The purpose of this article is to analyze critically the recent tendencies related to the rights of aliens and immigrants in Europe. Immigration policies which have been traditionally conceived and implemented at the national degree can non get by with the new state of affairs of globalisation and European fusion. Within the European Union, the moderation of “internal” frontier controls contrasts with an intensification of controls at the “external frontiers” . The Schengen Treaty is the apogee of this tendency. Furthermore, there is a cosmopolitan tightening of the policies and processs in allowing refuge, that resulted in constitutional alteration in France and Germany. Most other European states have enacted new, more restrictive statute law toward aliens, adapted in the context of European Integration and the Schengen standards. The article reviews the present position of national and international statute law ( UN and ILO Conventions, Council of Europe and EU regulations ) related to aliens ‘ rights, in order to analyse the relationship between nationality and citizenship rights. It concludes with the proposal of a construct of rights based on abode, as a feasible option to the legitimation struggle between the catholicity of human rights and the particularism of nationality.



A. Policies on Asylum and Immigration.

  1. Policies at the European degree.
  2. i. European Union.

    ii The Schengen Treaty.

  3. National replies.
  4. B Rights of the aliens.

  5. The international protection.
  6. i. UN and ILO Conventions.

    two Council of Europe.

    three. European Union

  7. Rights of aliens in the domestic jurisprudence
  8. one Citizenship and Nationality.

    ii The function of the Courts.

    three Illegal Immigrants and “black market labour”

    three Social rights of illegal Immigrants

Decision. Positions for the rights of aliens



A turning figure of people are seeking a better life off from their state of birth. The United States Population Fund estimations ( 1992 ) 100 million migrators global, including 37 1000000s refugees and those flying catastrophes ( US Population Fund, 1993, californium. Palaces, 1993, Stalker, 1994 ) , whereas, harmonizing to the last EUROSTAT information ( 1992 ) , 5,931,000 of them reside lawfully in Europe, largely in Germany ( 2,836,000 ) and in France ( 1,230,000 ; 25 % of Gallic people have foreign born parents or grandparents ( Brochman 1995, p 21 ) .

The mean per centum of legal aliens in Europe compared with the full population has increased from 2.2 % in 1970 and 3.1 % in 1980 to 4.5 % in 1990, even though after the 1970 ‘s all national policies tried to set a halt to the in-migration. The per centum oscillates from 28 % in Luxembourg, 16.3 % in Switzerland, 9.1 % in Belgium and 8.2 % in Germany to around 1 % in the European South ( Italy, Spain and Portugal ) and Finland. The UK is in an intermediate place with 3.3 % of its population being foreign occupants ( Brochman 1995, p 35 ) . If one besides includes the illegal aliens, whose figure can non be accurately calculated, so likely around 8 % of the full European population ( compared with merely 6 % of the several figure for the USA ) are non indigens of the states in which they reside ( Schnapper 1994, p 127 ) .

Foreigners are seldom integrated without jobs in their host states. Racial force is nearing epidemic proportions throughout Europe ( International Amnesty, 1995 ) , in tandem with new moving ridges of xenophobia. Furthermore, the foreign population frequently constitute a group of 2nd category citizens, holding well less rights than the subjects. A utile related differentiation was introduced by T. Hammar ( Hammar 1990, Brochman 1995, p 25 ) between citizens with full rights, aliens with impermanent position ( political refugees, impermanent workers ) , and “denizens” , i.e. , lasting non national occupants with no rights ( chiefly illegal aliens ) .

Although there are different national forms of in-migration [ 1 ] , the control of frontiers ever has been a nucleus issue for the finding of national sovereignty and citizenship, both in the sense of the manifestation of “external sovereignty” , vis-a-vis other provinces and in the inward sense of protecting national and cultural individuality by the differentiation between subjects and aliens ( Silverman, 1992, Schnapper, 1994 ) . As M. Massenet, the chief histrion in Gallic in-migration policies during the 1960 ‘s, said, “a province ceases to be a province if it does non command the nidation of aliens on its soil” ( quoted in Brochmann, 1995, p 19 ) . However, the deficiency of full rights for foreign occupants implies a serious legitimation struggle between two rules: the catholicity of human rights and the particularism of the legal nexus between citizenship and nationality ( Silverman 1992, pp 92 & A ; 126 ff ) .

Harmonizing to N. new wave Hear ( 1994, p 18 ) , there are three legal and political theoretical accounts of citizenship:

  1. the republican, in which the jurisprudence defines in a “technical” manner the requirements of citizenship ;
  2. the multicultural, in which the attachment to common values is required but the cultural differences and cultural communities are legitimate ; and,
  3. the cultural theoretical account, which emphasises instead the cultural facets of citizenship, as the common lineage and the sharing of a common linguistic communication. Being German, for case, has ne’er been associated purely with a impression of district, as Article 116 of the Federal Constitution refused the acknowledgment of a separate West German citizenship and the jurisprudence of 1913 on nationality remained in force.

The first two theoretical accounts correspond to two major paradigms of societal integrating in Europe: the Gallic or Continental “Republican” one, based on the acknowledgment of equality on an single footing, that is, with no institutional acknowledgment of minorities and a British ( and, besides Norse and Dutch ) “Communitarian” and “Multi-culturalist” paradigm, based on the acknowledgment of corporate rights of the assorted cultural minorities. ( Schnapper, D. 1994 ; Weil, Crowley 1994 ; Costa-Lacoux 1990, pp 26 ff ) .

Still, in recent old ages many administrations ( e.g. , the Runnymede Trust, the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, the Group Whose Europe? ) promote the construct of the province ‘s responsibility to guarantee equal protection to all occupants, disassociating wholly rights from nationality. This theoretical account of citizenship based on abode and non on nationality seems to be the most suited reply to the new status, in which dual force per unit area is exerted on the traditional construct of national sovereignty, both by the outgrowth of multinational entities, like the European Union and by the more general tendencies of globalisation ( see Wolfe, 1995 ) .

Unfortunately, this does non look to be the prevalent theoretical account. It is true that as the procedure of the European fusion is going dominant, in-migration policies are progressively taken at the supra-national degree. However, the abolishment of the internal boundary lines of the European Union is attendant with a push of restrictive statute law and constabulary controls at the external boundary lines, whereas the equality of intervention of 3rd state subjects is non ever ensured. In the confines of this article we shall analyze, in the first subdivision, the new ordinance of refuge and in-migration in Europe and, in the 2nd subdivision, the legal protection and rights of aliens in the host states.

A. Policies on Asylum and Immigration.

  1. Policies at the European degree.

i. European Union.

