Medicion Migra Irregular

8/15/2019 Medicion Migra Irregular

1/32

Measuring Irregular Migration and

Population Flows – What AvailableData Can Tell

Albert Kraler* and David Reichel**

ABSTRACT

Wild assumptions, estimates and number games are made in regard toirregular migration flows. While the numbers cited are, in fact, often datedand of unclear origin, reports use such numbers to suggest a rise in irregu-lar migration; they also usually assume that irregular entry and, to someextent, overstaying are the only significant pathways into irregularity. Toproperly account for irregular migration flows, however, both in- and out-

flows, as well as the complex ways of becoming (or ceasing to be) an‘‘irregular migrant’’, have to be included. Thus, apart from irregularmigration flows in the narrow sense, like unlawful entry and emigration of persons (unrecorded returns, registered voluntary returns and deporta-tions), other flows – notably status-related inflows (overstaying, withdrawalof residence status, rejection of asylum claims), status-related outflows(regularisation, ex lege changes of the legal status of irregular migrants,etc.) and flows related to vital events (births and deaths), must be consid-ered. The article provides a critical appraisal of available data sources,indicators, estimates and methods to estimate irregular migration flows. In

the context of a case study, we then analyse statistics of apprehensions atthe EUROPEAN UNION’s external borders in Eastern Europe as indica-tors of geographical flows – migration flows in the narrow sense – arguingthat despite the many limitations of the available data, the data can never-theless be used as indicators of certain trends.

INTRODUCTION

The fight against irregular migration has been a priority of European Union

policies on immigration and asylum ever since the communitarisation of

* International Centre for Migration Policy Development.

** International Centre for Migration Policy Development.

2011 The Authors

Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd., International Migration 2011 IOM9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK, International Migration Vol. 49 (5) 2011

and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA. ISSN 0020-7985

doi:10.1111/j.1468-2435.2011.00699.x

MIGRATIONEdited by Elzbieta Gozdziak, Georgetown University


2/32


3/32


4/32

The definition of irregular population and migration flows4 is arguably more

difficult, not only because there are different types of flows into and out of an

irregular status (explained in more detail below), but also because of the tempo-ral disjuncture between individual flow events and the actual change into an

irregular condition, where it is hard to define what point exactly constitutes the

flow into and out of irregularity. The following example may illustrate the

point: in the current context, the majority of asylum seekers enter European

countries irregularly, although they have a legal right to stay once admitted to

the asylum procedure. Thus, while their entry may be irregular, that particular

inflow does not contribute to the stock of irregular migrants. On the other

hand, asylum seekers whose asylum claim is later rejected become irregular resi-

dents almost by definition, if no humanitarian or other reasons justifying their

stay can be invoked. Finally, the time passing between the three events deter-mining the status of the migrant – physical (irregular) entry of a territory of an

EU member state, submission of an asylum claim and refusal (or positive deci-

sion of an asylum claim) may range from a few days to several years.

For the purpose of this article, we define irregular population and migration

flows as events or processes that influence the size and composition of the

stock of the irregular migrant population in a particular geographic unit and

over a particular period of time. Inflows contribute to the stocks of irregular

migrants and outflows reduce them. Following Vogel and Jandl (2008) and

graphically shown in Figure 2, below, three basic types of irregular migrationflows can be distinguished: (1) irregular migration flows, or ‘‘geographic flows’’

in the terminology of Vogel and Jandl, (2) vital events affecting the irregular

migrant population or demographic flows, and (3) status-related flows. Concep-

tually, this approach follows standard demographic approaches to population

change and mirrors the terminology used for the demography of the foreign

resident population. The stock of the legal foreign resident population is also

influenced by the same types of flows: migration (immigration and emigration),

vital events (birth and deaths of foreign residents) and status related flows (in

the case of foreign nationals, status related flows essentially consist of the

acquisition and loss of citizenship, but could also include loss of residence per-

mits or regularisation). Our model of irregular population change helps to dif-

ferentiate different components of population change and essentially serves a

statistical purpose, namely to identify and classify flow indicators regarding the

irregular migrant population according to different components of population

change. The model thus does not seek to explain patterns, types or reasons for

irregular migration. Our aims here are more modest: to provide a heuristic

model to better understand changes of the size of the irregular migrant popula-

tion from a demographic point-of-view and to contribute to a better under-

standing of related indicators. In particular, our model helps to highlight thatchanges of the size of the irregular migrant population are not necessarily,

directly related to irregular forms of movement. This said, even non-migratory

flows – status related and demographic flows – are ultimately linked to human

mobility. The nature and strength of this link, however, is subject to consider-

able variation.

100 Kraler and Reichel

2011 The Authors. International Migration 2011 IOM


5/32


6/32


7/32

constitute an important dimension of irregular migration dynamics (see McKay

et al., 2009).

EXISTING RESEARCH AND METHODS – MEASURING IRREGULAR

MIGRATION AND POPULATION FLOWS – WHAT DO WE KNOW?

In many respects, the problems in quantifying irregular migration and popula-

tion flows are not so different from the problems encountered in adequately

measuring flows affecting the legal foreign resident population. This, in princi-

ple, concerns all three types of flows. However, in the case of the legal resident,

foreign population measurement problems are arguably less pronounced in

regard to demographic flows and status related flows and more pronounced in

regard to migration flows. In regard to the latter, a variety of recent studies (see

Kupiszewska et al., 2010; Nowok, 2006) point to the many problems in produc-

ing comparable and reliable statistics on both immigration and emigration. One

of the key issues in measuring migration is the definition of migration – which

flows should be counted as migration events and which should not. The key dis-

tinction here is between non-migratory movements, usually defined as move-

ments involving less than three months of stay, and migratory movements

(temporary and permanent migration), involving a stay of more than three and

twelve months, respectively. The inherently limited nature of the available statis-tical indicators on irregular migration flows do not easily allow one to make

such a distinction in regard to irregular migration flows. It is sufficient to note

that most analyses of irregular migration flows tend to interpret irregular border

crossing as synonymous with an (irregular) migration event, without much con-

sideration of the temporal dimension of migration and thus, without much con-

sideration of the impact of recorded or estimated irregular migration flows on

the stocks of irregular residents. Given the data limitations, it is nearly impossi-

ble to draw conclusions on the impact of irregular migration flows on the stocks

of irregular migrants, not least since an unclear share of irregular entrants alsosubmit asylum applications and thus do not become part of the irregular

migrant stock – or do so only considerably later. Indeed, status-related flows

such as overstaying and negative asylum decisions are a major source of irregu-

lar migration flows. To assess the overall impact of flows on stocks, good esti-

mates on all three components of irregular population and migration flows

would have to be made. However, so far there have been no systematic attempts

to account for the demographic balance of irregular migration by taking into

account all types of flows into and out of irregularity, and the few available

analyses largely focus on migration flows.

Generally, estimates on irregular migration flows are few and far between.

Indeed, most analyses of irregular migration flows limit themselves to analysing

selected statistical indicators on (geographical) irregular migration flows, such

as border apprehensions or refusals at the border. In addition to the more

descriptive reports from government agencies, European Union institutions and

Measuring irregular migration and population flows 103



8/32

other international agencies, there are a number of more analytical studies of

(geographical) irregular migration flows from Africa into southern Europe

(Simon, 2006; de Haas, 2007; Carling, 2007b) and of irregular migration flowsin Eastern Europe (Jandl, 2007). While Carling and Jandl essentially use avail-

able statistical indicators to indicate broad trends in the development and pat-

terns of irregular migration, de Haas and Simon also attempt a global

quantification of irregular migration flows. However, only de Haas provides a

clear methodology for his estimate.

The first attempts to systematically collect statistical indicators on irregular

migration in Europe go back to the early 1990s, when the perception of a loom-

ing immigration crisis, characterized by a major rise in the numbers of asylum

applications and recorded irregular entries, contributed to more intensive inter-

national forms of cooperation on irregular migration, including the exchange of data regarding it. Thus, the exchange of information on asylum and irregular

migration was one of the early key priorities of the International Centre for

Migration Policy Development (ICMPD) in Vienna, whose then Director Gen-

eral Jonas Widgren produced the most widely known estimates on irregular

migration flows to Western Europe, referred to in the introduction to this arti-

cle. These in turn are based on apprehension statistics collected by ICMPD (see

ICMPD, 1994; Widgren, 1994). In 1998, ICMPD began collecting a broad range

of statistical indicators on irregular migration in central and Eastern Europe,

and published them from 2001 onwards in its statistical yearbooks. At the Euro-pean Union level, the Centre for Information, Discussion and Exchange on the

Crossing of Frontiers and Immigration (CIREFI), established in 1992, began

informally exchanging statistical data on irregular migration in the mid-1990s.

Since 1998, Eurostat has been formally involved in the CIREFI data collection

and has been collecting monthly data from that year onwards (Singleton, 2003).

With the Commission’s Annual Reports on Migration and Asylum – the first

edition of which was launched in 2003 (with 2001 as a reference year) – a large

part of the annual data collected by CIREFI also became publicly available.

Lack of publicly available information on definitions and sources of the respec-

tive national data compiled in the CIREFI data, however, leaves the CIREFI

data collection a problematic source (see also Jandl and Kraler, 2006). Follow-

ing the adoption of the force of the Regulation on Community Statistics on

Migration and International Protection (Regulation No. 862 ⁄ 2007), data collec-

tion on apprehensions and return was put on completely new footing and is

now collected and disseminated by Eurostat as ‘‘Enforcement of Immigration

Legislation’’ (EIL) Statistics. EU member states are now legally obliged to pro-

vide statistical data on irregular migration on an annual basis. In addition, EIL

statistics are, in contrast to CIREFI data, also systematically disseminated and

published. However, statistical data on border apprehensions at the EuropeanUnion’s external borders are also compiled by the European Union’s border

agency, Frontex, in the framework of the Frontex Risk Analysis Network

(FRAN). These data are not systematically published.

Generally, statistical indicators of irregular migration have now increasingly

become available for the European Union as a whole. The expansion of the




9/32


10/32

lack of periodical stock estimates that would allow producing them.

