Hard times for immigrants looking to enter the EU. Many countries, especially those on Europe’s southern borders, such as Spain and Italy, have tightened their already restrictive policies governing access, limiting the number of visas issued annually to new immigrants. If that wasn’t enough, the economic crisis has provoked a considerable rise in unemployment levels all over the EU, and immigrants, as the most vulnerable, have been the first to count the cost.

This extremely tense climate has not been helped by the fact that many local and national elections have seen substantial successes for xenophobic and populist parties, who based their electoral campaigns on this very theme of immigration - and won. It has happened in Belgium, Holland, and in several places that a few years ago were considered paragons of integration, such as Sweden, the Socialist stronghold, and the city of Vienna.

A series of worrying events, to which is added a summer of racially-based tension and disputes in France, with fresh clashes in the “banlieues,” places symbolic of the marginalization of not just new arrivals but also of second and third generation immigrants, who are French citizens but cannot overcome the ethnic barriers. But the most notable incident was the hard line taken by President Sarkozy regarding the Roma, that led to the much-criticised plan for the more or less voluntary repatriation of numerous Romanian and Bulgarian citizens and resulted in a head-on collision with the EU institutions, who were alarmed by the ethnic discrimination and by the alleged violations of the right to free circulation for European citizens within the EU.

Europe closes its doors

A common aspect of European policies on immigration in recent years, be it on a national or Community level, has been the continued effort to limit the number of on-EC nationals who are coming in, regardless of the reasons that push these people to emigrate (war, persecution, no opportunity for development, differences in income, and the ever more relevant phenomenon of climate-related disasters), and indeed of the reasons that attract immigrants (demand in the job market, the creation of a dual market in which some jobs are destined almost exclusively for non-EC citizens, the lack of labour in certain specific sectors). The only concern has been to respond to what is being represented in the mass media, and received by the public, as though it were a catastrophe.

And so in Great Britain, access channels have been restricted for asylum seekers and rules governing detention and expulsion of illegal immigrants have become stricter. Spain has erected electric fences around the Ceuta and Melilla enclaves, Italy has signed a Treaty of Friendship with Libya which, beyond the economic and financial implications, basically is a violation in black and white of the human rights guaranteed to refugees by the Geneva Convention, in that it prohibits access to the asylum process for Libyans in Italy.

A FRONTEX employee on patrol on the border between Greece and Turkey

Source : [www.flickr.com] © rockcohen

In the meantime, on a Community level efforts have been concentrated on developing that which is often called “Fortress Europe” : a system that provides very tough regulations surrounding the granting of refugee status and makes it possible for governments to send asylum seekers, even before they enter Europe, to countries that they passed through on their way, if these are viewed as safe. An approach that is as risky as it is efficient in limiting the number of refugees coming into Europe, and that turns a blind eye to human rights : agreements regarding the repatriation of migrants have been signed by the Commission with countries whose human rights record is somewhat dubious, a recent example being Pakistan.

The EU Member States have preferred instead to invest their money in developing an agency that patrols the borders and provides rapid intervention in emergencies : it was these very people, the employees of FRONTEX, who received plaudits from the press recently for their intervention at the Greek-Turkish border, in an attempt to stem the flow of immigrants who have in recent months attempted to enter Europe illegally via Bosphorus. A real and true humanitarian crisis in a country already seriously lacking in terms of asylum regulations, in which there are no structures in place to welcome immigrants and which has been hit extremely hard by the economic crisis, which makes the situation even worse for migrants.

This last crisis especially should make us think - when immigration policies are not aimed at relieving migratory pressures in the countries of origin (investment plans, plans to help development) or at creating an efficient system for welcoming and integrating those fleeing their homes in search of asylum and protection, when not even internal economic interests are considered, but the only concern is raising barriers, the inevitable consequence is that migratory pressure does not diminish but adapts to the change. Up until several years ago, migrants crossed the Sahara and landed in Spain, crossed the Straits of Gibraltar and arrived in Italy via the sea. Today, with electric fences and patrols in the Sicilian channel, the chosen route has become the Greek-Turkish border.

Italy sells itself to Gaddafi

A problem unresolved, therefore, and just shifted by a few kilometres. Kilometres, however, that allow many governments to celebrate the success of policies that sweep the dirt under the rug. This is what happened in Italy, for example, following the signing of the Treaty of Friendship with Libya. The major boast from Berlusconi’s government was that the number of illegal immigrants disembarking on Italian shores had reduced by around 90%. Also in this case the problem remained anything but solved : whilst the government flaunt the fact that arrivals by boat have diminished (down from 38,000 in 2008 to 9,000 in 2009), Caritas points out that estimated figures for illegal immigration are going up by more than 150,000 units a year. This simply means that the Italian government have expended a lot of energy on a project that had a huge impact in the media, but minimum impact on the ground. The flood of migrants was not stopped, simply diverted. Today, most illegal immigrants in Italy come in on a tourist or temporary work visa and stay, ignoring the lapse of the permit. And whilst the government celebrates reducing illegal immigration to the negligible figure of 5-10%, the life and rights of hundreds of refugees sent back to Libya are being put at risk.

But that which immediately seizes the attention of someone analysing the latest measures taken by the Italian government regarding immigration is the complete lack of long term policies. All the measures are aimed at facing a crisis that doesn’t exist, they don’t take employers’ requirements into account, they increase the red tape necessary for obtaining visas and permits. With one certain result : that of pushing more and more immigrants over to the dark side of illegality, and encouraging more and more employers to turn to (and, unfortunately, often to exploit) a workforce that is both cheap and vulnerable.

