全球契约之后的难民移民工人?劳工移民能否成为需要保护的人进入瑞典和德国的补充途径?

IF 1.3 Q1 LAW Laws Pub Date : 2022-12-06 DOI:10.3390/laws11060088
Zvezda Vankova
{"title":"全球契约之后的难民移民工人?劳工移民能否成为需要保护的人进入瑞典和德国的补充途径?","authors":"Zvezda Vankova","doi":"10.3390/laws11060088","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Both the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration and the Global Compact on Refugees commit states to diversify and expand on labour migration opportunities, in particular by facilitating work-based ‘complementary pathways’ for the admission of refugees. Yet, almost four years after their adoption, such pathways remain limited in many cases. It is the aim of this article to examine the constraints posed by existing immigration laws to serve as an admission ground for people in need of protection and the key legal, policy and political issues that need to be addressed to allow the commitments related to labour migration pathways contained in the Compacts to be implemented in national legal systems. In so doing, this article applies a legal and political feasibility lens to evaluate why these pathways for persons in need of protection are often small-scale, underutilized by employers and unwelcoming to potential refugees. It employs a comparative case study methodology drawing on more than 30 semi-structured interviews with stakeholders at the international and national levels in Germany and Sweden. The article concludes that the main challenge to the political feasibility of opening work-based complementary pathways for refugees is politicians’ and policy makers’ traditional thinking of migration and asylum as separate domains. When it comes to challenges to legal feasibility, these stem from entry requirements, lack of sufficient interest among employers who are a key stakeholder in the facilitation of such pathways, as well as issues related to the security of status of potential beneficiaries of such measures.","PeriodicalId":30534,"journal":{"name":"Laws","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Refugees as Migrant Workers after the Global Compacts? Can Labour Migration Serve as a Complementary Pathway for People in Need of Protection into Sweden and Germany?\",\"authors\":\"Zvezda Vankova\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/laws11060088\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Both the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration and the Global Compact on Refugees commit states to diversify and expand on labour migration opportunities, in particular by facilitating work-based ‘complementary pathways’ for the admission of refugees. Yet, almost four years after their adoption, such pathways remain limited in many cases. It is the aim of this article to examine the constraints posed by existing immigration laws to serve as an admission ground for people in need of protection and the key legal, policy and political issues that need to be addressed to allow the commitments related to labour migration pathways contained in the Compacts to be implemented in national legal systems. In so doing, this article applies a legal and political feasibility lens to evaluate why these pathways for persons in need of protection are often small-scale, underutilized by employers and unwelcoming to potential refugees. It employs a comparative case study methodology drawing on more than 30 semi-structured interviews with stakeholders at the international and national levels in Germany and Sweden. The article concludes that the main challenge to the political feasibility of opening work-based complementary pathways for refugees is politicians’ and policy makers’ traditional thinking of migration and asylum as separate domains. When it comes to challenges to legal feasibility, these stem from entry requirements, lack of sufficient interest among employers who are a key stakeholder in the facilitation of such pathways, as well as issues related to the security of status of potential beneficiaries of such measures.\",\"PeriodicalId\":30534,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Laws\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Laws\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/laws11060088\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Laws","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/laws11060088","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

《安全、有序和定期移民全球契约》和《难民问题全球契约》都承诺各国实现劳动力移民机会的多样化和扩大,特别是为接纳难民提供基于工作的“互补途径”。然而,在它们被收养近四年后,在许多情况下,这种途径仍然有限。这篇文章的目的是审查现有移民法作为需要保护的人的准入条件所带来的限制,以及需要解决的关键法律、政策和政治问题,以便在国家法律体系中实施《契约》中所载的与劳工移民途径有关的承诺。在这样做的过程中,本文运用了法律和政治可行性的视角来评估为什么需要保护的人的这些途径往往是小规模的,雇主没有充分利用,而且不受潜在难民的欢迎。它采用了一种比较案例研究方法,利用了对德国和瑞典国际和国家层面利益攸关方的30多次半结构化访谈。文章的结论是,为难民开放基于工作的补充途径的政治可行性面临的主要挑战是政治家和政策制定者将移民和庇护视为单独领域的传统思维。当涉及到对法律可行性的挑战时,这些挑战源于准入要求、作为促进此类途径的关键利益相关者的雇主缺乏足够的兴趣,以及与此类措施潜在受益人身份安全相关的问题。
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
Refugees as Migrant Workers after the Global Compacts? Can Labour Migration Serve as a Complementary Pathway for People in Need of Protection into Sweden and Germany?
Both the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration and the Global Compact on Refugees commit states to diversify and expand on labour migration opportunities, in particular by facilitating work-based ‘complementary pathways’ for the admission of refugees. Yet, almost four years after their adoption, such pathways remain limited in many cases. It is the aim of this article to examine the constraints posed by existing immigration laws to serve as an admission ground for people in need of protection and the key legal, policy and political issues that need to be addressed to allow the commitments related to labour migration pathways contained in the Compacts to be implemented in national legal systems. In so doing, this article applies a legal and political feasibility lens to evaluate why these pathways for persons in need of protection are often small-scale, underutilized by employers and unwelcoming to potential refugees. It employs a comparative case study methodology drawing on more than 30 semi-structured interviews with stakeholders at the international and national levels in Germany and Sweden. The article concludes that the main challenge to the political feasibility of opening work-based complementary pathways for refugees is politicians’ and policy makers’ traditional thinking of migration and asylum as separate domains. When it comes to challenges to legal feasibility, these stem from entry requirements, lack of sufficient interest among employers who are a key stakeholder in the facilitation of such pathways, as well as issues related to the security of status of potential beneficiaries of such measures.
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
Laws
Laws LAW-
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
16.70%
发文量
77
审稿时长
11 weeks
期刊最新文献
Exploring Defuturing to Design Artificial-Intelligence Artifacts: A Systemic-Design Approach to Tackle Litigiousness in the Brazilian Judiciary Why Equity Follows the Law The Professional Conflict Pertaining to Confidentiality—The Obligation of Disclosure for Intermediaries of Financial Transactions Windfall Profit Taxation in Europe (and Beyond) To Enhance the Credibility of the Green Bond Market through Regulating GBERs: The Case of China
×
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