Visa policy as migration channel IT 2012 - European Commission

Visa policy as migration channel in Italy

Edited by EMN National Contact Point IDOS Research and Study Centre With the support of the Ministry of Interior

Rome, 2012 www.emnitaly.it

1

VISA POLICY AS MIGRATION CHANNEL IN ITALY Edited by Marta Giuliani, Franco Pittau and Antonio Ricci (IDOS/EMN Italy) With the collaboration of Paolo Iafrate (Tor Vergata University), Zsuzsanna Pasztor (Budapest University) and Francesca Zampagni (Pisa University) Supported by Ministry of Interior and Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Index

Introduction: Purpose and Methodology

3

Policy and Legal Framework for the granting of Visas

7

Practical Implementation and Organization

16

Cooperation with Third Countries: Case Studies

27

The Albanian Case: from Emergency to Good Practice

27

The Case of the Republic of Moldova: linking Migration and Development

46

The Case of Senegal: Experience with a country having high Migratory Pressure

58

Effects of EU Policy and Legislation

67

Empirical Evidence and Data

68

Conclusions

79

Statistical Annex

80

2

1. INTRODUCTION: PURPOSE AND METHODOLOGY 1.1.Objectives The key objective of this study is to analyze the nexus between visa policy and migration management and flow control, according to the guidelines issued by the European Commission within the activities of the EMN network. The intent of this research is therefore to highlight to what extent these policies may facilitate regular migration and prevent irregular migration at the same time. In order to achieve this objective, it is needed however a careful examination of different aspects of visa policy that is to be intended as a migration channel to Italy, first of all by outlining the legal framework in which the national practices concerning the issue of Uniform Schengen visas and National visas are placed. It is also needed a description of the practical implementation of these national policies, analysing all procedural steps from the application submission to the Italian diplomatic-consular authorities, to the actual entry and stay of foreigners in the State. The study also arises the specific objective of analysing the effectiveness of various strategies implemented, such as cooperation agreements with third countries, highlighting best practices through the analysis of empirical evidence. Finally, the research aims to explore the effects of EU policy and legislation on the Italian policy, and to present, review and analyse all available statistical data on the issuing of visas. Consistent with the remit of EMN network, the study is meant to enrich the exchange of information between member states, sharing best practices and establishing new ones from the Community perspective. Therefore, this study is primarily intended for policymakers who operate at national and EU level. Nevertheless, the EMN aims to inform and raise awareness about the importance of visa policies to those who operate in this field and ultimately to the civil society. The study is also aimed at scholars interested in the subject matter and it allows them to have further tools for a study on the visa regime on a comparative basis. In Italy the issue of visa policy has always received great attention and it has had ample room in the parliamentary debate. In recent years the debate on visa policies in Italy was very much influenced by ”the Germany case”. In March 2000, the former German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer signed a circular intended to ease the pressure on visas. This document was based on the principle that the refusal of a visa could not be justified simply by doubts about the applicant‟s desire to return home. Therefore, if in the course of a procedure for granting a visa, the authorities found an equivalence of circumstances for and against the will of the potential migrant to return, the decision was taken based on the rule in dubio pro libertate; in other words, in case of doubt, a positive orientation was supposed to prevail, in this particular case being the assent to the applicant‟s entry. Therefore, the circular has had a strong response in the Italian press for it has put the light on the contradiction between the desire to grant greater freedom of movement and the reception offered to the foreign population, that was already present in the national context; the circular also highlighted the migratory pressure connected to the unauthorised entries that Member States diplomatic representations, and especially Italy, have sometimes to confront with. The circular in question was repealed in 2004 after widespread abuse of visa, but the impact it has had at that time continues to inspire political debate today, being, therefore, a prerequisite to this research work. It also shows the need to combine apparently contradictory characteristics, such as openness and severity, control and administrative functionality. 1.2. Methodology For the purposes of this study there were selected different type of sources such as those of political-institutional level, statistical level and scientific level. Regarding the first category (political-institutional), great attention has been given to fully assess the official documents related to the discipline of visas issued by the competent authorities. 3

Some hearings held in the Senate and the Chamber of Deputies with the participation of the Minister of Foreign Affairs have been particularly useful, for the wealth of information on the political vision underlying the regulation of visas in Italy. Interesting starting points were found in the analysis of the chronology of Italian foreign policy for the year 2010, made by IAI-Institute of International Affairs1, as well as 2020 Report on foreign policy decisions, prepared by Gruppo di Riflessione Strategica dell’Unità di Analisi e di Programmazione (Strategic Reflection Group of the Analysis and Planning unit) of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.2 To provide a quantitative assessment of the phenomenon, the editing staff of the Italian National Contact Point of the EMN used statistical data provided by Eurostat, and also data from archives of the mobility edited by the competent ministries: the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of the Interior. The examined data were supplied by the data providers themselves through appropriate procedures for verification and review of quality of the statistical streams. From the scientific point of view, NCP‟s researchers have made an accurate analysis of available publications, from research articles to in-depth content from the Internet. The review of the research papers and articles brought out a lack of literature in the visa policy field. To compensate for this insufficient theorisation, it has been made a systematic analysis of available scientific publications. In order to analyse the subtle implications of immigration policies communitarisation and border externalization, the article Polizia a distanza: le frontiere mobili e i confini di carta dell’Unione Europea (Police at distance: European Union mobile borders and paper boundaries), written by Elspeth Guild and Didier Bigo and published on the “Conflitti Globali”3 Review, was a fundamental contribution. The same can be said about the keen analysis edited by Ana Fernandez Tues titled The Europeanisation of Consular Affairs: the Case of Visa Policy 4. As for the Italian diplomat background, targeted observation was made possible thanks to the contribution of the study La frontière au Guichet: politiques et pratiques des Schengen visas à l'Ambassade Consulat d’Italie et au Maroc, edited by researcher Federica Infantino and appeared in the international journal of criminology “Champ pénal”5. A similar study (A Visa for Schengen’s Europe. Consular practices and regular migration from Senegal to Italy), edited by researcher Francesca Zampagni, was published by Consortium for Applied Research on International Migration Carim (www.carim.org)6. Moreover, national experts in the field of discipline of the visa and immigration policies were interviewed and these contents supplemented the sources of political-institutional level. The full involvement of public records officers, who provided the data, has enabled a statistical contextualization within a broader political and institutional framework. For a specific advice particular references have been made to the Central Directorate for Migration Issues and Visa at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, as well as to the Central Directorate for Immigration and Asylum Policies at the Ministry of the Interior. Through structured interviews it was also possible to obtain detailed information directly from the central authority for the implementation of the Schengen Agreements and the application of Italian law and Community legislation on issuing visas for entry. A valuable source of information was the “Exploratory workshop supporting the implementation of EMN visa policy study”7 held on 16th of June 2011 in Rome at the headquarters of the Ministry of the Interior, with the intervention of the Central Directorate for Migration Issues and Visa of Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The event took place in the occasion of an information exchange meeting between the Italian National Contact Point and the EMN foreign delegations 1

www.iai.it/content.asp?langid=1&contentid=444. www.esteri.it/mae/doc/Rapporto2020_SceltePoliticaEstera_090408.pdf. 3 www.socialautopsy.org/conflittiglobali/sites/default/files/pdf/numero2/2_Guild_Bigo.pdf. 4 www.clingendael.nl/publications/2006/20061000_cdsp_paper_dip.pdf. 5 Infantino Federica, La frontière au guichet. Politiques et pratiques des visas Schengen à l’Ambassade et au Consulat d’Italie au Maroc, “Champ pénal” [online], Vol. VII, 2010 (http://champpenal.revues.org/7864#abstract-fr). 6 http://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/18485/CARIM_ASN_2011_59.pdf?sequence=1. 7 www.emnitaly.it/ev-98.htm. 2

4

from Austria, Bulgaria, Finland, France, Latvia, Poland, Hungary, with the participation of the European Commission represented by the service provider of the EMN GHK-Cowi network. The workshop was designed to help representatives of other Member States to have a concrete and indepth examination of visas, chosen as theme of study by the European Commission within the network. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has exposed the national point of view and wishes on behalf of Italy regarding the field of visa policy, while the Division statistics for foreign countries of the Bank of Italy was called upon to explain the sample survey conducted on the main reasons to enter in Italy. Among the themes that emerged for their importance in line with the purposes of this study there were abuse prevention strategies along with best practice to facilitate regular migration and combat unauthorised migration that derive from cooperation agreements with third countries. The comparison with the Member States participating in the initiative has allowed pointing out different forms of assistance on visa matters for the diplomatic-consular network, highlighting its complexity but also the resources accessible at the consular missions that can be shared in support of other Member States. The workshop was also attended by representatives of the diplomaticconsular network of some Third Countries, whose thoughts have formed a starting point to improve the intervention capacity and to reduce the applicants‟ waiting time for visa without renouncing to control requirements and national security. In concluding this brief methodological note, it deems necessary to reassert the difficulties in the finding of information to generate this study. In addition to the shortage of further scientific literature in addition to the above-mentioned publications, it should be noted, in particular, the complexity in getting information from the Italian consular authorities abroad; such difficulty has arisen, from one side, due to the confidentiality of the matter and, from the other side, as officials are likely to be work overload. The very lack of the point of view of these privileged witnesses, personally involved in the procedures of application of the rules on visas, has certainly hindered the analysis of practices that significantly vary according to the consular post. Taking into account these considerations, the study leads to suggest a further opportunity to develop a survey at the operational level among the officials and beneficiaries of consular services, in order to verify the effectiveness on the procedures applied “on the field”, using the EMN study as background analysis for further examination at national and EU level. 1.3. Definitions To better understand the text, it is considered appropriate to explain here a rigorous definition of terms used during the study. A specification on the up-mentioned definitions of terms represents the necessary premise for the development of the next comparative study at a community level. In Italy visa policy is defined as a discipline set out by Legislative Decree no. 286 of 25 July 1998, as amended by Law No.189 of 30 July, 2002 and subsequent amendments (“Consolidation Act on immigration regulations and legislation on the condition of foreigners”) and, in particular, Article 4, Chapter I, which governs the provisions related to the entry in the State territory8. As for the other definitions of terms necessary for the preparation of the study, wide reference has been made to the Glossary on Asylum and Migration, a working tool produced by the EMN network to facilitate proper communication on migration and asylum and presented in the Italian version in June 20119. Therefore, in the Glossary, the “visa” is defined as “an authorization or decision of a Member State required for transit or entry for an intended stay in that Member State or in several Member States”10. More precisely, the nature of the visa, which is the subject of this study, is the short-stay visa, required to ensure the entry for an intended stay for a period whose duration is less than three months, and the long-stay visa, required for an intended stay of more than three months. 8

www.esteri.it/MAE/normative/Normativa_Consolare/Visti/Decreto_Legislativo_25_luglio_1998_Aggiornato.pdf. www.emnitaly.it/ev-95.htm. 10 EMN Italy (ed.), EMN Asylum and Migration Glossary, Idos, Rome, 2011, p. 188. 9

5

The acronym VIS stands for Visa Information System, established by Council Decision 2004/512/EC of 8 June 2004, defined therein as “a system for the exchange of visa data between Member States, which enables authorised national authorities to enter and update visa data and to consult these data electronically”11. Similarly, the acronym SIS stays for Schengen Information System, “a joint (EU plus Member States) information system that enables the relevant authorities in each Member State, by means of an automated search procedure, to have access to alerts on persons and property for the purposes of border checks and other police and customs checks carried out within the country in accordance with national law and, for some specific categories of alerts (Article 96), for the purposes of issuing visas, residence permits and the administration of legislation on aliens in the context of the application of the provisions of the Schengen Convention relating to the movement of persons”12. The legal entry is defined on the basis of provisions provided by Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 of the European Parliament and the Council of 15 March 2006 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders, known as Schengen Border Code. Therefore, “legal entry” means “an entry of a third-country national into an EU Member State for stays not exceeding three months per six-month period, as required by Article 5 of Schengen Border Code” 13 . Consequently, in the context of the European Union, “illegal entry” means “the entry of a third-country national into an EU Member State which does not satisfy Article 5 of above-quoted Code”14. Similarly, the “refusal of entry” in the EU context is “a refusal of entry of a third-country national at the external EU border because they do not fulfill all the entry conditions laid down in Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 and do not belong to the categories of persons referred to in Article 5(4) of that Regulation”15. The definition of “entry ban” is taken instead from Article 3 (6) of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 16th December 2008 laying down common rules and procedures applicable in Member States to the return of Third-country nationals illegally staying on, and thus the ban is “an administrative or judicial decision or act preventing entry into and stay in the territory of the Member States for a specified period, accompanying a Return Decision”16.

11

Ibid., p. 188. Ibid., p. 177. 13 Ibid., p. 83. 14 Ibid., p. 83. 15 Ibid., p. 152. 16 Ibid., p. 82. 12

6

2. POLICY AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE GRANTING OF VISA

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, through the Directorate General for Italians Citizens Abroad and Migration Policies, has well-circumscribed competence on immigration, to be exerted in cooperation with other Ministries, most notably with the Ministry of Interior and the Ministry of Labour and Social Policies. In particular, the aforementioned Directorate General has the task to provide for consular affairs and deal with issues concerning foreign nationals in Italy, as well as to analyse migration and social issues related to organizations and international bodies. Within the Directorate General, the offices competent to deal with migration issues are two: the Office V (Immigration and Asylum policies) and the Office VI (Visa centre). Office V deals with legal and administrative matters concerning foreign citizens in Italy, asylum seekers and refugees, it collaborates to produce a program for migratory flows and it deals with the promotion of bilateral agreements on migration. On the other hand Office VI works on matters of visas for foreign nationals and their admission arrangements. It should be remembered that Italy can take advantage of a diplomatic-consular highly branched network (190 seats), that has been built in over 150 years of history of national unity to support the country‟s multiple foreign links but also the needs of Italian emigrants, a community that has today 4 million residents abroad and more than 70 million descendants, with an overall number of 30 million emigrants since the unification of Italy. In this chapter, therefore, it will be illustrated the political and legislative framework within which national administrative practices on visas are placed. For further detail, the EMN study entitled The organization of Asylum and Migration Policies in Italy (2009) 17 provides a comprehensive overview from the perspective of legal, political and institutional policy adopted by Italy in this area. 2.1. National Policy and legislative framework Article 3 of the Consolidated Act on Immigration, dedicated to migration policies, stipulates that it is the Prime Minister‟s duty to prepare the “Program Document on Immigration Policy and foreigners on State Territory” every three years, after a consultation procedure with the involved Ministries, the National Council of Economy and Labour (CNEL), the Conference for State-Cities and Local Autonomies, the Permanent Conference for relations between the State, regions, autonomous provinces of Trent and Bolzano, the NGOs which are deeply engaged in immigrants assistance and integration, the municipal organizations and those of employers who are well represented at the national level. In this context, in the recent Program document issued18 it was proposed - as a priority of visa policies - to ensure the diplomatic and consular network with organic integration and updated work tools for the granting of visas. More precisely, these objectives have been defined: to improve services in compliance with local regulations, as regards visas for business, tourism and labour, both subordinate employment (especially if seasonal) and selfemployment; to remove some of difficulties met by highly qualified personnel applying for entry visas for subordinate and self-employment; to provide an organic reference framework for study and vocational training visas; to enhance the presence of Italy in the circuit of cultural and scientific exchange circuit; to provide for a sensitive issue such of that of youth exchanges, a more flexible framework and at the same time more attentive to guarantee the measures related to minors protection; 17

EMN Italy, The organization of migration and asylum policies, Idos, Rome, 2008, see: www.emnitaly.it/rs-04.htm. Presidency of the Council of Ministers, Program Document on Immigration Policy and Foreigners on State Territory (2004-2006), Rome, May 13, 2005, in http://www.governo.it/Presidenza/DICA/immigrazione/DPPI_04052005_2.pdf. 18

7

The belief that a functional management of flows may be ensured while public safety is also guaranteed lies at the basis of the Italian visa policy, since encouraging mobility does not exclude by itself the protection of national security or the fight against irregular migration. On the contrary, ensuring the right balance between these different purposes, the country may enjoy great benefits on economic and cultural exchanges. As it is expressed in the Communication on Migration from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions of 4th of May 2011, COM (2011) 248 final19, it is necessary to pursue coherence between visa policies and policies relating to other areas such as, for example, trade and research; furthermore, also in other occasions, the Commission stressed the importance of local development and cooperation as well as the need to avoid brain waste. As stated by the former Ministry of Foreign Affairs Franco Frattini on the occasion of the Euromed Forum20, held in Milan in July 2010, the political vision of Italy is based on the conviction of an urgent need for a new and strong political action on the issue of movement of persons at European level. In particular, it is believed that an exclusionary and restrictive visa regime can be an obstacle to the common interest, trade and integration processes. Consequently, a more open visa policy can have a good grounding in cooperation perspective. Italy, within the European Union, has promoted the integration process of the Balkans through concrete measures, such as the liberalization of the visa regime. According to statements issued by former Minister Frattini on the occasion of the Mediterranean Forum, organized by the Region of Abruzzo and by the Department of Industry in June 2011, the same policy applied the Balkan area in the past must now be pursued to the south shore of the Mediterranean 21 sea. Therefore, it is necessary to reformulate the policies of visa facilitation for at least some categories, such as students or members of the business community that are necessary to strengthen the EuroMediterranean framework of reintegration. In this regard, the Italian government is prepared to mitigate the visa regime on a bilateral level with countries that were initiated stable and profitable business relationships. It is supposed that such an opening will benefit the balance of geopolitical areas. As former Minister Franco Frattini said, so that the Arab revolution to be successful and lead to the affirmation of democratic governments, action is needed right now in encouraging the movement of people. In light of this vision, incubated within the Italian context, a far-reaching liberalization regime necessarily leads to the achievement of the common interest. Is so true that in Italy, over the last year there were further signs of openness in making efforts towards visa liberalization for Russians and Turks22. Moreover, during his recent visit to China (18-21 July 2011), former Minister of Foreign Affairs Franco Frattini has co-chaired, with his Chinese counterpart Yang Jiechi, to the Fourth Italian-Chinese Government Committee, during which they have signed a series of memorandums of understanding providing for, among other measures, the exemption of visas for holders of diplomatic passports23. These conditions suggest a further gradual opening of the Italian government towards the liberalization of visa regime for citizens of strategic areas, for which it intends to facilitate the free circulation and, furthermore, regular migration. From the political point of view there is, therefore, the belief that new formulations on the visa system will not only facilitate the migration, but also the commercial and cultural exchanges. As for the regulatory framework, the regulation of entry visas in the Italian territory has legal basis both in CE and Italian law. Among the state regulations, the matter is specifically 19

http://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/malmstrom/archive/1_IT_ACT_part1_v3.pdf. www.ansa.it/web/notizie/rubriche/politica/2010/07/12/visualizza_new.html_1852041182.html. 21 www.agenziaaise.it/esteri/frattini/65397-il-ministro-frattini-al-forum-euromed-.html. 22 Istituto Affari Internazionali, Cronologia della politica estera italiana, gennaio - dicembre 2010, www.iai.it/pdf/Cronologia/cronologia_2010.pdf. 23 www.esteri.it/MAE/IT/Sala_Stampa/ArchivioNotizie/Approfondimenti/2011/07/20110719_ItaliaCina_firmati_nuovi_ accordi.htm?LANG=IT. 20

8

governed by Article 4 of Legislative Decree No.286 of 25th July 1998, as amended by Law No.189 of 30th July 2002 and subsequent amendments – “Consolidated Act enacting provisions governing immigration and alien status”24. Among the secondary rules of rank there are Articles 5, 6 and 6-bis of Presidential Decree No. 394 of 31st August 1999 - Regulations implementing the “Consolidated Act enacting provisions governing immigration and alien status”, including any changes made by the President of the Republic on immigration 25 issues by Decree No. 334 of the of 18th October 2004, and The Interministerial Decree of 11h May 2011 – “Defining the types of entry visas and the requirements for granting them”26. It is also important the directive of the Ministry of the Interior of 1st March 2000 “Defining the means of subsistence for the entry and stay of aliens on Italian soil” (Official Journal No 64 17th March 2000)27. According to the national legislation, the visa is an alien‟s authorisation to enter the territory of the Italian Republic, issued by the Italian diplomatic-consular missions located in the state of origin or habitual residence of the applicant. Under the Visa Code (Regulation EC No. 810/2009 of 13th July 2009 28 , immediately effective and entered into force on 5th April 2010), visas are divided into: 1. Uniform Schengen Visas (USV), valid for all the Contracting Parties‟ territories, issued for: Airport Transit (type A); Transit (type B), type of visa abolished by the above Visa Code. As of 5th April 2010 Transit visas are all type C short-stay or travel visas (type C) valid for up to 90 days, for single or multiple entry. 2. Limited Territorial Validity Visas (LTV): these are only valid for the Schengen State whose representative issued the visa (or in particular cases for other Schengen states where specifically named) without any possibility of access to or transit through the territory of any other Schengen States. They are issued solely for humanitarian reasons, or in the national interest, or under international obligations as an exception to the common USV system. An alien may not directly apply for these visas, which are issued in a few specific cases by the diplomatic or consular representative when it deems it appropriate to issue the visa for the reasons as stated even though not all the conditions are met for the issue of a Uniform Schengen Visa, or when the applicant does not hold a validly recognized travel document, in particular emergencies or in case of need. 3. Long stay or “national” Visas (NV) that are only valid for visits longer than 90 days (type D), with one or more entries, in the territory of the Schengen State whose diplomatic mission issued the visa. Holders of type D visas are permitted to circulate freely in Schengen countries other than the issuing one for a period of no more than 90 days per half-year and only if the visa is valid. The type of visa, the conditions and specific requirements for the issuance of each visa are provided for in the Consolidated Text on Immigration, the rules implementing the Regulation and the recent Interministerial Decree of May 11th, 201129 “Defining the types of entry visas and the requirements for granting them”. 24

www.esteri.it/MAE/normative/Normativa_Consolare/Visti/Decreto_Legislativo_25_luglio_1998_Aggiornato.pdf. www.esteri.it/MAE/normative/Normativa_Consolare/Visti/DPR394_1999modificato.pdf. 26 www.esteri.it/MAE/normative/Normativa_Consolare/Visti/Decreto_interministeriale_n850_definitivo_nov2011.pdf 27 www.esteri.it/MAE/normative/Normativa_Consolare/Visti/direttiva_MinInterno2000.pdf. 28 www.esteri.it/MAE/normative/Normativa_Consolare/Visti/codice_visti.pdf. 29 Published on the Official Gazette No. 280, 1st December 2011. 25

9

In particular, compared to the previous rules, the decree introduces the following innovations: - simplifies the discipline of visas requested for family reasons, merging together the two visas for “accompanying family member” and family reunification” into the new visa for “family reasons”; - separates the student visa from the one for "research" which earns its name and, therefore, an autonomous discipline; - abolishes the visa for “integration into the labor market”, which was removed from the Consolidated Act (Legislative Decree no. 286/1998) since 2002; - finally introduces the new visa for "volunteering", which allows entry for young people aged between 20 and 30 years who are admitted to participate in volunteer programs. Therefore, the types of visas currently in force, corresponding to the various reasons of entry, are the following: Type of visas for reason adoption; business; sports competitions; medical treatment; diplomatic; invitation; self-employment;

subordinate employment; mission; family reasons; religious grounds; re-entry; elective residence; research;

study (in general); transit; airport transit; transport; tourism; work-holidays; volunteering.

In view of the need to gradually harmonize the different national visa policies, the European authorities have adopted various measures including the Council Regulation no. 539 of 15th of March 200130 containing the list of countries whose nationals bearing ordinary passports are subject to the visa requirement31. There is no doubt that all foreigners with long duration of stay (i.e. more than 90 days) must always be equipped with a visa, even if they are citizens of countries not requiring a visa for short stays. In fact, the alien already residing in a Schengen State and owner of the residence permit is exempt from visa for stays not to exceed 3 months, provided that entry to Italy is not the case for reasons of subordinate employment, self-employment or training. Nevertheless, in this case, it is favoured the principle of free movement within the EU labour market in the event that the alien is in possession of a residence permit for EC long-term residents issued by another Member State. In compliance with EU directives, the Italian government has implemented several strategies to facilitate obtaining an entry visa. In particular as follow:

30

http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/justice_freedom_security/free_movement_of_persons_asylum_immigration/jl 0031_it.htm. 31 Nationals of the following countries are subject to visa obligations: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola,Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central Africa, Chad, China, Colombia, Comoro Islands, Congo, Congo (Democratic Republic of), Cuba, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican (Republic), East Timor, Ecuador, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Ghana, Granada, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kiribati, Kosovo, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Maldives, Mali, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Micronesia, Moldova, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, North Korea, Oman, Pakistan, Palau, Palestinian National Authority, Papua-New Guinea, Peru, the Philippines, Qatar,Russia, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Thailand, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Vietnam, Western Samoa, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe. 10

Legislative Decree No 5 of 8thJanuary 2007 implementing Directive 2003/86/EC on the right to family reunification and the Legislative Decree of 3rd October 2008, No 16032 introducing amendments and additions to legislative decree No 5 of 8th January 2007. This provision is intended to establish the conditions under which third country nationals regularly residing can exercised the right to family reunification. It also stresses the importance of developing an integration policy that is able to ensure that the rights and obligations of citizens of third countries are similar to those of EU citizens. As regards the visa regime it is recommended that, once the application for family reunification is accepted, the issuing of visas for the entry of the family or family members should be facilitated33. Legislative Decree No 154 34 of 10th August 2007: Implementation of Council Directive 2004/114/EC of 13 December 2004 on the conditions of admission of third-country nationals for the purposes of studies, pupil exchange, unremunerated training or voluntary service published in the Official Journal No. 216 of 17 September 2007. In particular, on Article 4 bis, it is reiterated that, in compliance with international and European agreements that Italy joins, a foreigner already admitted as a student by an establishment of higher education and holding a residence permit for study issued by another Member State, may enter Italy for stays longer than three months without a visa in order to continue studies already begun in the other State, or to integrate with a program of studies related to it, provided that he/she has the requirements for residence under national law. Legislative Decree No 17 35 of 9thJanuary 2008: Implementation of Council Directive 2005/71/EC of 12 October 2005 on a specific procedure for admitting third-country nationals for the purposes of scientific research - published in the Official Journal No. 31 of 6th February 2008. It should be noted, in particular, Article 1(6), which states that this type of visa should be granted priority over other types. Also (paragraph 9), the researcher with regular permit of stay in the country for other reasons, other than that for asylum or temporary protection is granted permission to stay without a visa and he/she is not affected by the requirement of actual residence abroad for the procedure for issuing the nihil ostat application. Finally (paragraph 11), in compliance with international and European agreements, which Italy joins, the alien admitted as a researcher in a Member State can enter Italy to continue the research already undertaken in another Member State without a visa. It should be noted that, at the beginning of 2012, the enforcement of Directive 2009/50/EC of 25 May 2009 36 on the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for the purposes of highly qualified employment into the Italian legal system is still being defined37. This Directive, while establishing the conditions and procedures for the admission of highly qualified third-country nationals, creating a EU Blue Card and defining the conditions and rights to reside in

32

www.interno.it/mininterno/export/sites/default/it/sezioni/servizi/legislazione/immigrazione/0972_2008_10_22_dlgs_3 _10_08_160.html. 33 Recent changes to family reunification procedures have been introduced by Law 94/2009 which envisages some restrictions for specific cases. 34 www.interno.it/mininterno/export/sites/default/it/sezioni/servizi/legislazione/immigrazione/0982_dlgs10_08_2007_n1 54_.html. 35 www.interno.it/mininterno/export/sites/default/it/sezioni/servizi/legislazione/immigrazione/0983_decreto_legislativo_ 09_01_08_n17.html. 36 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:155:0017:0029:en:PDF. 37 The failure to transpose Directive 2009/50/EC implies the opening of infringement proceedings against Italy and other Member States. However, the approval of EU law 2010 (November 30, 2011) delegates the Government to adopt, within three months, a legislative decree to implement the directive in question (as well as the one regarding the sanctions on employers). 11

the issuing country and in other Member States. In particular, the Member State concerned shall facilitate in every way a citizen of a third country in obtaining the necessary visa entrance. The nexus between the visa policy and migration policy is the “Program Document on Immigration Policy and foreigners on State Territory” envisaged by TU on immigration and issued by the government. Not only it records the actions that the Italian Government intends to play in the field of immigration, in collaboration with other social organizations and international bodies, but also it identifies the general criteria for the definition of the entry flows in line with the visa policy. Each year, in fact, on the basis of these criteria, a document is prepared that, taking into account measures of family reunification and temporary protection eventually disposed, it also took note of the needs reported by the regions, helping to define the maximum quota of foreigners to be admitted for work into Italian territory through one or more “Flow Decrees”. For these reasons, in practice there is not any migration policy in favour of regular entries separated from the fight against irregular immigration and vice versa. It happens that for both issues a focus is registered on certain categories (business, tourism, work and study) or to certain countries of origin (with priority for those belonging to the Mediterranean area and the Balkans and those linked to Italy through collaboration agreements) and, considering the subsequent needs that will soon be analyzed, preferred quotas for certain countries have been introduced. 2.2 Agreements with Third Countries The Italian Government has welcomed the dialogue for the visa liberalization initiated by the European Union with certain Third Countries through the signing of cooperation agreements aimed at facilitating the issuance of entry visas. National provisions already envisage exemptions to the visa regime. In fact, the citizens of the following countries are not obliged to require an entry visa for an intended stay for tourism, mission, business, invitation, and sports competition, if the allowed stay is no longer than 90 days: Albania 38 , Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Bahamas, Barbados, BosniaHerzegovina 39 , Brazil, Brunei, Canada, Chile, South Korea, Costa Rica, Croatia, El Salvador, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM)40, Japan, Guatemala, Honduras, Hong Kong, Israel, Malaysia, Macao, Northern Mariana Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Montenegro 41 , Nicaragua, New Zealand, Panama, Paraguay, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Serbia 42 , Seychelles, Singapore, United States, Taiwan 43 (non-recognized territorial entity), Uruguay, Venezuela. The citizens of San Marino, Holy See and Switzerland are exempt from the visa in any case. From 1st September 2010, citizens of countries exempt from short-term visa can enter Italy for stays of up to ninety days, even for study purposes, without the need to request the corresponding visa for study44. The visa exemption applies to the holders of refugee travel document issued under the Geneva Convention, non-EU workers authorized to cross border, the students in the context of a school trip group, the citizens members of NATO forces, without prejudice that Member States may extend the exemption to several other categories of beneficiaries45. 38

For Albanian citizens, the exemption from the visa requirement applies only to holders of biometric passports. For Bosnian citizens, the exemption from the visa requirement applies only to holders of biometric passports. 40 For Macedonian citizens, the exemption from the visa requirement applies only to holders of biometric passports. 41 For Montenegrin citizens, the exemption from the visa requirement applies only to holders of biometric passports. 42 Serbian citizens who hold passports issued by the Coordination Directorate of Serbia are excluded from the benefit of the visa. The exemption from the visa requirement applies only to holders of biometric passports applies only to holders of biometric passports. 43 The exemption from the visa requirement applies only to holders of passports issued by Taiwan which include an identity card number. 44 http://img.poliziadistato.it/docs/STUDENTI_ingresso_breve_periodo_senza_visto_inoltro_mess_MAE.pdf 45 Under EC Regulation 539/2001, there is a statement that includes national exemptions, the individual member countries, the visa requirement for certain categories of citizens, who may be exempted or subject to a visa for one or more Member States, under certain conditions and/or if they have a specific travel document (i.e. officials of international organizations, holders of diplomatic passports, service/offical passports, crew members, etc.) certain 39

12

Only the European Union is responsible for the facilitation of visas and so far it has only intervened with reference to diplomatic passports. Among the multilateral agreements signed by Italy, there are mentioned the nine cooperation agreements concluded by the European Union with Third Countries, connected to their readmission agreements, under which citizens of the States involved can benefit from facilitated procedures to reach entry visa. The agreements currently in force, listed in chronological order, are as follows: Agreement between the European Community and the Russian Federation on the facilitation of the issuance of visas to the citizens of the European Union and the Russian Federation (in force since 01/06/2007)46; Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Albania on the facilitation of the issuance of visas (in force since 01/01/2008)47; Agreement between the European Community and Bosnia and Herzegovina on the facilitation of the issuance of visas (in force since 01/01/2008)48; Agreement between the European Community and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia on the facilitation of the issuance of visas (in force since 01/01/2008)49; Agreement on the facilitation of the issuance of visas between the European Community and the Republic of Moldova (in force since 01/01/2008)50; Agreement on the facilitation of the issuance of visas between the European Community and the Republic of Montenegro (in force since 01/01/2008)51; Agreement on the facilitation of the issuance of visas between the European Community and the Republic of Serbia (in force since 01/01/2008)52; Agreement between the European Community and Ukraine on the facilitation of the issuance of visas (in force since 01/01/2008)53; Agreement between the European Union and Georgia on the facilitation of the issuance of visas (in force since 01/03/2011)54. Specifically, through these agreements on the facilitation of the issuance of visas, requirements on the justification of the purpose of the travel of certain categories of people (such as family reason or business) who wish to obtain a short stay visa, have been reduced. In addition, these categories benefit from simplified criteria for issuing visas valid for multiple entries. The facility consists of, among other things, a reduced term to decide on a visa application. In addition to defining the time required to process the application and the amount of tax required to issue a visa, these agreements provide for the abolition of visa requirements for holders of diplomatic passports and service passports for short stays. Such facilitation agreements represent a starting point for closer cooperation with third countries benefiting from facilitated procedures, particularly in sensitive areas such as migration and the movement of people. They are also a real evidence of commitment in favour of a possible inclusion of countries interested in a Community perspective. Moreover the gradual implementation of agreements on visa facilitation is on the premise to launch a structured dialogue on the possible introduction of a visa-free regime. In this way, the agreements signed by Italy can be understood as school trips on groups, and/or according to the purpose of the stay (ie: if paid for employment during their stay and/or stay motivated by health care). Therefore, among the requirements for the entry of a citizen from outside the EU is to hold an entry visa, unless an exemption. This requirement is enforced for any reason, the entry (to stay or transit), with certain exceptions, and for any duration of any subsequent stay. 46 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2007:129:0027:0034:EN:PDF. 47 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2007:334:0085:0095:EN:PDF. 48 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2007:334:0097:0107:EN:PDF 49 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2007:334:0125:0135:EN:PDF. 50 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2007:334:0169:0179:EN:PDF. 51 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2007:334:0109:0119:EN:PDF. 52 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2007:334:0137:0147:EN:PDF. 53 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:22007A1218(02):EN:HTML. 54 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2011:052:0034:0044:EN:PDF. 13

closely related to promotion of authorized migration by facilitating the entry of nationals of countries with which Italy has already established diplomatic and economic relations. 2.3. Recent changes to Visa Policy and Legislation within context of a common EU dimension During the year 2010, substantial innovations were introduced in the field of free movement within the Schengen area for holders of long-term stays visa, as well as in the timing and costs of issuance related to the Schengen visas. In particular on 5th of April 2010 entered into force: Regulation (EU) No. 265/2010 amending the Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement and Regulation (EC) No. 562/2006 as regards movement of persons with a long-stay visa (issued in OJEU L 85, 31/03/2010)55; Regulation (EU) No. 810/2009 of 13 July 2009 establishing a Community Code on Visas (Visa Code) (published in the OJEU on 15th of September 2009)56. The Regulation (EU) No 265/2010 amended both the Schengen agreement and the 2006 Regulation on the Schengen Borders Code. Having regard to this, the new EU visa becomes one and it ceases, therefore, to have the distinction, previously in force, between “transit” and “stay” both having the same expected duration not exceeding three months in any six month period counted from the date of the first entry into the territory of the Member States. Therefore long-stay visas have the same effectiveness of a residence permit with regard to free movement, with the possibility for the holder to travel freely for 90 days each semester in all countries of the Schengen area. As a result, even non-EU citizens waiting for a residence permit may use the long-term national visa and the waiting period, thanks to this new procedure, they may return to the country of origin crossing any Schengen border by air, land or sea. The changes introduced by the EC Regulation 810/2009 of 13th July 2009 establishing a Community Code on Visas are even more significant. As from 5th of April 2010, these new regulations have prevailed on all the national standards that were incompatible. Through the introduction of these Regulations it has been possible to reduce the time required for the application and issuing of visas, setting an upper limit of 2 weeks for the request and 15 days to process the response. The introduction of biometric identification data, included in the list of data that visa applicants must provide (currently in force in North Africa with the possibility to be extended to other geographical areas), and their registration in the Visas database, led to the abolition of group visas. Therefore, it follows that all applicants for the above permissions, including spouses and children registered on the same passport must be issued individual visa stickers affixed to the holder‟s travel document. Well, as expected, there is now an obligation for consular posts to justify the refusal to issue a visa, thus recognizing the citizen‟s right of appeal against negative decisions. To facilitate the work of officers who have to verify the regular position of the alien, in Annex VII of the Regulation there are instructions on how to apply for visa. In addition, the new forecast has produced cost savings of: - visa fee of EUR 60 for all; - for children from 6 to 12 years and citizens of third countries with which the EU has concluded agreements on the facilitation of EUR 35. 2.4. Recent changes to Visa Policy and Legislation relating to national visas There were no further amendments of particular importance to the visa policy and regulations governing the system of national visas in addition to those already mentioned. In this regard, reference can be made to the statements of Minister of the Interior, Mr Roberto Maroni, released during the hearing before the Audit Committee on the implementation of the Schengen Agreement, monitoring Europol‟ activities, surveillance and control on migration issues, of 14 th of April 2010. From the survey prepared by the Committee on new EU policies on immigration and, particularly, relating to the discipline of visas, it is clear that the purpose of Regulation (EC) No 55 56

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:085:0001:0004:EN:PDF. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:243:0001:0058:EN:PDF. 14

810/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council is mainly to simplify the rules governing visas, introducing measures to harmonize the procedures for issuing permits, while enforcing procedural safeguards. In this context, using the words of Minister Maroni: “the code governs requirements and conditions for issuing visas for short stays periods with limited territorial validity as well as airport transit and, therefore, should not affect the bilateral agreements signed with African countries to control unauthorized immigration”57. Italy has long since begun an ongoing dialogue with the countries of Africa and the Mediterranean, considering of great importance the development and strengthening cooperation with countries of origin and transit of migratory flows, even with respect to visa policy. Changes made with the entry into force of the new Schengen Visa Code have been welcomed by national authorities and represent a significant step forward taken in the perspective of harmonization of legislation on free movement, towards the strengthening of cooperation between Member States in relation to the common policy on visas. In particular, it was appreciated the double value of these tools both in legal terms and procedural framework, with the explicit indication of how to achieve effective implementation of the Code. A further harmonization of national laws with practices for the processing of visa applications is desirable. National policies on visas, in fact, are intended as part of an integrated system aimed at facilitating the mobility of authorised and regular bona fide travellers and to combat irregular migration. These two elements of migration policies are considered to be interdependent and intrinsically linked.

