This chapter provides an overview of recent developments in international migration movements and policies in OECD countries. After a brief review of developments in migration flows in 2017, based on preliminary and partial data, it provides a detailed analysis of the trends in permanent migration from 2007 to 2016, by country and by main category of migration – migration for work, family or humanitarian purposes, and migration within free movement areas. The next section addresses temporary migration for work purposes, especially seasonal workers, posted workers and working holidaymakers. It then examines migration by international students and the recent trends in asylum requests in OECD countries. The chapter then looks at the composition of migration flows by gender and by country of origin, the evolution of the size of the foreign-born population, and the acquisition of nationality across OECD countries. The chapter closes with a section on policies concerning the main 2016-17 changes made to migration management frameworks, particularly in the European Union.
International Migration Outlook 2018
Chapter 1. Recent developments in international migration movements and policies
Abstract
The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities. The use of such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the West Bank under the terms of international law.
Introduction
This chapter offers an overview of the most recent trends in international migration flows and policies. The first part of the chapter covers flows by broad category of entry: (i) permanent movements broken down into labour, family, humanitarian and free mobility; (ii) the main channels of temporary labour migration: seasonal workers, working holidaymakers, trainees, intracompany transferees and posted workers; (iii) international mobility of foreign students, (iv) asylum seekers. The second part of the chapter gives an overview of flows and naturalisation by origin and demographics. The third part of the chapter deals with the most significant recent developments in terms of policies that regulate the entry and stay of foreign nationals in OECD countries.
Main findings
Preliminary data for 2017 show slightly more than 5 million new permanent migrants arrived in the OECD area in 2017. This is the first drop since 2011 (‑5% compared to 2016). However, this decline is due to the significant reduction in the number of recognised refugees in 2017, notably in Germany.
The 15% increase in permanent migration flows in 2016 was mainly driven by the surge in humanitarian flows (+78%) but also by the 11% increase in migration for family reunification and formation. Flows from other migration channels slightly increased (+3% in labour flows) or remained stable (such as free mobility) compared with 2015 levels.
Accounting for 38% of permanent migrants, family migration (family reunification and formation as well as accompanying family members) remained the most important migration channel to the OECD area in 2016. The sharp increase in this category for the second year in a row reversed a decline that started in 2010.
Temporary labour migration to OECD countries accounted for around 4.2 million workers in 2016, 11% more than in 2015.
For the fourth year in a row, the international recruitment of seasonal workers rose sharply in 2016 (+30%).
In the European Union (EU), the number of EU workers sent by their employers to other EU countries under local contracts (posted workers) reached almost 2.2 million in 2016, an increase of 8% relative to the previous year.
After two years of record-high numbers of asylum applications to OECD countries, there was a significant decline in 2017, with 1.23 million claims. This figure is still well above any other recorded year, prior to 2015.
In 2017, the United States received the highest number of asylum applications in the OECD (330 000 applications). Germany, which had held the first position for several years, received the second largest number, with 198 000 first asylum applications, a 73% decline from the record high observed last year.
The top three origin countries of asylum seekers submitting first-time applications in OECD countries (Afghanistan, Syria and Iraq) made up a lower proportion of applications (25%) in 2017 compared with 2016 (43%).
Around 3.3 million international students were enrolled in a higher education establishment in an OECD country, 8% up from the previous year. Recent trends in the United States, however, indicate a strong decline in the number of study permits in 2016 (-27%).
On average, international students account for 9% of the total number of students enrolled in establishments of higher education in OECD countries in 2015. They represent 14% of all students enrolled in Master’s degree courses and 24% of those enrolled in doctoral courses.
The share of women in total migration to the OECD has gradually declined since 2009, and women represented 45% of new immigrants to the OECD area in 2016. Almost three-quarters of OECD countries received more migrant men than women in 2016.
In OECD countries in 2017, 127 million people were foreign-born, which represents an average of 13% of the total population compared with 9.5% in 2000. Of these, 48% were living in an EU or European Free Trade Association (EFTA) country and 34% in the United States.
Between 2000 and 2017, the increase in the foreign-born population accounted for close to three-quarters of the total population increase in EU/EFTA countries, and for more than one-third of the increase in the United States.
Migration channels for highly qualified foreigners continue to be refined in many countries, adjusting the selection criteria of permanent programmes and reviewing conditions for temporary programmes.
Options for international students to remain and work in their country of study continue to expand.
The trend towards expansion of start-up visas continues, with countries building on experience to change criteria and make schemes more accessible, while investor programmes are reviewed.
The expansion in some countries’ resettlement programmes for persons in need of international protection has ended, while attention focuses on differentiating conditions for claimants according to the status they have received.
Recent trends in international migration by category of entry
Major changes in migration flows to OECD countries in 2017
After five years of increase linked, first to economic recovery, then to the refugee crisis, international migration flows to OECD countries decreased in 2017. Preliminary data indicates that OECD countries received a little more than 5 million new permanent-type immigrants in 2017, down 5% compared to 2016. The decline in the immigration to Germany in 2017 is responsible for almost this entire drop (see Annex Table 1.A.1). Other sharp declines were registered in Sweden, Austria and Finland, which had also granted international protection to an elevated number of refugees in 2016. According to partial figures, immigration to Spain, France and the Czech Republic should reach significantly higher levels in 2017 than in 2016.
Figure 1.1. Permanent migration flows to OECD countries, 2008‑17
Note: Data for 2008 to 2016 is the sum of standardised figures for countries where they are available (accounting for 95% of the total), and unstandardised figures for other countries. Data relating to 2017 are estimated based on growth rates published in official national statistics.
Source: OECD calculations based on national statistics.
Again, a reduced number of humanitarian migrants receiving protection in the OECD has driven the overall change in permanent-type migration in 2017. Just as it represented the bulk of the 2016 increase in permanent-type migration, it has been the major driver of the 2017 decrease.
In parallel, and after an extremely high number of asylum applications to OECD countries in 2016 (1.64 million), there was a significant decline in 2017, with 1.23 million applications fully driven by a steep fall in applications in Germany and other EU countries.
Available data indicate that about 440 000 migrants were granted international protection in EU countries in 2017 (462 000 in the EU/EFTA), a 36% decrease compared to 2016. Germany has received a large share of humanitarian migration in recent years, and lower inflows in this country account for more than 70% of the decline in the EU area.
Permanent-type migration flows
In 2016, migration flows to OECD countries increased by 15%, the sharpest rise since 2007. More than 5.3 million permanent entries of foreign citizens were registered by OECD countries in 2016. The increase in humanitarian migration (+78%) has mostly driven this trend. Nevertheless, excluding these numbers, the OECD witnessed a 7% increase in permanent flows. The United States remained the primary OECD destination country with 1.2 million new immigrants in 2016 (Table 1.1), and contributed to one-quarter of this overall increase. The main change in 2016 was the striking rise in migration flows to Germany which reported around 1 million new permanent migrant entries, equivalent to a 50% increase compared to 2015. This increase is largely due to the high number of refugees who entered Germany in 2015 but received international protection in 2016.
Although migration flows to the United Kingdom fell slightly in 2016, to 350 000, it remained the third main OECD destination country. Canada, with almost 300 000 new permanent residents, a 7% increase compared to 2015, recorded the highest number of admissions since World War II, driven by a 83% increase in the number of refugees and a 12% rise in family migrants. Immigration levels in France (260 000), Australia (223 000) and Italy (212 000) were stable in 2016 but increased by 10% in Spain to reach 215 000. Like Germany, Sweden has received a very high number of refugees since the beginning of the war in Syria. In 2016, this resulted in a 34% increase in overall permanent immigration (138 000). Finland saw a refugee influx which provoked a similar increase (+27%, 27 000 in 2016).
Japan, Korea and Ireland witnessed relatively high immigration levels in 2016, with increases ranging from 16% to 18% compared to 2015 levels. In absolute terms, Japan and Korea received approximately 95 000 and 88 000 new migrants, respectively, and Ireland 42 000. Denmark is the OECD country that has seen the largest decline in permanent migration flows (-9%).
Among countries for which standardised statistics on permanent migration are not available, Chile and Poland stand out with over 100 000 new entries in 2016, significantly above the 2015 levels (+33% and +24%, respectively). Immigration to Iceland soared nearly 60% in 2016 to 8 000, returning to levels comparable to those before the economic crisis.
Family migration was the most important migration channel to the OECD area in 2016. More than 1.8 million new migrants to OECD countries were registered under family reunification and formation, or as accompanying family members of workers. This represents 38% of all permanent migration. Compared to 2015 this is a slight decline in relative terms (-2 percentage points) but a sharp increase in absolute terms (+9%).
The number of accompanying family members has been fairly stable since 2007 and stood at 270 000 in 2016. The number of migrants coming for family reunification or formation increased by 13% in 2016 to reach 1.6 million. This is the second consecutive increase, and these increases more than offset the effects of the steady decline observed between 2010 and 2014 (Figure 1.2, Panel A). With almost 900 000 family migrants in 2016 (+123 000 compared to 2015), the United States accounted for more than half of overall family migration to OECD countries, and contributed to most of the OECD-wide 2016 increase (Annex Table 1.A.2). In particular, the number of immediate relatives of US citizens who immigrated to the United States in 2016 increased by 22%, (+102 000), including parents (+41 000), spouses (+39 000) and children (+22 000). Family preference (for resident foreigners) also increased, by 11%. The sharpest increase in family migration was observed in Germany (+28%) which received more than 100 000 family migrants in 2016. Korea, Norway, the Netherlands, Spain and Canada are also among the OECD countries where family migration increased sharply, ranging from +12% to +23%. Denmark is the only country with a strong fall in immigration for family reasons (‑22%).
Table 1.1. Inflows of permanent immigrants into OECD countries, 2010-16
Thousands
Note: Includes only foreign nationals. The inflows include status changes, namely persons in the country on a temporary status who obtained the right to stay on a longer-term basis. Series for some countries have been significantly revised compared with previous editions, notably for Chile, Germany, Italy and the United Kingdom.
Source: OECD International Migration Database.
Overall, OECD countries registered a dramatic increase in humanitarian migration (+78%) to over 900 000 humanitarian migrants in 2016. This is the highest level ever recorded for the OECD and represents almost one-fifth of total flows. Germany was by far the main destination country of these refugees and received almost half of them, followed by the United States (17%), Sweden (8%), Canada (6%) and Austria (3%). Compared to 2015, the numbers were stable in the United States but almost doubled in the latter three countries. Humanitarian migration was the main channel in Sweden, where 52% of all new migrants were refugees, and in Finland (36%), and the second most important in Austria, Germany, Norway and the United States. Only Denmark, the United Kingdom and Switzerland experienced a decline in humanitarian migration.
Figure 1.2. Permanent migration flows to OECD countries by category of entry, 200716
Source: OECD International Migration Database.
For the first time since 2007, permanent labour migration to OECD countries increased in 2016 (+3%). It represented 9% of the total flows. The largest increase in migrant worker flows was seen in Germany (+23 000 third-country workers). Japan received almost 50 000 permanent foreign workers in 2016, 8 000 more than in 2015, and contributed to the OECD-wide rebound as well. Managed labour migration is the major component of permanent migration only in Japan and accounted for 51% of total immigration to Japan in 2016. In Australia, Canada, Mexico and New Zealand the share of labour migration is around 25% of the total. The number of third-country migrant workers who immigrated to Italy and to Spain declined by 8 000 and 6 000, respectively, and fewer economic migrants (principal applicants) went to Canada (‑7 000). This decline in labour migration in Canada contributed to a similar drop in the number of accompanying family members of workers, which drove the overall figure for the OECD down by around 7%.
Since 2014, migration movements within free-circulation areas have maintained very high levels. In 2016, almost 1.5 million people immigrated into an OECD country though this channel, as many as in 2007. In addition to large humanitarian flows, Germany received around 450 000 EU/EFTA citizens in 2016 (+6% compared to 2015), more than any year before. The largest increases were observed in Ireland and Portugal (+14% both), while the sharpest drops were in Austria (‑16%), Norway (‑14%), Belgium (‑12%) and Finland (-7%). After having reached historically high levels in recent years, and in particular in 2015, the number of EU/EFTA citizens who immigrated to the United Kingdom diminished in 2016 (-6%) but they still accounted for 60% of permanent migration. Intra-EU/EFTA migration is the main migration channel to all European OECD countries except for Finland, France and Sweden.
Figure 1.3. Permanent migration flows to OECD countries, 2016
Note: EU average is the average of EU countries presented in the chart. EU - TCN represents the entries of third-country nationals into EU countries for which standardised data are available, as a percentage of their total population.
Source: OECD International Migration Database.
To summarise, two-thirds of the rise in migration flows to OECD countries is due to increased humanitarian migration, particularly to Germany, and one-fourth is due to rising family migration, in particular to the United States. Overall, there was little change in the numbers of new labour migrants in OECD countries, and in the magnitude of migration movements within free-circulation areas.
When relating migration flows to the countries’ population, it appears that in most OECD countries, annual migration flows represent less than 1% of the population (Figure 1.3). The average figure for OECD countries is 0.8%. However, in Switzerland, and even more in Luxembourg, this ratio has long been much higher, and stood at 1.5% and 3.4% respectively. It rose sharply in Germany and Sweden which are now among the top five OECD countries in terms of immigration as a proportion of the population. Expressed as a ratio to the EU population, the number of migrants from third countries to EU countries remains relatively low but rose from 0.25% in 2015 to 0.36% in 2016.
Temporary labour migration
Recruiting immigrant workers on a temporary basis is generally seen as a means to respond to specific needs for low-skilled as well as highly skilled workers. Temporary labour migration generally ebbs and flows with fluctuations in the market and short-term demand for labour, allowing host country labour markets to adjust to shifting economic conditions. Although temporary migration is not – initially, at least, and for many programmes – a stepping-stone to long-term residence, it is often closely tied to permanent migration (considered in the previous section). A sizeable share of temporary migrants change status and stay on as long-term residents.
Accordingly, temporary migrant workers are a mixed group – in terms of both categories and skills. The rights which they are granted, be they in terms of the duration of the work permit/authorisation; the conditions of recruitment; the possibility of changing sector; renewing the permit; or being able to bring their families, also vary significantly from one country to the next. These workers include skilled workers, for example highly-skilled engineers and information technology consultants on assignment, intra-company transferees (ICT), and workers coming to meet one-off needs for unskilled labour; depending on the country concerned, these “missions” are entrusted to working holidaymakers, trainees and seasonal workers. In some host countries, these workers can have a significant impact on the sectors involved.
Statistics presented here relate only to five large groups of temporary labour migrants: seasonal workers; working holidaymakers; trainees; posted workers and ICTs. Attempts have been made to estimate total labour-related temporary migration flows but these non‑standardised figures should be interpreted with caution (refer to Annex Table 1.A.5 for details on the categories of workers included).
Around 4.2 million workers migrated to or around OECD countries on temporary migration programmes in 2016 (including intra-EU posted workers1). This was 11% more than in 2015. These flows far exceed permanent labour migration, which amounted to fewer than 500 000 workers in 2016.
Poland and the United States are the main host countries for temporary workers, with around 670 000 and 660 000 temporary work permits (or work authorisations) granted in 2016, respectively representing an increase of over 61% and 10% compared to 2015 (Figure 1.4). In Poland, the estimated growth was driven by flows from Ukraine. Overall, in the United States, the most noticeable growth in 2016 was in agricultural labourers (+24% compared to 2015) and numbers in this category have more than doubled since 2011. Germany represents the third largest host of temporary migrants, with around 470 000 permits granted, mostly EU/EFTA intra-company transferees. Australia, a large receiving country for working holidaymakers and France, a large receiving country for posted European workers, followed with respectively 390 000 and 225 000 in 2016. In the same year, Japan welcomed 190 000 (mostly trainees) and Korea, 128 000 (mostly low-skilled workers). In Korea, there are two main visas for the recruitment of temporary workers: the E‑9 (61 000 granted, up by 16% compared to 2015), which are reserved for low-skilled workers and limited to a 10- year maximum stay; and the H-2 (48 000 permits, down by 26% compared to 2016), which are for ethnic Koreans – mainly Chinese nationals – looking for employment in sectors experiencing a labour shortage and valid for up to almost five years including extensions.
Figure 1.4. Inflows of temporary labour migrants, 2016
Note: Intra-EU labour mobility is only partially captured through posted workers. Accompanying family of temporary workers is not included.
Source: OECD International Migration Database.
Seasonal workers
Seasonal work is the most widespread form of temporary unskilled labour migration, with 685 400 permits granted in 2016 by OECD countries (see Table 1.2) and it has increased sharply, by 30%, compared with 2015. Poland and the United States rank highest by virtue of the size of their programmes. There has been sustained growth in the Polish economy over the last decade, with a rate of growth no lower than 1.4% and as high as 4.6% in 2017. At the same time, many Polish citizens have taken advantage of the opening up of EU labour markets, especially in Germany and the UK, which has led to shortages in some sectors, especially those recruiting unskilled labourers. Poland’s seasonal migration programme helps meet these labour requirements in agriculture, horticulture and tourism. The programme (see the legislative changes introduced since the transposition of the EU Seasonal Workers Directive in the third part of this chapter), enabled the entry of 447 000 seasonal workers in 2016 (for a maximum work period of six months), an increase of 39% on the previous year.
Table 1.2. Temporary migration of workers by category (mostly on low-skilled jobs), 2008-16
Note: For each type of permit, the table presents only countries for which inflows exceed 1 000 workers in 2016 so the total might differ from the sum of the countries presented. The number of seasonal workers refers to the number of permits granted, with the exception of France where counts are the actual number of entries.
Source: OECD International Migration Database.
In 2016, in United States, there was a 24% increase in the number of seasonal workers recruited in agriculture (H-2A permit), which is not capped. The flow reached 134 000.
The other programmes in place in OECD countries are much smaller in scale but with room to grow. For example, numbers have increased by 11% in Canada to 34 000 in 2016. New Zealand has increased by one thousand its quota for seasonal workers (+14%) – mainly from the Pacific Islands – and makes full use thereof for winemaking and horticulture. Australia’s programme for recruiting seasonal workers, created in 2012 primarily for its horticultural sector, is an integral part of the economic development goals for the Pacific Islands and Timor-Leste. However, the 12 000 quota over four years has not been fully used by Australian employers, despite a 41% increase in the number of seasonal workers recruited over the last fiscal year.
Inside the EU/EFTA, and notwithstanding the specific case of Poland, most seasonal migration involves EU workers, but the size of this flow is difficult to estimate. The main European countries receiving third-country seasonal workers who require a work permit are now Finland, with 14 000 seasonal workers in 2016, France and Austria (with fewer than 7 000 workers each). In Austria, the number of seasonal permits granted has stagnated since 2014, and the workforce has been partially renewed by asylum seekers, for whom this often presents an opportunity to enter the labour market. Italy and Spain combined only recruited 6 000 seasonal workers from third countries in 2016, compared to over 80 000 in 2008. In Italy, the quota of 12 500 seasonal workers from third countries was not filled. As for Switzerland, Germany and the United Kingdom, they terminated their recruitment programmes for foreign seasonal workers in 2001, 2012 and 2013 respectively, given that their requirements were largely met through the recruitment of EU/EFTA nationals.
Trainees
Overall, around 140 000 trainees were recorded in the OECD in 2016, which corresponds to a 7% increase compared to 2015. The main destination country for international trainees is Japan. In 2016, Japan hosted 121 900 “technical interns”, signalling a return to pre-crisis recruitment levels. Levels remained relatively stable in other countries.
Working holidaymakers
In total, more than 475 000 working holidaymakers were recorded in the OECD in 2016, 1% point more than in 2015.Within the framework of bilateral agreements signed with 39 countries, Australia hosted 215 000 working holidaymakers in 2016, representing 3.7% of the population aged 15-34. Australia’s working holidaymakers are particularly present in the tourism and agriculture sectors, and in regions with a shortage of unskilled labour. In 2016, there was a fall in the number of applicants for the uncapped part of the programme (95% of arrivals) while the quotas corresponding to recently signed agreements were almost all filled. In New Zealand, the number of working holidaymakers from 44 countries continues to rise as a result of the increase in the cap (16% of arrivals) and the implementation of new agreements.
Intra-company transferees
Mobility between the different establishments owned by multinational firms is generally facilitated by special conditions. The issue of a permit may be subject to a minimum level of income and skills, as in the United Kingdom, or to labour market testing, as in Australia, where only business executives are exempt. Since 2014, intra-company transfers have been governed in the European Union by an EU Directive which is in the process of being transposed into the law of the member states. In the OECD, the leading issuer of these permits is the United States, followed by the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia (Table 1.3).
In the United Kingdom, intra-company transfers represent around two-thirds of Tier 2 visas. In November 2016, on the advice of the Migration Advisory Committee, the British Government raised the income threshold for short-term intra-company transfers to GBP 30 000 (EUR 34 240) and in April 2017 introduced an annual tax of GBP 1 000 (EUR 1 140) per worker to fund training for resident workers. These tighter conditions explained a slight decrease in new visas granted under Tier 2 – short term intra-company transferees (-2% to 20 700 in 2016).
Table 1.3. Intra-company transferees, 2008-16
Note: The table presents only countries for which inflows exceed 1 000 workers in 2016 so the total might differ from the sum of the countries presented.
Source: OECD International Migration Database.
Intra-EU/EFTA posted workers
Workers entitled to freedom of movement inside the EU/EFTA are free to pursue a professional activity in another member state (excluding regulated professions). Available data do not fully capture these migrations, especially if they are for very short periods. That said, in the event of a posting, salaried or self-employed workers who choose to continue to pay their social security contributions in their country of origin can be detected through documents confirming their affiliation to the social security scheme of their country of origin (see De Wispelaere and Pacolet – HIVA-KU Leuven (2017[1]), for the methodology).
In this manner, 2.2 million intra-EU/EFTA postings were recorded in 2016, an increase of 8% compared to 2015, and of 48% compared to 2010. In general, posted workers are on short-term contracts (maximum of two years but 101 days on average in 2016)2 except for workers authorised to work in several member states (28% of postings) who are on contracts of unlimited duration and whose postings last 306 days on average.3
Posted workers are estimated to represent 0.4% of full-time equivalent employment in the EU, with significant variations between countries and sectors. Half of all postings involve a worker originating from a low- or medium-wage country (under the EU average wage) going to work in a high-wage country (above the EU average), while 38% of postings are between high-wage countries. In 2016, postings increased the most in Belgium, Germany and France (Table 1.3). Germany was the largest net receiving country of posted workers in 2016 (Figure 1.5). About 30% of the posted workers who went to Germany originate from Poland, the largest net sending country of workers in Europe. In 2016, Slovenia and Italy were the net sending countries of posted workers with the largest increase in the gap between the number of postings sent and received. The same is true for France and Belgium which are net receiving countries.
Table 1.4. Posted workers inside the EU/EFTA, 2010-16
Note: Data refer to posted workers who received an authorisation to work in one single receiving country (Refer to De Wispelaere and Pacolet – HIVA-KU Leuven 2017 for the methodology). In total the receiving country is unknown for 26 % of the 2.2 million postings in 2016: posted workers originating from Denmark, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland and the United Kingdom and all posted workers active in two or more member states.
Source: De Wispelaere and Pacolet – HIVA-KU Leuven, (2017[1]).
In 2016, 45% of the 1.5 million posted workers active in one single other European country were employed in the construction sector.4 In Belgium and Austria, posted workers represented respectively 27% and 19% of the total population employed in this sector.5 Overall, it is estimated that in six countries, posted workers represented more than 1% of the total employment in 2016: Germany and the Netherlands (1%), Switzerland (2%), Austria (3%), Belgium (4%) and Luxembourg (6%) (De Wispelaere and Pacolet – HIVA-KU Leuven, (2017[1])). Among the 607 000 workers active in two or more countries, 19% work in the construction sector and 14% in the sector of freight transport.
Figure 1.5. Posted workers by sending and receiving European country, 2016
Note: The figures refer to the number of portable documents A1 issued according to Article 12 of the Basic regulation and therefore exclude workers who are posted in two or more countries (Article 13). The data exclude Norway as the country doesn't provide statistics on the total number of workers sent.
Source: De Wispelaere and Pacolet – HIVA-KU Leuven, (2017[1]).
Students
The movement of international students to study in another country is part of the internationalisation of higher education, and involves significant migratory patterns. After a continuous rise over the decade, flows of international tertiary-educated students in the OECD decreased by 6% in 2016. This trend is fully driven by the sharp decrease in the number of F-1 visas granted in the United States (-27%). Indeed, the flows continued to rise in EU/EFTA (+4% in 2016) and in most other non-European countries (Table 1.5). In 2016, 1.4 million were granted a first residence permit in an OECD country. The United States remained the top destination but hosted only one third of all foreign student flows (around 470 000), compared with 42% the year before. The United Kingdom received 19% (270 000), followed by Australia (157 000) and Japan (108 000). Canada hosted 27% more new international students compared with 2015 (107 000) and France remained at the sixth position with 71 000 new arrivals.