The European Court of Justice ( ECJ ) held ( see the Joined Cases 281, 283-285, 287/85 Germany and others v Commission [ 1987 ] ECR 3203 ) that, in rule, migration policy falls within the range of European Social Policy, to the extent that it concerns the state of affairs of non-national workers and its impact upon the employment market. Furthermore, since the Single European Act and the new Article 8A of the Treaty of Rome ( californium. besides Art. 3c, 7 and 48-66 EC ; for a farther treatment see 2.i below ) the declared aim of the EC was to make an country in which non merely the free motion of goods, capital and services would be insured, but besides that of individuals ( see Regulations 1612/68, 1271/70, 1408/71, 574/72, 13/90 ) .

However, the moderation of frontier controls has been invariably opposed by Britain ( Gordon, 1989, pp 6ff ) , on the land that, without them it would non be possible to observe illegal or unwanted immigrants ( See the Report of the Parliamentary Home Affairs Committee Passport Control, HC 247, HMSO 1987 ) As Mrs Thatcher stated in an interview with the Daily Mail ( 18 May 1989 ) “we joined Europe to hold free motion of goods… non to hold free motion of terrorists, felons, drugs, works and animate being diseases and hydrophobias and illegal immigrants” .

Despite the frights of Mrs Thatcher, the Single Market did non hold considerable reverberations in the motion of immigrants, neither did it increase inter-European in-migration. Actually, the internal migration within the EU is either dead or dropping, the exclusion being highly specialised employees. For case, in Federal Republic of Germany, the biggest response state, the per centum of EC national immigrants has dropped from 1980 to 1992 by 33 % , whereas the lone group that had an addition of 15 % are the alumnus employees ( See Werner, 1994, p 161, table 5 ) . So, the large issue is in-migration from the less developed South and East, from the 3rd and “fourth world” ( the former socialist states ) .

The ground for that is simple: As most of the states of the Union have approximately equal degrees of development, any intra-EU labour migration does non offer considerable advantages. ( With respect to the divergency of GDP per capita, the standard divergence in the Union dropped from 36.6 in 1960 ‘s and 29.1 in the 1970 ‘s to 2.4 in the 1980 ‘s and 23.8 in 1993, despite the add-on of Greece, Spain and Portugal. See Werner, 1994, pp 160 & A ; 152 ff ) . Furthermore, in the late 1960 ‘s and 1970 ‘s the in-migration of low skilled migratory workers ( by far the most legion moving ridge of immigrants ) filled up the great deficits at the lower terminal of labour market. In the 1990 ‘s, on the contrary, the economic state of affairs is radically different: non merely is unemployment for the least qualified workers really high, even among subjects of the [ Member States ] , but moreover the restructuring of the economic system has increased the demand for extremely qualified and skilled forces.

As a consequence, in the recent old ages, the procedure of fusion and abolishment of the internal boundary line controls is attendant with an intensification of controls at the “external frontiers” of the European Union. The European Council of Madrid ( 1990 ) endorsed a particular study, known as the Palma Document, which proposed steps to battle cloak-and-dagger in-migration such as, the creative activity of a specialized constabulary corps and the harmonization of the national Torahs on foreigners. The Schengen Treaty, which is examined in the following subdivision, is the apogee at intergovernmental degree of this policy tendency.

Several articles of the Treaty of the European Union ( TEU = Maastricht Treaty ) are relevant to the free motion of individuals and refuge policy, as place and justness personal businesss belong to the alleged “Third Pillar” of the Union [ 2 ] . Thus, the commissariats of Articles 3d, 100c and the Title VI ( art. K-K9 ) extend the countries covered by the Schengen Agreement and reassign new legal competency to the Community. For case, Article 100c points out that the Community will find the demands the subjects of other states need to fulfill in order to measure up for a visa. Mario Monti, the internal market Commissioner, is expected to denote relevant bill of exchange statute law within 1995, as, 1 January 1996 is the concluding day of the month for the steps associating to uniform visas format.

However, on a practical degree, all in-migration affairs, with the exclusion of the common visa policy, still remain in the field of competency of the national provinces, moving either individually or through assorted intergovernmental understandings. ii The Schengen Treaty.

The reluctance of the Member States to give up power traditionally associated with national sovereignty to the Community ‘s variety meats has led to the development of of import intergovernmental policy-making, outside the institutional model of EU. The Treaty of Schengen is the most of import consequence of this tendency. Although it is outside the EU constructions, it is unfastened merely to EU states. It already has been signed by all the Member States apart from the Norse states, Ireland and the UK. Merely the UK seems decidedly fractious to fall in, whereas, on the contrary, Denmark already has applied for perceiver ‘s position. Sweden and Finland will likely fall in after they settle the hereafter of the bing passport-free zone with their Nordic neighbor which are non EU members ( Iceland and Norway ) and, accordingly, they can non subscribe the Treaty. The most likely solution will be the sign language of particular bilateral understandings, vouching the continuance of the status-quo in the Norse part.

Another related pact is the Dublin Convention ( 1990 ) , which was ratified by all Member States. It states that an application for refuge shall be examined by merely one of the designated Member- States. Finally, straight inspired from Schengen are some comparatively recent enterprises of the Commission ( see Commission, 1992 ) towards the acceptance of a common visa list for the crossing of the external frontiers of the Member States, which relates to Article K 3 of the TEU.

The chief end of Schengen is the integrating of constabularies control at the external frontiers and the gradual abolishment of controls at common “internal” boundary lines. The execution of the Treaty is based on a centralized electronic information system, the Schengen Information System ( SIS ) , as one of the chief constructs of the understanding is that of ‘cumulation ‘ ( Article 5, vitamin E ) : If an person is considered to be a menace to public policy, national security or the international dealingss of any of the Contracting Parties, and hence refused entry to its national district, s/he automatically will non be admitted to any of the other Member States.

Schengen besides contains common standards of control at external boundary lines for refuge applications. Harmonizing to the Geneva Convention on the Status of Refugees ( 1951 ) refuge should be accorded to anybody confronting “a tenable fright of being persecuted for grounds such as race, faith, nationality, rank of a peculiar societal group or political opinion” . Schengen does non include a rigorous stuff definition. However, in an attempt to extinguish repetition claims and forum shopping, it contains procedural regulations sing the duty for the processing of applications for refuge ( Chapter 7 ) : In rule, irrespective of the province to which an foreigner addresses an application for refuge, merely one Schengen province shall be responsible for treating that application and the rejection of it would liberate the other undertaking parties of any duty to see the same applier. The province which foremost offered a visa becomes responsible for managing the refuge claim in conformity with national jurisprudence. For the undocumented appliers, the responsible province is the 1 through which the foreigner foremost entered Schengen district, even if the claim was filed in another state ( Guendelsberger 1994, p 142 ) .

These standards have been widely criticised, as they could eventually curtail the protection provided to asylum searchers and jeopardise their right of reapplying. In the wake of the confirmation of the Treaty, states with long tradition of supplying a safety for people who face persecution have introduced a new, rigorous statute law ( see 2 below ) . This tendency is really good illustrated by the new article 16a ( 2 ) of the German Constitution, which provides that the right of refuge can non be claimed by appliers who enter from a European Union state or from another state where the application of the Convention on the Legal Status of Refugees and the Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms is ensured.

Another black topographic point of the understanding may finally be the menace to privateness posed by the Schengen Information System ( SIS, Art. 92-119 ) . The exchange of information on the unwanted foreigners is ensured by the co-operation of constabulary forces through the linking of 2000 different informations Bankss. Although there are commissariats aimed at offering some protection from maltreatment of the information, there is broad unfavorable judgment associating to the eventual danger to personal freedom particularly as the Treaty lacks any supra-national judicial control. The unfavorable judgment of the Committee on Civil Liberties and Internal Affairs of the European Parliament is facile: “police services are in a sense working the internationalization of the care of jurisprudence and order to increase their power or get new 1s which they would likely non be granted by their ain national parliaments.” ( European Parliament 1992, p 20, Brochman 1995, p 88 ) .

One more point of reproach was the deficiency of transparence during the dialogues, which was criticised bitterly by the Gallic Senate in 1986 and by the Bundestag and the British Parliament in 1989, in the argument on “Intra-Community Frontiers” ( Butt 1994, p 178 ) .

In the present political context, it seems inevitable that any European common policy in the field of political in-migration and refuge would be based on the rule of the lowest common denominator ( californium. Gordon 1989, p 14 ) . That is, it will guarantee merely the minimum legal warrants endorsed in the less generous national statute law, as traditional refuge response states, such as Germany and France, are revising their Fundamental laws in order to curtail the related right.

  1. National replies.

Despite the attempts made for a European reply to the job of in-migration, the internal restrictive steps do non look to be diminishing. Besides the boundary line control, they normally include police foraies in order to grok people in breach of the in-migration jurisprudence, and single cheques on colored individuals ‘ in-migration position ( Gordon 1985 ) . In add-on, there is a cosmopolitan tightening of the policies and processs in allowing refuge. So, in 1984, there were 3,900 refuge applications in Britain, 4,300 in Denmark and 34,400 in West Germany, whereas in 1986 these figures rose to 13,300, 22,300 and 208,000 severally ( Gordon 1989, p 13 ) . By and large, the figure of refuge searchers tripled between 1980 and 1989, with the most important addition being from 27,000 in 1987 to 60,000 in 1989. However, about 80 % of these petitions have been rejected ( Silverman 1992, p 155 ) . Most characteristic is the instance of France, in which the acknowledgment rate of refugees dropped from 77.2 % in 1981 to 29.08 % in 1992, after holding reached an absolute lower limit of 15.44 % in 1990 ( Wihtol de Wenden 1994, p 86 ) Furthermore, under the new system introduced in 1989 the applications have been dealt with in 55 yearss ( and non in several months, as in the yesteryear ) and are hence called pejoratively by human rights administrations “TGV” ( TGV = “Train de Grande Vitesse” , the ace fast French train ) processs ( Wihtol de Wenden, 1994, p 87 ) .

Furthermore, most European states have enacted new, more restrictive statute law adapted in the context of European Integration and the Schengen standards. So, the Carriers Liability Act of 1987 ( UK ) was, among other things, an attempt to forestall refuge searchers going to Britain. Still, the most impressive alterations in the national context have been the constitutional alterations in France and Germany.

In France, in a first stage the Conseil Constitutionnel found ( dec. of 13 August 1993, no. 93-325, Guedelnsberger 1994, pp 131ff ) that the new jurisprudence of 1993 on refuge and in-migration infringed the constitutional right to asylum [ 3 ] . Furthermore, it imposed on the legislator the load of cogent evidence that any limitation of this right is based on the protection of other ends of equal constitutional rank. In response, the conservative bulk voted a constitutional amendment ( new Article 51-2 of the Constitution ) , in order to neutralize the effects of this determination. Harmonizing to it, “the Republic may come in into understandings with other European States… in affairs of refuge… retaining, nevertheless, the right to allow refuge to any alien persecuted for his or her activities in the cause of freedom” . In add-on, the automatic work mandate for refuge appliers has been suspended since 1991. Furthermore, the jurisprudence of 1981 necessitating tribunal countenance for the ejection of illegal immigrants was repealed and by 1986 ( the ill-famed Law Pasqua, after the well-known anti-immigrant Minister of Interior ) the prefects ( caputs of the disposal of the territorial Departments ) have the power to order ejection, without the immigrant holding any right of entreaty.

Similarly, in Germany, since the mid-1980 ‘s new controls were introduced and extra powers were granted to the federal boundary line constabulary ( BGS ) , in order to forestall illegal entry of migrators. Therefore, the figure of appliers has been cut by 40 % , whereas merely 10 % of applications have been approved ( Gordon 1989, p 21 ) . Furthermore, constitutional reform in Germany ( July 1993, see above, californium. Hailbronner 1994 ) badly curtailed the broad commissariats of art. 16 of the Constitution.

B Rights of the aliens.

  1. The international protection.

i. UN and ILO Conventions.

It is axiomatic that all cardinal human rights that are available to “any person” apply besides to aliens, whether they be citizens or non. Hence, under Article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, “all individuals are equal before the jurisprudence and are entitled without any favoritism to the equal protectio of the jurisprudence. In this regard, the jurisprudence shall… warrant to all individuals equal and effectual protection against favoritism on any land such as… national or societal beginning… or other status.“

There is besides a figure of conventions covering entirely with migratory workers. The International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of all Migrant Workers and Members of their Families ( 18 December 1990 ) , warrants to the immigrants equal protection of all cardinal rights and freedoms, under the same conditions as subjects of the host State. Its article 7 stipulates that the States Parties

“undertake, in conformity with the international instruments refering human rights, to esteem and to guarantee to all migratory workers and members of their households within their district or topic to their legal power the rights provided for in the present Convention without differentiation of any kind” .

Related to this is besides article 5 of the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination ( 7 March 1966 ) , that provides as follows:

“In conformity with the cardinal duties laid down in article 2 of this Convention, State parties undertake to forbid and to extinguish racial favoritism in all its signifiers and to vouch the right of everyone, without differentiation as to race, coloring material or national or cultural beginning, to equality before the jurisprudence, notably in the enjoyment of most of the traditional rights and the right to societal security.”

