The ‘importance of staying put’: third country nationals’ limited intra-EU mobility rights

Abstract

The cautious approach of European Legislators towards the integration of non-EU third country nationals (TCNs), mirrored in the provisions of Long-Term Residence Directive 2003/109/EC, has brought about the creation of 'spatial temporal waiting zones'. Migrants are confined in both place and time before being able to access the (as of yet, very limited) mobility rights conferred upon them by the Directive. Restricted mobility rights for TCNs can seriously impinge on the economic growth of the EU. This paper reveals three 'faults' of the current system. First, we show how TCNs already evade 'temporal borders' by moving across geographical ones to take up employment before being entitled to do so under the provisions of the Directive. Next, we show how formal integration in one member state (MS), paradoxically, opens the door to another MS and, third, how a second MS fights off these near-EU citizens. Finally, we observe the importance of taking the phenomenon of spatial and temporal waiting zones into account, not only when structuring intra-EU mobility policies for TCNs but also when addressing the issue of the (labour market) integration of recent arrivals: soon they too will become European long-term residents.

Migration and mobility of third-country national labour workers to and inside Europe during the Covid-19 pandemic – a legal analysis

“…These limitations were later reinforced by article 13 (2) of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14th June 1985 between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders of 19th June 1990. Della Torre and De Lange (2018) show the integration of TCNs through freedom of movement, but also that they are confronted with "spatial temporal waiting zones" because of the legal framework. Others have discussed the different rights for TCNs as well (e.g.…”

Status (Im)Mobility and the Legal Production of Irregularity: A Sociolegal Analysis of Temporary Migrants’ Lived Experiences

“…Since the authorisation to enter and reside on the territory of destination countries is valid for a predetermined duration, continuous presence is conditional, and inclusion within society is suspended (Allen and Axelsson, 2019). Upon admission, migrants are allowed to remain temporarily in the host country, turning permanent residency into the outcome of prolonged immobility and temporariness (Della Torre and De Lange, 2018). Similarly, citizenship is acquired after having lived continuously and legally in the destination country for a number of years.…”

What distinguishes radical right welfare chauvinism? Excluding different migrant groups from the welfare state

“…However, the law grants a considerable amount of discretion to the host State to limit TCW access to social benefits (Guiraudon, 1998; Beduschi, 2015; Eisele, 2018; Wollenschläger et al, 2018). As long-term TCWs generally have similar access to social protection as natives (della Torre and de Lange, 2018), we consider this group separately from temporary TCWs in the analysis. Table 1 summarizes the national and regional institutions that regulate migrant groups’ access to the welfare state and their level of social protection.…”

“…Irrespective of ideology, due to extensive legal protection, parties have minimal space to restrict refugees’ and long-term TWCs’ entitlements to social rights (della Torre and de Lange, 2018; Duke et al, 1999; Sales, 2002). Therefore, we will not formulate hypotheses regarding party families’ influence on these groups’ access to social rights.…”