Migration and mobility of third-country national labour workers to and inside Europe during the Covid-19 pandemic – a legal analysis

in Comparative Migration Studies (2021), 9(22), 17

The Covid-19 pandemic took most EU Member States of the European Union by surprise, as they underestimated the rapid spread of the contagion across the continent. The response of the EU Member States was asymmetrical, individualistic and significantly slow. The first measures taken were to close down the internal borders. The European Union's response was even slower, and it was not until 17th March 2020 that the external borders were closed. These actions affected legal migration into the European Union from four perspectives: it affected 1) the mobility of those third-country nationals who were on a temporary stay in the EU Member States; 2) the entry of third-country nationals to do seasonal work; 3) legal migrants entering and staying; and 4) the status of the third-country nationals already residing in the EU Member States, especially those experiencing a loss of income. This article will deal with the EU Member States' measures to manage the immigration services, as a case study how Luxembourg dealt to avoid that temporary staying migrants and regular migrants fall into irregularity. Finally, we will focus on the vulnerability of third-country nationals with the rising risk of unemployment and the risk of being returned to their country of origin. The article will also analyse access to healthcare and unemployment benefits.

The impact of COVID-19 in the migration area in EU and OECD countries

Scientific Conference (2021, April 30)

The European Migration Network (EMN) and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) have published updated information on the impact of COVID-19 in the migration area. The new Umbrella Inform completes the joint EMN and OECD Inform series between on the impact of COVID-19 on migration and asylum in the EU Member States and non-EU OECD countries throughout 2020. Updates include changes in border procedures, provision of COVID-19 related healthcare services to migrants, the shifting landscape of the labour market, international protection, international students, and return issues.

Third-country National Labour Workers' Mobility to and inside Europe during the COVID-19 Pandemic

Scientific Conference (2021, April 15)

This presentation analyses the situation generated by the Covid-19 pandemic crisis regarding border closures and the reintroduction of temporary border controls at the internal borders in the EU and the impact that this border closures and the pandemic had on third-country nationals living or visiting the European Union.

Access to housing and education for children in migration: challenges and good practices

Scientific Conference (2021, March 10)

This presentation focus on the access to housing and education for children in migration, the challenges confronted and the good practices detected.

The Luxembourg Asylum Law

Learning material (2021)

This presentation provides a quick overlook on the Law of 18 December 2015 on international protection and temporary protection (Asylum Law) of Luxembourg.

EMN Synthesis Report on Children on Migration

Presentation (2021, January 28)

This presentation presents the key findings of the progress made by Member States in the implementation of the recommended actions laid down in the 2017 Commission Communication on the protection of children in migration, with a view to further understanding progress made in the implementation of the Communication's recommendations based on the EMN Synthesis report on Children on migration.

ANNUAL REPORT ON MIGRATION AND ASYLUM Luxembourg 2020

Report (2021)

The Annual Report on Migration and Asylum provides an overview of the main developments and debates in Luxembourg in 2020. The COVID-19 pandemic strongly impacted migratory movements to and from Luxembourg. In 2020, there was a significant decrease in the number of residence permits, applications for temporary authorisation of stay and visas (short stay visas and D-visas), a reduction of around 50% on the number of applications for international protection and a decline in Dublin transfers and returns. Public health measures in response to the pandemic significantly impacted migration policies. For instance, Luxembourg temporarily closed its borders to third-country nationals and automatically regularized the stay of third-country nationals whose legal residence status ended during the state of crisis. Moreover, personal interviews with applicants of international protection (AIPs) and Dublin transfers were suspended. Lastly, irregular migrants were granted access to healthcare, free of charge, regardless of their social security coverage without being issued a return order or being placed in detention during the pandemic. Outside of the COVID-19 context, the following developments can be highlighted: The introduction of Bill n°7682 foresees the extension of the time limit from three to six months available to beneficiaries of international protection (BIPs) to apply for family reunification after the granting of their status, as well as the simplification of administrative procedures, concerning the elimination of the requirement to provide integral copies of travel documents for family members of the third-country national applying for family reunification. At the procedural level, Bill n°7682 aims to amend the appeal procedure against a Dublin transfer decision to increase their effectiveness while guaranteeing maximum legal security for the applicant for international protection. It proposes to amend the Asylum Law by introducing “extraordinary” remedies against a final decision to close proceedings and against a decision to withdraw international protection. The Grand Ducal Regulation of 4 November 2020 entered into force, establishing the Commission on the evaluation of the best interest of unaccompanied minors in return decisions. However, this commission continues to generate debates and criticism, especially from fundamental rights organisations, regarding its composition. In view of the high occupancy rate in the ONA’s accommodation structures, efforts to promote the construction of new accommodation structures continued in 2020. A new emergency reception facility was set up for newcomers. Strengthening the fight against trafficking in human beings was another priority of the Luxembourgish government. As a result, the composition of the Monitoring Committee on the Fight Against the Trafficking in Human Beings was implemented by Grand Ducal Regulation. Other strategic developments were implemented, such as the elaboration of a second National Action Plan on Human Trafficking and an enhanced collaboration at the Benelux and EU level. In terms of integration, several major developments should be noted: The creation of a communication service within the Department of Integration The first interministerial committee on integration open to civil society took place on 16 December 2020 The launch of a large consultation including all key actors on the future of integration policies The selection of several municipalities to take part in a pilot phase regarding a new approach to the Communal Plan on Integration (PCI) A discussion in Parliament on the issue of racism and discrimination, which resulted in the adoption of two motions and a resolution. One of the motions provided for a study on racism and ethno-racial discrimination and the resolution aims to strengthen the resources of the Centre for Equal Treatment (CET). The Minister of Education, Children and Youth is planning to set up a service specifically responsible for the integration and reception of children of foreign origin and to review the procedures for taking care of newly arrived pupils

Managing residence permits and unemployment of third-country nationals during the COVID-19 crisis in the EU

in Journaal Vreemdelingenrecht (2020), 19(4), 14-21

This article will try to provide a state of play of the response of the EU Member States to the COVID-19 crisis in regard to third-country nationals through the information compiled by the European Migration Network between 3 February until 15 June 2020. It will draw a state of play of the actions taken by Member States to confront the spread of the coronavirus in the immigration context. It also will focus on the validity of residence permits and the dispositions taken to avoid that legal migrants fall in an irregular situation and the effects of unemployment in regard to their residence permits. However, the article will not draw a timeline on when the actions were taken.

MIGRATION INTERNATIONALE AU LUXEMBOURG Système d’observation permanente des migrations (OCDE)

Report (2020)

Le Luxembourg reste un pays attractif en termes d’immigration ; entre 2018 et 2019, la population du Grand-Duché a augmenté de 2 %. La part de la population luxembourgeoise représente 59,1 % de cette croissance contre 40,9 % de nationalités étrangères. L’immigration nette reste le principal facteur expliquant l’augmentation de la population. Le solde migratoire est largement positif pour les ressortissants de nationalité étrangère (12 142) alors qu’il est négatif pour les ressortissants luxembourgeois (-1 067). Le deuxième élément explicatif réside dans le solde naturel global positif (1 947). Si ce solde est largement positif chez les ressortissants étrangers, il est négatif chez les Luxembourgeois. Le regroupement familial reste le principal motif d’immigration pour les ressortissants de pays tiers. Ce type de migration devance l’immigration pour motifs économiques et la migration basée sur la recherche d’une protection internationale. Le nombre de personnes sollicitant une protection internationale est resté à un niveau élevé en 2019 avec 2 047 demandes, même si ce nombre constitue une diminution de 7,1 % par rapport à l’année précédente. En 2019, plusieurs évolutions majeures dans le domaine de l’immigration légale sont à noter. Parmi ces évolutions figurent notamment : l’introduction d’un visa de longue durée visant à simplifier l’entrée et le séjour des ressortissants de pays tiers sans devoir solliciter l’obtention d’un titre de séjour, ainsi que l’adoption de quatre lois tendant à clarifier le statut des ressortissants britanniques résidant au Luxembourg. La loi sur l’immigration a connu d’autres modifications importantes dans le domaine de la lutte contre la migration irrégulière et la rétention et le retour des ressortissants de pays tiers sans droit de séjour. La coopération internationale s’est poursuivie en matière de réadmission, comme le montre l’entrée en vigueur du protocole entre les États du Benelux et le gouvernement de la République de Serbie sur la mise en œuvre de l’accord conclu entre l’UE et la République de Serbie concernant la réadmission des personnes en situation de séjour irrégulier. -Ainsi, l’adoption des projets de loi portant approbation des protocoles en matière de réadmission avec l’Arménie et l’Ukraine. Un changement institutionnel significatif a eu lieu en matière de protection internationale : la loi du 4 novembre 2019 portant création de l’Office national de l’accueil (ONA) a opéré le transfert des compétences relatives à l’accueil des demandeurs de protection internationale du Ministère de la Famille, de l’Intégration et à la Grande Région vers le ministère ayant l’Immigration dans ses attributions. Avec l'entrée en vigueur de la loi au 1er janvier 2020, l'ONA s'est substitué à l'Office luxembourgeois de l'accueil et de l'intégration (OLAI) et a été rattaché au Secrétariat général du ministère des Affaires étrangères et européennes. L’intégration demeure une compétence du ministère de la Famille, de l'Intégration et à la Grande Région. Le 1er janvier 2019, la loi sur le revenu d’inclusion sociale (REVIS) est entrée en vigueur. Une des nouvelles dispositions est que tous les bénéficiaires d’une protection internationale âgés de 25 ans ou plus, de même que les membres de leur famille, peuvent bénéficier du REVIS, sans devoir remplir la condition des 5 ans de résidence au Luxembourg au cours des 20 dernières années. L’hébergement des demandeurs de protection internationale (DPI) reste un défi de taille et les taux d’occupation dans les structures d’hébergement de l’ONA continuent à se situer à des niveaux très élevés. Ceci est notamment dû au fait que la crise du logement affecte particulièrement les bénéficiaires de protection internationale (BPI) qui peinent à trouver un logement privé et à se loger en-dehors des structures d’accueil réservées en principe aux DPI. Dans ce contexte l’ONA a poursuivi ses efforts à inciter les communes à promouvoir la mise en place de structures d’hébergement pour DPI ou de possibilités d’hébergement pour BPI. Sur le plan de la lutte contre la traite des êtres humains les structures d’accueil et de consultation ont été élargies en 2019, notamment pour les hommes victimes de traite. Au niveau international, une déclaration d’intention concernant les nouvelles étapes dans leur coopération transfrontalière pour combattre la traite des êtres humains a été signé le 10 décembre 2019 par les pays du Benelux. Sur le plan des politiques d’intégration, les autorités ont continué à mettre en œuvre le Plan d’action national pluriannuel d’intégration à travers des appels à projets. Les actions visant à promouvoir l’intégration au niveau local ont également été renforcées, comme en témoignent la promotion du développement de plans communaux d’intégration et le soutien financier apporté aux communes par les pouvoirs publics. Le débat parlementaire sur le racisme a conduit à l’adoption d’une motion invitant le gouvernement à réaliser une étude sur le racisme et les discriminations au Luxembourg et d’une résolution dans laquelle la Chambre des Députés s'engage à renforcer les moyens du Centre d’Egalite de Traitement (CET). L’année 2020 a été marquée par la crise sanitaire liée à la Covid-19. La crise sanitaire et les mesures mises en place par les gouvernements, ont fortement impacté la mobilité et les migrations. Contrairement à la France, la Belgique et, surtout, l'Allemagne, le Luxembourg n'a jamais fermé ses frontières. Dans ce contexte le Ministère des Affaires étrangères et européennes a été contraint de négocier des accords avec ses homologues des pays voisins afin d’assurer la continuité du travail des frontaliers, notamment pour ceux travaillant dans le secteur de la santé.

Working Document to support the EMN Inform: EU and OECD Member States responses to managing residence permits and migrant unemployment during the COVID-19 pandemic

E-print/Working paper (2020)

The COVID-19 took by surprise most Member States of the European Union, as they underestimated the rapid spread of the contagion in the continent. The response of the Member States was asymmetrical, individualistic and significantly slow. The first measures taken were to close down the internal borders. The response of the European Union was even slower to the point that and it was not until March 17th 2020 that the external borders were closed. These actions affected legal migration into the European Union from four perspectives: 1) it affected the mobility of those third country nationals who were on temporary stay in the Member States; 2) the entry of third country nationals to do seasonal work; 3) the entry and stay of legal migrants; and 4) the status quo of the third country nationals already residing in the Member States, especially those who have a loss of income. This article will deal with the measures taken by Member States on who to manage the immigration services during the crisis as well as the measures taken in order to deal with overstayers, seasonal workers and other legal migrants. Finally, we will focus in the vulnerable situation that third-country national salaried workers are exposed due to the loss of income or loss of employment in the Member States and the risk of being returned to their country of origin.

National responses to date during the COVID-19 crisis in the areas of migration and asylum

Scientific Conference (2020, July 02)

This is a presentation of key findings of national responses to COVID-19 to date based on EMN Ad-hoc Queries launched by the European Migration Network between 13 March and 15 June 2020.

National responses to date during the COVID-19 crisis in the areas of migration and asylum

Scientific Conference (2020, June 17)

The COVID-19 took by surprise most Member States of the European Union, as they underestimated the rapid spread of the contagion in the continent. The response of the Member States was asymmetrical, individualistic and significantly slow. The first measures taken were to close down the internal borders. The response of the European Union was even slower to the point that and it was not until March 17th 2020 that the external borders were closed. These actions affected legal migration into the European Union from four perspectives: 1) it affected the mobility of those third country nationals who were on temporary stay in the Member States; 2) the entry of third country nationals to do seasonal work; 3) the entry and stay of legal migrants; and 4) the status quo of the third country nationals already residing in the Member States, especially those who have a loss of income. This article will deal with the measures taken by Member States on who to manage the immigration services during the crisis as well as the measures taken in order to deal with overstayers, seasonal workers and other legal migrants. Finally, we will focus in the vulnerable situation that third-country national salaried workers are exposed due to the loss of income or loss of employment in the Member States and the risk of being returned to their country of origin. This presentation will also analyse the access to unemployment benefits.

The Temporary Reintroduction of Border Controls Inside theSchengen Area: Towards a Spatial Perspective

in Journal of Borderlands Studies (2020), 35(3), 369-383

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.

Attracting and Protecting Seasonal Workers from third countries in the EU

Report (2020)

For almost 150 years, Luxembourg depends on two kinds of migration, qualified and non-qualified, in order to deal with the workforce needs of its economy. Compared to other EU Member States, Luxembourg is a country with the largest proportion of foreigners; however, this foreign population is mainly composed of EU citizens. In Luxembourg, 296.500 residents (47,4%) of a total population of 626.100 are foreigners. 247.900 are EU citizens representing 39.6% of the total population of the country and 83,6% of the foreign population of the country. The 48.600 third-country nationals represent only 7,8% of the total population and 16.4% of the foreign population. Due to its size and geographic location, Luxembourg has an access to a very particular form of economic migration: cross-border workers. Globalisation has also played a decisive role in the development of economic migration for the Luxembourgish labour market. The financial center was obliged to become highly specialised in order to remain competitive in regards to other financial centers and to maintain its volume of business. In order to maintain its competitive advantage, Luxembourg needs highly skilled personnel, which, up until now, the country has found within the Greater Region. With regards to the labour market: the number of salaried workers on 31 December 2019 shows that Luxembourgish residents represented only 26,5%, EU citizens (other than Luxembourgish) 23,4% and third-country national residents only 4,2%. Cross-border workers from Belgium, France and Germany represented 46% of the workforce. The Luxembourgish labour market is not a national labour market but rather a labour market of the Greater Region with a trend to become an international labour market. This situation can be explained in the context of the free movement of services and the posted workers coming from other Member States to Luxembourg. The need of workforce must be placed in this particular context, taking into account the “internal reserves”, the free movement of persons from which EU citizens, who reside in the country, benefit and the large majority of cross-border workers. To this framework one must add a range of measures that were introduced by the Luxembourgish authorities in order to regulate the labour market. Some of these measures did not have labour market needs as their only objective, but were also foreseen to manage integration processes. The attitude of the successive governments was to adapt immigration to the economic needs of the country. The government policy intends to implement an economic diversification policy, focused on attracting high added value activities such as ICT, health technologies, space, logistics, industry and FinTech. In consequence and taking into consideration the specificities of Luxembourg’s labour market, third-country national seasonal workers are not a priority of the Luxembourgish government.

HOW DO EU MEMBER STATES TREAT CASES OF MISSING UNACCOMPANIED MINORS?

Report (2020)

The phenomenon of migrant children going missing has recently received increased attention from the media in several Member States and the European Parliament. The debate focusses on unaccompanied minors who go missing. There is concern that the disappearance of unaccompanied minors is not addressed yet in an effective manner, as reflected in several recent publications by international organisations2 and European NGOs. In response to this concern, the EMN, at the request of the European Commission, has mapped how cases of unaccompanied children going missing are being treated in the Member States, and respectively, how data on missing children is collected. NGOs have been asked to reflect on the outcomes of this mapping exercise.

Statelessness in the EU

Report (2020)

Statelessness is a global phenomenon which is also present in the European Union. At the end of 2018, UNHCR estimated the total number of stateless persons in the European Union plus Norway at 399 283 individuals. This includes both stateless individuals and persons of undetermined nationality. UNHCR and UNICEF also estimate that, in 2017, there were 2 100 children registered stateless in Europe, a fourfold increase since 2010. Article 1 of the 1954 Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons defines a stateless person as ‘a person who is not considered as a national by any State under the operation of its law’. Statelessness is a legal anomaly, which can prevent those concerned from accessing fundamental human, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights. As a result, such persons often live in conditions of protracted marginalisation and discrimination, facing numerous difficulties, such as the inability to receive medical assistance, enrol in educational programmes, acquire property, obtain legal employment, marry or open a bank account. Even though statelessness can occur in various contexts, its most common causes include state succession, ill-defined or discriminatory nationality laws, and arbitrary deprivation of nationality. Statelessness can also be a consequence of forced displacement and forced migration and can result when people face difficulties accessing civil registration documents, including birth certificates, necessary to acquire or confirm nationality.

La réintroduction des contrôles frontaliers dans l’Espace Schengen. Réflexions préliminaires pour un agenda de recherche

in Hamez, Grégory; Defays, Jean-Marc (Eds.) Réalités, perceptions et représentations des frontières. L’Espace transfrontalier de la Grande Région Saare-Lor-Lux, (2020)

This articles analyses the potential impact of closed borders or the re-establishing of border checks on the Greater Region - especially in Luxembourg.

Pathways to citizenship for third-country nationals in Luxembourg

Report (2019)

The main objective of this study of the European Migration Network is to provide objective and reliable information about the pathways to citizenship for third-country nationals in Luxembourg, with a particular focus on the ordinary naturalisation procedure. The laws and regulations regarding the acquisition of nationality in Luxembourg underwent a complete overhaul in 2017, with the amended Law of 8 March 2017 on Luxembourgish nationality abrogating the Law of 23 October 2008. This new Nationality Law instituted a number of important overarching modifications and additions that are addressed throughout the study. In general, the Luxembourg Nationality Law does not differentiate between applications introduced by EU citizens or third-country nationals. Apart from obtaining Luxembourgish nationality by simple operation of law, i.e. automatically and without any action being taken by the person concerned, the Luxembourgish Nationality Law foresees three modes through which a third-country national can acquire Luxembourgish nationality by procedural means: acquisition of nationality via ordinary naturalisation, via option or via reclamation. A look at the statistics regarding the acquisition of nationality via procedural means, including all the pathways open to third-country nationals, for the period 2014 to 2018 show that the simplified option procedure (regrouping all the 10 specific cases) is the most common pathway through which third-country nationals have acquired Luxembourgish nationality, followed by the reclamation procedure and the ordinary naturalization. In this context, it is important to make a distinction between acquisitions by residents of Luxembourg and by persons that are not residing in Luxembourg. Luxembourg introduced the principle of multiple nationalities through the legislative reform of 2008, which resulted in a significant increase of acquisitions of Luxembourgish nationality, as applicants are no longer required to renounce their other nationality or nationalities.

Les statuts alternatifs de protection au Luxembourg

Article for general public (2019)

Cette note de synthèse présente les principaux résultats de l’étude réalisée en 2019 par le point de contact luxembourgeois du Réseau européen des migrations intitulée « Comparative overview of national protection statuses in the EU and Norway ». Le Luxembourg participe au système d’asile européen commun depuis la loi du 5 mai 2006 relative au droit d’asile et à des formes complémentaires de protection, loi qui a été abrogée par la loi modifiée du 18 décembre 2015 sur la protection internationale et la protection temporaire. Dans ces deux textes légaux est incluse la protection internationale (statut de réfugié et protection subsidiaire) ainsi que la protection temporaire. Cependant, ils ne prévoient aucun autre type de protection humanitaire. On trouve deux « statuts humanitaires » dans un autre cadre légal, à savoir la loi modifiée du 29 août 2008 portant sur la libre circulation des personnes et l’immigration (ciaprès « loi d’immigration »): 1) L’autorisation de séjour pour des motifs humanitaires d’une exceptionnelle gravité (article 78 (3)); 2) Le sursis à l’éloignement pour raisons médicales (article 131(1)) et l’autorisation de séjour pour raisons médicales (article 131 (2)).

Rapport annuel sur les migrations et l'asile Luxembourg 2018

Report (2019)

Le présent rapport fait la synthèse des principaux débats et des évolutions majeures concernant les migrations et l’asile au Luxembourg en 2018. L’année 2018 a été marquée par les élections législatives d’octobre 2018 qui ont débouché sur la reconduction de l’ancienne coalition gouvernementale. L’accord de coalition prévoit un certain nombre de mesures relatives aux politiques migratoires. Le Luxembourg reste un pays d’immigration important. Les mouvements migratoires expliquent en grande partie la croissance de la population. Les migrations pour raisons familiales et économiques demeurent à un niveau élevé. Si certaines nationalités stagnent ou reculent tandis que d’autres progressent, cela est avant tout dû à la conjonction de deux phénomènes : d’une part, le ralentissement des flux migratoires et d’autre part, la naturalisation. Le nombre de titres de séjour délivrés pour des raisons économiques a augmenté de plus de 23% par rapport à 2017, confirmant ainsi la nette tendance à la hausse observée depuis ces dernières années. Cette progression est notamment due à l’augmentation de titres de séjour accordés aux catégories « travailleur salarié », « carte bleue européenne » et « travailleur transféré intragroupe » pour experts et cadres. La loi du 1er août 2018 qui transpose la directive n° 2016/801/UE a introduit des modifications significatives dans la politique d’admission des étudiants et des chercheurs internationaux au Luxembourg. Cette loi permet aux étudiants et aux chercheurs de séjourner au Luxembourg pendant neuf mois s’ils ont terminé leurs études de master ou de doctorat et s’ils disposent de ressources suffisantes. Le Gouvernement issu des élections législatives d’octobre 2018 entend organiser l’immigration légale en tenant compte des besoins de l’économie. L’agenda politique de l’année 2018 a également été marqué par le débat autour de la signature du Luxembourg au Pacte mondial pour une migration sûre, ordonnée et régulière (PMM). Ce débat, tant au Luxembourg qu’à l’international, a suscité un certain nombre de réactions de suspicion et de rejet, en particulier dans les milieux nationalistes de certains pays européens. Toutefois, la majorité de la classe politique luxembourgeoise ainsi que le Gouvernement ont défendu le Pacte. Le nombre de personnes demandant une protection internationale est resté élevé en 2018 et demeure relativement stable par rapport aux deux années précédentes. Le taux de reconnaissance des demandes a continué à progresser. De nombreux BPI restent hébergés dans les structures d’accueil prévues pour les DPI en raison de leurs difficultés à trouver un logement sur le marché privé ou un logement social, ce qui augmente la pression exercée sur les structures d’hébergement. Cette question problématique figure parmi les priorités des autorités nationales, comme en témoigne l’accord de coalition. Les conditions d’accueil et d’hébergement ont suscité un certain nombre de débats et de réflexions au sein de la société civile. Elles ont été abordées dans la plupart des programmes des partis politiques dans le cadre des élections législatives de 2018 et occupent une place centrale dans le nouveau plan d’action national pluriannuel d’intégration 2018 (PAN), l’accueil et l’encadrement des DPI constituant l’un des deux grands domaines d’action de ce plan. Une évolution institutionnelle majeure a eu lieu à la suite des élections législatives de 2018 : il s’agit de l’extension des compétences du ministère des Affaires étrangères et européennes qui reprend le volet « Accueil des demandeurs de protection internationale », qui relevait jusque-là du ministère de la Famille et de l’Intégration. Enfin, sur le plan européen, le nouveau gouvernement confirme son engagement en faveur du Régime d’Asile Européen Commun qui tient notamment compte de la solidarité europenne. Les mineurs non accompagnés (MNA) ont été un autre sujet de préoccupation au cours de l’année 2018 comme en témoignent le projet de loi qui vise à instaurer une équipe pluridisciplinaire pour évaluer l’intérêt supérieur de l’enfant dans le contexte d’une procédure de retour, le débat largement médiatisé autour de la pratique des examens pour la détermination de l’âge des MNA DPI, ou encore l’accent particulier que le nouveau gouvernement entend donner au renforcement de la prise en charge de ces personnes. Dans le domaine de l’intégration, il convient de souligner l’établissement d’un plan d’action national pluriannuel d’intégration 2018 (ou PAN Intégration). Ce document est le résultat d’un large processus de consultation mené par les autorités avec les différentes parties prenantes impliquées dans l'accueil et l'intégration des ressortissants non luxembourgeois. Le PAN Intégration fournit un cadre général, stratégique et durable en vue de développer des programmes et outils en faveur de l’intégration de tous les non-Luxembouregois résidant sur le territoire et de la cohésion sociale entre Luxembourgeois et non-Luxembourgeois. La loi du 8 mars 2017 sur la nationalité luxembourgeoise a généré des conséquences sur le nombre d’acquisitions de nationalité et explique la stagnation, voire le léger recul de la population étrangère au Luxembourg (et en particulier de certaines nationalités) ainsi que l’augmentation du corps électoral au Grand-Duché de Luxembourg. Les deux organes consultatifs chargés de la défense des intérets des résidents étrangers au Luxembourg ont commencé à fonctionner avec, au niveau national, le Conseil national pour étrangers (CNE) et, au niveau communal, les Commissions consultatives communales d’Intégration (CCCI), renouvelées à la suite des élections communales de 2017. Le nouveau gouvernement entend valoriser ces deux organes. Il propose d’offrir le Contrat d’accueil et d’intégration (CAI) de façon décentralisée et soutenir les communes au niveau de leur travail d’intégration locale. Le système éducatif reste confronté à des défis majeurs résultant de l’hétérogénéité de la population scolaire. Le deuxième rapport national sur l’éducation a permis de mettre en évidence les inégalités du système éducatif dues aux facteurs sociaux et au contexte migratoire des élèves. Pour faire face à cette situtaion, les autorités ont développé plusieurs mesures telles que l’élargissement de l’offre scolaire internationale et européenne, le développement de classes spécifiques pour jeunes migrants, l’établissement d’un service de médiateur au maintien, à l’inclusion et à l’intégration scolaire ainsi que l’introduction du programme d’éducation plurilingue au niveau des mini-crèches. La question de la langue luxembourgeoise, en tant que facteur d’intégration, a également fait l’objet de débats tout au long de l’année. La loi du 20 juillet 2018 relative à la promotion de la langue luxembourgeoise a introduit un certain nombre de mesures visant à renforcer l’importance de la langue luxembourgeoise, à soutenir son utilisation, son étude et son apprentissage. Plusieurs organes ont été institués afin de mettre en œuvre ce plan d’action de promotion de la langue et de la culture luxembourgeoises. La question linguistique fut également omniprésente lors de la campagne électorale. La plupart des partis politiques ont souligné dans leurs programmes électoraux l’importance de la langue luxembourgeoise comme facteur d’intégration tout en mettant en évidence l’atout du multilinguisme pour le pays. Enfin, quelques évolutions sont à signaler au niveau de la politique de retour, en particulier deux propositions de modification de la loi sur l’immigration : l’une autorisant la police à pénétrer dans des locaux d’habitation afin de procéder plus facilement à l’exécution d’une décision d’éloignement en cas de retour forcé ; l’autre prévoyant un contrôle systématique par les juridictions d’une rétention prolongée au-delà de la durée de 4 mois. Le nouveau gouvernement s’engage à compléter le dispositif actuel de rétention à travers la création d’une structure spécifique de rétention pour femmes, familles et personnes vulnérables.

Migratory pathways for start-ups and innovative entrepreneurs in the EU and Norway (Country report Luxembourg)

Report (2019)

The main objective of this study of the European Migration Network is to provide objective and reliable information about migratory pathways for start-ups and innovative entrepreneurs to Luxembourg. Fostering start-ups and innovative enterprises is a national policy priority for Luxembourg as providing support to entrepreneurship and start-ups has been on the Luxembourgish governments’ agenda since 2013. It has been a part of a more general diversification policy of existing economic structures in order to increase economic growth of the country and reduce dependence on the financial sector, which remains the dominant economic pillar. The current Governmental programme 2018–2023 encourages support to start-ups, the acceleration of the development of the start-up ecosystem in Luxembourg as well as the promotion of Luxembourg as a ‘start-up nation’ both at national and international level. What should be pointed out is that this policy is not specifically targeted at third-country start-ups and innovative entrepreneurs, but aims to attract international investment, (innovative) enterprises and researchers in general. Thus, the mainstream immigration policy established by the amended Law of 29 August 2008 on free movement of persons (hereafter referred to as ‘Immigration Law’) for ‘self-employed worker’ or ‘investor’ residence permits is applied. The conditions that need to be fulfilled in order to be issued either a ‘self-employed worker’ or ‘investor’ residence permit as well as the conditions for the renewal of the residence permits are explained in detail in Section 3.3 and in Section 5, respectively. Several of the stakeholders involved in the context of this study reported that the existing regulations are sufficient and there is no need to introduce new ones or ones that would specifically target third-country nationals. Several initiatives have implemented in order to support the development of innovation in Luxembourg. Luxinnovation, the National Agency for the promotion of Research, Development and Innovation, was established already in 1985 and currently is reinforcing Government’s economic development objectives by providing support to companies and researchers in order to foster innovation. One of these initiatives, launched by the Ministry of the Economy in 2015 and implemented by Luxinnovation, is the Fit4Start acceleration programme which is particularly aimed at innovative ICT start-ups and recently also at start-ups from the health technologies. This programme provides coaching, business development support and funding to innovative projects or young innovative start-ups from around the world. Another important policy in the context of this study is the amended Law of 17 May 2017 on the Promotion of Research, Development and Innovation which provides a national funding scheme for Young Innovative Enterprises. Under this scheme, unlisted small enterprises that are registered for a maximum of five years can apply for State aid at the Ministry of the Economy’s Research and Innovation Directorate. Furthermore, Luxinnovation also animates the Luxembourg Cluster Initiative established by the Government in 2002. The objective of this initiative is to encourage communication and exchange of knowledge between cluster members (involving both the public and private sector) as well as to encourage use of new technologies and identification of possible business opportunities. This study further presents a table of rights and incentive measures in place to attract start-up founders and particularly highlights the access to special funding and investments, the co-working spaces as well as the access to incubation/accelerator support programmes, among others. In addition to the elements presented above, this study also elaborates on the following questions: What is the process and what are the requirements for starting up a business in Luxembourg? What are the main sectors and industries in which Luxembourg aims to attract start-ups? What is the role of local and regional authorities in creating and supporting entrepreneurial ecosystems? What role can actors such as local authorities, the private sector or higher education institutions play in attracting start-ups? Are there factors/conditions in place that incentivise start-ups and innovative entrepreneurs to use specific immigration routes? Lastly, with the use of fictional scenarios, four case studies aim to provide an understanding of the possible admission options of different types of start-ups and innovative entrepreneurs.

Attirer et retenir des étudiants internationaux au Luxembourg

Article for general public (2019)

La note de synthèse présente les principaux résultats de l’étude réalisée en 2018 par le Point de contact Luxembourgeois du Réseau Européen des Migrations intitulée : « Attracting and retaining international students in the EU ». Cette étude fournit un aperçu des politiques et pratiques en vigueur au Luxembourg afin d’attirer et de retenir des étudiants internationaux. Elle se base essentiellement sur les informations recueillies jusqu’en novembre 2018 et n’englobe donc que peu d’évolutions qui ont pu se produire après cette date.

To be or not to be: How the Luxembourgish government is preparing for Brexit

E-print/Working paper (2019)

This article summarizes the potential impact of BREXIT on Luxembourg (as seen by April 2019).

