Pathways and policy evolution: Comparing national laws and policies addressing irregular migrants

In this paper, we provide an analysis of the policy frameworks that impact on migrant irregularity, or aim to do so, across the 20 countries under study. This includes 12 EU Member States (Austria, Belgium, France, Finland, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, and Spain), five countries located at the EU’s external borders (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Morocco, Serbia, Tunisia, Türkiye and the United Kingdom), and two North American countries (Canada and the United States).

First, we discuss the policy evolution process, in terms of what kind of events and entities can contribute to policy shifts. In particular, the paper finds that the main “triggering events” that have been used in several countries to shift policy approaches to irregular migrants are the irregular arrival of migrants on a larger scale, the COVID-19 pandemic, economic crises and security threats. At the same time, these events and others can be used by specific entities to advocate for specific policy approaches. In particular, the role of the media, civil society, employers, political parties, the judiciary, local governments and the EU have emerged as influencing policy shifts. These policy shifts may entail more or less restrictive approaches to irregular migrants, depending on the national context.

Then, we examine the policy-related pathways into and out of irregularity, using the MIrreM taxonomy as an organisational framework, namely of demographic, geographic and status-related flows (Kraler & Ahrens, 2023). Policy approaches that expand or restrict status related in- and outflows and those addressing geographic in- and outflows are the most common. For inflows into irregularity, policies may address or produce migrant irregularity. For example, border walls and “pushback” practices aim at addressing irregular entries across a geographic border. Policy measures that restrict access to asylum, on the other hand, may impact on the status-related inflows into irregularity in a country. For outflows from irregularity, return policies aim at removing irregular migrants from the territory,
whereas regularisation programmes, mechanisms and initiatives endeavour to adjust the status of irregular migrants in the territory. The extent to which these policy approaches may address irregularity depends however on the scale of the policies, as well as the challenges countries may face in implementing specific approaches.

For this reason, we end the paper with a discussion on the challenges that impede policy implementation across the countries under study. This includes in particular structural
challenges related to legislative frameworks and labour market structures, as well as coordination issues, across administrative levels and stakeholder groups. In addition, lack of resources to implement policies, as well as politicisation of migration, have also blocked progress in some cases. Finally, the lack of data on the irregular migrant population has been highlighted as a key hindrance, speaking to the prescient focus of the MIrreM project.