Baltic Sea Region Governments’ Immigration and Integration Policy Policy Assessment and Suggestions

FinalBaltic Sea Region Governments’ Immigration and Integration PolicyPolicy Assessment and SuggestionsAuthorMatti Välimäki, Migration Institute of Finland1Turku, 24 October 20191 The assessment, recommendations and opinions expressed in this policy analysis are those of the author and donot necessarily reflect the official opinion of the Migration Institute of Finland or the Baltic Sea ParliamentaryConference and its institutions. Author’s contact details: mtaval@utu.fi.Contents1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 22. Data and policy analysis .................................................................................................... 23. Quantitative overview of the responses ............................................................................. 34. Qualitative analysis ............................................................................................................ 44.1. Populations and legislations ........................................................................................ 44.2. Immigration policies ................................................................................................... 74.3. Immigrant policies .................................................................................................... 125. Conclusions and suggestions ........................................................................................... 18References ............................................................................................................................ 22Appendices ........................................................................................................................... 2411. IntroductionThe Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference’s (BSPC) Working Group on Migration andIntegration conducted two surveys—one in 2018 and one in 2019—amongst the BSPC membergovernments (14 governments from the Baltic Sea Region responded to the surveys). The maingoal of the surveys was to map the immigration and immigrant integration policies andprocedures in the region, learn from the best practices and develop proposals to improvecooperation in planning migration and immigrant integration policies. In the spring of 2019,the BSPC general secretariat commissioned the Migration Institute of Finland in Turku andresearcher Matti Välimäki to assess and analyse the responses submitted by the respectivegovernmental bodies of the Baltic Sea Region states. The present review provides asummarising assessment of different policy areas and suggests some future considerations forthe Working Group on Migration and Integration and for the BSPC member governments.2. Data and policy analysisThe following data were used for this analysis:- Primary material: The BSPC member governments’ responses to the survey conductedin the autumn of 2018 by the BSPC Working Group on Migration and Integration2.There were 15 questions in the survey. 10 BSPC member countries and 4 regionsprovided responses for this survey. The document containing the responses of all themember governments has a length of 186 pages.The themes of the survey included policies and regulations concerning asylum, dualcitizenship, work permits, advisory services for immigrants, courses provided by thegovernments, benefits provided for migrants, family reunification, evictions,unaccompanied minor asylum applicants, monthly costs per different categories ofmigrants, accommodation, and involvement of volunteers. For full list of questions, seeAppendix I.- Secondary material: The BSPC member governments’ responses to the additionalsurvey conducted in the spring of 2019 by the BSPC Working Group on Migration andIntegration3. There were 9 questions in the survey. 10 BSPC member countries and 3regions provided responses for this survey. The document containing the responses ofall the member governments has a length of 81 pages.The themes of the 2019 survey included policies and regulations concerning numbersof asylum applicants, voluntary returns, evictions, and forced returns. In addition,monthly cost per month of different categories of migrants were inquired, as well as thepractices of the governments of combating occurrences of social control in the migrantpopulation, measures to prevent formation of segregated migrant communities, best2 The BSPC member governments’ responses to the 2018 survey can be found on the BSPC web page:http://www.bspc.net/answers-of-the-governments-bspc-wg/ (accessed 19 April 2019).3 The BSPC member governments’ responses to the 2019 survey can be found on the BSPC web page:http://www.bspc.net/bspc_anhang_statementsbspc27/ (accessed 19 April 2019).2practices that have proved beneficial for successful integration, and best practices ofprograms on language and culture education. For full list of questions, see Appendix II.This analysis includes the following:- A quantitative overview of the BSPC member governments’ responses to the 2018 and2019 surveys- A qualitative analysis regarding the BSPC member governments’ responses on thefollowing:(1) Immigration policies, i.e. entry policies(2) Immigrant policies, i.e. policies concerning the rights and responsibilities ofimmigrants- An overall assessment highlighting suggestions for the future3. Quantitative overview of the responsesThe 2018 and 2019 surveys represent a substantial overview of the current practices of entryand immigrant policies in the BSPC member states and regions. The focal points of the surveysare (1) the reception of asylum seekers and (2) immigrant integration measures. For context, in2015 and 2016, Europe saw an increase in the number of asylum applications, making asylumseekers a crucial concern for the BSPC member governments. In addition, the stated purposeof the Working Group on Migration and Integration emphasises finding the best practices inimmigrant integration.4The responses indicate how the inflow and outflow of migrants vary considerably amongst theBSPC member states; the scope and goals of the legislation concerning immigration andintegration in each country varied as well. Some governments provided rather detailedresponses to the questions, whereas others were more concise. Regional governments oftenreferred to the practices of their respective national legislations and policy practices, which iswhy the present assessment also highlights the country practices more than the regionalgovernments’ viewpoints. However, in future surveys and assessments, the intra-statedifferences are worth considering, e.g. in terms of integration policy practices.This analysis does not focus on comparing the financial support immigrants receive or costs ofimmigration and immigrant policies. Even though these issues were dealt with in thequestionnaires, the analysis of the answers would require a separate review to put thedifferences between practices of the countries into perspective. This would include, e.g. takinginto consideration the standard of living and the cost of living in each BSPC member state. Theresponses should also be more commensurable than those received by these surveys. Forinstance, some of the responses to cost-related questions were relatively succinct, especially inthe 2018 survey.4 See the Appendices for lists of the questions for both surveys.34. Qualitative analysisThe basis for the following assessment is the thematic and analytical separation betweenimmigration and immigrant policies. The difference between these two policy realms iselegantly put by Geddes and Scholten: ‘immigration policies concern themselves withconditions regulating territorial access by non-nationals and access to key social institutionssuch as the labour market and welfare state’. Immigrant policies, on the other hand, ‘mark anattempt to re-organise and re-imagine the organisational and conceptual boundaries of a givencommunity and create capacity to include or exclude newcomers’.5 To put it bluntly,immigration policies concern themselves with regulating the entry of non-nationals into anation-state’s territorial