Le voyage des bénéficiaires de la protection internationale dans leur pays d'origine: défis, politiques et pratiques au Luxembourg

Article for general public (2019)

Cette note de synthèse présente les principaux résultats de l’étude réalisée en 2018 par le point de contact luxembourgeois du Réseau européen des migrations intitulée « Les bénéficiaires de la protection internationale qui voyagent dans leur pays d’origine: défis, politiques et pratiques ». Dans plusieurs Etats membres de l’Union européenne, les autorités ont détecté des bénéficiaires de protection internationale (ci-après bpi) ayant voyagé dans leur pays d’origine ou demandé un passeport à l’ambassade ou consulat de leur pays d’origine. Si ces actes ne représentent pas nécessairement un abus du droit à la protection internationale, ils pourraient, dans certains cas et dans certaines circonstances, amener les autorités à considérer que les raisons d’octroi de la protection internationale ont cessé d’exister : à savoir la crainte fondée de persécution dans le pays d’origine pour le réfugié ou le risque réel d’y subir des atteintes graves pour le bénéficiaire de la protection subsidiaire. L’étude vise à apporter un éclairage sur les défis liés à la détection de ce phénomène et s’intéresse aux éventuelles conséquences de ces actes sur le statut de protection internationale, en particulier la cessation du statut qui pourrait en résulter.

Défis et pratiques dans l’établissement de l’identité des demandeurs lors des processus migratoires

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 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.

Beneficiaries of international protection travelling to their country of origin: Challenges, Policies and Practices in the EU Member States, Norway and Switzerland

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 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.

Impact of visa liberalisation on countries of destination

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 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).

(Member) States' Approaches to Unaccompanied Minors Following Status Determination

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 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.

The Temporary Reintroduction of Border Controls Inside the Schengen Area: Towards a Spatial Perspective

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. 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.

Migration internationale au Luxembourg - SOPEMI Report 2017

Report (2017)

Suite au pic constaté en 2015, le nombre de demandes de protection internationale a légèrement diminué en 2016, passant de 2 447 en 2015 à 2 035 en 2016 (soit une baisse de 16,8 %). Malgré le ralentissement de la tendance, ces chiffres restent supérieurs aux niveaux de 2013-2014. Les ressortissants syriens sont toujours la première nationalité de demandeurs de protection internationale (14,3 %), les ressortissants irakiens chutent à la 4ème place (7,9 %), après les ressortissants albanais (11,2 %) et kosovars (10,2 %). Le Luxembourg continue d’occuper la 4ème place parmi les Etats membres en termes d’accueil de demandeurs de protection internationale par rapport à sa population nationale. Le taux de reconnaissance de protection internationale est passé de 228 (200 statuts de réfugiés et 28 protections subsidiaires) en 2015 à 790 (764 statuts de réfugiés et 26 protections subsidiaires) en 2016. Ces chiffres représentent une augmentation de 246,5 % des décisions positives par rapport à 2015. Le Luxembourg continue de démontrer sa solidarité à l’égard de la relocalisation et de la réinstallation des demandeurs de protection internationale. En 2015, le Luxembourg s’est engagé à relocaliser 557 personnes sur son territoire dans le cadre de la décision du Conseil européen de relocaliser 160 000 demandeurs de protection internationale depuis la Grèce et l’Italie. Dans ce contexte, 197 réfugiés ont été relocalisés fin 2016. Entre janvier 2017 et août 2017, le Luxembourg a relocalisé 186 personnes. Sur le plan de la réinstallation, 52 réfugiés ont été réinstallés depuis la Turquie en 2016, suite à l’engagement du Luxembourg de réinstaller 194 réfugiés en provenance de Turquie dans le cadre de l’accord UE-Turquie du mois de mars 2016. 115 personnes ont été réinstallées entre le 1er janvier 2017 et le 18 août 2017. De nouvelles lois sont entrées en vigueur en 2016/2017 qui concernent la situation migratoire du Luxembourg. Des évolutions politiques d’envergure ont porté sur la mise en œuvre de changements apportés à la législation et aux procédures d’asile, à l’éducation et à la réforme linguistique ainsi que sur des mesures d’intégration révisées en réponse à l’évolution des profils de migration au Luxembourg. L’accent mis sur la migration économique a permis de promouvoir la diversification économique et le repositionnement du centre financier.

International Migration in Luxembourg - SOPEMI Report 2017

Report (2017)

While the proportion of Luxembourgish nationals among the resident working population was above 50.3% in 2015, it dropped below 50% in the first quarter of 2017. Some 44% of the working population were EU28 nationals and 6% non-EU nationals. Luxembourg’s economy is reliant on its employment of cross-border workers. In 2016, French nationals maintained and increased their proportion of over 50% of the cross-border working population, reaching 51.4% in Q1 2017, at the expense of both Belgian (24.4%) and German (24.2%) cross-border workers. They mainly work in sectors such as construction, administrative/support service, accommodation/food service, as well as in the financial/insurance sector or professional, scientific and technical activities. Between 2010 and 2017, the number of foreign salaried workers showed the greatest continuous increase in sectors such as professional, scientific and technical activities, administrative and support services, and financial and insurance services. Regarding specific permits, nationals of China (119 permits), India (70 permits) and Montenegro (40 permits) accounted for 31% of all first issues of residence permits for salaried workers. Indian nationals were the single largest nationality group receiving their first issue of EU Blue Cards, with 90 issued during 2016. This was followed by US nationals (58 permits) and Russian nationals (36 permits). After reaching a peak in 2015, the number of applications for international protection slightly decreased in 2016, from 2447 in 2015 to 2035 in 2016 (decrease of 16.8%). Even if the trend slowed down, it remains higher than the levels of 2013-2015. Syrian nationals remain the first nationality of applicants for international protection (14.3%), Iraqi nationals dropping to 4th place (7.9%) after Albanian nationals (11.2%) and Kosovars (10.2%). Luxembourg remains the Member State hosting the 4th highest number of applicants for international protection applicants in relation to the national population. The international protection recognition rate increased from 228 (200 refugee status and 28 subsidiary protection) in 2015 to 790 (764 refugee status and 26 subsidiary protection) in 2016. This represents an increase of 246.5% of positive decisions year-on-year. Luxembourg continues to demonstrate its solidarity in respect of the relocation and resettlement of international protection applicants. In 2015, Luxembourg pledged to relocate 557 individuals to Luxembourg in the framework of the EU Council decision to relocate 160,000 international protection applicants from Greece and Italy. Within this framework, 197 refugees had been relocated by the end of 2016. From January 2017 to 18 August 2017, Luxembourg relocated 186 people. With regards to resettlement, 52 refugees were resettled from Turkey in 2016 as a result of Luxembourg’s pledge to resettle 194 refugees from Turkey in the context of the EU-Turkey agreement of March 2016. 115 people were resettled between 1st January 2017 and 18th August 2017. New pieces of legislation were enacted during 2016/2017 to assist with the specific migration situation in Luxembourg. Major policy developments related to the implementation of changes to asylum legislation and procedures, education and language reform, and revised integration measures in response to changing migration profiles within Luxembourg. A focus on economic migration took place to promote economic diversification, start-ups and the repositioning of the financial centre.

Le regroupement familial des ressortissants de pays tiers en UE: pratiques nationales

Article for general public (2017)

Cette note de synthèse présente les principaux résultats de l’étude réalisée en 2016 par le Point de contact luxembourgeois du European Migration Network intitulée «Le regroupement familial des ressortissants de pays tiers: pratiques nationales» ainsi que du rapport de synthèse, élaboré par la Commission européenne à parti r des études nationales de 26 points de contacts nationaux du EMN (AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, DE, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HR, HU, IE, IT, LV, LT, LU, MT, NL, NO, PL, SK, SI, SE, UK). L’étude vise à comparer les politiques et pratiques nationales en matière de regroupement familial entre les différents États (membres). Plus précisément l’étude examine les: • critères d’admissibilité des membres de famille; • conditions pour le regroupement familial, ainsi que les mesures d’intégration avant et après l’admission; • aspects procéduraux de la demande de regroupement familial; • droits accordés aux ressortissants de pays ti ers réunis en famille dans l’Union européenne; • conditions de non-renouvellement ou de retrait du titre de séjour «membre de famille». L’étude se réfère à la situation telle qu’elle s’est présentée depuis 2011 et jusqu’à la fin de l’année 2016. Elle ne porte pas sur les ressortissants de pays tiers membres de famille d’un citoyen de l’Union ou d’un pays assimilé, tombant dans le champ d’application de la libre circulation des personnes.

The reintroduction of border controls in the Schengen Area - some thoughts from the Greater region SaarLorLux

Scientific Conference (2017, March 21)

Family reunification of third-country nationals in the EU: national practices (country report Luxembourg)

Report (2017)

In Luxembourg, family reunification is one of the main reasons for immigration of third-country nationals. In fact, “family member” and “private reasons (family links)” residence permits (first deliveries and renewals) represented more than a third of all residence permits issued during the last three years. While the right to family reunification was solely provided by international law and regulated by administrative practice until 2008, the transposition of Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification led to a much more precise and detailed legal framework. A notable change in legislation has been proposed with the introduction of bill n° 6992 , namely the harmonisation of the conditions that apply to third-country national employees with those of Blue Card holders and researchers. Thus, family reunification requirements for certain categories of applicants shall be alleviated through the abrogation of the 12-month residence requirement for the sponsor. In order to apply for family reunification in Luxembourg, sponsors have to meet a number of requirements for exercising the right to family reunification, which include the provision of suitable accommodation for the size of their family; meeting health and safety standards; health insurance; as well as stable and regular resources to provide for themselves and their family members. As recommended by Directive 2003/86/EC, Luxembourg sets out more favourable conditions to beneficiaries of international protection for the exercise of their right to family reunification. Thus, they do not have to comply with the above-mentioned requirements in case they apply for family reunification within 3 months of being granted the status. Family members who have come to Luxembourg under family reunification have access to education, orientation, vocational training, lifelong learning and professional retraining once their residence permit has been issued. Family members furthermore have access to the labour market. In case the family member has resided in Luxembourg for less than one year when the application is submitted, it will be submitted to the labour market test. Family members can also, under a number of conditions, benefit from guaranteed minimum income, social aid, long-term residence status as well as citizenship. National stakeholders noted that the requirement of finding appropriate accommodation and proving stable and regular resources is one of the main challenges for sponsors. For family members as well as sponsors, having sufficient financial resources to cover the costs of family reunification can be another challenge to accessing family reunification. Family members of beneficiaries of international protection in particular face the more procedural challenge of providing proof of identity and family links, which can be difficult due to lacking documentation, differing administrative practices in the country of origin and/or the lack of cooperation of institutions. Gaining access to family reunification is also particularly difficult for beneficiaries of international protection who arrived in Luxembourg as unaccompanied minors but reached adulthood during the examination of their file, as they must provide proof of their family member’s dependency upon them. The limited number of diplomatic representations of Luxembourg abroad poses a challenge both to family members who must present themselves there, as well as for the Luxembourgish authorities who require information on certain countries. Perceived as a best practice with regard to family reunification are the information that NGOs and the lawyers in the field of migration and asylum provide to beneficiaries of international protection with regard to procedures of family reunification, thereby contributing to the beneficiary’s ability to enter an application for family reunification within the 3-month period. The practice of accepting the submission of an application of family members of beneficiaries of international protection that contains only a commencement of proof of family links and allowing for the finalisation at a later date is also perceived as a good practice, as it enables them to exercise their right to family reunification while benefitting from more favourable conditions. Furthermore, the issuance of a “laisser-passer” for beneficiaries of international protection who cannot obtain travel documents is perceived as a big step forward by national stakeholders. Lastly, Restoring Family Links, a service provided by the Luxembourgish Red Cross, is also considered a reliable tool with regard to tracing missing family members abroad.

Resettlement and Humanitarian Admission Programmes in Europe – what works?

Report (2016)

Luxembourg has a long tradition in “resettling” refugees from various parts of the world, but a more structured policy has only recently been implemented. National legislation does not include any provisions relating to resettlement policy and there are no specific national programmes. The resettlements have always been implemented on an ad-hoc basis or within broader programmes set up by the European Commission and/or UNHCR. Since 2014, Luxembourg additionally applies a quota of refugees to be annually resettled (15-20 persons). The implementation and organisation of the resettlement process may vary case by case and there is no standardised procedure applicable except for regular resettlements for which the framework is to a large extent outlined in the UNHCR’s Resettlement Handbook. The selection and identification of resettled persons is coordinated by the Directorate of Immigration in close collaboration with UNHCR, who performs in principle an eligibility assessment for the refugee status, which the Luxembourgish authorities shall take over once the person arrives in Luxembourg. For each resettlement mission Luxembourg sets a general profile as well as the number of persons they intend to resettle. These criteria do basically not differ from UNHCR’s Global Resettlement Submission Criteria and thus include women, children, elderly refugees as well as refugees with disabilities and diseases, except for those suffering from pathologies for which there is no adequate treatment available in Luxembourg. Apart from the vulnerability criteria, Luxembourgish authorities also take the “integration potential” into consideration when selecting candidates eligible for resettlements. This might explain the general preference of resettling entire families rather than single persons. Resettlement implemented within the EU Turkey 1:1 scheme, based on the agreement between the EU and Turkey of 18 March 2016, is considered separately by national authorities. For UNHCR, who is not a party to this agreement, engagement in the resettlement of Syrian refugees from Turkey is considered part of its regular resettlement activities. Procedurally, UNHCR continues to receive resettlement referrals from Turkey’s Directorate General for Migration Management (DGMM) and further continues to undertake phone and face-to-face interviews with eligible candidates. However, as opposed to regular resettlement, the assessment undertaken by UNHCR is streamlined. The Luxembourgish Reception and Integration Agency (OLAI) coordinates the reception and integration phase of the resettled refugees. Although policy and law are the same for both, resettled refugees and other beneficiaries of international protection, in practice the support provided may differ in an initial phase. Thus, resettled refugees are accommodated upon arrival within a common reception centre where they shall be provided with a more intense support, especially during the first weeks after their arrival in Luxembourg. Since April 2016, a newly created service of the Luxembourgish Red Cross (Lisko) has been mandated, under the overall coordination of the Ministry of Family, Integration and the Greater Region, to take charge of the social support and integration of benefeciciaries of international protection, including resettled persons. Other national NGOs and associations also provide counselling and assistance. The present report identifies several challenges faced by both, the resettled persons as well as the competent authorities. These challenges prove particular significant in the post-arrival and integration phase. While some of these challenges are common to beneficiaries of international protection in general, some others may be more specifically relevant for resettled refugees, namely the absence of a transition period, coordination with local stakeholders, as well as timely provision of information to selected candidates for resettlement.

Les mineurs en exil: Cadre juridique concernant l'accueil des mineurs non accompagnés au Luxembourg

in Forum für Politik, Gesellschaft und Kultur in Luxemburg (2016), 364

This article describes the legal framework of the reception conditions of unaccompanied minors in the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg

Integration of beneficiaries of international/humanitarian protection into the labour market: Policies and good practices

Report (2016)

In Luxembourgish legislation the term “international protection” includes both refugee status and subsidiary protection status. Integration of beneficiaries of international protection into the Luxembourgish labour market might appear quite unproblematic at first glance. From a legal point of view, the access is indeed very much open to both beneficiaries of international protection as well as beneficiaries of subsidiary protection. As from 2006 onwards, the legislator proceeded with an approximation of both statuses, providing the same rights to both types of beneficiaries of international protection. As soon as the applicants are granted international protection they are authorised to engage in employed or self-employed activities under the same conditions as Luxembourgish nationals, with the exceptionof civil servant jobs. This is also true for most of the support measures that aim to advance or enhance the access to employment, whether on the level of education, vocational training, language learning, recognition of diploma, counselling, social aid or access to housing. In each of those areas, the beneficiaries of international may in principle benefit from equivalent access as provided to other migrants, third-countrynationals or Luxembourgish nationals. Yet, the reality on the ground seldom matches the aims of the legislative framework. Effective access to the labour market remains a significant challenge for beneficiaries of international protection in order to fully integrate in Luxembourgish society. The linguistic regime as well as the high demands in terms of language requirements constitute a first major hurdle, both at the level of education/vocational training and the labour market. Rather than being able to immediately access the regular education system, respectively the labour market, refugees must first engage in a learning process sometimes coupled with administrative procedures (i.e. recognition of diplomas) that may significantly slow down the integration process. The transition period that begins once the applicant is granted international protection status appears to be particularly challenging. Indeed, several measures from which the applicants for international protection benefited during the procedure will no longer be available once they are granted the status. Thus, social aid, including housing, provided to international protection seekers will no longer be applicable to refugees. Even though national authorities have implemented several specific targeted measures in order to facilitate the transition period (i.e. progressive financial contribution to accommodation costs), it remains a phase of instability and uncertainty for the refugees and their families. This also stresses the need for employment-related support measures, which in Luxembourg are implemented in a more general integration framework. Thus, most of the support measures that exist for beneficiaries of international protection are not tailored to them in particular, but they are also open to other types of migrants or foreigners living in Luxembourg.

INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION IN LUXEMBOURG Continuous Reporting System on Migration OECD

Report (2016)

Luxembourg has been a country of immigration for more than 50 years. Located in the heart of Europe, it holds a strong attraction for EU citizens and nationals from countries all around the world, who play a central role in the national economy, making an important contribution to the population growth and the labour market. Over the course of 2015, Luxembourg’s population has continued its steady growth of approximately 13.000 people per year, increasing by 2,36%, from 562.958 on 1st January 2015 to 576.249 on 1st January 2016. Foreign citizens have continued to play an essential role in Luxembourg’s population growth, both in terms of net migration and births. The total net migration amounted to +11.159 individuals in 2015, which signifies a surplus of arrivals over departures. Foreign EU citizens accounted for 76,1%; third-country nationals represented 32,9%, while Luxembourgish nationals’ contribution was negative, at -9%. The number of births in 2015 was the highest on record, equal to that in 2013, with 6.115 births in total. Foreigners contributed a birth surplus of 2.150 to Luxembourg’s natural increase, while a birth deficit of -18 was recorded for Luxembourgish nationals. 2015 also marked a record year regarding naturalisations, with Belgians remaining the citizens that obtain citizenship most frequently, followed by the French and the Portuguese. On 1st January 2016, 46,7% of Luxembourg’s residents were foreigners. Representing 34,6% of the total foreign population, Portuguese remained the most represented nationality, followed by France (15,5%) and Italy (7,5%), while the most numerous third-country nationals were Montenegrins. Due to the war in Syria and the influx of applicants for international protection that followed, the Syrian population living in Luxembourg showed the highest proportional increase during 2015, growing by 461,5% from January 2015 to January 2016. A look at Luxembourg’s labour market also reveals the central role that foreigners play in the national economy. In the first quarter of 2016, residents of Luxembourg represented 55% of the country’s salaried workforce. Of these, 27,5% were Luxembourgish nationals, while EU nationals represented 24,2% and third-country nationals 3,3%. Cross-border workers from France, Belgium and Germany represented 45% of all salaried workers in Luxembourg. They mainly work in the manufacturing industries, construction and commerce. A majority of recruitments in the HORECA sector are of foreign residents. Third-country nationals who do not benefit from free movement must be issued with a residence permit in order to enter Luxembourg. An increase in first issues of residence permits was recorded for most categories compared to the preceding year, which had experienced a decrease in almost all categories. In 2015, residence permits were most frequently issued in the “family member”, “salaried worker” and “European Blue Card” categories. 2015 was marked by a significant increase in the number of applications for international protection, which has more than doubled when compared to 2014 (2.447 applications in 2015). While there was a strong increase at the end of 2015, the trend slowed down in 2016. Nonetheless, the number of applications for international protection remains higher than levels in 2013/2014. Most applications were from Syrians and Iraqis (27,3% and 22% respectively), who accounted for only 9% and 1% respectively in 2014. Moreover, both the rate of status recognition (refugee and subsidiary protection status) and of return decision increased. In 2015, Luxembourg pledged to relocate 557 individuals to Luxembourg in the framework of the EU Council decision to relocate 160.000 international protection applicants from Greece and Italy. Within this framework, 114 refugees have been relocated from Greece and 20 from Italy up until mid-August 2016. Furthermore, 46 refugees were resettled from Turkey in 2015, followed by 52 further refugees as a result of Luxembourg’s pledge to resettle 194 refugees from Turkey in the context of the EU-Turkey agreement of March 2016. Additionally, 44 Syrians were welcomed in 2015 following a request for assistance by German authorities. Faced with the increased inflow of applicants for international protection, an emergency reception plan was developed in 2015. The plan included the establishment of first-instance reception centres and the strengthening of the capacity in human resources of both the Luxembourg Reception and Integration Agency (OLAI) and the Directorate of Immigration, which is under the authority of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs. The OLAI also strengthened the collaboration with stakeholders at inter-ministerial and local levels. A strong focus has also been put on integration, where major developments include the setting up of integration projects by the municipalities in the context of the ‘Communal Integration Plan’ project and the creation of Luxembourg’s Centre for Integration and Cohesion (LISKO), a service supporting the beneficiaries of international protection in their process of integration in Luxembourgish society. Over the course of 2015 and 2016, Luxembourg continued to transpose and implement several EU directives. The law of 18th December 2015 on the reception of applicants for international protection and temporary protection transposes Directive 2013/33/EU (re-cast reception conditions) into national law. The law of 18th December 2015 on international protection and temporary protection transposed Directive 2013/32/EU (re-cast procedure), establishing the procedures for granting and withdrawing international and subsidiary protection and the standardisation of the content of this protection. The bill implementing Directive 2013/55/EU on the recognition of professional qualifications was introduced into parliament in 2015 and the bill implementing Directive 2014/36/EU on seasonal workers and Directive 2014/66/EU on intra-corporate transferees and investors’ residence permits was introduced in 2016. Regarding the transposition of the Blue Card Directive, a Government Decree was issued on 22nd May 2015 establishing the professions to which the lower salary threshold for hiring highly qualified workers applies. On the national level, a number of legislative changes address some of the challenges set by Luxembourg’s heterogeneity. The bill no. 6410 on youth, introduced into parliament on 6th February 2015, gives cross-border workers access to the care service voucher system which was previously only available to Luxembourgish residents. Bill no. 6893 on the recognition of qualifications was introduced in parliament in October 2015. At the referendum of 7th June 2015, the proposal to extend the right to vote of non-Luxembourgish residents was rejected by a large majority, who argued in favour of the acquisition of nationality as the more appropriate way to acquire the right to vote. Consequently, the government took steps towards reforming the law on nationality in order to soften the requirements for acquisition of nationality, and in this way enable the broadening of participation in elections. Bill no. 6977 on nationality was introduced in parliament on 24th March 2016. It includes the reduction of the required duration of residency from seven to five years and the reintroduction of procedure of option in cases of close links with Luxembourg. The level of fluency in Luxembourgish required has become a central focus of the debate on the bill on nationality, some fearing that linguistic requirements would become an obstacle to foreigners’ acquisition of nationality, others underlining the command of the language as a central factor in integration and thus also in the acquisition of nationality.  

Determining labour shortages and the need for labour migration from third countries in the EU

Report (2015)

Since almost 150 years, Luxembourg depends on two kinds of migration, qualified and non-qualified, in order to deal with the workforce needs of its economy. Compared to the other EU Member States, Luxembourg is the country with the largest proportion of foreigners; however, this foreign population is mainly composed of EU citizens. Due to its size and geographic position, Luxembourg was able to have access to a very particular form of economic migration: cross-border workers. Globalisation has also played a decisive role in the development of economic migration for the Luxembourgish labour market. The financial centre was obliged to become highly specialised in order to remain competitive in regards to other financial centres and to maintain its volume of business. In order to maintain its competitive advantage, Luxembourg needs highly skilled personnel, which the country has found, up until now, within the Greater Region. This reality is even more pronounced with regards to the labour market: the number of actives (salaried and non-salaried) on 31 March 2014 shows that Luxembourgish nationals represented only 31%, EU citizens 65% and third-country nationals only 4%. Cross-border workers from Belgium, France and Germany represented 42% of the workforce and the resident migrant population (EU citizens and third-country nationals) 28%. Cross-border workers, which consist of skilled and highly skilled labour are substantially attracted for two reasons: 1) more competitive salaries on the Luxemburgish labour market ; and 2) a geographical location which allows the commuting of cross-border workers. The attitude of the successive governments was to adapt immigration to the economic needs of the country. The government policy intends to focus on attracting highly added value activities focussed on new technologies (biomedicine and information as well as communication technologies – focusing on IT security), logistics and research. However, being one of the smallest countries in the European Union, Luxembourg has limited human resources to guarantee the growth not only of the financial sector but also of the new technologies sectors. The government introduced the highly qualified worker residence permit in the bill on free movement of persons and immigration approved by law of 29 August 2008 almost a year before of the enactment of the Blue Card Directive to facilitate the entry of third-country national highly qualified workers. However, this reform was isolated and incomplete and took place without making a real evaluation of the workforce demand of the different sectors of the economy. Even though until now Luxembourg has been relying on the workforce from the Greater Region, for some socio-economic and political stakeholders, highly qualified workforces began to become scarce in the Greater region. In addition to the cross-border workers, the lifting of restrictions to access all the sectors of the labour market for citizens of the new Member States (EU-8) can be considered as a mitigating factor for the need to make an evaluation of the workforce demand, because the high salaries paid in Luxembourg became a real pull factor for the highly qualified workers. As a consequence, the political authorities did not foresee a systematic plan on how to address labour shortages in specific sectors of the economy, because there has not been a significant need for doing so.

