Irregular immigration to the EU is declining

European Migration Network Synthesis Report:

With the economic downturn, irregular immigration to the EU has generally declined. There are regional differences, however, as the Arab Spring of 2011 is still influencing migration in the Middle East. This is shown in the European Migration Network Synthesis Report entitled Practical Measures to Reduce Irregular Migration. The Synthesis Report is based on national surveys conducted in 2011 in 22 EU Member States.

The largest number of illegally resident citizens of third countries in 2011 was reported by Greece, totalling 88,840. Among the Nordic countries, the largest number was reported by Sweden (20,765). The lowest numbers in an EU Member State were found in Denmark (400), Latvia (130) and Luxembourg (0).

The decline in irregular immigration is also apparent in the number of refusals of entry at the external borders of the EU. In 2011, the number of refusals was 311,850, as opposed to 635,380 in 2008. This decline has occurred in spite of the fact that the total number of border crossings in the eastern Mediterranean to Greece increased in 2010 and 2011.

The term ‘irregular migrants’ generally refers to citizens of third countries who have been smuggled across the border or who have arrived with the assistance of criminal groups. However, a person who has entered the country legally but whose legal term of residence has expired is also an irregular migrant, as is a person who has been ordered to leave the country.

Focus in prevention is on what happens prior to arrival

The study explored best practices for reducing irregular immigration. The general goal was to survey measures and mechanisms for preventing irregular immigration in the EU and in Norway. A specific aim was to identify best practices that have been proven effective in combating illegal entry and to study national practices in relation to EU immigration policy.

Basically, EU Member States have two approaches with regard to irregular migrants: removing them from the country, or legalising their presence, for example by issuing a residence permit. In their national surveys, most EU Member States emphasised the importance of measures taken prior to arrival in combating irregular immigration. It is considerably more expensive to identify persons already illegally resident in the country, as this requires the cooperation and resources of several authorities, for example in cases where removing a person from the country becomes difficult.

The exchanging of advance passenger information (API) between transport operators and authorities prior to arrival has proved to be an effective way of combating irregular immigration, as has the use of liaison officers at embassies abroad. In connection with border controls, EU Member States highlight the importance of document examination and forgery databases.

Whether sanctions imposed on persons already illegally resident in the country have any impact on reducing irregular immigration is unclear; in many cases, monitoring and extensive control operations require resources that may be disproportionate to the volume of irregular immigration. By contrast, efficient removal from the country, and the development of voluntary repatriation programmes and their extension to illegal residents, have been noted to have a definite impact on combating irregular immigration in the case of persons already illegally resident in the country.

The Synthesis Report Practical Measures to Reduce Irregular Migration is available on the website of the Finnish national contact point at http://www.emn.fi/raportit/2012.

Further information for the media

Riikka Asa, Head of Section, European Migration Network, The Finnish Immigration Service, tel. 071 873 0431, e-mail: firstname.lastname@migri.fi