A track in the desert in Southern Libya

Source : [www.flickr.com] © NPJB

For places where welcome and integration centres had been built and had been starting to deliver results, the actions of Berlusconi’s government have been like a hurricane, destroying many years’ work in the name of policies that have little to do with immigration. This is what has happened at Lampedusa, where an effective filter system had been put in place which allowed around 50% of immigrants to be granted refugee status. By contrast, Italy has been accused recently by Southern Europe’s representative at the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Laurens Jolles, of denying people access to the rights for refugees guaranteed by the Geneva Convention by deporting them back to Libya.

A few days ago, the Italian parliament approved, against the wishes of the government, substantial modifications to the Italy-Libya agreement, which protect the right to asylum. But again in this case the united vote of the new group of “finiani” (supporters of Gianfranco Fini, leader of the centre right Future and Freedom Party, a split from the People of Freedom party) and the opposition was the result of issues completely unrelated to immigration, an opportunity for the escapees from the People of Freedom party to send an unequivocal message to their former allies in the government. In the meantime, the boats have started to take different routes : no longer Lampedusa, now Sardinia and even Lazio. Yet more evidence of the failure of the Italian government’s policies.

A dangerous shift to the right

Repression, therefore, does not solve the problem of immigration. On the contrary, it exacerbates it, exploiting the inevitable failings of those policies that are aimed solely at preventing foreigners entering a country and that do not aid the integration process. The problem has also been worsened by the erroneous predictions of European leaders. In restricting channels of access to the European Union for foreign workers, they hoped to close the gap between workforce and jobs on offer via intra-european integration, especially in the former Eastern block countries where poverty and unemployment seemed to be unstoppable, driving forces.

Yet this theory turned out to be completely unfounded, unbalancing a job market in which the constant demand for low-cost labour clashed with the lack of access for none-EC workers. At the same time, however, millions of European workers were losing their jobs, due to the economic crisis that has now had the entire continent (and beyond) in its grip for more than two years. This contradiction produced a stream of electoral victories all over Europe for parties and groups of a xenophobic and populist nature, even in places where several years ago such successes would have been unthinkable. Political movements who have no problem blaming foreigners for the high unemployment rate and who build their success by fanning the flames of public fear, and force the traditional parties to form risky, unstable majorities, or even form part of the government themselves.

The Netherlands, up until very recently considered one of the most tolerant and liberal countries in Europe, is a case in point : the centre-right coalition has been forced to rely on external support from the Party for Freedom, which is led by xenophobe Geert Wilders and which was the true winner in the last election. Wilders has distinguished himself by making several provocative proposals, such as a tax for women who wear the veil called the “head-rag-tax”, and has guaranteed his support to the executive only in exchange for an extremely restrictive policy on immigration. Similar situations have arisen in Sweden, Belgium and in the municipal elections in Vienna.

Paris : protests against the restrictive measures imposed on immigration

Source : [www.flickr.com] © looking4poetry

The worst situation, however, is to be found in France, a country with one of the most intricate social fabrics in the EU, ranging from second and third generation immigrants from the ex-colonies of the Magreb, sub-saharan Africa, and Guyana, to East European immigrants, to nomad populations. Yet, paradoxically, Le Pen’s National Front, one of Europe’s oldest xenophobic parties, has survived on the fringes of the political scene for over thirty years without ever succeeding in influencing government decisions. However, in recent months at least, the French have found the comments of their President rather reminiscent of the xenophobic and intolerant proclamations of Dutchman Wilders. But unlike Wilders, thanks to the office he holds Sarkozy has been able to act.

Following several outbreaks of violence over the summer, the French President ordered a clampdown on Roma living on French territory : numerous gypsy camps were cleared, all Roma proved to have been involved in violence or who could not demonstrate that they had a source of income were expelled ; to others a sum of €300 was offered in return for voluntary repatriation. The President then proposed that French citizenship would be withdrawn from anyone of foreign origin who made an attempt on the life of a public official, thus undermining the principle of equality in the eyes of the law and distinguishing between those who have had French nationality since birth and those who acquired it later. This attitude led to a violent clash with the European institutions and especially with European Commissioner Viviane Reding, who accused the French President of violating human rights regulations, namely those involving non-discrimination and the free circulation of EC citizens. Indeed, because the repatriated Roma are citizens of Romania and Bulgaria, they can easily return to France (thanks in addition to the generous monetary contribution from the French government) without encountering any legal obstacle.

But the most serious consequence of all this, if we consider the big picture, has resulted from the reforms introduced by the new law on immigration, which amongst other measures includes harsher punishments for foreigners (and also for those who were granted French citizenship less than 10 years ago) who commit crimes. The implementation of the measures discussed above has been made possible by the climate of fear and strong conflict that the government has succeeded in creating amongst the French people, many of whom have supported the hard line taken by Sarkozy regarding the Roma. What many still do not see is that the hard process of integrating into the French suburbs, where second- and third-generation immigrants very often live on the fringes of society, risks becoming even more difficult.

But Sarkozy promised this, five years ago, as Interior Minister. Following violent incidents in the Paris suburbs, he declared : “Order will be reestablished at once.” Rather unusually for a politician, he is keeping to his word. With all due respect for immigrant rights.