Medicion Migra Irregular
Transcript of Medicion Migra Irregular
-
8/15/2019 Medicion Migra Irregular
1/32
Measuring Irregular Migration and
Population Flows – What AvailableData Can Tell
Albert Kraler* and David Reichel**
ABSTRACT
Wild assumptions, estimates and number games are made in regard toirregular migration flows. While the numbers cited are, in fact, often datedand of unclear origin, reports use such numbers to suggest a rise in irregu-lar migration; they also usually assume that irregular entry and, to someextent, overstaying are the only significant pathways into irregularity. Toproperly account for irregular migration flows, however, both in- and out-
flows, as well as the complex ways of becoming (or ceasing to be) an‘‘irregular migrant’’, have to be included. Thus, apart from irregularmigration flows in the narrow sense, like unlawful entry and emigration of persons (unrecorded returns, registered voluntary returns and deporta-tions), other flows – notably status-related inflows (overstaying, withdrawalof residence status, rejection of asylum claims), status-related outflows(regularisation, ex lege changes of the legal status of irregular migrants,etc.) and flows related to vital events (births and deaths), must be consid-ered. The article provides a critical appraisal of available data sources,indicators, estimates and methods to estimate irregular migration flows. In
the context of a case study, we then analyse statistics of apprehensions atthe EUROPEAN UNION’s external borders in Eastern Europe as indica-tors of geographical flows – migration flows in the narrow sense – arguingthat despite the many limitations of the available data, the data can never-theless be used as indicators of certain trends.
INTRODUCTION
The fight against irregular migration has been a priority of European Union
policies on immigration and asylum ever since the communitarisation of
* International Centre for Migration Policy Development.
** International Centre for Migration Policy Development.
2011 The Authors
Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd., International Migration 2011 IOM9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK, International Migration Vol. 49 (5) 2011
and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA. ISSN 0020-7985
doi:10.1111/j.1468-2435.2011.00699.x
MIGRATIONEdited by Elzbieta Gozdziak, Georgetown University
-
8/15/2019 Medicion Migra Irregular
2/32
-
8/15/2019 Medicion Migra Irregular
3/32
-
8/15/2019 Medicion Migra Irregular
4/32
The definition of irregular population and migration flows4 is arguably more
difficult, not only because there are different types of flows into and out of an
irregular status (explained in more detail below), but also because of the tempo-ral disjuncture between individual flow events and the actual change into an
irregular condition, where it is hard to define what point exactly constitutes the
flow into and out of irregularity. The following example may illustrate the
point: in the current context, the majority of asylum seekers enter European
countries irregularly, although they have a legal right to stay once admitted to
the asylum procedure. Thus, while their entry may be irregular, that particular
inflow does not contribute to the stock of irregular migrants. On the other
hand, asylum seekers whose asylum claim is later rejected become irregular resi-
dents almost by definition, if no humanitarian or other reasons justifying their
stay can be invoked. Finally, the time passing between the three events deter-mining the status of the migrant – physical (irregular) entry of a territory of an
EU member state, submission of an asylum claim and refusal (or positive deci-
sion of an asylum claim) may range from a few days to several years.
For the purpose of this article, we define irregular population and migration
flows as events or processes that influence the size and composition of the
stock of the irregular migrant population in a particular geographic unit and
over a particular period of time. Inflows contribute to the stocks of irregular
migrants and outflows reduce them. Following Vogel and Jandl (2008) and
graphically shown in Figure 2, below, three basic types of irregular migrationflows can be distinguished: (1) irregular migration flows, or ‘‘geographic flows’’
in the terminology of Vogel and Jandl, (2) vital events affecting the irregular
migrant population or demographic flows, and (3) status-related flows. Concep-
tually, this approach follows standard demographic approaches to population
change and mirrors the terminology used for the demography of the foreign
resident population. The stock of the legal foreign resident population is also
influenced by the same types of flows: migration (immigration and emigration),
vital events (birth and deaths of foreign residents) and status related flows (in
the case of foreign nationals, status related flows essentially consist of the
acquisition and loss of citizenship, but could also include loss of residence per-
mits or regularisation). Our model of irregular population change helps to dif-
ferentiate different components of population change and essentially serves a
statistical purpose, namely to identify and classify flow indicators regarding the
irregular migrant population according to different components of population
change. The model thus does not seek to explain patterns, types or reasons for
irregular migration. Our aims here are more modest: to provide a heuristic
model to better understand changes of the size of the irregular migrant popula-
tion from a demographic point-of-view and to contribute to a better under-
standing of related indicators. In particular, our model helps to highlight thatchanges of the size of the irregular migrant population are not necessarily,
directly related to irregular forms of movement. This said, even non-migratory
flows – status related and demographic flows – are ultimately linked to human
mobility. The nature and strength of this link, however, is subject to consider-
able variation.
100 Kraler and Reichel
2011 The Authors. International Migration 2011 IOM
-
8/15/2019 Medicion Migra Irregular
5/32
-
8/15/2019 Medicion Migra Irregular
6/32
-
8/15/2019 Medicion Migra Irregular
7/32
constitute an important dimension of irregular migration dynamics (see McKay
et al., 2009).
EXISTING RESEARCH AND METHODS – MEASURING IRREGULAR
MIGRATION AND POPULATION FLOWS – WHAT DO WE KNOW?
In many respects, the problems in quantifying irregular migration and popula-
tion flows are not so different from the problems encountered in adequately
measuring flows affecting the legal foreign resident population. This, in princi-
ple, concerns all three types of flows. However, in the case of the legal resident,
foreign population measurement problems are arguably less pronounced in
regard to demographic flows and status related flows and more pronounced in
regard to migration flows. In regard to the latter, a variety of recent studies (see
Kupiszewska et al., 2010; Nowok, 2006) point to the many problems in produc-
ing comparable and reliable statistics on both immigration and emigration. One
of the key issues in measuring migration is the definition of migration – which
flows should be counted as migration events and which should not. The key dis-
tinction here is between non-migratory movements, usually defined as move-
ments involving less than three months of stay, and migratory movements
(temporary and permanent migration), involving a stay of more than three and
twelve months, respectively. The inherently limited nature of the available statis-tical indicators on irregular migration flows do not easily allow one to make
such a distinction in regard to irregular migration flows. It is sufficient to note
that most analyses of irregular migration flows tend to interpret irregular border
crossing as synonymous with an (irregular) migration event, without much con-
sideration of the temporal dimension of migration and thus, without much con-
sideration of the impact of recorded or estimated irregular migration flows on
the stocks of irregular residents. Given the data limitations, it is nearly impossi-
ble to draw conclusions on the impact of irregular migration flows on the stocks
of irregular migrants, not least since an unclear share of irregular entrants alsosubmit asylum applications and thus do not become part of the irregular
migrant stock – or do so only considerably later. Indeed, status-related flows
such as overstaying and negative asylum decisions are a major source of irregu-
lar migration flows. To assess the overall impact of flows on stocks, good esti-
mates on all three components of irregular population and migration flows
would have to be made. However, so far there have been no systematic attempts
to account for the demographic balance of irregular migration by taking into
account all types of flows into and out of irregularity, and the few available
analyses largely focus on migration flows.
Generally, estimates on irregular migration flows are few and far between.
Indeed, most analyses of irregular migration flows limit themselves to analysing
selected statistical indicators on (geographical) irregular migration flows, such
as border apprehensions or refusals at the border. In addition to the more
descriptive reports from government agencies, European Union institutions and
Measuring irregular migration and population flows 103
2011 The Authors. International Migration 2011 IOM
-
8/15/2019 Medicion Migra Irregular
8/32
other international agencies, there are a number of more analytical studies of
(geographical) irregular migration flows from Africa into southern Europe
(Simon, 2006; de Haas, 2007; Carling, 2007b) and of irregular migration flowsin Eastern Europe (Jandl, 2007). While Carling and Jandl essentially use avail-
able statistical indicators to indicate broad trends in the development and pat-
terns of irregular migration, de Haas and Simon also attempt a global
quantification of irregular migration flows. However, only de Haas provides a
clear methodology for his estimate.
The first attempts to systematically collect statistical indicators on irregular
migration in Europe go back to the early 1990s, when the perception of a loom-
ing immigration crisis, characterized by a major rise in the numbers of asylum
applications and recorded irregular entries, contributed to more intensive inter-
national forms of cooperation on irregular migration, including the exchange of data regarding it. Thus, the exchange of information on asylum and irregular
migration was one of the early key priorities of the International Centre for
Migration Policy Development (ICMPD) in Vienna, whose then Director Gen-
eral Jonas Widgren produced the most widely known estimates on irregular
migration flows to Western Europe, referred to in the introduction to this arti-
cle. These in turn are based on apprehension statistics collected by ICMPD (see
ICMPD, 1994; Widgren, 1994). In 1998, ICMPD began collecting a broad range
of statistical indicators on irregular migration in central and Eastern Europe,
and published them from 2001 onwards in its statistical yearbooks. At the Euro-pean Union level, the Centre for Information, Discussion and Exchange on the
Crossing of Frontiers and Immigration (CIREFI), established in 1992, began
informally exchanging statistical data on irregular migration in the mid-1990s.
Since 1998, Eurostat has been formally involved in the CIREFI data collection
and has been collecting monthly data from that year onwards (Singleton, 2003).
With the Commission’s Annual Reports on Migration and Asylum – the first
edition of which was launched in 2003 (with 2001 as a reference year) – a large
part of the annual data collected by CIREFI also became publicly available.
Lack of publicly available information on definitions and sources of the respec-
tive national data compiled in the CIREFI data, however, leaves the CIREFI
data collection a problematic source (see also Jandl and Kraler, 2006). Follow-
ing the adoption of the force of the Regulation on Community Statistics on
Migration and International Protection (Regulation No. 862 ⁄ 2007), data collec-
tion on apprehensions and return was put on completely new footing and is
now collected and disseminated by Eurostat as ‘‘Enforcement of Immigration
Legislation’’ (EIL) Statistics. EU member states are now legally obliged to pro-
vide statistical data on irregular migration on an annual basis. In addition, EIL
statistics are, in contrast to CIREFI data, also systematically disseminated and
published. However, statistical data on border apprehensions at the EuropeanUnion’s external borders are also compiled by the European Union’s border
agency, Frontex, in the framework of the Frontex Risk Analysis Network
(FRAN). These data are not systematically published.
Generally, statistical indicators of irregular migration have now increasingly
become available for the European Union as a whole. The expansion of the
104 Kraler and Reichel
2011 The Authors. International Migration 2011 IOM
-
8/15/2019 Medicion Migra Irregular
9/32
-
8/15/2019 Medicion Migra Irregular
10/32
lack of periodical stock estimates that would allow producing them.
