Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-01-18-Speech-4-206"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010118.11.4-206"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Ladies and gentlemen, the French initiative that we are discussing today once again demonstrates the importance of clarifying all the measures on free movement which present the problem of opening up borders. All the statistics show that migratory flows have not diminished and that they will even increase over the coming years. Therefore, the problem of free movement of third-country nationals within the Schengen area will again rear its head and become even more acute.
Yet, the citizens of Europe expect a clear and consistent overall policy on migration. The amendment of Article 18 of the Schengen Agreement is the key element of the French initiative. A holder of a long-stay visa should not enjoy fewer rights than a person who holds a short-stay visa. The issue is to facilitate the free movement of migrants who return home regularly, whatever visa they hold.
We should be aware that, currently, third-country nationals may only transit through the territory of another Member State in order to reach the country which issued their long-stay visa. From then on, they can no longer move around within the Schengen area until they have obtained a residence permit.
This is where the difficulty lies. In terms of the principle of free movement, third-country nationals with a long-stay visa are in the most unfavourable position, even though they might have had to wait several months or even years to obtain the visa.
Furthermore, the text of the French initiative omits the problem of family reunion, a problem which arises in particular when citizens of the Union marry third-country nationals. Why not therefore treat those who hold a long-stay visa as already resident so that they can enjoy the same right to freedom of movement? As Mr Deprez also highlighted, the legal basis of the proposal could have been envisaged in a different way so that it covered all aspects mentioned in these arrangements.
To sum up, it seems right to reject an imprecise and incomplete initiative relating to a matter as sensitive as Community immigration policy. In order to respect and fully guarantee Community legislative power, we must urgently adopt legislation on rights to freedom of movement, immigration and asylum.
The only way to prevent a Fortress Europe being built is to make our repressive visa policy considerably more flexible. The current system does nothing to reduce the migratory flow, on the contrary, it encourages networks of smugglers of illegal immigrants to thrive."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples