Transit Migration in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Hotel Balkan and the fading dream of Europe next door: Foiled by the Gordian knot of migration.

(1)

University of Amsterdam

Graduate School of Humanities Department of European Studies

Master Identity and Integration

MASTER THESIS

Transit Migration in Bosnia and Herzegovina

Hotel Balkan and the fading dream of Europe next door: Foiled by the Gordian knot of migration.

(Source: Courtesy of the Ministry of Security, Bosnia and Herzegovina)

SUPERVISORS

Prof. Dr. Luiza A Bialasiewicz Dhr. Dr. Erik van Ree

(2)

For my beloved Mamita. Uzor, inspiracija i iskrena prijateljica. Tebi sve dugujem. Volim te.

(3)

ABSTRACT

The present work deals with migration and border management in the non-EU country Bosnia and Herzegovina. Known as a country of emigration, it is argued, that BiH has transformed to a region of transit for - in most of the cases - irregular migrants on their way to the European Union.

Thus, this master thesis tries to unveil the phenomenon of transit migration by focusing on European migration policy, Frontex, BiH immigration policy and border control as well as on the irregular migrants who are stuck in transit on the territory of BiH while they are on their way to one of the member states of the European Union in the West.

(7)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

At this point I would like to express deep gratitude to some special people, without all of whom it would have been impossible to write this thesis and go through the program.

First and foremost to my fantastic mother. Thank you for being there for me, for listening to my sorrows, for cheering me up and always finding the right words. Distance means so little when someone means so much! Thank you for making this MA abroad possible and supporting me.

My family in Croatia, without your tremendous help this field research would have not been possible. Thank you tetkica, hvala Vlado, for your ongoing motivation and advices in everything. You inspire me and I am greatly indebted to you.

A special thank you to my brothers and sisters. Thank you for having been there for me, for the countless motivating pictures and for inspiring me to go my own way. Irena, Darko, Filip, I love you to the moon and back.

Thank you Domagoj, my dear brother-in-law for constantly providing me with survival chocolate parcels, you are the best.

I am truly grateful to my amazing family for everything they gave me and did for me. Thank you for letting me make my own way and explore the world.

I could have not thought and wished for a better supervisor than Dr. Bialasiewicz. Dear Luiza, I am highly grateful for all your advices and all the time you took to help me and talk to me. I feel privileged to have you as my supervisor. Your research is truly admirable and inspiring. Your advice, interest, encouragement and reflections motivated me to get the best out of my work. Grazie mille di tutto!

Thanks to all my lovely friends here in Amsterdam, without you it would have not been the same. And my girls from Austria deserve a great expression of gratitude as well: loads of love, thank you for being my friends and your moral support throughout the year.

(8)

During my fieldwork in Sarajevo I met a lot of fantastic people. I would like to thank Zlatan Jugo, without your help it would have not been possible to complete my research. I thank you from the bottom of my heart.

My sincere gratitude goes to Mr. Mustafa Pašalić, Chief of Section for Reception and Program in the Asylum Sector in the Ministry of Security of Bosnia and Herzegovina who provided me with loads of information and connected me to the right institutions. Hvala od srca! Mr. Mirsad Buzar, Head of Department for Operational and Intelligence Support within the Ministry of Security’s Service for Foreigners’ Affairs in Bosnia and Herzegovina, I thank you so much for all the time you took to talk to me. Thank you for all your advice, the brainstorming and the inspiring conversation.

Thank you Lidija from UNHCR Sarajevo for receiving me and explaining me your fantastic work. Dear Murveta, thank you for having had time in this busy period and for all the information I got from you.

A special thank you to all the generous people at IOM, MARRI and Vaša Prava, the material I got from you is fantastic.

Samir, thank you for your countless attempts to help me to get used to the Insallah vibes. My stay in Sarajevo would have certainly been different if you had not been there for me. And this goes to all the other lovely Sarajlije I met during my stay. It was a challenging and instructive experience.

Especially I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Mr. Slobodan Ujić, Head of the Detention Center Lukavica in Sarajevo East. I could have not wished for more than just meeting your for an interview, everything else around was an unexpected bonus I could have only dreamt of. I thank you so much; this visit contributed so much to my thesis.

(9)

Glossary of Acronyms

AHWGI Ad Hoc Working Group on Immigration

AVR Assisted Voluntary Return

BD BiH POLICE

Police of Brčko District of Bosnia and Herzegovina

BiH Bosnia and Herzegovina

BBP Border Police of Bosnia and Herzegovina

BiH DCM Bosnia and Herzegovina Diplomatic and Consular Mission

BMP BiH Migration Profile

CARIM Consortium for Applied Research on International Migration

CIO Central Investigation Office

CIR Criminal Intelligence Reports

CSBC Control of State Border Crossings

DCO Diplomat-Consular Office

EC European Commission

EES EU-wide Entry/Exit System

EMN European migration network

ENP European Neighborhood Policy

EU European Union

EURODAC European Dactyloscopy

EUROPOL European Police Office F Mol Federal Ministry of Interior

FBiH Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina

FRONTEX European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union

GAMM Global Approach to Migration and Mobility

GIZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit

IBM Integrated Border Management

ICMPD International Center for Migration Policy Development

ILO Liaison officers

INTERPOL ICPO – INTERPOL (International Criminal Police Organization) IOM International Organization for Migration

ISA Intelligence Security Agency

ISM International System for Migrations

ITA Indirect Taxation Authority of Bosnia and Herzegovina

JHA Justice and Home Affairs

MFA Ministry of Foreign Affairs

MIS Migration Information System

Mol RS Ministry of Interior of the Republic of Srpska

MS Ministry of Security

NGO Non Governmental Organization

(10)

OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development

OSA Intelligence and Security Agency

Rabit Rapid Border Intervention Teams

RS Republic of Srpska

RTP Registered Travellers Program

SAA Stabilization and Accession Agreement

SBS BiH State Border Service of Bosnia and Herzegovina

SEA Single European Act

SFA Service for Foreigners’ Affairs

SIPA State Investigations and Protection Agency

SIS Schengen Information System

TALOS Transportable Autonomous patrol for land border surveillance system

TD Travel Document

TREVI Group

Terrorisme, Radicalisme, Extrémisme et Violence Internationale

UN United Nations

UNDP United Nations Development Program

UNHCR The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees UNMBIH United Nations Mission to Bosnia and Herzegovina

VIS Visa Information System

WBRA Western Balkan Risk Analysis

Linguistic Indications

Below is a table with the unfamiliar letters of the Bosnian alphabet which were most used and how they are pronounced in English. Furthermore some examples are offered in order to explain how they sound in a word.

Ć

/tɕ/

ć as in church

Č

/tʃ/

č as in chalk

Đ

/dʑ/

đ as in jack

Dž

/dʒ/

dž as in gin

Lj

/ʎ/

lj as in million

Nj

/ɲ/

nj as in onion

Š

/ʃ/

š as in shut

Ž

/ʒ/

ž as in pleasure

(11)

List of Tables and Figures

Fig. 1 Push and Pull Model ……….20

Fig. 2 Asylum Seekers, Refugees and Displaced People...24

Fig. 3 Asylum Seekers...25

Fig. 4 Refugees...25

Fig. 5 Environmental Migration...26

Fig. 6 Overview of Migration Theories ...27

Fig. 7 Illegal Aliens in Europe...34

Fig. 8 Migrants on their way to Europe...36

Fig. 9 Transit Migration Overview ...38

Fig. 10 Free Circulation Zones ...42

Fig. 11 The Expansion of Schengen...44

Fig. 12 External Borders of the Schengen Zone...45

Fig. 13 The Talos Program...51

Fig. 14 Schengen Visa...52

Fig. 16 ILO’s Expansion...53

Fig. 17 The European Neighborhood Policy...55

Fig. 18 EURODAC, SIS and VIS. Migreurop...57

Fig. 19 Number of Refusals of Entry between 2013 and 2014 for 15 Countries...66

Fig. 20 Graphic Overview of the Number of Refuslas of Entry...66

Fig. 21 Illegal Border Crossings between 2013 and 2014 sorted by Nationality...67

Fig. 22 Graphic Overview of Illegal Border Crossings by Type of Border ...67

Fig. 23 Measures undertaken against Foreign Nationals ...69

Fig. 24 Overview Frontex ...76

Fig. 25 Frontex and the ENP in the Balkans...77

Fig. 26 Monitoring Operations of the Frontex Agency...78

Fig. 27 The Western Balkan Route ...80

Fig. 28 General Map of the Western Balkans Region...81

Fig. 29 Detection Trends in the Western Balkans Region ...82

(12)

Fig. 32 Overview of Data from 2012-2014 ...85

Fig. 34 Entries and Exits...86

Fig. 35 Comparison within the Region ...87

Fig. 36 Reasons for Refusal of Entry...94

Fig. 37 Graphic Overview of Refusal of Entry...95

Fig. 38 Movements of People who were refused Entry to WB Countries...96

Fig. 39 Foreigners ordered to leave WB countries due to Illegal Stay...98

Fig. 40 Impressions, Lukavica Immigration Center...100

Fig. 41 Strict Controls ...103

Fig. 42 Official Caption ...104

Fig. 43 „Reception Desk“...105

Fig. 44 Office Entrance ...106

Fig. 45 The Place to „Play Outside“...110

Fig. 46 Inside the Center...111

Fig. 47 The Immigration Center from the Other Side...112

Tab. 1 Revocation of Stay in Bosnia and Herzegovina for 2014...91

Tab. 2 Citizenship Groups of Illegal Entries...94

Tab. 3 Asylum Requests 2013 in the WB Regions...96

(13)

INTRODUCTION

“Illegal Immigrants should be shot out of water. After the second or third warning, bang … we fire the cannon.” (Umberto Bossi. Corriere della Sera, June 16th_2003.)

L

ooking at the quote above it is not difficult to note that migration, more precisely, irregular migration is seen as a serious threat for some countries.

It is most likely the fastest growing type of migration and in the last couple of years, significant amounts of money have been invested predominantly in technical equipment to better monitor the fight against illegal entries of foreign nationals to EU territory and their respective neighboring states.

Yet it turns out, that migration ultimately has become, as the German Newspaper DIE ZEIT published in 2008, a new arms race, a cold war of travel documents, residences permits and returns rights. (cf. Blasberg, 2008) And indeed, Collyer et al. (2011:50) argue, that “the complex interplay of national, regional and EU institutions have given rise to the emergence of an increasingly comprehensive European migration regime.” And this regime is not easy to break through unless not possessing the citizenship of a European member state.

A growing concern in the interplay of international migration and its management is the increasing role of transit countries. Formerly, migrations have usually only been explained as a movement from “A to B”, that is from an origin to destination, nowadays migratory pathways can extend over longer periods and several transitional places before the final country of destination is reached; this applies especially to irregular migrants who eventually get stuck in transit after they get detected. (cf. Hugo et al., 2014:4)

Thus, the EU’s attention is now shifting to these transit countries in order to secure the borders and to prevent more illegal migration flows to its own member states.

The Balkan region has become a well-favored route for migrants on the journey to the West. This thesis however is focusing on the transit role of Bosnia and Herzegovina, a hub for

(14)

irregular migrants seeking to clandestinely cross the country in their “search of a better life” in a European Union country.

Background and goals of the study

Throughout my studies I have always been very interested in the field of migration, especially since I do have a migratory background myself. Born in Sarajevo but never lived there I had the wish to explore, as a Croatian girl, raised in Austria, how migration is managed in the country. BiH has always been seen as a country of emigration, but ultimately became an attractive destination for migrants to cross the land to eventually reach the final destination in Europe. I argue that BiH has converted to a transit country today.

Certainly, migration as a research topic has a very broad spectrum what gets even more evident when studying the academic literature. Arguably this is not going to change in the next decades because the migration flows are rapidly and constantly changing. One aspect in this broad spectrum though remains rather less analyzed, namely the phenomenon of transit migration. Much research has been carried out and this thesis will make use of it, but Bosnia and Herzegovina turned out to be a rather “blank slate”. In this sense, as migration is an every day topic this master thesis tries to unveil the topic by focusing on irregular migrants who are stuck in transit in BiH on their way to enter the Fortress Europe.

Methodology

The study of transit migration in BiH and the research questions shall be answered with qualitative and quantitative methods, together with bibliographic and documentary analysis of key EU as well as Bosnian policy documents and governmental sources. Furthermore, the results of the fieldwork, carried out this April in Sarajevo, are included too.

Literature used for the theoretical and first part of this thesis are scholarly articles and books by migration experts, such as Franck Düvell, Joris Schapendonk, Michael Collyer and Castles and Miller. To examine European Union’s actions in migration policy, various official documents are used as well as academic books. The second part makes use of literature gathered during the field research and a law guide on migration and asylum in BiH, whereas the third part relies on the author’s results during the fieldwork and local media.

Additionally, the thesis is thoroughly supported with maps, statistics and pictures in order to illustrate the numbers and to show the pathways, which are taken by the migrants on their

(15)

Research Questions

Aiming to unveil the phenomenon of transit migration in BiH and the country’s cooperation with the European Union the main research question therefore asks:

How has the question of transit migration shaped relations between the European Union and Bosnia and Herzegovina?

Since it is expected, that the objective of both, the transit migrants and the transit country is not to remain in the state, the following questions are going to be addressed in the course of the dissertation as well:

o What obligations does BiH has to the EU? (i.e. adapting policy frameworks; border management techniques etc.)

o Who is responsible for border control? How is border management regulated?

o How do policy-making institutions and national legislative frameworks deal with irregular migrants blocked in transit?

o How do non-state institutions like the UNHCR/IOM in BiH deal with irregular migrants in transit?

o What is the response of the government to transit migrations, in domestic politics and in external relations?

o Who are the migrants in BiH and the detention center? Where do they come from? Which routes do they take?

It is claimed that:

H1: Bosnia and Herzegovina, apart from being a country of emigration has also transformed to a transit country, however, with decreasing numbers in all areas of migration and asylum.

H2: Possibilities of employment and social integration in the transit country are rather scarce.

H3: Causes for irregular and therefore transit migration are to be searched for in the countries of origin, the domestic economic and political situation.

(16)

H4: It is difficult to define transit migration and the intentions of the migrants.

Structure of the Dissertation

The dissertation is divided in three parts: in a first step, the main academic theories in the field of migration studies are outlined, thus providing the theoretical and conceptual framework for the thesis. Migration patterns in Western Europe changed, hence shaped EU migration policy; this new migration management and policy is shortly elaborated in the first part too, followed by new types of migration – with a focus on transit migration. Furthermore, the European migration policy is analyzed in a subsection, concentrating on its developments, contents and key areas before explaining the changes in the management of borders. The last section of the first part covers the research methodology of the thesis. The second part offers the legal and institutional framework of Bosnia and Herzegovina, including key contents of immigration policy in the scope of irregular migration. The annual EU progress report outlines the achieved improvements of the country in the area of migration, asylum and border management. The last parts are dealing with border control and the EU Agency Frontex; migratory routes in the Western Balkans are explained in order to better understand the geographic position and paths taken by migrants on their way to the West.

The very last part is in a way a short analysis of the case study of asylum and migration in Bosnia and Herzegovina. After a short annual review of 2014, the country’s geostrategic position is outlined, followed by an overview of the major migrations flows over the territory of BiH and the Western Balkans in general. The last section of the thesis is about the immigration center Lukavica in Sarajevo East, where the irregular migrants are taken after having been detected. The conclusion summarizes the results of the research and addresses the research questions and hypotheses.

(17)

PART 1: Theorizing Migration – Definitions, Numbers and Facts

Theoretical Framework

This chapter offers a theoretical framework in order to understand the different types of migration in the subsequent section and the topic of the new phenomenon of transit migration in general.

Migration Theories

As scholars have argued, it is due to migration that modern wealthy states like the United States of America, Australia, Germany or the United Kingdom have developed so much. Although today’s society is aware that the European Community would not have turned into a flourishing economic and social area without migrant workers from Turkey, former Yugoslavia, the Maghreb and southern Europe, migratory movements are feared more and more in general. (cf. Nuscheler, 2004:35)

Castles and Miller (1993:3) point out that

Indeed, it is not a new phenomenon. A turning point though can be marked with the European expansions from the sixteenth century, after the Second World War and ultimately with the enlargement of the European Union. The so-called “age of mass migration” as different scholars named it occurred with the mass migrations from Europe to North America from the mid-nineteenth century until World War I. Mobility has become much simpler with the new cultural and political changes and above all, new modern technology. Hence, international migration can be seen as a central dynamic within globalization, which has changed the face of societies. (cf. Castles & Miller, 2009:2f.; see also Hatton and Williamson, 1998)

There are numerous reasons for people to migrate, as for instance being forced to seek refuge abroad through political, demographic and ecological pressure or because of wealth

(18)

inequalities which are growing steadily – what by contrast makes people move outside their countries of birth in search of better living standards. (cf. Castles and Miller, 1993:4; see also IOM, 1990;)

For a very long time, migration has been a significant feature of change and development in Europe. Nonetheless, lately, transformations in both, the characteristics of migration movements and of state efforts to regulate the latter have occurred. (cf. Borkert and Penninx, 2011:7; see also Harris and Todaro, 1970; Piore, 1979; Massey, 1989)

The next sub sections will attempt to outline the main academic theories in the field of migration studies that will provide the theoretical and conceptual framework for the thesis.

Classical Migration Theories

The classical migration theory goes back to Adam Smith's work "Wealth of Nations" (1776/1906), according to which overpopulation, scarcity of land and land privatization on the one hand and labor shortages on the other hand have pushed the former rural-urban migration. However, above all it is associated with Ernest Ravenstein, who in 1885 developed his ‘laws of migration’.

As a starting point of his considerations he takes the idea of there being ‘countries of dispersion’ and ‘countries of absorption’, whereby the movement between these two poles are subject to specific laws which apply irrespectively to particular historical conditions: (cf. Düvell, 2006:79; see also Corbett, 2005; Tobler, 1995; )

(19)

Ravenstein drew his conclusions from a comparative secondary analysis of the UK population census of 1871 and 1881. In accordance with his naturalistic approach, he also speaks of migration flows. (cf. ibid.; see also Ravenstein 1885)

In 1966 Everett Lee added his "theory of migration" which is mainly based on the distribution of migration-promoting (+) factors and migration hindering (-) factors. But a mere predominance of (+) factors will not set off migration automatically because it simultaneously implies a natural lethargy, that is immobility.

Thus, migration is determined by (a) a number of conditions with regard to departure and destination, (b) a number of obstacles as well as (c) a series of personal factors. (cf. ibid., 80) Furthermore Lee concludes:

(20)

These classical theories of Ravenstein and Lee are often classified under the "push and pull factor" model. This in turn goes back to Gunnar Myrdal’s publication “An American Dilemma: The Negro Problem and Modern Democracy” from 1944, a Swedish economist, about the US South-North migration of African-Americans, looking at the employment opportunities and civil rights in the north as a tensile forth in contrast to the poverty and oppression in the south, a thrust.

Hence, both the origin and destination have “push and pull factors”. People willing to move however must take in account both, the positives of staying and the negatives of moving, as well as their converses. If the positive pulls outweigh the negative pulls, migration is therefore more likely to occur. (cf. Düvell, 2006:81; see also Ravenstein, 1885; Lee 1969; Myrdal, 1944)

Economic Theories

The most common explanation for international migration is economic reasons. Renowned names in academia, such as Castles and Miller or Massey tend to point to the real or perceived distinctions in wage and labor chances between the countries that cause ‘flows’ of wealth and employment. However, alongside structural forces such as migrant networks, unequal access to resources and power, other constraining factors must also be taken into account. The state turns out to be an undeniably important actor when it comes to international migration, not only having an impact on the push-and-pull factor balance of migration itself but also on the

Fig. 1 Push and Pull Model.

(http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/geography/migration/migration_tr ends_rev2.shtml, accessed on 18.05.2015)

(21)

Even though economic factors are being considered as very important, or even equally determining, they are often also criticized as being too narrow. “Economic conceptions sometimes neglect the myriad of, and often intersecting, factors precipitating contemporary migration”. (Lahav&Messina, 2006:32)

The most current theories in this area are the neoclassical economics theory, the new economics of migration theory and the segmented labor market theory. Theories, which are equally important but will not be covered in this work but are worth to be mentioned, are the historical-structural theory and the world system theory as well as the social capital theory, which is a theoretical model that explains the perpetuation of the international movement. (cf. Massey et al., 1993:36)

The Neoclassical Economics Theory is divided into macro and micro theory. The macro theory is considered to be the most famous approach in terms of presenting sources of international migration. According to the macro theory the main cause of labor migration are differences in wages due to which people move from low-wage countries to high-wage countries. As a consequence of emigration the supply of labor in the sending country decreases and wages rise. That is, the elimination of wage differentials will end international migration of workers and therefore, if the differentials do not exist they will not migrate. (cf. ibid.)

The micro theory arose in response to the macroeconomic model. Individuals migrate because after having calculated costs and benefits they conclude that the benefits are higher, namely, they receive the positive net return from a movement, thus migrate to the chosen country because the expected net returns are higher than in the home country. (cf. ibid., 37; see also Harris and Todaro, 1970; Todaro and Maruszko, 1987; Borjas, 1990)

According to Stark and Boom (1985) and their model of the new economics of migration the latter has arisen as a response to the neoclassical theory of migration. In contrast to the neoclassical economics theory, difference in wages is not a crucial condition for a decision to migrate. Migration decisions are done jointly, families and households act together to maximize the expected income and to minimize risks. The elimination of wage differentials across national boundaries though does not necessarily stop international movement. (cf. ibid., 39f.; see also Lauby and Stark, 1988; Taylor, 1986)

(22)

The Dual Labor Market Theory “argues that international migration stems from the intrinsic labor demands of modern industrial societies”. (ibid., 40; see also Stark, 1991) According to Michael Piore (1979) international migration is triggered by a “demand for immigrant labor that is inherent to the economic structure of developed nations”. (ibid.) Consequently, migration is caused through pull factors in the receiving countries and not by push factors in the sending countries. (cf. ibid.)

Social and Family Theories

It looks at what perpetuates migration in time and space and not at the determinants, which initiate it. (cf. Massey et al., 1993) Migration networks are assisting to explain why migration endures although wage differentials stop to exist. Through the existence of networks and a diaspora migrants get influenced in their decision to move when they choose their destination. Beyond that, the network theory supports to explain the unevenly distributed migration patterns across countries, hence the tendency to form migration regimes. Network connections however create a form of social capital that opens the people the door to get access to foreign employment. (cf. ibid., 43; see also Gurak and Caces, 1992)

A similar approach to the Network theory is the migration systems theory, introduced by Akin Magobunje in 1970. This theory’s main assumption posits that migration changes the social, cultural, economic and institutional conditions at both the sending and receiving ends and that it produces a complete development area within which migration processes work. (de Haas, 2009b:9)

Migration systems theory implies migratory movements to occur from the presence of former links between sending and receiving countries, for instance through trade, investment, colonization and cultural ties. Thus, the Algerian migration to France is explained as a result by the French colonies in Algeria, whereas Turkish migration flows to Germany are portrayed by the labor recruitment by Germany in 1960 and 1970. (cf. ibid., 27f.)

The Institutional Theory implies that with the increase of migration hence the limited number of capital rich countries visa’s the opportunity for entrepreneurs who support

(23)

international movement for profit is created. Consequently a black market for migration comes into being. To protect the rights of the migrants, who are exploited and victims of these people, international humanitarian organizations arise. They deliver not only legal help and social services but also counseling and housing opportunities while the swindlers offer illegal services like forged visas, human smuggling and arranged marriage for money. (cf. Massey et al., 1993:450)

(24)

Other reasons for migration

Political Migration

Fig. 2 Asylum Seekers, Refugees and Displaced People. (Migreurop. Atlas of Migration, 2013:19)

Due to the worldwide rise of numbers of refugees and asylum seekers, political migration has become increasingly a question of concern for western countries. Massive displacements and forced migration as a result of conflicts have brought growing numbers of political refugees in recent years, with the Syrian conflict being just the latest instance. (cf. Castles and Miller, 2009:188)

Today, asylum seekers and refugees are considered as forced migrants. They are the counterparts to voluntary migrants who move for economic or personal benefits. The

(25)

which are not recognized by the international refugee law. (cf. ibid., see also Castles and van Hear, 2005)

Fig. 3 Asylum Seekers. (Migreurop. Atlas of Migration, 2013:17)

(26)

Environmental Migration

(27)

Fig. 6 Overview of Migration Theories. (Kurekova, 2011:14)

As can be seen from the above table, with changing flows and patterns of migration so too have we witnessed a transformation and evolution in the conceptualizations of the latter. The next section will cover this topic and explain the different concepts and theories.

Changing Migration patterns in Western Europe

New types of migration and new forms of state and international response have also transformed the migration patterns in Europe. “In geo-political terms, the impact of international migration has widened from Western Europe to include newer immigration countries in southern, central and Eastern Europe.” European countries cooperate with their surrounding states and regions as a response to international migration. (cf. Geddes, 2003:2)

After World War II, the volume of international migration has grown and its character changed. Two main phases can be identified: Between 1945 until the early years of 1970 the concentration of investment and expansion of production led to a demand of migrant workers from less developed countries into the highly developed countries, namely, into fast-expanding industrial areas of Western Europe, North America and Oceania. The oil crisis of 1973/74 marks the end of this first phase. (cf. Castles and Miller, 2009:96)

(28)

Labor immigration into western societies since 1950 was crucial for the reformation of the economy of these states. The common belief however was, that as soon as the economic situation would change, the supposedly temporary labor migrants would return to their countries of origin. Castles (2006:742) describes this as follows: “The idea was to import labor, not people.” But the guest workers stayed and by the end of 1970 it became clear that temporary migration transformed into a permanent stay, reuniting families and expanding social networks. (cf. Geddes, 2003:15; see also Rogers, 1985)

The number of migrants in European states increased in 1985 from 23 million up to 56 million, which was 7.7% of the total European population in 2000. Not only the number of immigration changed significantly so did its geography. Until 1980 three main types of migration were grouped:

The restructuring of the world economy, investments in industrial and rural areas, new technologies and world trade initiated a second phase of international migration in 1970 and gained importance in the 20th_{and 21}st_{century. (cf. Castles and Miller, 2009:96)}

Migration Management

Geiger and Pécoud suggest that migration management has at least three different meanings. Firstly is it associated as a notion mobilized by actors, justifying and

(29)

importance of their functioning and strategies. A second notion is that “migration management refers to a range of practices that are now part of migration policies, and that are often performed by the institutions that promote the notion”, including counter-trafficking efforts. (ibid.) Thirdly, it is associated to rely on a set of discourses and new narratives on how to address migration. Furthermore, actors, practices and discourses are seen as linked, though only moderately and in a complex way. (cf. ibid., 2; see also Taylor, 2005)

Bimal Ghosh was it who developed the concept of a migration management in 1993 after the demand of the UN Commission on Global Governance and the government of Sweden. As a consequence, the ‘NIROMP’ (New International Regime for Orderly Movements of People) project was elaborated. The principal feature of this new regime was its completeness. It did not only intend to cover all types of human mobility but other related international norms and rules as well. (cf. ibid.; see also Ghosh, 2000)

The topic of migration was thus no longer discussed as a threat but more as a commonplace phenomenon with possible benefits for all parties involved. The question was no longer if migration should be made possible but rather how it can be controlled in order to have a positive impact on both, the sending and receiving countries and the migrants. (cf. ibid., f.; also Ghosh, 2000)

Migration Policy

Migration Policy is commonly defined as “any policy of state that deals with persons crossing borders but especially those that intend to work and to remain in the country”.

It does not only refer to national policy approaches, which design and manage in- and out migration (especially labor migration) but also assessment and data collection. The German Association for international cooperation (GIZ) suggests that

(30)

Types of Migration

As a consequence of economic globalization, migration behavior has changed. New forms of migration have supplemented the traditional forms of definitive immigration and emigration. In order to enable a differentiated view of migration, that is, migration typologies, rough categorizations of various forms of migration can and should be described. One can differentiate them with regard to the categories of time, space, motivation or legal status. “Migration movements have forced their way through barriers and restrictions […] and borders are ‘beyond control’”. (Düvell, 2006:4; see also Bhagwati, 2003)

Düvell (2006:21) points out, that in many cases it is not possible to categorize a single type of migrants since the decision to move usually has multi-causal reasons. In any case, he argues that “it must be concluded, that undocumented migration has become a historically significant structural phenomenon at the end of the twentieth century.” (ibid.)

Nevertheless, a rough typology of different kinds of migration can be helpful to better understand the complex topic. This section will explain temporary, irregular and finally transit migration, the main topic of this thesis.

Temporary or Circular Migration

In the face of rising future labor shortages in Europe on the one hand, and the growing immigration pressure on the other, comprehensive approaches to manage migration must be developed and these regulations also have to include temporary migration. Thereby the possibility of a permanent know-how transfer and additional remittances of migrants is opening for developing countries. The concept of circular migration is still highly

(31)

controversial. Proponents argue that countries of origin, receiving countries and the migrants themselves could benefit from circular migration. Other voices see it as unrealistic: The policy approach only stands for a renewal of the former “gastarbeiter-policy”. Their prognosis is that this supposedly temporary migration eventually will lead to permanent immigration. (cf. CARIM, 2010)

The model is not only implemented in the World Bank development projects and the OECD, but also the EC has published a communication with an appeal to spread circular migration and mobility partnerships between the EU and third countries. At the Rabat Conference on Migration and Development in 2006, the “Adoption of measures facilitating the circulation of workers and people” has been promoted as an instrument to balance migration flows. (cf. ibid.; see also Angenendt, S., 2007:1f.)

The French and German interior ministers, Nicolas Sarkozy and Wolfgang Schäuble developed the term in 2006 and a year later it was used by the EC. (cf. Angenendt, S., 2007:1)

The EU’s promoted and proposed idea of temporary migration resembles a chain of repetitive short periods of migration. As an example, this could be a short stay for several months by a young professional to boost his educational background by gaining work experience abroad which consequently improves not only his human but also his social capital. Similarly it can take the form of a contracted migration for a period of work abroad or seasonal work. (cf. ibid.; see also CARIM, 2010)

The concept of circular migration however is not entirely new. People from the Maghreb countries already ‘migrated circularly’ to Northern European countries before the introduction of restrictive migration legislation in the 1970’s. Ultimately, the circular migration debate is rising again with regard to specific programs, which aim to recruit seasonal workers directly from the sending countries. (cf. ibid.; see also Vertovec 2007) Due to the increasing number of illegal migrants the idea of circular migration was developed. It is more and more difficult to enter the country of destination legally since the laws are getting more restrictive. Arguably, receiving countries need migrants because the population is ageing and sending countries in turn because the individuals are young and the population is growing quickly. Circular migration is seen as a better solution for the sending countries because the family will not be deprived of the members for a very long period and the return of them could increase their social capital. (cf. CARIM 2010; see also Vadean and Piracha, 2009)

(32)

Irregular migration, which is a great concern not only in international relations, but also for domestic politics and policy, was one of the main driving factors behind the development of the concept of circular migration. The next section covers this type.

Irregular Migration

Illegal or irregular migrants, sans papiers: behind these concepts are persons who enter the European Union without documents or further stay there even though their papers expire. Irregular migration has become subject of increasing and ongoing discussions in Europe and abroad. The public debate arose greatly due to the tragic happenings in the summer of 2008, where hundreds of people lost their lives at the gateway to Europe when they reached the Mediterranean shores. The public and political pressure for policymakers is high – the majority of people see irregular migration as a problem and the demand to reduce and control it is rising. Locals in the host communities usually see irregular migrants as a threat, as increasing poverty, fostering labor exploitation and breaking the rule of law. (cf. Blomfield and Morehouse, 2011:2)

Blomfield and Morehouse, from the Migration Policy Institute suggest that “there are eight principal ways in which non-nationals become unauthorized migrants:

(33)

Nevertheless, one of the challenges states face with irregular migrants is that one can recognize them only by checking the identity documents since for the rest of the time they remain invisible in the daily routine. (cf. Düvell, 2006:6)

In his publications on illegal immigration in Europe, Franck Düvell (cf. ibid., 15) refers to Tapinos, who differentiates between clandestine entrants, clandestine workers and clandestine residents and moreover, identifies six categories. These are:

(34)

Fig. 7 Illegal Aliens in Europe. (Migreurop. Atlas of Migration, 2013:31)

In terms of numbers, there are no reliable figures on the extent of irregular migration. The expression "undocumented migration" illustrates the problem: people, who do not possess a regulated residence permit, also cannot form part of population statistics. According to estimates by the European Commission between 4.5 and 8 million people are staying in one of the European Member States without valid documents. This large range shows how difficult it is to quantify irregular migration, because all estimates are based upon numbers of unreported cases. The EC reports furthermore, that approximately between 350.000 and 500.000 irregular migrants annually arrive. (cf. Haase and Jugl 2007,

http://www.bpb.de/gesellschaft/migration/dossier-migration/56565/irregulaere-migration? p=all, accessed on 16.05.2015.)

(35)

Transit Migration

In the early 1990s EU policy-makers’ attention began to shift to the external borders at the fringes of Europe. Due to the change in migration flows new patterns started to gain attention as part of ‘new migration routes’. Inter alia, the Balkan countries such as Serbia, Montenegro, Bulgaria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, also North African countries and Turkey, France and Russia are perceived to be “guilty of transit migration”. The new term was rapidly integrated in both politics and academic literature, aiming to explain these important changes and patterns of migration within and around the borders of Europe. The ‘new geography’ of migration to Europe was one of the main components of innovation, marked by a noteworthy East-West movement. (cf. Collyer et al., 2012:407; see also: Koser and Lutz, 1999; King, 1993; Wallace et al., 1996)

The nature, meaning, usefulness and appropriateness of the notion of transit migration still remain unsettled and greatly questioned. At the same time though, the terminology of transit migration has firmly entered many discussions of migration to the EU. Very little reference is made about transit routes, that is the strategic hubs or transit cities, whereas compared to that shortcoming, transit countries themselves are enjoying a lot of attention. The cities and suburbs however are the places where „everything happens“: information about future migration, accommodation and income possibilities as well as a place to rest and organize the next journey are all gathered and done in the areas of transit. The concept is a large geopolitical issue especially because the closed-door politics in Western Europe is a consequence of the aforementioned new patterns of migration. (cf. Collyer et al., 2014:13f.; see also Marconi)

Much of the ‘new migration’ literature linked patterns of migration to ‘new wars’, the break-up of the former USSR and changes in the world order. Furthermore, it also entered the domain of high politics as a matter of discussion and concern. (cf. ibid.; see also Düvell, 2005) Migrants and refugees from remote states are now increasingly present and visible in the neighborhood of the European Union, mostly in the territories of Morocco, Turkey and

(36)

Ukraine. A great bulk of the people on the move there are both suspected and expected to be on their way to the EU. Those heading east take their journey through Caucasian countries and Central Asia, for instance Uzbekistan and Azerbaijan to eventually reach Russia. All of them take dangerous paths and risk hazardous journeys – lasting between some couple of weeks and months or even years – in order to reach Europe. (cf. Düvell, 2012:415; see also Bosswell, 2003)

Fig. 8 Migrants on their way to Europe. (WBRA, 2015:32)

Düvell (2012:416) explains that “the migration of citizens from distant countries who cross several other countries before they arrive at the external borders of and finally in the EU has become of increasing concern for all countries affected.” The concept has increasingly taken on the connotations as the same threat as ‘illegal migration’. (cf. ibid., 416)

(37)

Recently, southern EU countries such as Spain, Italy and Greece were depicted by other Member States and EU authorities to be “lax on migration” and letting in foreigners who eventually would move further to the North, their perceived prime or rather final destination. However, with the change of migration, the pathways have changed as well: the southern member states have improved and modernized their borders and control system and that is why the attention has been shifted to the east and non-EU countries. (cf. ibid.; see also Hollifield, 1994)

The International Organization for Migration (IOM) pleaded all its member states to acknowledge transit migration as an important topic in international, irregular and asylum migration in 1994 through a variety of papers. It was the then director of the intergovernmental International CMPD in Vienna who in somewhat way warned that most of the asylum seekers were transiting Eastern and Central European countries. (cf. ibid.; see also IOM, 1994 a, b, c, d)

In 2001 the concerns about transit migration were perhaps the highest. The UNHCR forewarned national authorities about the risks of the transit phenomenon in post-conflict Balkan states. Under the auspices of the Swedish government in the 2003 ‘Söderköping process’ a ‘Cross-Border Co-Operation Process’ brought the eastern EU countries and the non-EU neighboring states together, to highlight that migration matters. (cf. ibid.)

Although there have been multiple discourses about the phenomenon of Transit Migration, a single definition could not be made for the concept in international law and policy. In its place various definitions emerged not only from Non Governmental Organizations but also from the Council of Europe:

(38)

Fig. 9 Transit Migration Overview. (Düvell, 2012:418)

These definitions are both very limited and blurred, as well as incoherent and unclear. Yet, Düvell (2012:417) argues, that “neither is length of time defined or indicated how intention

(39)

can be established, nor is it made clear how one can be sure what a final destination country is.”

Schapendonk (2012:578) for instance, basing his argument on Collyer and Bredeloup suggests, that transit migration “implies a break, a waiting period, in migrants’ journeys.” However, there is little evidence that the migrants at the fringes of Europe are in the process of moving onwards. (see Collyer et al. 2012 in ibid.)

Due to this, rather than being a type of migration, the term is more often perceived as a migratory phase, traversing various forms of migration theories such as regular and irregular migration. (see Papadopoulou-Korkoula 2008 in ibid.)

A challenging problem, which arises with this dilemma, is the question regarding who is in transit and who is not, especially because people at the fringes of the EU are often categorized as transit migrants without any evidence. It is not clear if the migrants are intending to stay in the country to which they arrived or if they are planning to move onwards. These wrong assumptions of the migrants are “mainly based on Eurocentric core-periphery conceptualizations of migration.” This is because of the belief, that Europe is attracting poor migrants, who are leaving the periphery in order to arrive at the core through the transit of the semi-periphery. (cf. Schapendonk, 2012:578)

In order to avoid these mistaken perceptions, and especially due to the politicized character of the phenomenon, scholars such as Franck Düvell, an expert in the field, have made attempts to define transit migration more precisely. He suggests to “define transit migration as a stay of more than one week up to three months in a country which the individual migrant indents to leave again.” With this definition, transit migration could be distinguished from other another similar form of migration related to the latter, which is stepwise migration. (cf. ibid., 579; see also Conway, 1980)

In the popular press and also policy literature, a common insinuation is that transit migration is irregular and/or illegal. Expressions vary from ‘illegal migration routes’, ‘illegal transit migration’ and reports like ‘the phenomenon of transit migration is mostly irregular’. (cf. Düvell, 2012:417; see also Bulletin Quotidien Europe, 2006; Sipavicieno and Kanopiene, 1997; ICMPD 2005a)1

The options of moving onwards though are often ambiguous and characterized by certain doubts, mostly as a consequence of the high risks, which are likely to occur in the next phase 1 For more information on transit routes and maps, please have a look at

(40)

of the journey. Studies have shown that the migrants often decide to stay in the area, which was intended to only be a transit stage as a ‘second best option’ because of several failed crossings. Often, the transit phase is not even ending after the migrants have moved onwards the first time and it is likely that a “should I stay or should I go” situation occurs. (cf. Schapendonk, 2012:579) The result is that the notion of transit has to be thrown in question completely because there is no proof that the migrants will only remain at the chosen places for a certain amount of time, move onwards or stay there for a long-term period.

Interestingly enough, EU member states countries like France, Austria, Italy or Poland have never been labeled as transit countries, although there are major flows throughout their territories. (cf. Düvell, 2012:418)

The phenomenon is likely to be explained with the attraction of rich European countries, assuming that they are the final destination of all migrants. According to IOM (1995a,2003), the most common preconditions for transit migrations are ‘laid-back’ entry controls, weak borders and liberal visa regulations next to the geographic position at the crossroads between east and west. However, the transit journeys quickly change their routes as well as their points of arrival and departure. (cf. Düvell, 2012:422)

Unfortunately, research and studies on transit migration can seldom rely on quantitative analysis since there are few or contested statistics. At the moment the largest source of data was collected either by governments or by Frontex. As scholars have argued, Frontex offer more the geographies of their very own migration control operations rather than explaining and showing the changing patterns of migration. (cf. Collyer et al., 2012:413)

(41)

FORTRESS EUROPE – MIGRATION POLICY IN THE EU

European Migration Policy

June 1985. Five out of the six founding countries of the European Union met in a little town in Luxembourg, the relatively unknown Schengen and decided “the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders”. Out of the then ten member states, Germany, France, Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands signed the so-called Schengen agreement on June 14th_{. Italy came after in 1990, Spain and Portugal signed one year later, followed by}

Greece in 1992 and Austria 1995 respectively. Eventually in 1996 Denmark, Finland, Sweden and the Non-EU countries Iceland and Norway joined the agreement. Except the United Kingdom and Ireland, all Western European countries took part in the Schengen zone. Aside from Cyprus, Bulgaria, Rumania and ultimately Croatia, all new enlargement countries too entered the Schengen zone, which enables them to travel without border controls with a valid residence permit. To prevent illegal entries, stricter identity checks were and still are carried out at the external borders of the EU. Setting up liaison officers and taking finger prints of all migrants are only two of these new measures which are new actions undertaken by the EU migration control authorities. A more detailed description is offered in the next section. (cf. Eur-Lex, the Schengen Acquis; see also Jahn et al. 2006)

(42)

Fig. 10 Free Circulation Zones. (Migreurop. Atlas of Migration, 2013:24)

Despite the elaboration of the Schengen guidelines, the impacts of immigration to the EU are different in each member state; they depend on the consequences and traditional understandings of migration. Accordingly, the migration policies in the concerned states do not meet EU-standards; they differ especially with regard to determining the citizenship and the admission rules for third country nationals. Nevertheless, the challenges that arise particularly from irregular entries and consequently illegal residence are similar across the EU. It is a highly controversial topic since the fear of losing national sovereignty is associated with the perception of irregular migration as a threat to the internal security and is pronounced in all European countries. (cf. Jahn et al., 2006:41; see also Sterkx, 2008)

The common European migration policy is a relatively recent phenomenon of policy implementations in the EU. The transfer of nation states powers to EU level only began in the 1990s. Since then a continuous and steadily dynamic expansion can be observed. (cf. Sommer, 2013:49f.)

(43)

The European policy developments in the field of migration will be explained in the following section followed by the research methodology.

European Policy Developments in the Migration Field

Andrew Geddes (2003:130f.) suggests, that the process of the Europeanization of migration can be divided in four different phases. The first period comprises the stage between the Treaty of Rome in 1957 and the Single European Act in 1986. On the European Community level, migration was especially a topic in terms of mobility within the latter, but otherwise it remained a nation-state task. However, in the 1970s, cooperation with the TREVI Group began, who next to questions relating to security policies such as the fight against terrorism also dealt on the subject of migration. The second phase, between the SEA and the Treaty of Maastricht in 1993 included an informal cooperation; for instance, the Ad Hoc Working Group on Immigration (AHWGI) was created. (cf. ibid.; see also Faist and Ette 2007; Favell 1998)

The third phase ranges from the Maastricht Treaty to the treaty of Amsterdam in 1999 and is marked by formalization due to the inclusion of migration policies into the EU treaty and the development of common migration policies and strategies, with a special aim on reducing migration in total. The fourth phase was within the framework of the treaty of Amsterdam, which marked a reunification of migration policy. The final and last phase could be associated with the treaty of Lisbon from 2007. (cf. ibid., 134; see also Monar, 2010)

In the following, the major accomplishments within the Europeanization of migration policy are going to be elaborated.