Only in Spain, where irregular migrants are registered in municipal pop-
ulation registers (Padró n) and comparisons of residents in the Padró n tothe stocks of permit holders allow estimations of irregular migrant
stocks, have stock-based estimates of irregular inflows been undertaken.6
Partly based on estimates of the net change of the irregular migrant
population in Spain, Hein de Haas has recently put forward an estimate
of net irregular population and migration flows from West Africa to
Spain. Assuming that Spain’s share of the irregular migrant population
from West Africa is similar to Spain’s share of the total population of
West African origin in Europe (20%), de Haas then estimates total
irregular net migration from West Africa to Europe at 75,000. Using
data drawn from a survey on Ghanaian and Senegalese migrants inItaly and Spain, which suggests that about one-third of surveyed immi-
grants entered the country irregularly (compared to two thirds of over-
stayers), de Haas estimates the annual number of successful irregular
border crossings of West Africans to Europe at about 25,000 (Jandl,
2008: 55; De Haas, 2007: 46). Although based on an initial estimate of
net irregular population and migration flows in Spain, the estimate of
de Haas goes considerably beyond estimating net population change
and combines different approaches in order to arrive at an estimate of
overall irregular net migration from West Africa to Europe as well asthe total number of irregular entries into Europe. The new Clandestino
stock estimates of the irregular foreign resident population in the EU15
for 2002, 2005 and 2008 (see Vogel and Kovacheva, this issue) also
allow an estimation of net irregular migration and population flows on
the European level. According to the estimate, the total irregular resi-
dent population decreased between 1.3 and 2.1 million between 2002
and 2008. Annual net decrease thus averaged 0.22 million in the mini-
mum and 0.33 million in the maximum variant. Regularisations and the
impact of enlargement are the most likely factors contributing to the
decrease (see also below).
(2) A second approach to estimating irregular population and irregular flows
specific to irregular migration are multiplier estimates, based on the
numbers of apprehensions of irregular border crossings and an assumed
ratio of apprehensions to non-detected successful border crossings. Mul-
tiplier estimates have been put forward by Heckmann and Wunderlich
(2001: 64), who use a multiplier of two, and Widgren (1994), who
assumed that the number of persons successfully entering ‘‘Western
European states’’ was four to six times higher than the number of actual
apprehensions. In later estimates, Widgren also used a multiplier of two,although he applied it to adjusted apprehension figures (Jandl, 2003). In
all cases, the multiplier used is highly questionable. Heckmann and
Wunderlich (2001) neither provide a source for their multiplier, nor do
they justify its application to the phenomenon at hand (nor does Wid-
gren justify his use of the multiplier of two). Presumably both Widgren’s
106 Kraler and Reichel
2011 The Authors. International Migration 2011 IOM
-
8/15/2019 Medicion Migra Irregular
11/32
-
8/15/2019 Medicion Migra Irregular
12/32
entry-exit record system for third-country nationals subject to a visa
obligation at the European level (see European Commission, 2008a). If
implemented, the system would provide data on entries into and exitsfrom the European Union. Yet, to what extent such a system is going
to provide reliable statistical information remains to be seen. Given the
high numbers of border crossings (as compared to migration move-
ments in the narrow sense), discrepancies between long-term entries and
exits are likely to be of such a small magnitude that it will be hard to
distinguish statistical errors and coverage problems from actual over-
staying.
(4) Indicators on migration movements drawn from sample surveys could
in principle provide an interesting alternative method for estimating
irregular population and migration flows. In practice, however, indica-tors of migration movements drawn from surveys are of limited use as
a method for globally quantifying irregular migration flows and migra-
tion flows more generally (see for example Martı ´ and Ro ´ dena, 2007 on
the use of the Labour Force Survey to estimate migration). Similar
limitations apply to status related flows and vital events or demo-
graphic flows. Inherent limitations of survey based methods include:
the problems of accurately sampling (irregular) migrants; issues con-
cerning the extrapolation of information on migration trajectories
drawn from the survey to migrants as a whole (i.e. questions of identi-fying suitable reference populations); the problem that reported move-
ments are spread out over several years, and, if only recent movements
are recorded, they usually concern only a relatively small share of
migrants; and finally, inherent problems relating to the fact that sample
surveys of resident migrants only provide information on migrants still
residing in the country at the time of the survey and that surveys thus
do not capture migration movements of those who have left the coun-
try before the survey was undertaken. However, despite these limita-
tions, variables related to irregular entry are useful sources of
information with respect to the relative quantitative importance of dif-
ferent pathways into irregularity, including the proportion of over-stayers
vis-a ` -vis irregular entrants or the share of migrants entering with
forged documents.8
(5) An additional potential method is to compare different data sources for
(geographical) migration movements, also known as the residual method
(see Jandl, this issue). For example, this method compares statistics on
immigration based on population register data with data on residence
permits issued in a given period, which is – in principle – possible in
countries such as the Netherlands, the Nordic countries or Austria. Inpractice, however, differences between data sources often simply reflect
differences in the coverage and the design of the datasets, rather than
irregular entries, and thus are difficult to use. Nevertheless, in countries
with highly developed register systems such an approach seems to be a
possible way forward.
108 Kraler and Reichel
2011 The Authors. International Migration 2011 IOM
-
8/15/2019 Medicion Migra Irregular
13/32
DATA SOURCES ON IRREGULAR INFLOWS AND OUTFLOWS
As has been shown so far, analyses of irregular population and migration flowslargely draw on apprehension statistics and, as a corollary, generally focus on
irregular migration flows – in particular, inflows. Yet, there is more data avail-
able than apprehension statistics, including statistics on other types of flows.
Potential data sources and indicators of irregular migration will be reviewed in
the following section, below.
Statistical Indicators on Irregular Migration Flows
Inflow indicators
Apprehension statistics are the most frequently used source of data on irregular
migration flows. Ideally, only border apprehensions should be used as an indica-
tor of irregular migration flows. In practice, however, it is relatively difficult to
make a clear distinction between border and inland apprehensions and hence
between migrants entering or transiting a country and migrants who have been
resident for some time and thus cannot be related to a recent, irregular migra-
tion flow. On the European level, the CIREFI data collection and the EIL data
collection explicitly include both border and inland apprehensions (see Single-
ton, 2003). Statistics collected under the EIL data collection distinguish between
refusals at the border – defined as the number of third-country nationals for-
mally refused permission to enter at the Schengen border – and third-country
nationals found to be illegally present according to the national law. In 2009,
570,660 third-country nationals were found to be illegally present in the EU-27
according to EIL statistics (Eurostat). CIREFI statistics indicate similar num-
bers for earlier periods, except for 2000 and 2001, when the numbers of appre-
hended migrants almost reached 700,000.
Asylum applications are frequently taken as additional indicators of irregular
migration flows. Indeed, asylum has become increasingly important as a routeof entry into the European Union, as other admission channels have become
closed, and both internal and external migration controls have massively stepped
up in the course of the 1990s. However, while asylum seekers largely enter Euro-
pean countries in an irregular manner, and a significant share of asylum applica-
tions is subsequently refused, asylum applications are also a problematic
indicator of irregular migration flows as the outcome of the procedure – whether
asylum seekers are granted asylum and hence a legal status or not – can only be
established ex post and, in the absence of cohort data on asylum and subsequent
enforcement, cannot be systematically established at all. In addition, failedasylum seekers may never be formally irregularly staying, for example, when
removal immediately follows the refusal of an application or when persons who
cannot be removed receive a toleration status. Thus, while asylum applications
may indeed present a reasonable flow indicator for irregular forms of border
crossings, the relationship to irregular migrant stock is entirely unclear.
Measuring irregular migration and population flows 109
2011 The Authors. International Migration 2011 IOM
-
8/15/2019 Medicion Migra Irregular
14/32
Statistics on refusals at the border are often used as an additional indicator
of irregular migration flows. However, as their relationship to irregular entries
is unclear, they are less useful as a flow indicator.
Outflow indicators
For outflows, there are basically three types of data: (1) statistics on persons
apprehended while leaving, (2) statistics on voluntary exits of persons obliged
to leave the country, and (3) data on deportations. Data on aliens appre-
hended while leaving are likely to be patchy, may capture a large number of
transit migrants and are highly sensitive to specific enforcement actions.9 In
general, return statistics provide a much better data source, even though data
on voluntary exits are never comprehensive since not all persons who leave
the country voluntarily register their departure. Within the CIREFI data col-
lection, and the EIL data collection replacing it, voluntary and forced returns
are merged into one category (‘‘removed aliens’’). In addition, CIREFI ⁄ EIL
data also include an additional category (‘‘return decisions’’), which is used to
calculate effective return rates. According to CIREFI data, some 797,700 per-
sons were removed between 2004 and 2007 (as compared to 1.8 million appre-
hensions in the same period). The effective return rate was around 48 per
cent in 2004 and dropped – if Greece, which does not issue return decisions,
is not considered – to around 34 per cent (European Commission, 2009: 32– 34). In 2009, the EU member states reported some 250,000 removals, with 50
per cent of all returns being reported by Greece and the United Kingdom
alone.
Statistical Indicators on Status-Related Flows
Inflow indicators
Status-related flows are of major quantitative importance with respect toirregular migration. Among these, overstaying can be considered one of the
main sources of flows into irregularity in a variety of countries. Thus, in Italy
it is estimated that about 70 per cent of the undocumented population have
entered the country legally with a valid visa (Fasani, 2008: 60), while the
share of over-stayers in Spain seems to be of a similar quantitative impor-
tance. For many other countries, the proportion of over-stayers, however, is
entirely unclear, even though it is generally assumed to be of a significant
scope. Quoting selected assessments of the share of over-stayers, a European
Commission Memo from 2008 estimates that over-stayers may account for 50
per cent of irregular inflows (European Commission, 2008b). In the European
context, surveys including information on the proportion of over-stayers vis-a ` -
vis legal entrants are currently the only available data sources on overstaying.
However, there are a number of indicators on other types of status-related
inflows, in particular, for status-related flows linked to the asylum system.
110 Kraler and Reichel
2011 The Authors. International Migration 2011 IOM
-
8/15/2019 Medicion Migra Irregular
15/32
-
8/15/2019 Medicion Migra Irregular
16/32
-
8/15/2019 Medicion Migra Irregular
17/32
-
8/15/2019 Medicion Migra Irregular
18/32
would argue on the basis of our previous discussion of the individual
components and complexity of irregular population and migration flows, we
should be careful to interpret irregular migration flows – the focus of the casestudy below – as flows contributing to the irregular resident population. In
Northern European countries, in particular, irregular inflows are likely to con-
tribute to the stock of asylum seekers, rather than the stock of irregular resi-
dents – although this is likely to differ significantly by citizenship and by
country. In any case, only a detailed analysis of the links between asylum and
irregular migration (i.e., through an investigation of the link of apprehensions
at the border and asylum applications) would be able to show the extent to
which irregular migration flows actually contribute to irregular migrant stocks.11
Suffice it to say that the uncertainty regarding the relationship between irregular
forms of movement into the European Union and irregular migrant stocksreflects its specific structure for global mobility. This unique structure affords
few legal opportunities for mobility,12 but at the same time, also protects the
rights of those with legitimate claims to international protection.
CASE STUDY: TRENDS IN IRREGULAR MIGRATION FLOWS TO
EASTERN EUROPE – AN ISSUE OF DECREASING IMPORTANCE?
The following case study of irregular migration flows to Eastern Europeattempts to show how a carefully delimited analysis allows one to make state-
ments regarding overall trends in patterns of irregular migration. As our con-
ceptual analysis in the above suggests, however, we should be careful not to
confuse the irregularity of movement with subsequent irregular stay. This analy-
sis is based on statistics of border apprehension at external EU borders collected
by the International Centre for Migration Policy Development (ICMPD) from
central and eastern European countries. This regional focus has been chosen for
several reasons. The first reason is pragmatic: detailed apprehension statistics,
which distinguish between different border sections, between border and inlandapprehensions and between apprehensions at entry and at exit, are readily avail-
able for all countries of this region. Second, the recent waves of enlargement
have shifted the European Union’s external borders further east. As a result of
enlargement, many former irregular migrants to the EU-15 have become regu-
lar, changing the patterns of irregular migration (see Jandl, 2007). Because all
of the countries included in our analysis border on non-EU countries, the data
allows for an analysis of patterns of irregular migration at current (eastern)
EU-borders. Indeed, in many ways, Europe as a whole seems now to be the
more appropriate region for analysing irregular migration because: (1) the bor-
der controls in the European Union – largely focused on the European Union’s
external borders and internal controls – have changed significantly, and (2) the
irregular movements within the European Union include a sizeable share of sec-
ondary movements, which do not affect the overall stocks of irregular migrants
in the EU. Focusing on irregular migration flows at the European Union’s
114 Kraler and Reichel
2011 The Authors. International Migration 2011 IOM
-
8/15/2019 Medicion Migra Irregular
19/32
-
8/15/2019 Medicion Migra Irregular
20/32
-
8/15/2019 Medicion Migra Irregular
21/32
current EU external borders occurred in Poland (around 5,000) and Romania
(around 3,300) during the five years under study.
So far, we have only looked at the total number of apprehensions at externalEU borders, including both irregular in- and outflows in the reporting country.
In what follows, we take into account only apprehensions of persons trying to
enter the country from outside of the EU in order to approximate trends of
irregular inflows via external EU borders. Between 2003 and 2007, some 37,000
apprehensions of persons irregularly entering Poland, Hungary, Slovakia,
Bulgaria, and Romania were reported. The data from Slovenia are not disaggre-
gated by direction of flow and are, therefore, not included in the following
analysis. Out of all apprehensions at current EU external borders, almost 80 per
cent concern inflows. However, the ratios between inflows and outflows of
reported apprehensions differ between the countries (see Table 3 below). Appre-hensions of irregularly entering persons at current external EU borders consti-
tuted only 23.9 per cent of all migration related border apprehensions in
Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, Bulgaria and Romania between 2003 and 2007. In
the five countries under observation, out of the almost 47,000 apprehensions at
external borders, 9,800, or 20.9 per cent, concerned outflows.
Taking Hungary as an example, it becomes clear that irregular migration
flows are not solely directed towards western European EU member states but
also towards new EU member states and towards countries outside the EU (see
Table 4 below).Apprehensions in the five central and eastern European (CEE) countries
included in the analysis have considerably decreased from 2003 to 2007, falling
from 38,000 to some 18,000, an approximately fifty per cent decline (see
Figure 3).
Apprehensions at current external EU borders declined much less, decreasing
from some 11,500 to roughly 8,000, or by 30 per cent. However, if only inflows at
TABLE 3
RATIOS OF INFLOWS AND OUTFLOWS AND SHARE OF APPREHENSIONS ATEXTERNAL BORDERS IN TOTAL NUMBER OF APPREHENSIONS
Share of apprehensionsat external borders
in total numberof apprehensions
Share of inflows atexternal borders*
Share of inflows atexternal borders on
total number ofborder apprehensions*
Poland 25.8% 83.9% 21.7%Hungary 18.0% 59.6% 10.7%Slovakia 46.0% 99.6% 45.8%
Slovenia 76.1% n. a. n. a.Bulgaria 43.6% 74.5% 32.5%Romania 39.5% 65.4% 25.8%Total 36.2% 79.1% 23.9%
Note: * without Slovenia.Sources: Own calculations based on Futo and Jandl, 2004–2007 and Futo, 2008.
Measuring irregular migration and population flows 117
2011 The Authors. International Migration 2011 IOM
-
8/15/2019 Medicion Migra Irregular
22/32
-
8/15/2019 Medicion Migra Irregular
23/32
-
8/15/2019 Medicion Migra Irregular
24/32
even more pronounced. Both figures peaked in 2001 and sharply declined
subsequently. Apprehensions in the EU-25 have declined from just under
692,000 in 2001 to around 460,000 in 2007, while the number of asylum applica-
tions has declined from 416,000 to about 220,000 (EMN, 2008; European Com-
mission, 2009; Ge ´ DAP ⁄ Berlin Institute for Comparative Social Research, 2005;
UNHCR, 2009). Only apprehensions at southern European maritime borders
seem to have greatly increased since 2003. However, if apprehension statistics at
southern maritime borders are disaggregated by place of apprehension, it
becomes clear that the overall increase of apprehensions at southern borders is
entirely due to the short-lived increase of irregular entries at Italy’s southern
shores between 2003 and 2005 and the significant inflows recorded at the
Canary Islands in 2006, both of which can be interpreted as exceptional events.
The overall trend, therefore, also seems to point towards a decrease of irregular
entries at the EU’s southern borders.
A decrease in the overall volume of irregular migration flows seems also to beconsistent with the Clandestino stock estimates for the irregular migrant popula-
tion in the EU-25 for the years 2002, 2005 and 2008 (see Vogel and Kovacheva,
this issue; see above).
