Impact of family reunification policies policies The AIRE Centre 26 September 2013 1
Mission: To promote awareness of European law rights and assist marginalised individuals and those in vulnerable circumstances to assert those rights. • Activities: Activities: Take cases to the European Court of Human Rights • (including cases on behalf of non-EU trafficking victims facing expulsion). Provide free legal advice to individuals and their advisers • on their rights under EU law (mostly EU law on the free movement of persons). 2
Outline • Findings from AIRE Centre research into the impact of family reunification policies on integration • Strategic responses • Strategic responses 3
Family Reunification Requirements: a barrier or facilitator to integration? barrier or facilitator to integration? 4
Objectives, scope and methodology 5
Objectives • Evaluate impact of family reunification policies and legislation in the United Kingdom on the ability of third country national (TCN) migrants to integrate into the UK • Part of wider study, funded by the European Commission, concerning the impact of FR legislation across 7 Member States: Ireland, the Netherlands, Germany, Portugal, Bulgaria, Austria, United Kingdom 6
Scope 3 separate categories of TCN family migrant, distinguished by category of sponsor: those • sponsored by: TCNS – Union Citizens – UK nationals – Term ‘Family Reunification’ referred to 4 separate concepts: • Family reunion (reforming in the host state a family previously existing overseas) – Family formation (establishing a new family unit in the UK) – Family retention (protecting members of an existing family unit from expulsion) – Family regularisation (regularising in the UK the status of an existing family unit_ – Family reunification requirements: Family reunification requirements: • • Accommodation – Income – Age – Integration – Integration: • Employment – Education – Social inclusion – Language skills – Time-span considered: • 2002 to 2012 (interviews before implementation of 9 July 2012 reforms) – 7
Research method (1) • Mixed method: – Literature review – Official immigration statistics – Legal research – Qualitative research with: Qualitative research with: • Individuals who are subject to family reunification legislation and policies (‘individuals’) • Representatives of NGOs that work with such individuals (‘NGO representatives) • Policy makers who are responsible for developing/implementing fmily reunification policies (‘policy makers’) 8
Research method (2) • Sample: – Individuals: • 20 individuals (one focus group of 10 individuals & 10 individual depth interviews) – insight into as broad a range of experiences as possible; not representative • Purposive sampling – mix of direct invitations, adverts and ‘snowball sampling’ – risk of sample bias but screening, wide distribution of invitations t participate and avoiding reliance on any one ‘snowballing’ network to mitigate these risks – 6 NGO representatives – 3 policy makers – 1 operational; 2 strategic 9
Summary of findings 10
Legislation • Rules on family reunification are complicated and depend on number of factors including the category of sponsor and category of family member or dependent applying. Rules for EEA nationals’ family members are generally • less restrictive than those that apply to family less restrictive than those that apply to family members of settled TCN migrants, PBS (points-based- system) migrants, (post-flight) refugees, and UK nationals. • Family members of settled TCN migrants and UK nationals face the most stringent income, accommodation, age and integration requirements 11
Case law of the UK, ECtHR and CJEU • Difference in focus between ECtHR and CJEU has contributed to situation in which EU citizens exercising TRs now enjoy far greater rights to family reunion than UK nationals (or settled TCNs): TCNs): – ECtHR – focus on whether particular stte has overstepped its margin of appreciation in respecting individual rights – CJEU: Whether restrictions on family migration my discourage EU citizens from exercising their rights to free movement or will impede the enjoyment of EU citizenship 12
Policy developments (1) Date Policy Type Detail of policy Minimum age requirement for 2003 Age Applicants of spouse/partner visas increased from 16 to 18 Minimum age requirement for 2004 Age Sponsors of spouse/partner visas increased from 16 to 18 ESOL Level 3 test introduced for 2004 Integration citizenship Life in the UK test introduced for 2005 Integration citizenship Income requirement interpreted as 2006 Income being minimum level above which families become eligible for income families become eligible for income support ESOL Level 3/Life in the UK test 2007 Integration introduced for settlement Minimum age requirement for 2008 Age spouse/partner visas increased to 21 Tribunal case decides that third party 2009 Income support can be relied upon to meet the income requirement A1 level pre-entry test introduced 2010 Integration Minimum age requirement for 2011 Age spouse/partner visas lowered to 18, following successful legal action Minimum income requirement for 2012 Income spouse/partner visas increased to £18,600 for a partner, with incremental increases for child dependants 13
Policy developments (2) Bulk of policy developments concerning income, accommodation, age and • integration requirements have affected TCN family members of settled TCNs (including those under the family migration route and extended/post-flight family members of refugees) and UK nationals Overwhelming trend towards more restrictive requirements for this group, • driven (at least latterly) by explicit policy of reducing net migration driven (at least latterly) by explicit policy of reducing net migration Obligations under EU/ECHR law have led to fewer restrictions on family • reunification for Union Citizens and their family members – Policy makers confirmed that this is the reason for the difference in treatment across the categories of migrants 14
Administration of Family Reunification Requirements in the UK • Significant gap between way that immigration law (especially rules applying to settled TCNs, refugees, asylum seekers, and UK nationals) is meant to work, and its operation in practice. meant to work, and its operation in practice. – Poor first instance decision-making – Poor access to justice (reduced appeal rights, reduction in legal aid) 15
Impact of FR requirements on achieving FR for TCN/ UK national sponsors (1) • Overwhelming trend towards more restrictive policies • Individuals & NGOs felt that these policies made it harder to achieve family reunification made it harder to achieve family reunification • Statistics published by Home Office = consistent with this. E.g. overall trend 2005- 2011: decrease in applications for/grants of Entry Clearance Visas 16
Impact of requirements on FR for TCN/ UK national sponsors (2) Income & Integration requirements particularly difficult to meet • – New income requirement (as originally envisaged) estimated to result in 45% of present applications for FR being refused Literature review/qual. research suggest requirements (especially income, • language & age) discriminatory in their impact against: – Those from lower socio-economic groups, and those likely to have lower incomes (women, young people, older people, minority ethnic groups, refugees applying for extended/post flight family reunification) refugees applying for extended/post flight family reunification) – Those from non-western cultures, of from countries without visa application centres, approved language testing centres or widely available English language courses Insufficient data to see whether potentially discriminatory impact on • these groups is borne out in practice But available data on pre-settlement language tests suggests that they are • harder for people from non-English speaking, or less developed countries to meet. 17
‘It’s completely driven by the government’s pledge to push net migration down. They’re looking at every single one of the categories allowing for entry into the UK and seeing how they can systematically push down numbers in each one of these categories. Issues of fairness and integration are secondary’ NGO representative ‘It’s an absolute bar. If you can jump over the bar – if you do come from ‘It’s an absolute bar. If you can jump over the bar – if you do come from a country where there’s a high level of competence in English and you’re earning reasonable salary…you’ll be fine. But these people are integrated anyway. But for people outside of that category it’s not making integration more difficult, it’s making it impossible’ NGO Representative 18
Impact of requirements on FR for TCN/ UK national sponsors (3) • Procedure for family reunification applications a barrier to achieving FR: – Opaque system – Poor quality decision making by embassy & UKBA Poor quality decision making by embassy & UKBA staff staff – Lack of facilities (language test centres, aproved language courses, visa application centres) for meeting requirements for FR – Ignorance of circumstances under which UK nats can apply as EU national sponsors 19
Recommend
More recommend
