Status Of Third Country Nationals Research Articles

EU migration policy: modern paradigms

The issue of migration policy of the European Union in the modern world is a researched and discussed phenomenon in scientific circles, as the European Union positions itself as a democratic entity with a liberal orientation, which enshrines and protects the right of every person to freedom of movement, so management aims to ensure this value.
 The originality of the article is seen in identifying the key stages of formation and development of migration policy of the European Union, the main risks of today, highlighting the need to reform the existing mechanism, proposals for key vectors of development. The article suggests possible ways to minimize existing risks and threats.
 To investigate this issue analyzed Directive 2011/98 / EC on a single application procedure for a single permit for third-country nationals to reside and work in a Member State and on a common set of rights for third-country workers legally residing in a Member State, Directive 2004/38 / EC of 29 April 2004, Council Directive 2003/109 / EC of 25 November 2003 on the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents, other international legal instruments on this subject, scientific development, as well as online information resources.
 The authors of the article made the following conclusions: 1. The migration policy of the European Union needs special attention; 2. Despite the long history of normative and institutional support of migration policy, today there are gaps that provoke negative consequences, which requires immediate reform of migration policy; 3. Formed ways of development: 1) creation of a single asylum system at the EU level; 2) strengthening assistance to those Member States that suffer the most from the effects of migration processes; 3) ensuring the strengthening of the protection of the EU's external border and the fight against criminal organizations that smuggle migrants to EU Member States.

Implementation of standards of the european convention on human rights regarding forced removal of aliens in the European Union law

Implementation of standards of the european convention on human rights regarding forced removal of aliens in the European Union law

ECJ's New Approach Towards Rights to Move, to Reside and to Get Social Assistance

The aim of the following article is to find whether the ECJ has reacted in its recent rulings to the growing reluctance of many Europeans and their political representations towards quasi-automatic rights of migrating of EU citizens to move to another Member State and enjoy there the benefits of social policy on equal footing with this country´s national. The authors analyse recent case-law of the ECJ in comparison with its earlier case-law regarding access of Union citizens to social assistance and status of third country nationals as family members of EU citizens. The authors come to the conclusion that so far, the ECJ tightened the interpretation of the EU law in force in the area of welfare tourists’ rights unlike in case of economically active migrants. When it comes to third country nationals as family members of Union citizens, their status it is not only confirmed but even extended.

DENIZENSHIP-A NEW FUNDAMENTAL STATUS IN THE EU?

In 1992 the Maastricht Treaty introduced the concept of 'Citizenship of the Union'. By granting EU citizenship the European Union created a common identity for Member State nationals, but the European citizenship granted Union citizenship rights only for EU nationals. For non-nationals, who arrived from third countries (non-EU states) and stayed in one of the EU Member States the regulation about the Union citizenship did not provide Union rights. This paper seeks to interpret the status of third country nationals in comparison to the EU citizens, especially the position of third-country nationals who are long-term residents. This paper argues that as a consequence of litigation by individuals before EU courts and the provisions of the Charter of the Fundamental Rights, TCNs already enjoy a number of European citizenshiprelated and citizenship-like freedoms, rights, benefits and general principles, which are subject to protection at the EU level. The conclusion of the article is that granting TCNs citizenship-related rights and their analogous interpretation with the rights enjoyed by Union citizens constitute a real alternative to the full extension of Union citizenship, creating the so called European Denizenship

European Citizenship and EU Immigration: A Demoi‐cratic Bridge between the Third Country Nationals' Right to Belong and the Member States' Power to Exclude

AbstractEuropean citizenship entails, for EU nationals, a right to belong across borders. This article questions the implications of this latter right for the status of third country nationals in the EU. It contributes to address a gap between the literature on European citizenship and the literature on the admission and civic integration of third country nationals. The article begins by tracing a disconnect in the rules and narratives on admission and naturalisation of third country nationals in the EU. This is a disconnect between logics of individual rights protection, which European citizenship infiltrates, and logics of state sovereignty and governmental discretion, which otherwise dominate relevant rules and narratives. The article relies on the political science literature on mutual recognition and demoicracy to reinterpret European citizenship's norm of belonging across borders so as to reconcile the disconnect. Ultimately, the theoretical bridge that the article draws between citizenship narratives and immigration narratives offers a novel perspective on the tension between liberal values and integration discourses in Europe. It also sets out a possible frame to begin rethinking rules of engagement and cooperation in the context of the EU common immigration policy.

The 1951 Refugee Convention is Janus-Faced: It Asserts as Well as Undermines State Sovereignty.

As per UNHRC’s data, the number of refugees till mid-2015 reached an estimated 15.1 million refugees, the highest level in 20 years.The concept and idea of protection to Refugees originally hail from Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 (“UDHR” for short) which deal with the persons seeking asylum in other countries in a situation specified therein; while United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, 1951, which has been entered into force in 1954, is an ornamental object on the subject matter of Refugees and Asylum Seekers. The Convention on Refugees was amended in the year of 1967 and its scope was then extended to the whole world which was earlier limited to persons who have become refugees as a result of events occurring before 1 January 1951. But it is important to note that this Convention do not spell out a right of a person to be accepted as a Refugee. If we go more in past then it is believed that Baby Jesus was the first Refugee on this World. While discussing this subject matter, it may be looked that at present total 142 Nations are party to both – Convention and Protocol. Apart from the Refugee Convention, 1951, there are certain other Regional and International Conventions and Treaties which protects the rights of the Refugees to name a few those are – Cartagena Declaration on Refugees, Colloquium on the International Protection of Refugees in Central America, Mexico and Panama, OAU Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of the Refugee Problem in Africa, Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted. The present academic work is majorly divided as – background of the Refugee Convention 1951, Salient Features of the Convention explaining various rights available to Refugees under the Convention, Liabilities and Obligation of the Contracting State under the Convention, how state’s sovereign power is exercising when provisions of the Refugee Conventions are to be interpreted and the same discussion reach to the conclusion that same is undermining as well as asserting Sovereignty of the State.

The Importance and Application of the Principle of Equal Treatment of Third Country Nationals in the EU

The communitarization of immigration and asylum disciplines and the beginning of a common European Union policy in such areas will begin to create more favorable conditions for the integration of third country nationals who are legally resident, in the territory of the EU. The Tampere European Council of 1999 stressed the need to provide to nationals of third countries rights and obligations similar to those of EU nationals, in order to eliminate social, economic and cultural discrimination. This could be possible through the approximation of the legal status of third country nationals to that of EU nationals. To achieve this goal, there are adopted secondary norms of Community legislation on equal treatment for certain categories of citizens of third countries as refugees, the long-term residents, etc. Regulation EC No 859/2003 extended the effects of the provisions relating to the coordination of national social security regimes and to third country nationals. This European common policy took a new development with the Lisbon Treaty. One of the objectives of the common policy on immigration is the one which provides an equo treatment to third-country national who are legally resident in one of the Member States. This attitude finds concretization even to several articles of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, which after the Lisbon Treaty has binding legal effects as it has the same legal value of the treaties. The Directive 2011/98/EU aims to establish a single procedure for third country nationals to obtain a combined permit for both residence and work, establishing a series of rights for third-country nationals who are legally resident in a Member State. This directive, in certain sectors, provides an equal treatment of third country nationals with those national. But the text of the directive provides also the cases when EU Member States may derogate from the application of the principle of equal treatment. This paper aims to analyze legal instruments adopted by the EU which recognize the principle of equal treatment of nationals of third countries with nationals, as well as the ways provided to implement this important principle.

India-EU Migration: The Social Security Rights of Indian Nationals Moving to and within the European Union

With the intensification of the economic relationships between India and the European Union (EU) labour mobility from India to the EU is bound to increase in the forthcoming years. This mobility raises numerous questions not only as regards immigration and labour market access, but also in relation to social social security. This paper focuses on the social security status of Indian nationals moving to EU Member States for employment reasons. It presents and analyses, first, the EU’s internal social security coordination regime with a view to establishing the social security status of third country nationals, and Indian workers in particular, moving between EU Member States and, second, the external coordination applicable to Indian nationals, moving from India to individual EU Member States (Belgium and the Netherlands) for employment reasons.

WE WILL ALWAYS HAVE TAMPERE: A Case Study on the Regulation of the Residence Status of Long-Term Migrants

While European Union citizenship gradually moved from a matter of employmentrights toward a matter of fundamental rights, the status of third-country nationals (TCNs)remained locked in the policy areas of security and economic cooperation. This changed sincethe late-1990s under gradual developments favouring the centralization of migration policy. Thecurrent paper makes a contribution to trace this process by presenting a case study of the 2003Directive concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents. Anoverview of the process leading to the adoption of the Directive is followed by an examination ofthe practicalities involved in its transposition into domestic law in Portugal, a country in whichthe relative novelty of the immigration phenomenon and an inconstant economic trajectory arecritically entwined. It is concluded that migration policy can be developed at the EU level withouta common position on integration being taken. Far from an incidental outcome, this enablesnation-states to both concede benefits claimed through political mobilization for theadvancement of immigrants’ rights and reassert their gate-keeping capacity in the regulation ofmigration. The combination of protective advancements for TCNs and increased securitizationof their mobility stands out as a piece of key explanatory value to understand the adoption of theDirective in a context of tightening immigration policy in various member-states.

Controlling Immigration through Language and Country Knowledge Requirements

This article examines why some states in Western Europe have adopted integration-from-abroad requirements, which include tests and language courses administered as a condition for immigration. After considering the significance and empirical differences of pre-entry integration programmes, it argues that mandatory language and country knowledge training from abroad primarily represent a deliberate and increasingly effective instrument for immigration control – specifically family unification and formation. The article first roots the political opportunity for pre-entry integration in supranational EU Directives on Family Reunification and Status of Third Country Nationals. Second, it looks at the Dutch Civic Integration from Abroad exam as a crucial case to show how mode of preparation, exempt categories, and policy language link the immigration test to migration control objectives. It concludes that this new instrument in immigration policy-making reveals strategic thinking by policy-makers to use positive, politically acceptable language of integration and inclusion to achieve potentially objectionable and discriminatory outcomes of exclusion.

Integration Before Entry?: Immigration Control through Language and Country Knowledge Requirements

This paper sets out to answer two related questions: (1) what is the major motivation behind integration-from-abroad requirements, which include tests and language courses administered at a migrant’s point of origin?, and (2) what accounts for differences between new programs? After considering the significance and empirical differences of pre-entry integration programs in Western European states, I illustrate how mandatory language and country knowledge training from abroad primarily represent a decisive, strategic, and growingly effective instrument for immigration control. I root the political opportunity for integration controls in supranational, EU Directives on Family Reunification and Status of Third Country Nationals. I also look more closely at the Dutch Civic Integration from Abroad exam to show the effects of controls on family-based visa categories and certain nationalities affected by this “integration” test. Following this examination of the Dutch model, I account for differences between state practices by discussing the process of policy learning and the role of domestic blocking factors, including cost, feasibility, and judicial opposition. I conclude that this stratified convergence in immigration policy yields important consequences not only on the immigration experience itself but also a critical rethinking on the role and instrumentalism of integration in contemporary ethnic relations.

The Eu Asylum Qualification Directive, Its Impact on the Jurisprudence of the United Kingdom And International Law

The new legal order in European asylum is being shaped by a key document: the Directive on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third-country nationals as refugees and persons otherwise in need of international protection and the content of the protection granted (hereinafter the Qualification Directive). The Qualification Directive was adopted by the Council of the European Union on 29 April 2004.2 It entered into force on 20 October 2004, that is 20 days after its publication in the Official Journal.3 The Member States have until 10 October 2006 to implement its provisions into national legislation.4 Meanwhile, they have a duty not to adopt measures contrary to it.5 For those countries that have already implemented the Qualification Directive, such as France,6 the judiciary will need to ensure compliance with it.7

Non-EU nationals and Council Directive 2003/109/EC on the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents: Five paces forward and possibly three paces back

Non-EU nationals and Council Directive 2003/109/EC on the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents: Five paces forward and possibly three paces back

The Long-Term Residents Directive: A Fulfilment of the Tampere Objective of Near-Equality?

This chapter focuses on Council Directive 2003/109/EC concerning the status of third-country nationals (TCNs) who are long-term residents from the perspective of long-term resident migrants working in an employed capacity in one of the Member States. The main question it seeks to answer is whether the legal status accorded to this particular group of (TCNs) by the Directive in respect of equality rights fulfils the Tampere vision of 'near-equality'. The chapter focuses on one of the main rights of long-term residents as it examines to which extent equality of treatment between long-term resident migrant workers and nationals of the host Member State is realized by Article 11 of the Directive. This examination reveals whether Community law from now on reflects social cohesion or continue to promote a legal system based on social injustice with large groups of TCNs treated as 'second class citizens'. Keywords:Council Directive 2003/109/EC; long-term residents; third-country nationals (TCNs)

Subsidiary Protection And Primary Rights

On 12 September 2001 the Commission of the European Communities published its Proposal for a Council Directive laying down minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals and stateless persons as refugees, in accordance with the 1951 Convention relating to the status of refugees and the 1967 protocol, or as persons who otherwise need international protection1(Proposal).

Homeland citizenship policies and the status of third country nationals in the European Union

Discussion of the status of third country nationals in the European Union tends to focus on member state and/or European Community law and policy. These debates need to take into account the policies and interests of the sending states as well. They are central to the decisions of third country nationals to naturalise and integrate into host countries. We examine the citizenship and naturalisation policies of the three most important EU receiving states: Germany, the UK, and France. We explore the policies of their leading source countries regarding dual nationality, naturalisation abroad, renunciation of home country citizenship, mandatory military service, postal ballots and other policies plausibly linked to migrant naturalisation decisions. We find that the naturalisation policies of the host countries are converging, though not in an obviously liberal or restrictive direction. On the other hand, there is a strong pattern among the sending states. They have eliminated most of the disincentives for their nationals acquiring host country citizenship. At the same time they permit expatriates to retain their homeland nationality and most other rights of citizenship. We argue that these are strategic moves on the part of sending governments to first, ease the plight of nationals living permanently abroad, second, maintain ties with those who would expatriate in any case, and third, facilitate the use of the expatriate community as a means of political leverage against host governments.