In the MIPEX study education emerged as a major area of weakness in the integration policies of most countries. The MIPEX Education strand found schools retain wide discretion on whether or not to address the specific needs of migrant pupils, their teachers and parents, and monitor the results. Without clear requirements or entitlements, pupils do not get the support they need throughout their school career and across the country, especially in communities with many immigrants or few resources. Hardly any countries have systems to diversify schools or the teaching staff; most schools are therefore missing out on new opportunities brought by a diverse student body.

Thomas Huddleston said that MIPEX is not only a research but also a policy tool, enabling policy makers to assess integration policies and their implementation, and it asks whether all residents have equal rights, responsibilities and opportunities to become equal members of society and citizens. MIPEX has shown that political will can overcome entrenched cultural traditions. This is evident from the fact that Scandinavian countries but also countries like Spain and Portugal are favourable for integration. MIPEX has also shown that policies are more diversified when there is no binding EU law. This applies especially to education, political participation and access to nationality. Education is one of the seven policy areas that MIPEX analyses. It is measured with four indicators: access to education, targeting needs, developing new opportunities, and supporting intercultural education. In general countries rarely see and address the needs and opportunities of new diverse generation in the field of education. Only in approximately half of the countries surveyed there is equal access to all levels of education and there are only few targeted measures in this regard.

There are also few systems to diversify schools and teachers, and uneven support for intercultural education. Hardly any formal systems exist to recognise children’s previous skills. In targeting specific needs there are few legal entitlements and standards, and little support in languages of instruction but the Nordic countries make an exception in this regard. This, however, has not to do so much with the general stance to immigration but rather to education. Most education systems are missing out on opportunities the migrant pupils bring to classroom. There is some guidance on immigrant languages but less on cultures and segregation. One finding of MIPEX is that countries like Canada and Australia, and the USA in some regards, have far more favourable integration policies in the field of education than the EU27 countries.

The webinar recording is available in two parts. Part 1 is a recording of the presentation by Thomas Huddleston outlining the questions from the EU consultation one by one, as well as presenting data relevant to the consultation.

During the webinar a series of questions were put to the participants, and the results of these are listed below.

Part 2 is a recording of the Question and Answer session.

Alternatively, you can also view the slides of the presentation at the bottom of this post.

How to Respond to the EU Family Reunion Consultation Part 1:

How to Respond to the EU Family Reunion Consultation Part 2

During the webinar we took polls to gather feedback from the participants. Here were the final results:

Which of these two options would you recommend to the European Commission?

Member States should better implement the existing Directive: 25%
European Commission should propose changes for negotiation: 29%
Don’t know: 46%

Non-EU family reunion is how most immigrants come to my country.

True: 27%
False: 66%
Don’t know: 7%

Which type of proposals do you think your national government would support?

More restrictive conditions: 61%
More flexible conditions: 23%
Don’t know: 16%

Should newly arrived immigrants have to wait 1-2 years and have prospects for permanent residence before they can reunite?

Yes: 23%
No: 61%
Don’t know: 16%

In all European countries, 18 yr-olds can marry. Should a migrant have to be older than 21 to reunite with his/her spouse?

Yes, it helps fight forced marriages and promote integration: 10%
No, it does not help: 77%
Don’t know: 13%

All immigrants have the right to apply for their nuclear family. Is that adequate?

Yes, nuclear family is most important: 18%
No, should include dependent parents, grandparents, adults: 34%
No, they should have the right to all other dependents: 22%
Don’t know: 26%

Which integration measures do you think are effective for immigrant families’ language learning and integration? (multiple answers allowed)

Only courses in the EU country: 42%
Courses in the EU country or non-EU country of origin: 52%
Tests in the EU country: 13%
Tests in the EU country or non-EU country of origin: 14%
Don’t Know: 12%

To view the slides of the presentation without audio, see below:

Most EU Member States do not let non-EU couples reunite if they do not–or cannot–marry. Can Member States work together to change these rules?

On 15 November, the European Commission published a Green Paper asking policymakers and stakeholders whether it should renegotiate or better implement the EU Family Reunion Directive 2003/86/EC.

MPG prepared a series of policy briefings to help you respond to this consultation by its deadline — 1 March 2012.

For example, the Commission asks: Are the rules on eligible family members adequate and broad enough to take into account the  different definitions of family existing other than that of the nuclear family?

The Member States may, by law or regulation, authorise the entry and residence [of]: … a third country national, with whom the sponsor is in a duly attested stable long-term relationship, or of a third country national who is bound to the sponsor by a registered partnership (Directive 2003/86/EC, Chapter II, Art. 3,emphasis added)

Long-term and registered relationships largely ignored for non-EU family reunion

Most EU countries adopt slightly inclusive definitions of the family and only basic conditions for acquisition, out of respect for family life. However, non-EU family reunion legislation in 14 of the 24 EU Member States concerned do not recognise a non-EU partner who is not a spouse.

Both long-term relationships and registered partnerships are recognised in only 6 Member States, just like Australia and Canada: Belgium, Finland, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, and Sweden.

4 more Member States recognise one or the other type of relationship: Czech Republic, Germany, Lithuania, and Luxembourg.

The map below shows the countries in 2010 that recognised both (pink), one or the other (blue), or neither (black):

For more on this issue, check out the information from ILGA-Europe, the European Region of the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans & Intersex Association.

Most EU countries require immigrants who want to sponsor their family to hold any type of legal residence permit for one year or less. According to the European Commission, long residence requirements and long lists of excluded permits may create implementation problems and delays, which undermine immigrants’ right to family reunion, enshrined in EU law. The OECD suggests that families who can reunite quickly will catch up more quickly in learning the language and adjusting to their new society.

On 15 November, the European Commission published a Green Paper asking policymakers and stakeholders whether it should renegotiate or better implement the EU Family Reunion Directive 2003/86/EC.

MPG prepared a series of policy briefings to help you respond to this consultation by its deadline — 1 March 2012. The briefings will be discussed in a one-hour online seminar (webinar) on ‘How to Respond to the EU Consultation on Family Reunion‘ on Wednesday 7 December 10:30-11:30 Brussels time. Click here to register.

The Commission asks: Should immigrants who want to sponsor their family have “reasonable prospects for permanent residence” and wait 1-to-2 years?

This Directive shall apply where the sponsor is holding a residence permit issued by a Member State for a period of validity of one year or more who has reasonable prospects of obtaining the right of permanent residence…Member States may require the sponsor to have stayed lawfully in their territory for a period not exceeding two years, before having his/her family members join him/her. By way of derogation, where the legislation of a Member State relating to family reunification in force on the date of adoption of this Directive takes into account its reception capacity, the Member State may provide for a waiting period of no more than three years between submission of the application for family reunification and the issue of a residence permit to the family members. (Directive 2003/86/EC, Chapter IV, Articles 3 & 8, emphasis added).

Most countries require sponsors have legal residence permit of one year or less 

As of May 2010, the majority of EU Member States where the EU Directive applies (15 out of 24) allow immigrants to apply as family reunion sponsors with a one-year residence permit or after one-year’s legal residence. These countries are highlighted below in pink:

This group of countries includes traditional immigration countries like Australia, Canada, and the United States. Since the 2010 MIPEX III, Slovenia has removed these restrictions on eligibility.

Further legal delays are imposed in Cyprus, Estonia, Germany, Greece, Lithuania, Malta, Poland (in black) and — to some extent — Czech Republic and France (in blue). The European Commission found that long residence requirements created “implementation problems” and “delays” in particular countries like Cyprus, Estonia, Greece, and Lithuania, which raise concerns over the countries’ proper implementation of the EU family reunion directive.

A similar majority (16) allows sponsors to apply with any legal residence permit (see countries below in pink). The other countries restrict the definition of “reasonable prospects of obtaining the right to permanent residence” to certain residence permits (in blue) or to permanent residence permits (in black):

The European Commission singled out Cyprus for its problematic general rule of a four-year-maximum residence, which seems to exclude third-country nationals from the right to apply for family reunion. In 2010, only 741 family members were able to join the 43,839 non-EU citizens living legally in Cyprus.

Effects on family reunion & integration

Countries that lengthen the waiting period and exclude different permit-holders can discourage the reunion and delay the integration of immigrant families in the country.

Faced with these restrictions, many sponsors may not choose a different partner or let their family abroad break up. Instead, their family life becomes harder or even impossible through “enforced separation.” Some may give up altogether on the idea of living together, while others may delay their family reunion application or their wedding day. This burden falls particularly hard on cases of family reunification, poor and working-class families, middle-aged and elderly people, and residents living far from the border.

The OECD, the inter-governmental economic think-tank, analysed its PISA data on student performance and found that every extra year that child spends in country of origin and not in country of destination has a negative impact on their language learning and societal adjustment as children age. Their conclusion is that family reunification should be facilitated as soon as possible.

Written by Thomas Huddleston, MIPEX Research Coordinator, Co-author and Policy Analyst, Migration Policy Group

A couple can be legally married at age 18–but a non-EU couple cannot reunite together under several EU countries’ family reunion rules until age 21. Government and academic studies have evaluated the impacts. Age limits have not proven to be proportionate or effective for integration. There are also better ways to prevent forced marriages, according to former victims and women’s shelters.

On 15 November, the European Commission published a Green Paper asking policymakers and stakeholders whether it should renegotiate or better implement the EU Family Reunion Directive 2003/86/EC.

MPG prepared a series of policy briefings to help you respond to this consultation by its deadline — 1 March 2012. The briefings will be discussed in a one-hour online seminar (webinar) on ‘How to Respond to the EU Consultation on Family Reunion‘ on Wednesday 7 December 10:30-11:30 Brussels time. Click here to register.

The Commission asks: Is it legitimate to have a minimum age for the spouse which differs from the age of majority in a Member State? Are there other ways of preventing forced marriages within the context of family reunification and if yes, which?

In order to ensure better integration and to prevent forced marriages, Member States may require the sponsor and his/her spouse to be of a minimum age, and at maximum 21 years, before the spouse is able to join him/her (Directive 2003/86/EC, Chapter II, Art. 4, 5, emphasis added)

MIPEX finds most treat married couples over 18 like adults

Equal treatment remains the international standard, according to the 2010 Migrant Integration Policy Index (MIPEX). 17 of the 24 EU Member States where the Directive applies do not impose an additional age limit for family reunion sponsors and spouses. MIPEX suggests that a minimum age for family reunion that is higher than the minimum age for marriage will be unfavourable for societal integration. The European Commission stated that several countries’ age limits are “too broad or excessive.”

The map below show the countries in 2010 with age limits of 18 (pink), 21 or over (black), or somewhere in between (blue):

Since 2010, the age limit was overturned by the UK Supreme Court and raised to 21 for all groups by the Dutch government and the Belgian parliament. The Dutch minority government is lobbying other Member States to raise the possible EU age limit to 24, as part of its agreement with Geert Wilders’ PVV party to halve legal immigration and adopt immigration restrictions, similar to Denmark’s. The Dutch government claims that a 24-year-age-limit will help more immigrants to complete their education and provide for themselves.

Not effective for integration

These age limits, adopted ‘in the name of integration,’ are not effective for helping immigrants learn the language, get a better education or job, or prevent forced marriages.

• Denmark’s 24-year-age-limit had no demonstrable impact on the schooling or jobs of immigrants and ethnic minorities, as observed by the Danish National Centre for Social Research (SFI) and Lauritzen and Larsen 2011. Their educational achievements were on the rise before these requirements, while their labour market participation has improved just like Danes without a migrant background.
• The Netherlands’ 21-year-limit had little benefit for labour market integration, according to the study by Dutch government agency WODC.
• Studies in Denmark and the UK found no quantitative proof that age limits prevented forced marriages. Anecdotal accounts can be used either or against the effectiveness of the requirement.
• Anecdotal accounts can be used for and against age limits. Victims of a forced marriage who fail to meet the family reunion requirements may be forced by family to marry and live abroad in their or their parents’ country of origin, where victims find it harder to access protection services. Such cases have been reported in Denmark and the UK.

Disproportionate effects: limiting family reunion

Age limits disproportionately discourage or delay couples from applying. Policy evaluations in Denmark and The Netherlands partly attribute the swift and significant drops in family reunion applications to new requirements like age limits. Many more potential sponsors are simply not marrying anyone. Fewer young adults with an immigrant background are getting married than before in Denmark or The Netherlands, although the rising marriage age is a trend pre-dating these policy changes. In any case, who and when these young people will want to marry are unknown.

More effective measures against forced marriages

Victims and survivors of forced marriage, who were consulted in UK focus groups (Hester et al. 2008), did not think that age limits of 21 or 24 would prevent forced marriages. In their experience, an age limit would bring few benefits — greater maturity, education and independence. These few benefits  would be outweighed by the greater costs and risks:

• Greater physical and psychological harm
• Mental health problems like attempted suicide and self-harm
• Barriers to potential support like child protection legislation and school-based counseling
• Forced entry of spouses into the country with false documentation
• Forced emigration of sponsors to countries of origin
• Dual marriage system that indirectly discriminates against certain ethnic groups

To address the broader factors behind forced marriages, the UK focus groups of victims suggested that family reunion policies were less effective than direct victim support, preventative work, and educational resources. Interviews with Danish victims’ support groups suggest to focus directly on immigrant women in the country and everyone’s awareness of forced marriages and services. Measures may be most effective against forced marriage when the sponsor and spouse can access trained services and women’s shelters in the country of destination.

Does the EU Family Reunion Directive reflect how you would define a family? MPG’s analysis of MIPEX and Eurostat statistics reveals that immigrant’s parents, grandparents, and adult children are somehow entitled to reunite in most countries, but few can or do apply.

The Member States may, by law or regulation, authorise the entry and residence [of]: … first-degree relatives in the direct ascending line  of the sponsor or his or her spouse, where they are dependent on them and do not enjoy proper family support in the country of origin; the adult unmarried children of the sponsor or his or her spouse, where they are objectively unable to provide for their own needs on account of their health. (Directive 2003/86/EC, Chapter II, Art. 4, 2a, b, emphasis added)

MIPEX finds dependent adults somehow entitled in most countries 

The average EU country goes beyond the minimum definition of the family in the Directive. Most adopt slightly inclusive definitions of the family and only basic conditions for acquisition, out of respect for family life. In contrast, countries like Austria, Cyprus, Denmark, and France restrict the eligibility of family members and impose burdensome conditions on sponsors.

Dependent adult family members are someway entitled to join their non-EU sponsor in 18 of the 24 Member States where the Directive applies. Both parents/grandparents and adult children are entitled in 6 EU countries, similar to traditional immigration countries like Canada and Australia. Their entitlements are more limited in 9 more countries. No clear entitlement exists for third country nationals’ parents in Belgium, adult children in Latvia and Luxembourg, or for either group of family members in Austria, Bulgaria, Cyprus, France, Greece, and Malta.

The maps below show the countries with full (pink), some (blue), and no (black) entitlement for these members of the family in 2010:

Few non-EU immigrants reunite with extended family

In practice, very few other family members like parents and grandparents benefit from family reunion, according to Eurostat’s latest records for 2010. Only the nuclear family is able to reunite in most EU countries, including those countries with more inclusive definitions of the family:

Composition of families reuniting with a non-EU sponsor in 2010 (Click)

Reunions with other family members are most common in Europe’s new countries of immigration like the Czech Republic, Italy, and Portugal. Interestingly they are also rather common in new destinations with restrictive family reunion policies, such as Ireland, Latvia, and Malta. There, the few families that are able to reunite often include other family members.

Not surprisingly, reunions with other family members are least common in countries like Belgium, Denmark, and Greece that most restrict the eligibility for these groups according to MIPEX. However, their numbers are also comparatively small in major destinations for family immigration like Sweden and Spain, where many more spouses and children arrive through family reunion.

 

Reuniting non-EU family members other than spouses, partners, or children 

Canada’s Citizenship and Immigration Minister proposes that reuniting spouses wait two years for an autonomous residence permit; “This is what every other immigrant receiving country — Australia, New Zealand, Britain and the U.S. do, and the only question is why we didn’t do it a while ago?” Is that true?

This week, Jason Kenney — Canada’s Citizenship and Immigration Minister (pictured above) — announced that immigration levels would remain at around 250,000 newcomers per year, following a recent public consultation.

Minister Kenney also proposed that reuniting spouses wait through two years of conditional residency before their residence permit becomes their own, independent of their sponsoring spouse. The minister would also ban reuniting spouses from sponsoring someone for family reunion within their first five years. Currently, the reuniting spouses of permanent residents become permanent residents themselves.

Media reports criticism from NDP immigration critic Don Davies because of high divorce rates in North America — about 50% within the first two to five years.

The new legal regulation, to be discussed next year, is intended to fight fraudulent marriages. The issue has been recently raised in public debate. Marriages of convenience are not allowed under Canada’s immigration law. Indeed, several laws and procedures exist to identify, prevent, and punish them.

As part of his justification for the regulation, Minister Kenney claimed that Canada was unlike any other country of immigration:

“This is what every other immigrant receiving country — Australia, New Zealand, Britain and the U.S. do, and the only question is why we didn’t do it a while ago?”

According to a quick MIPEX fact-check, Minister Kenney is mostly correct.

One MIPEX indicator captures whether reuniting spouses and children reaching the age of majority are granted autonomous residence permits. Under EU law, the maximum conditional residency requirement is 5 years. However the countries below in pink grant these permits immediately or after 3 years or less:

Canada is not the only country today that immediately grants autonomous permits to reuniting family members. Australia grants permanent residence in several cases to the reuniting partners and adult children of permanent residents. They can then become Australian citizens after 4 years in Australia. According to the Australian immigration services, the rest only need to make one application for a temporary and permanent visa. Partner visa applicants will be granted a temporary visa, followed by a permanent visa, if a genuine relationship persists two years after the date of application.