Only in Spain, where irregular migrants are registered in municipal pop-

ulation registers (Padró n) and comparisons of residents in the Padró n tothe stocks of permit holders allow estimations of irregular migrant

stocks, have stock-based estimates of irregular inflows been undertaken.6

Partly based on estimates of the net change of the irregular migrant

population in Spain, Hein de Haas has recently put forward an estimate

of net irregular population and migration flows from West Africa to

Spain. Assuming that Spain’s share of the irregular migrant population

from West Africa is similar to Spain’s share of the total population of

West African origin in Europe (20%), de Haas then estimates total

irregular net migration from West Africa to Europe at 75,000. Using

data drawn from a survey on Ghanaian and Senegalese migrants inItaly and Spain, which suggests that about one-third of surveyed immi-

grants entered the country irregularly (compared to two thirds of over-

stayers), de Haas estimates the annual number of successful irregular

border crossings of West Africans to Europe at about 25,000 (Jandl,

2008: 55; De Haas, 2007: 46). Although based on an initial estimate of

net irregular population and migration flows in Spain, the estimate of

de Haas goes considerably beyond estimating net population change

and combines different approaches in order to arrive at an estimate of

overall irregular net migration from West Africa to Europe as well asthe total number of irregular entries into Europe. The new Clandestino

stock estimates of the irregular foreign resident population in the EU15

for 2002, 2005 and 2008 (see Vogel and Kovacheva, this issue) also

allow an estimation of net irregular migration and population flows on

the European level. According to the estimate, the total irregular resi-

dent population decreased between 1.3 and 2.1 million between 2002

and 2008. Annual net decrease thus averaged 0.22 million in the mini-

mum and 0.33 million in the maximum variant. Regularisations and the

impact of enlargement are the most likely factors contributing to the

decrease (see also below).

(2) A second approach to estimating irregular population and irregular flows

specific to irregular migration are multiplier estimates, based on the

numbers of apprehensions of irregular border crossings and an assumed

ratio of apprehensions to non-detected successful border crossings. Mul-

tiplier estimates have been put forward by Heckmann and Wunderlich

(2001: 64), who use a multiplier of two, and Widgren (1994), who

assumed that the number of persons successfully entering ‘‘Western

European states’’ was four to six times higher than the number of actual

apprehensions. In later estimates, Widgren also used a multiplier of two,although he applied it to adjusted apprehension figures (Jandl, 2003). In

all cases, the multiplier used is highly questionable. Heckmann and

Wunderlich (2001) neither provide a source for their multiplier, nor do

they justify its application to the phenomenon at hand (nor does Wid-

gren justify his use of the multiplier of two). Presumably both Widgren’s




11/32


12/32

entry-exit record system for third-country nationals subject to a visa

obligation at the European level (see European Commission, 2008a). If

implemented, the system would provide data on entries into and exitsfrom the European Union. Yet, to what extent such a system is going

to provide reliable statistical information remains to be seen. Given the

high numbers of border crossings (as compared to migration move-

ments in the narrow sense), discrepancies between long-term entries and

exits are likely to be of such a small magnitude that it will be hard to

distinguish statistical errors and coverage problems from actual over-

staying.

(4) Indicators on migration movements drawn from sample surveys could

in principle provide an interesting alternative method for estimating

irregular population and migration flows. In practice, however, indica-tors of migration movements drawn from surveys are of limited use as

a method for globally quantifying irregular migration flows and migra-

tion flows more generally (see for example Martı ´ and Ro ´ dena, 2007 on

the use of the Labour Force Survey to estimate migration). Similar

limitations apply to status related flows and vital events or demo-

graphic flows. Inherent limitations of survey based methods include:

the problems of accurately sampling (irregular) migrants; issues con-

cerning the extrapolation of information on migration trajectories

drawn from the survey to migrants as a whole (i.e. questions of identi-fying suitable reference populations); the problem that reported move-

ments are spread out over several years, and, if only recent movements

are recorded, they usually concern only a relatively small share of

migrants; and finally, inherent problems relating to the fact that sample

surveys of resident migrants only provide information on migrants still

residing in the country at the time of the survey and that surveys thus

do not capture migration movements of those who have left the coun-

try before the survey was undertaken. However, despite these limita-

tions, variables related to irregular entry are useful sources of

information with respect to the relative quantitative importance of dif-

ferent pathways into irregularity, including the proportion of over-stayers

vis-a ` -vis irregular entrants or the share of migrants entering with

forged documents.8

(5) An additional potential method is to compare different data sources for

(geographical) migration movements, also known as the residual method

(see Jandl, this issue). For example, this method compares statistics on

immigration based on population register data with data on residence

permits issued in a given period, which is – in principle – possible in

countries such as the Netherlands, the Nordic countries or Austria. Inpractice, however, differences between data sources often simply reflect

differences in the coverage and the design of the datasets, rather than

irregular entries, and thus are difficult to use. Nevertheless, in countries

with highly developed register systems such an approach seems to be a

possible way forward.




13/32

DATA SOURCES ON IRREGULAR INFLOWS AND OUTFLOWS

As has been shown so far, analyses of irregular population and migration flowslargely draw on apprehension statistics and, as a corollary, generally focus on

irregular migration flows – in particular, inflows. Yet, there is more data avail-

able than apprehension statistics, including statistics on other types of flows.

Potential data sources and indicators of irregular migration will be reviewed in

the following section, below.

Statistical Indicators on Irregular Migration Flows

Inflow indicators

Apprehension statistics are the most frequently used source of data on irregular

migration flows. Ideally, only border apprehensions should be used as an indica-

tor of irregular migration flows. In practice, however, it is relatively difficult to

make a clear distinction between border and inland apprehensions and hence

between migrants entering or transiting a country and migrants who have been

resident for some time and thus cannot be related to a recent, irregular migra-

tion flow. On the European level, the CIREFI data collection and the EIL data

collection explicitly include both border and inland apprehensions (see Single-

ton, 2003). Statistics collected under the EIL data collection distinguish between

refusals at the border – defined as the number of third-country nationals for-

mally refused permission to enter at the Schengen border – and third-country

nationals found to be illegally present according to the national law. In 2009,

570,660 third-country nationals were found to be illegally present in the EU-27

according to EIL statistics (Eurostat). CIREFI statistics indicate similar num-

bers for earlier periods, except for 2000 and 2001, when the numbers of appre-

hended migrants almost reached 700,000.

Asylum applications are frequently taken as additional indicators of irregular

migration flows. Indeed, asylum has become increasingly important as a routeof entry into the European Union, as other admission channels have become

closed, and both internal and external migration controls have massively stepped

up in the course of the 1990s. However, while asylum seekers largely enter Euro-

pean countries in an irregular manner, and a significant share of asylum applica-

tions is subsequently refused, asylum applications are also a problematic

indicator of irregular migration flows as the outcome of the procedure – whether

asylum seekers are granted asylum and hence a legal status or not – can only be

established ex post and, in the absence of cohort data on asylum and subsequent

enforcement, cannot be systematically established at all. In addition, failedasylum seekers may never be formally irregularly staying, for example, when

removal immediately follows the refusal of an application or when persons who

cannot be removed receive a toleration status. Thus, while asylum applications

may indeed present a reasonable flow indicator for irregular forms of border

crossings, the relationship to irregular migrant stock is entirely unclear.




14/32

Statistics on refusals at the border are often used as an additional indicator

of irregular migration flows. However, as their relationship to irregular entries

is unclear, they are less useful as a flow indicator.

Outflow indicators

For outflows, there are basically three types of data: (1) statistics on persons

apprehended while leaving, (2) statistics on voluntary exits of persons obliged

to leave the country, and (3) data on deportations. Data on aliens appre-

hended while leaving are likely to be patchy, may capture a large number of

transit migrants and are highly sensitive to specific enforcement actions.9 In

general, return statistics provide a much better data source, even though data

on voluntary exits are never comprehensive since not all persons who leave

the country voluntarily register their departure. Within the CIREFI data col-

lection, and the EIL data collection replacing it, voluntary and forced returns

are merged into one category (‘‘removed aliens’’). In addition, CIREFI ⁄ EIL

data also include an additional category (‘‘return decisions’’), which is used to

calculate effective return rates. According to CIREFI data, some 797,700 per-

sons were removed between 2004 and 2007 (as compared to 1.8 million appre-

hensions in the same period). The effective return rate was around 48 per

cent in 2004 and dropped – if Greece, which does not issue return decisions,

is not considered – to around 34 per cent (European Commission, 2009: 32– 34). In 2009, the EU member states reported some 250,000 removals, with 50

per cent of all returns being reported by Greece and the United Kingdom

alone.

Statistical Indicators on Status-Related Flows

Inflow indicators

Status-related flows are of major quantitative importance with respect toirregular migration. Among these, overstaying can be considered one of the

main sources of flows into irregularity in a variety of countries. Thus, in Italy

it is estimated that about 70 per cent of the undocumented population have

entered the country legally with a valid visa (Fasani, 2008: 60), while the

share of over-stayers in Spain seems to be of a similar quantitative impor-

tance. For many other countries, the proportion of over-stayers, however, is

entirely unclear, even though it is generally assumed to be of a significant

scope. Quoting selected assessments of the share of over-stayers, a European

Commission Memo from 2008 estimates that over-stayers may account for 50

per cent of irregular inflows (European Commission, 2008b). In the European

context, surveys including information on the proportion of over-stayers vis-a ` -

vis legal entrants are currently the only available data sources on overstaying.

However, there are a number of indicators on other types of status-related

inflows, in particular, for status-related flows linked to the asylum system.




15/32


16/32


17/32


18/32

would argue on the basis of our previous discussion of the individual

components and complexity of irregular population and migration flows, we

should be careful to interpret irregular migration flows – the focus of the casestudy below – as flows contributing to the irregular resident population. In

Northern European countries, in particular, irregular inflows are likely to con-

tribute to the stock of asylum seekers, rather than the stock of irregular resi-

dents – although this is likely to differ significantly by citizenship and by

country. In any case, only a detailed analysis of the links between asylum and

irregular migration (i.e., through an investigation of the link of apprehensions

at the border and asylum applications) would be able to show the extent to

which irregular migration flows actually contribute to irregular migrant stocks.11

Suffice it to say that the uncertainty regarding the relationship between irregular

forms of movement into the European Union and irregular migrant stocksreflects its specific structure for global mobility. This unique structure affords

few legal opportunities for mobility,12 but at the same time, also protects the

rights of those with legitimate claims to international protection.

CASE STUDY: TRENDS IN IRREGULAR MIGRATION FLOWS TO

EASTERN EUROPE – AN ISSUE OF DECREASING IMPORTANCE?

The following case study of irregular migration flows to Eastern Europeattempts to show how a carefully delimited analysis allows one to make state-

ments regarding overall trends in patterns of irregular migration. As our con-

ceptual analysis in the above suggests, however, we should be careful not to

confuse the irregularity of movement with subsequent irregular stay. This analy-

sis is based on statistics of border apprehension at external EU borders collected

by the International Centre for Migration Policy Development (ICMPD) from

central and eastern European countries. This regional focus has been chosen for

several reasons. The first reason is pragmatic: detailed apprehension statistics,

which distinguish between different border sections, between border and inlandapprehensions and between apprehensions at entry and at exit, are readily avail-

able for all countries of this region. Second, the recent waves of enlargement

have shifted the European Union’s external borders further east. As a result of

enlargement, many former irregular migrants to the EU-15 have become regu-

lar, changing the patterns of irregular migration (see Jandl, 2007). Because all

of the countries included in our analysis border on non-EU countries, the data

allows for an analysis of patterns of irregular migration at current (eastern)

EU-borders. Indeed, in many ways, Europe as a whole seems now to be the

more appropriate region for analysing irregular migration because: (1) the bor-

der controls in the European Union – largely focused on the European Union’s

external borders and internal controls – have changed significantly, and (2) the

irregular movements within the European Union include a sizeable share of sec-

ondary movements, which do not affect the overall stocks of irregular migrants

in the EU. Focusing on irregular migration flows at the European Union’s




19/32


20/32


21/32

current EU external borders occurred in Poland (around 5,000) and Romania

(around 3,300) during the five years under study.

So far, we have only looked at the total number of apprehensions at externalEU borders, including both irregular in- and outflows in the reporting country.

In what follows, we take into account only apprehensions of persons trying to

enter the country from outside of the EU in order to approximate trends of

irregular inflows via external EU borders. Between 2003 and 2007, some 37,000

apprehensions of persons irregularly entering Poland, Hungary, Slovakia,

Bulgaria, and Romania were reported. The data from Slovenia are not disaggre-

gated by direction of flow and are, therefore, not included in the following

analysis. Out of all apprehensions at current EU external borders, almost 80 per

cent concern inflows. However, the ratios between inflows and outflows of

reported apprehensions differ between the countries (see Table 3 below). Appre-hensions of irregularly entering persons at current external EU borders consti-

tuted only 23.9 per cent of all migration related border apprehensions in

Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, Bulgaria and Romania between 2003 and 2007. In

the five countries under observation, out of the almost 47,000 apprehensions at

external borders, 9,800, or 20.9 per cent, concerned outflows.

Taking Hungary as an example, it becomes clear that irregular migration

flows are not solely directed towards western European EU member states but

also towards new EU member states and towards countries outside the EU (see

Table 4 below).Apprehensions in the five central and eastern European (CEE) countries

included in the analysis have considerably decreased from 2003 to 2007, falling

from 38,000 to some 18,000, an approximately fifty per cent decline (see

Figure 3).

Apprehensions at current external EU borders declined much less, decreasing

from some 11,500 to roughly 8,000, or by 30 per cent. However, if only inflows at

TABLE 3

RATIOS OF INFLOWS AND OUTFLOWS AND SHARE OF APPREHENSIONS ATEXTERNAL BORDERS IN TOTAL NUMBER OF APPREHENSIONS

Share of apprehensionsat external borders

in total numberof apprehensions

Share of inflows atexternal borders*

Share of inflows atexternal borders on

total number ofborder apprehensions*

Poland 25.8% 83.9% 21.7%Hungary 18.0% 59.6% 10.7%Slovakia 46.0% 99.6% 45.8%

Slovenia 76.1% n. a. n. a.Bulgaria 43.6% 74.5% 32.5%Romania 39.5% 65.4% 25.8%Total 36.2% 79.1% 23.9%

Note: * without Slovenia.Sources: Own calculations based on Futo and Jandl, 2004–2007 and Futo, 2008.




22/32


23/32


24/32

even more pronounced. Both figures peaked in 2001 and sharply declined

subsequently. Apprehensions in the EU-25 have declined from just under

692,000 in 2001 to around 460,000 in 2007, while the number of asylum applica-

tions has declined from 416,000 to about 220,000 (EMN, 2008; European Com-

mission, 2009; Ge ´ DAP ⁄ Berlin Institute for Comparative Social Research, 2005;

UNHCR, 2009). Only apprehensions at southern European maritime borders

seem to have greatly increased since 2003. However, if apprehension statistics at

southern maritime borders are disaggregated by place of apprehension, it

becomes clear that the overall increase of apprehensions at southern borders is

entirely due to the short-lived increase of irregular entries at Italy’s southern

shores between 2003 and 2005 and the significant inflows recorded at the

Canary Islands in 2006, both of which can be interpreted as exceptional events.

The overall trend, therefore, also seems to point towards a decrease of irregular

entries at the EU’s southern borders.

A decrease in the overall volume of irregular migration flows seems also to beconsistent with the Clandestino stock estimates for the irregular migrant popula-

tion in the EU-25 for the years 2002, 2005 and 2008 (see Vogel and Kovacheva,

this issue; see above).

