Page 84 [84]
82 ] Zoltán Simon and Tamás Dezső Ziegler
status of those who arrive in Europe: difference-making is not interpreted as
discrimination in many cases. Only to bring a couple of examples: they can
be asked to pay more tuition for their studies. Their family unification can
be regulated differently from European citizens, and it is not obvious at all
that family members can join them.
Furthermore, contrary to the text of Article 79 TFEU, a unified, extensive
EU long-term visa policy does not exist: still Member States decide to whom
they give long-term visas, and to whom they do not. They also decide what
are the grounds they accept, and what grounds they refuse. This is the result
of Member States trying to maintain control in this field - and this way they
do not have to explain why they refuse visas for certain people.
Going even further, we must highlight that all around Europe we find dual
labour markets: most newcomers only find jobs at the lowest ranks of societies,
and one reason for this is the extensive discrimination in most European
countries (for a deeper analysis of Germany, see Goldberg et al. 2010. One
could cite hundreds of similar studies describing this phenomenon from a
thorough empirical perspective. Very similar findings have been made about
the UK, France, etc.). Also,
while some refugees succeed in finding highly skilled employment, this is not the case
for the majority of asylum-seekers, beneficiaries of subsidiary protection and refugees.
The majority tend to find employment in what is considered the secondary labour
market. Employment in the secondary labour market is generally characterised by
low wages, long working hours and little to no job security and protection (commonly
referred to as low-skilled, atypical and/or precarious work), employment which
nationals tend to avoid. (Schenner and Neergaard 2019, 15-16)
Second, apart from the positive actions, the refugee crisis showed some
dark sides of European societies. EU Member States concluded a deal with
Turkey, which violates international law and European law, in order to enable
European countries to send asylum-seekers back to Turkey (for a deeper
analysis about the deal, see Coe 2016; Idriz 2017a; 2017b; Ziegler 2019).
When some individuals challenged this agreement at the European Court of
Justice (ECJ), in its judgment in Case 2/233 the Court claimed that the deal
was not an EU document, so it did not have power to rule about its content.
If we accept the findings of this judgment, the fact that the EU-Turkey deal
changed basic EU asylum law terms gets even more confusing (Idriz 2017b).
Moreover, the quota system collapsed, as certain countries, like Hungary,
refused to accept refugees. The EU revoked rescue ships from the Mediterranean
Sea, resulting in massive loss of lives. Italy even criminalised the helping of
migrants, and started procedures against captains like Carola Rackete. It took
years until courts decided that helping people in trouble is not a crime (The
Local, 2020). In Greece, the conditions in some of the refugee camps became
unbearable, and people had to wait several years for a decision.