Several countries facilitate these permits after a short conditional residency requirement of 3 years or less, similar to Canada’s new proposal. This list includes Australia, Belgium, Italy, Norway, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, and Sweden. Many are new countries attracting migrant workers. Generally, MIPEX finds that the countries that try to attract the migrant workers they need also tend to facilitate the reunification of families. They see having either a job or a family in country as meaningful starting points for integration in society.

Countries like Australia, Austria, and Netherlands provide additional entitlements to autonomous permits for widows, divorcees, separated partners, and victims of physical or emotional violence. Italy, Poland, and Spain also limit the withdrawal of family reunion permits only to grounds like proven fraud or serious policy or security threat.

For more on EU countries’ policies on autonomous permits, check out the 2008 study of the Odysseus Network.

Written by Thomas Huddleston, MIPEX Research Coordinator, Co-author and Policy Analyst, Migration Policy Group

After national elections almost brought the True Finns to power, the new Interior Minister is looking to reform the country’s family reunion policy by looking to its Nordic neighbours. She claims that Finland’s policy is ‘more relaxed’ and raising the number of asylum-seekers, backlogs, and reception costs. Is ‘relaxed’ the right word for Finland’s policy? What do most countries expect of immigrants who want to sponsor their families? Should Finland follow its neighbours? Are these changes necessary? And how could Finland improve its family reunion procedure?

The New Finnish Interior Minister, Päivi Räsänen (Christian Democrat), claims that Finland’s family reunion policy is one factor attracting asylum-seekers to the country and raising the costs of refugee reception facilities. She asserts that Finland’s policy is ‘more relaxed’ than other countries. Based on this interpretation, she commissioned a study of the family reunion conditions in other Nordic countries to be published in February 2012.

The study is expected to justify her proposals for new restrictions. According to Helsingin Sanomat, the Minister is already floating the idea that sponsors should have sufficient incomes and housing for their entire family and that foster children should not be part of the nuclear family. The Minister expects that these restrictions will reduce the number of family reunions and current backlog of applications, the number of asylum-seekers, and the cost of reception facilities.

The former Migration Minister, Astrid Thors (Swedish People’s Party), had pledged to use MIPEX as a benchmark to improve Finland’s policies and look to Sweden and Canada. Indeed, her government’s recent Integration Act draws inspiration from Sweden and its 2009 Labour Market Introduction Act. After the 2011 elections saw the True Finns become the country’s largest party and entered the opposition, the new government abolished the post of Migration Minister and transferred her competences to the Interior Minister.

Is Finland ‘more relaxed’ than other countries?

On family reunion, Finland is not that different from Norway, Sweden, or most of Europe’s established countries of immigration. The 2011 MIPEX rated the country’s policies as only slightly favourable for promoting family reunion and integration:

Scoring 70 points and ranking 7th,  similar to Norway (68), well below Sweden (84), and not very far from the average for all EU Member States (60). Denmark ranks as having the 2nd least favourable policies for family well-being. The restrictions obtained by the Danish People’s Party are even outside the minimum standards of EU law 2003/86/EC.

Finland does have slightly fewer conditions for family reunion sponsors than most European countries and, in recent years, its neighbours. MIPEX finds that Finland’s conditions are favourable for the integration of reuniting families because they are based on what is expected of all residents in Finnish society. The basic income level is calculated according to what residents need and use to live in Finland.

Like Finland, Australia, Canada, Belgium, Portugal, Spain, and the United States apply their countries’ generally inclusive definitions of the family and basic conditions out of respect for family life. Moreover, most countries that try and attract labour migration do not put many obstacles in the way of family reunion. Immigrant families can better reunite and participate in countries that help all newcomers find the right jobs.

Decision-makers mostly disagree on how to apply conditions to family reunion. Countries with favourable policies like Belgium, Portugal, and Sweden try to set income or housing requirements according to common national benchmarks. But increasingly, several countries where immigration is politicised, increasingly by the far right, are asking reuniting families to fulfil conditions that many nationals could not: higher marriage ages, higher incomes, mandatory tests, also for spouses abroad, mostly with higher fees but little support. Conditions that are not promoting family reunion and facilitating integration in practice could be unjustified under EU law.

What do most countries expect of immigrants who want to sponsor their families?

•  Only basic legal income required: Equal treatment is the standard benchmark in most European countries, Australia, Canada, and the United States. Applicants can use any legal source to prove that they have a basic ‘stable and sufficient’ income for themselves. The income level required is around the poverty line in 6 other European countries. However this level is often vague and higher than what people need to live on social assistance in 14 other European countries. MIPEX suggests that anything more is unnecessary for promoting equal outcomes for immigrants and nationals. The legal income sources are basically restricted to employment in 7 European countries. Many countries make exemptions for refugees and other beneficiaries of international protection.
• Only basic housing required: Equal treatment is also the benchmark in most countries. 20 European countries and Australia allow applicants to use any legal means to prove that their housing meets the normal health and safety standards that all homeowners or tenants must meet in the country, without additional bureaucratic procedures. These restrictions arise in only 5 European countries (Austria, Denmark, France, Italy, Slovakia). Sponsors in Canada and the United States as well as 3 other European countries (Ireland, Netherlands, Slovenia) do not have to prove housing because the basic income requirement is seen as a sufficient starting point.
• No language or integration conditions: Few countries impose language or integration conditions on either sponsors or reuniting families. As more do, several are extending these to spouses as a condition for a visa, often with high fees and little support to effectively learn the language. These pre-departure measures may be judged as contrary to EU law.

Should Finland follow its neighbours? 

Finnish policymakers should take the time to evaluate the long-term effects of the very new and untested conditions for family reunion in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden.

Under MIPEX III, Norway and Sweden were two of the four countries to ‘backtrack’ on their leading integration policies. Debates on asylum and migrant unemployment statistics led to new family reunion conditions, which may delay or discourage legal residents from applying for their families. Every extra year abroad may negatively impact their waiting children or partner’s eventual language learning and integration process.

Denmark

On family reunion, Denmark’s residence requirements are longer and more exclusionary than in any MIPEX country, while its conditions are exceptionally restrictive, as in only countries like Austria, France, and Switzerland, where the far right has made family reunion policies more politicised, complex, and volatile. Family reunion sponsors must first pass the slightly unfavourable test for permanent residence, with language levels so explicitly high (B1 like only 2 other European countries) that it may be unrealistic for many willing newcomers to pass, even with the tree introduction courses. A proposed immigration test for the sponsor’s spouse would be slightly unfavourable for learning Danish, with high fees and little support abroad. Denmark even introduced a points-based system for family reunion, unlike any other country. The Danish family reunion conditions were taken as a “Model” in the “Nuiva Manifest” proposals within the True Finn party.

Many of Denmark’s family reunion conditions go against not only against EU law, but also the interests of the country’s new government. The new majority in parliament wants a new centrist consensus on integration policy, which invokes Sweden’s 3 March 2011 cross-party migration agreement to undermine the anti-immigrant Swedish Democrats. Denmark’s family reunion conditions will changed in the short-term and perhaps again after a second term.

Norway

Norway’s required introduction programme sets ‘slightly’ favourable conditions and flexible benchmarks for people reuniting together as families. Newly arrived immigrant adults must participate in 300 lessons on Norwegian and social studies. Most receive the support they need to learn more about society and to progress in Norwegian according to their individual abilities. More might successfully participate if courses were free for all, including the families of migrant workers.

The 2010 Immigration Act was seriously altered over its six years of discussion, with many amendments focusing on limiting the number of newcomers. Now Norway has the 5th most restrictive conditions in Europe, with only Austria, Denmark, France, and Switzerland further below. Families can be kept apart until the sponsor has worked for 4 years and they must have secured adequate housing. For many asylum seekers, this requirement may mean 7 years (year for a decision, plus 2 years for an introduction programme). For new marriages, sponsors must have worked or studied for 2 years.

The Immigration Act’s conditions, with the aim of decreasing the number of family reunions and asylum seekers, may be a conflict of interest with goals to promote integration. Several conditions of these go beyond the objectives and articles of the EU family reunion directive.

Sweden

Similar discussions of asylum and integration statistics as in Norway led to different policy changes in Sweden. Government promised not to implement conditions that would lower the number of family reunions or asylum-seekers, contrary to the debates in Norway or currently in Finland.

Citing asylum increases and unemployment and overcrowding statistics, Law 2009/10:77 required non-EU sponsors to prove basic personal income and family housing. A few years ago, previous governments had stated that it was unthinkable for Sweden to impose income or housing requirements. However the current government introduced both with the argument that Sweden was the ‘only’ EU country preserving these more favourable conditions under EU law.

Still, government committed that Sweden would remain the best at taking into account the rights of children and international protection. These groups are exempt, as are permanent residents. Humanitarian actors like the Red Cross, the MIPEX Swedish national partner, helped improved the proposals based on their information about the potential impacts on family well-being.