In 2015, over 3.3 million international students were enrolled in tertiary education in an OECD country (Table 1.6). These stock data are not comparable with flow data. For a start, some international students only stay for short periods, meaning that they are included in flow data but are not present for the stock assessment (on a given date). In addition, the stock data include international students covered by provisions on freedom of movement (intra EU, Australia–New Zealand), and who are therefore usually not registered in the flow data.
Table 1.5. Inflows of international tertiary-level students in OECD countries, 2008‑16
Number of residence permits issued
Note: Data refer to international tertiary-level students, including students enrolled in language courses (excluding intra-EU international students). The data do not include professional training courses. Data have been revised compared with the previous edition (notably for Chile, France, Norway and the United Kingdom).
Source: OECD International Migration Database.
The country hosting the largest number of international students is the United States, with over 900 000 students enrolled, followed by the United Kingdom (430 000), Australia (295 000), France (240 000), and Germany (230 000). The United States accounts for 27% of all enrolled international students in the OECD area, and the EU member countries, 46% (i.e. over 1.5 million students). In the EU28, about one-in-three international students comes from another EU country. Slightly more female than male international students are enrolled in European OECD countries, while male students represent the majority in non-European countries.
Table 1.6. International students enrolled in OECD countries, 2015
Note: Date refer to the year 2014/15. Data for the Czech Republic, Israel, Italy, Korea, the Slovak Republic and Turkey refer to foreign students instead of international students. Data for Canada, Iceland and Mexico refer to 2013 instead of 2014 and the change refers to 2012-13.
Source: OECD, Education at a Glance Database.
International students account for an average of 9% of the OECD tertiary-level student population. This proportion is twice as high in Austria, New Zealand, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. In Luxembourg, international students account for 46% of all students in higher education. However, the share of international students in the student population of many Asian, and Central and Southern European countries is relatively low, as is the case in the United States. The proportion of international students increases with the level of education. On average in the OECD, international students account for 14% of all students enrolled in Master’s programmes, and 24% of PhD enrolments. In a number of countries there is a particularly high share of international PhD students, for example one in every two PhD students in Switzerland, and over two in every five in New Zealand, the United Kingdom, Belgium and France are international. In almost two out of five OECD countries, international students account for over 25% of PhD students.
Figure 1.6. International students enrolled in OECD countries by origin, 2015
Note: Asia includes Western Asia.
Source: OECD Education at a Glance Database.
Over half of international students in the OECD area originate from Asia, and over one‑in‑four from Europe. Chinese students are by far the most numerous international students, with 750 000 enrolments. Their share in the total number of international students grew markedly over the last year, since Chinese students increased by 24% between 2014 and 2015 (Figure 1.6). Chinese students are followed by students from India (223 000, up by 20%) and Germany (112 000). Since the number of Korean students has decreased by a third in the last two years, Korea is now only the sixth main country of origin for international students (77 500), behind France (85 000) and Saudi Arabia (78 000). Finally, students from an OECD country account for 24% of all international students in the OECD, and 36% in countries which are also members of the European Union.
Asylum seekers
After a record-high number of asylum applications to OECD countries in 2016 (1.64 million), there was a significant decline in 2017, with 1.23 million applications (Figure 1.7). There was a divergence between EU countries, which witnessed a 46% decrease in the number of applications (from 1.2 million in 2016 to 650 000 in 2017), and non-European OECD countries, for which there was a 37% increase (from 435 000 in 2016 to 601 000 in 2017). However, the 2017 number remains above the peak recorded in the early 1990s in the context of the Yugoslav war.
The change observed for EU countries, and indeed for the OECD as a whole, was mostly due to the large decline in applications in Germany, after the very high figure recorded in 2016, which partly reflected delayed registrations from 2015 entries.
The statistics on asylum seekers fail to reflect the situation in Turkey. During the year 2017, the number of Syrian nationals under temporary protection in Turkey increased by more than 550 000 (from 2.8 million in January to 3.4 million in December). Almost all held a status conferring temporary protection without requiring the submission of an asylum application. Turkey has been the leading destination country for refugees in the OECD area for seven years.
Figure 1.7. New asylum applications since 1980 in the OECD and the European Union
Note: Preliminary data for 2017.
Source: UNHCR, Eurostat.
About 25% of the asylum seekers submitting first-time applications in OECD countries in 2017 originated from three countries: Afghanistan, Syria and Iraq. These three main countries of origin have been the same since 2015, but Afghanistan is now slightly ahead of Syria. Asylum applications from Syrian nationals in OECD countries have indeed flattened since the last quarter of 2016 and remained lower in 2017, at about 25 000 per quarter (Figure 1.8). In total, the number of applications by Syrian nationals in OECD countries dropped by 70% between 2016 and 2017. Although the number of applications from Afghanistan also went down significantly (110 000 in 2017 compared to 215 000 in 2016 and 250 000 in 2015), this was the main country of origin, as in 2011 and 2012.
Figure 1.8. New asylum applications from Syrians in OECD countries, Q1 2012 to Q4 2017
Note: Preliminary data for 2017.
Source: UNHCR, Eurostat.
Afghans, Syrians and Iraqis accounted, in 2017, for a roughly equal share of total asylum applications in the OECD area (Figure 1.9). As has been the case for several years, Nigeria and Pakistan are also high on the list of the main countries of origin of asylum seekers, although the absolute numbers are lower than in 2016 (-9% for Nigeria, -33% for Pakistan). On the other hand, three Latin American countries, Venezuela, El Salvador and Guatemala, accounted for a significantly larger number of asylum applicants in 2017, continuing a recent trend. Overall, about 120 000 nationals from these three countries applied for asylum in 2017, mostly in the United States, a 40% increase compared to 2016 (and a five-fold increase compared to 2014). The countries of origin and the profiles of asylum seekers are very varied, much more so than in the past.
In 2017, the United States received the highest number of asylum applications of all OECD countries, with 330 000 applications, up from 262 000 the previous year (Table 1.7). About 40% of asylum applications to the United States originated from three countries: El Salvador (16%), Venezuela (14%) and Guatemala (12%). Compared to 2016, asylum applications to the United States from the majority of the largest origin countries increased significantly: applications from Venezuela and El Salvador increased respectively by 60% and 40%. On the other hand, applications from Mexico and China, which were the second and fourth main origin countries of asylum seekers to the United States in 2016, decreased respectively by 10% and 15%.
Figure 1.9. New asylum applications in OECD countries by country of origin, 2015-17
Note: Preliminary data for 2017
Source: UNHCR, Eurostat.
The second largest destination country of asylum applicants in the OECD in 2017 was Germany, which had previously been the largest destination for several years. In 2017, first asylum applications to Germany amounted to 198 000, a 73% decline from the record high observed in 2016 (722 000 applications). The United States and Germany were followed by Italy (127 000 applications), Turkey (124 000 applications) and France (91 000 applications) as the main destination countries for asylum seekers in 2017. Compared to 2016, the number of applications increased most significantly in Canada, where it doubled, Japan (+76%), Mexico (+66%), Spain (+62%) and Turkey (+59%). Conversely, there was a sharp downturn in applicants in a number of European countries that saw large inflows in the recent years; in addition to Germany, applications declined strongly in Hungary (‑89%), Poland (-69%), Denmark (-48%), Austria (-44%) and Switzerland (-35%).
Table 1.7. New asylum applications by country where application is filed, 2013-17
Note: Figures for 2017 are preliminary. Figures for the United States refer to "affirmative" claims submitted with the Department of Homeland Security (number of cases) and "defensive" claims submitted to the Executive Office for Immigration Review (number of people). The symbol “..” stands for “not available”.
Source: UNHCR; Eurostat; OECD International Migration Database.
In most European OECD countries, the distribution of asylum applicants by main origin countries tends to mirror that of the OECD total. In Germany, for example, the main origin countries of new asylum seekers remained unchanged compared to 2016: Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq accounted for 45% of all applications. Some countries, however, stand out because the bulk of asylum seekers come from other countries of origin. In Italy, for example, most of the applications come from countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, such as Nigeria, Gambia or Côte d’Ivoire, but also from Pakistan and Bangladesh. In France, Albanian asylum seekers were more numerous than Afghans, and Haitians more numerous than Syrians. In the United Kingdom, 20% of applications came from Pakistan, Bangladesh or India. Moreover, non-European countries are relatively unaffected by asylum applications from the Middle East, as has been noted above for the United States. In Canada, the main countries of origin include Haiti and Nigeria, while Malaysia is the most frequent country of origin among asylum seekers in Australia.
Comparisons of ratios of asylum-seeker entries to host country populations reveal that in 2017, OECD countries registered 970 applications per million inhabitants, which is close to the ratio observed for the United States. Among OECD countries with at least 1 million inhabitants, Greece was the leading asylum receiving country in this respect, with a ratio of over 5 000 per million, followed by Austria (2 500 per million), Germany (2 400), Sweden (2 200) and Italy (2 100). In contrast, the United Kingdom received only 500 applications per million inhabitants in 2017, and Japan and Mexico fewer than 200.
Table 1.8. Number of permanent entries for humanitarian reasons, 2009-17
Source: OECD International Migration Database.
The scale of asylum-seeker flows in 2015, 2016 and, to a lesser extent 2017, has led to a significant backlog of applications in European countries. As of December 2017, there were still more than 900 000 asylum applicants waiting for a decision in the European Union. The high asylum recognition rates for Syrians, who represented the largest group of applicants in 2015 and 2016, led to a 70% increase in the number of permanent migrants for humanitarian reasons in 2016 compared to the previous year, reaching 930 000 in the 23 OECD countries for which comparable data is available (Table 1.8). This is three times as many as the 2008-14 average level. European countries represented three-quarters of these entries (690 000), and Germany alone almost half (430 000). The United States received about 17% of the new humanitarian migrants in the OECD, followed by Sweden (8%) and Canada (6%).
Beyond the asylum channel, many refugees have been resettled to OECD countries (Figure 1.10). Following the expansion of refugee resettlement quotas during the 2014‑15 humanitarian crisis in many OECD countries, the number of resettlements increased sharply from 81 000 in 2015 to 126 000 in 2016 (only those resettled with UNHCR’s assistance). The United States was the top destination country, followed by Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia and the Nordic countries who also provided a sizeable number of places annually. In 2017, the number of resettlements decreased sharply to 65 000.
Figure 1.10. Refugees admitted under resettlement programmes in OECD countries, 2003-17
Source: UNHCR.
Composition of the migration population by gender and origin
How large is the foreign-born population at the OECD?
The total foreign-born population living in OECD countries rose to 127 million people in 2017, which represents a 3% increase compared to 2016 (see Figure 1.11). After a decreased growth pace between 2010 and 2014, average growth is back to the trend observed in 2000’s, of about 3 million additional foreign-born per year. An increasing share of the OECD’s foreign-born population lives in an EU/EFTA country, reaching 48% of the 127 million foreign-born in 2017, 34% live in the United States. Between 2000 and 2017, the increase in the foreign-born population accounted for close to three-quarters of the total population increase in EU/EFTA countries, and for more than one-third of the increase in the United States.
Figure 1.11. Number of foreign-born persons in the OECD area, 200017
Note: Estimated 2017 data for Canada, Chile, the Czech Republic, France, Ireland, Israel, Mexico, New Zealand, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia and Turkey. Data for the United States include an undetermined share of undocumented migrants.
Source: OECD International Migration Database; Eurostat.
Figure 1.12. The foreign-born as a percentage of the total population in OECD countries, 2000 and 2017
Note: Data refer to 2000 or the closest available year, and to 2017 or the most recent available year. The OECD and EU/EFTA averages are simple averages based on rates presented. For Japan and Korea, the data refer to the foreign population rather than the foreign-born population.
Source: OECD International Migration Database.
On average, the foreign-born population accounted for 13% of the population in OECD countries in 2017, up from 9.5% in 2000 (Figure 1.12). Similar to previous years, the proportion of foreign-born is highest in Luxembourg (46% of the total population), Switzerland (29%), Australia (28%) and New Zealand (23%). The immigrant population has increased across the OECD, with the exception of Greece and several countries with an aging immigrant population (Estonia, Israel, Latvia, and Poland), following restrictions over the Balkan route in 2016. The strongest growth in the immigrant population over the period was recorded in some EU/EFTA countries (+19 percentage points in Denmark; +11 in Germany and Iceland; +6 in Finland and Sweden) as well as in Japan (+6 percentage points).
Countries of origin of new immigrants to the OECD
The discussion of permanent and temporary migration in previous sections was based on standardised definitions designed to make the scale and composition of migration comparable across countries. With the exception of a handful of countries, however, no such standardised data are yet available by country or region of origin. The analysis of data from population registers and other ad hoc sources helps identify the origin of recent migrants. While the figures should be treated with caution, as they may be composed of mixed groups of permanent and temporary migrants across receiving countries, they do nonetheless offer an indication of the magnitude and make-up of flows by country of origin.
In 2016, the top five countries of origin of new immigrants to OECD countries were China, Romania, Syria, India, and Poland (see Table 1.9). China has held the top position since 2008, while Romania ranked second.
The number of Syrians entering the OECD fell by 20% in 2016 after tripling between 2014 and 2015. Despite this decrease, Syrians still account for almost 5% of all registered flows to OECD countries. These figures do not include Turkey, so the actual level of Syrian migration into the OECD area in recent years is higher.
Poland fell to the fifth position after a significant reduction in emigration in 2016 (-15%). Flows from Poland to the UK fell by 27% between 2015 and 2016 while Polish emigration to Germany declined by 16%. India took over the fourth position despite an increase of less than 1% in new immigrants to the OECD. India accounted for 3.8% of immigration flows to OECD countries in 2016, while flows from Poland accounted for 3.7%.
Mexico rose into the sixth position with a 6.6% increase in immigration to the rest of the OECD in 2016, including a 10% increase in flows to the United States. A spike of almost 22% of new immigrants to the OECD pushed Viet Nam into the seventh position. Vietnamese flows increased to the United States (34%), Korea (33%), Japan (18%) and Germany (14%). These upturns followed a 20% increase in Vietnamese immigration to the OECD in 2015. Mexico and Viet Nam accounted for 2.7% and 2.6%, respectively, of immigration flows to the OECD.
Table 1.9. Top 50 countries of origin of new immigrants to the OECD, 2006-16
Source: OECD International Migration Database.
Emigration from the Philippines to the OECD fell by 8% in 2016. Flows decreased to the United States (-6%) and Canada (-18%) but increased by 9% to Japan. Emigration from Italy to the rest of the OECD stagnated in 2016 after an 11% increase in 2015. While flows from Italy to Spain increased by 17%, those from Italy to Germany decreased by 8%. Italy and the Philippines each account for about 2.4% of overall flows. After a second straight year of decline, the United States accounts for just under 2% of all immigrants to the OECD area.
Several other countries outside of the top ten countries of origin experienced notable changes in their long-term trends in 2016. Flows from Ukraine to the OECD increased by 15% in 2016 due mainly to a 41% increase in immigration to Poland. Emigration from Haiti to the OECD rose by 77%, with an increase of 39% to the United States and an increase of 262% to Chile (from 6 000 to 23 000). Turkey experienced a 19% increase in emigration towards other OECD countries, with a 21% increase in flows to Germany. Flows from Colombia to the OECD rose by 37%, with increases to Spain (+144%, to 22 800) and Chile (+38%, to 27 000).
In addition to the EU member countries mentioned above, Croatia, Greece and Bulgaria saw decreases in emigration in 2016. Emigration from Croatia declined by 3% but remained at historically high levels. Emigration from Greece fell by 9%, returning to its 2014 level. Emigration of Bulgarian citizens declined by 3% from its historical high in 2015.
In contrast, several EU member states experienced increased outflows in 2016. Emigration from France increased by 9%, with a 67% increase in flows to the United Kingdom between 2015 and 2016. Emigration from the United Kingdom rose by 4%, with increased immigration to France (+19%) and Spain (+23%). Flows from Ireland increased by 29%, with a 120% rise in emigration to the United Kingdom. Emigration from Spain and Portugal rose slightly in 2016 after falling in 2015.
Box 1.1. Changes in intra-EU mobility since 2004
Since the enlargement of the EU to ten additional member countries in 2004, flows of registered EU citizens within the EU have nearly doubled to 1.8 million in 2016. Over this period, the top origin countries remained Romania and Poland, although their share in total intra-EU flows decreased from 41% in 2004 to 38% in 2016. Increasing flows from other new EU members have also been registered, directed largely towards Germany and Austria.
While Romanians mostly immigrated to Spain and Italy in the mid-2000s, Germany progressively became their main destination country (Figure 1.13). Since 2004, the growth of migration flows of Romanians to Germany has been continuous and strong, and flows reached more than 220 000 new immigrants in 2016 (including short-term movements). The second top destination country is the United Kingdom with more than 50 000 long-term Romanian immigrants in 2016.
Poland has long been a key origin country to Germany: flows of Polish immigrants plateaued at around 150 000 in 2006 and again in the years 2013-15 with around 190 000 annual registered entries. A large drop in flows was registered in 2016 (160 000). Their flows to the United Kingdom peaked at 88 000 long-term immigrants in 2007 and have been fluctuating between 30 000 and 40 000 since 2009. Their flows to the Netherlands have been increasing continuously since 2004 and, since 2014, has reached 23 000 annual entries.
Bulgarian, French and German citizens are the following top three nationalities moving to another EU country, far behind Romanian, Polish and Italian citizens.
Figure 1.13. Inflows of top EU origin by EU destination, 2000-16
Source: OECD International Migration Database.
Flows of migrant women
The share of women in total migration to OECD has gradually declined since 2009, and women represented 45% of new immigrants to the OECD area in 2016 (Figure 1.14). This fall can be partially attributed to a significant change by category of entry. Over the last six years, two categories with an overrepresentation of – male migration for employment (including both managed labour migration and migration for employment within areas of free movement), and humanitarian migration – have increased proportionally more than the other categories, including family migration. The downward trend in the share of women in new migrant flows is fairly general and can be observed in two-thirds of the countries. Compared to the previous five years, the downward trend was particularly visible in 2016 in Iceland (‑8 percentage points), Italy (-7 percentage points) and Finland (-6 percentage points).
Figure 1.14. Share of women in overall migration flows to OECD countries, 2011-16
Note: The OECD average is the average of the countries featured in the figure above. For Denmark and Chile, 2015 instead of 2016, and their averages are through 2014.
Source: OECD International Migration Database.
In 2016, only seven OECD countries took in more migrant women than men. The share of migrant women was highest in the United States, Australia, France and Israel. In these countries the gender balance of flows was relatively stable, reflecting the predominance of family migration. The increase in the number of migrant women in Australia is due in part to the change in the make-up of flows by country of origin, with an upturn in entries from Asia, which traditionally involve more women than men. Conversely, the share of women in new migrant flows to Germany, Austria, and most Central and Eastern European countries with available data is below 45%.
Acquisition of citizenship
In 2016, almost 2.1 million people acquired the nationality of an OECD country, representing a slight increase (3%) compared to 2015. This figure remains within the average for the last 10 years, during which 20 million foreign nationals have acquired the citizenship of an OECD country. Around 900 000 people became nationals of an EU country in 2016, which represents a 14% increase compared to 2015. Greece granted citizenship to more than 33 000 people, almost three times more than in 2015. Aside from Greece, the number of acquisitions of nationality in other EU/EFTA countries increased in several countries, such as Estonia (+98%), the Slovak Republic (+32%) and the United Kingdom (+27%). Naturalisations also increased in Chile and New Zealand. Lastly, more than 750 000 people became US citizens (+3%), but naturalisations fell in Canada by 100 000 compared to its 2015 level to under 150 000.
Figure 1.15. Acquisition of citizenship as a percentage of the foreign population, 2015 and 2016
Note: Australia, Canada, Chile and New Zealand: the data refer to the foreign-born population rather than the foreign population. The OECD average is the average of the countries featured in the figure above.
Source: OECD International Migration Database.
In terms of acquisition of citizenship as a percentage of the foreign population, Sweden remains the leading OECD country (Figure 1.15), with 7.8% of the foreign population living in Sweden on 1 January 2016, acquiring citizenship during the year. In Greece, the comparable figure is 4.8%, three times more than in the previous year, and in Portugal the figure is 6.5%. Five other countries registered a naturalisation rate of over 3%, namely Finland, Italy, the United States, Denmark and the Netherlands. In Switzerland and Luxembourg, where foreign citizens make up a large proportion of the total population, respectively 2.1 and 2.7% of them acquired the nationality of their host country in 2016, around the OECD average (2.4%).
The top origin countries for naturalised foreigners are India (127 000 people), Mexico (108 000), the Philippines (85 000), Morocco (78 000) and Albania, where 70 000 nationals were granted citizenship by an OECD country in 2016, an increase of 18 500 from 2015 (+36%) (Figure 1.16). Naturalisations of Moroccan and Chinese nationals have declined (-15%) – with only 77 750 Moroccan and 66 500 Chinese naturalised – and even more significantly for Turkish nationals (-37%).
Figure 1.16. Acquisitions of nationality in OECD countries: Top 20 countries of former nationality, 2015 and 2016
Recent policy developments
Economic migration
Programmes for highly-skilled economic migrants continue to be adjusted…
In OECD countries with selective migration schemes granting immediate permanent settlement, criteria have been adjusted. In Australia, the eligibility requirements of its permanent employer-sponsored visas have seen tightened English language requirements, extension of the eligibility period for transition to permanent residence from two to three years, and a lower maximum age requirement of 45 (from 50). However, some concessions for skills needs in regional Australia will continue to be available, including waivers to certain conditions under both temporary and permanent visas. From October 2016, stricter language requirements are also being applied in New Zealand and the points threshold to be invited to apply under the Skilled Migrant Category (SMC) has increased (from 140 to 160). New SMC criteria include a salary threshold and greater recognition of work experience. Canada introduced several changes to Express Entry to align job offer requirements and points more closely with labour market realities. Changes included reducing the points for a job offer and providing certain candidates with an exemption from a Labour Market Impact Assessment (labour market test) for their job offer, and providing additional points for completed college or university-level study. Further modifications in June 2017 awarding included additional points to those with siblings in Canada and for French language skills.
In Canada, in order to increase retention of sponsored economic migrants in Atlantic Provinces, an initiative was launched in March 2017 to test innovative approaches to attract and retain skilled immigrants to meet labour market needs in this region. A distinguishing feature of the pilot is the increased role of the employer, in partnership with federal and provincial immigrant settlement service provider organisations, in the settlement and retention of newcomer employees and their families.
…while competition to facilitate migration of skilled workers continues
In those OECD countries where initial admission is only on a temporary renewable basis, the trend remains for countries to take measures to attract (particularly highly) skilled workers by making it easier for them to enter the labour market and for employers to recruit them.
The new Chilean law of April 2018 creates a visa for graduates of top global universities, to come to Chile and seek work for 12 months, renewable once.
France introduced a “Passeport Talent” in 2016 with the aim of attracting skilled and highly qualified workers. It includes 12 different categories, including highly qualified workers (who receive the EU Blue Card), salaried staff on assignment (subject to education and salary requirements) and researchers. These people are entitled to a visa of more than one year from the moment they enter the country and do not need proof of prior employment or to take a medical examination. Permit duration is as long as four years before renewal is required.
In many European countries, where the EU Blue Card is available for highly-qualified labour migrants, conditions have been eased within the statutory limits of the EU Blue Card Directive. A shortage list, allowing a lower minimum salary for eligibility, has been introduced in Latvia and in Luxembourg.
The EU Blue Card Directive allows countries to set lower thresholds for certain skilled occupations (1.2 rather than 1.5 or more times the average salary). Few countries initially did so, but the list has been expanding. Latvia and Luxembourg introduced a shortage occupation list allowing lower salary for EU Blue Card workers. In Lithuania, the general threshold was reduced from twice average gross monthly earnings to 1.5 times. Similarly, a labour market test exemption – allowed but not required under the Directive – has been extended in Bulgaria and Lithuania (especially for the IT sector).
The EU Blue Card Directive also allows countries to take professional experience into account rather than just academic qualifications. Some countries, Latvia for example, which initially declined to do so, now have included this. In Lithuania and Bulgaria recognition of overseas professional qualifications has been eased. In Bulgaria, employers recruiting EU Blue Card migrants are no longer subject to a quota restricting the number of international employees to not more than 10% of the personnel.
At the EU level, in 2016, the Commission proposed a reform (COM(2016)378) of the 2009 EU Blue Card Directive (2009/50) on the conditions of entry and residence of third‑country nationals for the purpose of highly-qualified employment. Among other changes, the proposal would increase the favourable treatment provided for EU Blue Card holders and provide more flexibility in the criteria for qualifying for the permit. The dialogue between the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament on the Commission proposal started effectively in September 2017. The institutions diverge on several important issues. The main point of disagreement concerns the possibility for Member States to maintain national schemes for the recruitment of highly-skilled workers parallel to the EU Blue Card. While the Commission proposal, supported by the European Parliament, allowed more favourable national provisions on a limited list of issues, Member States want to maintain the possibility to have their own national schemes.6
Temporary skilled work schemes have also undergone revision
Many temporary skilled work schemes have been made more accessible. For example, as part of the Canadian Global Skills Strategy launched in June 2016 to attract top global talent, changes to the temporary work system were made. For specific applicants identified as top talent, there is a two-week work permit issuance process; a dedicated service channel offering enhanced client access; work permit exemptions for short-term work and brief academic stays in Canada; and a new stream of the Temporary Foreign Worker Program for skilled occupations in shortage and for employers with unique talent needs (Global Talent Stream). The Global Talent Stream requires sponsors to be referred by one of the designated referral partners, generally governments and development boards. Canada introduced new measures to support television and film production, the performing arts, and francophone minority communities. In addition, the limit on the number of years that foreign nationals can work temporarily in Canada was eliminated in December 2016.
Following amendments to the Aliens Act in 2016-17, foreigners in Estonia may work either short-term (up to six months) or with a residence permit as an agency worker. The period of short-term employment was extended from a maximum of 180 days to 270 days per annum. More broadly, Estonia lowered the salary threshold for recruitment of a foreign worker from 1.24 times the average salary to the equivalent of the average salary, substantially broadening the range of occupations for which recruitment is possible. Estonia imposes quotas on total recruitment of foreign workers, but exempted additional categories from counting against the quota, such as workers in IT and entrepreneurs.
In Austria, new measures are designed to increase flexibility in its “Red-White-Red” permit (RWR-card) for foreign talent. The RWR-card may now be issued for two years (up from one year) for a specific employer, after which it may be issued with unlimited access to the labour market. The RWR-card for self-employed is also valid for two years and may be changed to a settlement permit thereafter, or to a RWR-card in case of status change from self-employed to wage employment. Romania now allows a foreign national holding a temporary residence permit for work purposes more flexibility to change employer and receive a new work permit.
In some cases, reforms in temporary skilled channels have aimed to increase the skill requirements and make qualification criteria stricter. Australia has amended its visa regulations to simplify and deregulate the Skilled and 400 series visa programmes. The changes reduced visa subclasses from seven to four (Short Stay Specialist; International Relations; Training; Temporary Activity); sponsorship classes from six to one and introduced a flat fee structure across all temporary visas. Notably, Australia is replacing its Temporary Work (Skilled) visa (subclass 457) with a new Temporary Skill Shortage (TSS) visa. The TSS visa comprises two streams: short-term, valid for up to two years maximum; and medium-term, valid for up to four years and to be used only for more critical skill shortages. TSS includes more targeted occupation lists, imposes mandatory labour market testing, allows only one onshore visa renewal, increases English language requirements and requires sponsors to contribute to a “Skilling Australians Fund”.
In a similar vein, the United Kingdom introduced a number of changes to its Tier 2 migration stream for qualified foreign workers, in most cases to raise the cost and minimum salary for recruitment. A number of fees were increased, and a GBP 1 000 Immigration Skills Charge is now levied for each sponsored worker, albeit with some reductions and exemptions available. The Tier 2 Intra-company transfer – Short-Term Staff category was closed, and the salary threshold for the ICT channel set at GBP 41 500. The general Tier 2 salary threshold was raised to GBP 30 000, although lower thresholds were granted for certain occupations. Changes to the Essential Skills visa in New Zealand, designed to enable employers to continue to hire temporary migrant workers where there are genuine shortages, were implemented in August 2017. They include the creation of skill bands and introduce a maximum duration of three years – followed by a 12-month “cool-down” – for lower skill workers. Some programmes have seen compliance and labour market testing stepped up. The United States changed procedures for renewal of the H-1B visa for specialty workers, who are, from late 2017, subject to the same level of scrutiny as at initial authorisation. Previously, renewals were granted on the assumption that initial conditions still prevailed.
Elsewhere the approach is one of fine-tuning existing policies towards the highly skilled. In some cases there is targeting of specific sectors or occupations. In Austria, the point system for skilled migrants in shortage occupation groups has been changed to give less weight to age so that workers in these occupations, but over the age of 40, may qualify for the RWR-card.
Streamlined procedures are increasingly used to make it simpler for skilled workers to be recruited. In Hungary, the deadline for decision-making in single application procedures was decreased from 90 days to 70 days resulting in faster admission. The Swedish government now allows employers submitting work permits to more easily rectify mistakes in applications, and has also developed a plan to shorten processing times for work permit applications. Latvia has shortened the time limit for examining documents to within ten working days, and a one-stop-shop procedure has been introduced in Lithuania, to allow highly-qualified immigrants and entrepreneurs to receive a temporary residence permit. In Bulgaria, the labour market test has been eliminated, and employers pay a fixed fee (approximately EUR 205) to extend foreign employees’ work/residence permits for over three months, if the employee is hired on the grounds of expert knowledge, skills and professional experience.
Finland seeks to link together migration, innovation, and industrial and business policies and to harness the potential of international talent to support the growth and internationalisation of companies. This has led to an intersectoral “Talent Boost” programme designed to attract international talent and provide added value from foreign talent in Finnish business and industry. A Migration Policy Programme to Strengthen Labour Migration was published in 2018 to guide attraction and retention measures.
Access to permanent residence has been facilitated in some countries. In Japan, the period of stay required to apply for permanent residence status was shortened from five to three years for highly-skilled professionals and from five to one year for highly-qualified professionals.
In Poland, following amendments to the Polish legislation on foreigners in December 2017, a special type of a temporary residence and work permit for migrants with skills needed by the Polish economy (as determined by the Ministry of Labour and Ministry of Economy) was introduced. Holders of such a permit are to be given easier access to a permanent residence permit (after only four years of legal residence, rather than five or ten years as in the case of other categories of foreigners).
…while shortage lists continue to be used
Shortage lists continue to be amended and used in the recruitment of foreign workers. In September 2017, Slovenia published a shortage list, including many skilled trades, which grants a labour market test exemption. Simplified and faster procedures have been introduced for labour migrants in shortage occupations in Lithuania, where they no longer need to obtain a work permit and are able, upon receiving a national visa (issued within 15 days, valid for up to 12 months), to enter the country and take up employment faster. The new Latvian shortage list of occupations for which foreigners may be recruited was published in 2018; shortage jobs not meeting the EU Blue Card salary threshold are able to benefit nonetheless from a shorter mandatory vacancy listing at the State Employment Agency (10 rather than 30 working days). Shortage lists are, in most cases, dynamic (i.e. regularly reviewed) so that certain occupations are added or dropped. In January 2017, the Migration Advisory Committee in the UK recommended that secondary education teachers in certain subjects (mathematics, physics, computer science, Mandarin and science) should be added to the shortage list.
Some new temporary and seasonal migration schemes are still being developed
While much of the policy development has taken place on the side of highly-skilled and skilled temporary labour programmes, some countries have also expanded or adjusted their temporary programmes which govern labour migration of less skilled workers, or all workers with no reference to skill level. Poland’s simplified temporary labour provisions for nationals of six Eastern countries (Armenia, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, Russia and Ukraine) were modified in order to transpose the EU Seasonal Workers Directive. Temporary permits of up to nine months are now available to foreigners from all non-EU countries; those from the above six countries are exempt from the labour market test. In sectors not covered by the seasonal workers directive (which covers horticulture, agriculture and tourism), the simplified system, allowing six months employment out of twelve months, remains in place.
Korea has refined the management of its programme for temporary (58 month) low‑skilled foreign workers. It has gradually introduced a points system for skills of candidates, and in 2017 extended it to all origin countries. It also adjusted the points system used to distribute workers among SMEs requesting foreign workers. The entry quota in the programme was set at 45 000 for 2018, up from 43 000 in 2017, while the number of workers re-admitted for a second and final 58-month spell of employment was set at 13 000 in 2017 and 11 000 in 2018.
In Japan, the need for construction workers, related to the Tokyo 2020 Olympic and Paralympic Games, led to a temporary measure to accept foreign construction workers who are industry-ready. More broadly, in late 2017, Japan’s technical intern and trainee programme was modified, allowing certain firms to employ more trainees and certain trainees to extend their stay to five years, instead of three. Japan also started, in mid-2017, a programme allowing foreign workers to enter and be employed in domestic work in national strategic special zones.
In Chile, the provision for foreigners to arrive as tourists and seek work is being eliminated. From August 2018, a Temporary Opportunity Visa must be requested abroad, which allows 12 months of job-seeking in Chile for any job. When the recipient finds a job, a temporary or long-term visa may be requested. At the same time, regularisation is being offered in Chile for foreigners who arrived prior to 8 April 2018 and do not have regular status.
Box 1.2. Posted workers in the European Union
EU Directive 96/71 of 16 December 1996 concerns the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services. It aims at facilitating the provision of services by coordinating the rules of the home Member State which are to be applied to posted workers during their posting assignment. The practical application of the rules of the Directive has been a recurrent problem, with many Member States alleging that fraud and abuses were frequent, thus undermining fair competition. In order to give Member States better tools to enforce the rules of the 1996 Directive, the European Parliament and the Council adopted the so‑called “Enforcement Directive” in 2014 which became operational in the second half of 2016.
In March 2016, the European Commission proposed a revision of the 1996 Directive (COM(2016)128). The main changes in the proposal relate to the guarantee for equal pay and additional protection of posted workers in case of posting assignments of more than 24 months. While the 1996 directive guarantees equality only for the minimum rates of pay set by law or universally applicable collective agreements, the proposal extends it to remuneration including all the mandatory elements by law and universally-applicable collective agreements.
The Commission proposal initially faced strong opposition from most of the Member States that joined the EU in 2004 and 2007, as well as Croatia and Denmark. As 14 Chambers of the national parliaments of 11 Member States made use of the so-called “yellow card procedure”, foreseen by the protocol on the application of the protocols on subsidiarity and proportionality, the Commission had to re-examine its proposal on this point. However, considering that the proposal raised no issue of subsidiarity, the commission decided to maintain it without amendment.
The Council of Ministers reached a political agreement on 23 October 2017. It confirms the principle of equal pay for equal work in the same place but makes all national labour rules applicable to postings after 12 months (extendable up to 18) instead of 24 months. Moreover, specific rules will be adopted for the sector of international road transport. Negotiations with the European Parliament started in November 2017. On 28 February 2018, the representatives of the Council, Parliament and Commission announced that they agreed upon a common understanding of the contours of a possible agreement on the revision of the directive. On 11 April, the Council, by a large majority (22 Member States in favour, two against and four abstentions), endorsed the text agreed by the negotiators. It is now up to the European Parliament to take a final position on the text. If the EP supports the text, it could be formally adopted in the EPSCO Council meeting of June 2018.
Recent developments in international migration movements and policies
In Hungary, the employment of third-country nationals from neighbouring countries – at any skill level – was facilitated; the deadline of the single application procedure was reduced from 21 to eight days, and temporary employment relationships were allowed. Hungary has also introduced the concept of “preferred employer” which allows an application for the issue or extension of a residence permit to be submitted by the prospective preferred employer as well as by the worker. The “preferred employer” benefits from faster processing time.
In Israel, pay and conditions for some foreign workers have been reduced, favouring employers. Its National Labour Court decided in 2016 that in addition to non-payment of overtime for live-in care workers, their period of rest would be reduced from 36 hours to 25 weekly hours and lower payments could be made towards their pensions.
In December 2016, the Russian government established quotas of foreign workers in certain economic activities, notably public and commercial vehicles. From July 2017, foreigners who work as professional drivers of motor vehicles are obliged to pass exams and obtain a driving license in Russia (except for certain countries where the Russian language is official).
Schemes for seasonal employment continue to be developed. In Korea, a seasonal worker program for agriculture and fishery was introduced in 2017, granting short-term employment visas for up to three months to workers sponsored by local residents. A fast procedure for seasonal employment in Bulgaria in tourism and agriculture for up to 90 days within a 12-month period has been introduced, under which the employer is no longer obliged to advertise the position in local and national media, internet or other sources.
A number of EU countries have transposed into their own legislation EU Directive 2014/36 on the conditions of entry and stay of third-country nationals for the purpose of employment as seasonal workers, and EU Directive 2014/66 on the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals in the framework of an intra-corporate transfer. They include the Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland, Romania and Slovenia. The applied conditions are broadly similar but with some variations from country to country. The most notable change, described above, is represented by Poland.
Entrepreneurs and investors are sought-after immigrants
Countries are still keen to attract entrepreneurs and investors. New schemes have been introduced and changes made to existing ones.
One major trend has been to introduce new programmes specifically aimed at high-impact entrepreneurs, especially in innovative sectors and start-ups. Changes introduced in Australia support the Government’s National Innovation and Science Agenda by attracting and retaining entrepreneurial talent that will drive ideas from research to commercial reality. The new Entrepreneur visa is for those with innovative ideas and AUD 200 000 (about USD 150 000) in financial backing from a specified third party, while providing a pathway to permanent residency. Countries have been streamlining their procedures in order to fast-track entrepreneurial residence permits. The Czech Republic and France have both introduced legislation designed to create a more favourable environment for entrepreneurs. A temporary residence permit for an entrepreneur developing innovative products in Latvia is available without the requirement to spend a year in the country first. France combined its investor and entrepreneur programmes in its “Talent Passport”, with criteria ranging from business start-ups to investment (EUR 300 000 or more) to job creation.
Start-ups are a new category attracting more attention. Canada’s Start-up Visa pilot programme, launched in April 2013, with the goal of attracting foreign entrepreneurs with the skills to create innovative new companies that can compete on a global scale, was made permanent in July 2017. As a result of changes in October 2017, a new category of Austrian RWR-cards is being introduced for founders of business start-ups. Criteria encompass innovative products, personal management involvement, business plan and start-up capital of EUR 50 000. Separate RWR-cards are available for other entrepreneurs in order to distinguish them from founder start-ups, namely an investment capital of at least EUR 100 000 or the creation of jobs (or protection of existing jobs) and regional/local added economic benefit. In New Zealand, a new Global Impact Visa (GIV) pilot category came into effect in November 2016 and is designed to attract and support high-impact entrepreneurs, investors and start-ups, who do not meet existing policy requirements, to establish innovative ventures in New Zealand. The visa will run as a four-year pilot and be limited to 400 people. The Talent Boost programme in Finland, implemented in 2017, offers a new type of residence permit for growth or start-up entrepreneurs with a simplified application process so that a residence permit for a specialist could be issued for a period of two years instead of the current one year. Estonia introduced a start-up permit for entrepreneurs founding or developing a start-up company in Estonia (i.e. an economic entity at the beginning of its life cycle and belonging to a commercial undertaking registered in Estonia). The start-up must have significant global growth potential and a business model that would contribute significantly to the development of business environment in Estonia. Start-ups either meet certain criteria or receive a positive evaluation by the expert committee of StartUp Estonia.
In some countries, the criteria for start-up visas have been made more flexible. The minimum educational qualification for a technology start-up visa in Korea has been lowered from a bachelor degree to an associate degree. New measures to encourage start‑ups in Lithuania were introduced in January 2017. Prospective entrepreneurs may obtain a temporary residence permit without commencing an activity; providing they have the necessary qualifications, funds and business plan, they may bring their families. Temporary residence permits are issued for a longer period of time (two years instead of one) and holders are obliged to create an enterprise providing jobs for at least one employee, instead of three as formerly. However, the amount of the monthly wage paid must be at least twice the average national gross monthly earnings. Family members of those investing less than EUR 260 000 are now able to enter and receive a temporary residence permit.
For passive investors – those without direct involvement in the management of their investment – most schemes accord residence permits subject to the scale of investment, measured in the sum invested or jobs created; other conditions may also be specified. Investment types vary by country, ranging from real estate to bonds to stocks to support for businesses and job creation; similarly, benefits range from temporary residence to citizenship, although no OECD countries directly offer immediate nationality for investment amounts. In recent years, the trend has been to increase the level of investment required. Changes to the migrant investor policy in New Zealand include doubling the funds migrants must invest to NZL 3 million (about USD 2.1 million) and prioritising experience and English language skills through changes in the points system. Luxembourg has introduced a new “investor” authorisation to stay. Estonia introduced a major investor programme for investments worth at least EUR 1 million in companies (or funds investing in companies) in the Estonian commercial register. In Russia, from September 2017, foreigners who are ready to invest USD 10 million or more in the Far East region of Russia will be allowed to acquire Russian citizenship through a simplified procedure and retain their previous nationality together with other privileges. They can choose the type of investment, such as the construction sector, purchase-ready real estate or stock. Following citizenship acquisition, the investor must keep the assets in the region for three years. Immediate relatives of investors are also allowed to apply for Russian citizenship.
Some countries have tightened their conditions. In the Netherlands, measures have both streamlined procedures and tightened up on the criteria used. The duration of the first residence permit was extended from one to three years and foreign investors no longer need an auditor’s statement concerning the source of the capital. More effort has been placed on due diligence. The investment now has to meet at least two of the following criteria: employment creation of at least ten full-time jobs; innovation; and non-financial contribution. In Bulgaria, the existing requirement for a long-term visa has been that the foreign entrepreneur has to open ten jobs; a new amendment specifies that these jobs must be full-time and that any partner/shareholder must fulfil conditions.
Asylum seeking
The effects of the “migration crisis” are still feeding policy development
Countries remain very active in promoting new measures to deal with asylum seekers and modifying existing measures. In some cases, these represent a delayed response to the spike in asylum applications in Europe in 2015-16. Three themes emerge: efforts to speed up decision making through more streamlined procedures; to reinforce existing systems by exercising greater control on entry and stay; and to adjust conditions for claimants according to the status they have received and ensure protection while maintaining system integrity.
Streamlining of procedures continues to be popular
Legislative amendments to improve the handling of matters concerning international protection, particularly the processing of appeals, came into force in several countries during 2016-17. In some cases they were a reaction to the large number of applications in systems not designed for such volumes. In response to the shutting down of the Balkan route, combined with the EU-Turkey Agreement, Greece introduced measures to be activated in the event of large numbers of arrivals lodging asylum applications at the border. They include allowing police and unarmed soldiers to conduct the registration of asylum applications and tightening deadlines for claimants to prepare for interviews and submit appeals. In April 2017, Italy also adopted measures to accelerate asylum proceedings by reducing possibilities for appeal, extending the network of detention centres, allowing voluntary work by asylum seekers and providing asylum for all unaccompanied minors arriving in Italy. In order to speed up the decision process, Switzerland has made available free legal support and advice to asylum seekers, as well as practical help to return to their countries of origin.
Following the significant increase of unfounded applications, Luxembourg has introduced a fast-track procedure and a new emergency accommodation centre for those whose application Luxembourg determined incomplete. In 2016, the Dutch government introduced a flexible multitrack policy. There is no longer a fixed routine in all cases, allowing the elimination of procedural steps that are superfluous for certain asylum seekers. In addition, in 2016, the list of safe countries of origin was extended to allow for faster asylum procedures for persons who are very unlikely to receive international protection. Slovenia also expanded its list of safe countries of origin. Ireland has introduced a: single application procedure to replace the former sequential asylum application process; designation of safe countries of origin; prioritisation of applications, and acceleration of appeals, together with specific guarantees for unaccompanied minors. In Belgium, asylum law has been reformed to allow the use of electronic devices (tablets, mobile phones, etc.) to recover data on asylum applicants.
Tightening-up conditions of entry and stay continues
Countries tightened-up their asylum policies in two main ways: measures affecting the entry and stay of asylum seekers, and changes in management procedures.
Some measures address asylum seekers at the border. In May 2017, Australia tightened its policy on illegal maritime arrivals (IMAs) by introducing a cut-off date for lodging an application for a protection visa, after which any claim to protection is considered forfeited. Special border procedures in Hungary allow unauthorised third country nationals apprehended within eight kilometres of the border to be taken to the external side of the border; in the event an emergency is declared, this provision applies to apprehensions anywhere in the country. In Poland, foreigners applying for refugee status at the border, and not possessing documents entitling them to enter Poland, are sent to guarded centres, to await a decision. Israel now detains all new illegal border crossers, including asylum seekers, in a closed facility for one year. In Denmark, the Parliament adopted, in May 2017, a so-called “emergency brake” into the Danish Aliens Act, making it possible to reject asylum seekers at the border in the situation where the Dublin Regulation is de facto not in force. Such a “brake” is in place in other EU countries, like Austria since 2016, where an emergency decree allows the refusal of entry at the border to potential asylum seekers if a certain upper limit is reached.
Chile, which has seen a large increase in the number of Haitian and Venezuelan nationals arriving without visas, reformulated its policy for these groups. Haitians must now request a 30-day tourist visa abroad prior to arriving in Chile. However, a humanitarian family visa, of 12 months renewable once, has been created for Haitians with family in Chile, and a quota – of up to 10 000 annually – of humanitarian visas to be requested in Haiti has been created. For Venezuelans, a “Democratic Responsibility” visa is issued in Venezuela and allows 12 months in Chile, renewable once.
Residential requirements for asylum seekers have been adjusted in many contexts. In Finland asylum seekers may be ordered to reside in a specific reception centre and to report there between one and four times a day in order to make them easier to locate during their application processing. In Israel, those eligible for group protection must reside in a specific open facility, for no longer than 12 months. Bulgaria now allows local authorities to restrict zones for movement by asylum seekers and any travel outside the zones has to be permitted.
Conditions for appeal and during asylum processing have changed in some countries. Finland reduced the period for appealing asylum decisions from 30 to 21 days from notice of the decision, and the rules relating to qualifications for legal aid were tightened. In Japan, from 2018, not all asylum seekers will be granted work authorisation while they await a decision; those with a prior residence status will first undergo a rapid screening.
In January 2018, a treaty between France and the UK was signed with financial support for border controls, faster processing, and commitments to transfer some minors from France to the UK. This follows an announcement in July 2017 by the UK, after consultation with local authorities on capacity, that the specified number of unaccompanied child applicants to be transferred from camps in France would be 480. Those who violate the rules may be transferred to a closed refugee camp.
Conditions for those granted protection have in some cases been revised. Sweden has reduced the period of protection granted. A person who is assessed as being a refugee will be granted a residence permit that applies for three years and a person who is assessed as being eligible for subsidiary protection will be granted a permit for 13 months. Sweden has also taken steps to assess the age of a minor at the outset of the asylum procedure instead of, as previously, only in connection with the asylum decision. Austria has limited the period of protection/residence of recognised refugees to three years, after which time persons may be expected to return if the source country can be considered safe for the person in question. Similarly in Belgium, those granted refugee status will be granted temporary residence for five years instead of permanent residence; although, if their situation remains unchanged, they will be granted permanent residence after five years. In Hungary, the period of automatic revision of refugee status was reduced from five to three years, the separate integration support scheme for recognised refugees and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection abolished (in favour of access to mainstream services), and the maximum period of stay in open reception centres following the recognition of refugee status or subsidiary protection was reduced from 60 to 30 days while automatic eligibility period for basic health care services was decreased from one year to six months.
Conditions for family reunification for refugees have in some cases been adjusted. In Norway, refugees submitting an application for family reunification must do so within six months – rather than one year – if they wish to be exempted from the subsistence requirement. From July 2017, applications for family immigration to Norway may be rejected in cases where their family life is possible in a safe country in which their overall ties are stronger than in Norway. Family reunion has also become more difficult in Austria, especially for persons with subsidiary protection status.
Some countries have eased conditions to favour asylum claimants
Some new measures shift policies towards a more favourable treatment of asylum seekers. Those in Greece with asylum claims pending for over five years automatically receive a two-year residence permit on humanitarian grounds. In Ireland, following a government review of direct provision for asylum seekers whose cases had been under consideration for more than five years, reforms were introduced raising the weekly allowance for children (from EUR 6 to 15.60), waiving medical prescription charges and allowing access to further and higher education for students who had been in the Irish education and the asylum system for five years or more.
Box 1.3. The reform of the Common European Asylum System and the issue of the Dublin System
In Europe, weaknesses of the Common Asylum Policy were highlighted during the humanitarian crisis. The Commission proposed, in May and July 2016, a reform of the Common European Asylum System. Besides legislative initiatives aiming at achieving greater convergence regarding the rules on the definition of the persons who can be protected and asylum procedures, on reception conditions for asylum seekers and on asylum procedures, as well as a more important role for the European Agency in charge of asylum, the major element of this third legislative package is a revision of the Dublin System on the determination of the responsible Member States when an asylum application is lodged.
While the Commission proposal (COM(2016)270) preserves the current system of responsibility allocation under the Dublin III Regulation 604/2013, it includes a corrective allocation mechanism to ensure some solidarity between Member States in order to implement the principle of solidarity and fair sharing of responsibility (article 80 TFEU). If a Member State would be responsible for a number of applications that exceeds 150% of its “fair share”, the corrective allocation mechanism would be automatically triggered, and the asylum seekers relocated between the Member States below the “fair share” threshold (100%). The “fair share” of Member States is calculated taking into consideration the size of population (50% weighting) and the GDP (50% weighting) relative to the EU total. The proposal however contains the possibility for a Member State not to take part in that mechanism by paying EUR 250 000 per asylum seeker to the Member State taking over responsibility.
This scheme of mandatory relocation is the element of the asylum package that faces the most opposition from some Member States. Concerns are also related to the Commission’s consideration – with the support of some Member States – to link EU funding to criteria including the rules on relocation of asylum seekers.
The European Parliament has defined its position.1 The Parliament envisages extending the solidarity mechanism proposed by the Commission by replacing the responsibility of Member States for entry of the asylum seeker on their territory by the automatic allocation of responsibility to the least burdened states, offering asylum seekers a choice among the four least-burdened ones. Discussions in the Council of Ministers and at technical level continue, with the aim of reaching a Council position by mid-2018.
1. See the report A8-0345/2017 of 6 November 2017.
Norway no longer expects that an asylum seeker will have sought protection in another part of his or her country of origin (“the internal flight alternative”). It also proposes to give an asylum seeker access to a temporary work permit before the applicant has undergone an asylum interview, if there is a high probability that the applicant will be granted a temporary residence permit. Since May 2017, Latvia allows a person in need of international protection, but with no valid travel document, to obtain a temporary travel document to facilitate entry into the country. In addition, the period after which an asylum seeker may engage in employment if the authorities had not made a decision on an application was reduced from nine to six months.
The temporary expansion of resettlement quotas has largely subsided
A number of OECD countries expanded their refugee resettlement quotas temporarily during the 2014-15 humanitarian crisis; these measures have now ended. More generally, resettlement quotas have in some cases been revised downwards. The United States curtailed its resettlement in Fiscal Year 2017 to about 53 700 refugees, following a revision of the resettlement target established by the previous administration. The government proposed to welcome 45 000 refugees in Fiscal Year 2018. Denmark has maintained – for 2017 and 2018 – a temporary suspension of resettlement of quota refugees first imposed in 2016 in reaction to an increase in cases of asylum seeking.
Other countries have expanded resettlement targets. Canada has increased overall targets for 2018-20, which rise from 27 000 in 2018 to 31 500 in 2020. About two-thirds of these are privately-sponsored refugees, although the number of government-sponsored refugees is also planned to increase, from 7 500 to 10 000.
Based on its experience with Syrians, the Canadian government has developed and initiated a programme of technical assistance for other interested countries, including a comprehensive set of web-based training modules. In December 2016, it also introduced a new intake management strategy for privately-sponsored refugees aimed at reducing backlogs.
Changes in family-related policies reflect divergent approaches
New family migration policies address several issues. Easier reunion – at least for some categories of migrants – is the goal in Canada, Israel, Latvia, Norway, Belgium and Estonia. In December 2016, Canada announced a new processing objective of 12 months for most spousal applications as part of a new, simplified and streamlined application system and eliminated the two-year conditional permanent resident requirement that applied to some spouses seeking to reunite with a Canadian spouse. Israel increased the quota for family unification by members of the Falash Mura (a group of Ethiopian immigrants) with family members in Israel.
Funding requirements have been eased in Latvia and Norway. The minimum amount of funding necessary to obtain residence permits for families in Latvia with more children has been reduced. From August 2017, the deadline in Norway for submitting an application for family reunification for refugees to be exempted from the subsistence requirement is reduced from one year to six months.
Waiting periods and age conditions have also been changed, to the advantage of migrants. Luxembourg has abolished the one-year waiting period that applied to some categories of sponsors wishing to apply for family reunification. Canada has raised the maximum age for dependents from 19 to 22 to ensure more effective support for permanent residents to bring their children to Canada and also introduced a random selection process to facilitate the acceptance of parent and grandparent applications. From October 2017, a residence permit will be granted automatically to children who were born in Estonia or settled there immediately after birth without the parent needing to apply. New legislation in Poland allows family members staying there to apply independently for a temporary residence permit issued for the purpose of the family reunion.
Box 1.4. European Union resettlement and relocation policy
In the European Union, resettlement and relocation remain an area of policy discussion. Two decisions adopted on 14 and 22 September 2015 in the midst of the “asylum crisis” aimed at relocating respectively up to 40 000 and 120 000 asylum seekers to alleviate the burden of Italy and Greece. From then until March 2018, almost 34 000 persons were relocated (12 000 from Italy and 21 800 from Greece) through this scheme. The mechanism, almost the first of its kind,1 faced implementation challenges during the first year (only 5 700 relocated), while the second year saw a dramatic increase. The condition for relocation, that of belonging to a group with at least a 75% rate of recognition of refugee status, was considered in some cases to be rather restrictive in terms of implementation.
Some Member States opposed relocation, including on the grounds that they were unable to select the applicants for relocation. Although outvoted by a qualified majority of Member States in Council at the occasion of the adoption of the second relocation decision, the Slovak Republic and Hungary asked the Court of Justice to cancel this decision; the Court rejected this action on 6 September 2017.2 The Commission launched infringement procedures against three Member States (the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland) who have refused to participate in the relocation scheme or who stopped pledging and relocating.
To meet the EU target of resettling 22 500 persons in clear need of international protection from North Africa, the Middle East and the Horn of Africa, agreed by the representatives of the Member States on 20 July 20153, 21 Member States and four Associated States resettled 19 400 people by the end of the 2017, when financial support for this scheme was scheduled to end.
On 13 July 2016, The Commission proposed a Union Resettlement Framework (COM(2016)468) that would regulate resettlement by Member States (there would be an ordinary but also an expedited procedure) and the status of the resettled persons. Under the Commission’s proposal, the Council would adopt an annual “Union resettlement plan” defining the number of persons to be resettled and the contributions by each Member State, while the Commission would adopt “targeted Union resettlement schemes” for the third countries from which resettlement is to occur. Member States would receive EUR 10 000 per resettled person from the EU budget (more than under current arrangements). The negotiations between the Parliament and Council started in December 2017 on the basis of the respective positions, but the two institutions have divergent views yet to be reconciled.
As the adoption of the regulation will require some time, the Commission adopted, on 27 September 2017, a recommendation on enhancing legal pathways for persons in need of international protection (C(2017)6504) aimed at bridging the 2015 resettlement scheme and the future Union Resettlement Framework. Its target is to resettle at least 50 000 persons by 31 October 2019. At the end of 2017, pledges made by 19 Member States totalled almost 40 000. Effective implementation – feasible, in light of the 14 200 persons resettled in 2016 – would quadruple the resettlement volume relative to the 2010-14 period and make the European Union into a major resettling actor, comparable to Canada, even as the EU receives far more spontaneous asylum applications.
1. The only prior experience was a pilot project, Eurema, limited to the relocation of about 500 protected persons from Malta.
2. The court considered that the mechanism is in line with the principle of solidarity and fair sharing of responsibility enshrined in article 80 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFUE). See Case Slovakia & Hungary v Council, C-643/15.
3. Document 11130/15.
Tighter conditions to provide more control on reunion have been applied in Finland, Hungary and Switzerland. In Finland, beneficiaries of international or temporary protection are required to prove that they have sufficient means to live there, regardless of when the family was established. Finland has also introduced a processing fee. Belgium has lengthened the maximum duration of the family reunification procedure for third-country nationals from six to nine months and increased the period of control after family reunification from three to five years after the granting of a temporary residence permit. In 2016, the Hungarian government specified which documents could be used to prove family member status, curtailing certain practices suspected of being abuses of the channel. In Denmark, the exemption to the attachment requirement for certain long-term Danish residents or Danish-born individuals (those with 26 years residence, or the “26-year rule”) was eliminated. Switzerland requires either language knowledge or the commitment to take language courses after arrival for family reunification; family reunification will not be allowed for foreigners who are dependent on income support.
Australia and Norway have attempted to reduce the risk of domestic and family violence. Australian sponsors of overseas partner visa applicants are required to provide police clearances and visa applications may be refused where the sponsor has a significant criminal history. Norway seeks to combat forced marriages by stipulating that in cases of family establishment both spouses/parties must be at least 24 years of age.
Border, security, irregular migration
New technology is changing compliance practices
The trend towards technological solutions to improve enforcement continues, including biometrics and data sharing. Australia has enhanced its biometric and data storage facilities to allow more efficient detection of individuals who are of security, law enforcement or immigration interest, while simultaneously speeding up the flow of legitimate travellers. In addition, a new Visa Risk Assessment capability will enable risks to be considered at the visa application stage. Canada now requires visa-exempt foreign nationals flying to, or transiting through, Canada to have an Electronic Travel Authorization (ETA) to fly to or pass through a Canadian airport. It is also engaged in automatic biometric-based information sharing with Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. In French consulates, biometry is now general, and measures to combat illegal migration have been toughened through closer collaboration with other countries. In Denmark, a June 2017 bill expands official opportunities for recording, storing and processing fingerprints and photographs (biometric data) for identification and identity verification purposes.
Border controls have been stepped up
Largely as a response to the recent European migration inflows, border controls have been stepped up. In 2015-16, the Dutch government introduced Mobile Security Monitoring checks at the border and the maximum penalty for human smuggling was increased significantly. In May 2017, Sweden decided to prolong the Swedish Police’s internal border controls which had been in force since November 2015. In January 2016, Denmark reintroduced temporary border controls at the border with Germany, which were extended until November 2017. Modern border surveillance systems have been introduced in Lithuania in the most vulnerable sections of the state border with Belarus to ensure prompt response to violations or detention of offenders. In addition, the existing surveillance systems at the border with the Russian Federation are being upgraded.
Smuggling and trafficking continue to challenge migration management. As part of a new strategy on prostitution, Luxembourg plans to provide legal/social support and to penalise clients in cases involving minors, vulnerable persons or victims of sexual exploitation. Belgian authorities have enhanced practical cooperation in cross-border investigations and prosecutions on smuggling, setting up a task force on illegal immigrant smuggling in the North Sea region. Lithuania has strengthened the co-ordination of activities between state institutions, municipalities and NGOs and approved a new action plan to combat human trafficking.
In recent years, measures to combat illegal employment have been regularly adopted and the process continues. The main focus is on employers. In the Netherlands, a new but more flexible sanctions regime, based on the severity of non-compliance, has replaced the former standard fine of EUR 12 000 per illegally-employed foreigner. Frequent infringement of labour legislation by employment agencies in the Czech Republic has led to steps to compel their registration. Changes to the Belgian social penal law code in May 2016 penalise employers and employees who are in an undeclared work relation. From April 2016, employers in Bulgaria who hire illegal immigrants are liable to a fine of up to EUR 2 550.
Some new legislation is aimed principally at employees without a legal residence status. In January 2018 banks and building societies in the UK started carrying out checks on the immigration status of all personal current account holders, under government measures to encourage departure of those in the UK without authorisation. Russia has increased the level of administrative fines imposed on foreigners staying without authorisation.
At the European level, on 30 November 2017, a regulation (2017/2226) was adopted establishing an Entry/Exit System (EES) to register entry, exit, and refusal of entry data of third-country nationals crossing the external borders of the Member States.7 This new database will record and store the date, time and place of entry and exit of all third-country nationals (even for those not subject to a visa obligation) crossing the external borders of the Schengen Area for a short stay of maximum 90 days. The main objectives of the EES are to enhance the efficiency of border checks, allow the identification of overstayers, enable automation of border checks and gather statistics on entries, exits, and overstays. This new database completes the existing ones (the Schengen Information System [SIS], the Visa Information System [VIS] and Eurodac).
EU relations with Turkey and Libya
For EU border issues, the year 2016 was dominated by the implementation of the March 2016 EU-Turkey Statement, which led to a sharp decrease of arrivals from Turkey. In the two years following the statement (through March 2018), around 58 000 persons arrived on the Greek islands, compared with 561 000 in the six months prior to the agreement. As of 4 April 2018, 13 000 persons have returned voluntarily from Greece to Turkey while 13 000 Syrians have been resettled from Greece to other EU Member States. The EUR 3 billion foreseen in the EU Facility for Refugees in Turkey has been committed and contracted.8 The Commission adopted on 14 March 2018 a decision regarding the contribution of an additional EUR 3 billion.
The EU and its Member States are also making significant efforts to address flows across the Central Mediterranean route through Libya, from which 120 000 persons arrived in Italy in 2017 (34% fewer than in 2016). An agreement similar to the one with Turkey cannot be concluded with Libya due to the impossibility of safe return because of the risk of inhumane and degrading treatment in Libya. European efforts focus on enhancing the Libyan capacities to control borders and preventing deaths in Libyan territorial waters. According to its mandate, Operation EUnavfor Med Sophia’s role is the identification, capture and disposal of vessels used, or suspected of being used, by migrant smugglers and traffickers. The mission was tasked in two supporting actions when its mandate was renewed: training the Libyan Coastguard and Navy and contributing to the implementation of the UN arms embargo on the high seas off the coast of Libya.9 The EU has focused its support on providing protection to those stranded in Libya. The EU envelope dedicated for projects to address migration in Libya is EUR 237 million including for programmes to support assisted voluntary return and reintegration of migrants to home countries. In addition, the AU-EU-UN Taskforce was established in the margins of the AU-EU Summit in November 2017 to address, at the political level, the migratory situation in Libya. The Taskforce met its targets and has evacuated 1 300 people in need of international protection from Libya since November 2017 thanks to UNHCR. The IOM has safely returned more than 23 000 persons since November 2017.
