References of "Nienaber, Birte 50002761"
     in
Bookmark and Share    
Full Text
See detailL’efficacité du retour dans les États membres de l’UE: défis et bonnes pratiques dans l’application des règles européennes en matière de retour
Petry, David UL; Sommarribas, Adolfo UL; Coda, Nicolas UL et al

Article for general public (2018)

Le retour des ressortissants de pays tiers en séjour irrégulier est l‘un des principaux piliers de la politique de l‘UE en matière de migration et d‘asile. Dans son plan d‘action sur le retour en 2015 et ... [more ▼]

Le retour des ressortissants de pays tiers en séjour irrégulier est l‘un des principaux piliers de la politique de l‘UE en matière de migration et d‘asile. Dans son plan d‘action sur le retour en 2015 et dans sa communication de 2017 relative à une politique de retour plus efficace et la recommandation qui l‘a accompagnée, la Commission a souligné la nécessité d‘une mise en œuvre plus stricte des règles européennes en la matière. Cette note de synthèse présente les principaux résultats de l’étude réalisée en 2017 par le point de contact de l´European Migration Network au Luxembourg intitulée «L’efficacité du retour dans les Etats membres de l’UE: défis et bonnes pratiques dans l’application des règles européennes en matière de retour» ainsi que du rapport synthétique qui en résulte. L’étude se base sur les informations recueillies jusqu’au mois de juillet 2017. Cette note de synthèse vise à analyser l‘impact des règles européennes sur le retour ainsi que sur les politiques et pratiques mises en œuvre dans les différents États membres. Elle présente également la manière dont les normes et procédures européennes ont été interprétées et appliquées au niveau national et, dans la mesure du possible, leur impact sur l‘efficacité du dispositif de retour. Toutefois, une certaine prudence s’impose tant il est difficile d‘établir des liens de causalité entre des mesures politiques spécifiques et le nombre de retours mis en œuvre. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 61 (7 UL)
Full Text
See detailDéfis et pratiques dans l’établissement de l’identité des demandeurs lors des processus migratoires
Sommarribas, Adolfo UL; Coda, Nicolas UL; Nienaber, Birte UL

Article for general public (2018)

La note de synthèse présente les principaux résultats de l’étude réalisée en 2017 par le Point de contact Luxembourgeois du Réseau Européen des Migrations intitulée : « Défis et pratiques dans ... [more ▼]

La note de synthèse présente les principaux résultats de l’étude réalisée en 2017 par le Point de contact Luxembourgeois du Réseau Européen des Migrations intitulée : « Défis et pratiques dans l’établissement de l’identité des demandeurs lors des processus migratoires ». Cette étude vise à présenter un aperçu des principaux défis auxquels les autorités compétentes au Luxembourg sont confrontées lors de l’établissement et de la vérification de l’identité des ressortissants de pays-tiers dans le cadre des différentes procédures de migration (asile, retour, migration légale) ainsi que des pratiques mises en œuvre pour relever ces défis. Cette note se base essentiellement sur les informations recueillies jusqu’en juillet 2017 et n’englobe donc que peu d’évolutions qui ont pu se produire après cette date. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 53 (5 UL)
Full Text
See detailBeneficiaries of international protection travelling to their country of origin: Challenges, Policies and Practices in the EU Member States, Norway and Switzerland
Jacobs, Sarah UL; Sommarribas, Adolfo UL; Nienaber, Birte UL

Report (2018)

The main objectives of this study of the European Migration Network are to provide objective and reliable information about beneficiaries of international protection who travel to their country of origin ... [more ▼]

The main objectives of this study of the European Migration Network are to provide objective and reliable information about beneficiaries of international protection who travel to their country of origin or come into contact with national authorities of their country of origin, and information on cases where international protection statuses were ceased leading to, for example, the status being ended, revoked or not renewed (as per Article 45 and 46 of the recast Asylum Procedures Directive) and, ultimately, the permission to stay withdrawn. For the Luxembourgish case, it is firstly important to note that beneficiaries of the refugee status and of the status of subsidiary protection are not subject to the same restrictions with regard to travel to the country of origin or contact with national authorities. While refugees are in principle not permitted to travel to the country of origin, beneficiaries of subsidiary protection are not subject to this restriction. In this context, the phenomenon of beneficiaries of the refugee status travelling to their country of origin is currently not considered a policy priority in Luxembourg. While it does occur, there are no statistics providing information on how many refugees undertake this journey or contact the national authorities, on the reasons for travel to the country of origin, nor is there any case law on the cessation of the refugee status for reasons of travel to the country of origin. Luxembourg’s authorities are not systematically informed of such events by the authorities of other Member States. Luxembourg has no external borders with the exception of the international airport of Luxembourg, from where only an extremely limited number of flights to third countries depart. Thus, it is extremely difficult to capture the extent of the phenomenon in Luxembourg. Luxembourg’s Asylum Law establishes the re-availment of the protection of the country of origin and the voluntary re-establishment in the country of origin as grounds for cessation of the refugee status. Travel to the country of origin or contact with its national authorities are not explicitly forbidden by legislation. In principle, refugees are not permitted to travel back to the country of origin. They are provided with this information on multiple occasions: for instance at the moment of the introduction of their application, as well as when they are issued the decision granting them protection. Their travel document also clearly states the restriction. There is no notification or authorisation procedure that would authorise such travel in Luxembourg. When the Directorate of Immigration has the information that a refugee travelled back to the country of origin, it will proceed to an in-depth analysis of the personal situation of the individual. Determining that this travel is proof of the voluntary re-establishment in the country of origin is however considered extremely difficult, as it is nearly impossible to ascertain the reasons for which the refugee returned. Furthermore, a short stay in the country of origin is not necessarily considered like the (permanent) establishment in the country of origin or a proof thereof. This is also due to the fact that the Luxembourgish authorities cannot contact the authorities of the country of origin and have no tools to undertake an investigation there in order to verify that the refugee has re-established him/herself. The travel and the surrounding circumstances can be taken into account if the minister decides to re-examine the validity of the status, which could potentially lead to a withdrawal. The Directorate of Immigration has never considered ceasing protection because a refugee contacted the authorities of the country of origin. Proving that this contact occurred in the first place, and next, proving that it constitutes a re-availment of the protection of the country of origin, is considered nearly impossible. In addition, it is a fact that certain administrative procedures require the production of official documents and that the substitution of these documents with affidavits are in practice not always feasible. As previously mentioned, beneficiaries of subsidiary protection are authorised to travel back to their country of origin and are permitted to contact the authorities of their country of origin. They are even encouraged to contact the national authorities in order to obtain a national passport. These actions can thus not lead to the cessation of the status of subsidiary protection. If the decision to cease the status is taken, the beneficiary is notified of this decision in writing. The decision can be appealed before the First instance Administrative Court. If the decision of the Court is negative, the individual can file an appeal before the Second instance Administrative Court. In principle, the decision to cease international protection carries a return decision. However, the individual can apply for another residence permit if s/he fulfils the conditions established in the Immigration Law. The same is true for family members who got a residence permit through family reunification with the concerned person: the family members will lose their right to stay unless they can gain access to another residence permit under the Immigration Law. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 57 (7 UL)
See detailMigration and integration – some aspects of migration in Europe and in Luxembourg
Nienaber, Birte UL