Enlargement has certainly reduced the pool of irregular migrants coming to
the EU, as citizens of new EU member states – notably Poles before 2004 and
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Asylum EU 25
Total aprehensions EU
25
Total Border Apprehensions at the
EU's Southern Sea
Borders
Total Border
Apprehensions at
Current Eastern EU
Borders
FIGURE 4
SELECTED INDICATORS OF IRREGULAR MIGRATION FLOWS INTO THE EUROPEAN
UNION (STANDARDISED INDICATORS, 2003 = 100)
Sources: Data on Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, Slovania, Bulgaria, Romania: Futo and Jandl,
2004–2007; Futo, 2008. Data on Italy: Ministry of the Interior; on Greece: Maroukis, 2008;
on Spain 2003 to 2005: De Haas, 2007: (Appendix); on Spain 2006 and 2007: González-En-
rı́quez, 2008; on asylum applications: Eurostat database; on apprehensions (CIREFI data):
Gédap ⁄ BIVS, 2005; European Migration Network, 2008; European Commission, 2009.
120 Kraler and Reichel
2011 The Authors. International Migration 2011 IOM
-
8/15/2019 Medicion Migra Irregular
25/32
Bulgarians and Romanians before 2007 – were significant categories of irregular
migrants in some EU member states. While enlargement may have turned
formerly irregularly staying citizens from new EU Member States into legalresidents, their involvement in informal economic activities, by contrast, may not
have changed. The increasing policing of the labour market combined with the
more drastic sanctions faced by both employers and employees for the employ-
ment of illegally staying migrants from third countries may well mean that undoc-
umented third-country nationals are increasingly pushed out of the labour market
and ⁄ or are further pushed ‘‘down’’ to even more precarious positions and forms
of employment. Indeed, this is what some recent studies seem suggest (see, for
example, the studies compiled in Bommes and Sciortino, 2011). Whether the mar-
ginalisation of irregular migrants on Europe’s labour markets has contributed to a
decline in irregular entries, however, must remain an open question. Media imagesof migrants arriving at the European Union’s southern maritime borders as well
as statistics on apprehended ‘‘boat people’’ seem to tell a different story and sug-
gest a rise of irregular migration. However, as we have shown, available indicators
on overall trends do not support this conclusion. On the contrary, available evi-
dence seems to suggest that the rise of apprehensions in southern Europe – or
more precisely, Italy’s southern shores and the Canary Islands – should be inter-
preted as an exceptional phenomenon and not indicative of a trend.
CONCLUSIONS
This article has shown that there are multiple ways in which migrants become,
or cease to be, irregular migrants. These can be interpreted as flows into and
out of the irregular resident population and can be grouped into three types of
flows: geographic or migration flows, demographic flows and status-related
flows.
There are a variety of potential indicators for each of these different types of
flows, although most indicators refer to specific subtypes of the three main typesof flows. Nevertheless, these indicators can be useful for assessing broad trends
regarding the dynamics, patterns, as well as structure of irregular migration.
Moreover, statistical indicators on different types of irregular migration are also
important in their own right, notably for assessing state policies towards irregular
migration, both in terms of effectiveness and of implications for irregular migra-
tion. In addition to statistical indicators of irregular migration flows, there are a
limited number of methods that can be used to estimate the volume of irregular
population and migration flows, both globally and for specific components of
irregular population and migration flows. Finally, survey-based approaches allow
for an assessment of the relative importance of different components of irregularmigration flows, particularly the relative importance of status-related versus geo-
graphic inflows (i.e., irregular migration). As we have argued in the above, how-
ever, we need to be careful in interpreting the link between different (potential)
in- and outflows on the one hand and irregular migrant stocks on the other.
Measuring irregular migration and population flows 121
2011 The Authors. International Migration 2011 IOM
-
8/15/2019 Medicion Migra Irregular
26/32
Statistics of border apprehensions represent the most frequently used indica-
tor for irregular migration flows. In the absence of plausible information on
the rate of detected versus non-detected migrants, however, no conclusions onthe overall volume of inbound geographic irregular migration flows can be
drawn from apprehension statistics. Nevertheless, as our case study has sought
to demonstrate, apprehension statistics can still serve as useful trend indica-
tors. To be useful for the analysis, statistics need to be disaggregated by place
of apprehension and direction of movement, which is not always the case and
increasingly less possible in regard to apprehension within the Schengen zone.
Limiting the analysis of apprehension statistics to apprehensions at the EU’s
external borders and using statistics on border apprehensions, as we have
done, thus avoids some of the problems associated with the unclear nature of
apprehension data. Our analysis of border apprehensions suggests that irregu-lar migration flows at the European Union’s eastern external borders have
considerable declined between 2002 and 2007 (see also Jandl, 2007). In particu-
lar, this decline can be seen in Slovenia and Slovakia, the countries with the
largest number of apprehensions at borders. Even though apprehensions are
mostly reported in the direction to Western Europe, a sizeable number of
migrants are apprehended while attempting to cross an external EU border
towards non-EU countries, suggesting a significant level of irregular return
and circular migration. Given that all of the countries in the region have con-
siderably stepped up their border controls, the decrease of reported borderapprehensions suggests that inflows have, in fact, considerably decreased.
At the same time, some caution is warranted. As a result of enlargement – and
often preceding it – citizens of new member states no longer need a visa to enter
the older member states and, thus, are no longer subject to apprehensions at the
(now internal) border, or are so at much lower extent. This decline may to some
degree also reflect a change in migrant strategies: the increased use, for example,
of legal opportunities for movement and subsequent overstaying or the use of
forged documents – which remains under-researched as a phenomenon and, in
the absence of any reliable data, must for now remain a mere hypothesis.
