Immigration is one of the greatest cause of concern for a lot of Europeans nowadays. Extreme-right parties are becoming increasingly popular as governments seem unable to control the influx of third world immigrants. The EU, and more specifically the Schengen zone, has also greatly facilitated cross-border movements, but also illegal immigration. EU leaders are already discussing the urgency of having a single Schengen-visa with the same acceptance criteria for all member states, so as to prevent "visa shopping" around EU embassies around the world. But what direc should Europe take more generally for its immigration policy ?
Personally, I am extremely pro-European, and so I am naturally in favour of intra-European migration. Regarding extra-European immigration, I would like to see a policy closer to that of Japan, i.e. allowing people only if a company sponsor them for their working visa, and set a minimum level of education (in Japan it is a 4-year university diploma) for prospective foreign workers. I would freeze completely immigration from third world countries (e.g. all Africa) as well as from the Islamic world.
A lot of the legal immigrants from the third world to Europe nowadays come through the principle of "family reunification". I want to see much stricter rules in this regard. It is alright to come with your spouse and children, but not with your siblings, cousins, parents, grand-parents, uncles, aunts, second-cousins, etc. Only people who are have a job that permit them to support their family (spouse and children) decently would be granted a visa for them. Each family member would have to take the oath to follow the integration course as long as it takes to become fluent in the local language and aware of legal and cultural matters of the host country. If the sponsor of the family (e.g. the father) loses his job, (s)he and his/her family would have to return to their home country if they haven't found a new job with a sufficient income (proved by taxes) within 6 months or 1 year. This is also similar to the way things work in Japan.
As for political refugees and asylum seekers, I would only accept those that take the oath to learn the language and culture of the European region that is welcoming them by following (free) compulsory integration courses. There should be annual checks, and anybody that would not respect this oath would be liable to be send back to their home country, even if it is at war. After all, accepting people as refugees is doing them a favour, it is not a right, and even less an obligation. The least refugees could do to thank their host country is to adapt to their new home.
Permanent residency should only been granted to people with a stable job and sufficient income over the last 5 years, who has in addition proven their language and integrational abilities (with official test results as a proof).
One more important thing, no amnesty for failed asylum seekers and illegal immigrants. This only encourages some unscrupulous mafia to continue their human trafficking between Africa and Europe. It has happened frequently (every 5 or 10 years) in countries like Italy, Spain, France or the Benelux, and this has probably been one of the worst error in immigration policies after WWII.
Personally, I am extremely pro-European, and so I am naturally in favour of intra-European migration. Regarding extra-European immigration, I would like to see a policy closer to that of Japan, i.e. allowing people only if a company sponsor them for their working visa, and set a minimum level of education (in Japan it is a 4-year university diploma) for prospective foreign workers. I would freeze completely immigration from third world countries (e.g. all Africa) as well as from the Islamic world.
A lot of the legal immigrants from the third world to Europe nowadays come through the principle of "family reunification". I want to see much stricter rules in this regard. It is alright to come with your spouse and children, but not with your siblings, cousins, parents, grand-parents, uncles, aunts, second-cousins, etc. Only people who are have a job that permit them to support their family (spouse and children) decently would be granted a visa for them. Each family member would have to take the oath to follow the integration course as long as it takes to become fluent in the local language and aware of legal and cultural matters of the host country. If the sponsor of the family (e.g. the father) loses his job, (s)he and his/her family would have to return to their home country if they haven't found a new job with a sufficient income (proved by taxes) within 6 months or 1 year. This is also similar to the way things work in Japan.
As for political refugees and asylum seekers, I would only accept those that take the oath to learn the language and culture of the European region that is welcoming them by following (free) compulsory integration courses. There should be annual checks, and anybody that would not respect this oath would be liable to be send back to their home country, even if it is at war. After all, accepting people as refugees is doing them a favour, it is not a right, and even less an obligation. The least refugees could do to thank their host country is to adapt to their new home.
Permanent residency should only been granted to people with a stable job and sufficient income over the last 5 years, who has in addition proven their language and integrational abilities (with official test results as a proof).
One more important thing, no amnesty for failed asylum seekers and illegal immigrants. This only encourages some unscrupulous mafia to continue their human trafficking between Africa and Europe. It has happened frequently (every 5 or 10 years) in countries like Italy, Spain, France or the Benelux, and this has probably been one of the worst error in immigration policies after WWII.
Last edited: