Page 84 [84]
OCR
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.