NOTES
1. Jonas Widgren later also became a source for the estimate of 500,000 irregular
migrants, although it is not entirely clear when he first began to circulate this esti-
mate. He was first cited as a source by Europol report in 1998 (see Jandl, 2003).
According to Jandl, Widgen’s estimate is based on apprehension statistics, an assumed
multiplier of 2 and the ratio of asylum seekers arriving irregularly in European
countries.2. The Centre for Information, Discussion and Exchange on the Crossing of Frontiers
and Immigration (CIREFI) was set up in 1992 and since 1994, has a formal mandate
to collect data on irregular migration, provided by member states on a voluntary
basis. Since the launch of the Commission’s Annual Statistical Report on Migration
and Asylum, the larger part of the data collected by CIREFI on border apprehension
has also become publicly available.
122 Kraler and Reichel
2011 The Authors. International Migration 2011 IOM
-
8/15/2019 Medicion Migra Irregular
27/32
3. Until 2009, data have not been systematically published, although Frontex’s annual
report usually contained selected indicators. In 2009, Frontex started publishing ana-
lytical reports on trends in irregular migration, with more data being released in the
course of these studies (Frontex, 2009, 2010).4. We use the term ‘‘irregular migration and population flows’’ as shorthand for
population flows influencing the size of the irregular migrant population, which can
be differentiated into migration related flows and other flows not directly linked to
geographical mobility. We thus use a modified version of the terminology developed
by the Clandestino project (see Vogel and Jandl, 2008; see also the following
discussion).
5. However, most countries provide persons whose status is withdrawn with a quasi-
status as long as they remain on the territory.
6. The coverage of the Padró n, however, is not without problems. There is considerable
under registration of both legal and irregular migrants as well as a presumably highshare of non-deregistration upon emigration, which makes it difficult to interpret
variations in the number of recorded residents (Gonza ´ lez-Ferrer, 2009: 7).
7. For example, through systematically giving out computer readable bar code stickers
to all entrants, whether or not they are subject to visa requirements, as is the case,
for example, in South Africa.
8. Thus, a recent (non-random) survey of migrants regularised in the course of the 2000
Belgium regularisation programme provides interesting insights into different path-
ways into irregularity, modes and countries of entry. Among the 116 respondents
who answered this particular question, 28 migrants (24%) entered Belgium clandes-
tinely (without any documents, mainly from other Member States, in which some at
least had some sort of documentation), 45 (39%) used false papers or documentsobtained fraudulently through a smuggler, 33 (28%) had tourist visas, while the
remainder had some other sort of visa, suggesting that legal entry and subsequent
overstaying was less common than often thought. However, the high share of irregu-
lar entries among the respondents might also be related to the fact that ‘‘forced
migrants’’ (asylum seekers with a reasonable claim to refugee status, de facto refugees
from conflict countries) are known to represent the largest share of irregular entries
(See Centruum voor Sociaal Beleid, Universite ´ d’Anvers, Groupe d’e ´ tudes sur l’ethni-
cite ´ , le racisme, les migrations et l’exclusion, Universite ´ Libre de Bruxelle, 2008). An
earlier project on push and pull factors of international migration (Schoorl et al.,
2001) which conducted studies in two receiving countries (Italy and Spain) and fivesending countries (Egypt, Ghana, Morocco, Senegal and Turkey) also included ques-
tions on irregular entry versus overstaying in the receiving country questionnaires.
More recently, the Migrations from Africa to Europe (MAFE) survey implemented in
France, Italy and Spain similarly includes various items on the legal status of irregu-
lar migrants (see http://mafeproject.site.ined.fr/).
9. For instance, Austrian border guards regularly undertook specific operations target-
ing Romanian and Bulgarian buses en route to Romania and Bulgaria and carrying
migrant workers, resulting in relatively high figures of apprehended Romanian and
Bulgarian nationals leaving the country.
10. Own calculations based on Ge ´ dap ⁄ BVIS, European Commission, and ICMPD Year-
books (various years).11. Available analysis are usually limited to an analysis of the correlation between
apprehensions and asylum claims (see Jandl, 2004b).
12. Such opportunities may be important whether intended (i.e. the lifting of visa
requirements for most Western Balkan states) or unintended (i.e. the ‘‘generous’’ visa
issue practices for Ukrainians by Germany in the early years of the new millennium).
Measuring irregular migration and population flows 123
2011 The Authors. International Migration 2011 IOM
-
8/15/2019 Medicion Migra Irregular
28/32
13. In the questionnaire of the survey for the yearbooks, apprehensions are defined as
‘‘migration related border violations followed by apprehensions including migration
irregularities, irrespective of whether or not the apprehension was a result of a tech-
nical, administrative or criminal violation’’.
REFERENCES
Anderson, B., M. Ruhs, B. Rogaly, et al.
2006 Fair enough? Central and East European migrants in low-wage employment in
the UK , http://www.compas.ox.ac.uk/fileadmin/files/pdfs/Non_WP_pdfs/
Reports_and_Other_Publications/Changing_Status_Changing_Lives/Fair%20e-
nough%20paper%20-%201%20May%202006.pdf (accessed on 24 11 2010).
Baldwin-Edwards, M., and A. Kraler
2009 REGINE. Regularisations in Europe, Pallas Publications, Amsterdam.
Bommes, M., and G. Sciortino
2011 Foggy Social Structures. Irregular Migration and the Eastern Enlargement,
Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam (forthcoming).