57

www.interno.it/mininterno/export/sites/default/it/assets/files/19/0749_Audizione_Ministro_Schengen.pdf. 15

3. PRACTICAL IMPLEMENTATION AND ORGANISATION

As enshrined in Article 4 of the Consolidated Act on Immigration, the visa is a prerequisite for obtaining a residence permit, which is required after entry into the territory of the State. The authority responsible for issuing the visa undertakes controls proceeding as set forth by the Visa Code while the Department of Public Safety within the Ministry of Interior is responsible for preventive controls to the release of a residence permit. Therefore, the first controls occur before departure and, in case of negative outcome, they will lead to the denial of a visa and, if conditions require, to a possible forgery complaint; the latter controls occur after the entry and, in case of negative outcome, they lead to the refusal to issue residence permit and to the expulsion of thirdcountry national. Here below is a description of the different phases of the procedures for issuing the visa: the stage prior to its submission, the next one related to the review of the application and, finally, the results leading to the entrance, stay and possible departure or return. Since the Italian visa policies have as object both the prevention of irregular immigration and the promotion of regular flows, the argument continues in a unified manner. 3.1.

General procedure followed in the Stages of the Visa Procedure

a) Application Stage As a rule, a visa application can be submitted no sooner than three months before the journey starts. With some exceptions, the applicants shall allow the detection of their fingerprints58 and pay a visa fee. For all types of Schengen visa the fee is 60 euro, while, since 2011, it is 105 euro for national long-stay visas, and it is to be collected in the national currency of the country in which the visa application was submitted. Visas for study and for family members of EU citizens are free 59 . For holders of diplomatic passports an exemption can be applied and this power is entrusted to the consular sites that, nevertheless, usually adopt this procedure. The responsibility for issuing the visa lies with the Italian diplomatic and consular representation of the place of residence of the foreigner, who is the sole authority responsible for conducting the necessary investigations in relation to the visa in accordance with current national and Schengen rules. It benefits from technology investments, training and outsourcing to solve the chronic problem, in some seats, of accumulation of arrears. Visa application must be submitted in writing giving all the details required on the special visa application form which must be signed by the applicant and accompanied by one passport-size photo. As a rule, aliens applying for the visa must visit the diplomatic or consular offices in person to be interviewed on the reasons and circumstances of the visit. Applications must be accompanied by a valid travel document, on which it is materially possible to appose the visa, together with any supporting documents that may be required. Along with the documentation mentioned in the Community Code on Visas, supporting documents are required for national visa (work, family, study, etc.), if it is deemed useful for the demonstration of the requirements for granting the visa.

58

This is especially true for children, in accordance with the guarantees provided by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. 59 The right is waived for certain categories (i.e. children under 6 years, for the purpose of study, researchers for short stays moving within the Community for research, representatives of non-profit organizations aged 25 for attending conferences, sporting events, cultural or educational events, relatives and family members of EU citizens under Directive CE/38/2004). Finally, they can be exempted children between 6 and 12 years, holders of diplomatic and service passports, participants in seminars, conferences, sporting events, organized by cultural or educational non-profit organizers of age not exceeding 25 years. Specific exceptions to the imposition or reduction of fees may be arranged by individual Member States to protect specific interests (i.e. foreign policy, promotion of their interests, etc.). 16

In the case of foreign minors, before issuing a Visa, the diplomatic/consular office needs proof of the consent to expatriation by those who have parental responsibility who are not accompanying the minor, or in their absence, by the legal guardian. The assent to the expatriation is provided in accordance with regulations of the country of residence of the minor. The entry of foreign minors is subject to authorization by the Committee for Foreign Minors, within temporary accommodation and social programs. The researcher of the University of Pisa, Francesca Zampagni60, who was appointed with the analysis of one of the Country Case Studies, has provided a very effective description of the application stage on the basis of the experience gathered in the field, during a three-month internship performed at the Italian Consulate in Dakar (the mission was also the competent representative for six more countries). Generally the applicant is coming personally to the representation, where he/she does not have immediately the necessary information but he/she is advised to make an appointment through the appropriate telephone services outsourced to Africatel. There are many hardships that the applicant has to bear: first a series of charges ranging from the cost of the telephone service to the waiting time and it takes even a few weeks before the applicant is being received (other money spent for meals and lodging or search for hospitality). Zampagni estimates, in the case of Senegal, a cost for a tourist visa of approximately 112,000 CFA, about 170 euro (considering that the average annual income is equal to $ 1,080). In Dakar, while waiting to be received, the applicants stay outside the representation in a tent supplied by an Italian NGO to avoid cases of sunstroke. The complexity of procedures in many cases forced them to turn to special brokerage services, also used to collect the visa in case they have already returned to their villages or even to their country of origin (a photocopy of the document is sufficient authorization for the collection of the visa). The visa delivery takes place at 2/3 pm on Wednesday, once a week. The number of appointments increased by 25% after the introduction of this special service, while dedicated desks handle the acceptance of request depending on the types of visas (general, family reunification and business). While recruiting new staff, despite the obligation to employ Italian or EU citizens, local citizens with dual nationality or who have studied in Italy are likely to be favoured in order to ensure the active and passive understanding of local languages as well as Italian and French as the official language. Here below is a description of the submitting procedures for the main types of visa application, on the basis of the subdivision used by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on the institutional website www.esteri.it61: Tourist visa (U.S.V.) The tourist visa allows entry to foreign citizens who travel for tourism in Italy or in the Schengen Area. The documentation required for obtaining a tourist visa is as follows: reservation or purchasing of a round-trip ticket, or proof of the availability of personal transportation; accommodation arrangements in Italy (tourist vouchers, hotel reservation or statement of hospitality made by a resident in Italy) proof of possession of means of subsistence, pursuant to the Ministry of Interior‟s Directive of 1st March 2000; medical insurance policy with minimum coverage of € 30,000 for emergency expenses for hospital treatment and repatriation expenses.

60

For an extended analysis, see: Zampagni Francesca, A Visa for Schengen's Europe. Consular Practices and regular migration from Senegal to Italy, CARIM AS 2011/59, European University Institute, Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies, San Domenico di Fiesole (FI), 2011 (http://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/18485/CARIM_ASN_2011_59.pdf?sequence=1). 61 www.esteri.it/MAE/IT/Ministero/Servizi/Sportello_Info/DomandeFrequenti/Visto_per_Italia/. 17

Since the Interministerial Decree of May 11th 2011, the application for tourist visa requested by an Italian citizen, or any EU Member State citizen residing in Italy in favour of relatives within the second degree, is no longer subordinated to the assessment of the risk of irregular immigration. The person who made the invitation can make a bank guarantee or a surety policy in favour of the invited guest to demonstrate the possession of adequate means of financial support, where the foreign national does not have its own means. Self-employment Visa (U.S.V. or N.V.) The self-employment visa allows entry in Italy, under annually established quotas by the flow-decree, to the alien who wishes to pursue a professional activity or for self-employment, with the purpose of an open-term long stay, temporary or permanent. A foreigner who intends to exercise an industrial, professional, craft or commercial activity, or set up a partnership or a corporation, or have access to corporate positions in Italy, in addition to having suitable lodgings and an annual income (from legitimate sources) higher than the minimum required by law for exemption from health contribution, must also demonstrate: • to have adequate resources for the activity that he intends to undertake in Italy; • to be in possession of the requirements of Italian law to conduct its own activities, including - where required - the requisites for professional and business registration; • to be in possession of a certificate of the competent authority (not older than three months) stating that there are no impediments to the granting of the authorization or the license required for the activity that the foreigner intends to perform. The release of work authorisation is scheduled to cover autonomous forms of specific work not covered by the quotas established by the flow-decree under Article 27, paragraph 1, letters a), b), c) and d) of the Consolidated Act on Immigration 286/1998. Employment Visa (U.S.V. or N.V.) The employment Visa allows entry in Italy to a foreigner who is called to provide subordinate employment, for the purpose of an open-term long stay, temporary or permanent. The Italian or regularly residing foreign employer who intends to establish an employment relationship, either temporary or open-ended, with a foreigner residing abroad, must submit the following documents to the unified immigration office of the province of residence (or the one in which the company has its registered office or where the work will be carried out): nominative application for permission to work; adequate documentation regarding the accommodation for the foreign worker; the proposal for the contract to stay, specifying its conditions, including the commitment by the same employer to pay for the expenses for the return of the foreigner to his country of origin. In this regard it is appropriate for those who are interested to address personally to the Visa Section of the Embassy of Italy or to the competent Consular Office with territorial jurisdiction over the place of residence, in order to acquire the necessary information and submit the formal request while the employer in Italy must first apply for the Nihil Ostat (entry clearance) application to the competent Single Desk for Immigration active in each prefecture. Student Visa (U.S.V. or N.V.) The student visa allows entry, for the purpose of short or long-term stays, to foreigners intending to follow university courses, courses of study or professional training at recognized or qualified institutes. The necessary requirements are as follows: documented assurances regarding the course of study; adequate means of support, as envisaged by the law; insurance policy to cover medical expenses; availability of housing. 18

Visa for family reasons (N.V.) The Interministerial Decree of May 11th, 2011 unified the visa for family reunification and the one for accompanying relative, into the new visa for family reasons. The visa for family reasons allows entry in Italy, for a long-term stay, to the foreign national whose relative residing in Italy wishes to exercise his/her right to keep or regain family unity. Legislative Decree No 5 of 8th of January 2007 article 2 letter e) establishes the categories of family members of foreign nationals eligible for family cohesion, amending the article 29 of Presidential Decree 286/1998. In particular, these categories include: the spouse; the minor children, even those of the spouse or illegitimate unmarried children, provided that the other parent, if any, has given his/her consent62; the dependent adult children if they permanently can not provide for their essential requirements for living because of their health status; dependent parents who do not have adequate family support in the country of origin or state of provenance. The documentation required for visa applications for family reunification or accompanying family member of an Italian citizen or community citizen residing in Italy is as follows: statement by Italian or EU citizen, accompanied by his/her identity card, with which requires the presence in Italy of the family member and that demonstrates the possession of the requirements established by law; acts of civil status or appropriate administrative documentation attesting to their family ties; in case of minor children, consent to the release of visa signed by the other parent. It is appropriate, however, that interested people address personally to the Visa Section of the Embassy of Italy or the competent Consular Office with territorial jurisdiction over the place of residence in order to acquire the necessary information and submit the formal request. Visa for medical treatment (U.S.V. or N.V.) The visa for medical treatment allows entry for an open-term long stay, but always for a fixed period, to the alien in need of medical treatment at accredited public or private Italian healthcare facilities. The requirements and conditions for obtaining visas are provided in article 40 of D.P.R. No 334 of 18th of October 2004. The documentation to be included is as follows: declaration by the chosen healthcare facility indicating type of treatment, start date, duration and estimated length of the planned hospital treatment, compliance with the provisions in force for the protection of personal data; signed statement by the healthcare facility confirming the advance deposit on the basis of the estimated cost of the services required. The deposit of at least 30% of the total cost of treatment, in euros or U.S. dollars, will have to be paid to the chosen facility; documentation proving adequate financial means in Italy for the full payment of medical and food and accommodation costs when out of the facility and for the payment of the return ticket for repatriation of the person concerned and for, if any, the accompanying person; health certificate stating the condition of the applicant in accordance with the provisions of protection of personal data. The certificate issued abroad must be accompanied by an Italian translation. 62

For the purpose of reunification minors are considered the children under the age of eighteen years at the time of the application for reunification. The children who is adopted, in custody or under protection shall be treated as legitimate children. 19

Transit Visa (U.S.V. or N.V.) The transit visa allows the entry in the territory of one or more Member States belonging to the Schengen area while reaching the territory of a third State63. It has a maximum validity of 3 months and it allows a maximum of two entries. The applicant must be in possession of entry visa for final destination third country, and is subject to verification of the possession of the same requirements for issuance of a tourist visa (valid passport, airline ticket or reservation, means of subsistence, etc.). The airport transit visa does not authorize entry into Italian territory, however the foreigner is allowed to enter the international transit area of an airport during a stop for international flights. Its validity, that nevertheless is extremely limited, depends on the time required to perform the exchange as it appears on the airline ticket (or the reservation) submitted by the applicant together with a passport or valid travel document which may be endorsed with an entry visa for the country of final destination. Business Visa (U.S.V.) The business visa allows entry into Italy or Schengen area, for a short stay, to foreigners intending to travel for business purposes, establishing contacts or carrying out negotiations, or for training or testing in the use of instruments purchased or sold in the sphere of business contacts or industrial cooperation. The requirements and conditions for obtaining a visa are: documentation proving the applicant‟s status of “business person”; a “letter of invitation” by the Italian company, attesting the period and the reason for the requested stay as well as the activity that will be carried out by the invited foreigner; sufficient financial means in relation to the period of stay requested, covering those provided by the “Table A” of the Ministry of Interior‟s Directive of 1st of March 2000; proof of available accommodation (hotel reservation, declaration of hospitality, declaration of taking housing costs by the Italian company, etc.); health insurance with a minimum coverage of € 30,000 for expenses of emergency hospital treatment and repatriation expenses. b) Examination Stage Depending on local context, more or less structured collaborations are underway with foreign diplomatic-consular offices, also including regular meetings to discuss about a homogeneous behaviour among the various Member States. When examining the application, the possession of all the required documents for each type of visa is firstly ascertained. The foreigner is compulsorily required to certify: the purpose of the visit; means of transport and return; means of support during travel and stay; accommodation arrangements. As for supporting documents, regarding his/ her economic status and autonomous financial means, the applicant has to present liquid cash, bank guarantees, credit instruments, and other sources of income, etc. As regards visas for business, medical treatment (accompanying ill foreigners), sports competitions, or for religious grounds, transit, transport and tourism, the Ministry of Interior‟s Directive of 1st of March 2000 defined the means of subsistence required for the entry into the country, as follows: 63

The Community Code on Visas lists the countries whose nationals must be in possession of an airport transit visa (i.e. the list of third-country nationals who are required to have transit visas in all Schengen countries). This list falls under the competence of Member States. However, there is also a list of countries whose nationals are subject to airport transit visa requirement in one or more Schengen States but not all. 20

Length of stay 1-5 days: overall fixed amount 6-10 days: per persons/day 11-20 days: overall fixed amount Daily amount per person Above 20 days: fixed amount Daily amount per person

One member € 269,60 € 44,93 € 51,64 € 36,67 € 206,58 € 27,89

Two or more members € 212,81 € 26,33 € 25,82 € 22,21 € 118,79 € 17,04

The authenticity of the documentation (travel, lodging/hospitality, means of support, health insurance) is verified by contacting the other party (hotels, insurance company), where it is deemed necessary due to the uncertainties or contradictions emerged in the interview, that is confirmed decisive for the granting or denial of a visa. As for the actual purpose of the visit, the diplomatic-consular representative may, if in doubt, contact such figures as the sponsor, the spouse, or the institution of study. For example, if a company is meant to be a sponsor that invites someone requiring a “business” visa, the company itself (usually Italian) may be contacted. For a study visa, the enrolment to an institution (which must be legally recognized), or a certificate of preliminary study for masters or doctorates is required. Finally, to test the will to return in cases of countries with strong irregular migratory pressure, there shall be in the interview a “risk assessment” in addition to the request for booking the return ticket. Therefore, in order to hinder irregular immigration, the Italian Multi-Annual Programme 2007-2013 External Borders Fund64 underlines the new approach taken by the diplomatic-consular network based on an easier access to information (procedures, costs and conditions) for the issuance of a Schengen visa and on a more scientific examination of passports and other required documentation, in close collaboration with the local and national services for immigration. In practice, the Member States Consulates implement a local consular cooperation, harmonizing the list of documents that is subsequently submitted to the European Commission for approval. As reported by the cited researches on the field, held by Zampagni65 and Infantino66, the “risk assessment” may appear discretionary, because it‟s based on the result of the interview, during which information is gathered about the reasons for travel, about previous experiences, about the contacts in Italy and the family at home. After payment of the 60 euro fee, the request is entered into the database of the VIS and the Consulate reserves the right to withhold the passport in order to avoid that the candidate submits a request in other EU diplomatic-consular representations. The Consulate, if it deems it appropriate to further examine the file, reserves the right of an additional interview with the applicants. To avoid the overstaying phenomenon, at the time of issuance, the Consulate may request the applicants to report at the Office when they return. In case of missed fulfilment, an alert can be launched to the Public Security Authority through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. To carry out its task, the diplomatic-consular network benefits of ad hoc training and it may be supported by the presence of specialists of the State Police, at higher risk seats, in verifying the authenticity of documents; it can make use of computer systems, as well as ad hoc studies on the progress of human trafficking and irregular flows, such as those produced at national level by the Anti-mafia Investigation Directorates DIA, or those produced by Frontex at European level. Generally, the consular representatives, while dealing with application with incomplete 64

www.interno.it/mininterno/export/sites/default/it/assets/files/16/0550_COMM_NATIVE_C_2008_7932_F_EN_ANN EXE1.pdf. 65 Zampagni Francesca, Cit. 66 Infantino Federica, Cit. 21

documentation, try to avoid the denial and advice to find the necessary documents. Once the visa application is accepted on the basis of the documentation produced by the applicant and the results of the interview, which is normally conducted directly and personally, the Diplomatic Mission carries out the statutory preliminary security checks. This involves line accessing the SIS (Schengen Information System) through the “world visa network”, to consult the list of aliens to be refused admission into the Schengen area. The terms for issuing a Schengen visa are listed in Article 23 of the Visa Code: 15 days, to be extended in individual cases up to 60 days. The terms for issuing national visas have been defined in art. 5, c. 8 of D.P.R. No 394 of 31.8.1999, (as amended by D.P.R. 334/2004), which states that the diplomatic-consular mission, “after ascertaining that the application can be entertained, and after conducting the necessary investigations in relation to the visa, including the preventive security checks, shall issue the visa within 90 days of the date of application” (30 days for paid employment, 120 days for self-employment). Pursuant to article 6(2) and (3) of Ministerial Decree 171 of 3 March 1997, these deadlines may be exceeded whenever it is necessary to carry out investigations or acquire information, documents and opinions from foreign authorities. An alien cannot be considered as having a “right” to a visa but rather a simple “legitimate interest”. In stating that the responsibility for issuing visas lies with the diplomatic and consular offices with territorial jurisdiction over the place of residence of the applicant, which is solely responsible for ascertaining that applicants are in possession of the requisites entitling them to obtain a visa, under the limits of its discretion and taking into account the particular local circumstances, art. 4, paragraph 2, of T.U. 286/1998, supplemented by recent legislative changes, states that “denials must be justified and communicated to the person in question in a language understandable to that person or, short of that, in English, French, Spanish or Arabic” as required by law implementation of EC Regulation No 810/2009 of 13 July 2009. Persons denied visas might lodge a claim with the T.A.R. of Lazio (Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale, that is the regional administrative court) within 60 days of receipt of notification of denial. In the case of visas denied for family reasons only eventual claims can be made to the authorised regular court. Eventual complaints must be notified directly to the Avvocatura di Stato (government legal service). Regarding family reunification, the consular offices may use the DNA testing and, eventually, the bone mineral density test to determine the minor age. In recent years, the IOM local missions have promoted voluntary DNA testing for applicants for family reunification, considered essential for example, if the applicant is a refugee and therefore he/she has no opportunity to have access to services in his/her country. Both tests are at the expense of the party concerned. c) Entry, stay and exit from national territory The entry of foreigners in the Italian territory from the external borders of the Schengen area is allowed only to aliens who: a) seek entry at a border crossing point; b) are in possession of a valid passport or equivalent recognized travel document permitting them to cross the border; c) are in possession of documents substantiating the purpose and the conditions of the planned visit and have sufficient means of support, both for the period of the planned visit and to return to their country of origin (or to travel in transit to a Third State); d) are in possession of a valid entry or transit visa; e) have not been identified as inadmissible by the Schengen Information System (SIS); f) are not considered to be a threat to public order, national security or the international relations of any of the Contracting Parties, under Italian law or the law of another Schengen State. The alien, who does not satisfy even one of these requirements and/or is unable to give comprehensive information about his/her accommodation stay in Italy, may be subject to refusal of entry, which can be implemented by the relevant border authorities even in the presence of valid 22

visa. The refusal of entry can also occur for reasons of security and public safety or if the authorities are acquainted with any fact, situation or condition that occurred after the issuance of an entry visa or not known at the time of its release. The refusal of entry is provided for in Article 10, paragraph 1, of Legislative Decree 286/1998 and reaffirmed the criteria and conditions for crossing the borders established by the Schengen Borders Code (Regulation EC No 562/2006). Furthermore, any cases of forged documents produced by foreign nationals for the purposes of obtaining an entry visa shall always be reported to the Italian judicial authorities by the diplomatic or consular mission (article 331 of the code of criminal procedure). This applies both to the forgery of Italian documents and documents of foreign origin that are in any way used in support of a visa application (article 5 paragraph 8bis of Legislative Decree 286/98). In the event that the diplomatic-consular authorities are acquainted with any fact, situation or condition that would have prevented the grant of an entry visa that has already been granted, they must issue a formal revocation measure. The visa cannot be extended or converted into another type, except in cases established in the Visa Code. In this regard, only a visa for medical treatment may, with the necessary supporting documentation, give rise to a temporary residence permit. In this case, the competent authority is the Central Police Station (Questura) issuing residence permits. The conditions of admission into Italian territory of third country nationals vary according to the length of stay. Therefore, pursuant to changes introduced by Law No 68 of 28th May 2007, foreigners who intend to stay in Italy for less than three months, for reason of study, visit, tourism and business, are exempt from the obligation to apply for a residence permit from 2nd June 2007, but they must simply report their presence on national territory, pursuant to the procedures established by the decree of the Ministry of Interior of 26 July 2007. The citizens from a third country willing to stay for more than 90 days, once regularly entered in Italy, must require, within eight working days, a residence permit to the Central Police Station (Questura) of the province in which they are staying. To this end, they will be subject to photo/fingerprint registration. Failure to follow these procedures by the foreigner determines the expulsion measures that will be implemented even when he/she has stayed in Italy over three months or beyond the period specified in the entry visa. The residence permit will be issued for the reasons and the duration of stay stated on the visa. The period may not exceed: a) one year, in relation to taking a course for study or duly certified training (however in case of multi-year courses a residence permit is renewable annually); b) specifically to the needs documented in other cases allowed. Foreigners requiring a stay permit for reasons such as adoption, requesting political asylum status, choice of residence, study (for more than 90 days), religious grounds, mission, vocational training internship, pending-employment or reacquisition of citizenship, family or work reasons must go to the post office which is operating the Sportello Amico (Friendly Desk), where it is possible to acquire and compile the necessary documentation that will be then transmitted to the competent Police Station. The Single Desk set up at the Prefectures is in charge of the release of residence permits for work and family purposes, whereas only Police headquarters are in charge of the following types of permits: statelessness, political asylum, health treatment, sport competition, justice, integration of a child, on humanitarian grounds, minor aged, and holiday work. The request for issuance and renewal of residence permit is conditioned on the payment of a fee between a minimum of 80 and a maximum of 200 euro. This amount is set by the Minister of Economy and Finance‟s Decree, in agreement with the Minister of the Interior that also establishes the payment methods, as well as the implementation methods67 . The current legislation does not include any exit control from the territory of third-country nationals whose visa has already expired. In case of doubts, at the time of the issuance, the 67

www.esteri.it/MAE/normative/Normativa_Consolare/Visti/D.LGS_N.286.1998_Testo_consolidato_anno_2011.pdf. 23

applicant may be requested to appear personally before the consulate issuing the visa. Regarding the possibility of effectively monitoring the overstaying, therefore, the only measure that can be carried out by the consular authority is to control previous visas, verifying any exit stamp placed on the passport after the expiry of the visa itself. This is, for example, the practice adopted at the diplomatic-consular representations of Rabat and Casablanca and it was pointed out by the researcher Federica Infantino in her study on the issue of Schengen visas within the Italian consular offices in Morocco 68. At the Embassy of Italy in Rabat, the visa issued to students of Italian language who need entry visa for a study sojourn in Italy is granted after drawing up of a contract signed by the applicant at the time of the interview. According to this contract, up to a week after their return to Morocco, the students will have to personally certify to the Embassy the actual return to the country of origin. This is not a proper practice of the consular activity nor foreseen by the legislature in force, and it is applied on a strictly discretionary basis by the staff assigned. It is precisely the relevant officials to assess the profile of the applicant and the possible risk of irregular migration. This is, therefore, a practice that has been standardized since the issuance of visas for study purposes and it is intended as a practical tool to combat the unauthorized migration. The same practice has been reported by Infantino at the Italian Consulate in Casablanca, where it was applied in the case of a father of Moroccan nationality who left for Italy with a tourist visa to spend a month with his daughter, in possession of valid residence permit. Again, at the time of the visa issuance, it was drawn up a special arrangement whereby the subscriber agreed to go before the Italian consulate once returned from the trip. As observed by the author of the study, the use of these “control” contracts is not established by any law but falls within the discretionary range of administrative practices. 3.2. Challenges and success factors for promoting regular migration and preventing irregular migration The first challenge tackled by our country is that of the conflict against the falsification and trafficking of visas. The first investigation on visas, involving Cuba, dates back to 1998 and many other followed in the subsequent years, involving respectively Algeria, Albania, Argentina, Byelorussia, Bulgaria, Croatia, Ethiopia, Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, Romania, Russia, Somalia, Turkey and Ukraine. The cooperation between the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and that of the Interior has permitted in many occasions to discover that many released visas were false with subsequent investigations in order to find the origins of the phenomenon and the suppression of the fraudulence. As an example, the latest cases were discovered in 2008 when the Roman judiciary performed an investigation on a number of visa transactions in Senegal, for the benefit of the local and other African citizens, involving also some parties already implicated in drug trafficking and money laundering. In the same year, at the Italian embassy in Montenegro, there was a suspect on visa trafficking in favor of 800 Kosovo Albanians. The year after it was Morocco‟s turn, where the traffickers, in order to have the visas released, were able to establish relations with the provincial labour offices and obtain or falsify company documents. In order to facilitate the regular migration, the second challenge involves efficiency and respect of the schedule required by the provisions. In addition to what required by the acknowledged provisions and by the EU Visa Code, the Italian government has above all enacted different strategies to facilitate the obtaining of the Entry Visa and to reduce the waiting time for the applicant, counting mainly on the cooperation with the consular seats of the other Member States and with the authorities of the Third Countries. Within the “local Schengen Cooperation”, as foreseen by the EU Visa Code to guarantee the functioning of the Consular services and the cooperation between the authorities of the Member States at central and local level, the diplomaticconsular representatives of the EU Countries present on the territory may exchange information and 68

http://champpenal.revues.org/7864#abstract-fr. 24

treat specifically operative matters related to the application of the common policy on Visas. The organization of periodic meetings between the mentioned representatives and the EU delegation of the interested jurisdiction is encouraged. The local representatives of the Member State that is holding the turn of EU presidency chair these meetings. The exchange of information may take into consideration both the bona fide travellers as well as the cases of mala fide applicants to whom the visa has been refused, and who - upon a discretionary basis – are included in a list that is parallel to the SIS. In order to optimize the functioning of the consular services, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has implemented a training course on line for the benefit of all the operators of the visa Offices at all the Embassies and Consulates. This course, called “Web based training”, is subdivided into 6 modules concerning: the general rules and the Schengen agreements; the types of visas (the Schengen ones, for short stays and the types of national visas released for tourism, work, family reunification, study, etc.); the requisites necessary in order to obtain a visa, handling of the applications; the characteristics of the visa Offices; a test at the end of the course. There are not, therefore, any paper booklets for the course since the visa information system represents a real vade mecum. The course is available to all the operators since the beginning of 2011 and, according to the intentions of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, it should accelerate the bureaucratic procedure for the release of the visas. Special outsourcing agreements have been made by local Consulates with specialized companies, such as VFS Global (Visa Facilitation Services) 69, in order to reduce the waiting time of the applicants and to simplify the administrative procedures for the release of the visa. VFS Global has been designated by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs as a specialized partner for diplomatic missions in Bangladesh, China, United Arab Emirates, Ghana, India, Morocco, Nigeria, United Kingdom, Russia, Sri Lanka and Ukraine. It is a Company that operates worldwide and that holds the almost entire monopoly of the services related to the procedures for the obtainment of Visas, not only for Italy but also for other Schengen countries such as Austria, Belgium, France, Germany and Spain. The power of decision regarding the outcome of the application remains however an exclusive competence of the consular seats who take care of verifying the cases and interviewing the candidates. A pilot experience of outsourcing is represented by the Italian Centre of Operative Assistance (CIAO - Centre Italien d‟Assistance Opérationnelle pour Visa et Légalisations) in Morocco that takes care of the visas and legalizations. This experience has brought to a profound reorganization of the methods of receiving the public in the visa and legalization sections, where the non-decisional functions were assigned to an outsourced company. This process has reduced, for example, the average waiting time for release of visas related to family reunification from 15 months to 1 week. This experience has also eliminated the pressure of illegal “intermediaries” that offered their services against payment bragging about inexistent contacts inside the Consulate, in order to reduce the long waiting time. To this extent, also the pilot experience of the visa sector at the Istanbul General Consulate of Italy is to be mentioned, having doubled the efficiency of the number of visas issued due to a major sense of responsibility of the operators and the assignment of new technologies. In April of 2011, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and ENIT – The National Agency for Tourism – has signed a cooperation agreement to reinforce the flow of foreign tourism towards Italy and to strengthen the opportunities for the Italian enterprises. The protocol renews the cooperation established in 2004 between the diplomatic-consular network and the foreign seats of ENIT and places such collaboration within with a coordination strategy tending to improve the Italian system. This is the perspective in which the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is committing itself in order to simplify the procedures for the issue of tourist visas, always in respect of the existing procedures on the matter. Among the main seats there are the embassies of Italy in Moscow, Peking and New 69

For an overview on the type of services offered by these specialized companies, you may consult VFS Global institutional website: www.vfsglobal.com/italian/Index.aspx. 25

Delhi; the General Consulates of Italy in Moscow, St. Petersburg, Canton, Shanghai and Mumbai70. Tourism is in fact considered as one of the most important sectors in the national economy. According to the pilot survey on international tourism conducted by the Bank of Italy, in 2009 72.540.000 foreign travellers entered the country, they spent 314.470.000 nights in hotels and spent 28 billion and 856 million of euro. Every day an average of 200.000 foreign citizens enter Italy, mainly for tourism. The most heavily transited borders are the road borders (66.8%) and airport (27.7%) followed by ports (3.3%) and train borders (2.2%). The major parts of these travellers are EU Citizens (50,823,000) and non-EU European citizens (15,627,000). From America 3,778,000 travellers have come, mainly United States citizens (2,515,000) and Canadians (549,000). From Africa the arrivals have been 367,000, from Asia 1,302 (of which 351,000 Japanese) and from Oceania 643,000 (mainly Australians: 556,000). According to the survey, most of the travellers (58,247,000) have come to Italy for personal reasons or for tourism, while one fifth (14,293,000) has started the trip for professional reasons; 28,931,000 persons have come to Italy only in transit, without staying overnight (a typical example is that of the border workers). This data allows the total movement reconstruction of the flows towards Italy, thus showing the importance of tourism as a fundamental economical resource of the country. The present economical crisis has brought the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to plan a large reorganization of the diplomatic-consular network (with closure of about 20 consular seats and the elimination of expenses related to the contractors operating therein). This strategy of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has given way to a large parliamentary debate animated on the one part by the Unions of the diplomatic-consular personnel (SNDMAE) and, on the other part, by the heated opposition of a group of members of parliament driven by the representatives of Italians abroad. In particular, this debate has brought forth the opinion that, before proceeding in the struggle of rationalization, it is more important to resolve the present serious lack of management of the diplomatic-consular network. The new service “M@E Cloud” for the Italian diplomatic-consular network (embassies, consulates, cultural institutes, etc.) goes in this direction for the creation of an information system capable of sharing the available resources of 325 international seats of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The system, officially presented in July of 2011, will be fully operative in the range of 24 months; it will increase the administrative efficiency of the diplomatic-consular service and will bring to a drastic reduction of expenses.

70

www.informazione-web.com/2011/04/turismo-estero-accordo-ministero-degli-esteri-enit/. 26

4. CO-OPERATION WITH THIRD COUNTRIES: CASE STUDIES

4.1. The Albanian Case: From Emergency to Good Practice Reasons for the choice of this Case Study Although at least one million Albanians, out of a total population of just over 3 million, have already moved abroad (mainly to Greece and Italy), there are still clear signs of a high migration potential – at least in the short term. Nearly two decades of political and economic transition have not yet produced the expected results in terms of development. As expected, the young age of the population, the current level of unemployment and the knowledge of a foreign language increase the desire to migrate, whereas the level of education plays a contradictory role, depending on the possible destination country as well as the willingness to accept precarious or less attractive employment. This study focuses on current Albanian migration trends, which began after the collapse of the communist regime and made Italy become one of Albania‟s main political and economic partners as well as a natural destination for migrants – like the neighboring Greece. The settlement of Albanians in Italy was marked by a significant percentage of irregular flows and by a series of problems, partly due to the reactions of Italians, who were afraid that their country could become an outlet for immigration, and for a long time stigmatized these newcomers as a “rogue community”. In light of the historical evolution that has characterized the Albanian community in Italy, it is justified to believe that the significant irregular flows of the recent past should be reconnected to a certain rise of criminal charges, not only because the majority of these charges concerned the noncompliance with the immigration laws, but also because people without residence permits have been more easily blackmailed by criminal organizations. The same trend can be seen with regard to data on irregularities. At the turn of the „90s and the early 2000‟s the Albanians accounted for 20-30% of rejections at the border, with a higher migration pressure than from Romania and Morocco. After the end of the mass migration period, labor traffickers on that route have been carefully controlled and authorized ways of entry have been strengthened. For all these reasons, a new and more satisfactory scenario emerged. From the landings of the early '90s, when Italy was afraid of being overrun by desperate people fleeing disastrous conditions, now a state of normalcy in the workplace and in society has been reached. After reaching half a million units, Albanians have began to be considered “normal” and to be appreciated both in the world of work and social life71, whereas the role of scapegoat has been attributed to other communities, such as the Romanians. The media themselves, which had contributed to the birth of what Anglo-Saxon scholars defined a true “albanophobia”, now proclaim the “end of hostilities”. The Corriere della Sera of October 5, 2008 (pp. 12-13) headlined: “The new Albanians of Italy: Now they no longer scare us”; the Sole 24 Ore also headlined “Albanians‟ successful steps from landings to entrepreneurship” (December 22, 2008, p. 18) and La Repubblica of September 2nd 2008, headlined “Albanians defeated prejudices”. Due to the emergency character of the flows occurred in the „90s and the establishment of good practices of bilateral cooperation over the years – especially in light of the recent abolition of visa requirement for periods shorter than three months – the case of the Albanians in Italy represents a particularly interesting study case for European policy makers. The analysis of the Albanian migration is supported by a rich bibliography. Since the ‟90s the Albanian migration, which in its first stage consisted in emergency landings on the Apulian coast, has been considered by scholars a paradigmatic study case, similar to the migration of Mexicans to the United States (albeit for completely different aspects). During the last 20 years, Italian, Anglo-Saxon and Albanian scholars have worked together to analyze its various aspects. 71

King Russell, Mai Nicola, Out of Albania: from crisis migration to social inclusion in Italy, Berghahn Books, New York, 2008. 27

The CESPI Study Center (Chaloff, Shepherd, Piperno) was among the main protagonists of this work, together with Caritas (Pittau and, then, also Ricci) and the University of Sussex (King, Mai, Vullnetari). The Italian universities also work hard to re-evaluate Albania thanks to the expertise of the best demographers (Bonifazi, Di Comite, etc.), sociologists (from Italy: Dal Lago, Perrone, Pugliese, Ravera, etc.; from Albania: Barjaba, Devole, Vehbiu, etc.), historians (Biagini, Morozzo, Della Rocca, etc.), political scientists (Del Re, Silj, etc.) and many others. A major step occurred in 2002 72 , when the IOM Rome conducted a wide survey of work integration in Italy with the coordination of Ugo Melchionda and the involvement of the most important researchers, who at the time had been working on the “Albanian issue”. Currently, the most comprehensive monograph about this subject is Gli albanesi in Italia. Conseguenze economiche e sociali dell’immigrazione, edited in 2008 by the IDOS Study and Research Center as part of a project of Interreg-Cards 20042006, in collaboration with the University of Bari and the University of Tirana73. Various Phases of the Albanian Migration to Italy a) Historical roots and arbëreshë communities. Emigration abroad is part of the traditions of the Albanian people. During the Ottoman rule, for example, there was a long tradition of temporary and seasonal migration. The Ottoman invasion and the forced Islamization of the country in the fifteenth century brought about 200,000 Albanian Catholics (one quarter of the population at the time) to move to Southern Italy; their arrival, however, was historically anticipated by flows for economic reasons74, a fact that is often overlooked by the experts. Even after its independence, in 1912, Albania experienced widespread poverty and consistent migration flows (150,000 people, over one-tenth of the total population of the time), which were recorded not only towards neighboring countries (the present Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro, Kosovo, Croatia) but also towards other European countries (mostly Switzerland) and overseas (United States and Australia). In more recent years, after World War II, 150,000 Albanians emigrated to Kosovo (from where many migrants would return during the crisis of 1997), so that in Yugoslavia, at the 1981 census, 1.7 million residing citizens turned out to be Albanian. This tradition was interrupted with the birth of the communist state in 1944, which would last until 1990 and would prohibit emigration: the borders were tightly closed and the escape of some of the most important opposition leaders constituted an exception. Usually, in fact, during the communist period, emigration was punished with long imprisonment and even death. Furthermore, internal migration was also prohibited, with particularly negative consequences in a mountainous and predominantly rural country. Among the communist regimes, that of Enver Hoxha was one of the toughest in Europe and brought the country to a complete isolation75. b) 1991, the emergency year. The Albanian regime collapsed a year after the fall of the Berlin Wall (1989) and the subsequent economic and political crisis caused the strong tendency to mass migration - even by the hungry people coming from the countryside, who accounted for 70% of the population. The passport liberalization (1990) favored the first emergency flows: in the summer of that year, about 5,000 Albanians flooded various Western embassies (the Italian one recorded 800 requests). 72

International Organization for Migration (IOM), edited by Melchionda Ugo, Gli albanesi in Italia. Inserimento lavorativo e sociale, Franco Angeli, Milan, 2003 73 Devole Rando, Pittau Franco, Ricci Antonio, Urso Giuliana, Gli albanesi in Italia. Conseguenze economiche e sociali dell’immigrazione, Idos, Rome 2008 74 For an excellent summary of the arbëreshë issues, see the recent publication by Gabriele Morettini (Una riflessione sulla nascita delle comunità arbëreshë, in Moretti Eros (edited by) Lungo le sponde dell'Adriatico. Franco Angeli, Milan, 2008, pp. 19-43). 75 For an historic point of view, which is indispensable to understand the complex relations between Italy and Albania, the main reference book is: Biagini Antonello, Storia della Albania contemporanea, Bompiani - RCS, Milan, 2006. 28

In 1991, two other mass migrations towards Italy took place: the 25,000 people arrived in March were welcomed, in contrast to the following 20,000 who arrived on makeshift rafts in August, when the welcoming attitude had turned into mistrust. In March, although few Albanians fell into the category of political refugees, the government made an exception to the “Martelli Law” (39/1990) and, on the basis of old public order laws, granted them a temporary residence permit with the opportunity to register at the Employment Agency. All of this occurred in a climate of strong emotional participation by the institutions and the public. In August, instead, the newcomers from Albania were forcedly returned by air, after being locked up in the stadium in Bari. The welcoming attitude of the first phase had turned into hostility towards the new immigrants, who were considered invaders. Even in the years to follow, poor economic conditions and the difficult process of liberalization and democratization of the Albanian system were a driving factor for the Albanian exodus, mostly made on board of inflatable boats (a very lucrative business controlled by immigrant traffickers). Driven from despair, people who migrated during these years were either unskilled as well as highly qualified workers. In the meantime, while Albania continued its troubled path towards political and social reforms, the public, through television images of the rich and emancipated Italy, experienced a process of “anticipatory socialization”, and the Italian distance learning was considered a passport for entry into Europe76. c) 1997: the collapse of the Pyramids Schemes. In 1997 the crisis of the pyramid schemes (similar to the Ponzi schemes) led this situation to a dramatic setback. These companies, even if structured as pyramids (with just one person in charge), were funded by a large number of investors, who were enticed by stellar interest rates of almost 40%; of course such a rate could be honored only for a short time. The collapse of these pyramid schemes, in fact, was inevitable, and involved a serious political crisis, which caused an increase in migration. According to a survey conducted in 1997 in Apulia77, 77% of the Albanians interviewed believed that the Albanian crisis which led to the mass exodus was not only caused by economic problems, but mostly by security issues: after the crisis of the “pyramids”, in fact, the country became extremely unsafe, while the government was unable to restore law and order. In Italy, once the initial satisfaction with the fact that the Albanians were free from the yoke of communism had vanished, impatience was mounting. The Albanians were considered uncomfortable competitors, weighing on the labor market and welfare, as their arrival had not fallen within the yearly planning of entry flows. A marked change of heart towards immigrants was therefore recorded. In the ‟80s, as demonstrated by the unanimous approval of the first immigration law (Law 943/1986), the common attitude towards the newcomers (at that time not too large) was quite positive. In the years following the “Martelli Law” (Law 39/1990), instead, after the rise of two opposing political blocs, immigration became a topic for discussion and was considered an emergency: the government coped with the crisis by issuing law decrees (1990 and 1995). At the time there was a scarce awareness of the need for far larger flows than those planned, therefore most of these new immigrants, particularly Albanians, were irregular. A multinational force (joined by Italy with the Alba mission) was created to operate in Albania, and the Greek army was called to carry out the functions of border police. In Italy, however, the attitude towards the newcomers was different from that of 1991: there was a great

76

Barjaba Kosta, Georges Lapassade, Luigi Perrone, Naufragi albanesi. Studi, riflessioni e ricerche sull’Albania, Sensibili alle foglie, Rome, 1996. 77 United Nations Development Programme, Albanian Human Development Report 1998, New York, 1998. 29

coldness towards them and, according to researchers78, it was a result of the media‟s influence. In the meanwhile, in fact, the media had been constantly associating a series of crimes (drugs, prostitution, public order, etc.) with the Albanians, making them the least welcomed immigrants in Italy– even more than the Roma, who had usually been at the top of the intolerance ranking. d) The War in Kosovo (1999). In such a sorely tried country, the Kosovo war (March 1999) and the subsequent conflict in Macedonia drained other resources and fueled a third wave of migration. During this period, Albania welcomed half a million refugees (mostly members of the Albanian ethnic group) who intended to reach Western countries by sea. They were joined by many local Albanians, also interested to emigrate: many of them were helped by labor traffickers in order to accomplish their migration project. Now as before, the Italian television – which was easily visible from Albania – dangled the idea that at a short distance Albanians could escape from their misery79. The Turco-Napolitano Law (40/1998) had planned the management of migration flows by means of bilateral agreements with countries of origin (the readmission agreement with Albania was signed in 1997) and had provided for the allocation of priority entry quotas for work reasons to those countries. Moreover, for the first time the Italian government had included a policy of integration in the law, with several provisions for social support. Both migrants arriving from Kosovo for humanitarian reasons as well as the other Albanian migrants began to benefit from this new social climate, which was preparatory to the period of normality started in the 2000s, when regular migration at last took the place of the irregular one. From a demographic standpoint, at the turn of the new century the migration flows had severely affected Albania: its population, which amounted to 1,1 million in 1945, 2,6 million in 1989 and 3,2 million in 1989, had fallen to 3 million in 2001. An estimated 1,1 million Albanians migrated during the „90s, mostly to Greece and Italy, with serious effects on the Northeastern and the deep Southern regions of Albania, as well as a significant brain drain from all over the country (an estimated third of all the intellectuals80). e) Stabilization of the Albanian migration during the 2000s. In the years 2000s, the Albanian migration to Italy continued quite regularly, without the peaks and the precariousness of the past; Albanians‟ settlement in Italy, which was also favored by family reunifications, was definitely on the road to normality, and this caused a more favorable attitude on the part of the population. Even at this stage, Italy and Greece remained the favorite destinations, but highly qualified migrants still preferred Canada and United States or, within Europe, France, Germany and United Kingdom. The settlement of Albanians affected the whole national territory, albeit with a preponderance (two-thirds of these immigrants) in the Northern regions, especially in the North West. The regularization measures of 2002 and 2009, as well as the yearly quotas, let irregular workers legalize their stay, and were also useful for the emergence of irregular immigrants. At present, a stable and family-oriented settlement is testified to by several indicators: for instance, the achievement of a balance between males and females (also as a result of family reunifications), the prevalence of young married couples and a high presence of minors, an increasing number of whom are of second-generation.

78

Vehbiu Ardian, Devole Rando, La scoperta dell'Albania. Gli albanesi secondo i mass media, Edizioni Paoline, Turin, 1996. 79 King Russell, Mai Nicola, Of myths and mirrors: interpretations of Albanian migration to Italy, in “Studi Emigrazione”, n. 145, 2002, pp. 161-199. 80 Horvat Vedran, Brain drain. Threat to successful transition in South-East Europe?, in “South East European Politics”, no. 1, May 2004, pp. 76-93. 30

The Albanian community, which is now the second biggest in Italy (even bigger than Moroccans, and second only to Romanians), accounts for about half a million people (482,627). Between 2002 and 2010, Albanians residing in Italy increased less (+122.8%) than immigrants taken as a whole (+195%); this difference, which was already evident at the beginning of the period, can be detected in each of the years taken into account, albeit at various levels. The geographical proximity and a greater ease of movement made the economic, social and cultural relations much easier; moreover, the creation of social networks facilitated the adaptation to the new country, while preserving the links with the country of origin. With regard to criminal activities, only by distinguishing between crime and organized crime, the assessment becomes much more equitable. In the period 2005-2008, complaints against all foreigners increased by 19.9%. Some communities ranked below this average value, and this was the case of the Albanians, whose increase in complaints was equal to 17.4% (from 17,561 in 2005 to 19,027 in 2006, 19,006 in 2007 and 20,609 in 2008). Even without considering that criminal charges may regard non-residing foreigners as well, it must be mentioned that out of the total complaints filed in 2008 the incidence of criminal charges against Albanians residing in Italy (6.5%) was lower than that against all residing foreigners (11.3%): such a difference of 4.8% in their favor deserves special mention. The virtuous trend of Albania is also shown by another figure. In 2005, the Albanians accounted for 7.1% of the total complaints filed against foreigners, whereas this percentage decreased in the subsequent years (6.9% in 2006, 6.3% in 2007 and 6.9% in 2008). ITALY. Albanians residing in Italy (2002-2010) 2002 2003 1,549,373 1,990,159 Tot. Immigrants 28.4 Variation % 216,582 270,383 Albanians 19.9 Variation % 2007 2008 3,432,651 3,891,295 Tot. Immigrants 16.8 13.4 Variation% 401,949 441,396 Albanians 6.5 8.9 Variation % SOURCE: EMN Italy. Elaboration from Istat data

2004 2,402,157 20.7 316,659 14.6 2009 4,235,059 8.8 466,684 5.7

2005 2,670,514 11.2 348,813 9.2 2010 4,570,317 7.9 482,627 3.4

2006 2,938,922 10.1 375,947 7.2 2002-2010 195.0 122.8

Agreements on migration and bilateral relations Today, Albania is institutionally stable and its economy grows at the same rate as an emerging country. A fundamental step in the process of institutional reconstruction was the enactment of the new democratic Constitution (the last one among the former communist European countries), which was written in collaboration with the European Community and was approved by plebiscite on November 22, 1998. This new Constitution changed Albania into a parliamentary Republic, founded on the principles of separation of powers, pluralism, religious freedom (Article 24) and protection of minorities (Art. 18). Furthermore, the 1998 Constitution explicitly restored the right of movement both within and outside the country, and provided for explicit protection of migrants (Art. 8 and 38). In the following years these institutional, administrative and legal reforms allowed Albania to successfully get closer to Western standards, on the basis of a bipartisan political platform (although there are worrying delays in the fight against corruption). The Stability Pact first, and the signing of the Stabilization and Association Agreement (June 12, 2006) later, have further contributed to the creation of the necessary conditions for the success of the institution building process. The economic performance benefited from these achievements, registering a GDP growth which has consistently remained above 6% over the last decade and decreased to around 3% during the year of crisis 2009 (although still remaining one of the best rates in Europe). Exports, however, are still very low, and agriculture – which could have interesting growth potentials – is unable to get 31

out of stagnation, due to a lack of the necessary investments for the modernization of the sector. The underground economy, however, reaches extremely high levels. The income per capita (4,000 dollars per year) and the high level of unemployment (12.8%) still make Albania one of the poorest countries in Europe: it is heavily dependent on the contribution of remittances from Italy and Greece, whose progressive reduction raises many concerns. Remittances, which in 2005 accounted for 14.5% of GDP, in 2008 fell to 10.6%, seem look set to fall further, due to a twofold effect: the progressive stabilization of Albanian citizens abroad, and the impact of the economic crisis on the European labor market. Albania‟s future is closely linked to migration, but there‟s a widespread awareness that this cannot depend solely on the volume of remittances. Policy makers are more and more attentive to valorize migration, making it the actual driving force for the development of the country, while maximizing its economic returns, as well as encouraging the physical return of migrants. In order to permanently link immigration and development with a strategy to develop a strong migration policy, on November 19, 2004, the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Albania approved a “National Strategy for Migration” (elaborated by the IOM of Tirana, under the CARDS project co-funded by the EU) and a subsequent action plan for its implementation. The action plan intends to pursue the fight against irregular migration by addressing its root causes, organizing a proper migration policy and promoting projects aimed at transforming the returns into opportunities for development. The objective of development is also addressed by focusing on the benefits that could derive from the diaspora abroad, through the promotion of the image of Albania and the protection of the rights of Albanian workers abroad. This plan also proposes to strongly tie together remittances and economic investment. This plan is quite innovative with regard to the promotion of effective measures of circular migration, returns and brain gain. The Albanian government is committed to solve the issue of returns, which is still on the agenda, by creating new legislative and fiscal measures for this purpose, for the large number of circular migrants who left Albania during the first years of the crisis and could soon return to their country (the IOM has estimated that the average duration of emigration is 16.9 years for Albanians who migrated to Greece and 18 for Albanians who migrated to Italy). After half a century of Socialism in Albania, cooperation at a bilateral level resumed during a very delicate moment in the history the “Country of Eagles”. In 1997, in fact, the country was near to dissolve due to the collapse of the pyramid schemes, but it benefited from a multinational peace mission, known as “Operation Alba”, which was promoted and led by Italy (together with France, Turkey, Greece, Spain, Romania, Austria and Denmark). After a few months, once the military mission was completed, a memorandum of understanding was signed in September between the Ministers of Interiors of the two countries, with regards to advice and assistance aimed at the reorganization of the Albanian Police forces, involving the establishment of an Italian liaison office in Albania and possibly the presence of Albanian liaison officers in Italy. This agreement has been renewed and improved over the course of the years. Since 1997, an “Italian delegation of experts”, consisting of 27 among officers and noncommissioned officers, is actively operating in Albania with the purpose to cooperate with the Albanian Armed Forces to achieve the standards required by NATO (joined by Albania, at last, in 2009). The improvement of Albanian operational capabilities allowed the gradual withdrawal of the Italian military presence in the country, and the withdrawal of the 28th Naval Squadron based in Vlora, which operated in anti-trafficking operations between the two shores of the Adriatic. A maritime Border Group, consisting of 32 personnel and 3 naval units, is also based in Durres, and provides assistance, consultancy and training (including training on job) to local Maritime Border Police, and cooperates in controlling migration flows81. 81

Guardia di Finanza, Annual Report 2010, Rome, 2011. See: www.gdf.gov.it/GdF/it/Documenti_e_pubblicazioni/ Pubblicazioni/Le_pubblicazioni_dell_Ente_Editoriale/Il_Rapporto_Annuale/info-614484291.html. 32

Since 1991, thanks to the Official Development Assistance programs (ODA) and the humanitarian activities of many non-governmental organizations (which are still operational in the country 82 ), the cooperation with Italy has been extremely important for Albania. In 2009, for example, Albania was the fourth country to receive Italian‟s ODA, for a total value of 24,6 million euro. Moreover, in 2010 the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in order to speed up the accession of Albania to the European Union, signed a triennial Memorandum of Understanding to Development, which covers a wide range of sectors, like agriculture, energy, health, institutional building as well as the support to the private sector (Small and Medium-sized Enterprises, or SMEs). In particular, in order to improve the economic development and to re-establish the conditions of stability in the country, a new debt conversion program has been implemented (the first one ever signed by Albania with a foreign country). With specific regards to the control and management of the migration flows, the collaboration between Italy and Albania has started during the first landings of Albanians on the shores of Apulia (in 1991 and then 1997). In 1997, in order to prevent illegal immigration, Italy and Albania signed an agreement on readmission, which has been used since then on as a basis for future bilateral immigration policies. Since the agreement came into force, in fact, Italy has started a policy of incentives, ensuring reserved entry quotas for Albanian workers. During the course of the years, new tools have improved the bilateral cooperation on migration flows, like local training initiatives created to promote the integration of Albanians in the annual quotas. These initiatives, which prepare the worker from a professional point of view, as well as for his social integration in Italy, are governed by a provision contained in the Consolidated Act on immigration (Art. 23 concerning the “rights of preemption" of the TU 286/1998). In this context, in 2009 a new training course for dry set masonry (which had an attendance of 20) was created. Cooperation83 has been completed by: - awareness campaigns on the consequences of irregular migration through close collaboration with the Albanian media and the launch of a series of radio and TV programs aimed at preventing irregular migration; - assisted voluntary return projects and assistance programs for the reintegration of migrants returning either voluntarily or forcibly; - family investigations (the so-called “family tracing”), and assisted voluntary return for unaccompanied minors; - mechanisms for facilitating family reunification, through the collaboration between IOM Tirana and the Italian Embassy in gathering objective and reliable information. On July 19, 2011, Italy and Albania signed a bilateral agreement on migration for work reasons, which strengthens and develops the previous bilateral agreement signed in 2008. This new agreement introduces significant innovations: firstly, it aims at dealing with the strong economic and social impact of the Albanian migration through mechanisms of circular migration, and secondly it addresses the migration phenomenon with language training and professional qualification programs, as well as with specific selection criteria for the Albanian workers who wish to emigrate. A further innovation consists in the establishment (under the aegis of the Italian Embassy in Tirana) of a Local Coordination Office of the Ministry of Labor, which supports the selection and recruitment process of Albanian workers as well as cooperative training projects, by promoting networks of companies and other Italian operators responsible for the match between labor demand and supply84. 82

For further information: www.italcoopalbania.org. www.belgium.iom.int/STOPConference/Conference%20Papers/22.%20Italian%20Paper%20%20Italian%20version.pdf. 84 Press release of the Ministry of Labour and Social Policies, July 19th 2011. www.lavoro.gov.it/Lavoro/AreaStampa/comunicati/2011_07_19_1.htm; www.italcoopalbania.org/borsedistudio.php?l=i. 83

33

ALBANIA. Policy Guideline Themes in the National Strategy on Migration Addressing root causes of A Combating irregular migration migration Promoting and handling Return of Albanian nationals to Albania from EU returns Member States Return of third-country nationals to Albania from EU Member States Return of third-country nationals to third Countries from Albania Linking emigration of Benefiting from Supporting Albanian emigrants by: B Albanians and Albanians residing abroad - improving the image of Albanian emigrants development of Albania abroad - improving Albanian diplomatic and consular services - protecting the rights of Albanian emigrants Stirring up the Albanian communities abroad Driving remittances to investment into business Organizing an adequate Management of circular migration, through: migration policy - access to information on emigration possibilities - registration of migrants - bilateral labor agreements as tool for circular migration - Albanian students in the EU Member States - Visa policy From brain drain to brain circulation Elaboration of an appropriate legal framework for emigration and immigration C D Institutional framework and means for migration policy, specifically the implementation of the NSM “National Strategy on Migration” SOURCE: Chaloff J., Albania and Italy. Migration policies and their development relevance, Cespi, Rome, 2008.