The government also promised that these new conditions should act as incentives — and not obstacles — in practice. If the new labour market introduction structure works as intended, more newcomers should more quickly find jobs and housing across the country–and thus meet the new family reunion conditions. Each newly arriving adult is legally entitled to choose the type of support that best addresses their specific needs (e.g. labour market training, qualification recognition, new civic orientation programme, Swedish for immigrants). If fewer newcomers are applying or accepted for family reunion, then the new conditions and introduction programme are not effective for integration. The government predicted that the new conditions would affect just 10% of cases. By summer 2010, 2% were affected and 1% rejected. As a result, the conditions for family reunion are a change in direction for Sweden – but so far not a significant one.

Are these family reunion changes necessary?

Finnish policymakers should also consider whether or not changing the family reunion conditions will — or should — change its integration and immigration situation.

For integration, new family reunion conditions such as age limits, income or employment requirements, and language or pre-departure tests may be proven disproportionate in domestic and EU courts and ineffective in evaluations. All couples–not only the targeted groups–are affected. The condition often does not improve their integration prospects, since only some can make the greater effort to meet the harder conditions to apply. Instead, a ‘social selection’ effect occurs. Those who cannot pass or apply are not those who are least integrated, but those who are most vulnerable, for example the very young or very old, the least educated, victims of war and persecution and to some extent women.

For immigration, a change in family reunion conditions may not be the most effective response to backlogs, asylum flows, and reception costs. Restricting family reunion would likely lead to fewer applications. However the Finnish Immigration Service is already clearing the family reunion backlog, despite the Minister’s failure to win extra funds for processing. Greater flexibility in the procedure can speed up the lengthy process to approve Somali applicants and confirm their family’s identity, as promised in the 2011 Swedish cross-party migration agreement. Restricting family reunion may have little-to-no impact on asylum-seeking. Using Finnish Interior Ministry statistics, the Finnish Refugee Advice Centre and Finnish Refugee Council claim that granting international protection has little effect on family reunion flows. The number of family reunions per year are affected by many factors in society beyond these targeted policies. Internationally, quantitative analysts like Hatton and Thielemann that restricting the integration opportunities for refugees did not have a “deterrence effect” on asylum-seekers. Put differently, fewer rights for refugees did not lead to fewer asylum-seekers in the future. They also found little evidence of “asylum-shopping” — the assumption that asylum-seekers are able to choose the country where they seek asylum.

How can Finland quicken integration through family reunion?

Reforming other weaknesses on family reunion like access to an autonomous residence permit, may have a greater positive impact on the integration situation in Finland. Before being eligible for long-term residence, spouses and adult family members do not enjoy the same residence security as their sponsor. Their choices about how they live their lives in Finland may be influenced by the power that their sponsor holds over their right to remain in the country. Whether or not they remain dependent on their sponsor depends on whether authorities deem they have ‘solid ties’ to Finland. In comparison, Austria and The Netherlands provide entitlements in cases of death, divorce, separation and violence. Several countries like Canada, France, Norway, Portugal, Spain Sweden, and US are providing a clearer residence autonomy for all families after a few years.

Using MIPEX, the European Network of Migrant Women came to these conclusions for improving family reunion:

The ENoMW and the European Women’s Lobby (EWL) see ‘dependent status’ is an unnatural family situation in itself, which has detrimental effects on women, in terms of their social inclusion, self-confidence and realisation in life.

The ENoMW and the EWL maintain that family members’ access to autonomous permits is a weakness in most EU countries. This puts many migrant women experiencing domestic violence in a precarious situation. The migrant women in question are inclined to endure domestic abuse longer, as they are threatened with the possibility of becoming undocumented, homeless and without means of support. Therefore, the ENoMW and the EWL call on EU governments to put an end to policies establishing dependency between family members.

Amber and Diego Aguilar, with the support of a British NGO, may have overturned the UK’s 21-year-age-limit for the reunification of non-EU citizens with their British or non-EU sponsor. The court found that age limits have a legitimate aim — fighting forced marriages — but disproportionate effects on other genuine couples. The very few other European countries that recently introduced these measures also face questions about how effective they really are against forced marriages.

“I would acknowledge that the [family reunion age limit] is rationally connected to the objective of deterring forced marriages. But the number of forced marriages which it deters is highly debatable. What seems clear is that the number of unforced marriages which it obstructs from their intended development for up to three years vastly exceeds the number of forced marriages which it deters. On any view it is a sledgehammer but [Home Secretary Theresa May] has not attempted to identify the size of the nut.”

