More than ten years after the Treaty of Amsterdam came into force and after the programmes of Tampere and Aia, the Stockholm Programme , adopted last December 2009 for the period 2010-2014, has settled for the third time the area of "justice, freedom and security" with which EU presents itself. In relation to the Immigration policy the Stockholm Programme seals the term of security. Now Europe considers its area as a territory that withdraws into itself, through a security logic that caused the disappearance of the traces of the "freedom area". In fact, as it was affirmed in Tampere, this area can't be considered as a mere prerogative of the European citizens. In the name of security, protection and control are fixed points of the European migration policy that nowadays can be defined as "restrictive", where it seems that among the three words “iustitia, libertas, securitas”, the first and the second words are sacrificed in the name of the third one. As well as this minimal but restrictive harmonization of the European immigration policy, there are also the national policies of the single Member States. These still have competence on this subject even if they are even more restrictive and prohibitionist compared to the common European trend. This article will try to highlight the dark side of the restrictive immigration policies, undertaken both at european and national level, paying special attention to the negative effects that these policies can cause. In particular, this article will focus on two of the main aims stated by these migration policies: the organization of legal immigration and the control of the illegal immigration. It will try to demonstrate how the repressive instruments, today put into practice, not only have not been a solution, but they have produced destructive effects, such as: the increasing of illegal immigration and the consequential increasing of the exploitation of immigrants - making the borders between smuggling and trafficking more and more transitory - the strengthening of the more and more professionalized criminal organization and finally the enlargement of the black market's borders, of which the European Single Market feeds itself.

PurposeThis article aims to highlight the dark side of the restrictive immigration policies, undertaken both at European and national level, paying special attention to the negative effects that these policies can cause. Design/methodology/approachIn particular, the article focuses on two of the main aims stated by these migration policies: the organization of legal immigration and the control of the illegal immigration. FindingsThe paper demonstrates how the repressive instruments, today put into practice, not only have not been a solution, but they have produced destructive effects, such as: the increasing of illegal immigration and the consequential increasing of the exploitation of immigrants – making the borders between smuggling and trafficking more and more transitory – the strengthening of the more and more professionalized criminal organization and finally the enlargement of the black market's borders, of which the European single market feeds itself. Originality/valueThe paper offers insights into the dark side of European immigration policy.

Duca, R. (2011). The dark side of European immigration policy. JOURNAL OF MONEY LAUNDERING CONTROL, 14(2), 158-169 [10.1108/13685201111127803].

The dark side of European immigration policy

DUCA, Rita
2011-01-01

Abstract

More than ten years after the Treaty of Amsterdam came into force and after the programmes of Tampere and Aia, the Stockholm Programme , adopted last December 2009 for the period 2010-2014, has settled for the third time the area of "justice, freedom and security" with which EU presents itself. In relation to the Immigration policy the Stockholm Programme seals the term of security. Now Europe considers its area as a territory that withdraws into itself, through a security logic that caused the disappearance of the traces of the "freedom area". In fact, as it was affirmed in Tampere, this area can't be considered as a mere prerogative of the European citizens. In the name of security, protection and control are fixed points of the European migration policy that nowadays can be defined as "restrictive", where it seems that among the three words “iustitia, libertas, securitas”, the first and the second words are sacrificed in the name of the third one. As well as this minimal but restrictive harmonization of the European immigration policy, there are also the national policies of the single Member States. These still have competence on this subject even if they are even more restrictive and prohibitionist compared to the common European trend. This article will try to highlight the dark side of the restrictive immigration policies, undertaken both at european and national level, paying special attention to the negative effects that these policies can cause. In particular, this article will focus on two of the main aims stated by these migration policies: the organization of legal immigration and the control of the illegal immigration. It will try to demonstrate how the repressive instruments, today put into practice, not only have not been a solution, but they have produced destructive effects, such as: the increasing of illegal immigration and the consequential increasing of the exploitation of immigrants - making the borders between smuggling and trafficking more and more transitory - the strengthening of the more and more professionalized criminal organization and finally the enlargement of the black market's borders, of which the European Single Market feeds itself.
Duca, R. (2011). The dark side of European immigration policy. JOURNAL OF MONEY LAUNDERING CONTROL, 14(2), 158-169 [10.1108/13685201111127803].
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/10447/69725
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 1
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 1
social impact