Analysis of statistical data Visas. During the decade 2001-2010 the amount of national visas issued to Albanian citizens dramatically decreased (from 23,125 to 15,417), whereas the total number of visas (45,470 in 2001), after a temporary decline below the 40,000 (in 2002 and 2003), raised again to 40,000 units (in 2004), 60,000 (in 2007 and 2008), and then declined again to 55,000 in 2009 and 41,000 in 2010. In 2001, the national visas accounted for 50.9% of the total visas granted to the Albanians (45,470), while the visas granted to the Albanians accounted for 4.8% of the total visas issued by the Italian diplomatic representations all over the world. In 2010, long-term visas requested by the Albanians substantially decreased, accounting for only 37.6% of the total number of visas granted to Albanian citizens (40,993); out of the total number of visas issued in Italy (1,543,408), the visas granted to Albanian citizens accounted for 2.7%. While still remaining one of the most significant foreign communities in Italy, the impact of the Albanians on flows of permanent migration has undoubtedly decreased. With regard to shortterm visas, their number remained similar to that of the early 2000s, although their percentage over the total amount of visas issued in Italy has decreased, due to a vast increase of immigration from other countries. The first figure about Visa denials (12,851) regards the year 2003; compared to the sum of visas granted and not granted (39,496 + 12,851), the percentage of denials for the Albanians was 24.5%, while for the rest of the world it was 14.8% (874,874 visas granted and 152,460 denied). This shows that the pressure on the borders was more than twice as much as the average, although this was not justified by the measures of the law.

34

By comparing these numbers with those of 2010, the visa denial rate for Albanians is equal to 7.5% (40,993 visas granted and 3,094 denied). The denial rate for the rest of the world was 3.9% (1,543,408 visas granted and 62,401 denied). However, we can calculate the denial rate (although indirectly) by analyzing the data coming from the three diplomatic offices operating in Albania (Tirana, Shkoder and Vlore).

In 2010, the Italian Embassy in Tirana received 27,613 visa requests (-25.8% compared to 2009), of which 25,214 were granted (8,533 national and 16,663 Schengen visas, to which we should include the short-term ones) and 2,399 were denied. The denial rate, therefore, was 9.5%, three times as much as the average of denials for all the other countries of the world. A similar analysis can be conducted on the data coming from the Italian Consulate in Shkoder: 8,281 visa requests submitted, 7,586 visas granted (of which 3,557 were national ones) and 695 denied. The denial rate is slightly lower, at 8.4%. Whereas in Vlore (10,352 applications submitted, 8,193 visas granted - of which 3.327 national visas - and 2,159 rejections) the denial rate has an extremely high incidence (20.9%). These are the main reasons for the 15,417 national visas issued in 2010 by the diplomatic offices in Albania: Employment: 4,882 (vs 6,209 in 2009 and 8,113 in 2008); Family reunification: 9,047 (vs 11,953 in 2009 and 20,371 in 2008); Accompanying family member: 164 (vs 196 in 2008 and 422 in 2009); Study: 514 (vs 705 in 2009 and 761 in 2008). These data should be commensurate with the harsh impact of the crisis for both countries.

35

Residence Permits. In 2001, residence permits granted to Albanian citizens (over 14 years of age, because those under this age are registered in their parents‟ permits) amounted to 157,646, of which 57.7% for work reasons, 35.1% for family reasons and 9.2% for other reasons. The total number of permits in force during the same year (1,448,392) shows a similar proportion for work reasons (58.1%), a slightly less percentage for family reasons (29.1%) and a higher percentage for other reasons (12.8%). In 2001, the Albanians accounted for 10.8% of total residing foreigners (including EU citizens, for whom only since 2007 the declaration of residence substituted the residence permit). During the decade, their number and their impact on the total number of residing foreigners has changed as follows: 171,567 in 2002 (incidence of 11.4%), 240,421 in 2003 (10.8%), 251,240 in 2004 (11.1 %), 256,916 in 2005 (11.2%), 282,650 in 2006 (11.7%), 466,534 in 2007 (15.5%), 448,447 in 2008 (14.8%), 522,851 in 2009 (14.6 %) and 483,705 in 2010 (13.7%). Regularizations. The large regularization of 2002 has contributed significantly to the regularization of the Albanian workers; during such regularization, there were few applications by Albanians in the field of family and elderly care, for which they have never shown a particular inclination (11,607 applications of a total of 343,143, with an incidence of just 3.4%), while more Albanians applied for regularization for employment (43,431 applications out of 360,970). Out of the total requests for regularizations (704,113), those submitted by Albanians were 55,038, equal to 7.8%. In 2009 the Albanians who applied for regularization were 11,147, instead, equal to 3.8% of the total number of requests for regularization (294,744). Such little involvement is not surprising, because Albania is not a populous country (only 3 million inhabitants); moreover, Albania consistently fueled the irregular immigration flows of the whole ‟90s, and subsequently counted on regular entry quotas and family reunifications in order to enter the territory.

36

Refusals and rejections. The Albanians, who initially were among the first recipients of the fight against irregular migration, have experienced a highly positive trend which has reduced their incidence with regard to refusals and rejections. In 2001 the Albanians represented 38.6% (11,693 cases) of the 30,287 refusals carried out, whereas in 2010 their incidence decreased to 13.6% (575 cases) of the 4,215 refusals. Such decrease continued uninterruptedly over the decade, to the point that the refusals of Albanians carried out in 2010 are just 4.9% of those occurred in 2001. During this decade, refusals in general decreased, but not so evidently. In order to better understand the main reasons for refusals, an analysis of the 2010 data is preferable. 60% of refusals is caused by a police report (although only 10 were due to the evaluation of a threat to the public order, which is a similar, but different reason). Over a three year period, refusals related to this reason have more than tripled. The second most common reason (16.5% of cases) is the lack of a visa or a residence permit (about 100 cases in 3 years). The third reason (unjustified purposes and conditions of the stay) has had a fluctuating trend, with 70 cases. The fourth most common reason, related to refusals for lack of means of subsistence, accounts for only 4.3% of cases (25 in total). Apprehensions of migrants in irregular conditions. Albanians intercepted in irregular conditions were 13,431 in 2001, but decreased to 2,820 in 2010 (-70%); in the overall context, there has been a decrease in the total number of irregular immigrants intercepted, which amounted to 90,160 in 2001 and 46,955 in 2010 (-47.9%)

37

Conclusions In light of the above mentioned factors, despite some signs of stabilization and the improving conditions for integration, the Albanian emigration phenomenon confirms its characteristics ,which were theorized about, a few years ago, both by Kosta Barjaba and Russel King: 1) it is still recent and intense; 2) it is dynamic and rapidly changing; 3) it is largely driven by economic causes, and 4) it is characterized by a high degree of irregularity85. In consideration of the continuing flows, various privileged witnesses raise alert over the effects of the brain drain. As underlined by Fatmir Memaj, vice-director of the Public University of Tirana: “Conceptually, the flows of human capital can be compared with the brain drain: “Just like the capital, which moves towards productive realities where the expected return on investments is higher, highly skilled individuals move to local contexts where they can find more opportunities for their professional fulfillment. A country that is experiencing a brain drain process loses its investment in higher education and in the individual's own social capital”86. The Albanian sociologist and official of the Ministry of Labour Kosta Barjaba examines the most recent flows, which are constituted of many young Albanians studying abroad: “As regards the flows of students, a series of information and data highlight that thousands of young people study at the Italian universities. The Albanian labor market would benefit from the degrees of young Albanians studying in Italy and from their return, if such investment in human capital would come back as an investment for the development of the Albanian economy and culture within the various aspects of the social and economic environment. If the students obtaining a degree in Italy do not return to their country, if they do not work in the sectors they studied for, then this is a loss”87. 85

Barjaba Kosta, King Russell, Introducing and theorising Albanian migration, in King Russell, Mai Nicola, Schwandner-Sievers Stephanie (eds), The new Albanian migration, Sussex Academic Press, Brighton, 2005. 86 Devole Rando, Pittau Franco, Ricci Antonio, Urso Giuliana, Gli albanesi in Italia. Conseguenze economiche e sociali dell’immigrazione, Idos, Rome 2008, p. 101. 87 Devole Rando, Pittau Franco, Ricci Antonio, Urso Giuliana, Cit., p. 98. 38

From the point of view of countries of origin, even the best intentions of governments, however, do not seem to be supported by the availability of sufficient funds and the projects for return and circular migration are not always based on the "triple win" concept (i.e. the coinciding interests of the countries of origin and destination, together with that of the specific migrant). As the Albanian sociologist Rando Devole said: “The enemies of circular migration are numerous, starting from those who emphasize it too much, who want to make circular migration pass as a panacea of all the problems of the migration phenomenon, giving it an improper value. There is no doubt that this kind of migration has been blown up more than due; there is even a certain mythicization by those who have already over-used the rhetorical expression “let us help them in their homeland”. Another enemy is represented by a confusing knowledge of the migration phenomenon, which does not coincide with the (albeit important) concept of circularity alone. The concept of circularity, obviously misinterpreted, relieves the anxiety of those who would like to see the migrants in the fields and in the factories, but not in the streets and in the schools; in short, they would like to see workforce but not people”88.

88

Devole Rando, Le migrazioni circolari, May 19th 2010, in www.balcanicaucaso.org/ita/aree/Albania/Le-migrazionicircolari. 39

ITALY. Visas for consular post: Albania and total consular posts (2001-2010) Albania 2001 23,125 N.V. granted Total Visas granted 45,470 N/A Rejections N/A Applications Total 2001 186,167 N.V. granted Total Visas granted 947,085 N/A Rejections N/A Applications

2002 N/A 33,070 N/A N/A 2002 153,830 852,347 N/A N/A

2003 18,708 39,496 12,851 52,347 2003 178,521 874,874 152,460 1,027,334

2004 21,142 44,635 42,276 63,414 2004 196,825 983,499 171,059 1,154,558

2005 23,530 42,228 N/A N/A 2005 172,390 1,076,680 N/A N/A

2006 20,864 42,320 N/A N/A 2006 161,636 1,198,167 N/A N/A

2007 37,415 67,214 N/A N/A 2007 254,854 1,519,816 N/A N/A

2008 30,614 64,030 N/A N/A 2008 190,197 1,563,567 N/A N/A

2009 21,541 54,497 6,641 48,444 2009 155,286 1,401,706 71,680 1,471,173

2010 15,417 40,993 3,094 35,894 2010 191,168 1,543,408 62,401 1,605,809

NB. From 2003 to 2010, along with type D Visas, the so-called D+C Visas have been included in the category of National Visas. These have been abolished after the entry into force of the Visa Code (5 th April 2010). SOURCE: EMN Italy. Elaboration on data from Ministry of Foreign Affairs Annual Report (2001-2002); Council of Europe / Ministry of Foreign Affairs (2003-2010)

ITALY. Visas disaggregated by type: Tirana consular post (2009-2010) Visa Type Adoption Business Medical care Diplomatic Acc.family member Sport competition Invitation Self employment Self empl. / Research Self empl./ Entertain. Self empl. / Sport Employed work Empl. work/Seafarers Empl. work/Research Empl.work/Entertain. Empl. work / Sport Mission Mission /Volunteering Religious reasons Re-entry Elective residence Family reunification Study Study - Training Study - Internship Study / Research Study / University Transit Airport transit Transportation Tourism Tourism / Status of approved destination Working holiday Total

Appl Appl 2010 2009 4 3 3,529 4,952 296 333 12 24 11 12 177 111 898 732 17 29 0 0 14 21 0 0 2,576 3,671 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 771 854 1 4 10 4 427 441 2 0 5,616 8,591 465 502 5 19 8 28 0 0 325 467

%Var. Issued Issued Appl. 2010 2009 33% 4 3 -29% 3,385 4,366 -11% 279 316 -50% 12 24 -8% 11 9 59% 157 92 23% 851 652 -41% 6 3 0% 0 0 -33% 14 21 0% 0 0 -30% 2,550 3,628 0% 0 0 0% 0 0 -100% 0 2 100% 0 0 -10% 765 850 -75% 1 4 150% 10 4 -3% 348 303 200% 2 0 -35% 5,358 7,517 -7% 443 462 -74% 5 17 -71% 8 13 0% 0 0 -30% 309 457

151 117 0 1 529 627 11,768 15,670 0 0

29% -100% -16% -25% 0%

150 105 0 1 506 552 10,040 12,096 0 0

0 0 27,613 37,215

0% -

0 0 25,214 31,497

Nat. 2010

Nat. 2009

USV 2010

USV 2009

4 0 10 12 11 0 0 3 0 0 0 2,348 0 0 0 0 12 1 3 348 2 5,358 107 5 0 0 309

3 0 0 3,382 8 267 24 0 9 0 0 157 0 842 3 3 0 0 0 14 0 0 3,315 202 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 753 0 0 4 7 303 0 0 0 7,517 0 97 334 1 0 13 8 0 0 457 0

0 4,366 307 0 0 92 640 0 0 21 0 313 0 0 0 0 845 4 0 0 0 0 365 16 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

149 105 0 1 506 552 10,039 12,094 0 0

0 0 0 0 8,533 11,756 16,663 19,721

LTV 2010

LTV Reject. Reject. 2009 2009 2010

0 3 2 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0

0 0 1 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 144 17 0 0 20 47 11 0 0 0 26 0 0 0 1 6 0 0 79 0 258 22 0 0 0 16

0 586 17 0 3 19 80 26 0 0 0 43 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 138 0 1,074 40 2 15 0 10

1 0 0 1 0

0 0 0 2 0

1 0 23 1,728 0

12 0 75 3,574 0

0 18

0 20

0 2,399

0 5,718

NB. From 2003 to 2010, along with type D Visas, the so-called D+C Visas have been included in the category of National Visas. These have been abolished after the entry into force of the Visa Code (5 th April 2010). SOURCE: EMN Italy. Elaboration on data from Ministry of Foreign Affairs

40

ITALY. Visas disaggregated by type: Shkoder consular post (2009-2010) Visa Type Adoption Business Medical care Diplomatic Acc. family member Sport competition Invitation Self employment Self empl. / Research Self empl./ Entertain. Self empl. / Sport Employed work Empl. work/Seafarers Empl. work/Research Empl.work/Entertain. Empl. work / Sport Mission Mission /Volunteering Religious reasons Re-entry Elective residence Family reunification Study Study - Training Study - Internship Study / Research Study / University Transit Airport transit Transportation Tourism Tourism / Status of approved destination Working holiday Total

Appl 2010

Appl 2009

0 227 165 0 143 7 626 3 0 0 0 1,807 0 0 0 0 138 0 76 153 0 1,638 14 0 1 0 89 8 0 58 3,128 0

1 -100% 342 -34% 167 -1% 0 0% 198 -28% 7 0% 521 20% 1 200% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 2,259 -20% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 162 -15% 0 0% 96 -21% 102 50% 0 0% 2,519 -35% 15 -7% 3 -100% 4 -75% 0 0% 134 -34% 21 -62% 0 0% 55 5% 4,622 -32% 0 0%

0 0 8,281 11,229

%Var. Issued Issued Appl. 2010 2009

0% -

0 212 162 0 95 4 602 1 0 0 0 1,795 0 0 0 0 136 0 76 106 0 1,555 10 0 0 0 88 8 0 51 2,685 0

Nat. Nat. USV USV LTV 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010 1 0 1 0 0 0 316 0 0 212 316 0 167 0 0 162 167 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 129 95 129 0 0 0 7 0 0 4 7 0 502 0 0 597 500 5 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,228 1,680 2,038 115 190 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 157 0 0 136 157 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 96 24 34 51 62 1 90 106 90 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,302 1,555 2,302 0 0 0 13 8 8 2 5 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 133 88 131 0 2 0 20 0 0 8 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 0 0 51 55 0 4,084 0 0 2,685 4,082 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 7,586 10,306 3,557

0 4,739

0 4,023

0 5,563

0 6

LTV Reject. Reject. 2009 2009 2010 0 0 0 0 15 26 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 48 69 0 3 0 2 24 19 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 47 12 0 0 0 0 83 217 0 4 2 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 7 0 2 443 538 0 0 0 0 4

0 695

0 923

NB. From 2003 to 2010, along with type D Visas, the so-called D+C Visas have been included in the category of National Visas. These have been abolished after the entry into force of the Visa Code (5 th April 2010). SOURCE: EMN Italy. Elaboration on data from Ministry of Foreign Affairs

41

ITALY. Visas disaggregated by type: Vlore consular post (2009-2010) Visa Type

Appl. Appl. 2010 2009 1 Adoption 812 1,066 Business 78 115 Medical care Diplomatic 74 6 Accompanying family member 38 Sport competition 392 293 Invitation 3 Self employment Self empl. / Research 1 Self empl./ Entertainment Self empl. / Sport 971 1,542 Employed work 1 Empl. work / Seafarers Empl. work / Research 3 1 Empl. work/ Entertainment Empl. work / Sport 40 75 Mission Mission /Volunteering Religious reasons 181 147 Re-entry Elective residence 2,281 3,818 Family reunification 54 52 Study 7 7 Study - Training 4 3 Study - Internship Study / Research 124 241 Study / University 10 12 Transit Airport transit 173 217 Transportation 5,109 8,935 Tourism Tourism / Status of appr. dest. Working holiday 10,352 16,534 Total

%Var. Issued Issued NV NV USV USV LTV LTV Reject. Appl. 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010 -100% -24% 678 779 678 779 134 -32% 61 91 61 91 17 0% 1133% 58 4 58 4 16 3800% 38 38 34% 291 211 289 207 2 4 101 -100% 1 1 0% 100% 1 1 0% -37% 963 1,520 852 1,409 111 111 8 -100% 1 1 0% 200% 2 1 2 1 1 0% -47% 38 69 4 2 34 66 1 2 0% 0% 23% 144 91 144 91 37 0% -40% 2,134 3,273 2,134 3,273 147 4% 35 33 11 18 24 15 19 0% 2 4 2 4 5 33% 3 2 2 2 1 1 0% -49% 117 240 117 240 7 -17% 7 10 7 10 3 0% -20% 136 189 136 189 37 -43% 3,485 5,981 - 3,485 5,980 1 1,624 0% 0% - 8,193 12,500 3,327 5,046 4,864 7,448 2 6 2,159

Reject. 2009 1 287 24 2 82 2 22 6 56 545 19 3 1 1 2 28 2,954 4,034

NB. From 2003 to 2010, along with type D Visas, the so-called D+C Visas have been included in the category of National Visas. These have been abolished after the entry into force of the Visa Code (5 th April 2010). SOURCE: EMN Italy. Elaboration on data from Ministry of Foreign Affairs

42

ITALY. National visas by type released at consular posts in Albania (2008-2010) 2008 Adoption Business Medical care Diplomatic Accompanying family member Sport competition Invitation Self employment Self empl./ Entertainment Employed work Empl. work / Seafarers Empl. work/ Entertainment Mission Mission /Volunteering Religious reasons Re-entry Elective residence Family reunification Study Study - Training Study - Internship Study / University Transit Airport transit Transportation Tourism Tourism / Status of approved destination Adoption Business Medical care Diplomatic Accompanying family member Sport competition Total

9 12 11 422 9 15 8,109 2 2 9 24 588 2 20,371 212 8 10 761 30,576

2009 4 8 24 196 4 1 6,205 4 4 38 537 11,953 116 5 18 705 19,822

2010 4 10 12 164 4 1 4,880 2 16 1 27 598 2 9,047 126 7 2 514 15,417

NB. From 2003 to 2010, along with type D Visas, the so-called D+C Visas have been included in the category of National Visas. These have been abolished after the entry into force of the Visa Code (5 th April 2010). SOURCE: EMN Italy. Elaboration on data from Ministry of Foreign Affairs

43

ITALY. Residence permits: first release to Albanian nationals (2008-2010) 2008 2009 64,297 46,674 Albania 550,226 506,833 Total SOURCE: EMN Italy. Elaboration on data from Eurostat

2010 47,602 589,988

ITALY. Residence permits released to Albanian nationals (1991-2010) Albania Total Albania Total

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 24,886 22,474 23,732 25,245 30,183 66,608 72,551 87,595 648,935 589,457 649,102 677,791 729,159 986,020 1,022,896 1,090,820 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 157,646 171,567 240,421 251,240 256,916 282,650 406,534 448,447 1,448,392 1,503,286 2,227,567 2,245,548 2,286,024 2,414,972 2,621,580 3,035,573

1999 133,018 1,340,655 2009 522,851 3,587,653

2000 146,321 1,379,749 2010 483,705 3,525,586

SOURCE: EMN Italy. Elaboration on data from Istat (1991-2007) and Eurostat (2008-2010)

ITALY. Residence permits released to Albanian nationals by type (2001-2010) 2001 2002 Study Employ. Family Total Study Employ. Family 4,637 90,998 55,285 157,646 6,431 92,820 66,954 Albania 33,215 840,966 421,761 1,448,392 38,012 829,761 477,959 Total 2003 2004 Study Employ, Family Total Study Employ, Family 7,567 145,638 82,257 240,421 7,833 143,591 95,659 Albania 37,367 1,479,381 545,300 2,227,567 40,355 1,412,694 624,404 Total 2005 2006 Study Employ, Family Total Study Employ, Family 9,300 138,928 104,617 256,916 9,415 148,076 120,234 Albania 48,718 1,419,285 682,365 2,286,024 51,625 1,463,058 763,744 Total 2007 2008 Study Employ, Family Total Study Employ, Family 9,638 158,029 233,425 406,534 15,005 176,880 163,139 Albania 45,458 1,239,263 1,238,678 2,621,580 87,260 1,408,044 873,627 Total 2009 2010 Study Employ, Family Total Study Employ, Family 12,044 214,071 199,177 522,851 5,293 193,069 282,767 Albania 81,386 1,825,755 1,017,102 3,587,653 39,803 1,783,561 1,594,841 Total SOURCE: EMN Italy. Elaboration on data from Istat (1991-2007) and Eurostat (2008-2010)

ITALY. Regularization applications submitted for Albanian nationals (2002) Care attendants Employed workers Total 11,607 43,431 55,038 Albania 343,143 360,970 704,113 Total SOURCE: EMN Italy. Elaboration on data from Ministry of Interior

ITALY. Regularization applications submitted for Albanian nationals (2009) Applications 11,147 Albania 294,744 Total SOURCE: EMN Italy. Elaboration on data from Ministry of Interior

Total 171,567 1,503,286 Total 251,240 2,245,548 Total 282,650 2,414,972 Total 448,447 3,035,573 Total 483,705 3,525,586

% 7.8 100.0

% 3.8 100.0

44

ITALY. Refusals at the border of Albanian nationals (2001-2010) 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 11,693 5,954 1,915 1,339 1,019 675 499 355 435 Albania 30,287 37,183 24,003 24,003 19,336 20,267 9,394 6,405 3,700 Total SOURCE: EMN Italy. Elaboration on data from Ministry of Interior (2001-2007) and Eurostat (2008-2010)

2010 575 4,215

ITALY. Refusals at the border of Albanian nationals disaggregated by type (2008-2010) 2008 2009 355 435 Total 45 20 No valid travel document(s) 20 20 False travel document(s) 115 95 No valid visa or residence permit 20 15 False visa or residence permit 30 180 Purpose and conditions of stay not justified 0 0 Person already stayed 3 months in a 6 months period 5 5 No sufficient means of subsistence 110 90 An alert has been issued 0 5 Person considered to be a public threat SOURCE: EMN Italy. Elaboration on data from Ministry of Interior (2001-2007) and Eurostat (2008-2010)

ITALY. Apprehensions/Expulsions of Albanian nationals found to be illegally present (2001-2010) 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 13,431 10,233 5,508 3,447 4,130 4,889 3,832 3 635 2 875 Albania 90,160 92,823 59,535 61,024 83,809 92,029 54,140 68,175 53,440 Total SOURCE: EMN Italy. Elaboration on data from Ministry of Interior (2001-2007) and Eurostat (2008-2010)

2010 575 10 15 95 5 70 0 25 345 10

2010 2 820 46,955

45

4.2. The case of the Republic of Moldova: linking migration and development Reasons for the choice of the case study Moldova today is, unfortunately, the poorest country in the European continent, heavily hit by the economic recession (a fall in GDP rate to -7% in 2009) and heavily dependent on Russian gas, with an important agricultural basin and high emigration pressures. Agriculture‟s leading products are vegetables, fruits, grapes, wheat, sugar beets, sunflower, tobacco, but the intensive use of agricultural products, including banned pesticides such as DDT, has contaminated the soil and groundwater, while extensive soil erosion was caused by anachronistic farming methods. In 2010 the economy has experienced a significant recovery (6.5%), but the corruption and power struggles have hampered the implementation of any economic reform. The annual per capita income in 2010 amounted to just $ 2,500 purchasing power parity (which places Moldova at the 173rd place in the world), while according to UN estimates, twenty years after the transition to a market economy, one quarter of the population lives below the poverty line (26%). It is estimated that more than one million Moldovans emigrated, that is to say almost one quarter of the population working abroad. Main destination of migration flows is the Russian Federation (Moscow is the metropolitan area that scores the highest number of Moldovans, about 150 thousand), but the European community has increased in importance and Italy is in the first place. Here, the presence of Moldovan citizens has reached 141,000 stay permit holders by the end of 2010 and it will continue to increase significantly as a result of new flows and the end of the regularization process of the so-called care attendants (badanti), which started in the second half of 2009 (25,600 applications were submitted in favour of Moldovan citizens). In the Ministry of the Interior‟s archives of long-term immigrants, the first available data for Moldova as distinct from the Commonwealth of Independent States goes back to 1997 and reports 15 residing Moldovans, which increased to 268 in 1998; then 1,908 in 1999 and 3,314 in 2000. In 2001, there were 4,356 Moldovan holders of permit of stay out of 395,548 immigrants from Central and Eastern Europe. In the „90s many Moldovans have shown the propensity to apply for Romanian citizenship in order to move freely in the European Union, opportunity given to Romanians under envisaged agreements relating the entry of their country into the EU: according to estimates, there were 300,000 people before 2001, and the numbers subsequently increased. This is a facilitated practice, because the granting of citizenship is linked to being able to prove the residence of their ancestors in Romania before 1918, when Moldova became part of Romania. In 2002, the year of “the big regularisation” by Law 189/2002, the applications submitted by Moldovan citizens surfacing from undeclared work are 31,217 of a total of over 700,000, and for over two thirds related to the entry in the domestic sector. Regularized migrants from Moldova were in eighth position, after other Eastern European countries (Romania, Ukraine, Albania and Poland). The strong pace of growth continues in the following years and the Moldovans are among the first 20 communities, with the predominance of women (almost 7 out of 10 residents) that makes it different from the others. The quotas set for the entry of Moldovans are of 5,000 people in 2006 and 6,500 in 2007 (the same number for the following year), compared with over 38,000 applications submitted, which show higher requirements than the available posts and, in 2009 the regularization of nearly 26,000 Moldovan women surfacing from undeclared work within the domestic employment sector. It is difficult to estimate the number of those staying irregularly but, according to the Embassy of the Republic of Moldova, the overall presence, with lawful and unlawful residence, could be estimated at 200 thousand people in 2007. Currently, it has to be taken into account that a large number of Moldovans has emerged with the regularization of 2009 and that some of them left Italy due to the crisis, resulting in the loss of their job. The choice of the Republic of Moldova as a case study, both to promote well-managed migration and to reduce irregular immigration, is therefore linked to the strong migratory pressure, 46

including irregular migration, exerted over the years „2000. On the other hand, in light of the EU Action Plan on visa liberalization for the citizens of the Republic of Moldova (the visa under 3 months) since Italy represents the first EU country for the number of Moldovan residents, this case study, using statistical data analysis and sorting the available literature 89 , may provide more opportunities for further involvement. The Moldovans’ presence in Italy If it is to examine the resident population register managed by Istat (Italian National Institute for Statistics), it may be noted that in the period 2002-2010 the entire immigrant population has increased almost threefold, while the Moldovan community has increased by 19 times, reaching almost 3% on the total presence. At the end of 2010, Moldovans are 130,948 out of 4,570,317 foreign residents, while they were 6,974 out of 1,549,373 in 2002. Nevertheless, in the past the Moldovan community was compressed by the two main communities of Eastern Europe, the Rumanian and Ukrainian that have monopolized the attention; fortunately, however, the Moldovans have neither been subjected to the process of criminalization, as it was the case of the Romanians, nor they were considered to play the role of the spare tire in the family care sector, as happened with the Ukrainians, albeit Moldovan women work mainly in the home care sector. The female component, which is favoured in the labour market as required by the personnel needs in the home care sector, is predominant (more than two-thirds of the total) but the male component is constantly increasing, thus, the composition of the Moldovan community has not such a gender disparity as the Ukrainian community. The number of new-borns and that of those who came for family reunification is around one thousand units. The spatial distribution of Moldovan migrants on the Italian territory is not uniform, because they focus more in the North East (more than half of the total), especially in the Veneto region (where the province of Padua is on the first place) and Emilia Romagna. In the North West and in the Centre the Moldovan presences are distributed in almost equal shares, and they are very few in the South. It is the province of Rome, however, to count the highest number of Moldovan residents. There are over 500 Moldovans who acquired Italian citizenship in a year: 532 by marriage, and 16 for residence requirement in 2009. The relatively low length of stay of these immigrants, compared to the substantial requirement (10 years of prior residence), and the complexity of the procedures are a hindrance to acquiring citizenship based on residence, unlike citizenship gained through marriage, where Moldovan women are often protagonists (accounting for almost 5% on mixed marriages). In school year 2009-2010 pupils with Moldovan citizenship enrolled in schools were 18,305 of 673,592: the relative incidence (2.7%), almost equal to the entire Moldovan foreign presence in the community, records the tendency to a stable settlement; although, in academic year 1999/2000 there were only 110 Moldovan pupils in Italy (0.1% of all foreign students in the country). Among the students, unlike what happens between adults, the female component prevails over the male one. There are only a few hundred Moldovan students enrolled in Italian universities. With regard to social deviance data accredit a quiet community. The performance of the criminal charges occurred in the period 2005-2008 is characterized by a striking decrease of 15.2%

89

Literature on Moldovans in Italy still has an episodic character. The following documents may be cited as an example: Bertazzon Letizia, Gli immigrati moldavi in Italia e in Veneto, Veneto Lavoro, 2007; Bodolica Virginia, Spraggon Martin, Work experiences of Moldovan women in Italy: bearing the double identity strangeness, in “Equal Opportunities International”, Vol. 27, no. 6, 2008, pp. 537-558; Deleu Ecaterina, I migranti moldavi in Italia e a Roma, in Caritas Rome, Osservatorio romano sulle migrazioni. Quinto rapporto, Idos, Rome, 2009, pp. 199-208; Nanni Maria Paola, I moldavi in Italia: situazioni e prospettive, Embassy of the Republic of Moldova in Italy, Rome, 2009; Palese Alvisa, et al., Italian–Moldovan international nurse migration: rendering visible the loss of human capital, in “International Nursing Review”, no. 57, 2010, pp. 64–69; Ricci Antonio, Italia-Repubblica di Moldavia: nuovi e vecchi flussi, in Migrantes Foundation, Rapporto Italiani nel Mondo 2011, Idos, Rome, 2011, pp. 389-392. 47

(from 8,022 to 6,108 complaints), despite that in the same period the number of Moldovans has doubled. In 2010 Inail (National Institution for Insurance against Accidents at Work) recorded 69,470 Moldovans employed (with at least a week of work during the year), for 65.7% women, mainly entered in the services sector (with a prevalence of assistance to the families and to the elderly), while in the industry sector there are numerous job openings in the building industry. According to data gathered by INPS (the Italian National Social Security Institute), the average earnings of Moldovan workers are lower by about a quarter compared to those paid to immigrant workers generally, because they are heavily concentrated in the home care sector and not everyone has a full-time job or, however, they do not declare all hours worked. In late 2010, there are 2,550 Moldovan business owners out of 228,540 foreign entrepreneurs and the reduced incidence of 1.1% will provide significant development opportunities that arise in working in Italy. The main sector is building industry and this confirms, almost exclusively, the leading role of men for whom the building industry presents numerous job opportunities. In 2010, remittances sent through official channels from Italy to Moldova totalled 46,699,000 euro. This financial item is very important for Moldova, which is the first country in the world for the incidence of remittances to GDP, estimated at nearly one third of it. Agreements on migratory matters and other measures Though no formal request has been made to join the “neighbourhood policy” (the “European Neighbourhood Policy”), the EU is pushing for closer ties with the Republic of Moldova, a priority country partner, and therefore EU increased its development assistance, cooperation and mutual investment by entrepreneurs. The EU‟s Partnership and Cooperation Agreement, which entered into force in 1998, encourages Moldova to carry out further economic and political reforms to line up with EU Member States. This process of mutual cooperation is likely to be further strengthened as soon as it is signed an association agreement, which is currently under negotiation. In addition, in 2008 it entered into force the visa facilitation and readmission agreement, which was immediately followed by a larger “mobility partnerships”, namely the activation of a series of ad hoc projects to promote not only the lawful emigration but, above all, the link between compatriots abroad and the development prospects for those left at home. Furthermore as reported, in the mid-2010, there have also started negotiations to evaluate the conditions for the liberalization of visa no longer than 3 months in a medium to long-term time scale. In addition to the “mobility Partnership”, the UN have supported the Moldavan government in developing a National Development Strategy (November 9th 2011), of which immigration flow control is an integral part. Some of the proposed initiatives are: - incentives for the return of the labour force emigrated abroad, through the implementation of specific initiatives, like the creation - in the main emigration cities (Paris, Rome, etc.) - of a special “index” of available jobs in the homeland; - incentives for the temporary return of the representatives of the so called “scientific diaspora”, or the definitive return of young migrants who graduated abroad; - economic improvement of migrants‟ remittances, through a specific “1+1” system: for each Moldavan leu invested by migrants to support small and medium enterprises, the Moldavan government commits to invest the same amount, thus doubling the investment; - financing micro-projects promoted by the associations of the diaspora in order to enhance their linking role (like, for instance, the broadcasting of TV transmissions, the organization of cultural festivals in London, the launch of a centre for immigrants in Paris, the publication of a guide to services or meeting points for immigrants in Rome, etc.); - the fight against human trafficking, particularly through awareness campaigns and the return/reintegration of the victims. 48

The spirit that underpins these and other initiatives, is to raise awareness among policymakers about the importance of pursuing an integrated approach to managing migration flows and policies for development, through the collaboration and the exchange of good practices with other EU countries. On July 2011, the bilateral agreement between the Italian Government and the Republic of Moldova, originally signed in Rome on November 2003 regarding the entry of Moldovan citizens in Italy, was renewed. While taking into consideration an earlier agreement between the two Countries, concerning “the readmission of irregular migrants” (signed in Rome on July 3 2002), this agreement provides for a co-operation between the contracting parties regarding the regulation of the flow of workers, with the aim of satisfying both labour supply and demand. For this purpose, the Italian Ministry of Labour and Social Policies is committed to help establish the proper contacts between Italian Employer Agencies and their Moldovan counterparts. Article 5 stipulates, however, that Italy has the option to use a preferential assessment regarding the entry of Moldovan workers, which is consistent with both current norms and the “Three-year program” regarding immigration policies, and also with the actual labour demand. The new agreement, although in continuity with the previous one, introduced important innovations, first of all with the purpose of reducing the negative impact for the future development of the Republic of Moldova, determined by the migration of labor force; this will be accomplished by promoting mechanisms of “circular migration”, by creating language and professional training programs on-site (which should take into account the needs of the Italian labour market) as well as by establishing a new Local Coordination Office. Apart from bilateral agreements on migration for work, the Italian government has cofinanced the IOM project “Beyond poverty alleviation: developing a legal, regulatory and institutional framework for leveraging migrant remittances for entrepreneurial growth in Moldova” (2007-2009); through the Ministry of Labour and Social Policies, the government is also helping the Moldovan minors in need due to the migration abroad of one or both parents, by creating a specific project (2011-2013) which foresees the creation of an Inter-Institutional Technical Committee (IITC), the support to Moldavan socio-educational centres and their operators, the improvement of guidance and training services, awareness raising campaigns about the negative social effects of migration on family ties in 4 Italian regions, as well as individual assistance to at least 100 minors and their families. Moreover, development factors for Moldova are also the direct foreign investments and the presence of foreign entrepreneurs. The trade balance in 2009 showed an important connection: 14.1% of the exports have reached Italy, from where 5.7% of the imports were derived. The Italian entrepreneurs are present also in Chisinau, as represented by the Italian-Moldovan Chamber of Commerce and by the Association of Italian Entrepreneurs in Moldova, mainly working in the textiles and services sectors. The breeding ground is on its own considered positive, and it becomes even more interesting considering the funding that is starting to arrive from the EU (for example, within the end of 2017, 3500 km of road network will be rebuilt using EU funds). For the Italian employers, the Republic of Moldova seems to be a double opportunity: on the one hand, to build on local expertise remained untapped due to the delayed development of the productive system and, on the other hand, to enhance their skills in the development of industrial technologies suitable to accompany the growth of evolving production systems. Analysis of the statistical data Visas: Up till 2008 there is no disaggregated data on the visas issued to Moldovan citizens for entry in Italy; as a matter of fact, the Italian embassy in Chisinau started to operate in 2009 while previously the Moldovans needed to go to the Italian Embassy in Bucharest to obtain the visas and their visas were counted together with those of the Rumanians. Similarly, the Moldovans

49

were obliged to go to Ukraine to obtain visas for Greece or Cyprus and this has undoubtedly increased the possibilities of the traffickers to operate. Nevertheless, in the year 2008, year after entry of Rumania in the EU, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs informs that the visas released to Moldovan citizens were 17,791, of which 15,760 as national visas. For the two subsequent years disaggregated data on the National visas issued is available: in 2009, 16,294 national visas on a total of 22,472 overall visas, with 255 refusals; in 2010, 11,935 national visas on a total of 20,275 overall visas, with 1,514 refusals. In examining the motivations related to applications for National visas in 2010 it appears that: - the applications for subordinate employment visas were 4,797 (with 4.236 visas issued, 534 unitary Schengen visas and 26 refusals). In 2009 the visa applications presented were much more numerous (7,656); - the applications for family reunification visas were 7,208, of which 79 rejected (in 2009, respectively 8,852 and 126) and those for accompanying family members were 94, of which 3 rejected (in 2009, respectively 103 and 4); - the applications for self employment workers were 12, of which 5 rejected (in 2009, 59, all accepted). For the other types of visas the applications were the following (within parenthesis: data related to 2009): adoption 30 (15); medical treatment 24 with 1 refusal (34); study 58, followed by 24 U.S.V., 28 N.V. and 6 refusals (81, of which 59 U.S.V. and 22 N.V.); study/apprenticeship 3 and 1 refusal (43 and 7 refusals); study/university 76 (102 and 2 refusals). Summarizing, between 2009 and 2010, the applications for visas to enter Italy have decreased by 4.1% (from 22,727 to 21,789) and the National visas granted have decreased by 26.8% (from 16,294 to 11,935), while the refusals for both national visas and the Schengen ones have increased 6 times (from 255 to 1,514). To understand the considerable decrease of the national visa applications, one should recall that in 2009 it was launched a regularization for assistance to families and to the elderly, to which there was a high participation of Moldovan workers with consequent decrease of the number of visa applications for work purposes.

