Immigration and Asylum Policy Term Paper

Pages: 16 (4446 words)  ·  Bibliography Sources: ≈ 15  ·  File: .docx  ·  Level: College Senior  ·  Topic: Government

This Resolution was the first attempt at standardizing admission policies regarding the immigration policies of the EU as a whole.

Solutions contained in the Resolution of 1994

Under the 1994 resolution, requests for admission to their territories would only be granted where vacancies in employment cannot be filled from the local job pool. This may be in response to a temporary manpower shortage. In this case, the immigrant will be offered an temporary work permit, after which they will be required to return to their country of origin. The work permit will only be offered if the employee has the necessary qualifications to perform the job. Admissions will be determined on a seasonal work need basis. This resolution would seem to offer the best solution to the problem of the inability of the local market to fill jobs, as well as provide substantial economic opportunities for immigrant workers.

In some countries, the person entering the country would only need to state that they were entering for reasons of employment, but had to produce not proof as to such. There was no way of tracking them once they entered the country. Under the 1994 Resolution, the work permit would be applied for and initiated by the employer. This would certainly solve the problem of tracking immigrants and would help to curb the underground drug and prostitution trades that currently exist.

Buy full Download Microsoft Word File paper
for $19.77
These two issues would make the 1994 resolution seem like the perfect compromise to the immigration problem and the problem of a dwindling job force in the EU. However, the resolution then went on to propose restrictions on the period of time for which an immigrant could work in the host country. A seasonal worker would have to be admitted for a period of six months and then would have to stay outside the borders for sic months before being re-admitted.

Term Paper on Immigration and Asylum Policy in Assignment

Persons being admitted for training or education purposes would be admitted for one year and this time could be extended until professional qualification was obtained. Under these provisions, persons already in the host country would not be able to extend their length of stay, only those newly entering. A person already in the country as a six-month seasonal worker could extend their stay for another six months, but only if they sought employment in a different job than the one they were currently performing.

The 1994 resolution started as a perfect solution to the problem of maintaining the workforce of the EU and recognizing the contributions of the migrant worker. The provision that provided that the employer applied for the worker to enter the country seemed like a plausible solution to the problem of illegal drug trafficking. Had the resolution stopped there and then let the individual countries adopt them as they suited their own needs, this resolution may have provided a solution to the current dilemma. However, it went farther, restricting the time of stay and setting strict admission criteria and lengths of stay. These may have been good guidelines, but as far as being a good cookie-cutter for all member nations, they were severely lacking. Their rigidity did not allow for them to be adapted to meet specific needs of employers and in the end could put employers in a bind. This could be especially detrimental in high-tech jobs that required a long time to master the job. Imagine if the employer had to continually re-train new employees to perform a difficult task. They would never get the benefits that an experienced employee has to offer.

The 1994 resolutions had good intentions, but they tried to be too specific and this made them not easily adaptable to the diverse needs of the employees who needed to hire migrant labor. They were geared towards seasonal production work, such as farm labor and ignored the needs of technology fields. Had they stopped with the resolutions that improved tracking and helped to meet the exact employment needs of the host country, they would have been an excellent solution to the problem, the rest could have been offered as guidelines. But they were offered instead, as hard and fast rules. This was the error that made the 1994 Resolution ineffective as the perfect solution to the immigration/workforce problem.

It is clear that the 1994 resolution was a step in the right direction, However, it is also clear that there was much more work to be done. The eventual goal was to develop uniform immigration policies that benefited all member countries. However there were many areas of contention to be worked out. Since the 1994 Resolution, there have been many additions that have made it closer to it final objective.

In July of 2001, Council Directive 2001/55/EC set minimum standards for giving protection in the case of a mass influx of displaced persons. In January of 2003, Council Directive 2003/9/EC laid down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers. EURODAC was implemented in December of 2000. This was an international fingerprint computer that linked police databases of member countries. In 2000, the European Refugee fund was established to help host countries bear the burden of the displaced persons. These measures will help to alleviate the human rights issues previously addressed by concerned focus groups.