Enlargement has certainly reduced the pool of irregular migrants coming to

the EU, as citizens of new EU member states – notably Poles before 2004 and

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Asylum EU 25

Total aprehensions EU

25

Total Border Apprehensions at the

EU's Southern Sea

Borders

Total Border

Apprehensions at

Current Eastern EU

Borders

FIGURE 4

SELECTED INDICATORS OF IRREGULAR MIGRATION FLOWS INTO THE EUROPEAN

UNION (STANDARDISED INDICATORS, 2003 = 100)

Sources: Data on Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, Slovania, Bulgaria, Romania: Futo and Jandl,

2004–2007; Futo, 2008. Data on Italy: Ministry of the Interior; on Greece: Maroukis, 2008;

on Spain 2003 to 2005: De Haas, 2007: (Appendix); on Spain 2006 and 2007: González-En-

rı́quez, 2008; on asylum applications: Eurostat database; on apprehensions (CIREFI data):

Gédap ⁄ BIVS, 2005; European Migration Network, 2008; European Commission, 2009.




25/32

Bulgarians and Romanians before 2007 – were significant categories of irregular

migrants in some EU member states. While enlargement may have turned

formerly irregularly staying citizens from new EU Member States into legalresidents, their involvement in informal economic activities, by contrast, may not

have changed. The increasing policing of the labour market combined with the

more drastic sanctions faced by both employers and employees for the employ-

ment of illegally staying migrants from third countries may well mean that undoc-

umented third-country nationals are increasingly pushed out of the labour market

and ⁄ or are further pushed ‘‘down’’ to even more precarious positions and forms

of employment. Indeed, this is what some recent studies seem suggest (see, for

example, the studies compiled in Bommes and Sciortino, 2011). Whether the mar-

ginalisation of irregular migrants on Europe’s labour markets has contributed to a

decline in irregular entries, however, must remain an open question. Media imagesof migrants arriving at the European Union’s southern maritime borders as well

as statistics on apprehended ‘‘boat people’’ seem to tell a different story and sug-

gest a rise of irregular migration. However, as we have shown, available indicators

on overall trends do not support this conclusion. On the contrary, available evi-

dence seems to suggest that the rise of apprehensions in southern Europe – or

more precisely, Italy’s southern shores and the Canary Islands – should be inter-

preted as an exceptional phenomenon and not indicative of a trend.

CONCLUSIONS

This article has shown that there are multiple ways in which migrants become,

or cease to be, irregular migrants. These can be interpreted as flows into and

out of the irregular resident population and can be grouped into three types of

flows: geographic or migration flows, demographic flows and status-related

flows.

There are a variety of potential indicators for each of these different types of

flows, although most indicators refer to specific subtypes of the three main typesof flows. Nevertheless, these indicators can be useful for assessing broad trends

regarding the dynamics, patterns, as well as structure of irregular migration.

Moreover, statistical indicators on different types of irregular migration are also

important in their own right, notably for assessing state policies towards irregular

migration, both in terms of effectiveness and of implications for irregular migra-

tion. In addition to statistical indicators of irregular migration flows, there are a

limited number of methods that can be used to estimate the volume of irregular

population and migration flows, both globally and for specific components of

irregular population and migration flows. Finally, survey-based approaches allow

for an assessment of the relative importance of different components of irregularmigration flows, particularly the relative importance of status-related versus geo-

graphic inflows (i.e., irregular migration). As we have argued in the above, how-

ever, we need to be careful in interpreting the link between different (potential)

in- and outflows on the one hand and irregular migrant stocks on the other.




26/32

Statistics of border apprehensions represent the most frequently used indica-

tor for irregular migration flows. In the absence of plausible information on

the rate of detected versus non-detected migrants, however, no conclusions onthe overall volume of inbound geographic irregular migration flows can be

drawn from apprehension statistics. Nevertheless, as our case study has sought

to demonstrate, apprehension statistics can still serve as useful trend indica-

tors. To be useful for the analysis, statistics need to be disaggregated by place

of apprehension and direction of movement, which is not always the case and

increasingly less possible in regard to apprehension within the Schengen zone.

Limiting the analysis of apprehension statistics to apprehensions at the EU’s

external borders and using statistics on border apprehensions, as we have

done, thus avoids some of the problems associated with the unclear nature of

apprehension data. Our analysis of border apprehensions suggests that irregu-lar migration flows at the European Union’s eastern external borders have

considerable declined between 2002 and 2007 (see also Jandl, 2007). In particu-

lar, this decline can be seen in Slovenia and Slovakia, the countries with the

largest number of apprehensions at borders. Even though apprehensions are

mostly reported in the direction to Western Europe, a sizeable number of

migrants are apprehended while attempting to cross an external EU border

towards non-EU countries, suggesting a significant level of irregular return

and circular migration. Given that all of the countries in the region have con-

siderably stepped up their border controls, the decrease of reported borderapprehensions suggests that inflows have, in fact, considerably decreased.

At the same time, some caution is warranted. As a result of enlargement – and

often preceding it – citizens of new member states no longer need a visa to enter

the older member states and, thus, are no longer subject to apprehensions at the

(now internal) border, or are so at much lower extent. This decline may to some

degree also reflect a change in migrant strategies: the increased use, for example,

of legal opportunities for movement and subsequent overstaying or the use of

forged documents – which remains under-researched as a phenomenon and, in

the absence of any reliable data, must for now remain a mere hypothesis.

NOTES

1. Jonas Widgren later also became a source for the estimate of 500,000 irregular

migrants, although it is not entirely clear when he first began to circulate this esti-

mate. He was first cited as a source by Europol report in 1998 (see Jandl, 2003).

According to Jandl, Widgen’s estimate is based on apprehension statistics, an assumed

multiplier of 2 and the ratio of asylum seekers arriving irregularly in European

countries.2. The Centre for Information, Discussion and Exchange on the Crossing of Frontiers

and Immigration (CIREFI) was set up in 1992 and since 1994, has a formal mandate

to collect data on irregular migration, provided by member states on a voluntary

basis. Since the launch of the Commission’s Annual Statistical Report on Migration

and Asylum, the larger part of the data collected by CIREFI on border apprehension

has also become publicly available.




27/32

3. Until 2009, data have not been systematically published, although Frontex’s annual

report usually contained selected indicators. In 2009, Frontex started publishing ana-

lytical reports on trends in irregular migration, with more data being released in the

course of these studies (Frontex, 2009, 2010).4. We use the term ‘‘irregular migration and population flows’’ as shorthand for

population flows influencing the size of the irregular migrant population, which can

be differentiated into migration related flows and other flows not directly linked to

geographical mobility. We thus use a modified version of the terminology developed

by the Clandestino project (see Vogel and Jandl, 2008; see also the following

discussion).

5. However, most countries provide persons whose status is withdrawn with a quasi-

status as long as they remain on the territory.

6. The coverage of the Padró n, however, is not without problems. There is considerable

under registration of both legal and irregular migrants as well as a presumably highshare of non-deregistration upon emigration, which makes it difficult to interpret

variations in the number of recorded residents (Gonza ´ lez-Ferrer, 2009: 7).

7. For example, through systematically giving out computer readable bar code stickers

to all entrants, whether or not they are subject to visa requirements, as is the case,

for example, in South Africa.

8. Thus, a recent (non-random) survey of migrants regularised in the course of the 2000

Belgium regularisation programme provides interesting insights into different path-

ways into irregularity, modes and countries of entry. Among the 116 respondents

who answered this particular question, 28 migrants (24%) entered Belgium clandes-

tinely (without any documents, mainly from other Member States, in which some at

least had some sort of documentation), 45 (39%) used false papers or documentsobtained fraudulently through a smuggler, 33 (28%) had tourist visas, while the

remainder had some other sort of visa, suggesting that legal entry and subsequent

overstaying was less common than often thought. However, the high share of irregu-

lar entries among the respondents might also be related to the fact that ‘‘forced

migrants’’ (asylum seekers with a reasonable claim to refugee status, de facto refugees

from conflict countries) are known to represent the largest share of irregular entries

(See Centruum voor Sociaal Beleid, Universite ´ d’Anvers, Groupe d’e ´ tudes sur l’ethni-

cite ´ , le racisme, les migrations et l’exclusion, Universite ´ Libre de Bruxelle, 2008). An

earlier project on push and pull factors of international migration (Schoorl et al.,

2001) which conducted studies in two receiving countries (Italy and Spain) and fivesending countries (Egypt, Ghana, Morocco, Senegal and Turkey) also included ques-

tions on irregular entry versus overstaying in the receiving country questionnaires.

More recently, the Migrations from Africa to Europe (MAFE) survey implemented in

France, Italy and Spain similarly includes various items on the legal status of irregu-

lar migrants (see http://mafeproject.site.ined.fr/).

9. For instance, Austrian border guards regularly undertook specific operations target-

ing Romanian and Bulgarian buses en route to Romania and Bulgaria and carrying

migrant workers, resulting in relatively high figures of apprehended Romanian and

Bulgarian nationals leaving the country.

10. Own calculations based on Ge ´ dap ⁄ BVIS, European Commission, and ICMPD Year-

books (various years).11. Available analysis are usually limited to an analysis of the correlation between

apprehensions and asylum claims (see Jandl, 2004b).

12. Such opportunities may be important whether intended (i.e. the lifting of visa

requirements for most Western Balkan states) or unintended (i.e. the ‘‘generous’’ visa

issue practices for Ukrainians by Germany in the early years of the new millennium).




28/32

13. In the questionnaire of the survey for the yearbooks, apprehensions are defined as

‘‘migration related border violations followed by apprehensions including migration

irregularities, irrespective of whether or not the apprehension was a result of a tech-

nical, administrative or criminal violation’’.

REFERENCES

Anderson, B., M. Ruhs, B. Rogaly, et al.

2006 Fair enough? Central and East European migrants in low-wage employment in

the UK , http://www.compas.ox.ac.uk/fileadmin/files/pdfs/Non_WP_pdfs/

Reports_and_Other_Publications/Changing_Status_Changing_Lives/Fair%20e-

nough%20paper%20-%201%20May%202006.pdf (accessed on 24 11 2010).

Baldwin-Edwards, M., and A. Kraler

2009 REGINE. Regularisations in Europe, Pallas Publications, Amsterdam.

Bommes, M., and G. Sciortino

2011 Foggy Social Structures. Irregular Migration and the Eastern Enlargement,

Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam (forthcoming).

Bundesministerium fu ¨ r Inneres (BMI)

2008 Fremdenstatistik 2007 , http://www.bmi.gv.at/publikationen (accessed 24 11

2010).

Carling, J.

2007a ‘‘Migration control and migrant fatalities at the Spanish-African borders’’,

International Migration Review, 41(2): 316–343.2007b ‘‘Unauthorized migration from Africa to Spain’’, International Migration,

45(4): 3–37.

Centruum voor Sociaal Beleid,

2008 Before and After La situation sociale et é conomique des personnes ayant bé né fic-

ié de la procé dure de ré gularisation en 2000 (Loi du 22 Dé cembre 1999), Uni-

versite ´ d’Anvers, Groupe d’e ´ tudes sur l’ethnicite ´ , le racisme, les migrations et

l’exclusion, Universite ´ Libre de Bruxelle, http://www.ulb.ac.be/socio/germe/

documentsenligne/BAfr.pdf (accessed 24 11 2010).

De Haas, H.

2007 ‘‘The myth of invasion irregular migration from West Africa to the Maghreb

and the European Union’’, IMI research report, http://www.heindehaas.com/

Publications/de%20Haas%202007%20Irregular%20migration%20from%

20West%20Africa%20.pdf (accessed 05 08 2010).

Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

2005 ‘‘Managing the Border: Immigration Compliance’’ Canberra, http://www.im-

mi.gov.au/media/publications/compliance/managing-the-border/ (accessed 05

08 2010).

Dzhengozova, M.

2009 ‘‘Portugal’’, in: M. Baldwin-Edwards and A. Kraler (Eds), REGINE Regulari-

sations in Europe, Pallas Publications, Amsterdam: 419–426.

Espenshade, J.T.1995 ‘‘Using INS border apprehensions data to measure the flow of undocumented

migrants crossing the U.S.-Mexico frontier’’, International Migration Review, 29.

European Commission

2008a ‘‘Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the

Council, the European Economic and Social Committee, and the Committee




29/32

of the Regions. Preparing the next steps in border management in the

European Union’’, Brussels, 13 February.

2008b ‘‘New tools for an integrated European border management strategy’’, Memo

8 ⁄ 85, Brussels, 13 February.2009 ‘‘Third annual report on the development of a common policy on illegal immi-

gration, smuggling and trafficking of human beings, external borders, and the

return of illegal residents’’, Commission Staff Working Document, SEC (2009)

320 final.

European Migration Network (EMN)

2008 ‘‘Annual report on asylum and migration statistics 2004 and 2005’’, http://

emn.sarenet.es/Downloads/prepareShowFiles.do;jsessionid=D8F61805DD18D

6B8A6EE500E79823099?directoryID=15 (accessed 05 08 2010).

Fasani, F.

2008 ‘‘Country report Italy, undocumented migration, counting the uncountable:data and trends across Europe’’, Athens, http://clandestino.eliamep.gr/cate-

gory/irregular-migration-in-the-eu/country-reports (accessed 01 08 2010).

FRONTEX

2009 ‘‘The impact of the economic crisis on illegal migration to the European

Union’’, Warsaw.

2010 FRAN Quarterly Update, 1 (January to March).

Futo, P.

2008 Yearbook on Illegal Migration, Human Smuggling and Trafficking in Central

and Eastern Europe in 2007. A Survey and Analysis of Border Management and

Border Apprehension Data from 20 States, International Centre for Migration

Policy Development (ICMPD), Vienna.Futo, P., and M. Jandl

2004 2003 Year Book on Illegal Migration, Human Smuggling and Trafficking in

Central and Eastern Europe. A Survey and Analysis of Border Management and

Border Apprehension Data from 19 States, ICMPD, Vienna.

2005 2004 Yearbook on Illegal Migration, Human Smuggling and Trafficking in


Border Apprehension of Data from 22 States, ICMPD, Vienna.

2006 2005 Yearbook on Illegal Migration, Human Smuggling and Trafficking in


Border Apprehension of Data from 22 States, ICMPD, Vienna.2007 2006 Yearbook on Illegal Migration, Human Smuggling and Trafficking in


Border Apprehension of Data from 20 States, ICMPD, Vienna.

Groupe d’e ´ tude de De ´ mographie Applique ´ e (Ge ´ DAP) ⁄ Berlin Institute for Comparative

Social Research (BIVS)

2005 Migration and Asylum in the European Union 2003, http://emn.sarenet.es/

Downloads/prepareShowFiles.do;jsessionid=D8F61805DD18D6B8A6EE500E

79823099?directoryID=15 (accessed 24 11 2010).

GHK

2007 Impact Assessment on a Community instrument laying down sanctions for

employers of third-country nationals with no or limited rights to work that areexceeded , European Commission, Impact Assessment, London.

Gonza ´ lez-Enrı ´quez, C.

2008 ‘‘Country report Spain, undocumented migration, counting the uncountable,

data and trends across Europe’’, Athens, http://clandestino.eliamep.gr/cate-

gory/irregular-migration-in-the-eu/country-reports/ (accessed 05 08 2010).




30/32


31/32


32/32

Medicion Migra Irregular

Documents

Transcript of Medicion Migra Irregular