Conference given outside the academic context (2018)

Detailed reference viewed: 54 (3 UL)
Full Text
See detailLabour Market Integration of Third-Country Nationals in EU Member States
Petry, Ralph UL; Sommarribas, Adolfo UL; Nienaber, Birte UL

Report (2018)

Luxembourg is characterized by a very specific demographic situation with 47,9% of its resident population being non-Luxembourgish nationals as of 1 January 2018. This particular circumstance makes ... [more ▼]

Luxembourg is characterized by a very specific demographic situation with 47,9% of its resident population being non-Luxembourgish nationals as of 1 January 2018. This particular circumstance makes Luxembourg the EU Member State with the highest share of non-citizens residing on its territory. At the same time, around 85% of the foreign population are citizens of another EU Member State, leading to the fact that third-country nationals constitute only 7,3% of the total resident population of Luxembourg, the lowest share of foreigners coming from a third-country in the European Union. Integration is defined in national legislation as a ‘two-way process by which the foreigners shows their will to participate on a long-term basis to the host society, which, in turn, takes all the necessary measures at the social, economic, political, and cultural levels, to encourage and facilitate this approach. Integration is a task that the State, municipalities and civil society achieve together’. In addition to this legal provision, several strategic documents, most notably the multi-annual national action plan on integration 2018, or PAN integration, published in July 2018, make reference to integration and its definition. The PAN integration provides the framework for the programs and tools favouring the social cohesion of Luxembourgish and non-Luxembourgish nationals and the overall national integration policy by identifying five priority domains, one of which explicitly relates to the reinforcement of employability of non-Luxembourgish nationals. Generally speaking, employment is viewed as a core element of the overall integration process, making both the access to as well as the integration into the Luxembourgish labour market a key element in becoming a part of society. At the same time, this access to and integration into the labour market pose a challenge, particularly to third-country nationals, as the statistics show that their employment rate is lower than that of Luxembourgish nationals or citizens of another EU Member State. Third-country nationals are predominantly occupied in the accommodation and food service activities sector, followed by the administrative and support service activities sector and the wholesale and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles and motorcycles sector. A closer look at the evolution of the sectors employing third-country nationals over the last years, however, indicates that in particular the information and communication technologies sector, the professional, scientific and technical activities sector and the financial and insurance activities sector register the most significant growth rates, leading to a development that seem to indicate a ‘double immigration’ of (highly) skilled migrants on the one hand and less or low skilled migrants in the more traditional economic sectors on the other hand. In regard to the general integration approach as well as the labour market integration policy, this study shows that Luxembourg does have not have a specific policy/strategic document/model in place that only focusses on third-country nationals. All political documents (laws and strategic documents such as the PAN 2010-2014 and the new PAN integration of 2018) and public measures (Welcome and Integration Contract (CAI), linguistic leave, support measures provided by the National Employment Agency (ADEM), measures facilitating school integration, electoral registration campaigns, etc.) are aimed at all foreign nationals without distinguishing between EU nationals and third-country nationals. It is the Immigration Law that provides the legal framework regarding the various grounds of migration for economic purposes. Additionally, the legislator aims to be attractive for certain categories of migrants coming to Luxembourg for economic purposes in order to meet the needs of the country’s economic development (via legislative measures such as the European Blue Card, the ‘investor’ residence permit or the agreement between Luxembourg and Cape Verde). This being said, this study will present examples of practices that have been identified as good practices in the context of the topic of labour market integration of third-country nationals, despite the fact that they, for the most part, do not fit 100% into the pre-set structure of the study template at hand. In section 2.2, three Member State measure are presented, the first of which is the linguistic leave, a specific form of additional special leave that is accessible for salaried and independent workers of all nationalities, resident or non-resident, to learn or perfect the command of the Luxembourgish language. This legislative measure was introduced by law in 2009 with the intention to facilitate the integration of the beneficiaries into society through the labour market. The second measure is the AMIF-project ‘InSitu JOBS’ by the non-governmental organisation CLAE asbl (with co-financing from the Luxembourgish State). This project, which ended in April 2018 was targeted at third-country nationals within the scope of this study as well as at beneficiaries of international protection by providing them information and counselling in the context of access and integration into the Luxembourgish labour market. The third measure was also an AMIF-project and consists of a practical guide that was developed and drafted by IMS Luxembourg, a network of Luxembourgish companies, in order to provide information on how to hire and integrate third-country nationals. As for the private sector measures in section 2.3. of this study, research of secondary resources as well as consultations with various relevant stakeholders proved to be rather difficult in terms of finding private sector initiatives that specifically target at supporting or facilitating the labour market integration of third-country nationals within the scope of this study. Two measures were selected in this context, the first consisting of a specific recruitment method (simulation-based recruitment method) by a large international company which allows them to evaluate various different profiles of people that are not necessarily detectable through the classic CV-based recruitment methods. The second measure is a business guide developed by the American Chamber of Commerce Luxembourg and aims to promote and facilitate the establishment of new business in Luxembourg by providing information on everything that entrepreneurs and international companies need to know in this context. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 81 (9 UL)
Full Text
See detailRapport annuel sur les migrations et l'asile (2017)
Jacobs, Sarah UL; Adao Do Carmo, Kelly UL; Petry, David UL et al

