克劳迪娅·菲诺泰利和艾琳·庞佐(主编)欧洲的移民控制逻辑和策略:一个南北比较施普林格国际出版社,2023,xiv + 340 p., 59.99美元(在线开放获取)。

IF 4.6 2区 社会学 Q1 DEMOGRAPHY Population and Development Review Pub Date : 2023-11-29 DOI:10.1111/padr.12600
{"title":"克劳迪娅·菲诺泰利和艾琳·庞佐(主编)欧洲的移民控制逻辑和策略:一个南北比较施普林格国际出版社,2023,xiv + 340 p., 59.99美元(在线开放获取)。","authors":"","doi":"10.1111/padr.12600","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The European Union's migration policy, as it plays out, is far from a coherent, deliberated program designed in Brussels or Strasbourg. But nor is it an amalgam of the separate policies on admission and residence, varying in effectiveness, of autonomous member states. Between these two figments, however, there is a widely held depiction of the EU reality: that of a North-South migration policy divide in which the disciplined northern member states coexist with a “soft underbelly” of lax southern states, haplessly policing the Mediterranean front-lines—and shepherding migrants northward. This collection of case studies is an extended rejection of such a view. Its contributors illustrate the evolving aims and practices of migration governance among selected countries across the EU. There are 15 chapters, organized in thematic sections covering visa policy, externalization (offshoring) of migrant selection, regularization (usually amnesty) for irregular entrants, labor migration, “welfare chauvinism” (restrictions on migrant eligibility for welfare benefits), and asylum procedures. The editors draw the contents together in introductory and concluding chapters, identifying fields where harmonization is in train and others that are insistently idiosyncratic—finding, in sum, that the European migration system is “a complex, ambiguous reality, where convergence dynamics must come to terms with persisting variance.”</p>\n<p>One source of complexity and ambiguity is the elusiveness of the target. In the last two decades the migration regime has experienced surging numbers of workers from Eastern Europe, the Syrian refugee crisis, burgeoning numbers attempting the hazardous Mediterranean crossings, and the massed Ukraine war exodus, as well as the effects of the Great Recession and, lately, Covid. Country impacts and responses have necessarily depended on specific economic and geopolitical circumstances, only later reflected in European Commission dictates such as the 2020 New Pact on Migration and Asylum. The use of development aid conditioned on migrant deterrence as a policy instrument is one case in point, begun initially in bilateral agreements between Spain (and then Italy and France) and individual African countries and later taken up by the Commission. (Reciprocally, migrant transit and origin countries have found that their control of numbers gave them a means of exacting a “geographical rent” from the EU.) On asylum, the basic problem is the conflict between the legal principle—increasingly seen as ill-suited to the scale of the problem—and the political imperative to limit inflows. The procedures to determine refugee status are lengthy and administrative decisions denying asylum are frequently overturned by the courts. Orders to leave are widely disregarded. (Germany, the most effective country at carrying out such orders, expels just 24 percent; France, 11 percent.) Irregular migration aside from asylum-seeking is periodically rewarded with some form of regularization.</p>\n<p>A large proportion of EU migrants are intra-EU, mostly easterners after the 2000s enlargement. Another portion are northern retirees in the south. Delaying or limiting migrants' entitlement to welfare-state benefits is a common means of deterrence or cost-offsetting. (Brexit was deterrence taken to an extreme.) Migrant workers, of course, are also sought from further afield, raising the issue of “source-country particularism.” Germany for a time practiced blindness to migrants' ethnic origins, recruiting by qualifications only, but has retreated to its earlier practice, now favoring workers from the Western Balkans. Other countries with particularistic connections to the EU labor market (that of Spain especially) are the Maghreb states: Algeria, Morocco, and Tunisia.</p>\n<p>The volume offers a sophisticated treatment of the migration topics the editors have selected, but does not claim to cover all aspects of the EU's migration regime where there are North-South differences to be contested. An issue of growing significance that would deserve such consideration is the range of attitudes toward migrant diversity by race and religion and toward the absolute numbers of newcomers—the looming scale of Europe's demographic predicament, the source of the threatened “great replacement.”</p>\n<p>Claudia Finotelli, a political scientist, is in the Department of Applied Sociology, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, and a research associate of the International and European Forum of Migration Research (FIERI), Turin, Italy. Irene Ponzo, a political sociologist, is Deputy Director of FIERI. The contributors are from European universities and research institutes.—G.McN.</p>","PeriodicalId":51372,"journal":{"name":"Population and Development Review","volume":" 629","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Claudia Finotelli and Irene Ponzo (Eds.) Migration Control Logics and Strategies in Europe: A North-South Comparison Springer International, 2023, xiv + 340 p., $59.99 (Open Access online).\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/padr.12600\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>The European Union's migration policy, as it plays out, is far from a coherent, deliberated program designed in Brussels or Strasbourg. But nor is it an amalgam of the separate policies on admission and residence, varying in effectiveness, of autonomous member states. Between these two figments, however, there is a widely held depiction of the EU reality: that of a North-South migration policy divide in which the disciplined northern member states coexist with a “soft underbelly” of lax southern states, haplessly policing the Mediterranean front-lines—and shepherding migrants northward. This collection of case studies is an extended rejection of such a view. Its contributors illustrate the evolving aims and practices of migration governance among selected countries across the EU. There are 15 chapters, organized in thematic sections covering visa policy, externalization (offshoring) of migrant selection, regularization (usually amnesty) for irregular entrants, labor migration, “welfare chauvinism” (restrictions on migrant eligibility for welfare benefits), and asylum procedures. The editors draw the contents together in introductory and concluding chapters, identifying fields where harmonization is in train and others that are insistently idiosyncratic—finding, in sum, that the European migration system is “a complex, ambiguous reality, where convergence dynamics must come to terms with persisting variance.”</p>\\n<p>One source of complexity and ambiguity is the elusiveness of the target. In the last two decades the migration regime has experienced surging numbers of workers from Eastern Europe, the Syrian refugee crisis, burgeoning numbers attempting the hazardous Mediterranean crossings, and the massed Ukraine war exodus, as well as the effects of the Great Recession and, lately, Covid. Country impacts and responses have necessarily depended on specific economic and geopolitical circumstances, only later reflected in European Commission dictates such as the 2020 New Pact on Migration and Asylum. The use of development aid conditioned on migrant deterrence as a policy instrument is one case in point, begun initially in bilateral agreements between Spain (and then Italy and France) and individual African countries and later taken up by the Commission. (Reciprocally, migrant transit and origin countries have found that their control of numbers gave them a means of exacting a “geographical rent” from the EU.) On asylum, the basic problem is the conflict between the legal principle—increasingly seen as ill-suited to the scale of the problem—and the political imperative to limit inflows. The procedures to determine refugee status are lengthy and administrative decisions denying asylum are frequently overturned by the courts. Orders to leave are widely disregarded. (Germany, the most effective country at carrying out such orders, expels just 24 percent; France, 11 percent.) Irregular migration aside from asylum-seeking is periodically rewarded with some form of regularization.</p>\\n<p>A large proportion of EU migrants are intra-EU, mostly easterners after the 2000s enlargement. Another portion are northern retirees in the south. Delaying or limiting migrants' entitlement to welfare-state benefits is a common means of deterrence or cost-offsetting. (Brexit was deterrence taken to an extreme.) Migrant workers, of course, are also sought from further afield, raising the issue of “source-country particularism.” Germany for a time practiced blindness to migrants' ethnic origins, recruiting by qualifications only, but has retreated to its earlier practice, now favoring workers from the Western Balkans. Other countries with particularistic connections to the EU labor market (that of Spain especially) are the Maghreb states: Algeria, Morocco, and Tunisia.</p>\\n<p>The volume offers a sophisticated treatment of the migration topics the editors have selected, but does not claim to cover all aspects of the EU's migration regime where there are North-South differences to be contested. An issue of growing significance that would deserve such consideration is the range of attitudes toward migrant diversity by race and religion and toward the absolute numbers of newcomers—the looming scale of Europe's demographic predicament, the source of the threatened “great replacement.”</p>\\n<p>Claudia Finotelli, a political scientist, is in the Department of Applied Sociology, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, and a research associate of the International and European Forum of Migration Research (FIERI), Turin, Italy. Irene Ponzo, a political sociologist, is Deputy Director of FIERI. The contributors are from European universities and research institutes.—G.McN.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51372,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Population and Development Review\",\"volume\":\" 629\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Population and Development Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/padr.12600\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"DEMOGRAPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Population and Development Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/padr.12600","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DEMOGRAPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

欧盟的移民政策,就目前的情况来看,远不是布鲁塞尔或斯特拉斯堡设计的一个连贯的、经过深思熟虑的计划。但它也不是独立成员国各自的入境和居留政策(其有效性各不相同)的混合体。然而,在这两种虚构之间,有一种对欧盟现实的普遍看法:南北移民政策分歧,纪律严守的北部成员国与松散的南部国家的“软肋”共存,不幸地维持地中海前线的治安,并引导移民向北。本文收集的案例研究是对这种观点的进一步否定。它的贡献者说明了欧盟选定国家之间移民治理的不断发展的目标和实践。全书有15章,按主题部分组织,涵盖签证政策、移民选择的外部化(离岸)、非正规入境者的正规化(通常是大赦)、劳工移民、“福利沙文主义”(限制移民获得福利的资格)和庇护程序。编辑们在导论和结束语两章中将内容整合在一起,确定了正在协调的领域和坚持特立独行的领域——总之,他们发现,欧洲移民体系是“一个复杂、模糊的现实,趋同的动力必须与持续存在的差异达成妥协。”复杂性和模糊性的一个来源是目标的难以捉摸性。在过去二十年中,移民制度经历了东欧工人人数激增、叙利亚难民危机、试图穿越危险的地中海的人数激增、乌克兰战争导致的大规模外逃,以及大衰退和最近的新冠疫情的影响。国家的影响和反应必然取决于具体的经济和地缘政治环境,这一点后来才反映在欧盟委员会的指令中,例如2020年的《移民和庇护新公约》。以阻止移徙为条件的发展援助作为一种政策工具就是一个很好的例子,这种援助最初是在西班牙(然后是意大利和法国)与个别非洲国家之间的双边协定中开始的,后来由委员会采用。(反过来,移民过境国和移民原籍国发现,它们对移民数量的控制让它们有了向欧盟索取“地理租金”的手段。)在难民问题上,基本的问题是法律原则与限制难民流入的政治要求之间的冲突。法律原则越来越被认为不适合这个问题的规模。确定难民地位的程序漫长,拒绝庇护的行政决定经常被法院推翻。离开的命令被普遍无视。(在执行此类命令方面效率最高的德国,只驱逐了24%的人;法国,11%。)除了寻求庇护外,非正规移徙还定期得到某种形式的正规化奖励。很大一部分欧盟移民来自欧盟内部,大多是2000年代欧盟扩大后的东欧人。另一部分是南方的北方退休人员。延迟或限制移民获得福利国家福利的权利是一种常见的威慑或抵消成本的手段。(英国退欧是一种极端的威慑。)当然,移民工人也从更远的地方寻求,提出了“来源国特殊主义”的问题。德国曾一度对移民的种族血统视而不见,只凭资格招聘,但现在已经退回到早期的做法,现在更青睐来自西巴尔干的工人。其他与欧盟劳动力市场有特殊联系的国家(尤其是西班牙)是马格里布国家:阿尔及利亚、摩洛哥和突尼斯。该卷提供了一个复杂的处理移民主题的编辑已经选择,但并不声称涵盖欧盟的移民制度的所有方面,其中有南北分歧的争议。有一个日益重要的问题值得我们考虑,那就是人们对不同种族和宗教的移民多样性以及对新移民绝对数量的不同态度——欧洲人口困境的隐现规模,“大更替”威胁的根源。克劳迪娅·菲诺泰利,政治学家,就职于马德里康普顿斯大学应用社会学系,意大利都灵国际与欧洲移民研究论坛(FIERI)研究员。政治社会学家Irene Ponzo是FIERI的副主任。作者来自欧洲的大学和研究机构。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Claudia Finotelli and Irene Ponzo (Eds.) Migration Control Logics and Strategies in Europe: A North-South Comparison Springer International, 2023, xiv + 340 p., $59.99 (Open Access online).

The European Union's migration policy, as it plays out, is far from a coherent, deliberated program designed in Brussels or Strasbourg. But nor is it an amalgam of the separate policies on admission and residence, varying in effectiveness, of autonomous member states. Between these two figments, however, there is a widely held depiction of the EU reality: that of a North-South migration policy divide in which the disciplined northern member states coexist with a “soft underbelly” of lax southern states, haplessly policing the Mediterranean front-lines—and shepherding migrants northward. This collection of case studies is an extended rejection of such a view. Its contributors illustrate the evolving aims and practices of migration governance among selected countries across the EU. There are 15 chapters, organized in thematic sections covering visa policy, externalization (offshoring) of migrant selection, regularization (usually amnesty) for irregular entrants, labor migration, “welfare chauvinism” (restrictions on migrant eligibility for welfare benefits), and asylum procedures. The editors draw the contents together in introductory and concluding chapters, identifying fields where harmonization is in train and others that are insistently idiosyncratic—finding, in sum, that the European migration system is “a complex, ambiguous reality, where convergence dynamics must come to terms with persisting variance.”

One source of complexity and ambiguity is the elusiveness of the target. In the last two decades the migration regime has experienced surging numbers of workers from Eastern Europe, the Syrian refugee crisis, burgeoning numbers attempting the hazardous Mediterranean crossings, and the massed Ukraine war exodus, as well as the effects of the Great Recession and, lately, Covid. Country impacts and responses have necessarily depended on specific economic and geopolitical circumstances, only later reflected in European Commission dictates such as the 2020 New Pact on Migration and Asylum. The use of development aid conditioned on migrant deterrence as a policy instrument is one case in point, begun initially in bilateral agreements between Spain (and then Italy and France) and individual African countries and later taken up by the Commission. (Reciprocally, migrant transit and origin countries have found that their control of numbers gave them a means of exacting a “geographical rent” from the EU.) On asylum, the basic problem is the conflict between the legal principle—increasingly seen as ill-suited to the scale of the problem—and the political imperative to limit inflows. The procedures to determine refugee status are lengthy and administrative decisions denying asylum are frequently overturned by the courts. Orders to leave are widely disregarded. (Germany, the most effective country at carrying out such orders, expels just 24 percent; France, 11 percent.) Irregular migration aside from asylum-seeking is periodically rewarded with some form of regularization.

A large proportion of EU migrants are intra-EU, mostly easterners after the 2000s enlargement. Another portion are northern retirees in the south. Delaying or limiting migrants' entitlement to welfare-state benefits is a common means of deterrence or cost-offsetting. (Brexit was deterrence taken to an extreme.) Migrant workers, of course, are also sought from further afield, raising the issue of “source-country particularism.” Germany for a time practiced blindness to migrants' ethnic origins, recruiting by qualifications only, but has retreated to its earlier practice, now favoring workers from the Western Balkans. Other countries with particularistic connections to the EU labor market (that of Spain especially) are the Maghreb states: Algeria, Morocco, and Tunisia.

The volume offers a sophisticated treatment of the migration topics the editors have selected, but does not claim to cover all aspects of the EU's migration regime where there are North-South differences to be contested. An issue of growing significance that would deserve such consideration is the range of attitudes toward migrant diversity by race and religion and toward the absolute numbers of newcomers—the looming scale of Europe's demographic predicament, the source of the threatened “great replacement.”

Claudia Finotelli, a political scientist, is in the Department of Applied Sociology, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, and a research associate of the International and European Forum of Migration Research (FIERI), Turin, Italy. Irene Ponzo, a political sociologist, is Deputy Director of FIERI. The contributors are from European universities and research institutes.—G.McN.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.80
自引率
4.00%
发文量
60
期刊介绍: Population and Development Review is essential reading to keep abreast of population studies, research on the interrelationships between population and socioeconomic change, and related thinking on public policy. Its interests span both developed and developing countries, theoretical advances as well as empirical analyses and case studies, a broad range of disciplinary approaches, and concern with historical as well as present-day problems.
期刊最新文献
Revisiting Women's Empowerment and Contraception The Globalization of International Migration? A Conceptual and Data‐Driven Synthesis Contraceptive Change and Fertility Transition The Next 2 Billion: Can the World Support 10 Billion People? The Potential of Internal Migration to Shape Rural and Urban Populations Across Africa, Asia, and Latin America
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1