Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-09-06-Speech-3-016"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000906.1.3-016"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, in principle, everyone agrees that open internal borders make a compelling case for a pan-European, harmonised immigration and asylum policy. The Commission has put forward the first draft of a legislative initiative in this field, which concerns the right to family reunification. Unfortunately, it failed to place this draft directive in an overall frame of reference. What point is there in knowing which family members have the right to enter and reside in the EU, when it is not known what provisions are to be made for which immigrant groups and for which reasons for immigration?
In addition, Parliament is expected to vote on a legislative initiative which lacks absolute fundamental principles. We have neither a joint evaluation of demographic trends, nor do we know what impact this legislative initiative will have on the individual Member States. Unfortunately, the lack of overall strategy and statistical basis are not the only weak points. The Commission lumps economically motivated immigration and asylum together. I take the view that as far as family reunification is concerned, there should be one set of arrangements for asylum seekers and refugees, and one for immigrants. Different rules must apply to those who have been driven out of their native land than apply to those who emigrate for economic reasons.
We need to clearly distinguish between asylum seekers and refugees on the one hand, and immigration, i.e. economic migration, on the other. This will allow for provisions that do justice to the people concerned and the situations they are in. Many of my proposed amendments have this distinction in view.
Another problem with the present draft directive concerns the widening of the definition of family. Grandparents, children over the age of majority and non-married partners should also be entitled to family reunification. That is where the dilemma lies: there is no overall frame of reference for immigration. As such, family reunification is currently the only legal channel of immigration. The proposed sweeping provisions on family reunification are open to uncontrollable abuse.
Just ask yourselves this question: who will decide, according to which criteria, whether a relationship is bogus, contrived purely for the purposes of immigration? That is why quite a few of my proposed amendments call for priority to be given to the core family. Another cardinal sin committed by the Commission is that its proposal contains no measures whatsoever for integration. It is not right to bring people to a foreign country without making the necessary provisions for foreign nationals and local people to live together in peace and friendship.
A final point to be made is that a directive of this kind is paving the way for us to have an objective and constructive discussion on the whole area of immigration. If people feel they are being overrun by waves of immigrants, then their reaction is one of rejection.
If we put transparent, enforceable provisions in place, then people will be more inclined to allow foreign nationals to integrate. By producing moderate and well-considered solutions, not only will we be able to overcome problems such as xenophobia; we will also be able to tackle the problems associated with having a disproportionate number of elderly people in the European Union. However, this draft directive seems to be a poor first attempt at this. Thank you for your attention."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples