Useful Migrants

Mobility Partnerships

The German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP), financed by the German Chancellery, has published a study focusing on so-called mobility partnerships, as "a new element of the EU's migration policy." SWP is calling on Berlin and Brussels to pay more attention to these mobility partnerships in the future.[1]

Demand-Oriented Migration Policy

The concept is based on considerations related to the EU's demographic development and to some of its member countries' need for selected labor personnel. SWP writes that "most EU member countries" would be faced "in the coming two decades" with "demographic aging and a significant decrease of their labor forces." This would have "serious (...) consequences for prosperity and economic performance." One remedy would be to "relax the migration policy," i.e. the supply of labor from abroad. This refers particularly to the "lack of skilled personnel," which, in some of the EU member countries already today, can be "balanced only through immigration" - a conviction shared, for example, by the Federation of German Industries (BDI). At present, the south European periphery, sinking into poverty, could be providing personnel for German industry: The German government recently signed an agreement with the Portuguese government providing for that crisis-ridden country to adopt German vocational training standards. In the future, Germany could therefore import customized trained personnel to satisfy its needs from within the EU. SWP furthermore proposes that personnel from countries outside the EU be recruited. The EU Commission - together with "the employers" - has been urging an examination of the possibility of pursuing a future more "demand oriented" migration policy.

Closing Borders

In December 2005, the European Council adopted the "Global Approach to Migration" (GAM), also to be implemented through, so-called, mobility partnerships. Officially, these are framework agreements concluded in each case between the EU and a "partner country." According to SWP, these agreements regulate "cooperation in migration policy" to, in essence, "better control migration." Brussels calls on the "partner states" to take measures "to control and prevent irregular migration." This also means that they have to fortify their borders, cooperate with the Frontex refugee thwarting authorities and commit themselves not only to accept repatriation of their citizens "but citizens also from third countries, who entered the EU via their territory." These countries also would have to use counterfeit-proof travel documents (preferably produced by highly specialized European, also German, print shops), "combat human trafficking," and "organize information campaigns against illegal migration."

Job Fair Without Borders

In return, the EU pledges to facilitate legal migration for work, study and training purposes, writes SWP. This could include "linguistic and technical preparation for specific jobs" - German and other training courses already in the country of origin. The establishment of a "cross-border job placement service," to supply suitable personnel to interested German-European companies, would also be conceivable. Brussels could also provide "partner countries" with general information on the EU countries' current demand for personnel. The SWP study finally proposes that, within the framework of the "mobility partnerships," the EU could also make a good score with facilitating the granting of visas, for example by "prolonging the consulates' business hours." In fact, EU countries are notorious for harassment of applicants during visa application procedures in Africa, Asia and Latin America. Berlin has often thwarted important simplifications of these procedures in the past.

Custom-Made Deportation Policy

The question of how to remove no longer needed labor immigrants from Europe, takes an important place in the EU policy and in the SWP's analysis. The SWP study points out that "mobility partnerships" are usually combined with so-called readmission agreements - i.e. with clearly defined procedures for the deportation back into the "partner country." However, one must "overcome the idea" of enforcing "repatriation" of no longer welcomed migrants under all circumstances. It would therefore be advisable to contrive "incentives and assistance for repatriation." One could learn from the "German experience." With its "repatriation assistance in the form of simple one time payments" in the mid 70s, the Federal Republic of Germany fell short of its goal in ridding itself of economically superfluous migrants. One has to draw "the lesson that repatriation assistance has to be tailored to fit the individual situation of the migrants," the SWP writes. "It should particularly provide significant support for reintegration into the local labor market." This could be achieved through "job placement, vocational counseling, or business start-up support."

Deportation as Development Project

The SWP points to the fact that the EU's "Mobility Partnerships" are explicitly aimed at linking the development and migration policies. It is therefore understandable that the SWP's author is currently on leave to work in the "Research and Advisory" department of the German Ministry of Development. As he writes, the "significance of money transfers in terms of development policy" has greatly increased - immigrants working abroad in the EU are sending money home to support their families in their usually impoverished countries of origin. According to World Bank estimates, in 2011 alone, migrants transferred "at least USD 351 billion to developing countries, more than three times the amount of official development aid." There are additional "payments of at least USD 100 billion that are not officially tabulated." In the countries of origin, these not only could "reduce the level of poverty," but even have a "stabilizing" effect. The accusation of skimming off the well-trained personnel from poverty-stricken countries ("brain drain"), no longer applies if the "repatriation" of migrant workers is taken care of. After all, the "repatriated" worker can ultimately use the experience, obtained in the European center, in his poverty-stricken periphery.

Persist

The EU has reached "Mobility Partnerships" with four countries, Moldavia (June 5, 2008), Cape Verde (June 5, 2008), Georgia (November 30, 2009) and Armenia (October 27, 2011). Only a certain number of EU member countries are involved. Germany, in accordance with its eastward orientation, is participating in "Mobility Partnerships" with Moldavia, Georgia, and Armenia. The SWP recommends that the German government promote the extension of this system. The North African countries in transformation would be particularly good candidates for partnership.

[1] All quotations from: Steffen Angenendt: Migration, Mobilität und Entwicklung. EU-Mobilitätspartnerschaften als Instrument der Entwicklungszusammenarbeit, SWP-Studie S 25, November 2012.