Bundesministerium fu ¨ r Inneres (BMI)
2008 Fremdenstatistik 2007 , http://www.bmi.gv.at/publikationen (accessed 24 11
2010).
Carling, J.
2007a ‘‘Migration control and migrant fatalities at the Spanish-African borders’’,
International Migration Review, 41(2): 316–343.2007b ‘‘Unauthorized migration from Africa to Spain’’, International Migration,
45(4): 3–37.
Centruum voor Sociaal Beleid,
2008 Before and After La situation sociale et é conomique des personnes ayant bé né fic-
ié de la procé dure de ré gularisation en 2000 (Loi du 22 Dé cembre 1999), Uni-
versite ´ d’Anvers, Groupe d’e ´ tudes sur l’ethnicite ´ , le racisme, les migrations et
l’exclusion, Universite ´ Libre de Bruxelle, http://www.ulb.ac.be/socio/germe/
documentsenligne/BAfr.pdf (accessed 24 11 2010).
De Haas, H.
2007 ‘‘The myth of invasion irregular migration from West Africa to the Maghreb
and the European Union’’, IMI research report, http://www.heindehaas.com/
Publications/de%20Haas%202007%20Irregular%20migration%20from%
20West%20Africa%20.pdf (accessed 05 08 2010).
Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs
2005 ‘‘Managing the Border: Immigration Compliance’’ Canberra, http://www.im-
mi.gov.au/media/publications/compliance/managing-the-border/ (accessed 05
08 2010).
Dzhengozova, M.
2009 ‘‘Portugal’’, in: M. Baldwin-Edwards and A. Kraler (Eds), REGINE Regulari-
sations in Europe, Pallas Publications, Amsterdam: 419–426.
Espenshade, J.T.1995 ‘‘Using INS border apprehensions data to measure the flow of undocumented
migrants crossing the U.S.-Mexico frontier’’, International Migration Review, 29.
European Commission
2008a ‘‘Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the
Council, the European Economic and Social Committee, and the Committee
124 Kraler and Reichel
2011 The Authors. International Migration 2011 IOM
-
8/15/2019 Medicion Migra Irregular
29/32
of the Regions. Preparing the next steps in border management in the
European Union’’, Brussels, 13 February.
2008b ‘‘New tools for an integrated European border management strategy’’, Memo
8 ⁄ 85, Brussels, 13 February.2009 ‘‘Third annual report on the development of a common policy on illegal immi-
gration, smuggling and trafficking of human beings, external borders, and the
return of illegal residents’’, Commission Staff Working Document, SEC (2009)
320 final.
European Migration Network (EMN)
2008 ‘‘Annual report on asylum and migration statistics 2004 and 2005’’, http://
emn.sarenet.es/Downloads/prepareShowFiles.do;jsessionid=D8F61805DD18D
6B8A6EE500E79823099?directoryID=15 (accessed 05 08 2010).
Fasani, F.
2008 ‘‘Country report Italy, undocumented migration, counting the uncountable:data and trends across Europe’’, Athens, http://clandestino.eliamep.gr/cate-
gory/irregular-migration-in-the-eu/country-reports (accessed 01 08 2010).
FRONTEX
2009 ‘‘The impact of the economic crisis on illegal migration to the European
Union’’, Warsaw.
2010 FRAN Quarterly Update, 1 (January to March).
Futo, P.
2008 Yearbook on Illegal Migration, Human Smuggling and Trafficking in Central
and Eastern Europe in 2007. A Survey and Analysis of Border Management and
Border Apprehension Data from 20 States, International Centre for Migration
Policy Development (ICMPD), Vienna.Futo, P., and M. Jandl
2004 2003 Year Book on Illegal Migration, Human Smuggling and Trafficking in
Central and Eastern Europe. A Survey and Analysis of Border Management and
Border Apprehension Data from 19 States, ICMPD, Vienna.
2005 2004 Yearbook on Illegal Migration, Human Smuggling and Trafficking in
Central and Eastern Europe. A Survey and Analysis of Border Management and
Border Apprehension of Data from 22 States, ICMPD, Vienna.
2006 2005 Yearbook on Illegal Migration, Human Smuggling and Trafficking in
Central and Eastern Europe. A Survey and Analysis of Border Management and
Border Apprehension of Data from 22 States, ICMPD, Vienna.2007 2006 Yearbook on Illegal Migration, Human Smuggling and Trafficking in
Central and Eastern Europe. A Survey and Analysis of Border Management and
Border Apprehension of Data from 20 States, ICMPD, Vienna.
Groupe d’e ´ tude de De ´ mographie Applique ´ e (Ge ´ DAP) ⁄ Berlin Institute for Comparative
Social Research (BIVS)
2005 Migration and Asylum in the European Union 2003, http://emn.sarenet.es/
Downloads/prepareShowFiles.do;jsessionid=D8F61805DD18D6B8A6EE500E
79823099?directoryID=15 (accessed 24 11 2010).
GHK
2007 Impact Assessment on a Community instrument laying down sanctions for
employers of third-country nationals with no or limited rights to work that areexceeded , European Commission, Impact Assessment, London.
Gonza ´ lez-Enrı ´quez, C.
2008 ‘‘Country report Spain, undocumented migration, counting the uncountable,
data and trends across Europe’’, Athens, http://clandestino.eliamep.gr/cate-
gory/irregular-migration-in-the-eu/country-reports/ (accessed 05 08 2010).
Measuring irregular migration and population flows 125
2011 The Authors. International Migration 2011 IOM
-
8/15/2019 Medicion Migra Irregular
30/32
-
8/15/2019 Medicion Migra Irregular
31/32
-
8/15/2019 Medicion Migra Irregular
32/32