That was Lord Wilson of the United Kingdom’s Supreme Court, as part of its 12 October 2011 Judgement on Quila v. SSHD. In this case, the sledgehammer was the UK’s 21-year-age-limit for the family reunion of non-EU citizens. The nut, the Aguilar couple, were one of many genuine couples who were kept apart by this rule ostensibly designed to prevent an unknown number of forced marriages through family reunion.

The MIPEX III UK Country Profile had concluded that the July 2008 age limit made the family reunion procedure slightly less favourable for the integration of non-EU families. Though the measure was introduced with the objective to fight forced marriages, it also affects all genuine couples including a non-EU national aged 18 to 20.

This case’s couple–UK citizen Amber Aguilar and Chilean citizen Diego Aguilar–is one example. Amber and Diego Aguilar could not live together in the UK under the 21-year-age-limit, which forced them to move first to Chile and later to Ireland. Click here or on the above image for an interview with the couple after the UK Supreme Court ruling. The Court found that the age limit was unjustified and disproportionate since it unlawfully interfered with their right to private and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. How this case affects the 21-year-rule is uncertain at this time.

The couple was represented by Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants (JCWI). For more on their case, read their blog entry. You can also meet the couple at JCWI’s 26 October London seminar on “better family migration — but for whom exactly?”

In response, immigration minister Damien Green referred to marriage visa rules and positive high court judgments in other European countries like Denmark and The Netherlands. He also claimed that age limits would be effective for their aim of preventing forced marriage:

“This is another very disappointing judgment, which overturns a policy that exists and is judged to be consistent with the ECHR in other European countries…The judges themselves agreed increasing the marriage visa age had a legitimate aim. We believe this decision will put vulnerable people at risk of being forced into marriage.”

What other European countries?

On the minister’s first point, very few other European countries impose a disproportionate age limit. In fact, equal treatment remains the international standard for couples in the family reunion procedure, with Australia, Canada, the US, and most European countries treating all people over 18 like adults, who have the right to marry. These countries are highlighted below in pink (Netherlands should be black due to July 2010 change):

The BBC Article on the judgement made the error that a 21-year-age-limit was ‘recommended’ ‘EU-wide’ by ‘Brussels’. The EU Family Reunion Directive 2003/86/EC requires that Member States authorise the entry and residence of a sponsor’s spouse. However, Member States have the discretion to set an age limit “at maximum 21 years” and, in those cases, only if they ensure better integration and prevent forced marriages. When in 2008 the European Commission reviewed how Member States had transposed the Directive, it concluded that ‘some’ Member States have been applying requirements like age limit in “a too broad or excessive way.”

Effective against forced marriages?

On the minister’s second point, the few countries with an unequal age limit have also faced questions about how effective they really are against forced marriages. Research in Denmark found no evidence that the 24-year-age-limit–the highest in Europe–had any impact on forced marriage. Instead, another Danish study concluded that since 2002 the policy partly contributed to a rapid and serious decline in the total number of marriages among adult ethnic minority women who were under that 24-year-limit.

Research in the United Kingdom has raises doubts about the impact of age limits on forced marriages. UK government-commissioned research found no evidence that the previous policy raising the family reunion age from 16 to 18 affected the incidence of forced marriage according to large scale national databases. The study’s focus groups groups of victims of forced marriage did not think that raising to 21 or 24 would prevent forced marriage. The few benefits–like maturity, access to education, financial independence–were outweighed by many more costs–like risk of greater physical or psychological harm, risk of being taken abroad, entering UK with false documentation, barriers to access potential support like child protection legislation and school-based counseling, mental health problems like attempted suicide and self-harm, dual system of marriage with indirectly discriminatory impact on certain ethnic groups.

Citing this research, a 2011 government-commissioned paper on marriage migration warned of the unintended consequences. Age limits may undermine the fight against forced marriage in extreme cases. Danish and British embassies have reported several cases of citizens or residents being forcibly taken abroad. They are married and live in their or parents’ country of origin, often invisible to diplomatic protection, until such time as they or their spouse meet the age limit and other requirements. These requirements may thus have the effect of moving forced marriages abroad, where victims have difficulty accessing services.

During the government’s consultation on the 2008 age limit, respondents largely agreed that the aim to fight forced marriage was legitimate, but opinion was split on using age limits. Several academics and NGOs observed that the number of forced marriages is unknown and data on the age limits’ effectiveness is limited and disputed. The Home Affairs Committee called for better evidence about the effects of raising the age.