The European Commission is expected to propose a 'blue card' for skilled migrants later this year, but overall its integration policy lacks coherence and ambition, writes Ruadhán Mac Cormaic
The flight of couples across the "love bridge" from Copenhagen to Malmö captures in miniature one of the reasons for the European Union's desire to apply common immigration rules across the Continent.
Policy incoherence across the union leads to what is known as "squeezing the balloon" - a crackdown on immigration in one place soon produces a big bulge somewhere else. The arrival of large numbers of Africans in the Canaries in recent years, for instance, reflects a tightening of the border at Gibraltar.
And one reason so many Poles and other central Europeans came to Ireland (and Britain and Sweden) after 2004 is that they were prevented from working in other EU countries.
The EU's thinking reflects that of its disparate membership. First, it recognises migration as a mutually beneficial exchange: for the bloc it helps fill growing gaps in the job market, while in the other direction a flow of remittances and knowledge benefits poor countries. Later this year, the European Commission is expected to propose its own version of the American green card, an EU "blue card", which would offer free movement around Europe to skilled migrants.
But Brussels is also attempting to manage the movements of other categories of migrants. Launching a Green Paper on a common European asylum policy last week, EU justice commissioner Franco Frattini rebuked members for not doing enough to help police the Mediterranean, a busy channel for Africans coming to Europe.
His remarks followed the discovery of the bodies of 18 migrants floating in the sea south of Malta, just days after a Maltese ship refused to rescue 27 shipwrecked Africans who were clinging to tuna fishing nets for three days.
An Italian ship finally rescued the migrants while Malta and Libya argued over who should be responsible for the rescue. Frattini fears this summer could be as tragic as the last in the Mediterranean.
The Green Paper proposes a single EU asylum procedure (every country currently has its own) and the setting up of a "burden-sharing" system for asylum seekers in EU states. France, Spain and Italy - all directly affected by migration by sea from the south - are keen on the idea, but Ireland, Britain and others northerners are not.
As debate in European capitals (Dublin included) has shifted from immigration to integration, particularly since the September 11th attacks, the EU has shown interest here too. The question has gained new impetus as concern has grown over disaffected Muslim communities and the backlash that has seen far-right parties gain votes and influence across the Continent.
An EU Council of Ministers meeting in November 2004 adopted a set of "common basic principles" on integration. The 11 bullet-points recognised integration as a dynamic, two-way process of mutual accommodation by immigrants and native-born citizens and as such struck a number of balances, according to Piaras Mac Éinrí of the Irish Centre for Migration Studies at UCC.
While they affirmed that integration involved reciprocal moves on either side, they also insisted that migrants need to engage with the host society, its history and culture. Respect for diversity is affirmed but so is the primary place of core values. Recognition is given to "identity" issues, but the practical issues of employment, education and access to services are also emphasised.
In Ireland, integration is a malleable term that means different things to different people. So too at EU level, where the term's usage means it can be read to mean language acquisition, employment opportunities or assimilation, depending on one's preference.
According to Philip Watt of the National Consultative Committee on Racism and Interculturalism, the commission's approach to integration has some features that chime with Ireland's, including a strong emphasis on socio-economic policy and anti-poverty strategies. But it also lacks ambition. "For example, it only applies to 'third country' nationals, in particular migrants and refugees, and it excludes long-standing and indigenous minority ethnic groups.
"It does not recognise that in many countries the second, third and further generations of 'third country nationals' can sometimes be more marginalised and excluded than more recent migrants," Watt argues.
There is little sign of the principles being implemented, however. The mood towards foreigners is toxic in several member states, and with each national government fiercely protective of its own prerogative to decide who enters their country and how, the commission will tread cautiously.