Student migration and post-study work
New policy measures relating to international students are twofold: to attract them to come and study; and to encourage them to stay and enter the labour market after graduation.
Countries want to attract international students for study
A comprehensive approach to increasing international study has been adopted by both Ireland and Poland. In 2016, Ireland published its International Education Strategy. Its aims include: to increase the number of international students studying there; to attract outstanding researchers and build world-class networks of learning and innovation; to encourage more Irish students to integrate overseas experience into their study and build global connections for better social and economic outcomes for Ireland at home and abroad. Poland has established a National Agency for Academic Exchange aimed at driving the process of internationalisation of Polish academic and research institutions. Its main goals are: to support the international mobility of students, academics and researchers (e.g. through scholarships); to promote Polish science and higher education; and to promote and popularise teaching of the Polish language.
Simplifying the student visa process and speedier decision making on applications are methods being used by several countries. Australia has reduced the number of student visa subclasses from eight to two and introduced a simplified single immigration risk framework for all international students to guide a student’s financial capacity and English language proficiency requirements. The Netherlands has reduced the maximum decision-making time for student residence permit applications from 90 to 60 days and international students can now start internships in the Netherlands as part of their study.
A number of EU countries including the Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland and Hungary are in the process of transposing EU Directive 2016/801 on the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for the purposes of research, studies, training, voluntary service, pupil exchange schemes or educational projects and au pairing into their domestic legislation.
Two countries have modified their financial rules with respect to international students. Belgium has set up a database with details of student guarantors, the aim being to recover costs, including repatriation, in the event of a student visa being revoked owing to abuse. Slovenia has tightened up the issuance of residence permits for study purposes to ensure that students have sufficient means of subsistence.
…and they want international graduates to enter their labour markets
In recent years, many countries have taken steps to encourage international students to enter their labour markets and the process continues. Countries which use points to select economic migrants have modified their points systems to encourage international students to stay on and work. Five additional points are available in the points test for skilled migration for students who have completed Australian postgraduate research qualifications in science, technology, engineering or mathematics, or specified information and communication technology fields. Access to additional points has enhanced the pathway to permanent residency for these highly-skilled graduates. In 2016, a new visa allows some international students who enter the Korean labour market to get extra points for permanent residency later on. In addition, new provisions are now available in Korea to develop and train international students in certain non‑university‑level engineering professions and allow them to change status and stay on for employment.
Most methods used to encourage international students to stay on and enter the labour market involve allowing them to work during study and/or a period of stay for job search after graduation. In Austria, Latvia and Lithuania they may now enter employment while studying. From December 2016 it is easier for international graduates in Poland to stay and seek work. In Latvia, it is easier to obtain a temporary residence permit (with intention to search for a job) after having completed a full-time university master's or doctoral programme or equivalent diploma. In Luxembourg, international students from third countries may apply for authorisation to stay as a salaried worker or an independent worker without leaving the country. Cape Verdean students who have completed their studies and wish to gain initial post-qualification experience may now access a salaried worker’s residence permit in Luxembourg for a maximum duration of two years. From August 2018, international graduates in Chile may receive a 12-month post-study job-search permit, renewable once. In the Netherlands, international graduates may apply for a one-year residence permit in order to look for employment there. They may now apply for a permit within three years after graduation, instead of one year, and the requirement to apply for a work permit within the first year has been dropped, even if the job does not meet the standard income threshold for the work permit offered to highly skilled personnel. Austria now allows bachelor, as well as PhD, international graduates to obtain the RWR-card and their job search period has been extended from six to 12 months. Under the new Israeli national plan to increase the skilled manpower in the high‑tech industry, 500 foreign graduates of Israeli academic institutes in high-tech professions will be able to work in Israel for up to one year after graduation.
Compliance practices during the post-graduation study period are evolving. In the United States, from February 2018, students who are in post-graduation practical training (OPT) may update their own employer and contact information directly with the government portal, rather than having to pass through their former educational institution.
The network of bilateral agreements continues to widen
Countries continue to enter into a range of bilateral treaties and develop programmes for nationals of specific countries. Australia has agreed an additional pathway to Australian permanent residence for New Zealand citizens who are long-term residents in Australia, as part of the skilled independent stream. It has also commenced a trial of a ten-year frequent traveller stream for Chinese nationals. Canada has enacted regulations for automatic biometric-based information sharing with Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom to complement that already in place with the United States.
Agreements for business travellers have expanded. Canada instituted one with Mexico in December 2016. Since 2016, Switzerland has entered into agreements with China, India and several other countries in order to waive visa requirements for diplomats and various officials. Readmission agreements have been signed by the Czech Republic with Mongolia and Uzbekistan; Switzerland with Chile, Azerbaijan, Kuwait, Sri Lanka and Ukraine; and by Russia with Iceland and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
Most bilateral agreements relate to workers. The agreement between the Czech Republic and Ukraine, in force since August 2016, aims to speed up the procedure for granting employee or EU Blue Cards for Ukrainians. Israel reached a bilateral agreement with China for construction workers in January 2017. Legislation in July 2017 encouraged temporary circular work-related migration between Luxembourg and Cabo Verde with the two countries facilitating the issue of short-term visas for nationals of the other country. A bilateral agreement between Slovenia and Bosnia-Herzegovina in November 2017 allows Bosnian citizens easier access to the Slovenian labour market and more flexibility to change employer; a similar agreement with Serbia is expected in 2018. Bulgaria is working on labour supply treaties with Moldova, Georgia and Armenia for inviting workers from these countries. Russia signed recruitment agreements with Turkey and Uzbekistan.
Policies relating to migrant return have drawn more attention
At least four countries have brought in new legislation affecting the return of migrants to their origin countries, in different forms. The Netherlands has implemented changes in available repatriation support for undocumented migrants from countries deemed to be “safe” in order to prevent “pull in” effects. Italy has increased the number of repatriation centres from four to twenty. The capacity of the closed return centres for irregular migrants and rejected asylum seekers in Belgium has been enlarged. Belgium has also doubled the cash departure grant for Afghan and Iraqi asylum seekers who opt for a voluntary return. In Denmark, a special Return Unit under the Ministry of Immigration and Integration was established in April 2017. Further, the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs has appointed an Ambassador-at-Large for Migration, whose main focus will be to support the whole-of-government approach to returns and readmission. New rules in Russia make it easier for certain foreign citizens to leave and re-enter.
While measures to attract emigrants back continue
Other return measures relate to the country’s own nationals, especially in European countries where recent emigration has produced a large expatriate pool. New regulations in Poland are designed to facilitate the settlement and adaptation in Poland of people of Polish origin; they include living cost provision while applying for permanent residence and access to a centralised path for repatriation. Latvia and Lithuania have adopted new measures to deter emigration and encourage re-immigration. They include language and skills, educational and labour market support, and strengthening ties with diaspora. Romania has established cultural centres in countries where at least 5 000 Romanian citizens are registered, to support emigrant communities.
Youth mobility is seen positively
There is a generally positive approach to youth mobility, including working holidaymakers (WHM), and most new measures are supportive.
In Australia, WHM provisions have been loosened to allow the individual to stay with one employer for a longer period, and the maximum eligible age has been increased from 30 to 35 years. The opportunity exists to access a second 12-month visa if they work for three months in agriculture, tourism or hospitality in northern Australia.
Several countries have made new arrangements with foreign partners, the main purpose of which is to improve knowledge of the other’s culture and society, as well as engage in temporary employment in order to supplement their travel funds. For example, agreements between Australia and Hungary, Luxembourg, San Marino and Viet Nam allow young people from these countries to have an extended holiday for up to 12 months in Australia, during which they can undertake short-term work and study. Others include: Canada signed a reciprocal youth mobility agreement with San Marino; Hungary with Chile, Hong Kong (China), Japan and Argentina; Spain with Japan; Belgium with Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Chinese Taipei and Korea; and Sweden with Chile, Hong Kong (China) and Argentina.
Strategic and administrative change
There is an ongoing process of development and renewal of migration strategies in most countries, often accompanied by administrative shifts. These are sometimes responses to particular conditions, like new migration streams, recognition that past courses of action need to be reassessed or changes of government.
Three countries have carried out general reviews. A new comprehensive migration law in Chile covers all aspects of migration and integration and seeks to modernise the current legislation which dates back to 1975. In January 2018, the Finnish Ministry of the Interior published a new migration policy programme which lays down Finnish migration policy guidelines for the current government term in relation to employment, integration, good relations and internal security. Russia is developing a new migration policy strategy for the period 2018-20 which strengthens immigration control, but also facilitates the redistribution of migrants (including workers) to the Far East region where the population has been shrinking for many years.
Other reviews are more focused. Australia has been reviewing its permanent and temporary skilled migrant intakes with a view to enhancing labour market outcomes and has also effected a digital transformation agenda aimed at a clearer and faster online processing system. New legal amendments in Bulgaria are directed at its role as a transit corridor for further migration to Central Europe and include a more straightforward procedure for appealing a visa refusal.
Some countries have made administrative changes designed to increase the efficiency of policy delivery, usually through greater inter-ministerial co-ordination. Finland has transferred administration duties performed by the Police and the Border Guard to the Finnish Immigration Service which has assumed all duties related to travel documents, right of residence and nationality concerning aliens. In Greece, after the spike in arrivals and the challenges of dealing with reception and processing, a new Ministry of Migration Policy was established in November 2016 incorporating elements of the Ministry of Interior and Administration Reconstruction.
References
[1] De Wispelaere, F. and J. Pacolet – HIVA-KU Leuven (2017), “Posting of workers Report on A1 Portable Documents issued in 2016”.
Annex 1.A. Supplementary tables and figures
Annex Table 1.A.1. Preliminary trends in migration flows, 2017
Thousands
Note: The 2017 data available for France and Luxembourg include only flows from non-EU28 countries.
Source: OECD International Migration Database; national sources.
Annex Table 1.A.2. Permanent inflows to OECD countries by category, 2016
Thousands in 2016 and change between 2015 and 2016
Source: OECD International Migration Database.
Annex Table 1.A.3. Overview of entry categories reviewed in this chapter
Excluding free mobility
Note: Temporary work statistics are not standardised and should be compared with caution (see definitions and sources below). Data on students refer to international tertiary-level students, including students enrolled in language courses (excluding intra-EU international students). The data do not include professional training courses. Data have been revised compared with the previous edition (notably for Chile, France, Norway and the United Kingdom). Totals of temporary workers are numbers of issuances of short-term work permits (less than one year) for Belgium, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Slovak Republic and Slovenia.
Source: OECD International Migration Database.
Annex Table 1.A.4. Selected categories of free mobility presented in this chapter
Note: Intra-EU posted workers are entitled to freedom of movement inside the EU/EFTA. Data refer to numbers of documents confirming their affiliation to the social security scheme of their country of origin (see De Wispelaere and Pacolet – HIVA-KU Leuven (2017[1]), “Posting of workers Report on A1 Portable Documents issued in 2016”, for the methodology).
Source: OECD International Migration Database.
Annex Table 1.A.5. Data sources of statistics on temporary labour migrants presented in Table 1.A.3
Source: OECD International Migration Database.
Notes
← 1. Intra-EU posted workers are entitled to freedom of movement inside the EU/EFTA. Data refer to numbers of documents confirming their affiliation to the social security scheme of their country of origin (see De Wispelaere and Pacolet – HIVA-KU Leuven, (2017[1]), for the methodology).
← 2. Calculation based on data by duration of posting in 17 countries.
← 3. Calculation based on data by duration of posting in 14 countries.
← 4. Calculation based on data by sector of posting in 21 countries.
← 5. Note that these percentages tend to be overestimated because the number of posted workers refer to number of forms and not of persons.
← 6. SOC/539 – EESC-2016-02508-00-00-AC-TRA, p.3.
← 7. OJEU, 9 December 2017, L 327/20.
← 8. The CJEU was asked to check the legality of the EU-Turkey statement and decided on 28 February 2017 that it has no jurisdiction as it was adopted by the Heads of State and Government in their intergovernmental capacity and not by the European Council. An appeal is pending against this decision. See Case NF, T-192/16.
← 9. In accordance with UNSCR 2292 (2016) and 2357 (2017).