The Schengen Area on Hold

Opinion piece by Rhea Haddad, Staff Writer

November 2nd, 2020

Across the globe, the first and foremost measure in response to the coronavirus was the closure of national borders and enforcement of a worldwide entry ban.

Social distancing, getting far away, through countries.

When the confinement was first announced, it only took a few days for European Union countries to impose the partial or complete closure of their borders. By the end of March 2020, 15 countries in the Schengen area had re-established border controls. With few exceptions, this restitution was carried out unilaterally, without consultation or information to the European institutions and neighbors concerned. 

While almost all countries have implemented restrictions on the entry of foreigners, they all accepted national citizens, legal permanent residents, and their immediate relatives returning from abroad. However, the extent to which borders have been sealed and immigration services disrupted has varied across countries.

For cross-border workers, the number of land entry points may be limited to specific workers or individuals with a permanent contract. The European Commission has voiced some concerns regarding the limitations on cross-border travel and has issued guidelines on the free movement of workers during the pandemic. 

For seasonal agricultural workers, who usually have limited work permits, facilitations have been made to allow them to stay in their host country to work.

Additionally, since immigration services are closed and movements are limited in many European countries, it has made challenging for migrants to renew their visas, apply for changes of status or simply leave the country. Under these conditions, several countries have offered blanket relief measures or the option to remain.

In order to adapt to the new lifestyle imposed by the pandemic, employment restrictions have been eased. A few countries have loosened the rules for moving jobs, cutting hours, or working for a lower wage if the change in employment conditions is covid-related.  

The closure of consular services all around the world has led to a de facto suspension of the issuance of new visas and permits. Nonetheless, most countries continue to process applications, particularly for the acquisition of a permanent or long-term residence or renewals, while some countries only processing applications on an exceptional basis. However, immigration offices operate under restricted access to the public, in-person meetings, and interviews. Moreover, biometric appointments and medical checks are suspended, leading to delays in the processing. 

While every day, a large number of people have to flee their homes and seek a safer asylum, the number of illegal crossings at the border has decreased. Theoretically, asylum applications are still processed; however, interviews are postponed and only pending applications are being treated. Alternative ways of conducting interviews and the preliminary admissibility examination remotely are being investigated. 

In the short run, responding to these new challenges will not be easy and will require anticipated and adapted policies. Coordination between countries will also be crucial to prevent actions from having adverse consequences on others. The pandemic is therefore expected to have long-lasting repercussions, both positive and negative, on migration management and integration policies. 

A number of questions may arise concerning how to ensure the secure and effective organization of migration. This may be the case for short-term and seasonal labor market requirements, projects aimed at recruiting global talent including international students, or for the fulfillment of humanitarian migration commitments, obligations, and responsibilities, chiefly through resettlement and relocation. 

For international students, the pandemic can have ongoing impacts on the students’ behavior, school, and country choice, especially if universities are switching to mainly online courses. Similarly, high-cost foreign education options could become less attractive with fewer resources and more limited opportunities to fund study through work. 

In the light of a severe economic recession, and growing obstacles to maintaining social cohesion, the need for foreign recruiting could be reduced and support for proactive immigration policies may also be disturbed. Further, the hiring of highly qualified individuals and businesses on international mobility and travel may evolve, affecting business trips, intracompany transfers, or international studies and cultural exchanges. 

In the long run, the global economic downturn and reduced remittances, added to the inevitable migration pressure and anxiety might also dissuade people from emigrating from less developed countries.

Eventually, opportunities to streamline digital visa applications will arise and technology will be used more effectively in migration and integration management. For instance, the development of online language and civic classes in integration programs during the pandemic may promote a new horizon.

The health crisis has demonstrated to the public the importance of the professions predominantly held by foreign and immigrant workers.

Will we be able to find the necessary resources for changing attitudes towards these members of European immigration societies?

Will regularizations through work of immigrants in irregular situations be a standard too in migration policies?