Talk about a battle over immigration! Legal workers from the 10 EU member states set to join in May will receive full rights and benefits, but the "traditional" EU countries are placing some tough short term conditions.
Here is a good summary of the British dynamics leading to David Blunkett's decision to place restrictions on Eastern European immigrant workers. It includes some interesting stats on the economic benefits of EU enlargement.
This other extended Guardian piece highlights some of the debates (and last minute panic, according to the newspaper) that took place before the home minister said immigrants must, for one, register their jobs with the UK.
What these articles make clear is the xeonophobic views of some, and the balancing act governments have to make with regard to policies on Eastern European immigration. It seems practical to place conditions on guest workers, even if they are EU citizens, all goverments do, but those conditions should be fair and driven not by nationalist or xenophobic sentiments, but by sound policy decisions. But then again, if the EU is one fluid "body" why the restrictions on any citizens?
Benefits clampdown for new EU citizens
Michael White and Alan Travis
Tuesday February 24, 2004
The Guardian
David Blunkett last night bowed to pressure in the controversy over East European immigration when he unveiled tougher-than-expected restrictions on jobseekers coming to Britain after 10 new member states join the European Union on May 1.
In a move that won the applause of the CBI and the TUC - but set Britain apart from most EU states - Mr Blunkett insisted he is "balancing" the labour needs of a dynamic economy with measures to prevent "benefit tourism" and potential strains on public services.
But the home secretary failed to stem criticism with his announcement that he will restrict access to benefits for up to two years and require workers from so-called "accession" countries such as Poland, Hungary and the Baltic states to register their UK jobs.
On left and right, the government was accused of a last-minute panic. In response, ministers insist they will deport fraudsters and that - after 20 illegal Chinese workers died in Morecambe Bay - they are determined to stop migrants sliding into "the exploitation of the sub-economy".
Mr Blunkett's decision, taken in consultation with Tony Blair and cabinet colleagues last week, will mean that jobseekers from eight EU newcomers from the old Soviet bloc will have full rights to enter Britain from May 1 along with tourists and other visitors. But they will be required to join a workers registration scheme once they have found a job and will have to provide evidence that they are being paid at least the minimum wage.
New migrant workers will not be eligible for the full range of UK benefits - housing benefit, income support or council housing - until they have been in continuous employment for at least 12 months. Those who fail to find jobs will not be able to claim benefit for two years.
If officially sponsored predictions that no more than 13,000 a year will arrive from among the 75m new EU citizens prove wrong, officials stand by to follow France, Germany and most EU states in blocking new entrants, as EU "transition" rules permit, for up to seven years.
Emphasising the advantages of an open door policy, Mr Blunkett reminded MPs that the government welcomes legal migration.
"At the same time we have balanced this by taking tougher measures to clamp down on illegal working, abuse of the asylum system and clandestine entry," he said.
Yesterday's formula is less than the fully-fledged work permit regime which Downing Street, fearful of the xenophobic tabloids, had been urging. It is believed that Mr Blunkett's plea to the cabinet that if new workers were not encouraged to come legally they would come illegally anyway, clinched the argument.
The Conservatives backed work permits, as they warned of a flood of cheap labour and benefit tourists heading to wards Dover, some accompanied by children who could not be left "destitute" in the streets.
Mr Blunkett told his Tory shadow, David Davis, that work permits would be costly and bureaucratic, compared with what aides called his own "light touch" approach.
But he has been forced to embrace tougher restraints than initially predicted after last week's discussions at No 10. No paper registration certificate was then expected and benefit restrictions for those who fail to find work were thought to be likely to last 18 months, not two years.
ยท The Irish prime minister, Bertie Ahern, last night hinted at restrictions on benefit, after Ireland became, in effect, the only EU state with a wholly open door policy to migrants after Mr Blunkett's announcement. "We must protect ourselves from what could be an abuse of the system. That was always our position," he said.
In line with my thoughts, are they really "immigrants" if they are EU citizens. How do we define migration in the new European Union?
Posted by: Roya at February 23, 2004 11:50 PMThis article is a bit dated now that Britain has passed its restrictions, but it does give a good overview of the attitude towards migrant workers as it is played out in the Netherlands.
This Guardian piece puts a human face to the words "guest worker" and really highlights some outright racism. It notes, interestingly enough, that elements of fear (such as a flood of Gypsy immigrants or otherwise) is unfounded since there is no real or accurate data on the impact immigration from Eastern Europe will have. The article concludes that migration will be high initially, and level out later. It gives a good picture of the identity issues as the EU grows.
Posted by: Roya Aziz at February 24, 2004 12:20 AM