Gérer la citoyenneté, la sécurité et les droits: comprendre la régulation de la migration de mariage en Europe et en Amérique du Nord.
The tension between the right to family reunification as laid down in European Directives and Member States’ concern to protect their sovereignty in regulating migration has resulted in growing attention to and concern about fraudulent family relationships (especially marriages of convenience). This contribution addresses the question of what forms of control are permissible from a European law perspective and whether national practices are in conformity with European law and fundamental rights.
This study seeks to consider how marriage migration to the UK has been regulated from 1900 to the present day, as well as analysing some of the contributory factors to and consequences of such regulation. Immigration in general often raises acute tensions across political boundaries and marriage migrants have raised particular socio-political issues which various administrations have attempted to address over the years. Issues of race, gender, culture and identity and different theorisations of the limits of state power in this area have all been instrumental in contributing to the regulation of marriage migration since the early 1900s.
This research investigates the ways in which marriage migration, which was relatively insignificant in the early phases of post-War immigration, has become the object of intense state scrutiny and the site of political interventions in the past twenty years, as family-related migration became the main legal mode of entry in Western Europe, Canada and the United States (Kraler, 2010). Such interventions have taken different forms, and have become increasingly debated. Indeed, they seem to pit what many deem to be a fundamental principle in Western democracies, namely the right to family life (at least for established citizens), against calls and pressures for tightened migration policies.
Le système canadien de réunification familiale souffre d’importantes lacunes : retard dans le traitement des demandes, procédures beaucoup trop strictes… qui font que de nombreuses familles se retrouvent séparées pour une durée interminable. En raison de leur situation particulière, les réfugié-e-s se trouvent encore plus affectés par ces barrières.
C’est avec un immense plaisir que nous vous annoncons la parution du premier rapport de recherche réalisé dans le cadre du projet Migration de mariage et technologies de l’amour: comprendre la gouvernementalité de la migration de mariage en Europe et en Amérique du Nord dirigé par Anne-Marie D’Aoust, professeure au département de sciences politiques et membre du CRIEC de l’Université du Québec à Montréal.
Associate Professor of Law Dr Helena Wray and her Middlesex colleague, Co-Director of the Social Policy Research Centre Eleonore Kofman, consider the latest evidence ahead of the Supreme Court hearing on the minimum income requirement.
Plus de réfugiés et moins d'immigrants économiques. C'est ce qui ressort du plan d'immigration pour 2016 qui a été dévoilé ce matin par le gouvernement fédéral. Au cours de cette année, Ottawa compte accueillir environ 300 000 nouveaux résidents permanents au pays.
Un texte de Raphaël Bouvier-Auclair, Radio-Canada
Immigration Minister John McCallum says he’s planning on introducing changes in the “next couple of months” that will grant permanent resident status to the sponsored spouses of Canadians, immediately, upon arriving in Canada.
“When spouses come in now, they don’t immediately become permanent residents; there’s a two-year period where they are not yet permanent residents,” Mr. McCallum (Markham-Thornhill, Ont.) said in an interview with The Hill Times. “We said in our platform that we will end that so that they will become permanent residents on arrival.”
Under the EU citizens’ Directive, currently EU citizens can bring with them to another Member State their spouse or partner, the children of both (or either) who are under 21 or dependent, and the dependent parents of either. This applies regardless of whether the family members are EU citizens or not. No further conditions are possible, besides the prospect of a refusal of entry (or subsequent expulsion) on grounds of public policy, public security or public health (on which, see below).
In principle EU law does not apply to UK citizens who wish to bring non-EU family members to the UK, so the UK is free to put in place restrictive rules in those cases (which it has done, as regards income requirements and language rules). However, the CJEU has ruled that UK citizens can move to another Member State and be joined by non-EU family members there, under the more generous rules in the EU legislation.
One of the issues the Supreme Court may examine is whether the foreign spouse’s income might count towards the threshold. At present, some low-earning British expatriates have trouble moving back from abroad with their foreign spouse, even if that partner is a high earner. The court has the power to declare these rules unlawful, though that is unlikely, believes Ms Grant. In the absence of many other ways of reducing immigration, the government will want to cling on to the strict new rules, for better or worse.