The legislative work of the ILO and the UN is frequently intermingled. More than 75 ILO Conventions are relevant to the accomplishment of the UN ‘s International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The ILO Conventions focus by and large on the equal protection of societal rights. Of particular involvement is the ILO Convention on Equality of Treatment ( 1962, ILO No 11 ) , that provides that each State party shall allow within its district to the subjects of any other State party equality of intervention sing the benefits of Social security.

two Council of Europe.

Sing the societal rights of non EU subjects, two Conventions of the Council of Europe are of particular importance: The European Convention on the juridical position of immigrant workers ( 1977 ) and the European Convention on Social Security ( 1972 ) . The latter ( californium. besides the art. 77 of the European Code of Social Security ( 1964 ) . ensures for subjects of all undertaking parties, for refugees and for homeless individuals equality of intervention as respects the benefits of societal security.

On the other manus, neither the European Convention on Human Rights ( ECHR ) nor the Social Charter secure an foreigner ‘s right to come in, shack or settle in a European State.

The Social Charter contains an Article 18f which secures for migratory workers the right to prosecute in paid business with other Contracting Parties, capable to limitations based on telling economic and societal grounds. However, the Appendix states that this right is non to be confused with a right of entry in the national district and applies merely to aliens who are already legitimately in this.

Furthermore, unlike the Convention, the Charter applies merely to migratory workers who are subjects of Charter signers. However, the refusal of entry or exile may represent intervention with other rights, such as the right to esteem for household life ( art. 8 parity. 1 of the Convention, see, for case, D3, p. 127 and determinations cited, see Madureira 1989, pp 5ff ) or breach of the general non-discrimination regulation of Article 14, or even degrading intervention, in the sense of Article 3, if there is strong grounds that the alien will be transferred to a State where he will be subjected to such intervention ( see Application No. 4626/70, DR13, p. 5 ( 8 ) and Dl, p 133. 8081/77, 5564/72, CD42, p 114 and D1, p 132 ; 5525/72 CD43, p 111 ( pp 116 and 117 ) and D1, p 133 ; 7507/76, Dl, p 144 ; 8081/77 ( neptunium ) , D1, p 149 ) .

In any event, although a State is non allowed to implement an in-migration policy of a racialist nature ( see the Abdulaziz instance, californium. the determination on East African Asians No 4403/70, Coll 36, P 92, in which the Commission accepted that “discrimination based on race could amount to degrading treatment” ) , it can give discriminatory intervention to subjects of states with which it has closer links.

For case, in Portugal, subjects of states with Portuguese as their official linguistic communication enjoy particular rights and intervention, either by bilateral understandings or by jurisprudence ( Torahs 126/72, 233/82 ) ; this besides happens in Greece, sing members of the Grecian minorities in Egypt, Albania and Turkey and the Grecian Cypriots.

three. European Union

Traditionally, in the model of the European Communities human rights and societal aims have ever served as an aide to economic integrating. Even European societal policy, contrary to its traditional national map, is non of the “market breaking” but of the “market-making” assortment ( see Ingalill-Montari, 1993 ; californium. Moxon-Brown, p 152 ) . Consequently, the majority of enterprises have been related to the completion of the individual market and the alleged “four freedoms” , i.e. free motion of Goods, Capital, Labour and Services.

Article 48 of the Treaty of Rome relates to free motion of EU citizens and gives rise to direct, horizontal effects within the Member States ( see Cases 36/74, Walrave and Koch v AUCI [ 1974 ] ECR 1405 and 13/76, Dona V Mantero [ 1976 ] ECR 1333, californium. Nielsen, R, Szyszczak, E. 1993, pp 59 ff ) . Although it implies besides the right to residence and to employment, it is non an absolute right. It can be limited on evidences of public security or public wellness ( art. 48 sec. 3 of the Treaty of Rome -see F. Burrows, 1987 ) . Regulation 1612/68 and Directive 68/360 have completed the related protection with respect both to the freedom of motion and the equality of intervention. Consequently, the ECJ has considered inconsistent with Community Law a proviso enforcing a quota of national workers in the Gallic merchandiser fleet ( see Case 167/73 Commission v France [ 1974 ] ECR 359 ) .

In rule, the freedom of motion applies merely to EU citizens. It can be extended to non EU subjects, in the instance of a particular Association Agreement between a 3rd state and the EC, like, for case, the Agreement with Turkey ( 1967, see Case 355/93, Eroglu ) . Furthermore, the right to household integrity of legal immigrants ( i.e. , to be joined by their relations ) is by and large acknowledged. It is based on Regulation 1612/68 EC and it is reaffirmed by the law of ECJ ( see the instance C-297/88 Dzodzi V Belgium 1990 ECRI-3537, Nielsen 1993, p 95 ) .

Furthermore, Art. 48 protects merely workers [ 4 ] and those in hunt of work, non the inactive population ( see Case 75/63, Unger V Bestuur, [ 1964 ] ECR 1977, Case 53/81, Levin [ 1982 ] ECR 1035, Case 344/87, Betray [ 1989 ] ECR 1621, see Nielsen, R. , Szyszczak, E. 1993, p 62 ) . It protects besides the members of the household of the worker, provided that they are still dependent on him ( see Case 316/85, Lebon [ 1987 ] ECR 2811 ) . On the contrary, it does non offer protection to persons who do non hold a occupation or a steady income in the state to which they wish to travel ( californium. Lundberg, p 169 ) . Appropriately, the ECJ held that it is non contrary to Community jurisprudence to behave a individual who has entered a Member State in order to happen work and has failed, after six months of seeking, without holding any echt hopes to be engaged in the hereafter [ ( Case C-292/89, R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal, ex parte Antonissen [ 1991 ] ECR-I 745 ) ] .

By three recent directives ( 90/364, 90/365, 90/366 ) freedom of motion has been extended to some classs of the inactive population, like pupils and pensionaries. Still, the freedom is restricted by the duty of showing cogent evidence that the traveling individuals have a steady income and they are non traveling in order to trust on the societal security strategy of the host state.

Still, the new article 8A of the Treaty of Rome ( introduced by the Treaty of Maastricht ) extended freedom of motion to every citizen of a Member State ( and non merely to workers ) , supplying that “every citizen of the Union shall hold the right to travel and shack freely within the district of the Member States, capable to the restrictions and conditions laid down in this Treaty” . The Commission has tried to enforce an even wider reading of this article, by which the right to liberate motion covers all individuals, subjects and non subjects of Member States likewise: “ [ I ] t refers to all individuals, whether or non they are economically active and irrespective of their nationality.” ( Commission 1992 ) . Unfortunately, this place is far from being dominant in the European Union.

Besides procuring free motion, the other chief concern of EU policy was to guarantee equality of intervention for the immigrant workers from other Member States in the national societal security systems. Consequently, the ECJ, in a series of instances ( see, for case, Case 24/1974, Biaison v Caisse Regionale d’Assurances Maladie de Paris ) compelled progresss towards the equalisation of societal security commissariats. The basic end was the collection of eligibility and societal security benefits for migratory workers through the co-ordination of national systems, in order to guarantee payments of benefits from state to state ( see Regulations 1612/1968 and 1408/1971, besides Directives 75/129 of 17/2/1975, 77/187 of 14/2/1997 and 80/987 of 20/10/1980 ) .

Hence, the Court imposed the rule of non-discrimination in all facets of ( part based ) Social Security, although non in the sphere of public aid. Therefore, a determination by Federal Republic of Germany to throw out foreign workers who were non eligible for unemployment benefit and had applied for public aid ( Sozialhilfe ) is considered to conform to European Law ( see Mosley, p 150 ) . So, it is labour as a trade good that is protected instead than the workers themselves. There is an highly exemplifying illustration of this, that is the intercession of Advocate General Trabuchhi in a test before ECJ, saying that “the migrator worker is non… a mere beginning of labor… but a human being.” ( see Meehan, p 132 ) This statement could be interpreted as an attempt to asseverate societal values within a system of chiefly economic jurisprudence. However, we think that the fact that it was necessary to reaffirm the humanity of workers says a batch about the legal outlook during ( at least ) the first phases of execution of European Law.

2 Rights of aliens in the domestic jurisprudence

one Citizenship and Nationality.

Initially, as the construct of citizenship was limited chiefly to political rights, it was purely related to nationality ( Grawert p 179 ; Habermas p 20 ) . Even H.T. Marshall, the supporter of the motion for societal citizenship, wrote that citizenship is “by definition national” ( Marshall 1965, p 72 ; californium. Bendix 1964 ) . However, today the general credence of the catholicity of human rights tends to disassociate citizenship and nationality, except in the field of political rights [ 5 ] .

In Europe, merely in Ireland ( since 1983 ) , the Netherlands ( 1986 ) and in the Norse Countries is it legal for all aliens to vote in local elections ( see Layton-Henry 1990 ) although the right to vote was besides promised by President Mitterrand in his programme as a campaigner in 1981 ( see Layton-Henry 1990 ) . However, harmonizing to the new Article 8b of the Treaty or Rome ( introduced by TEU ) , every citizen of the Union residing in a Member State of which he is non a national, shall hold the right to vote and to stand as a campaigner at municipal elections in the Member State in which he resides. Still, the right to vote in elections for the Parliament is limited to citizens merely.

As respects the procedure of naturalization, there is a general reversal of the broad and progressive tendencies of the statute law in 1970 ‘s, when several states ( e.g. , Germany -1975, Switzerland -1978 ) granted citizenship to many immigrants, particularly those of the 2nd coevals. Over the past few old ages the bulk of EU States have altered their citizenship and foreigners Torahs, puting stricter standards for naturalization and entryway to foreign citizens. In add-on, some of these provinces have weakened the rule of jus soli to integrate elements of jus sanguinis, the most exemplifying illustration being the British Nationality Act of 1981 ( Stanley & A ; Rowlands 1994, p 31 ) .

Naturalization remains a discretional affair for the bulk of European states: the disposal can deny it even to claimants that satisfy the formal standards, related normally to a demand of cognition of the host province ‘s linguistic communication and civilization, every bit good as abode demands, runing from 5 old ages ( in France, the Netherlands and UK ) , 8 old ages ( Greece ) to 15 old ages ( Germany ) . In Denmark, Germany and Luxembourg a farther demand is the forsaking of the old citizenship, as these provinces do non allow double citizenship.

Furthermore, France has limited the automatic acquisition of citizenship to certain classs of people through an Act of 1993 and Italy, by an Act of February 1992 extended the qualifying period of abode to 10 old ages for non-European Union subjects. A similar restrictive policy has been adopted by the Spanish Constitutional Law 7/1985, the Grecian Law 1975/91, the Portugal Decree Law no. 59/93 of 3.3.93 and Decree no. 43/93 of 15.12.93. In contrast, both Germany ( through an Act effectual 1 January 1991 ) and Belgium ( Wet van de Belgische Nationaliteit, 1984, Code of Nationality 1991 ) have made it easier for kids born in the district to be granted citizenship, and for grownups to be naturalised after a period of abode. ( See Stanley & A ; Rowlands 1994, pp 31 ff ; californium. Brubaker 1992 ) . However, in Germany, even after the reform the practical chance for aliens and their kids to get German nationality is minimum. This is illustrated by the naturalization rate, which ( calculated as a per centum of the full foreign population ) in Germany was merely 0.5 % in 1991, compared with 5.6 % in Sweden, 4.1 % in Netherlands, 3.3 % in UK and 2.7 % in France ( Bauboeck 1994 P 193 )

Besides the strengthening of statute law, there is besides an addition in internal controls, in order to turn up illegal aliens. ( This, of class, constitutes an inexplicit admittance that the outer boundary lines of the Schengen group are non unafraid plenty to allow the disintegration of internal boundary lines. ) This intensification of surveillance policies and control covers many countries of civic life Jones 1992, p 13 ) . In theory, all illegal immigrants should be expelled. In pattern, in most of the Member States ( with the clear exclusion of Denmark and Germany ) the jurisprudence is enforced really slackly and exile is really rare. Several provinces even tolerate patterns of black market labor which permit them to shack, work and garner their household together. In some other states, there is a state of affairs of semi-legality sing particular classs of foreigners. An illustration from the UK is the place of postgraduate pupils who after making are tacitly allowed to stay as teaching helpers at universities, without being granted work licenses ( Stanley 1994 ) .

ii The function of the Courts.

The law of the national tribunals is bit by bit get downing to follow a non-discrimination attack towards foreigners. The determination CC 22/1/1974 of the Gallic Constitutional Court is exemplifying, coming from a state with deep nationalist traditions. This determination reversed the traditional law that considered the unequal intervention by the French of aliens as a priori justified. Now equality is the regulation and any divergence from it must be founded on an expressed constitutional regulation ( e.g. , article 6 of the Declaration of Citizen ‘s Right, sing political rights merely for citizens ) or a overriding public involvement. This development is non instantly linked to EU policies, since it affects besides non EU subjects.

Another of import right for the aliens, the right to household integrity, is besides loosely recognised, non merely by the ECJ ( see above A. 2. three ) but besides by the national tribunals. Therefore, for case, the Gallic Council of State in a determination of 6/12/1978, ( Ass. GISTI et autres, Rec. p. 493, Concl. Dondoux. Cf. Flauss, p 645 ) has declared unconstitutional the denial of visas to the relations of an immigrant, on the footing that it hindered the reunion of his household.

Therefore, it is non funny that, harmonizing to OECD ( OECD 1987 ) the 2nd major in-migration moving ridge in European states ( the first being the inflow of individual male immigrants in the 1960 ‘s ) was household in-migration in the 1970 ‘s and 1980 ‘s.

However, as clearly demonstrated in several empirical surveies, this 2nd coevals of immigrants has non been to the full integrated in the host societies. There is a dramatic contradiction between their positive demographic part ( they have a disciplinary consequence on the ripening procedure, by refilling the youngest age groups ) and their low position and fringy topographic point in the economic life of their host states ( OECD 1983, pp 7-8 ) . There is no upward societal mobility: 90 % of immature aliens throughout Europe are still employed as manual workers ( OECD 1983, p 16 ) , whereas an of import figure of them remain outside even simple, mandatory instruction ( OECD 1983, p 36 ) .

three Illegal Immigrants and “black market labour”

The equality of intervention between legal aliens and subjects is non debatable, since alienism – the rights of legal foreigners – are explicitly guaranteed by a figure of Treaties, as already outlined above ( A. 2. I ) . The state of affairs is different with respect to illegal aliens. ( The illegality may be comparative to the position of abode, or of work, or both. ) The job of this last class is more acute, as they are more vulnerable to development in the labour market with serious deductions and side-effects for the remainder of the working population. They non merely exercise a downward force per unit area on “normal” rewards, but besides represent an obstruction to the necessary restructuring of certain industries, forestalling them from being internationally competitory ( Salt 1992 ) . Therefore in the 1980 ‘s, all EU Countries ( with the of import exclusion of UK and Ireland ) enacted particular statute law enforcing countenances on employers that hire irregular aliens ( Schnapper 1994, pp 144-145. ( There is besides an ILO Convention, no 143/1975, that includes similar commissariats. ) .

Therefore, for case, in France, there is an impressive series of legislative acts, including the Torahs of 19/7/1989, 12/7/1990, 3/1/1991, 31/12/1991 and 13/1/1992 every bit good as the edicts of 25/7/1990 and 30/10/1991. It is interesting to observe that the big bulk of individuals convicted for illegal work in France were citizens of EU states ( 75 % for 1992, including the Gallic citizens, see Marie 1994, p 130 ) and non from the Third World.

In Southern Europe, an drawn-out belowground economic system is based on the over-exploitation of illegal aliens ( working normally in the service sector in Italy, France and Spain and in edifice industry in Greece ) . It is common in these states to happen Draconian statute law co-existing with de facto leniency toward the guerrillas, as the latter are fulfilling functional necessities of the labor market, offering inexpensive work in unwanted and heavy occupations ( Sciortino, 1990, Brochman 1995, p 142 ) . The governments have searched for a redress to this unnatural state of affairs that implies, among others, of import revenue enhancement fraud, in monolithic “regularisations” . That is sui generis “amnesties” , whereby the illegal may register and go regular, without punishments. After regularization in Spain, the figure of regular aliens passed from 85,000 ( 1990 ) to 230,000 ( 1992 ) ( Brochman 1995:74-75 ) . Similarly in France, in 1982, 140,000 workers have been regularised ( Marie, 1994, p 119 ) .

three Social rights of illegal Immigrants

“Illegal” aliens are modern outcasts. They can non claim any rights. They are non eligible for any public assistance strategies, due to the impossibleness of showing any official paperss ( designation, abode or work license, etc. ) sing their position. Merely on fringy occasions, are they in place to profit from some societal services ( for case, foremost assist medical assistance in instance of exigency ) . However, there are serious grounds for a alteration in this state of affairs, sing at least the acknowledgment of two rights, the right to wellness and the right to instruction ( for their kids ) . Apart from “practical” deductions ( e.g. , deficiency of wellness attention could be a possible beginning of contagious disease and exclusion from instruction creates what they call in France “a classe dangereuse” , see Brochman 1995, p 147 ) the want of basic wellness attention and instruction is unacceptable and from a legal point of position: it represents a general debasement of human self-respect. ( Cf. art. 12 parity. 1 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights ; art. 25 para 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights ; art. 39 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child )

There is an brave determination ( Plyler v Doe 457 US 202, 102 S.Ct. 2382 ( 1982 ) ) , in which the US Supreme Court tamed the inquiry in favor of human rights. It applied the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause even to illegal foreigners, in order to vouch the right to education for their kids. The instance related to efforts in Texas to except these kids from public schools. Justice Brennan, composing for the bulk, remarked that

“the incomputable toll of that ( educational ) want on the societal, economic, rational and psychological wellbeing of the person, and the obstruction it poses to single accomplishment, makes it most hard to accommodate the cost or the rule of a status-based denial of basic instruction with the model of equality embodied in the Equal Protection Clause.”

This generous law will be tested once more, against the recent and ill-famed Proposition 187 of the State of California, that makes illegal foreigners ineligible for any sort of public societal services, public wellness attention services, and public school instruction at simple, secondary, and post-secondary degrees.

By contrast, the place of European law is far more loath to recognize any rights for illegal aliens. For case, the Belgian Constitutional Court ( Cour d’arbitrage ) in a recent instance ( no. 51/94 of 29 June 1994 see “Moniteur Belgian” of 14 July 1994 ) has upheld federal statute law censoring illegal immigrants from societal aid and public assistance. This statute law had been attacked on the footing of favoritism between illegal immigrants on the one manus and legal immigrants and Belgians on the other. The Court held that illegal abode is an nonsubjective and a sensible footing to except certain foreigners and that this exclusion is a legitimate tool for the federal authorities in the executing of its in-migration policy ( i.e. to guarantee that foreigners who have been ordered to go forth really depart ) . These steps do non go against the standstill duty imposed on Belgique by the confirmation of the 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The agencies used to accomplish the end ( in-migration control ) are sensible and do non amount to favoritism or misdemeanor of the equality rule. ( It is notable, nevertheless, that, despite this law, in the Flemish portion of Belgium, the Minister of Education accepted the registration in schools of kids of irregular aliens, saying that it is simply a affair of regulating an already bing state of affairs ( Brochman 1995, p 148 ) ) .

Although the difference between the American and the European juridical attitude towards illegal migration seems leading facie funny, it is explained by the fact that the construct of multinationality ( the celebrated “melting pot” ) has been ever considered a basic constituent of the “American way.” Accordingly, the Supreme Court traditionally protects migration, since the celebrated Church of the Holy Trinity v US instance ( 1892 ) : A federal jurisprudence of this period declared it a offense to help or promote the importing or the migration of any foreigner into the state, with exclusions merely for creative persons, histrions, domestic retainers and a few others, but non for curates. The tribunal overturned the jurisprudence because “it went against the whole history and life of the country.”

On the contrary, the national diverseness of Europe has consolidated a more stiff attack towards “outsiders” . However, the unconditioned acknowledgment of basic societal rights to all occupants in the national district, irrespective of legal position, seems to conform with the best traditions of the European common legal civilization. One could happen a foundation for this option in the Constitutions of several states. For case, art. 5 Al. 2 of the Greek Constitution of 1975 stipulates that “All individuals within the Grecian State enjoy full protection of their life, honor, and freedom, irrespective of nationality” .

This does non connote the forsaking of national sovereignty or relinquishing of the right to command national boundary lines. These are two distinguishable things: One is the State policy sing in-migration and the control of frontiers, which is chiefly a political affair. Another is the protection of the cardinal rights of individuals being ( lawfully or illicitly, is irrelevant ) in the State. For case, it is hard to object that even an illegal alien still has a right to life ( one can non, for case, kill him without being punished ) or to belongings, sing his personal things, etc. The nature of societal rights, such as the right to wellness or the right to instruction is non lawfully different from this or the aforesaid traditional 1s, at least in legal orders in which these rights enjoy constitutional acknowledgment.

Decision. Positions for the rights of aliens.

It is clear that there is in Europe a manifest tendency toward greater cogency in the ordinance of in-migration and aliens ‘ rights. However, precisely as at the sociological degree the acknowledgment of the equality of different civilizations imposes a multi-cultural society ( Weil 1994, p 114 ) , at the legal degree the catholicity of human rights imposes the equality of intervention of subjects and non subjects. As already mentioned in the debut, the best manner to vouch this would be the publicity of a impression of citizenship based on abode instead than nationality.

A feasible option could be the ascription of the European citizenship non merely to the subjects of the Member-States, but to all occupants in the European Union ( Stanley & A ; Rowlands, pp 3ff & A ; 37ff ) . Until now, European Citizenship, inaugurated by the TEU ( art. G ) , remains loosely an ideological construct, at the best reenforcing the feeling of belonging to a broad cultural integrity at the Continental degree. As Nicoll ( 1993, p 21 californium. besides Habermas, p 28 ) put it, “read as a whole, the Treaty is non about a people ‘s Europe, but about States ‘ Europe. The Union citizenship is a thin veneer.”

However, its unstable character of “additional citizenship” , that is “a package of rights conferred by supranational law” ( O’Keefe, pp 102 ff ) instead than a proper “new” nationality, allows the extension of it to all long term occupants of the Union. This scenario could be the best manner for forestalling the permutation of the traditional “ethnocentric” racism by a new, “eurocentric” one.


Bauboeck, R, Cinar, D, ( 1994 ) ‘Naturalisation Policies in Western Europe ‘ , 17 West European Politicss 192.

Bendix, R ( 1964 ) State Building and Citizenship ( New York: J Wiley ) .

Berghman, J ( 1990 ) ‘The Deductions of 1992 for Social Policy: A Selective review of societal insurance protection ‘ , in Mangen, S, Hantrais, L, O’Brien, M ( explosive detection systems ) The Deductions of 1992 for societal insurances ( Birbingham: Cross National Research Papers ) .

Brochman, G ( 1995 ) European Integration and Immigration from Third Countries ( Oslo: Institute for Social Research ) .

Brubaker, R ( 1992 ) Citizenship and nationhood in France and Germany ( Harvard University Press ) .

Burrows, F ( 1987 ) Free motion in European Community Law ( Oxford: Oxford University Press ) .

Butt Philip, A ( 1994 ) ‘European Union Immigration Policy: Phantom, Fantasy or Fact? ‘ 17 West European Politicss 168.

Palaces, S, Miller, M ( 1993 ) The Age of Migration, International Population Movements in the Modern World ( London: Macmillan ) .

Commission of the European Communities ( 1992 ) , Commission communicating to the Council and the European Parliament on abolishment of boundary line controls, SEC ( 92 ) 877 concluding, Brussels.

Costa-Lascoux, J ( 1990 ) Equality and non Discrimination: cultural minorities and racial favoritism ( Strasbourg: Council of Europe ) .

Flauss, J-F ( 1982 ) ‘Les droits sociaux dans la law du Conseil Constitutionnel ‘ , Droit Social 645.

Gordon, P ( 1985 ) Patroling Immigration: Britain ‘s internal controls ( London: Pluto Press ) .

Grawert, R ( 1984 ) ‘Staatsangehorigkeit und Staatsburgerschaft ‘ Der Staat 23 P 179.

Guendelsberger, J ( 1994 ) ‘New bounds on Asylum in France: Expediency v. Principle ‘ [ 1994 ] Loyola Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Journal 129.

Habermas, J ( 1994 ) ‘Citizenship and national individuality ‘ in new wave Steenbergen, B ( erectile dysfunction ) The Condition of citizenship ( London: Sage ) .

Hailbronner, K ( 1994 ) ‘Asylum Law Reform in the German Constitution ‘ [ 1994 ] Loyola Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Journal 156.

Hear, N new wave, ( 1994 ) Migration, Displacement and Social Integration ( Geneva: UNRISD ) .

Hammar, T ( 1990 ) Democracy and the Nation State ( Aldershot: Avebury ) .

Jones, C ( 1977 ) Immigration and Social Policy in Britain ( London: Tavistock ) .

Ingalill Montari, B ( 1993 ) Harmonization of societal policies in the EC and the EFTA states: Comparative Research on Welfare States in Transition ( Oxford: International Sociological Association ‘s Research Committee ) .

International Amnesty ( 1995 ) ‘Germany: Foreign Nationals and Cultural Minorities Main Victims of Police Ill-Treatment ‘ , Ai Index: EUR 23/10/95.

Layton-Henry, Z ( erectile dysfunction ) ( 1990 ) The political rights of migratory workers in Western Europe ( London: Sage ) .

Leibfried, S ( 1993 ) ‘Towards a European Welfare State? On incorporating poorness into the European Community‘ in Jones C ( ed ) New positions on the Welfare State in Europe ( London and New York: Routledge ) .

Loschak, D ( 1976 ) ‘Observations sur un infra-droit ‘ 5 Droit Social 43.

Lundberg, E ( 1994 ) ‘The protection of Social Rights in the European Community ‘ in Drzewicki, K, Krause, C & A ; Rosas, A ( explosive detection systems ) Social Rights as Human Rights, ( Abo: Institute for Human Rights, Abo Akademi University ) .

Madureira, J ( 1989 ) Aliens ‘ admittance to and going from national district: Case-law of the variety meats of the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Social Charter ( Strasbourg: Council of Europe ) .

Marie, C V ( 1994 ) ‘From the Campain against illegal migration to the run against illegal work ‘ The Annalss of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol 534 p. 118.

Marshall, T H ( 1965 ) Class, Citizenship and Social Development ( New York: Anchor Books ) .

Mosley, H ( 1990 ) ‘The societal dimension of European Integration ‘ 129 International Labour Review 147.

Moxon-Brown, E ( 1993 ) ‘Social Europe ‘ in Lodge J ( erectile dysfunction ) The European Community and the challenge of the Future ( London: Pinter ) .

Nicoll, W ( 1993 ) ‘Maastricht revised: A critical attack of the Treaty on European Union ‘ , in The State of the European Community: The Maastricht Debates and Beyond ( Colorado: Longman ) .

Nielsen, R, Szyszczak, E ( 1993 ) The Social dimension of the European Community ( Copenhagen: Handelshojskolens Forlag ) .

O’Keefe, D ( 1994 ) ‘Union Citizenship ‘ in O ‘ Keefe D, Twomey, P ( explosive detection systems ) Legal issues of the Maastricht Treaty ( London: Chancery Law Publishing ) .

OECD ( 1983 ) Migrants ‘ kids and employment ( Paris: OECD ) .

OECD ( 1987 ) L’avenir des Migrations ( Paris: OECD ) .

Salt, J ( 1992 ) ‘Current and future international migration tendencies impacting Europe ‘ in Council of Europe, People on the move: New Migration flows in Europe, ( Strasbourg: Council of Europe Press ) .

Schnapper, D ( 1994 ) ‘The argument on Immigration and the Crisis of National Identity ‘ 17 West European Politicss 127.

Sciortino, G ( 1990 ) ‘Immigration from outside the EEC and migratory policies: the perverse effects of policies designed to barricade in-migration ‘ , Madrid, 12 Congress of Sociology.

Silverman, M ( 1992 ) Deconstructing the State: Immigration, Racism, and Citizenship in Modern France ( New York, NY: Routledge ) .

Stalker, P ( 1994 ) The Work of Strangers: A study of International Migration ( Geneva: ILO ) .

Stanley, A, & A ; Rowlands M ( 1994 ) The rights of Third Country Nationals in the New European Order ( London: Immigration and Nationality: Research and Information Center ) .

United States Population Fund ( 1993 ) State of World Population Report ( Washington: USPF ) .

UNRISD ( 1995 ) Adjustment, Globalization and Social Development ( Geneva: UNRISD ) .

Weil, P & A ; Crowley, J ( 1994 ) ‘Integration in Theory and in Practice: A Comparison of France and Britain ‘ 17 West European Politicss 110.

Werner, H ( 1994 ) ‘Regional Economic Integration and migration: The European Case ‘ The Annalss of the American Academy of Political and Social Science vol. 354, p 147.

Wihtol de Wenden, C ( 1994 ) ‘The Gallic response to the Asyloum Seeker Influx, 1980-1993 ‘ The Annalss of the American Academy of Political and Social Science vol. 534 p 81.

Wolfe, M ( 1995 ) ‘Globalization and Social Exclusion ‘ in Rodgers, G, Gore, C, & A ; Figueiredo, J ( explosive detection systems ) Social Exclusion: Rhetoric, Reality, Responsces ( International Institute for Labour Studies, Geneva: UNDP ) .

  1. Both in Britain ( Jones, pp 43 ff ) and in France ( Silverman 1992, p 10 ) there have been three big moving ridges of in-migration. In Britain the first 1 was Irish ( 1800-1861 ) , the 2nd Jewish ( 1870-1911 ) and the 3rd from the Commonwealth ( 1950-1971 ) . In France the first moving ridge included at the terminal of the 19th century Belgians and Italians, to be followed by another of Poles, Czechs and other Slavs in the 1920 ‘s and a concluding inflow from West and, chiefly, North Africa ( Magreb ) in the 1960 ‘s. Of class, in both states the 3rd moving ridge reflects the same policy of seeking extra, inexpensive work force in the pool of ex-colonies, to get by with the common job of deficit of manual labor. On the contrary, Germany ( see Schnappe 1994, p 135 ) , which had non the post-colonial resources of the two former states ( nor of Netherlands, which had similar forms of in-migration to them ) based its in-migration programme on bilateral enlisting understandings with other states ( Italy, Spain, Greece, Morocco etc ) , upon the premise that the immigrants would be merely impermanent workers ( Gastarbeiters ) . Therefore, it managed to brush out more than 600,000 workers during the recession of 1973-1975, cut downing thereby the force per unit area on employment.
  2. Harmonizing to the Treaty of Maastricht ( Title 1, Article A ) , the European Union shall be founded on three institutional “pillars” . The first 1 is the European Community and the other two the intergovernmental policies and signifiers of cooperation established by the TEU in the Fieldss of the Foreign Affairs and Security policy on the one manus and of the Judicial and Internal personal businesss on the other.
  3. The duty of France to give refuge “to aliens banished from their state because of their battle for freedom” , was recognized as a constitutional rule, based on the Preamble of the Constitution of 1946 and the Constitution of 1793, by a determination of 2 February1992. In a old determination of 25 July 1991 ( no 91294 ) the Conseil Constitutionnel held that the commissariats of Shengen were non contrary to this rule.
  4. The ECJ considers that who is “working” is a inquiry to be answered by European jurisprudence and non by national criterions. See Case 53/81, Levin [ 1982 ] ECR 1035 and Case 139/85 Kempf [ 1986 ] ECR 1741, for a farther treatment californium. Leibfried, p 147.
  5. Illustrative of this non anticipated danger is the statement of Belgian Interior Minister Joseph Michel, in an Interview in Guardian, 27/12/1988 ( Gordon, 1989:26 ) : “We run the hazard of going like the Roman people, invaded by barbaric peoples such as Arabs, Moroccans, Yugoslavs and Turks, people who came far afield and have nil in common with our civilization” .