Policies, practices and data on unaccompanied minors in 2014

Report (2014)

Good Practices in the Return and Reintegration of Irregular Migrants: Member States’ Entry Bans Policy & Use of Readmission Agreements between Member States and Third Countries - Luxembourg

Report (2014)

The interaction between the media and the public opinion: social media becoming a source of information in Luxembourg, 2014

Scientific Conference (2014)

Attracting highly qualified and qualified third country nationals - Luxembourg

Report (2013)

Individual profiles and migration trajectories of third country national cross-border workers the case of Luxembourg

Report (2012)

In the case of Luxembourg, the number of CBW continuously increased throughout the years and accounted to almost 42% of the domestic labour force in 2010 . Moreover and for the same reference year, Luxembourg’s nationals represented a share of 29% of the total labour force . Concretely, for 100 jobs available on the labour market, 27 were taken up by foreign residents, 29 occupied by Luxembourgers and 44 by CBWs . The present study focuses on TCN-CBWs. Indeed, if CBWs in general have been the subject of a range of studies due to their importance for the labour market in particular, TCN-CBWs have largely been ignored in public debates so far. Taking both a quantitative and a qualitative approach, the present study tries to shed some light on the main characteristics composing the profiles of TCN-CBWs. Thus, TCN-CBWs provide on average for the youngest labour force on the national labour market, the large majority are wage earners under permanent contract and highly skilled. On their motivations to work in Luxembourg, TCN-CBWs put forward in descendent order a) salary, b) possibilities for career development, c) job opportunities in Luxembourg, d) the international working context and e) the professional network . The study also enquires on their integration, migration trajectories and discrimination aspects and leads us to the conclusion that migration histories are eclectic and individual. Even if some traits can be common, such as being highly skilled, their live paths differ in many ways.

Misuse of the Right to Family Reunification: Marriages of convenience and false declarations of parenthood

Report (2012)

Établissement de l'identité pour la protection internationale: Défis et pratiques

Report (2012)

L'objectif principal de la Convention de Genève et de la directive 2004/83/CE est d'accorder l'asile et la protection subsidiaire (protection internationale) aux personnes qui ont réellement besoin de protection, d'assurer que tous les États membres appliquent des critères communs pour l'identification des personnes ainsi que d'assurer un niveau minimal d'avantages à ces personnes dans tous les États membres. Afin de décider si un demandeur remplit les conditions pour bénéficier de la protection internationale, les autorités nationales doivent prendre en compte tous les éléments présentés lors de la demande. Un élément essentiel de toute demande est l'identité et/ou la nationalité du demandeur de protection internationale, permettant aux autorités d’évaluer les déclarations du demandeur par rapport aux raisons pour demander la protection internationale, et éviter ainsi l'octroi du statut de protection internationale aux personnes qui ne remplissent pas les conditions requises ou qui utilisent abusivement le système d'asile pour d’autres raisons, p.ex. de nature économique. Au Luxembourg, la procédure de vérification/établissement de l'identité dans le cadre de la protection internationale est séparée de la procédure de prise de décision en tant que telle. Alors que le pouvoir d'accorder le statut de protection internationale incombe au Ministère de l'Immigration, la Police judiciaire est chargée de la vérification/l'établissement de l'identité (article 8 de la Loi du 5 mai 2006 sur le droit d'asile). À cet effet, le demandeur est interrogé sur son itinéraire de voyage, y compris sur le passage de la frontière et les moyens de transports utilisés pour arriver au Luxembourg.

Profils individuels et trajectoires migratoires de travailleurs frontaliers ressortissants de pays tiers – le cas du Luxembourg

Report (2012)

Selon l’historien luxembourgeois Gilbert Trausch, le Grand-Duché est devenu une terre d’immigration avec son industrialisation, aux environ de 1871 . Depuis, la présence d’étrangers demeure un trait caractéristique de l’histoire sociale du pays et la pierre angulaire de ses politiques migratoires. Un des aspects plus récents de cette politique nationale migratoire a été de, à partir des années 90 , recourir à une main-d’œuvre frontalière. En effet, la Grande Région, qui se compose du Luxembourg, la Sarre et de la région Rhin-Palatinat (Allemagne), de la Lorraine (France) et de la Wallonie (Belgique), représente le plus grand espace politique transnational d’Europe et compte près de 25% de la totalité des TF dans l’UE-27, figurant ainsi à la 2e place, derrière la Suisse . Bien que, historiquement, on puisse retracer ses dynamiques et réseaux jusqu’à la période romaine et même au-delà , ce n’est qu’à partir des années 90 que la croissance d’espaces frontaliers devient progressivement visible en Europe. Pour ce qui est du Luxembourg, le nombre de TF a augmenté de façon continue au cours de ces années, pour finalement représenter près de 42% de la main-d’œuvre nationale en 2010 . En outre, pour la même année de référence, la part des ressortissants luxembourgeois dans la main-d’œuvre totale se limitait à 29% . En d’autres termes, si 100 emplois étaient disponibles sur le marché du travail, 27 ont été occupés par des résidents étrangers, 29, par des ressortissants luxembourgeois et 44, par des TF . La présente étude se concentre sur les TF-RPT. En effet, s’il est vrai que les TF ont fait l’objet de nombreuses études en raison notamment, de leur importance pour le marché de l’emploi, les TF-RPT ont, quant à eux, été largement ignorés dans le débat public jusqu’à présent.

Visa policy as a migration channel

Report (2011)

La force de l’emploi intérieur et la politique migratoire - Luxembourg

Report (2011)

L’immigration économique est considérée par les États membres de l’Union Européenne comme un facteur important pour résoudre non seulement le problème de vieillissement de la population général de l’Union, les taux de natalité négative et la manque de main-d’oeuvre hautement qualifié. Après la crise économique et financière des dernières trois années la problématique ne perds pas d’actualité, même si la crise a eu un impact direct sur les marchés du travail des états membres et sur la demande de main-d’oeuvre. Comme principe général, la matière d’immigration est une compétence primaire de chaque état membre qui a le droit à règlementer non seulement les volumes sinon aussi les formes et conditions des étrangers sur le marché du travail national. Tout cela en répondant à sa propre politique et intérêts économiques. Néanmoins, l’Union Européen à travers de ses diverses institutions et politiques à légiférer de manière approfondie sur le sujet avec l’objectif de maintenir la compétitivité et la croissance économique.

Les mesures pratiques mises en oeuvre afin de réduire la migration irrégulière

Report (2011)

Dans cette étude, le EMN NCP LU essaie de donner, dans la mesure du possible, les différentes perspectives et initiatives par rapport à la migration irrégulière au niveau national, en particulier les mesures pratiques mises en place pour essayer de la contenir. Du point de vue du cadre politique, la lutte contre la migration irrégulière est progressivement devenue une priorité au fil de la dernière décennie comme le démontrent les différents programmes gouvernementaux analysés dans l’étude. En effet, les autorités nationales situent la lutte contre la migration irrégulière dans une politique dite cohérente des flux migratoires. Le frein à la migration irrégulière va de pair avec une stimulation des migrations régulières en accord avec les besoins en main-d’œuvre des secteurs d’activités économiques. En ce sens, la politique nationale suit les grandes lignes d’orientation de la politique européenne en la matière. Cette dernière affirmation se reflète également par la transposition des principales directives relatives à la migration, en particulier la directive dite « retour » et la directive dite « sanctions » . D’un autre côté, la législation nationale reste toutefois également le reflet des volontés politiques nationales. Au-delà des transpositions du droit communautaire, nous pouvons constater que le cadre législatif peut être adapté pour faire face à une situation particulière. Ainsi, face aux pressions exercées par les associations qui militent pour les droits des étrangers, les autorités nationales prévoient des voies pour sortir de l’irrégularité ; certes considérées largement inefficaces par les associations mais cependant consacrées dans la loi.

Migration circulaire et temporaire Données empiriques, pratiques politiques actuelles et futures options au LUXEMBOURG

Report (2011)