Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-10-25-Speech-2-313"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20051025.24.2-313"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Mr Vice-President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, although I have the floor, what we are really talking about here is the Green Paper on economic migration. Today’s plenary debate and tomorrow’s vote signify the beginning of a new chapter. We are creating the framework conditions for economic migration in Europe. The EU is one of the safest, economically strongest regions in the world. For this reason, we are subject to considerable pressure from migration flows; as, indeed, we shall continue to be in future. Managing these inflows is one of Europe’s challenges for the future, and to meet it we should not just react to reality, but act to shape the future.
In recent weeks, the issue of immigration has once more become the focus of public attention. The images and reports from Lampedusa, Ceuta and Melilla, Malta and Cyprus have shaken many people. Behind these images lie individual destinies by which we are touched. Firstly we are shocked at what is happening on the southern borders of Europe, and secondly we ask ourselves how we can change the present situations and prevent such things happening in future. Let us not fool ourselves, though. We are here to speak about all the external borders of the EU.
The only reason that the problems of securing the other external borders of the EU are not the focus of public attention is that the images are not so concentrated in the media and thus do not make such a powerful impression. Politicians are called upon to rectify the situation as quickly as possible or, even better, to prevent a certain state of affairs from arising in the first place. Tackling only the symptoms cannot be the solution; we must also confront the causes.
To put it in plain language, letting the people currently waiting on the Moroccan side of the fence travel into the EU would seem to be a humane act. In reality, however, to do so would be excessively simplistic and ultimately inhumane. It is not sufficient to let people into the EU, because what is to happen then? Where and how are these people supposed to live and work? What prospects do we have to offer them? Much worse, this act would have a pull effect. Unfortunately, Ceuta and Melilla are living proof that mass legalisation has an immense pull effect. What was originally meant to be a measure to end illegal residence and undeclared work has become an incentive for illegal immigration.
To summarise, it should be emphasised that we need clear regulations for all fields of immigration: flight, asylum and economic migration. The people we receive must be offered quality of life. That is one aspect. In this context, we need cooperation and support concepts with regard to countries of origin and transit. That is a further aspect. We need a third aspect too, however: a consistent, rigorous fight against illegal immigration. Readmission agreements, border management, return of illegal immigrants, and tackling the trafficking and smuggling of human beings all form part of this. Approaching and solving this as an overall task is the key to successfully mastering this new chapter in European history.
In a European Union with largely open internal borders, immigration can and should only be regulated in a way that makes allowances for and shows a sense of responsibility towards other Member States. That means that, within the EU, we need harmonised European regulations on migration. It should also be made clear, however, that ultimate responsibility for access to the labour market lies with the Member States.
The Commission has compiled fundamental questions on the regulation of economic migration in a Green Paper in order to obtain an overview of opinion that is as comprehensive and reliable as possible as a basis for drafting subsequent proposals for regulations. Parliament gave advice on this questionnaire in the form of a resolution as an own-initiative report.
In order to do justice to the state of affairs now, in the early stages of the regulatory framework, my report summarises fundamental guidelines on economic migration. Parliament has the task of working out the framework for our action in the coming years. Detailed issues are to be resolved at a later date, at the advisory stage for particular Commission drafts.
The objective of a European immigration policy must be to manage legal, that is to say desirable, migration whilst preventing illegal, unwanted migration. Only by stemming the abuse of existing regulations can we create scope for legal, managed migration. We need a European migration policy in the form of a comprehensive, coordinated framework, within which migration regulations are to be drawn up according to reasons for moving.
There must of course be continuing respect for human rights and human dignity. Economic migration differs from the granting of asylum, however, in that the main emphasis is on the economic needs of the receiving countries. This explains why mass legalisation is not a viable immigration-policy measure, because there can neither be selection of migrants nor analysis of the labour market to determine actual labour requirements. Mass legalisation is an attempt to somehow give an untenable situation a better administrative form. In a way, it means politicians capitulating to reality.
Even the idea of attempting to solve Europe’s demographic problem by means of migration is inadequate. Studies have shown that the birth rate in integrated immigrants falls to EU levels as early as the second generation. In addition, we would need so many immigrants in the near future that their integration would be impossible.
I think that we should also reject the calls to follow the example of the United States and introduce a green card system. Apart from the fact that there are far better ways of regulating immigration, this would mean considerable intrusion on the competences of the Member States.
The same applies to the calls for Europe-wide regulation of the right to vote for third-country nationals. This is one of the original prerogatives of the Member States, and does not belong within the competence of the European institutions."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples