European Immigration
A Sourcebook
ASHGATE
Chapter 1
Introduction
Anna Triandafyllidou, Ruby Gropas and Dita Vogel
This chapter discusses the sociopolitical context of contemporary European migration. More
specifically, we look at the impact that the end of the Cold War has had on migration in Europe,
notably in terms of East to West population flows that involve not only the current EU25 member
states but also countries of Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS).
We also discuss the emergence and diversification of migration forms including undocumented
and shuttle migration, populations displaced for political reasons that are not, however, eligible
for refugee status, as well as gendered migration. Through this, we aim at raising awareness ofthe
universal usage ofthe terms 'immigrant' and 'immigration' that frequently suggests comparability
where it does not, in fact, exist. Thus we point out major differences in the understanding of those
terms in official statistics and current debates, while also discussing the divergence that may exist
between official statistics and definitions of immigrant categories and the social reality on the
ground. Last, we discuss the emergence of a common EU migration policy, and the challenges
that lie ahead for European countries as regards the sustainable management of international
migration.
General overview of migration patterns in Europe since the Second World War
The period immediately after the Second World War in Europe was characterized by large southto-north
flows originating from the northern Mediterranean countries (Greece, Italy, Portugal, and
Spain). Western and Northern European countries such as Belgium, Britain, France, Germany and
Sweden received migration from the south ofEurope and the Mediterranean, but also experienced
incoming flows from African, Caribbean and Asian countries. The post-war years were a period
of reconstruction and industrial growth in a Europe that was short of labour after the disastrous
Second World War. Thus, foreign workers came to meet domestic labour market needs and were
often seen as temporary sojourners. The flows originating from outside Europe had largely to do
with the colonial legacy of the receiving countries, especially Britain, France, Belgium and the
Netherlands. Immigrants from former colonies were able to take advantage of an open policy
towards labour migration and special rights (including in some cases full citizenship rights). These
migrations were inscribed in the Fordist system ofindustrial production, and were often channelled
through active recruitment policies ofcompanies in the receiving societies and bilateral agreements
between sending and receiving countries. While many ofthese immigrant workers indeed returned
to their country oforigin after some years, a considerable fraction eventually settled in the receiving
societies and,brought their families over, thereby raising important social and political challenges
for integration that EU Member States continue to face today.
The migration dynamics in Europe changed in the early 1970s after the oil price shocks.
Economic growth had been slowing down in Western Europe, structural change in labour markets
was evident, and unemployment was growing, especially in the older industrial economies of
2 European Immigration
Britain and Belgium. As the European Communities pursued policies of economic integration,
migration between Southern and Northern Europe gradually declined. By the time that Greece,
Portugal and Spain joined the EEC, there were few migrants from these countries travelling for
work to the northern Member States. Atthe same time; a certain level ofindustrial development
accompanied by a wide expansion of the services sector in Southern Europe created employment
opportunities, thereby restricting the 'push' factors to emigration. On the 'pull' side, Western and
Northern European countries had put a stop to labour migration from the early 1970s onwards,
aiming at 'zero immigration'. This equally reduced the flows from Asian and African countries
to continental Europe and to Britain. Restrictive immigration policies were characteristic of
many countries, including Britain and France, as a prerequisite for the successful integration of
those already admitted. In other cases, such as Belgium, Denmark or Germany, admissions were
restricted in line with domestic labour market needs, while integration remained a non-issue until
the 1980s.
Population movements in Central and Eastern Europe (CEEC) were severely restricted during
the post-war period and untill989. Labour migration took place at a very limited scale and always
through central planning and control. There was some exchange of workers between countries of
the Warsaw Pact as well as small scale incoming migration (for labour or study purposes) from
Communist countries in other continents (for example, the Socialist Republic ofVietnam or Cuba)
to CEEC countries (for example East Germany or Poland). As regards outgoing migration from
the CEEC to Western Europe or North America, for instance, this never stopped completely in
spite of the heavy control measures implemented by communist states. Those who left CEEC
for political reasons quickly found refuge in Western Europe. However, their numbers amount
to several thousands over the entire period and cannot be compared in terms of magnitude with
the large flows from Southern to Northern Europe or from countries in the developing world to
Western and Northern Europe.
Since the 1980s, the situation has been changing yet again. The integration ofthe world economy
through world trade and service agreements (GATT and GATS), the globalization of capital and
labour and the rapid development of transport and communication networks have contributed to
new types of population movements. At the same time, the geopolitical restructuring of Europe
after 1989 has opened new opportunities for temporary or long-term migration within Europe as
well as from third countries to CEEC and not just to Western Europe. The migration patterns of
the last couple of decades are characterized by their fragmented nature: they include new forms
offlexible labour, insecure legal status (often undocumented), variable duration, new gender roles
and multiple destinations, all of which we explore in the sections below.
Migration in post-1989 Europe
The implosion of the communist regimes in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) in 1989 has made
the new context more volatile and dynamic. The closed borders between Eastern and Western
European countries were suddenly opened and many CEE citizens, faced with the dismantling
of the production system and welfare state in their countries of origin, started seeking better life
chances and work opportunities in Western and Southern Europe. Similar to citizens from countries
in the developing world, people from CEE were integrated into specific niches of domestic labour
markets in the European Union. Moreover, the opening of the borders has led to diverse forms of
population mobility that involve Eastern, Central and Western/Southern European countries in
complex patterns (Wallace and Stola, 2001; Favell and Hansen, 2002).
Introduction 3
These changes have subverted, if not openly at least tacitly, the proclaimed policy of zero
migration,in most,European countries. Large numbers of migrants have arrived, worked and
stayed- in various guises. They have entered either clandestinely or as asylum-seekers; but most
commonlytheyhave simply come via the pathways of globalization itself~ with tourist or student
visa:s which·they then overstayed or abused, and at times, even as·business people (Jordan and
Diivell, 2003). Both the more 'flexible', pro-globalization regimes of the UK and Ireland, and the
more social protectionist regimes such as those in Germany and the Netherlands introduced new
options for temporary legal migration, and built control facilities. These efforts contributed to
shaping the country-specific forms of migration and the living conditions of migrants, with rather
debatable effects on migration levels.
The line between economic migrants and persons moving for reasons ranging from political
instability or oppression to ethnic strife in their countries of origin is increasingly blurred. Thus,
people fleeing from political persecution sometimes opt for economic migration channels, both
legal and undocumented, while some economically motivated migrants who leave their country
in reaction to unemployment or poverty present their applications as asylum seekers (Wallace,
2002).
The governments.of SouthemEurope.have been quite unprepared for the influx,of migrants,
and indeed when those migrants anive in these states they usually come into societies that perceive
themselves asJargely monocultural and monoreligious. Important and unexpected challenges in
Southern Europe have thus been raised. Southern European societies have slowly reacted to the
presence of immigrants, firstly through repeated regularization programmes of undocumented
workers and, secondly, with a view to integrating them both economically and culturally. Incidents
ofsocial unrest, highly visible cases ofracism and ethnic prejudice have triggered a public debate on
the cultural and political rights ofimmigrants. The former set ofrights has been largely recognized
even if institutionalized only to a limited extent, while the latter set still looms far behind, almost a
taboo topic for Southern European societies.
The beginning of the new century has been characterized by further developments, either
endogenous to the EU or exogenous and having to do with developments in the international
arena.
Notably, both the European Commission and a number of the EU Member states announced a
major shift in policy regarding the recruitment of skilled and unskilled workers from outside the
Union. This came at a time when unemployment among EU citizens was still high- some 15.7
million (or 9.2 per cent of the labour force) in 2001 (Eurostat, 2001) - and social policies have
focused on retraining and inclusion. This shift reflects growing concerns about bottlenecks and
shortages, and the overall flexibility of the European social model (see Jordan and Diivell, 2003).
Although the emphasis has been different among the various Member States, there is no doubt
that an important change has been taking place regarding recruitment from outside the EU. For
example, both Italy and Greece had unemployment rates of around 11 per cenLin 1999; whereas
Spain's unemployment rate exceeded 15 per cent in the same year. Nevertheless, Italy has admitted
over 2.5 million, Spain about 2.5·million and Greece nearly 1.5 million immigrant workers in the
last 15 to 20 years. This workforce is predominantly employed in agriculture, tourism, private
care, catering and construction. In Italy, it also extends to small and medium-sized productive
enterprises. Although initially admitted mainly through illegal channels, these workers have since
been regularized through successive 'amnesty' programmes.
The second change followed the attack on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon in the
USA on 11 September 2001. As a direct result, security concerns closely related to migration
became an urgent priority. The concern, or the perception, that irregular migration was becoming
uncontrollable was already being voiced by politicians and the media; but the policy implications
4 European Immigration
ofthe events~yfQ,'ll complicated the migration debate further by bringing in additional dimensions.
Simplified and~~ensi!llplisticdiscoursesignalled thatmigration, and even globalization itself,
concealed a potential for terror attack and thus constituted a threat to security. As far as itj~
possible to ascertain, given the current information at hand,the perpetratorsofthese attacks were
legalmigrants and indeedtheir profiles- computer experts, technicians, diligent students- may be
considered stereotypical ofthe skilled types of immigrant that the USA and the EU Member States
are seeking (even competing) to attract. Further terrorist bombings in Madrid in March 2003 and
in London in July 2005 have, however, indirectly confirmed the idea that migrants may constitute
a 'threat' to western societies' well-being and cohesion, also leading to the interchangeable use of
the words Muslims and immigrants as nearly synonymous. Needless to say, such a categorization
ignores the rich variety ofmigrant groups and migration situations across the 25 European Member
States.
New features of migration
While the chapters in this book mainly present the variety ofmigration experiences in EU countries,
here we point to some specific features of contemporary migration flows - mainly those of the
las~"'~5"years - that tend to be referred to as new (King, 2002). While there is hardly any form of
migration that has no historical precedent with some similar features (Bade, 2002), when we speak
of new,,features of contemporary'migration, we refer to the relevance, dominance and specific
combinations of migration patterns that are largely shaped by economic conditions in a globalized
world. Let us sketch some of these conditions that are related to labour supply and demand needs
and that fmm a number ofcore workforce categories.
In the post-war era, the world was divided into a highly industrialized 'first' world with a
growing services sector and a welfare state built up under the influence of organized labour. The
'second' world of communist states was characterized by state-driven industrialization and statesupplied
services, complemented by a flexible barter economy that mitigated the harsh effects of
failures in state planning. The so called 'third' world was characterized by a high dependence on
the primary sector. This allowed for enormous wealth in the case of some oil-exporting countries
and for disastrous poverty in the case ofagrarian countries that tried to balance production for selfsufficiency
with that for the world market, often failing in both. In some countries, some sectors
and regions developed quickly to match the standards of the 'first' world, while others stagnated,
leading to considerable tensions within the country.
High labour costs in 'first' world countries have promoted an unprecedented technological
development that has spilled over to almost all other regions and countries ofthe world. Computers
have become smaller, cheaper and more powerful, satellites are able to distribute TV programmes
to the remotest regions of the world, public and private transport has multiplied with faster and
relatively cheaper cars, trains and planes, as well as better airports and streets. These developments
lead to ever closer connections ofall those regions ofthe world with access to a reliable electricity
supply and it has influenced the type of workforce required. In effect, production in these sectors
is highly specialized, requiring a small elite of highly educated, highly organized and creative
developers, engineers and managers (Type A), and a highly disciplined, well-educated production
work force (Type B). This workforce is mainly situated in Western Europe, North America and
Japan, but it is coming under increasing pressure from industrializing and democratizing regions,
mainly in Asia and Eastern Europe. European and North American countries are increasingly
seeking to attract highly skilled immigrants in an effort to stabilize locations and maintain work
opportunities for their skilled labour force.
Introduction 5
At a time when the movement offinancial capital is largely liberalized, the wealth of a region
depends largely on its capacity to supply a competitive combination of highly skilled Type A
professionals with skilled and highly disciplined Type B workers in a stable, worldwide connected
environment. These may form the core workforce ofthe internationally tradable services ofglobal
cities (Sassen, 1991), but also of prospering industrial regions in the old industrialized economies
or newly industrializing states.
Such highly productive technology sectors are able to generate taxes for state services and
welfare benefits. The state sector, with its spending on education, welfare and infrastructure is
a necessary input for high-tech production insofar as it maintains a highly educated workforce,
a stable political environment and a modern infrastructure. But it is also a cost factor for that
production, as public employees, investments and welfare services have to be financed by taxes.
Thus, the wage level in public employment and publicly organized employment is a crucial factor
for the competitiveness ofthe high-tech sector. Employment with the state requires a certain degree
oflanguage capacities and country-specific knowledge and offers secure employment opportunities
for native citizens of high- and low-skilled educational backgrounds (Type C and D respectively),
but it is also often explicitly or implicitly reserved for citizens. This is most obvious in Luxembourg,
where most citizens work for public authorities, but it is also present in all EU countries.
In addition, the sector providing services and other goods that are not internationally tradable is
also an input and a cost factor for the high-tech sector. While some non-tradable goods and services
also require high skills (Type E, for example, doctors, construction engineers), a considerable
part of these activities can be performed with hardly any educational qualifications. Gleaning,
.gardening, looking after small children, caring for the physical needs of elderly and disabled
persons, kitchen work in restaurants, delivering simple goods, hairdressing, simple renovating and
construction work, can be done well by immigrants without qualifications and language capacity,
but with the motivation to cope with low wages and endure unfavourable working conditions
(Type F). The demand for Type F employment differs between states, and is most prominent in
states where we find low levels of public services for children and the elderly and where highly
qualified breadwinner couples have to resort to the private market to obtain labourers for these
services (Sciortino, 2004). In this context, Type F workers are able to fill this need because of the
low cost of their employment; that is, it is a cost item that can be relatively easily covered by the
more qualified workforce.
At the same time, it is pertinent to note that the flexible and cheap labour provided by immigrants
mainly from Central and Eastern Europe, Asia and Africa, has been contributing to growth in an
increasingly deregulated economic environment of global cities. Recent studies (Reyneri et al.,
1999) have shown that undocumented immigrant labour has had a positive economic impact, at
least in the short term, on Southern European countries (Greece and Italy, in particular). Indeed,
immigrants are likely to take Type F jobs for which the local unemployed do not compete. If they
want to spend part of their earnings in their country of origin and consider their stay temporary,
they find it easier to be content with lower wage levels than locals and endure more restricted
housing arrangements. While native unemployed persons among them many sons and daughters
ofpost-war immigrants- would experience a declining standard ofliving by taking up a low-wage
job in a prospering high-rent region, immigrants may perceive this change as a step forward when
compared to their previous situation in their country oforigin, or in any case a temporary 'sacrifice'
that they are willing to accept in order to send a steady income back home. This is of course
only the case if illegal arrangements do not lead them into a work relationship which involves
dependency and deception.
In combination with low transport costs, these demand structures favour all sorts of temporary
labour arrangements, whether legal or illegal. In addition, they contribute to a changed gender
6 European Immigration
distribution of immigration. Many of these jobs are in private households and in fields that are
traditionally associated with women. Women have become migration subjects in their own right,
rather than being considered the accompanying 'luggage' of male 'breadwinners' who have
migrated for work and have then brought over their spouse and children (Anderson, 2000; Anthias
and Lazaridis, 2000; Kofman et al., 2000; Salih, 2001; Tastsoglou and Alipranti, 2003; Zontini,
2004).
There are also other forms oftemporar;y~migration, especially in Centraland Eastern Europe
and in areas of the Mediterranean. These may be categorized as new forms ofmobility rather than
migration proper, according to length of stay and/or repetition of travel for employment reasons
(Peraldi, 2001, 2002; Wallace, 2002). They'"involve shuttle migration (repeated stays of a few
~months,each, usually for informal work), suitcase migration (repeated trips ofa few days or weeks
each, mainly for trade and small business activities), and other petty trade and business activities
related to the flourishing of 'bazaar economies' in Central and Eastern Europe and the wider
Mediterranean basin. Such forms ofmigration have their origins in pre-existing state and economy
structures such as the 'black market' during communist times, and the traditional open air markets
in the Mediterranean. Moreover, they are further reinforced by the current economic and political
transition processes in these regions that often lead people to invent new types of mobility and
economic activity even iflegal migration in the more 'traditional' sense of the term is impossible
(because of migration policy restrictions) or undesirable (because of secondary jobs or welfare
benefits in the home country).
This sketch of labour market trends in the global economy implies increasingly segmented
labour markets. Polarized immigration in the lowest and the highest labour market segments is a
general trend (see also, for example Jordan and Diivell, 2003). Immigration barriers for Type A
professionals in tradable goods production are already low, and European states increasingly allow
or consider allowing highly educated professionals in the production ofnon-tradables, for instance
in the health services. However, absolute numbers are still low in the highly educated labour market
segments. Professionals in state employment are still overwhelmingly recruited from the native
population, while the middle class of production workers in high-tech fields is still very much
protected from international labour competition by paperwork control and social control. At the
other end of the spectrum, there exist numerous arrangements to allow, tolerate or accommodate
immigration and temporary labour migration into the lowest strata ofthe labour market.
This constitutes a first overview ofthe different forms ofmigration that are present today, seen
from a labour market perspective. This perspective alone is insufficient to understand the full range
ofmigration push and pull factors; nor is it able to offer a complete understanding ofwho Europe's
immigrants are today. Who comes as an immigrant - and under what employment conditions - is
largely shaped by the migration histories and government policies of the individual EU Member
States, or sometimes even ofneighbouring Member States. Furthermore, there are many who arrive
for reasons other than employment. This volume will, therefore, attempt to unfold the variety of
paths and the diversity ofmigrant profiles that exist and to present the wide range ofmeasures that
have been taken by the EU Member States to deal with migration and its challenges.
Official definitions and social realities: who'is an,,immigrant?
In order to proceed with this task, it is perhaps necessary to take a step back and tackle the obvious
question of who is an immigrant according to official data and definitions. In doing this, we are
confronted with th~ponfusing reality that exists not only in terms of data and statistics, but also
according to the gap that often exists between the formal status of an individual and his or her real
Introduction 7
situation in the host economy or society. Therefore, to address the question of who are Europe's
immigrants, it is first necessary to turn to the richness of existing definitions in order to clarify the
laclE:ofreornmorrdefinitions·and means ofmeasurement.
Immigration is framed in quite different ways in each Member State, and statistical accounting
follows national prerogatives rather than international standards. While standardized and well
annotated tables - as presented by the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD)- are of major use for the scientific community, they also suggest a comparability that
does not in fact exist. This creates the temptation to interpret the available data without fully
understanding the country's national background. Almost.e:\:~ry.;Member ·State ·has. ·different
modelS?of:ccitizenship (and hence .naturalization practices) and different 'national philosophies'
of integration (Favell, 1998), which are reflected in migration statistics by default (Grieco, 2002).
Indeed, each receiving country has its own system of national statistics as regards migration.
Some countries monitor all the foreign-born, others monitor non-citizens; but as soon as migrants
naturalize, they automatically disappear from migration statistics (for example, Germany or the
UK) and still others keep more 'complete' records of native-born citizens, citizens of immigrant
origin and non~citizens (for example, France or the Netherlands).
In the following sections, we briefly discuss how migrants are defined in different contexts
ranging from official statistics, to political discussions and scholarly literature. It should be noted,
however, that in an effort to achieve a comprehensive picture of migration in Europe today, we
adopt an inclusive definition ofimmigrants. Basically, we define immigrants as foreign-born people
and their immediate offspring; namely, first and second generation immigrants. Nonetheless, given
various limitations of information, we would like to draw the reader's attention to the problems of
this concept and discuss its overlaps with and differences from other concepts.
Foreign-born and natives
The distinction between 'foreign-born' and 'natives' is the most widely used differentiation in
immigration. It defines immigrants as persons who have changed residence across borders. Indeed,
personal migration experience is the decisive criterion.
In many sociological studies;·the foreigncborn are called 'first generation immigrants:, while
their offspring.- born in the receiving country or immigrated with the parents at a young age- are
called .'secondgenerationimmigrants.' The terms allochthones and autochthones are used by the
Dutch state to define in a more precise manner the ethnic/national origin of a citizen or resident.
This pair of concepts is a refinement of the country-of-birth criterion. It differentiates between
allochthones as the foreign-born and their immediate offspring, taking the country of birth of the
parents into account, and autochthones - native-born with two native-born parents. This criterion
has been used in the Netherlands since the 1980s for official statistical purposes, allowing social
scientists and migrai1(m experts to have a more inclusive approach to the Dutch population of
immigrant origin, including the second generation (Centraal Bureau voor Statistiek, 2002).
Although..:foreign-born' seems to be an easy and straightforward concept, there are still some
.complicationsin the contemporary European situation. While people usually move across borders,
in somear~e.as of Europe borders have moved over people repeatedly during the last century. This
has been the case in the aftermath of the Second World War and after 1989 in Central and Eastern
Europe. Two examples are worth mentioning here to illustrate this complexity.
After the Second World War, Germany received some 12 million eo-ethnic refugees ofGerman
origin, most ofwhom were expelled from regions that formerly belonged to Germany and became
part of the independent Central and Eastern European countries. These people were born inside
Germany's former borders but outside its subsequent borders. Given that Germany does not use
8 European Immigration
the country-of-birth criterion in official statistics, it thereby renders this mass influx statistically
invisible.1
This is also true for contemporary ethnic German immigration from states that never had
any affiliation with Germany.
Before 1989, the Baltic states were part of the Soviet Union. During this time, many Russians
and citizens from other Republics ofthe Soviet Union (mainly Ukraine and Byelorussia) settled in
Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. These people moved to the Baltic states either of their own will or
through forced migration as part ofthe dominant occupying majority. They were thus born inside
the borders ofthe Soviet Union but at the same time outside the borders ofthe current Baltic states.
However, after these countries gained independence in 1991, the Russian-speaking populations
who chose to remain in these countries were assigned the peculiar status of stateless permanent
residents of Latvia or Estonia. Although this category of persons did not undergo an international
migration experience, but rather an internal domestic experience under particular circumstances,
nonetheless, we have decided to include them in our definition ofmigrants.
Aliens and citizens under the irifluence ofnaturalization policies
Differentiating between foreign nationals and own nationals is still the most widespread criterion
to measure foreign migration; It usually works well for new migration streams; but loses
significance with increasing numbers of naturalizatioris and citizenship acquisition,by~birth,•As
policies regarding citizenship acquisition differ largely between EU Member States, the citizenship
criterion measures completely different aspects with regard to migration.
People acquiretheir citizenship depending on their country ofbirth (jus soli) or by reference to
their genealogical origin (jus sanguinis). Models of ethnic citizenship give preference to ancestry
and, hence, to parents' and grandparents' nationality. Models of civic citizenship privilege the
place-of-birth criterion, conferring citizenship to children born in their territory regardless of the
nationality of their parents.. In general, most citizenship regimes involve a combination ofr'the
two elements. Thus, in some cases, the jus soli principle is applied only if the parents of the child
have lived for a certain time in the country, or, if the child herself/himself continues to live in that
country. In other cases, a pure jus sanguinis regime is mitigated by a territorial element: children
of foreign parents or foreigners born in a different country who are long-term legal residents are
given the opportunity to naturalize if they wish to do so.
Generally speaking, the distinction between citizens and non-citizens (foreigners, be they
temporary or long-term legal residents) is the main dividing line not only in the official statistics, but
also in the public discourse in most countries. Data on the population by citizenship status are often
used to frame migration-related issues. Let us, however, explore some concrete empirical examples
with a view to highlighting the fuzzy edges ofthe distinction between citizens and aliens.
Most immigrants are foreign nationals at the time of migration. Exceptions include people of
the same ethnic background who are granted citizenship upon arrival in the destination country
through preferential channels. This is the case, for instance, of ethnic Germans from Central and
Eastern European countries, from the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) (Miinz and
Ulrich, 1998), or of the Pontic Greeks from the former Soviet Republics of Georgia, Armenia,
Kazakhstan and Russia (Triandazyllidou and Veikou, 2002). Similar, albeit not identical, is the case
ofresidents from former colonies in a transition period, such as the Surinamese in the Netherlands,
Commonwealth citizens in the U.K. or Algerians in France. Such cases are usually linked to
particular historical circumstances.
They are included in the most recent microcensus which has yet not been analysed.
Introduction 9
Different sets of exceptions are also made for the children or even grandchildren of former
emigrants who may have inherited or re-acquired the citizenship ofthe country oforigin. The case
of Argentine citizens of Italian ancestry who are able to recover Italian citizenship if they prove
that at least one oftheir grandparents had been an Italian citizen provides a good example (Pastore,
2001). The 'retornados' in Portugal are a similar case. These are former emigrants from Portugal
and their offspring who settled in the Portuguese colonies in Africa, and who returned to Portugal
after these countries gained their independence in the second half ofthe twentieth century.
Inespective of some of the exceptions outlined above and to which we will return in the
individual country chapters, it is standard practice that immigrants have theright to naturalize
after a given period of time. This period tends to vary from one country toanother and is usually
between five and ten years ofresidence in the host country, and under specific conditions. In some
countries these conditions refer mainly to the socio-economic realm, such as having a job and a
stable residence and not having been convicted for certain crimes. In others, they also include
cultural requisites such as language competence, familiarity with the customs and traditions of
the country of settlement, and/or a feeling of belonging to that country. Applicants may or may
not keep the citizenship of their country of origin. The conditions and procedures involved in the
naturalization process influence the naturalization rate and, hence, the percentage of immigrants
who become citizens.
Naturalization policies and practices blur the sociological distinction between immigrants and
foreigners. While first-generation immigrants may naturalize, not all immigrants are considered
foreigners. At the same time, while some non-citizens may have not experienced migration
therpselves, as they may have been born in their parents' country of settlement (that is, host
country), they may still not be entitled to the citizenship of their country of birth. The obvious
example of such a case was the German citizenship and migration policy until the year 2000.
Today, more than one million out ofits seven million foreign residents are native-born; that is, they
are the offspring of immigrant parents or grandparents commonly refened to as second- or thirdgeneration
migrants.
In summary,~naturalization policies greatly affect definitions and statistics about the immigrant
population in a given country. In some countries, a considerable percentage of all first-generation
immigrants are naturalized citizens, while the percentage in others is negligible. In some countries
virtually all foreign nationals are foreign-born, while in others there is a considerable percentage
of people born in the country who are foreign nationals. In yet other countries, naturalized citizens
are considered migrants by the state and their (new) fellow nationals, while in other countries
naturalized citizens become largely integrated in the host society and disappear from official
statistics and, to a certain extent at least, from public opinion and media definitions of migrant
populations.
Status and staying perspectives
When European states consider immigration policies, they often orientate themselves towards the
classical immigration countries USA, Canada and Australia, with their sharp distinction between
immigrants (with a permanent residence right) and non-immigrants (with a temporary residence
right). The differentiation suggests that non-immigrants leave after a specified period oftime, while
immigrants come for permanent residence and stay permanently. Nonetheless, even in classical
immigration countries, this categorization leads to problems, as it is built on rather simplistic
assumptions about the immigration process. In the USA, there have been periods during which
a large percentage of people who came with immigrant status left after some time. Today, many
10 European Immigration
people who have (permanent) immigrant status in the USA were previously temporary migrants or
even illegal entrants (Santel, 1998).
Incmost European states, there are few migrants who came with permanent residence status
from the outset. Also, national policies vary not only in terms of citizenship acquisition rules but
also with reference to migration status. Some countries, such as Ireland and Greece (Kassimis
and Kassimi, 2004; Ruhs, 2004), have very recently developed a long-term immigrant category,
as the need for such a category and for related policy provisions has emerged only during the last
decade.
Most immigrants to Europe migrated with.a temporary and/or uncertain staying perspective.
They later decided to stay or were granted long-term residence status after several years of life
and work in the receiving country. Here again the distinction between the different categories
of seasonal, temporary and long-term migrants reflects the sociocultural norms and historical
experiences ofthe receiving societies. Thus, the main 'hosts' ofpost-war Europe- Germany, France
and the UK - had different expectations regarding the time perspective of their foreign workers.
Germany saw immigration as a rotating guest worker scheme at the end of which migrants would
return to their country of origin. This did not, however, eventually happen. Rather, a substantial
portion ofthe migrants settled and brought their families in, considering Germany their new home.
In France and the UK, expectations were more relaxed, not least because migrants came from
former colonies and were thus perceived as sharing important cultural and historical links with the
receiving society. However, indefinite stay permits were gradually restricted to those with French
or British ancestry, respectively, and citizenship regimes became more restrictive. These changes
emphasized the largely temporary perspective of international migration. Most receiving societies
have difficulties in coming to terms with the idea that newcomers are there to stay permanently.
In reality, the distinction between temporary migrants and long-term or permanent immigrants
is a criterion that differentiates migrants according to the host society's self-perception and policy
objectives, and has little to do with actual migration processes. Migration policies often change,
adapting to the migration trends and realities as well as to the perceived interests of the host
society. Thus, people who came under rotation agreements were given indefinite stay rights and
undocumented migrants received legal status. From this perspective, when we distinguish migrants
according to their status, we do not imply a hypothesis about their future migration behaviour
but, rather, relate to the legal ascription by the receiving state. In the analysis of issues such as
integration and participation, researchers should not restrict their analysis to certain types of
immigrants, since from a historical and internationally comparative perspective - entry status is
a very weak predictor of later settlement.
National majorities and ethnic minorities!diasporas
In certain cases, immigrants and their offspring from specific nationalities (these differ between
Member States) are often seen as an ethnic minority in the receiving country. Ethnicity is not
asi;obj~etive:ca~ criterion as foreign:.:born or:foreign national, but depends on self-perception and
perception by others (Heckmann, 1992). In effect, ethnicity may be linked to culture, language or
religion signalling the perceived belonging to a certain minority. This implies that boundaries of
minority-majority perception may evolve and dissolve during migration processes. It is relevant to
note here that, for immigrants from a certain country to be perceived as an ethnic minority within
the receiving society, a substantial volume of immigration tends to be necessary.
Nonetheless, visibility is not only a matter of size of the population in question. Visibility
may be higher if the minority is of a different phenotype (skin colour, face characteristics, overall
complexion) making it easily distinguishable from the majority. Visibility may also depend on
Introduction 11
cultural factors such as dress codes and overall appearance of immigrant individuals that make
them stand out from the majority 'crowd' (for example headscarf, Sikh turban and so on). Some
groups are stigmatized by the political and public discourse as 'problematic', 'dangerous' or
'undesirable' aliens. Such negative stereotyping is often directed against Albanians in Greece,
Algerians in France, Turks in Germany and Pakistanis in Britain.2
Although these populations are not part of our target group, it is worth considering whether
countries with important historical minorities have a different way of dealing with immigrationrelated
ethnic minorities. In addition, new migration may blend into traditional ethnic minorities.
In Poland, for instance, recent Ukrainian economic migrants have settled in historical minority
Ukrainian communities, a pattern echoed by recent Bangladeshi migrants in the UK. They thus
both challenge and revitalize the minority institutions and may provide a test case as to whether
institutional channels aimed at catering for the civic and political needs ofhistorical minorities can
be used by and for immigrant minorities.
Ethnicity perceptions in immigrant minorities do not necessarily overlap with country
boundaries, nor do they necessarily coincide with migrants' self-perception. Kurds, for example,
come from Turkey or Iraq and organize in Kurdish associations in the receiving countries. People
from South America may see themselves and be perceived as Latinos in the receiving countries,
while they would not have been aware of such a categorization before leaving their country of
origin. Similarly, people from Sub-Saharan Africa are categorized generally as Africans, while
they may internally differentiate not only in relation to their country of origin but also in relation
to their ethnic or clan affiliation.
This briefoverview ofdifferent dimensions that may be used to define who is an immigrant and
what type of immigrant one is, shows on one hand the complexity of national realities in different
Member States and, on the other, the divergence between countries and official definitions, public
perceptions and sociological (research) understandings ofmigrants. The country chapters included
in this book further highlight these differences and explain how they came about. In other words,
they explore the historical processes and the policy developments behind these differences. In the
concluding chapter, we take this issue further by comparing countries and seeking to identify not
only mobility trends, but also 'migrant definition' trends across Europe.
European migration policy
The complex and dynamic picture of old and new migrations in Europe has also to be seen in
the context of European integration. A unique feature of the European Union as a socio-political
entity is the expansion of its boundaries. The entry of 10 new member states in May 2004 has
made its dynamic character ever more salient while also changing the legal definition of who is an
international migrant in EU territory. However, public perceptions ofwho is an 'extracomunitario'
(non-EU citizen) take more time to change. In the meantime, the EU continues to expand,
welcoming Bulgaria and Romania in 2007 and with the expectation to include the Balkans and
Turkey in the next decade or so.
2 In this book we are concerned with immigrant minorities only, not historical ones. Historical minorities
are native populations ofa different ethnicity or nationality that were nevertheless part ofthe country from its
very moment ofstate formation or pre-modern migration movements. Well known cases ofnational minorities
are the Basques in Spain and France, the Irish in the UK, Hungarians in Romania and Slovakia. However,
most- if not all- European countries have one or several historical ethnic/national minorities living in their
territory.
12 European Immigration
The inclusive nature ofthe Union, however, raises a number ofidentity questions which relate to
both the notion of'European-ness' or a European identity, and to the national identities ofMember
States or of minorities within them. The process of constituting the European Union opens up a
tri-polar identity space in which existing forms ofcollective identification have to be re-negotiated
and re-defined. This space is characterized by the simultaneous existence ofthree levels of identity
and governance: the transnational or European level, the national or Member State sphere, and the
local-regional context, which includes minorities and immigrant communities. Within this context,
the dominance of the nation-state as a political agent and of national identity as the primary form
ofcollective identification are put into question (Zapata-Barrero, 200I).
The process ofEuropeanization affects immigrant communities and minorities living in Europe
both directly and through the channels ofnational states. Firstandforemost, the Amsterdam4reaty
(AT) has incorporated migration policies into the Treaty of the European Communities as Title
IV on 'Visas, Asylum, Immigration and Other Policies related to the Free Movement of Persons'
(Hailbronner, 1998). Following the AT, the Treaty for a European Union (TEU) states (Article 2)
that it is the EU's objective
to maintain and develop the Union as an area offreedom, security and justice, in which the free movement
of persons is assured in conjunction with appropriate measures with respect to external border controls,
asylum [and] immigration.
Thus, what was previously characterized as an area ofcommon interest among Member States,
has become a policy objective of the EU. Nonetheless, the AT has guaranteed a balance between
national control and supranational governance by introducing a limit to the jurisdiction of the
European Court of Justice (ECJ) on migration policies, a limit that does not exist in other areas
(Article 68 TEC; also Stetter, 2000, p. 95). Discussing the legal and institutional details of the
AT provisions concerning migration goes beyond the scope of this volume. It is, however, worth
noting thatcthe AT shifted the focus from inter-governmental cooperation to protect a common
interest to supranational governance.
The Directorate General for Freedom, Security and Justice (DG FSJ) has been actively engaged
in preparing the ground for the development ofa common EU immigration policy, issuing a series
ofrelevant Communications and Council Directive proposals in recent years (http://europa.eu.int/
pol/justice/index_en.htm). Negotiations among the Member States have been intense. Among
recent developments, we note the Council Directives on family reunification and on the status
of long term resident,3
on common asylum procedures4
and on the common efforts to combat
illegal migration.5
After lengthy negotiations and failure to reach an agreement, the proposal for
3 25/11/2003, Council Directive, 2003/1 09/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status ofthird-country nationals who are long-term residents. Official Journal L 016, 23/0112004, p. 0044-0053, and22/09/2003. Council Directive 2003/86/EC of22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification, Official
Journal L.251, 03/10/2003 p. 0012-0018.
4 25/02/03. Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 establishing the criteria andmechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged inone ofthe Member States by a third-country national.
Official Journal L 050, 06/02/03 p. 0001-0010. And 06/02/03. Council Directive of 27 January 2003
laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers
Official Journal L 031, 06/02/03 p. 0018-0025.
5 11102/2002, COM 2002 071 fina1.52002PC0071. Proposal for a Council Directive on the shortterm
residence permit issued to victims of action to facilitate illegal immigration or trafficking in human
beings who cooperate with the competent authorities. Decision follow-up; 10/07/2001. Council Directive20011511EC of28 June 2001 supplementing the provisions ofArticle 26 of the Convention implementing the
Introduction 13
a common policy on managing labour migration (both for employed persons and for independent
professionals) is again open for discussion.6
In sum, there has been progress in the building of
a common EU migration~policy, but such progress is slow and is characterized by the lowest
common denominator appro~a<:;h. Directive proposals are systematically watered down through
the negotiations between Member States who seek to protect their national interests and national
immigration policies. Defining who is an immigrant, why, how and for how long they come and
stay in a member state, remains largely tied to national government decision-making and national
migration policy traditions.
Informal discussions with DG FSJ officials (notes from seminar at the College of Europe,
Bruges, 15 March 2005) confirm that border control is the most successful sector of migration
policy at the EU level. Co-operation and transfer of knowledge in this area has been intense in
the past few years during the pre-accession negotiations of the 10 new Member States. Such cooperation
systematically continues with both the remaining accession countries and in the context
of the EU neighbourhood policy in the Mediterranean and Eurasian region. However, border
control is only one area of migration policy which is indispensable, although it cannot obscure the
pressing problems and challenges ofthe overall management ofeconomic migration and immigrant
integration that European societies face.
The contents of this book
The concurrence ofthese migration categories and migration patterns outlined above has led to the
present situation of a profoundly diverse immigrant population in the EU 25 host countries. Thus,
each EU Member State is looked at in detail in the 25 subsequent country chapters.
Each country chapter follows a similar structure. In the first instance, each chapter clarifies
the categories of persons who are considered as migrants in the member state and includes an
explanation of the national statistical data provided. This is followed by an overview of the recent
migration history (that is the last I0 to 15 years) and the individual migration policies of each EU
country, along with an analysis of how these have influenced the categories of migrants that exist
across the 25 states.
The common traits and comparative dimensions are brought out in the concluding chapter. The
final chapter not only brings forward the various categories of immigrants in the EU today, it also
provides a schematic grouping of the EU Member States based on their characteristics. Without
over-simplifYing the distinctive features particular to each country, the 25 Member States are
grouped in five subsets based on their experiences ofmigration: a) old host countries; b) recent host
countries, c) countries in transition, d) small island countries and e) non-immigration countries.
Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985. OJ L 187 of 10/07/01, p. 45 (carriers liability); 02/06/01. 301L0040.
Council Directive 2001140/EC of 28 May 2001 on the mutual recognition of decisions on the expulsion of
third country nationals. Official Journal L 149, 02/06/01 p. 0034-0036; 25/11103. COM (2003) 727 final.
Proposal for a Council Decision Establishing a secure web-based Information and Coordination Network
for Member States' Migration Management Services (ICONET) of25/l 1103. And 29/01102. COM 2001 567
final. 52001PC0567. Proposal for a Council decision adopting an action programme for administrative cooperation
in the fields ofexternal borders, visas, asylum and immigration (ARGO), Official Journal C 025 E,
29/01102 p. 0526-0530.
6 11/0112005, Com/2004/0811 Final, Green Paper on an EU Approach to Managing Economic
Migration 11107/2001, Corn (2001), 386. Proposal for a Council directive on the conditions of entry and
residence of third-country nationals for the purpose of paid employment and self-employed economic
activities. Official Joumal C 332 E, 27111101 p. 0248-0256. Decision follow-up.
14 European Immigration
The first group refers to Northern and Western EU Member States, or what we can also refer
to as the traditional host migration countries. Their migration history is very different and the
migrant population much more varied. France, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands and the UK
have a long migration history principally because of their colonial history, and this is similarly
in Denmark and Sweden, which have a longer experience with immigrants. These countries are
generally faced with the challenge ofcombating the social exclusion and marginalization ofsecondor
third-generation immigrants. Associated with this is the fact that economic crises and social
frustration are exacerbating xenophobic reactions of the majority populations, while the religious
factor is becoming increasingly visible and present within the immigrant population. Nevertheless,
these countries have the most far-reaching multi-cultural policies and, in many cases, immigrant
populations have been granted the right to vote in local elections, thereby enhancing their political
participation in the host country. In these countries the focus of attention has shifted from issues of
regularization to issues of participation and integration.
The second subset includes the Southern European countries (that is, Italy, Greece, Spain and
Portugal) that in the course ofless than two decades have become host countries. Their emigration
patterns of the past have been reversed in spite of high rates of unemployment among native
workers. This shift in European migration patterns partly reflects a gradual improvement in the
economic situation and the living conditions in Europe's southern countries, but in part it is
also an unintended side effect of the restrictive measures taken by the UK, France, Germany,
and Switzerland. The immigration experience in these countries has been characterized by the
absence of a consistent migration policy with a long-term approach on issues of regularization
and integration. This has led to an increase of illegal immigration and of migrants remaining in
these countries unofficially, with their papers not always in order. This irregular or illegal status
has implications not only for their employment security, but also for the extent oftheir integration
into the host society. The large inflow ofundocumented immigrants that has been common to these
Member States has led to repeated regularization programmes. For example, the country chapters
look into the five such programmes that have taken place in Italy since 1986, involving more
than two million immigrants; the two such programmes in Greece, with the third currently under
way; the four regularization initiatives in Portugal since 1992; and the three such programmes
undertaken by Spain, with its third and most far-reaching regularization scheme in 2005. These
regularization programmes confirm that such strategies do not solve in the long term the challenge
of dealing with undocumented migration, if they are not part of a wider scheme of immigration
management and integration policies.
The third subset is made up of the Central and Eastern European countries (CEE). Along with
the political, social and economic transition which occurred in this region after the 'Autumn of
Nations' in 1989, the mechanisms and patterns of migration have changed with regard to these
countries as well. Central European countries appear to be in the preliminary stage ofan immigrant
flow not only from the former Soviet Union countries, or from neighbouring nations with which
there was a formal relation (for example Czechoslovakia and former Yugoslavia) but also from the
Far East and from the West. During more recent years, CEE countries have become an attractive
destination for entrepreneurs from Western Europe and the USA. They mostly carry out economic
activities in the tertiary and quaternary sectors as highly-skilled managers, experts, consultants,
scientists and so on. Immigrants from Asian countries mostly use CEE countries for temporary stay
in transit towards Western Europe. The most visible group among these have been the Vietnamese
in the Czech Republic, Poland and Slovakia, and the Chinese in Hungary and Slovenia. There
have existed so-called 'international co-operation schemes' in educational and employment sectors
between some of these countries, but since 1989 other forms of inflow have developed, from
Introduction 15
illegal entry, to temporary stay and arranged marriages through to the setting-up of business and
permanent settlement through formal means.
Cyprus and Malta form a different category combining a small population, a growing influx
of immigration over the past decade and continued emigration. Being at the geographic periphery
of the EU they are also called to manage increasing numbers of illegal immigrants and asylum
seekers.
The Baltic states, S1ovenia and Slovakia are identified as non-immigration countries, given
that the former steady migration flows from the former Soviet Union or Yugoslavia have, overall,
ceased since the 1990s and 2000s. At the same time, the emigration flows that were characteristic
of the first years after their independence also appear to be levelling out. The issue of stateless
persons is ofparticular interest in this set of EU Member States and is looked at particularly in the
Latvian and Estonian chapters.
Moreover, the concluding chapter puts forward a typology of the main migration pathways
that can be traced within the European Union. Eight old and new migration pathways are thus
identified: the pathway of co-ethnics and returnees, the colonial and post-colonial pathway, the
pre-1989 internal migration pathway, the labour migration pathway, the asylum-seeking pathway,
the pathway of temporary and seasonal migration, the 'gold-collar' pathway, and the pathway of
irregular migration.
To conclude, the final chapter offers a comparative overview ofimmigrant integration practices
regarding naturalization regimes, the granting of local voting rights and the extent of immigrant
participation in the civic and political life ofthe host countries.
Thus, this book is a synthesis of existing data and provides a concise overview of recent
migration history throughout the European Union. It is based on secondary sources in English
and in the national language of each Member State, as well as on international and European
migration statistics. It aims to serve as a useful and comprehensive reference volume for students,
practitioners and scholars working on migration in Europe.
References
Anderson, B. (2000), Doing the Dirty Work? The Global Politics ofDomestic Labour. London:
Zed Books.
Anthias, F. and Lazaridis, G. (eds) (2000), Gender and Migration in Southern Europe: Women on
the Move. Oxford: Berg.
Bade, K.J. (2002), Europa in Bewegung: Migration vom spaten 18. Jahrhundert bis zur Gegenwart,
Mtinchen: Beck.
Centraal Bureau voor Statistiek (2002), Allochtonen in Nederland 2001. Heerlen! Voorberg: CBS.
Eurostat (200I), The Social Situation in the European Union. Luxembourg: Office for the Official
Publications of the European Communities.
Favell, A. (1998), Philosophies ofIntegration: Immigration and the Idea ofCitizenship in France
and Britain. London: Macmillan.
Favell, A. and Hansen, R. (eds) (2002), 'EU Enlargement and East-West Migration', Journal of
Ethnic and Migration Studies, Special Issue, 28(4), October.
Hailbronner, K. (1998), 'European Immigration and Asylum Law under the Amsterdam Treaty',
Common Market L.aw Review, 35(5), 1047-1067. [DOl: 10.1023/A%3AI018659109304]
Heckmann, F. (1992), Ethnische Minderheiten, Volk und Nation: Soziologie Inter-ethnischer
Beziehungen. Stuttgart: Enke.
16 European Immigration
Jordan, B. and Di.ivell, F. (2003), Irregular Migration: The Dilemmas ofTransnational Mobility.
Cheltenham, UK & Northampton, USA: Edward Elgar.
Jordan, B., Strath, Bo and Triandafyllidou, A. (eds) (2003), 'From Guardians to Managers:
Immigration Policy Implementation in Europe', Journal of Ethnicity and Migration Studies,
29(2).
King, R. (2002), 'Towards a New Map ofEuropean Migration', InternationalJournal ofPopulation
Geography, 8, 89-106.
Kofman, E., Phizaklea, A., Raghuram, P. and Sales, R. (2000), Gender andInternational Migration
in Europe; Employment, Welfare and Policies. London: Routledge.
Mi.inz, R. and Ulrich, R. (1998), 'Germany and its Immigrants: a Socio-Demographic Analysis',
Journal ofEthnic and Migration Studies, 24, 25-56.
Pastore, F. (2001), 'Nationality Law and International Migration: the Italian Case', in Hansen, R.
and Weil, P. (eds) Towards a European Nationality, 95-118. New York: Palgrave.
Peraldi, M. (ed.) (2001), Cabas et Containers. Activites marchandes informelles et reseaux migrants
transfrontaliers. Paris: Maisonneuve & Larose.
Peraldi, M. (ed.) (2002), La Fin des Norias? Paris: Maisonneuve & Larose.
Reyneri, E., Baganha, M., Dal Lago, A., Laacher, S., Palidda, S., Papantoniou, A., Papantoniou,
M., Sole, C. and Wilpert, C. (1999), Migrants' Insertion in the Informal Economy: Deviant
Behaviour and the Impact on Receiving Societies (MIGRINF). Comparative Reports, Brussels:
TSER Programme (Contract No. SOE2-CT95-3005), unpublished project report.
Salih, R. (2001), 'Moroccan Migrant Women: Transnationalism, Nation States and Gender',
Journal ofEthnic and Migration Studies, 27(4), 655-71. [DOI: 10.1080/13691830120090430]
Santel, B. (1998), 'Auf dem Weg zur Konvergenz? Einwanderungspolitik in Deutschland und
den Vereinigten Staaten im Vergleich', Zeitschrift fiir Auslanderrecht und Auslanderpolitik, 1,
14-20.
Sassen, S. (1991), The Global City: New York, London, Tokyo. New Jersey: Princeton University
Press.
Sciortino, G. (2004), 'When Domestic Labour Is Not Native Labour: the Interaction oflmmigration
Policy and the Welfare Regime in Italy', in Gorny, A. and Ruspini, P. (eds) Migration in the New
Europe: East-West Revisited, 168-88. London: Pa1grave.
Stetter, S. (2000), 'Regulating Migration: Authority Delegation in Justice and Home Affairs',
Journal ofEuropean Public Policy, 7(1), 81-103. [DOI: 10.1080/135017600343287]
Tastsoglou, E. and Maratou Alipranti, L. (eds) (2003), 'Gender and International Migration: Focus
on Greece', The Greek Review ofSocial Research, Special Issue 110 A.
Triandafyllidou, A. and Veikou, M. (2002), 'The Hierarchy of Greekness: Ethnic and National
Identity Considerations in Greek Immigration Policy', Ethnicities, 2(2), 189-208.
Wallace, C. (2002), 'Opening and Closing Borders: Migration and Mobility in East Central
Europe', Journal ofEthnic and Migration Studies, 28(4), 603-625. [DOI: 10.1080/136918302
1000032227]
Wallace, C. and Stola, D. (eds) (2001), Patterns of Migration in Central Europe. London:
Palgrave.
Zapata Barrero, R. (2001), 'The Limits of a Multinational Europe: Democracy and Immigration
in the European Union' in Requejo, F. (ed.) Democracy and National Pluralism. London:
Routledge.
Zontini, E. (2004), 'ImmigrantWomen in Barcelona: Coping with the Consequences ofTransnational
Lives', Journal ofEthnic and Migration Studies, 30(6), 1113-1144. [DOI: 10.1080/13691830
42000286278]
Introduction 17
Internet-based references
Grieco, E. (2002), 'Defining 'Foreign Born' and 'Foreigner' in International Migration
Statistics', Data Insight, Migration Information Source, 1 July 2002 (available at www.
migrationinformation.org, accessed 22 August 2006).
Kassimis, C. and Kassimi, C. (2004), 'Greece: A History of Migration', Migration Information
Source, June 2004 (available at http://www.migrationinformation.org/Profiles/display.
cfm?ID=228, accessed 22 August 2006).
Ruhs, M. (2004), 'Ireland. A Crash Course in Immigration Policy', Migration Information Source,
October 2004 (available at http://www.migrationinformation.org/Profiles/display.cfm?ID=260,
accessed on 25 August 2006).