Report (2018)

The present report provides an overview of the main developments and debates in relation to migration and asylum in Luxembourg in 2017. The number of people applying for international protection remained ... [more ▼]

The present report provides an overview of the main developments and debates in relation to migration and asylum in Luxembourg in 2017. The number of people applying for international protection remained high in 2017 (2.322 applications) compared to the levels registered pre- ‘migration crisis’ (1.091 in 2014). However, the number of registrations remained relatively stable if compared to the two preceding years (2.447 in 2015 and 2.035 in 2016). This relative stability in numbers also reflected on the general public and policy debate in the field of migration and asylum. Since 2016, its focus has continuously shifted from an ‘emergency’ discourse axed on the implementation of reception measures and conditions towards discussions on longer-term integration measures and policies. In this regard, the newly introduced Guided Integration Trail (parcours d’intégration accompagné - PIA) can be considered a flagship project of OLAI, the national agency responsible for the reception and integration of foreigners. This multidisciplinary package of measures aims to empower applicants and beneficiaries of international protection and to support them in developing their life project. The trail, compulsory for all adult applicants for international protection, consists of a linguistic component and a civic component and is split into three phases. Although increasing housing capacities for the reception of applicants for international protection was high on national authorities’ agenda, housing remained a challenging aspect of the asylum system and triggered debate on a national scale. Alongside access to training, problems related to housing were among the issues most frequently raised by applicants for international protection in 2017. The lack of affordable housing on the private market, an increasing number of family reunifications as well as the increasing number of beneficiaries and persons who have been issued a return decision who remain housed in structures of OLAI were all identified as interplaying barriers for finding available accommodation for applicants for international protection. The difficulties with the construction of modular housing structures also persisted in 2017. A certain reticence of the population towards the construction of these so-called ‘container villages, planned in response to the increasing influx that started in August 2015, was visible in the appeals introduced into Luxembourg’s First Instance Administrative Courts to annul the land-use plans related to the projects. Living conditions in the various reception facilities were also one of the subjects of discussion in 2017. This included a debate on the (lack of) kitchen infrastructure in reception facilities and the varying systems for provision of food, the types of food available, as well as the availability of internet. As an answer to the resurgence of an increased influx of applicants of international protection from the Western Balkans in early 2017, a new ‘ultra-accelerated procedure’ was put in place for applicants of international protection stemming from the Western Balkans. According to the state authorities, the ultra-accelerated procedure was set up to take pressure off the reception facilities, but also as a deterrent to avoid creating false hopes for long-term stay. In April 2017, a ‘semi-open return structure’ (Structure d’hébergement d’urgence au Kirchberg – SHUK) was put in place, from which people are transferred to states applying the Dublin regulation. Due to home custody (assignation à résidence), the SHUK is considered to be an alternative to detention by national authorities. The newly created structure as well as the related conditions for assignment, were nevertheless criticised by civil society. The outcry among civil society was equally high during and after the adoption the Law of 8 March 2017, which endorses the extension of the permitted period of detention of adults or families with children from 72 hours to 7 days, in order to improve the organisation of the return and ensures that it is carried out successfully. A commission in charge of determining the best interests of unaccompanied minors applying for international protection was decided at the end of 2017. The commission is in charge of carrying out individual assessments regarding the best interest of the child with the aim of delivering an authorisation of stay or a return decision. Among the elements taken into consideration when the best interest of the child is evaluated in the context of a potential return decision is information provided by the International Organization for Migration (IOM). The latter made an agreement with the Directorate of Immigration in 2017 to search for the parents of UAMs in the country of origin. With the focus of debates having slowly shifted towards long-term integration issues, the Council of Government also approved the elaboration of a new multiannual national action plan on integration. The plan will be based on two axes: (1) the reception and follow-up of applicants for international protection and (2) the integration of Luxembourg’s non-Luxembourgish residents. Luxembourg’s National Employment Agency (ADEM) set up a “cellule BPI” (beneficiaries of international protection cell) in its Employer Service in early 2017. This cell provides employers with information regarding job applications and evaluations of the competences of beneficiaries of international protection. A new law on the Luxembourgish nationality entered into force on 1 April 2017. Given the particular demographic situation of Luxembourg characterised by a significant increase in the total population and a decrease in the proportion of Luxembourgers in the total population, the reform intends to promote the societal and political integration of non-Luxembourgish citizens and to strengthen cohesion within the national community. The main changes introduced by the law include a decreased length of residence requirement for naturalisation (from 7 to 5 years), the right of birthplace (jus soli) of the first generation, a simplified way of acquiring Luxembourgish nationality by ‘option’, as well as new scenarios to avoid cases of statelessness. The law maintains previous linguistic requirements but makes some adjustments in order to prevent the language condition from becoming an insurmountable obstacle. Ahead of the local elections held on 8 October 2017, the Ministry of Family, Integration and the Greater Region launched a national information and awareness-raising campaign titled “Je peux voter” (I can vote) in January 2017. This campaign aimed to motivate Luxembourg’s foreign population to register on the electoral roll for the local elections. The government’s intention to legislate face concealment was arguably one of the most debated topics in the field related to community life and integration in the broader sense, both in parliament as well as in the media and public sphere. Bill n°7179 aims to modify article 563 of the Penal Code and to create the prohibition of face concealment in certain public spaces. The bill defines face concealment as the action of covering part of or all of the face in a way of rendering the identification of the person impossible and provides a wide variety of examples, such as the wearing of a motor cycle helmet, a balaclava or a full-face veil. Opposing views among stakeholders, whether political parties, public institutions, civil society or the media, emerged with regard to the necessity to legislate in the matter and if so, on the basis of which grounds and to what extent. The phenomenon of migration has also led to a more heterogeneous population in Luxembourg’s schools. To face this situation, the education authorities continued to diversify Luxembourg’s offer in education and training, creating for instance a bigger offer for youngsters and adults who do not master any of Luxembourg’s vehicular languages, offering more alphabetisation courses or basic instruction courses. The Minister for National Education continued to develop and adapt the school offer to the increased heterogeneity by increasing the international and European school offer, introducing of a new mediation service and putting in place a plurilingual education programme. In the area of legal migration, the most significant changes concerned admission policies of specific categories of third-country nationals. In this respect, bill n°7188 mainly aims to transpose Directive (EU) 2016/801 of the European Parliament and the Council of 11 May 2016 on the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for the purposes of research, studies, training, voluntary service, pupil exchange schemes or educational projects and au pairing. The directive aims to make the European Union a world centre of excellence for studies and training, while favouring contacts between people and favouring their mobility, these two being important elements of the European Union’s external policy. Bill N°7188 intends to facilitate and simplify the procedures for intra-European mobility of TCN researchers and students. Moreover, the proposed changes include incentive mechanisms to retain students and researchers. To this end, it proposes that students and researchers, once they have completed their studies/research, can be issued a residence permit for “private reasons” for a duration of 9 months at most in view of finding employment or creating a business. Finally, bill n°7188 also foresees provisions to regulate the family reunification of a researcher staying in Luxembourg in the context of short- and long-term mobility with his/her nuclear family. The legislator furthermore transposed Directive 2014/36 on seasonal workers and Directive 2014/66 on temporary intragroup transfer into national law, and adapted Luxembourg’s immigration law to the needs to the economy, by introducing, amongst other things, and authorisation of stay for investors. Organising the admission of stay and the issuance of authorisations of stay was also a key component within the agreement between Luxembourg and Cape Verde on the concerted management of migratory flows and solidary development. Other objectives of the agreement include the promotion of the movement of people, detailing readmission procedures, fighting against irregular migration, strengthening the legal establishment and integration of the concerned nationals, as well as the mobilisation of skills and resources of migrants in favour of solidary development. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 143 (24 UL)
Full Text
See detailAnnual report on migration and asylum (2017)
Jacobs, Sarah UL; Adao Do Carmo, Kelly UL; Petry, David UL et al