As of 2001, there were several proposals being discussed regarding the mutual recognition of decisions regarding the expulsion of third country nationals. The details of these provisions are still under debate. There is also a proposal under debate for combating the trafficking of human beings and drug trafficking as well. There is a proposal under way for adopting co-operation regarding visas, asylum, immigration, and other policies regarding the movement of persons across European borders. These are just a few of the more important proposals being considered.

The 1994 Resolution was a beginning and paves the way for open discussion of some of its shortcomings. Currently each of these issues is being considered and appropriate amendments to the original resolution are being debated. Eventually, the goal is to adopt a Common Immigration system across all of the EU. This is an ambitious proposal, given the individual nature of the former European countries. However, the 1994 Resolution sparked discussion and as a result, the EU is inching loser to a common immigration system. There are still many issues to be resolved, but they are getting resolved slowly. All member nations are committed to the resolution of this common problem and are cooperating to achieve a goal that is for the good of every country involved.


Throughout this entire process, Switzerland had maintained an isolated position that makes it difficult to make its concerns known on an International policy level (Fed Conch, 2003). The reason for Switzerland's isolation is that it had a unique situation regarding foreign nationals. During the 1990s it had a high number of foreign nationals in its borders. Many of the immigrants came from non-EU states. This flow of immigrants has not stopped. Switzerland fears that the removal of border restrictions will led to an increase in the numbers of these immigrants. Switzerland fears that it will become an external frontier and will bear the brunt of all non-EU member immigrants.

The other European member states saw this as a valid concern a and in 1997 adopted the Dublin Convention. It held that the individual state is responsible for asylum issue within its borders and also set procedures in place that help to curb further abuses of the asylum system. It practically overturned the previous asylum resolutions. This issue will require further discussion and it is highly unlikely that a uniform decision will be easy, as the needs of the member countries are vastly different.

Ireland has expressed similar concerns as Switzerland (MacCarthaigh, 2002). Many EU governments chose to restrict the movements of immigrants for seven years after the resolutions were adopted. This was to allow them to put proper controls and systems in place. Ireland chose to allow free movements across borders immediately. In this way Ireland will serve as a testing ground for the other countries. Irish officials do not feel that this will cause a distortion in the domestic labor force as other countries have suggested. Ireland feels that this move will serve to strengthen their country instead of weaken it as other. Many of the countries choosing to abstain for seven years have been the larger economic powers such as Germany, France, Britain, Italy, and Spain. They are taking a conservative approach to the open-door policies. Workers in Ireland fear that these policies will cause lower wages and fewer opportunities for themselves. Their government sees the move as an opportunity instead. Only time will tell, as Ireland becomes the first to experiment with these new policies.

In an Internet discussion of 199, it became obvious that some citizens are strongly in favor the adoption of the common immigration… [END OF PREVIEW] . . . READ MORE

Two Ordering Options:

Which Option Should I Choose?
1.  Buy full paper (16 pages)Download Microsoft Word File

Download the perfectly formatted MS Word file!

- or -

2.  Write a NEW paper for me!✍🏻

We'll follow your exact instructions!
Chat with the writer 24/7.

Immigration Border/Entry Policies Impacting Research Paper

Immigration Drawing the Line in Cases Involving Moral Turpitude Term Paper

Immigration in the United Kingdom Essay

Immigration and the Effect on the Color Line in America Today Research Proposal

Immigration in America: 19th Century to Present Essay

View 200+ other related papers  >>

How to Cite "Immigration and Asylum Policy" Term Paper in a Bibliography:

APA Style

Immigration and Asylum Policy.  (2003, February 18).  Retrieved September 22, 2020, from

MLA Format

"Immigration and Asylum Policy."  18 February 2003.  Web.  22 September 2020. <>.

Chicago Style

"Immigration and Asylum Policy."  February 18, 2003.  Accessed September 22, 2020.