Contents and key areas of the European Migration Policy

As mentioned above, the signing of the Schengen Agreement and the SEA intensified the cooperation in migration and asylum questions between the European Community states. Until that moment the harmonization of migration policies was not foreseen, especially since the Treaty of Rome was largely based on an economic community. With the SEA in 1987, the first major reform of the Treaties of Rome, the creation of a Single European Market until

(44)

1993 was decided and the transformation from the economic community to the political union can be identified. (cf. ibid., f., see also Lerch, 2012; Woyke, 2006)

The establishment of a common economic area with the free movement of goods, persons, capital and services made a joint approach necessary, in order to avoid a spillover effect. (cf. COM(2003), 7) The acceleration of the process of the Europeanization of migration policy can be seen as a consequence of the EU’s economic integration process. (cf. Thielemann, 2012:24)

Fig. 11 The Expansion of Schengen. (Migreurop. Atlas of Migration, 2013:36)

To come back to the Schengen Agreement, it should also be mentioned that the focus of it was the abolition of internal borders. Another goal was to establish a common data exchange and information system, where data about crime as well as about immigrants from third countries were shared. However, due to data protection and safety related problems, the agreement could not be implemented in the foreseen time. (cf. Schulmann & Le Clève, 2013:36)

(45)

Although the Schengen Agreement was meant to guarantee the free movement of persons, Pauline Brücker and Francois Gemenne from the Migreurop Group state in the Atlas of Migration (2013:22) that

It should be noted, that only one of the Convention’s 126 articles deals with freedom of movement and all the others are concerned with the proclaimed ‘security-deficit’. (cf. Schulmann & Le Clève, 2013:36)

Fig. 12 External Borders of the Schengen Zone. (Migreurop. Atlas of Migration, 2013:37)

Furthermore, chapter two of section III of the Schengen Borders Code empowers authorities to control their borders temporarily, if the case is a serious threat to internal security and public policy. (cf. ibid., 38)

(46)

With the Treaty of Maastricht, which was signed in 1992 and implemented in November 1993, the establishment of the EU was concluded.

Most of the areas of migration policy such as external borders, asylum policy, immigration, residence, family reunification, undocumented migration and employment fell under the jurisdiction of the third pillar, thus remained in the area of intergovernmental cooperation. Hence, migration policy has mostly been rooted in a security context and was therefore treated normatively in line with the fight against crime. Another major change in the field of migration policy was a regulation on the common interpretation of the refugee definition under the Geneva Convention on Refugees. The Maastricht Treaty was therefore setting the course for the development of a European immigration policy until the treaty of Amsterdam, whereby the latter was focusing on security aspects and was dominated by a policy of isolation. (cf. Price, 1994, 3f.; see also Duff, 1994)

The Amsterdam Treaty, which was signed in 1997 and entered into force in 1999 led to a tighter and more collective collaboration in migration and asylum policy. Most of the areas of migration policy of the first supranational pillar have been assigned so that the legal basis for a Union of European asylum and immigration policy was created.

With the aim “to create an area for freedom, security and justice the Treaty of Amsterdam introduced “Visas, asylum, immigration and other policies related to free movement of persons.” (EUR-LEX, Treaty of Amsterdam)

Furthermore,

In the year when the Treaty of Amsterdam came into force, the Heads of State and Government met in the Finnish city of Tampere at a EU summit “to give a kick-start to the EU’s justice and home affairs (JHA) policies”. (cf. EC, Directorate-General Justice and Home Affairs)

(47)

The Tampere program was designed over a five year period and laid the foundation for the European migration and policy management. Measures to access and stay in the EU territory, initiatives in the field of legal migration, asylum, joint control of the EU’s external borders and improvements of the legal status were aspects included. (cf. ibid.)

A special feature of the Tampere program was the focus on cooperation with third countries as regards migration control, which is the reason why the Tampere summit is seen as an important date in the process of the externalization of EU migration. (cf. Bendel, 2007:32f.) There was hope that Tampere would liberalize the European migration policy, not least because there have been ambitious goals for a proactive and comprehensive migration policy instead of the previous security-focused orientated goals. 9/11 however changed everything; internal security became of utmost importance on the policy agenda and the planned migration policy measures of Tampere were subordinated to security policy. (cf. Bendel, 2006:124f., see also Hess, 2010; Ucarer, 2007).

Therefore, the Council has approved only restrictive measures in the subsequent years in the field of migration, including refugee policy. These were, amongst others the fingerprint system EURODAC and the Dublin II Regulation. The main concerns of the following summits (Laeken 2001, Sevilla 2002 and Thessaloniki 2003) were mostly focused on combating irregular migration which was also reflected in the 2002 Hague Program, which linked migration policy with the fight against terrorism. (cf. Schulmann & Le Clève, 2013:36)

With the Treaty of Nice from 2003, the qualified majority rule and the co-decision procedure were introduced, which however were not related to the entire migration policy, but only to the areas of asylum and refugee policy. The rule of unanimity in the field of legal migration and integration remained though, due to the refusal of some individual member states. This means, that with the veto of one single member state, the continuation of a community decision in this area could be blocked. (cf. European Commission, Summary of the Treaty of Nice)

The Hague Program was set in November 2004 by the Ministers of the Council of Justice and

Home Affairs to strengthen freedom, security and justice in the European Union for the years between 2005 and 2010. It included ten priorities for these five years, whereby border management and the fight against irregular migration and terrorism had a central place.

(48)

Compared to the previous program, it was said to be less ambitious and the safety aspect took a larger place in the policy agenda. Same as in the Tampere Program, the Hague Program aimed to drive the externalization of migration policy forward; for instance by outsourcing the examination of asylum applications and increased cooperation with third countries within the framework of regional protection programs. (cf. EUR-LEX, The Hague Program)

Initially, with the establishing of a Constitution for Europe the aim was to replace all the treaties of the EU, which have been implemented before. On the 29th_{of October, the}

Constitution was signed in Rome but not all Member States ratified it. More precisely, due to the negative referenda in France and the Netherlands the Constitution for Europe failed. This marked the point, when the Treaty of Lisbon was decided in October 2007, which gave the European Union a unified structure and legal personality. It came into force in December 2009. (cf. EUR-LEX-ai0033, 2014)

Amongst the “Common European Asylum System” and the “Common Immigration Policy” the most important developments in the area of migration and asylum policy were regulations about the long-term residence and the rights of third states nationals who reside legally in the EU, within the framework of the community rule. Labor migration though was

excluded from Europeanization. (cf. Raffaeli 2014,

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/aboutparliament/en/displayFtu.html? ftuId=FTU_5.12.3.html, accessed on 28.05.2015)

The Treaty of Lisbon

The adoption of the 2010 Stockholm Program, the successor of the Hague Program was focusing on the global approach on the question of migration from 2005 as well as on the cooperation with third and transit countries, in order to build a comprehensive partnership with the countries of origin and transit. Still, there is a strong focus on security questions,