Report (2018)

The present report provides an overview of the main developments and debates in relation to migration and asylum in Luxembourg in 2017. The number of people applying for international protection remained ... [more ▼]

The present report provides an overview of the main developments and debates in relation to migration and asylum in Luxembourg in 2017. The number of people applying for international protection remained high in 2017 (2.322 applications) compared to the levels registered pre- ‘migration crisis’ (1.091 in 2014). However, the number of registrations remained relatively stable if compared to the two preceding years (2.447 in 2015 and 2.035 in 2016). This relative stability in numbers also reflected on the general public and policy debate in the field of migration and asylum. Since 2016, its focus has continuously shifted from an ‘emergency’ discourse axed on the implementation of reception measures and conditions towards discussions on longer-term integration measures and policies. In this regard, the newly introduced Guided Integration Trail (parcours d’intégration accompagné - PIA) can be considered a flagship project of OLAI, the national agency responsible for the reception and integration of foreigners. This multidisciplinary package of measures aims to empower applicants and beneficiaries of international protection and to support them in developing their life project. The trail, compulsory for all adult applicants for international protection, consists of a linguistic component and a civic component and is split into three phases. Although increasing housing capacities for the reception of applicants for international protection was high on national authorities’ agenda, housing remained a challenging aspect of the asylum system and triggered debate on a national scale. Alongside access to training, problems related to housing were among the issues most frequently raised by applicants for international protection in 2017. The lack of affordable housing on the private market, an increasing number of family reunifications as well as the increasing number of beneficiaries and persons who have been issued a return decision who remain housed in structures of OLAI were all identified as interplaying barriers for finding available accommodation for applicants for international protection. The difficulties with the construction of modular housing structures also persisted in 2017. A certain reticence of the population towards the construction of these so-called ‘container villages, planned in response to the increasing influx that started in August 2015, was visible in the appeals introduced into Luxembourg’s First Instance Administrative Courts to annul the land-use plans related to the projects. Living conditions in the various reception facilities were also one of the subjects of discussion in 2017. This included a debate on the (lack of) kitchen infrastructure in reception facilities and the varying systems for provision of food, the types of food available, as well as the availability of internet. As an answer to the resurgence of an increased influx of applicants of international protection from the Western Balkans in early 2017, a new ‘ultra-accelerated procedure’ was put in place for applicants of international protection stemming from the Western Balkans. According to the state authorities, the ultra-accelerated procedure was set up to take pressure off the reception facilities, but also as a deterrent to avoid creating false hopes for long-term stay. In April 2017, a ‘semi-open return structure’ (Structure d’hébergement d’urgence au Kirchberg – SHUK) was put in place, from which people are transferred to states applying the Dublin regulation. Due to home custody (assignation à résidence), the SHUK is considered to be an alternative to detention by national authorities. The newly created structure as well as the related conditions for assignment, were nevertheless criticised by civil society. The outcry among civil society was equally high during and after the adoption the Law of 8 March 2017, which endorses the extension of the permitted period of detention of adults or families with children from 72 hours to 7 days, in order to improve the organisation of the return and ensures that it is carried out successfully. A commission in charge of determining the best interests of unaccompanied minors applying for international protection was decided at the end of 2017. The commission is in charge of carrying out individual assessments regarding the best interest of the child with the aim of delivering an authorisation of stay or a return decision. Among the elements taken into consideration when the best interest of the child is evaluated in the context of a potential return decision is information provided by the International Organization for Migration (IOM). The latter made an agreement with the Directorate of Immigration in 2017 to search for the parents of UAMs in the country of origin. With the focus of debates having slowly shifted towards long-term integration issues, the Council of Government also approved the elaboration of a new multiannual national action plan on integration. The plan will be based on two axes: (1) the reception and follow-up of applicants for international protection and (2) the integration of Luxembourg’s non-Luxembourgish residents. Luxembourg’s National Employment Agency (ADEM) set up a “cellule BPI” (beneficiaries of international protection cell) in its Employer Service in early 2017. This cell provides employers with information regarding job applications and evaluations of the competences of beneficiaries of international protection. A new law on the Luxembourgish nationality entered into force on 1 April 2017. Given the particular demographic situation of Luxembourg characterised by a significant increase in the total population and a decrease in the proportion of Luxembourgers in the total population, the reform intends to promote the societal and political integration of non-Luxembourgish citizens and to strengthen cohesion within the national community. The main changes introduced by the law include a decreased length of residence requirement for naturalisation (from 7 to 5 years), the right of birthplace (jus soli) of the first generation, a simplified way of acquiring Luxembourgish nationality by ‘option’, as well as new scenarios to avoid cases of statelessness. The law maintains previous linguistic requirements but makes some adjustments in order to prevent the language condition from becoming an insurmountable obstacle. Ahead of the local elections held on 8 October 2017, the Ministry of Family, Integration and the Greater Region launched a national information and awareness-raising campaign titled “Je peux voter” (I can vote) in January 2017. This campaign aimed to motivate Luxembourg’s foreign population to register on the electoral roll for the local elections. The government’s intention to legislate face concealment was arguably one of the most debated topics in the field related to community life and integration in the broader sense, both in parliament as well as in the media and public sphere. Bill n°7179 aims to modify article 563 of the Penal Code and to create the prohibition of face concealment in certain public spaces. The bill defines face concealment as the action of covering part of or all of the face in a way of rendering the identification of the person impossible and provides a wide variety of examples, such as the wearing of a motor cycle helmet, a balaclava or a full-face veil. Opposing views among stakeholders, whether political parties, public institutions, civil society or the media, emerged with regard to the necessity to legislate in the matter and if so, on the basis of which grounds and to what extent. The phenomenon of migration has also led to a more heterogeneous population in Luxembourg’s schools. To face this situation, the education authorities continued to diversify Luxembourg’s offer in education and training, creating for instance a bigger offer for youngsters and adults who do not master any of Luxembourg’s vehicular languages, offering more alphabetisation courses or basic instruction courses. The Minister for National Education continued to develop and adapt the school offer to the increased heterogeneity by increasing the international and European school offer, introducing of a new mediation service and putting in place a plurilingual education programme. In the area of legal migration, the most significant changes concerned admission policies of specific categories of third-country nationals. In this respect, bill n°7188 mainly aims to transpose Directive (EU) 2016/801 of the European Parliament and the Council of 11 May 2016 on the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for the purposes of research, studies, training, voluntary service, pupil exchange schemes or educational projects and au pairing. The directive aims to make the European Union a world centre of excellence for studies and training, while favouring contacts between people and favouring their mobility, these two being important elements of the European Union’s external policy. Bill N°7188 intends to facilitate and simplify the procedures for intra-European mobility of TCN researchers and students. Moreover, the proposed changes include incentive mechanisms to retain students and researchers. To this end, it proposes that students and researchers, once they have completed their studies/research, can be issued a residence permit for “private reasons” for a duration of 9 months at most in view of finding employment or creating a business. Finally, bill n°7188 also foresees provisions to regulate the family reunification of a researcher staying in Luxembourg in the context of short- and long-term mobility with his/her nuclear family. The legislator furthermore transposed Directive 2014/36 on seasonal workers and Directive 2014/66 on temporary intragroup transfer into national law, and adapted Luxembourg’s immigration law to the needs to the economy, by introducing, amongst other things, and authorisation of stay for investors. Organising the admission of stay and the issuance of authorisations of stay was also a key component within the agreement between Luxembourg and Cape Verde on the concerted management of migratory flows and solidary development. Other objectives of the agreement include the promotion of the movement of people, detailing readmission procedures, fighting against irregular migration, strengthening the legal establishment and integration of the concerned nationals, as well as the mobilisation of skills and resources of migrants in favour of solidary development. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 118 (21 UL)
Full Text
See detailImpact of visa liberalisation on countries of destination
Sommarribas, Adolfo UL; Nienaber, Birte UL

Report (2018)

Historically, Luxembourg has developed during the last 68 years strong links with the Western Balkan countries. In 1970, a labour agreement was signed between the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and the Former ... [more ▼]

Historically, Luxembourg has developed during the last 68 years strong links with the Western Balkan countries. In 1970, a labour agreement was signed between the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and the Former Republic of Yugoslavia to provide for workers to come to work in Luxembourg. This bilateral agreement created a diaspora from the Western Balkans in Luxembourg. Montenegrin nationals represent the largest third-country national population while the Serbians and the Bosnians represents the 3rd and 4th largest nationality groups. There has been a significant number of naturalisations from the West Balkan countries during the last 10 years. This diaspora was a significant “pull factor” during the Yugoslav Wars (1991-1999) and the economic crisis of 2008. This study was unable to verify direct and automatic links between the entering into force of the visa liberalisation agreements with the West Balkans countries and Eastern Partnership countries and an impact for Luxembourg. The large majority of increases, independently if it is legal migration, irregular migration or international protection did not occur during the next year following the entering into force of the agreements. These increases occurred generally during the second year or later. Concerning visa liberalisation agreements with the Western Balkan countries, the first findings are a dramatic increase of international protection applicants from those countries since the agreements came into force. In the international protection field and in the framework of the return decisions, the visa liberalisation agreement had a negative impact generating stress for all the public administrations during 2011 and 2012, which have to deal with international protection and the return mechanism. During 2011, there was a significant increase of applicants from Macedonia and Serbia and in 2012 from Albania and Bosnia-Herzegovina. This situation placed the Luxembourgish authorities under significant stress to deal with this significant inflow of applicants, whose applications were, in the large majority of cases (80%), rejected. However, this situation obliged the Luxembourgish government to take measures in order to deal in a very efficient manner with these inflows of international protection applicants as well as to overhaul the entire international protection procedure. These measures can be divided into two different: procedural measures and implementation measures. The most significant procedural measures are: a) the introduction of the fast track procedure and the implementation of the ultra-expedite procedure; b) the introduction of these countries in the list of safe countries of origin. These measures allow the authorities to deal more efficiently with the massive influx of international protection applicants coming from the region. The implementation measures are: a) No access to social aid for the applicant benefiting from a commitment to cover all expenses by a Luxembourg national, EU citizen or TCN residing in Luxembourg; b) substantial decrease in monthly cash amounts of social aid for adult individuals and households; c) Recruitment and reallocation of staff in the Directorate of Immigration and the Luxembourg Reception and Integration office; d) implementing the Assisted voluntary return Balkans (AVR Balkans) which only covers the return bus ticket; and e) strengthen cooperation with the authorities of the Western Balkan countries. During 2017, there was an increase in the number of international protection applicants from Georgia and Ukraine, even though both countries are included in the list of safe countries of origin. As Luxembourg does not have external borders with the exception of the International Airport, it is not possible to obtain pertinent information concerning the detection of irregular entries in the territory. Nevertheless, there is some evidence that some individuals from these countries have taken advantage of the visa liberalisation agreements to come to work irregularly in Luxembourg, even if it is not possible to quantify the scale of the phenomenon. The findings of this study do not show an increase in the number of applications for authorisation of stay or residence permits (remunerated and study activities), so the EU visa liberalisation agreements did not have any impact in the legal migration field. The increase of application was visible after the second year of entering into force of these agreements but the numbers were not significant in regard with number of applications made by third-country nationals during the same period. However, the short-stay visits (i.e. friends, family, tourism, etc.) seem not only to have been facilitated, but also increased. In some cases, these short-visits have also been used not only to visit family and friends but also to be familiarized with the Luxembourgish society and to explore job opportunities and look for housing. This is probably the only positive impact that the visa liberalization agreements have had. Seen that the visa liberalisation agreements only allow travelling without a visa, but they do not allow working and staying in the country, and based on the data collected there is not possible to establish a link between them and any significant impact with regard to economy and to criminality (especially related to traffic of human beings or smuggling, where the numbers are very low and not directly related in most cases to nationals concerned by this study). [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 77 (9 UL)
Full Text
See detailMapping mobility – pathways, institutions and structural effects of youth mobility, Final Public Project Report
Samuk, Sahizer UL; Nienaber, Birte UL; Bissinger, Jutta UL et al

Report (2018)

This report is a synthesis of the main results of the H2020 project MOVE – Mapping mobility, institutions and structural effects of youth mobility in Europe. Over three years the project MOVE has provided ... [more ▼]

This report is a synthesis of the main results of the H2020 project MOVE – Mapping mobility, institutions and structural effects of youth mobility in Europe. Over three years the project MOVE has provided a research-informed contribution to a systematic analysis of intra-European mobility. The project departed its work by differentiating six mobility types that have diverse institutional frameworks, age specific constraints and scopes of action. The project has thus analysed and reconstructed mobility patterns that lie across different types of mobility, which are: • student mobility for higher education, • international volunteering, • employment mobility, • mobility for vocational and educational training, • pupil’s exchange, • entrepreneurship mobility. These identified six mobility types have been investigated in the following six European countries: • Germany, • Hungary, • Luxembourg, • Norway, • Romania and • Spain. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 78 (7 UL)
Full Text
See detail(Member) States' Approaches to Unaccompanied Minors Following Status Determination
Petry, Ralph UL; Sommarribas, Adolfo UL; Adao Do Carmo, Kelly UL et al

Report (2018)

The legal framework in Luxembourg does not provide a specific legal status for unaccompanied minors (hereafter UAM), which is why the large majority of them apply for international protection. This allows ... [more ▼]