space and jurisdiction, whereas immigrant policies address the rightsand responsibilities of non-nationals. Immigrant integration measures are part of immigrantpolicies.The two policy domains are also somewhat parallel because, e.g. family reunificationregulations concern both the rights of immigrants in a host society and the possibilities forentry of potential immigrants in origin countries. The immigration policy arrangements inprospective host countries can also have an impact on immigrants’ decisions of where to go.However, migrants’ motives for moving from one country to another often cannot be distilledinto a single factor, such as lack of working opportunities. On the contrary, individualmigratory decisions often contain complex decision-making patterns, and grasping thosemotives combines the consideration of multiple individual and structural factors.64.1. Populations and legislationsThe BSPC member countries differ greatly in terms of the aspects influencing their policiesand, in particular, their immigration and integration decision-making. The differences canalready be seen in the population sizes which range from 144.5 million inhabitants in Russiaand 82.8 million in Germany to 1.9 million in Latvia and 1.3 million in Estonia. Notablesimilarities also exist, however, regarding age structures and fertility rates. In all the memberstates, populations are ageing and fertility rates have been decreasing in past decades.Population growth and population projections are relatively moderate in most of the countries,and growth has even been negative in some countries in recent years. Population projectionsfor 2050 (medium variant) compiled by Population Pyramid indicate population decreases ofmillions of people in Germany, Poland and Russia. Norway and Sweden, on the other hand,are likely to experience notable increases in population7 (see Table I).5 Geddes & Scholten 2016, 11, 14.6 See, e.g. de Haas 2011.7 Population Pyramid 2019.4TABLE I. Population, immigration, emigration, net migration and asylum applications in theBSPC member states.8Denmark Estonia Finland Germany Latvia Lithuania Norway Poland Russia SwedenPopulation(millions,2018) 5.8 1.3 5.5 82.8 1.9 2.8 5.3 38.0 144.5* 10.1Populationgrowth(annual %,2017) 0.7 0.0 0.3 0.4 -1.0 -1.4 0.9 0.0 0.1 1.5Populationprojection for2050(millions,mediumvariant) 6.3 1.1 5.8 74.5 1.6 2.4 6.7 33.1 128.6 11.9Internationalmigrant stock(%, 2017) 11.5 14.7 6.2 14.8 13.2 4.3 15.1 1.7 8.1 17.6Emigrants(thousands,2017) 262 199 295 4,200 374 597 197 4,700 10,600 348Net migration- 2016 33,287 1,029 17,098 499,944 -12,229 -30,171 26,076 1,505 261,900 117,693- 2017 24,631 5,258 14,824 416,080 -7,808 -27,557 21,349 1,436 211,900 98,869- 2018 18,684 N/A 16,283 355,425 N/A N/A 44,363 -14,799 203,577 50,792Asylumapplications- 2015 21,316 226 32,478 476,649 328 291 31,150 12,325 N/A 162,877- 2016 6,266 84 5,646 745,545 350 425 3,460 12,319 N/A 28,939- 2017 3,500 108 5,046 222,683 395 599 3,560 5,078 N/A 25,666- 2018 3,120 90 2,945 184,180 175 385 2,530 4,110 N/A 18,045* In 2017.The largest age group of foreigners in all the countries that differentiated their population withmigration background according to age were those of working age, especially those between25 and 40 years old. This may be regarded as possibly desirable because this group ispotentially capable of making a living through labour market participation and thus integratemore successfully into the society of a country of residence. On the other hand, in countrieswhere the number of immigrants of working age is high, an increase in the number ofimmigrants of retirement age is also expected if immigration occurs in a permanent mannerinstead of a temporary fashion. In addition to the ageing populations in all BSPC countries, theageing immigrant population puts even more pressure on decision-making regarding how tosecure services and opportunities for older age cohorts. For instance, the needs of non-nativelanguage speakers should be considered in elderly care services.8 Data compiled by research assistants Elina Jokinen and Ellen Nieminen. Sources: Eurostat, Migration dataportal, national statistical offices, Population pyramid, Statista, survey conducted in the spring of 2019 by theBSPC Working Group on Migration and Integration, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees(UNHCR) and United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE).5All respondents did not, however, provide the same level of detail in their responses, and somerespondents provided no data on their populations.9 Moreover, it would have been useful todefine what was meant by the phrase ‘population with migration background’ in the questionon population statistics in the 2018 survey because it can mean more than one thing: peoplewho hold a foreign nationality, those born abroad or whose parents are born abroad, or thosewho speak as their mother tongue a language other than the official language of the country ofresidence.In some countries, such as the Baltic States, Germany, Poland and Russia, emigration has beenrelatively high in the 2010s (see Table I), which may cause social concerns, such as the loss ofskilled workers (the so-called brain drain phenomenon) or a decline in the dependency ratio.Apart from the European Union (EU) member states’ involvement in the Schengen free-movement area and bilateral visa agreements between different BSPC member states,emigration decisions are commonly derived, on one hand, from the employment and studyopportunities available or from relationships between origin and destination country residents,and, on the other hand, from the deterioration of livelihoods in origin countries, and theaccumulated social or other forms of capital in origin countries.In addition to the differences in the number of emigrants, the number of immigrants and theirregions of origin also vary considerably from one BSPC country to another. For instance, inthe 2018 survey, the responses of the Baltic countries, Poland, Finland and Russia, reportpopulations ‘with migration background’ being less than 5 per cent of the total population,whereas in Norway, Sweden, Germany and Denmark, the figures are between 10 and 25 percent. These figures may, however, also be influenced by different ways of compiling statisticsof the population ‘with migration background’.The state of immigration legislation in the BSPC member countries differs as well. All havesome kind of legislation regarding immigration and immigrant issues, as is common practicein highly developed countries. The regulatory framework ranged from Aliens Acts andimmigration laws to administrative decrees. Some BSPC members have a separate law onasylum seekers (e.g. Germany, Latvia and Poland) or immigrant integration (e.g. Finland andGermany), while others have integrated the sections on asylum seekers and integration intotheir Aliens Acts or decrees. In the EU member states belonging to the BSPC, citizens of otherEU member states and the four (non-EU) European Free Trade Association (EFTA) memberstates belonging to the Schengen Area10 (Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland)residing in other member states are subject to different provisions than the non-EU/Schengennationals. Moreover, since the late 1990s, the EU’s Common European Asylum System(CEAS) has increasingly influenced national immigration and immigrant regulations,especially in the area of asylum policies and family reunification.11 The EU’s EuropeanCommission has also agreed on recommendations for immigrant integration. However, there9 For instance, Estonia, Germany, Norway and Russia had deficiencies in the responses they provided on theirpopulations.10 The 26 Schengen countries are: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France,Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands,Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland.11 On the CEAS, see Geddes & Scholten 2016.6are differences in the immigrant integration legislation and procedures which will be discussedin Section 4.3. Labour migration policies, on the other hand, are still largely within the nationaldecision-making power.4.2. Immigration policies4.2.1. Acceptance requirements for international protection beneficiariesThe United Nations (UN) Refugee Convention of 1951 and its 1967 Protocol Relating to theStatus of Refugees are the most important bases for assessing an asylum applicant’s eligibilityfor international protection in the BSPC countries’ legislation.12 The UN Convention definesthe refugee status, which is widely accepted as part of international law, and many BSPCmember states mention this definition in their responses. The core ideas of the 1951 UNRefugee Convention and the 1967 Protocol are the (1) non-refoulement principle and (2) thedefinition of refugees. The non-refoulement principle asserts that people should not be returnedto a country where they face threats to life or personal freedom. The UN Refugee Conventiondefinition of refugees states the following:[O]wing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membershipof a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable, orowing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having anationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, isunable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.13This definition thus emphasises the fear of persecution while leaving out, e.g. the personsseeking international protection on grounds of losing their livelihoods and those unwilling toreturn due to conflicts, wars or environmental disasters taking place in their country of origin.In the EU member states, the international protection provision derives strongly from the EUQualification Directive14 which encompasses the protection status for (1) refugees on thegrounds defined in the UN Convention on Refugees and for (2) people who are eligible forinternational subsidiary protection. The international subsidiary protection can containeligibility for international protection on humanitarian grounds due to, for instance, inhumanconditions, threat of violence or threat of the death penalty that may occur if people return totheir country of origin. For example, Sweden recognises the death penalty, torture, internalarmed conflict and environmental disasters as reasons for asylum.Residence permits provided in the BSPC countries on grounds of subsidiary protection areoften temporary, whereas residence permits based on the UN Convention status are oftenpermanent or long term. In the BSPC countries which are also part of the EU, the EU’s CEASoperates similarly regarding the minimum standards in asylum reception processes and theservices and facilities provided during the assessment of asylum applications.15 The Council ofEurope’s European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental12 United Nations 1951, 1967.13 United Nations 1951.14 European Union 2011/95/EU.15 See, e.g. European Commission 2019.7Freedoms16 also contains elements which protect international protection seekers, e.g. frombeing returned to inhuman conditions. All the BSPC governments have signed this Conventiondocument.The BSPC governments may find it useful to discuss whether the practices concerning thedefinitions of subsidiary protection can be standardised within the BSPC region. Another issueworth considering in the broader international cooperation framework is the possibility of acoordinated joint action of the BSPC governments when discussing possible futurereassessments of international protection statuses in bilateral and multilateral negotiations andmeetings.4.2.2. Work permit proceduresSome need exists for foreign workers in all the BSPC member states’ labour markets, and theneed is often particularly crucial in sectors such as the construction and health care services.According to EU legislation, EU citizens have the right to freedom of movement and haveunlimited access to the labour markets of other member countries. The EU and EFTA countrycitizens do not need a visa or a specific residence permit for entry or employment in anEU/EFTA member country. However, a valid passport or identity card is necessary forregistration, which is obligatory in some EU countries after residing for a certain period(usually from 3 to 6 months) in the country.In all the EU member countries, non-EU/EEA residents immigrating on the basis of workingare obliged to apply for a work permit before entering an EU/EEA member country. In somecountries, they also need to separately apply for a residence permit. Work permits usually areissued on a temporary basis. In general, labour migrants from outside the EU/EEA area areexpected to meet certain criteria, varying according to the BSPC state, to obtain a residencepermit. The most common criteria are the following:1. There should not be workers with similar qualifications and availability for recruitmentin the national and EU/EEA area (availability assessment is conducted by publicauthorities).2. Salary and working conditions should be equivalent to the national standards(assessment is conducted by public authorities).3. Employment needs to enable the workers to support themselves during their stay in thehost country (assessment is conducted by public authorities).Asylum seekers and people who have been granted residence permits on the basis ofinternational protection and family reunification have the right to work in several countries,either without a waiting period or after a certain period of time (often a few months).In summary, most BSPC member states tend to favour and protect their own citizens fromextensive labour market competition and, in some cases, their labour markets from thedeterioration of national working life standards. The EU/EEA member states also give priorityposition to other EU/EEA citizens regarding work permit procedures. Of the non-EU/EEA16 Council of Europe 1950.8citizens, highly qualified people and international students are often given the benefit of a fast-track procedure in pursuit of increasing the flexibility and competitiveness of labour markets.Practice exampleIn Finland, there are several general criteria all applicants for work permit need tomeet to be provided an entry into the country (in addition to the work permit-specificconditions): He/she has a valid passport, has not been prescribed a prohibition ofentry, is not a danger to public order, security, public health or Finland’sinternational relations.4.2.3. Family reunificationThe right to family life refers to the right of all individuals to have their established family liferespected and to have and maintain family relationships. This right is recognised in manyinternational human rights instruments, is adopted in one form or another in many highlydeveloped nations’ legislations, and is also provided for in the EU directive on familyreunification.17 The survey responses on family reunification concentrated for the most part onthe rights and position of asylum seekers and refugees. Nonetheless, it is worth noting thatfamily reunification regulations also concern other migrants. Furthermore, if familyreunification regulations and procedures also apply, e.g. to labour migrants and internationalstudents, their viewpoints should be considered as well when formulating or assessing thesepolicies.Every BSPC country grants family reunification to a certain degree. However, the laws of eachBSPC state contain limitations, conditions and differences in definitions of family, which vary,amongst other things, as to the kind of relationship or the type of residence permit. A cleardisproportion exists between the rights of the citizens of the Schengen Area and the so-calledthird-country nationals. For example, even with bilateral visa agreements in force, often therights of third-country nationals to family reunification is limited in many ways, such asrequiring documentation of adequate legal income of the sponsor to support family members(e.g. in Estonia, Finland and Norway), documentation of health insurance (e.g. in Germany andLatvia) or the ability to speak the basics of the national language (in Germany). Residencepermits on grounds of family ties for third-country nationals are often granted on a temporarybasis, which may have a negative impact on the likelihood of integration into the host society.Practice exampleIn Poland, the procedure for family reunification with a Polish citizen, EU/EEAcitizen, or a person who has been granted refugee status or subsidiary protection(nuclear family) is simplified. The applicant is not required to have health insurance,a source of stable and regular income, and is not required to prove she/he has aguaranteed place of residence in Poland, as in the case of family reunification witha third country national.17 European Union 2003/86/EC.9The beneficiaries of international protection are often provided with the possibility to reunitetheir families. An unaccompanied minor asylum seeker who is granted international protectionusually has the right to reunite with parents arriving from a foreign country. There are alsoexceptions to this general rule, however. For instance, since July 2016, a temporary act (inforce until July 2019) in Sweden limited the rights of family reunifications for those who areeligible for subsidiary protection. The same kind of restrictions were adopted in Germany in2016.In some states, a period of residence has been defined after which the asylum seeker or refugeehas the right to apply for family reunification (e.g. in Latvia, the deadline is 2 years). In mostcountries, family reunification is provided to the members of the so-called nuclear family, i.e.spouses and (minor) children. The migration of non-residents on the basis of family ties ispossible only in exceptional cases, e.g. in the case of other relatives or common-law spouses.BSPC governments would find it worthwhile to discuss whether the current familyreunification regulations provide in effect sufficient circumstances for the right to family lifeto be fulfilled for migrants living in their jurisdictions.4.2.4. Removals and returnsIf the conditions of the residence permit in a country are (no longer) fulfilled, the authoritiesmay order a removal or return of foreigners to their country of origin or former residence. Aresponsible authority depends on the type of removal or return in question. This may be, e.g. adeportation following a negative asylum decision, removal of a person residing without aresidence permit or expulsion of a non-national who has committed a crime. Finland’s surveyresponse on evictions also mentions the category ‘refusal of entry’. In the BSPC countries andregions, the authority that handles removals and returns is usually the central office responsiblefor immigration or border control operating under the authority of a ministry or a special agencyresponsible for, e.g. residence permits for foreign labour. Schleswig-Holstein’s response statesthat, in this region, the ‘County Immigration Office’ (Kreisausländerbehörde) is responsiblefor deciding to pursue an eviction.For removals and returns, foreigners also presumably have some kind of opportunity to appealthe decisions of the authorities. However, only Denmark and Mecklenburg-Vorpommern’sresponses mention this possibility. Moreover, deportations and returns can be either voluntaryor enforced by nature. In voluntary returns, the persons are usually given a set period of timeby which they must leave the country. Enforced cases, in turn, involve one or more escorts,usually police officers.A problem with regard to the responses on ‘eviction activities’ is related to the term ‘eviction’used in both the 2018 and 2019 surveys. The comparability of the figures given by therespondents on evictions is questionable because there may be difference in the way therespondents understand the word ‘eviction’. Does the term refer to removals or returns, and isthe term understood as expulsion? This problem with the interpretation of the word was alsoraised in several responses to the 2018 question. Furthermore, in the 2018 survey, about halfof the respondents did not provide an answer to question 11, which asked about the number of10evictions. However, the BSPC 2019 questionnaire clarified this theme, and the topic wasdetailed by asking for the number of voluntary and forced returns in addition to the number ofevictions. (See Table II.)TABLE II. Evictions, voluntary returns and forced returns in the BSPC member states andregions, 2015–2017.18Denmark Estonia Finland Germany Latvia Lithuania Norway Poland Russia SwedenEvictions- 2015 N/A 136 281* 20,888 N/A N/A 5,155 13,669 N/A N/A- 2016 N/A 110 430* 25,375 N/A N/A 4,726 20,046 N/A N/A- 2017 N/A 125 905* 23,966 N/A N/A 3,289 24,943 N/A N/AVoluntaryreturns- 2015 164 459 470 37,320 1,225 44 1,167 11,604 N/A 13,261- 2016 176 397 1,831 54,006 1,027 69 1,459 17,558 N/A 16,414- 2017 96 527 1,380 29,522 876 154 568 21,247 N/A 9,047Forcedreturns- 2015 482** 157 558 N/A 392 108 7,887 873 N/A 3,414- 2016 315** 153 1,521 N/A 343 30 8,077 687 N/A 3,728- 2017 490** 165 377 N/A 187 12 5,434 813 N/A 4,165Mecklenburg-Vorpom SchleswigHamburg mern -Holstein ÅlandEvictions- 2015 120 2 570 N/A- 2016 186 5 840 N/A- 2017 256 12 338 N/AVoluntaryreturns- 2015 1 273 544 N/A N/A- 2016 2 257 771 N/A N/A- 2017 603 566 N/A N/AForcedreturns- 2015 664*** 1200 N/A N/A- 2016 805*** 846 N/A N/A- 2017 608*** 497 N/A N/A* The provided number of ‘deportations’. ** The sum of the provided number of ‘accompanied returns’ and‘ensured returns’. *** The sum of the provided number of forced returns ‘ins Herkunftsland’ and ‘in Drittstaaten’.18 Data compiled by research assistant Ellen Nieminen. Source: Survey conducted in the spring of 2019 by theBSPC Working Group on Migration and Integration.11The number of returns and removals varies considerably between the BSPC member states andregions. For example, from 2015 to 2017, the evictions were fewer than 200 per year in Estoniaand between 120 and 286 in Hamburg; however, the annual figure during this same period wasbetween 20,000 and 26,000 in Germany and between 13,000 and 25,000 in Poland.19 The mostsignificant explanatory factors are presumably the differences between the countries in thenumber of asylum applications and overall immigration because countries with a highernumber of asylum applications and immigration usually also have a higher number of removalsand returns.For voluntary and forced returns, the trend was largely similar, although the figures providedby many countries and regions on voluntary and forced returns were remarkably low in manyinstances. In Poland, however, the number of voluntary returns was significant (11,000–22,000per year in 2015–2017), notwithstanding that the number of asylum seekers in the country wasconsiderably lower than, e.g. in Germany or Sweden, where the number of voluntary returnswas also high (in 2015–2017, Germany had 29,000–55,000, and Sweden had 9,000–17,000 peryear). The relatively high number of forced returns in Norway (5,000–8,100 per year in 2015–2017) was noteworthy as well as the relatively low number of forced returns in Sweden (3,400–4,200 per year in 2015–2017), despite the relatively high numbers of asylum seekers andimmigrants in the country (see Table II). Nonetheless, further investigation into national andregional practices and legislation is necessary to assess the different factors influencing thesefigures. It would be especially good to have a discussion and exchange of good practicesbetween those countries with little experience and lots of experience of return procedures.4.3. Immigrant policies4.3.1. Dual citizenshipRegarding dual citizenship regulations, the countries vary in the level of restrictiveness anddetail. Denmark, Finland, Latvia, Poland, Russia and Sweden allow dual citizenship at least tosome extent. Most of these countries define the requirements for acquiring dual citizenship indifferent levels of detail. Latvia, e.g. allows dual citizenship only for certain nationalities:citizens of the EU, EEA or NATO member states, or Australia, Brazil and New Zealand.Denmark and Sweden stated they had no special conditions for acquiring dual citizenship.In some member states, different regulations also allow exceptions to the general rule of notallowing dual citizenship. For instance, in Lithuania and Estonia, one might acquire citizenshipif the person applying for citizenship holds refugee status or is a beneficiary of internationalprotection granted by these states or any other EU member state. Germany indicated that‘multiple citizenships should be avoided’. However, Germany does allow dual citizenship ifits quite demanding conditions are met by the applicants. In addition, Norway allows multiplecitizenships only in exceptional cases, but the country is potentially preparing a regulationallowing dual citizenship in the future. In summary, it seems that BSPC member states aresystematically following the general trend of most developed countries in recent decades to19 Figures according to the responses to the 2018 survey.12gradually decrease the restrictions regarding dual citizenship, although examples to thecontrary remain.204.3.2. Unaccompanied minor asylum applicantsIn recent decades, many comparative studies and surveys have been published onunaccompanied minor asylum applicants. These studies are worth consulting by BSPCgovernments.21 In 2015, there were close to 100,000 unaccompanied minor asylum applicantsregistered in the EU countries but in 2017 the number had decreased to close to 30,000applicants. Of the BSPC members, Germany and Sweden have been among the receivers ofthe highest numbers of minors applying for asylum. In the EU member states, theunaccompanied minors mostly consist of young boys of 16 and 17 years of age. Only smallproportion of the total is under 14 years of age. The percentage of unaccompanied minor girlshas in recent years often been between 10 to 15 percent of the total number of unaccompaniedminors. In 2017, the main countries of origin of the unaccompanied minor applicants in the EUwere Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Eritrea and Somalia.22All BSPC countries and regions have special procedures for reception of unaccompaniedminors and means of supporting their integration.23 The legislative framework in the memberstates and regions is mainly based on the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, the UN RefugeeConvention and the EU acquis. Reception and care during the minor asylum applicant’s statusdetermination varies but there are significant similarities in the systems of the EU memberstates due to the EU’s CEAS and Union’s acquis framework. In most countries, unaccompaniedminors are assigned a representative or guardian whose task is to ensure that the child’s bestinterests are considered during the asylum process. A guardian may be a voluntary citizen (e.g.in Denmark and Finland) or a state or municipal employee (e.g. in Estonia, Germany andLatvia). Volunteer guardians are paid at least in some countries by the government for theirduties. Lithuania’s system differs slightly from the others, since according to its response, thepublic Refugee Reception Centre acts as guardian for unaccompanied minors.Practice exampleUnaccompanied minors, who are resident in Schleswig-Holstein, are obligated toattend school by the Education Act. They take part in multi-level-system of classes,in which German is taught as 2nd language. 1st level: classes are taught in Germanonly (usually 1 year), 2nd level: integration of pupils in regular classes while beingtaught additional German 2-6 hours a week (up to 6 years), and 3rd level: completeintegration in the regular classes, additional German can be provided only ifnecessary.20 Blatter, Erdmann & Schwanke 2009; Vink & Bauböck 2013.21 See, e.g. Kohli & Mitchell 2007; Björklund 2015; European Migration Network 2018.22 European Migration Network 2018.23 Russia did not provide response to the 2018 survey’s questions on unaccompanied minor asylum applicants.13In all member states and regions, unaccompanied minor asylum seekers are accommodated intheir own accommodation units with intensive support. Services provided in these facilities forpeople under the age of 18 are generally more extensive than for adult asylum seekers. In someform or another the following services seem to be available in all countries and regions whichprovided their response to the questions on minor asylum applicants24: temporaryaccommodation, intensive care and guidance services, different kinds of education (e.g.language, culture orientation and school preparatory courses), social security and health care.However, for example, the integration and language courses and services may differconsiderably in different regions, municipalities and cities of a given country. As theMecklenburg-Vorpommern response highlights, at least in the case of Germany, ’supportmeasures in the school sector and professional sector are organized by the individual federalstates’. Several of the respondents (e.g. Norway, Sweden and Poland) state that the aim is toprovide as convergent services as possible to minors of their own country. However, based onthe responses to the surveys, it is impossible to compare in detail the differences in the coverageof the services in the different BSPC countries and regions. BSPC member states and regionsshould in the future consider the possibility of coming up with minimum standards of receptionfacilities and above mentioned services for minor asylum seekers.All the BSPC countries and regions that have answered the questions on minor asylumapplicants, have some kind of legislation that allows age assessment of minors. Usually theauthorities may request a medical age assessment when it is not possible to define with certaintywhether the person is over or under 18 years of age. This procedure is used especially in thecases where an unaccompanied minor is not able to present valid ID document. The medicalage assessment is voluntary, but in many countries a person who refuses to take part in theassessment is considered automatically an adult. The medical assessment usually consists ofdental x-ray and/or wrist x-ray. The results of medical assessments are in many countriesreported to be used with caution, and they are often only one of the factors the authoritiesconsider in the overall age assessment. Also it is mentioned in several responses that if there isa reasonable doubt about the asylum applicant’s age, the applicant will be considered a minor.When an unaccompanied minor asylum applicant reaches the age of 18 or is declared by theauthorities to be an adult, he or she usually moves immediately to adult reception facilities andreception centers. In some states (e.g. Finland and Sweden) there is a special transition periodduring which a person who is between 16 and 17 years of age is intensively trained forindependence and taking responsibility for one's own life. This practice should also beconsidered in those BSPC countries and regions where it is not yet in use. Also the differencesbetween the practices and legislations concerning detaining and deportation of unaccompaniedminors in the BSPC member states and regions should be compared in order to possibly findcommon good practices that secure the basic and human rights of the children.4.3.3. Services provided for immigrantsProvision of advisory services and training courses is crucial for the establishment of areception process for asylum seekers which takes into consideration the basic and legal rightsof the persons arriving and provides sustainable and flexible integration trajectories for allimmigrants. In all the BSPC states and regions, advisory and legal assistance to foreigners,asylum seekers and refugees were differentiated by the status of the beneficiary. These servicesexist to a certain extent in each state and region. In some countries, asylum seekers have access24 Russia did not provide response to the 2018 survey’s questions on unaccompanied minor asylum applicants.14to legal assistance at various stages of the asylum application process, especially at the appealstage. However, in some other countries, such as Germany, publicly paid legal aid is notavailable or is quite limited.Practice exampleSupport in language training is offered in the adult education centre to adults whohave lived in Hamburg for a longer period of time and are still unable to speak andwrite German adequately. In addition, the public provision of language training isalso supplemented in Hamburg with voluntary provisions, which are open to all adultimmigrants regardless of the status or country of origin.Some of the respondents in the 2018 survey only raised legal or other kinds of advisory servicesfor asylum seekers and refugees and did not talk about advisory services designed for otherimmigrants. However, information is likely provided for other groups of immigrants as well—at least as an online service. Nonetheless, most of the respondents referred to certain kinds ofgeneral immigrant information services, usually provided by branches of one or moreministries, such as the Citizen Service at the Danish Immigration Service in Denmark or theFinnish Immigration Service in Finland.Practice exampleThe integration procedures in Norway and Sweden differ from other states; i.e. allforeign nationals between 16 and 55 years of age who hold a permanent residencepermit (Norway) and all ‘people who recently received a residence permit’ (Sweden)have both the right and obligation to participate in integration training.All BSPC countries and regions offer some kind of language courses and civic education forimmigrants. Vocational training, however, was mentioned less often by the respondents. Theresponses focused on integration services for asylum seekers and refugees, which were usuallyfree of charge. In more than half of the states, asylum seekers have a duty to participate in thispublic integration training. If an asylum applicant does not take part in these courses, areduction in the applicant’s social benefits is prescribed in several states. In Poland,participation was exclusively voluntary. Other immigrants than asylum seekers, both third-country nationals and EU citizens, are also provided with education on language, employmentand social and cultural aspects of the host society. For third-country nationals, those taking thetraining must pay for it, but participation is voluntary. The primary objectives of the BSPCcountries’ integration policy measures for immigrants appear to be learning the host country’slanguage and gaining employment in the short- to medium term.15Practice exampleIn Lithuania, there are three foreigner integration centres in the country’s threelargest cities. These centres aim to provide ‘one-desk’ services for foreigners and tofacilitate a wide range of services at one office to speed up integration into societyand the labour market.Practice exampleIn Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, there are 22 ‘job guides’ in the public employmentoffices. Their task is to provide individual and holistic support for internationalprotection receivers on their path to finding employment, internship or trainingopportunity.More information on best practices for immigrant integration was collected in the 2019 surveyof the Working Group on Migration and Integration.25 Information on the most successfulintegration practices can also be found, e.g. in the Organisation for Economic Co-operationand Development (OECD) and the Nordic Welfare Centre reports on integration policies andindicators, and the open access edited volumes published in the International Migration,Integration and Social Cohesion in Europe (IMISCOE) Research Series.26Certain issues still need to be clarified in future assessments and surveys with regard toadvisory, legal assistance and integration services in the BSPC member states and regions. Theanswers did not, e.g. tell much about the educational background of the authorities providinginformation and legal advice or what their operational principles are. It would also be useful toknow how national trade unions, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) or local employersare involved in providing advice and integration services for immigrants. However, mostgovernments mentioned that voluntary civil society members who organise different activitiesor services for immigrants are supported by public funds. The amounts allocated differedconsiderably amongst countries. Most of these services provided by organisations andvolunteers were related to asylum seekers or support for integration.4.3.4. AccommodationResponses to accommodation for immigrants focused on services and challenges related toasylum seekers. Every country provides accommodation of some form to the asylum seekerswhose applications for asylum are being assessed. Responses from many countries highlightedthe impact that the type of residence permit asylum seekers hold had on housing opportunitiesand the services available. Usually, in BSPC countries, asylum seekers waiting for a decision25 The responses for the 2019 survey are available at http://www.bspc.net/bspc_anhang_statementsbspc27/(accessed 10 May 2019). See the responses to questions 8 and 9.26 The OECD reports on immigrant integration are available athttp://www.oecd.org/els/mig/integrationpoliciesandindicators.htm (accessed 10 May 2019). See also MIPEX2019; Nordic Welfare Centre 2019; Scholten, Entzinger, Penninx & Verbeek 2015; Garcés-Mascareñas &Penninx 2016a.16can first be housed in state-financed reception facilities organised by municipalities, stateimmigration services or NGOs. The services offered at these reception centres vary fromcountry to country but may include food provision, language courses, training on social andcultural integration, social and health care services or distribution of social support.In some countries, such as Germany, asylum seekers are usually obliged to live in a receptioncentre for a certain period of time (from 6 weeks to 6 months in Germany) before beingallocated a place for regional accommodation, usually organised in collective accommodationfacilities. In some cases, such as in Finland, in addition to the reception centre, asylum seekersare allowed to live in private accommodation (e.g. with a relative or a friend) during the asylumprocess. These situations are assessed on a case-by-case basis by the employees of the receptioncentres to ensure, inter alia, that the housing conditions are decent. If people are granted asylumor an subsidiary international protection status, they can usually live in a reception centre for acertain period of time. These people are then normally expected to move to their own homes.If a foreigner is detained, most countries have a special kind of detention centre foraccommodating these people where services, the movement of residents and more arerestricted.Unaccompanied minor asylum seekers, on the other hand, usually have separate receptioncentres or units in many of BSPC countries. These facilities often provide broader services andsupport, e.g. in education, social integration and organising the lives of minor asylum seekersin their new country of residence. The BSPC members should examine, whether there are stillcountries or regions where unaccompanied minors live together with adult asylum seekers andwhether these practices could be modified.Practice exampleIn some countries, such as Finland and Sweden, the reception centre’s employeesand municipal authorities actively support persons who have been granted residencepermits in the practicalities of finding and moving into a private accommodation(e.g. a new apartment). Especially for those minor asylum seekers who have beengranted a residence permit, support for moving to their own home is well planned.BSPC states and regions would find it worthwhile to discuss defining common minimumstandards for accommodation and services provided by the reception facilities for asylumseekers. The possible differences in the level of accommodation and services provided withincountries, e.g. due to the service provider in question, should also be considered critically toachieve equality between asylum seekers living in different centres and regions. These kindsof standards have already been discussed and formulated amongst EU member states.175. Conclusions and suggestionsSimilarities and differences of contextual frameworks impact the BSPC member governments’abilities, means and goals in immigration and immigrant policy. Different historical legacies,such as the Cold War era minority and immigrant policies can also influence the approachesand regulations adopted by the states. In addition to history, different present-day realities inboth predominantly migrant sending or migrant receiving countries and members and non-members of the EU have an effect, e.g. on the immigrant integration, asylum and familyreunification policies and administrative practices. In the Baltic countries in particular, thescale of emigration has been substantial to the extent that it poses a threat to the reproductionof populations and the sustainable economic and social development of these countries.27The Working Group on Migration and Integration determines as its objective ‘to elaboratepolitical positions and recommendations pertaining to migration and integration’.28 To supportthis endeavour, the assessment concludes by providing the following reflections andsuggestions based on the findings.SuggestionsOn asylum policy1. EU asylum policy makes a significant contribution to the asylum reception systemsand legislation of the EU member states. For instance, there may be differences betweenthe non-EU and EU countries in the process leading to deportation, in processingasylum applications, or in reception facilities provided for minor asylum applicants.SUGGESTION: Harmonize the practices concerning (1) deportation, (2)processing of asylum applications, and (3) reception facilities provided forminor asylum applicants, while taking into account both national andhuman/fundamental rights’ considerations.2. A common origin country data collection services or database would help achieve afair and equal practice of processing asylum applications in different BSPC countries,increase coordination and mutual understanding amongst the BSPC countries anddecrease possible overlap in collecting origin country information.SUGGESTION: Establish a common origin country data collection servicesor database (or at least enhance collaboration amongst the BSPCgovernments in this field).27 See, e.g. Engbersen & Jansen 2013; Kirch 2013.28 Working Group on Migration and Integration 2018, 7.18On migration and labour markets1. Solutions concerning foreign labour and international mobility of the workforce areprimarily based on national considerations.SUGGESTION: Strive for multinational cooperation and coordination tobalance undesirable developments such as labour shortages and labouroversupply.2. Securing the well-being and involvement of all members in a given society isarguably the desired state of a resilient society.1. SUGGESTION: Distribute and adopt the best practices of supporting the2. employment and integration of certain groups of immigrants. Such groups of3. particular concern include international students, housewives, minors and theunemployed. Make sure these groups are acknowledged when formulatingintegration, education and employment legislation and policy.On immigrant integration1. Immigrant integration occurs at the same time on different levels (labour market,language, social relationships, cultural accommodation etc.).SUGGESTION: Acknowledge the multifaceted character of immigrantintegration (i.e. labour market, language, social relationships, culturalaccommodation etc.). This understanding should be put into practice on thelevel of legislation and policies.2. Governments and public administrations can act as enablers of successful immigrantintegration, but integration is more than just national and regional governments’(administrative) actions. Other actors, such as NGOs and largely informal socialnetworks of immigrants or ethnic communities in host and origin countries can becrucial for social and labour market integration.SUGGESTION: Streamline the public policies and allocate resources inorder to facilitate the desirable working conditions of the NGOs and informalnetworks supporting social and labour market integration of immigrants.193. From the point of view of integration and population policy planning, it is useful toask (1) how and if the three-way integration,29 i.e. (a) the integration of immigrants tothe practices of the host society, (b) the adaptation of the host society to thediversification of the citizens’ backgrounds and practices of the members of a societyand (c) the role the countries of origin play in successful integration is acknowledgedin the BSPC states and regions.SUGGESTION: Promote by public measures good relations within thepopulation and diverse society’s ability to function. Such measures mayinvolve information campaigns, organizing of events and housing policy thatpromotes diverse residential areas.SUGGESTION: Acknowledge the concept of three-way integration inlegislation and policies. Formulate policies that enhance each aspect of thethree-way integration model’s ability to function.On data collection1. To provide all survey respondents with comparable and sufficiently detailedresponses to the questions asked, the following steps are recommended.SUGGESTION: Make sure (1) the questions in the future surveys are asprecise as possible regarding the necessary information and the level ofaccuracy required, and (2) the responses are reviewed, and incompleteanswers result in queries for more information.2. For instance, immigrant integration and economic and labour market impact ofmigration occur to a significant degree on the local level. Nevertheless, the national andsubnational assessments—such as the BSPC 2018 and 2019 surveys—are alsoimportant for understanding the broader policy and societal frameworks.SUGGESTION: Compile more comprehensive data on local level social,economic, employment and population trends in the BSPC region which willassist immigration and immigrant policy-making.3. To enhance understanding on the developments of policy convergence anddifferentiation between the BSPC countries and regions’ legislations and policies overtime the surveys should be repeated.29 On the three-way integration process concept, see, e.g. Garcés-Mascareñas & Penninx 2016b.20SUGGESTION: Repeat the surveys conducted by the BSPC Working Groupon Migration and Integration in 2018 and 2019 every 5 years (with necessaryreformulations).4. OECD, Migrant Integration Policy Index (MIPEX), the Nordic Welfare Centre andthe International Organization for Migration (IOM) have compiled surveys and lists ofbest practices of various aspects of immigration and immigrant policies.30 Utilizationof these surveys would help avoiding duplication of data collection and enhancepossibilities for cooperation with these organizations in the field of immigration.SUGGESTION: Combine the information and lessons learned gathered byabove mentioned organizations with the data collected by the BSPCmembers.30 See References, for some of these publications. See also the responses to the 2019 survey, for some of the bestpractices mentioned by the BSPC governments.21ReferencesBjörklund, Krister (2015). Unaccompanied refugee minors in Finland: Challenges and goodpractices in a Nordic context. Migration studies C 26. Turku: Institute of Migration. Availableat: http://www.migrationinstitute.fi/files/pdf/c26.pdf (accessed 10 May 2019).Blatter, Joachim, Erdmann, Stefanie & Schwanke, Katja (2009). Acceptance of DualCitizenship: Empirical Data and Political Contexts. Working Paper Series "Global Governanceand Democracy". Paper No. 2. University of Lucerne, Department of Political Science.Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3005979 (accessed 24 April 2019).Council of Europe (1950). European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights andFundamental Freedoms, as amended by Protocols Nos. 11 and 14, 4 November 1950. ETS5. Available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b3b04.html (accessed 24 April 2019).de Haas, Hein (2011). The determinants of international migration: Conceptualising policy,origin and destination effects. IMI Working Papers Series, 2011, No. 32. Available at:https://www.imi-n.org/publications/wp-32-11 (accessed 24 April 2019).Engbersen, Godfried & Jansen, Joost (2013). Emigration from the Baltic States: Economicimpact and policy implications. In OECD, Coping with Emigration in Baltic and EastEuropean Countries. Paris: OECD Publishing, pp. 13–27. Available at:http://dspace.lu.lv/dspace/bitstream/handle/7/31166/Hazans_OECD_2013.pdf?sequence=1(accessed 10 May 2019).European Commission (2019). Common European Asylum System. European Commission,Migration and Home Affairs. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/asylum_en (accessed 24 April 2019).European Migration Network (2018). Approaches to Unaccompanied Minors Following StatusDetermination in the EU plus Norway: Synthesis Report for the EMN Study. EuropeanCommission, European Migration Network. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/sites/homeaffairs/files/00_eu_synthesis_report_unaccompanied_minors_2017_en.pdf(accessed 10 May 2019).European Union (2003/86/EC). Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on theright to family reunification. Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2003:251:0012:0018:EN:PDF (accessed24 April 2019).European Union (2011/95/EU). Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of theCouncil of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals orstateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugeesor for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted.Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2011:337:0009:0026:en:PDF (accessed24 April 2019).Garcés-Mascareñas, Blanca & Penninx, Rinus (eds, 2016a). Integration Processes and Policiesin Europe: Contexts, Levels and Actors. Cham: Springer. Available at:22https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2F978-3-319-21674-4.pdf (accessed 10 May2019).Garcés-Mascareñas, Blanca & Penninx, Rinus (2016b). Introduction: Integration as a Three-Way Process Approach? In Blanca Garcés-Mascareñas & Rinus Penninx (eds) IntegrationProcesses and Policies in Europe: Contexts, Levels and Actors. Cham: Springer. Available at:https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2F978-3-319-21674-4.pdf (accessed 10 May2019).Geddes, Andrew & Scholten, Peter (2016). The Politics of Migration and Immigration inEurope. London: SAGE Publications.Kirch, Aksel (2013). Baltic States, migration: 20th century to the present. In Immanuel Ness(ed.) The Encyclopedia of Global Human Migration. DOI:10.1002/9781444351071.wbeghm058.Kohli, Ravi K. S. & Mitchell. Fiona (eds, 2007). Working with Unaccompanied Asylum SeekingChildren: Issues for Policy and Practice. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.MIPEX (2019). Migration Integration Policy Index 2015: How countries are promotingintegration of immigrants. Available at: http://www.mipex.eu/ (accessed 10 May 2019).Nordic Welfare Centre (2019). Integration: Knowledge about integration in the Nordic region.Available at: https://nordicwelfare.org/en/integration/ (accessed 10 May 2019).Population Pyramid (2019). Population Pyramids of the World from 1950 to 2100. Availableat: https://www.populationpyramid.net/ (accessed 24 April 2019).Scholten, Peter, Entzinger, Han, Penninx, Rinus & Verbeek, Stijn (eds, 2015). IntegratingImmigrants in Europe: Research-Policy Dialogues. Available at:https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2F978-3-319-16256-0.pdf (accessed 10 May2019).United Nations (1951). Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. Available at:https://www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10 (accessed 24 April 2019).United Nations (1967). Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees. Available at:https://www.refworld.org/docid/3b00f1cc50.html (accessed 24 April 2019).Vink, Maarten Peter & Bauböck, Rainer (2013). Citizenship configurations: Analysing themultiple purposes of citizenship regimes in Europe. Comparative European Politics, 11(5):621–648.Working Group on Migration and Integration (2018). Mid-Way Report. Stockholm: The BSPCRapporteur on Working Group on Migration and Integration. Available at:http://www.bspc.net/bspc_report_migration_integration_2018/ (accessed 24 April 2019).23AppendicesAPPENDIX I. Questions of the 2018 BSPC Working Group on Migration and Integrationsurvey.1. Name of national / regional parliament2. If available, please, provide information regarding the population structure of yourcountry / region total, female, with migration background, living in urban areas2a. If available, please, provide detailed information regarding the populationstructure in your region / countryInsert percentage, 18-25, 26-40, 41-50, 51-65, 66+2b. If available please give a prognosis for you country’s population in 20 yearsconcerning demographic development?3. What are the significant rules for immigration? E. g. does an immigration law exist?4. What are the requirements for the acceptance of asylum?5. Does your country allow dual citizenship?6. What are the conditions to obtain a work permit?7. Do advisory services for foreigners (or migrants, asylum seekers, refugees) exist?8. Are courses provided by the government, such as language courses or courses e.g. forcivic education or vocational training?8a. Who is allowed to participate in courses?8b. Are the courses free of charge?8c. Are there obligatory courses?9. What kind of benefits exist for migrants / asylum seekers?9a. What are the conditions for the benefit payments?9b. How do the benefits relate to the average national income?10. Are there possibilities for family-reunification?11. Could you inform us about the number of evictions activities?11a. Who decides to pursue an eviction?12. How does your country deal with unaccompanied minors? (a guardian orrepresentative, the right to accommodation in a dedicated home or in a foster, familychild-specific social, economic and educational rights)12a. Do you have special programs for family unification / resettlement / return?12b. Is there a continued support upon turning 18 (reaching legal age)?12c. Are there procedures to identify ostensible minors?12d. Are there special regional programs for unaccompanied minors (school, youthwelfare); best practice examples?12e. Please provide examples for regional programs or best practice examples?13. Please state – if possible – the average monthly costs (per migrant, per asylum seeker,per undocumented person, per minor)14. Please indicate how your country / region organises accommodation (for migrants, forasylum seekers, for refugees, for minors)15. 15a. How is the involvement of volunteers organized?15b. How is the financial support of volunteers organized?24APPENDIX II. Questions of the 2019 BSPC Working Group on Migration and Integrationsurvey.1. How many asylum seekers asked for a permission to stay in 2015 / 2016 / 2017?2. How many voluntary returns have been documented in 2015 / 2016 / 2017?3. How many evictions have been issued in 2015 / 2016 / 2017?4. How many forced returns have been documented in 2015 / 2016 / 2017?5. Please State – if possible – the average monthly costs for:A) Asylum seekers /B) Refugees / subsidiary residence permitsAdults living alone1. a) in reception centers with food2. b) in reception centers without food3. c) Living outside reception centersUnaccompanied minorsa) under 16 yearsb) + 16 yearsChildren with familiesa) in reception centers with foodb) in reception centers without foodc) Living outside reception centersSpouses / partners / roommates1. a) in reception centers with food2. b) in reception centers without food3. c) Living outside reception centers1) Additional costs for transportation2) Additional costs for clothing3) Additional costs for education (books etc.)4) Health care5) Rent6) One-time paymentsC) Social benefits that are granted as a basic payment256. Are there any measures taken by the government to combat occurrences of socialcontrol in the migrant population? Please provide best practice examples.7. Are there any measures taken by the government to prevent formation of segregatedmigrant communities? Please provide best practice examples8. Is there any program, training or advisory service that over time has provedparticularly beneficial for successful long-term integration of migrants into the labormarket? Please elaborate.9. Is there any training programs on language and culture that has been conducted incollaboration with civil society organizations/initiatives that over time has proved tobe particularly successful? Please elaborate.26