizens first’ idea is visible in the labour quota established by the Spanish government in the period 1994-2003. In 1994 a quota of a maximum of 20.600 labour migrants from third countries was established (Resolucion 21021, 1994; 29524) In 1995 a quota of 8000 foreign workers from third countries was established. Of these 8000 workers a maximum of 2500
permits were reserved for domestic workers. These domestic workers must preferably come from Latin America and the Philippines. Specific numbers are established for Peruvians, Dominicans, Philippines. Agricultural workers must preferably come from the Maghreb (Resolucion 14464, 1995; 17826). Other quota were established in 1998 and 2004. In 1994 a special instruction was composed against irregular labour positions (Instruccion 4317, 1994).
6.4 Immigration management and border control
By far the largest part of new legislation on EU level and also in Spain is focused on the regulation of immigration flows and the management of the border. Controlling the flow of refugees, asylum seekers and irregular immigrants is a top priority on EU level and on Spanish national level.
The Amsterdam Treaty of 1997 officially securitized immigration policy. Immigration and asylum became officially part of the EU’s legal framework. The special paragraph named ‘visas, asylum, immigration and other policies related to free movement of persons’ has the purpose of establishing ‘an area of freedom, security and justice’ (Treaty of Amsterdam, 1997; 28). The