The legal framework in Luxembourg does not provide a specific legal status for unaccompanied minors (hereafter UAM), which is why the large majority of them apply for international protection. This allows them to stay in the country and to benefit from social and legal assistance, as well as from accommodation. Cases of UAMs presumed or identified victims of human trafficking are rare in Luxembourg. Overall, specific legal frameworks exist according to the status of the UAM: The Law on Asylum, the Law on Immigration and the Law on victims of trafficking in human beings. This framework is completed by general provisions of the Youth Protection Law, which applies to all minors independent of their immigration or legal status. Until the influx of applicants for international protection in 2015 and 2016, the phenomenon of unaccompanied minors has been relatively small in Luxembourg. Particularly 2015 was marked by a high number of UAMs applying for international protection, with 102 introductions of applications compared to 31 applications in 2014. Since, the number of applications has stabilised over the last two years, with 51 applications in 2016 and 50 applications in 2017. In 2015, Afghanistan and Albania were the leading countries of origin of UAMs. In 2016, Afghanistan was still the leading country of origin, followed by Morocco. In 2017, the profiles of the UAMs changed again, with Albania and Morocco as leading countries of origin. In Luxembourg, UAMs are predominantly boys and a large majority is close to the age of majority, or have already reached the age of majority, when a final decision on their application for international protection is issued. However, the Directorate of Immigration reported that they were confronted with a new phenomenon in 2017, namely the arrival of very young UAMs aged between 12 and 14. Every UAM, whether s/he files an application for international protection or not, will be assigned an ad-hoc administrator as soon as possible in order to assist him/her in all legal proceedings. In addition to the designation of an ad-hoc administrator, the organisations that accommodate the UAMs applying for international protection usually request the guardianship (either institutional or personal guardianship) of the UAM who has introduced his application. Different from the ad-hoc administrator, the guardian is assisting and supporting the UAM in all daily life affairs, such as social guidance, integration, education, medical care, acquisition of language skills, leisure activities, etc. In regard to education, the overall aim in Luxembourg is to integrate migrant children, independent of their immigration status, into the general educational system as soon as possible. The latter has experienced a diversification of its offer with a number of specialised measures and services. Together with leisure and extracurricular activities, school is considered to be one of the main contributors to the overall well-being and integration of UAMs into the Luxembourgish society. There are no integration measures that specifically target UAMs. There are no specific transition measures or procedures for UAMs who are approaching their majority, neither in regard to the accommodation and guardianship arrangements, nor in the general context of integration. The organisations responsible for the accommodation and care of the UAMs provide them with a supervision and support according to their specific individual needs. This is also true for the respective legal framework of the UAM, including eventual extensions of residence permits. The return of UAMs is considered to be rare in the Luxembourgish context. As mentioned earlier, this is related to the fact that the large majority of UAMs applying for international protection are close to the age of majority or have already reached majority when a final decision on their application is issued. Furthermore, although foreseen by the Immigration Law, Luxembourg does not carry out forced returns of persons considered to be unaccompanied minors. The International Organisation for Migration (IOM), responsible for (assisted) voluntary returns, reported that they have approximately one voluntary return of an UAM every two years. In 2017, following the recommendation of the evaluation of the Schengen acquis in the area of return in Luxembourg, the government adopted the creation of a new commission with the function of assessing the best interest of the child in the context of return of UAMs. This commission entered into force at the beginning of 2018 and is composed of members of the prosecution service, the National Childhood Office (ONE), the Luxembourg Reception and Integration Agency (OLAI), and finally the Directorate of Immigration, which is chairing the commission. In addition, the ad-hoc administrator is invited to attend the commission meeting for the minor s/he represents. Based on the elements of his/her application, an individual opinion assessing the best interest of the child, in the context of his/her return, will be given for each minor. One of the major reported challenges is the appointment of legal representatives of UAMs (ad-hoc administrator and guardian), as well as the lack of precision of the legal provisions in this context. In the context of return, the Directorate of Immigration reported that they are faced with challenges in regard to getting in contact with the respective countries of origin as well as in regard to cases of applicants not telling the truth. One of the main good practices that has been identified by a number of stakeholders are the new care and accommodation arrangements, allowing to house UAMs in specifically dedicated reception facilities with a 24/7 supervision, depending on the availability of these facilities. In the same context, it was reported that it is of great importance to provide the minors with an environment of trust and support, to listen to them and to reassure them in order to be able to understand their current situation. Particularly the approach of supporting them in elaborating a life plan or life project (“projet de vie”) is considered as being very important for the stability and general well-being as well as for the integration of the UAMs. In addition, it is also important to support them in other matters of integration, such as education, acquisition of language skills, extracurricular activities, etc. In the context of return, Directorate of Immigration reported the newly concluded agreement with IOM in order to conduct family assessments of UAMs in the countries of origin as a good practice. On the one hand, this assessment is one element that will be taken into consideration in the examination of the application of the minor. On the other hand, it helps in assessing the best interest of the child in the event of a return if the application is rejected. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 73 (9 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailWhy is it so hard? And for whom? Obstacles in the intra-EU mobility: Mobility fields in comparison
Kmiotek-Meier, Emilia Alicja UL; Ardic, Tuba; Dabasi-Halász, Zsuzsanna et al

Scientific Conference (2018, March 08)

Even though intra-European youth mobility is valued as a boost for personal and professional development, few opt for it. While obstacles preventing young people to become mobile have been discussed ... [more ▼]

Even though intra-European youth mobility is valued as a boost for personal and professional development, few opt for it. While obstacles preventing young people to become mobile have been discussed broadly, less attention has been paid to the obstacles for the youth who are already on the move. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 97 (4 UL)
Full Text
See detailUnderstanding and conceptualizing youth mobility. A perspective of young people at the threshold to employment
Vysotskaya, Volha UL; Kmiotek-Meier, Emilia Alicja UL; Hemming, Karen et al

Presentation (2018, March 08)

This presentation presents results of the H2020 project MOVE on employment mobility of youth in the EU.

Detailed reference viewed: 50 (4 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailThe Temporary Reintroduction of Border Controls Inside the Schengen Area: Towards a Spatial Perspective
Evrard, Estelle UL; Nienaber, Birte UL; Sommarribas, Adolfo UL

in Journal of Borderlands Studies (2018)

Following the terrorist attacks in Paris (November 2015) and Brussels (March 2016), several EU Member States have decided to re-establish border controls or to build walls inside the Schengen Area ... [more ▼]

Following the terrorist attacks in Paris (November 2015) and Brussels (March 2016), several EU Member States have decided to re-establish border controls or to build walls inside the Schengen Area. Although these decisions are temporary and legally framed by the Schengen code, their extent disrupts the free movement within the Schengen Area, in particular in border areas. While lawyers and economists have analyzed the impacts of this situation, the spatial perspective has remained rather neglected. This exploratory contribution aims to address this gap in the literature by outlining the spatial significance of reintroduced controls for border areas inside the Schengen Area. This contribution firstly undertakes a literature review of the different conceptual tools at hand. These are then compared with a set of exploratory empirical materials. The article focuses more precisely on the Greater Region where France and Germany have reintroduced border controls, thus disrupting in particular daily cross-border flows with Luxembourg and Belgium. The analysis demonstrates that the border acts as a filter, disrupting cross-border flows and cooperation. Also, it sheds some light on the important role played by the ideational perception of the border for practitioners and decision-makers. This contribution concludes by suggesting several paths for a future research agenda. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 290 (32 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailPartizipation in Großschutzgebieten - untersucht am Beispiel der Beteiligung an den Workshops zur Erstellung des Rahmenkonzeptes des Biosphärenreservates Bliesgau 2014
Nienaber, Birte UL

in Weber, Florian; Weber, Friedericke; Jenal, Corinna (Eds.) Wohin des Weges? Regionalentwicklung in Großschutzgebieten (2018)

In 2014 a process of public participation was initiated in order to produce a framework concept for the future configuration of the “Biosphere Bliesgau”. This paper presents characteristics of ... [more ▼]

In 2014 a process of public participation was initiated in order to produce a framework concept for the future configuration of the “Biosphere Bliesgau”. This paper presents characteristics of participation, both in general and in large-scale protected areas in particular, and discusses what various forms of participation (ranging from pure information as non-participation to bottom-up partnerships as the strongest form of participation) are possible. The empirical-analytical section of the paper investigates the 2014 process of participation in Biosphere Bliesgau, using publically available protocols and interviews. It can be seen that the top-down process – e. g. involving concrete agreements between individuals or groups – involves the selection of participants – intended or otherwise – and that the highest level of participation could therefore not be achieved. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 56 (4 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailCross-border vocational education and training as a process of cross-border learning. The example of the Saarland-Lorraine border region
Nienaber, Birte UL; Funk, Ines; Dörrenbächer, H. Peter

Poster (2018)

Cross-border vocational education and training (VET) becomes more and more important in the Saarland (DE)-Lorraine (FR) border region – even if so far there is only a small number of cases. It may be a ... [more ▼]

Cross-border vocational education and training (VET) becomes more and more important in the Saarland (DE)-Lorraine (FR) border region – even if so far there is only a small number of cases. It may be a solution for high youth unemployment rates in Lorraine and difficulties to find appropriated apprentices in Saarland. The main research questions of the research project are: 1. How does cross-border VET develop since the introduction of the Framework agreement on cross-border vocational and further training Saarland/Lorraine in 2014? 2. Which learning processes are related with the development of cross-border VET? [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 37 (0 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailDemographie und Migration: Anziehung versus Schrumpfung
Nienaber, Birte UL; Hamez, Grégory; Mangels, Kirsten

E-print/Working paper (2018)

This working paper includes analyses of demography and migration in the Greater region. It has a special view on cross-border mobility, ageing and health infrastructure in rural areas.

Detailed reference viewed: 71 (3 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailLuxembourgish implementation of the Common European Asylum System: Insights from a small-scale country
Paraschivescu, Claudia UL; Oesch, Lucas UL; Nienaber, Birte UL

Scientific Conference (2018)

Within the so-called migration crisis, the focus of media and research has been mainly on Mediterranean countries, which were the first impacted by the arrival of refugees, as well as big recipients of ... [more ▼]

Within the so-called migration crisis, the focus of media and research has been mainly on Mediterranean countries, which were the first impacted by the arrival of refugees, as well as big recipients of asylum seekers such as Germany. Less attention has been directed toward small-scale countries such as Luxembourg, where the number of registered refugees arriving has more than doubled in 2015 and 2016 compared to 2014. In 2016, Luxembourg had 3582 registered first time applicants, which represents one of the highest numbers relative to its population in the European Union. Against this background, this presentation will focus on how Luxembourg has dealt with the implementation of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) and the ways in which it has been affected by the so-called migration crisis. This paper will particularly focus on the question of reception of asylum seekers and refugees. Given the large number of applicants relative to the small size of the country, and the limited number of administrative levels, how was reception implemented, and what are the lesson to be learned? It will do so by mapping the main actors involved in the refugee scene. It will then move on to the contextualization of the reception of refugees in the housing and employment market. Finally, it will critically examine the stakeholders’ involvement in order to find the gaps in the asylum seeker/refugee reception. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 88 (20 UL)
Full Text
See detailWas bedeutet jung und mobil? Ergebnisse aus dem Projekt MOVE
Bissinger, Jutta UL; Kmiotek-Meier, Emilia Alicja UL; Nienaber, Birte UL

Article for general public (2018)

MOVE (Mapping mobility - pathways, institutions and structural effects of youth mobility in Europe) dealt with intra-European mobility (May 2015 - April 2018). The text sets out recommendations for action ... [more ▼]

MOVE (Mapping mobility - pathways, institutions and structural effects of youth mobility in Europe) dealt with intra-European mobility (May 2015 - April 2018). The text sets out recommendations for action on youth mobility. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 99 (17 UL)