50

Regularizations. The participation of the Moldovans to the regularization in 2009 was therefore exceptional, having participated in almost 1 case every 10 (25,588 applications on 294,744, equal to 8.7%). However, during the regularization of 2002 the applications presented for the regularization of Moldovan citizens were more numerous (31,217), while their incidence of the total applications (704,113) was lower (4.4%). Finally, it should be noted that also in 2002 the prevalent sector of integration was that of assistance to the families and to the elderly (23,015 applications on 31,217). Resident Permits. The residence permits released to Moldovan citizens, from 5,715 in 2001, have increased to 140,950 in 2010, with an incidence of 4.0% on the total of permits released to 51

non-EU citizens, while in 2001 the incidence on the residents (among which at that time were included also the EU‟s) was of 0.4%. The increase in the number of Moldovans in the course of the decade was as follows: 5.715 in 2011, 6,861 in 2002, 38,269 in 2003, 40,32 in 2004, 45,006 in 2005, 50,308 in 2006, 80,681 in 2007, 103,232 in 2008, 138,274 in 2009 and 140,954 in 2010. The type of motivation of residence in the decade has shown an increase of the presence for work purposes (54.5% in 2001, 64.7% in 2009 and 64.8% in 2010) and a decrease in the presence for family reasons (31.8% in 2001, 26.0% in 2009), which reached 34.5% in 2010. The decrease of residents in 2010 is due to the effect of the work crisis where, in case of loss of work and lack of reemployment within 6 months, the individual looses the right of residence. Over half a million permits in force in December of 2009 do not result renewed in December of 2010 and, naturally, these consequences have affected also the Moldovan community. Finally the new resident permits released between 2008 and 2010 to the Moldovans have been more than 100,000 (39,071 in 2008, 31,040 in 2009 and 41,806 in 2010).

Refusals of entry and expulsions. The Moldovans refused at the border were 40 in 2010, the lowest historical value in the entire decade. It started with 148 cases in 2001 and it touched the peak in 2003 with 392 cases. The incidence of the Moldovans on the total number of refusals of entry (4,215) is equal to 0.9% and this seems to demonstrate the prevalence of use of the legal channels. In 2010 the main reasons for refusal of entry was the use of false traveling documents (25% of the cases) and invalid visas and resident permits (37.5%). The Moldovans intercepted in irregular status were 2,118 in 2001, then almost doubling in 2005 (4,013 cases). From that year on a considerable decrease was encountered, even if not always 52

continuous, and the historical minimum was touched in 2010 with 1,110 cases. This trend also seems to confirm the preference of using the regular entry channels, or at least, since the employment is mainly in the family sector, lower exposure to police interception.

Final observations The data on visas and on the fight against irregular residence highlight that the flows of Moldovans towards Italy have ever more been processed through the regular channels and that their integration in the country has been positively characterized, by the appreciation received for their work and by the profitable work performed by their associations and by their consular and diplomatic representatives. It must be highlighted however that the regular channels are not sufficiently adequate to capture the migratory pressure of the Moldovans in their entirety, as resulted from the regularizations of 2002 and 2009. Even without creating a mechanical link between local development and emigration, as results from the more in depth studies 90 , it is undeniable that a poor development, unable to absorb the available work force, encourages to overcome the lack of stability by going abroad, even more so when the Countries are near and the culture is similar. Development and migration are two interconnected levels and this is demonstrated by the consequences that can be determined in this moment of crisis. In fact, on the one hand it can be seen how the negative occupational trend has caused the expiry of numerous resident permits released to Moldovan citizens (about 34.000 at the end of 2010, mainly for work and family reasons), and on the other the incentives for new flows mostly outside the official channels. In the first instance a circular migration was developed, but a negative one, that it may be considered a failure; instead, in the second instance, legality was moved back to illegality.

90

See, for example, the Immigration Statistical Dossier Caritas/Migrantes, ed. 2010, pp. 26-31; ed. 2011, pp. 26-33. 53

It is very difficult to give productive indications in such a complicated case as the present one, for which the results depend basically on decisions to be taken at macro economical level. Nevertheless, the analysis of the Moldovan presence allows us to insist mainly on the business capabilities of the immigrants in their country of migration. The reasons for doing so are many: - The business initiatives ensure a job to the owner of the company and often also to other people; - The earnings received are higher respect to those of subordinate employment and the continuity of the resident permit is better guaranteed; - The return flow to the country of origin is less affected by the cyclic trend of economy; - The return business may be increased, both in a physical sense when the interested party decides for personal reasons to continue his/her professional effort in his own country, as well as in terms of return of knowledge when the immigrated businessman helps relatives or friends in his/her country to promote economical initiatives, putting his/her know-how (learned in immigration) and resources at their disposal To enhance these benefits, it is desirable that at European level a complete view of what occurs in the member states be made available (task that the EMN network is capable of performing in a very satisfactory manner) and that the bilateral co-operation among Countries of emigration and Countries of immigration be practiced also on this front.

54

ITALY. Visas for consular post: Chisinau and total consular posts (2001-2010) Moldova

2001 N/A N/A N/A N/A Total 2001 186,167 N.V. granted Total Visas granted 947,085 N/A Rejections N/A Applications N.V. granted Total Visas granted Rejections Applications

2002 N/A N/A N/A N/A 2002 153,830 852,347 N/A N/A

2003 N/A N/A N/A N/A 2003 178,521 874,874 152,460 1,027,334

2004 N/A N/A N/A N/A 2004 196,825 983,499 171,059 1,154,558

2005 N/A N/A N/A N/A 2005 172,390 1,076,680 N/A N/A

2006 N/A N/A N/A N/A 2006 161,636 1,198,167 N/A N/A

2007 N/A N/A N/A N/A 2007 254,854 1,519,816 N/A N/A

2008 N/A* N/A* N/A N/A 2008 190,197 1,563,567 N/A N/A

2009 16,294 22,472 255 22,727 2009 155,286 1,401,706 71,680 1,471,173

2010 11,935 20,275 1,514 21,789 2010 191,168 1,543,408 62,401 1,605,809

NB. From 2003 to 2010, along with type D Visas, the so-called D+C Visas have been included in the category of National Visas. These have been abolished after the entry into force of the Visa Code (5 th April 2010). *Until 2008, visas were released to Moldovan citizens at the consular post located in Bucharest. In 2008, visas issued to Moldovan citizens were 17.791, of which 15.760 national visas SOURCE: EMN Italy. Elaboration on data from Ministry of Foreign Affairs Annual Report (2001-2002); Council of Europe / Ministry of Foreign Affairs (2003-2010) ITALY. Visas disaggregated by type: Chisinau consular post (2009-2010) Visa Type Adoption Business Medical care Diplomatic Acc.family member Sport competition Invitation Self employment Self empl. / Research Self empl./ Entertain. Self empl. / Sport Employed work Empl. work/Seafarers Empl. work/Research Empl.work/Entertain. Empl. work / Sport Mission Mission /Volunteering Religious reasons Re-entry Elective residence Family reunification Study Study - Training Study - Internship Study / Research Study / University Transit Airport transit Trasportation Tourism Tourism / Status of approved destination Working holiday Total

Appl Appl 2010 2009 30 15 1,015 621 24 34 10 7 94 103 51 41 544 392 5 3 0 1 6 55 1 0 4,662 7,569 2 1 0 0 34 37 4 3 95 46 3 3 13 15 341 196 0 0 7,208 8,852 58 81 0 3 3 43 0 0 76 102 77 33 0 0 213 357 7,220 4,114 0 0 0 0 21,789 22,727

%Var. Appl. 100% 63% -29% 43% -9% 24% 39% 67% -100% -89% 100% -38% 100% 0% -8% 33% 107% 0% -13% 74% 0% -19% -28% -100% -93% 0% -25% 133% 0% -40% 75% 0% 0% -

Issued Issued 2010 2009 30 968 23 10 91 51 531 3 0 3 1 4,636 2 0 33 4 95 3 13 320 0 7,129 52 0 2 0 76 69 0 212 5,918 0

15 617 34 7 99 41 389 3 1 55 0 7,524 1 0 37 3 46 3 15 194 0 8,726 81 3 36 0 100 32 0 355 4,055 0

LTV Reject. Reject. 2009 2010 2009

Nat. 2010

Nat. 2009

USV 2010

USV 2009

LTV 2010

30 0 3 10 91 0 0 3 0 2 1 4,194 2 0 33 4 3 1 3 320 0 7,129 28 0 2 0 76 0 0 0 0 0

15 0 8 7 99 0 0 3 1 4 0 7,040 1 0 25 3 1 1 5 194 0 8,726 22 3 36 0 100 0 0 0 0 0

0 967 20 0 0 51 530 0 0 1 0 442 0 0 0 0 92 2 10 0 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 69 0 212 5,908 0

0 617 26 0 0 41 385 0 0 51 0 484 0 0 12 0 45 2 10 0 0 0 59 0 0 0 0 32 0 355 4,055 0

0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 12

0 4

0 0 0 0 0 20,275 22,472 11,935 16,294 8,328

0 6,174

0 47 1 0 3 0 13 2 0 3 0 26 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 21 0 79 6 0 1 0 0 8 0 1 1,302 0 0 1,514

0 4 0 0 4 0 3 0 0 0 0 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 126 0 0 7 0 2 1 0 2 59 0 0 255

NB. From 2003 to 2010, along with type D Visas, the so-called D+C Visas have been included in the category of National Visas. These have been abolished after the entry into force of the Visa Code (5 th April 2010). SOURCE: EMN Italy. Elaboration on data from Ministry of Foreign Affairs

55

ITALY. Residence permits: first release to Moldovan nationals (2008-2009) 2008 2009 39,071 31,040 Moldova 550,226 506,833 Total SOURCE: EMN Italy. Elaboration on data from Eurostat

2010 41,806 589,988

ITALY. Residence permits released to Moldovan nationals (1991-2010) Moldova Total Moldova Total

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 15 268 1,908 3,314 648,935 589,457 649,102 677,791 729,159 986,020 1,022,896 1,090,820 1,340,655 1,379,749 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 5,715 6,861 38,269 40,232 45,006 50,308 80,681 103,232 138,274 140,954 1,448,392 1,503,286 2,227,567 2,245,548 2,286,024 2,414,972 2,621,580 3,035,573 3,587,653 3,525,586

SOURCE: EMN Italy. Elaboration on data from Istat (1991-2007) and Eurostat (2008-2010)

ITALY. Residence permits released to Moldovan nationals by type (2001-2010) 2001 Moldova Total

Study 69 33,215

Employ. 3117 840,966

Moldova Total

Study 117 37,367

Employ, 33,537 1,479,381

Moldova Total

Study 519 48,718

Employ, 33,255 1,419,285

Moldova Total

Study 1,064 45,458

Employ, 53,777 1,239,263

Moldova Total

Study 1,218 81,386

Employ, 89,513 1,825,755

2002 Family 1819 421,761

Total 5715 1,448,392

Study 79 38,012

Employ. 6894 829,761

Family 4,088 545,300

Total 38,269 2,227,567

Study 138 40,355

Employ, 32,413 1,412,694

Family 10,191 682,365

Total 45,006 2,286,024

Study 785 51,625

Employ, 35,861 1,463,058

Family 24,506 1,238,678

Total 80,681 2,621,580

Study 1,584 87,260

Employ, 66,080 1,408,044

Family 35,929 1,017,102

Total 138,274 3,587,653

Study 629 39,803

Employ, 91,273 1,783,561

2003

Family 2,694 477,959

Total 6,861 1,503,286

Family 7,050 624,404

Total 40,232 2,245,548

Family 12,538 763,744

Total 50,308 2,414,972

Family 25,103 873,627

Total 103,232 3,035,573

Family 48,695 1,594,841

Total 140,954 3,525,586

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

SOURCE: EMN Italy. Elaboration on data from Istat (1991-2007) and Eurostat (2008-2010)

ITALY. Regularization applications submitted for Moldovan nationals (2002) Care attendants Employed workers Total 23,013 8,204 31,217 Moldova 343,143 360,970 704,113 Total SOURCE: EMN Italy. Elaboration on data from Ministry of Interior

ITALY. Regularization applications submitted for Moldovan nationals (2009) Applications 25,588 Moldova 294,744 Total SOURCE: EMN Italy. Elaboration on data from Ministry of Interior

% 4.4 100.0

% 8.7 100.0

56

ITALY. Refusals at the border of Moldovan nationals (2001-2010) 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 148 176 392 156 212 163 160 130 45 Moldova 30,287 37,183 24,003 24,003 19,336 20,267 9,394 6,405 3,700 Total SOURCE: EMN Italy. Elaboration on data of the Ministry of Interior (2001-2007) and Eurostat (2008-2010)

ITALY. Refusals at the border of Moldovan nationals disaggregated by type (2008-2010) 2008 2009 130 45 Total 10 0 No valid travel document(s) 45 5 False travel document(s) 35 25 No valid visa or residence permit 5 5 False visa or residence permit 15 5 Purpose and conditions of stay not justified 0 0 Person already stayed 3 months in a 6 months period 0 5 No sufficient means of subsistence 15 5 An alert has been issued 0 0 Person considered to be a public threat SOURCE: EMN Italy. Elaboration on data from Eurostat

ITALY. Apprehensions/Expulsions of Moldovan nationals found to be illegally present (2001-2010) 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2,118 2,325 2,646 3,296 4,013 3,451 2,065 2,230 1,485 Moldova 90,160 92,823 59,535 61,024 83,809 92,029 54,140 68,175 53,440 Total SOURCE: EMN Italy. Elaboration on data of the Ministry of Interior (2001-2007) and Eurostat (2008-2010)

2010 40 4,215

2010 40 0 10 15 0 5 0 0 5 10

2010 1,110 46,955

57

4.3. The Case of Senegal: experiences with a country having high migratory pressure Reasons for the choice of the case study The choice of Senegal among the examined cases derives, in a first instance, from the relationship between the two Countries represented by the numerous Senegalese Diaspora in Italy91, considering also an increasingly marked interest, both on behalf of Italy as well as EU, to stipulate with this African country agreements related to migratory matters. In a second instance, a working and research experience at the Italian Embassy in Dakar, in the course of 2010, has allowed the observation “from the inside” of the diplomatic relations between the two countries and of the paperwork for the release of visas. The Italian embassy in Dakar is responsible for releasing visas for seven Countries in the region of western Africa: Cape Verde, Gambia, Guinea Bissau, Guinea Conakry, Mali, Mauritania, and Senegal. The consular services are also competent for the listed Countries and the statistics on visas that we will hereby consider provide us with the overall data related to the seven Countries, which is not available in a disaggregated form. Nevertheless, it is important to highlight that Senegal is by far the first country in terms of visa applications, followed by Cape Verde and Guinea. Historical highlights of the relations between Italy and Senegal For what concerns the migration, after Gambia (20%), Italy is presently the third country of destination of the Senegalese migrants, second in EU with 10%, against the 18% of France92. Italy gained increasing importance with reference to Senegalese migration at the beginning of the „80s, subsequent to the protectionist drift that involved Northern Europe, particularly France, but also as a consequence of the progressive closure of the richer Countries of the African continent93. Within this context, the Senegalese took advantage of the regular entry opportunity in Italy up to 15th April 1990 (date when visas were introduced). The desirability of the Italian destination was favoured, even afterwards, by the absence of systematic controls on the territory and by the subsequent periodic procedures of regularization that occurred. In virtue of the first Italian law on migration matters (law 943/1986), immigrants were able to regularize their position and Senegal found itself in second position for number of beneficiaries. The following law 39/1990, the so-called “Martelli” law, also envisaged a regularization and Senegal found itself in third position. Among the Sub-Saharan African countries, Senegal has the largest Diaspora in Italy. At the end of 2010, in the data archives of ISTAT National Institute of Statistics, there were 80,989 Senegalese residents (17th country on the list) with a rate of annual growth of 11.5% compared to 2009. It should be noted, however, that according to the archives of the “Clandestino” project, an estimated rate of irregular presence equal to 18% should be considered, among the highest attributable to the communities present in Italy94. The Senegal study case has been drafted by Francesca Zampagni (PhD at Pisa University). On the Senegalese in Italy among the many contributions there are: Campus Aurora, Mottura Giovanni, Perrone Luigi, “I Senegalesi”, in Mottura Giovanni (care of), L'arcipelago immigrazioni. Caratteristiche e modelli migratori dei lavoratori stranieri in Italia, (The Immigration archipelago. Characteristics and migratory models of the foreign workers in Italy) Ediesse, Roma, 1993; Schmidt di Friedberg Ottavia, L'immigration africaine en Italie: le cas sénégalais, in “Revue Etudes Internationales”, 1, 1993, pp. 125-140; Riccio Bruno, Spazi transnazionali: esperienze senegalesi, in “Afriche e Orienti”, 3-4, 2000. Finally, we mention the recent monographic issue on Il Senegal e la diaspora Senegalese in the Bolognaise review “Africa e Mediterraneo (n. 74, July 2011). 92 Some Aymar Narodar, Migrations au Sénégal: Profil National 2009, IOM, Genève, 2009, p. 53. 93 Bruzzone Virginia Tiziana, Fall Papa Demba, Tall Serigne Mansour, Gueye Cheikh, Le milieu sénégalais et l’action transnationale des migrantes, CeSPI, Rome, 2006, p. 28. 94 Fasani Francesco, Undocumented Migration. Counting the Uncountable. Data and Trends across Europe, Italy Country report, Clandestino Project, 2009, p. 51. 91

58

Within the cultural cooperation a bilateral agreement between Italy and Senegal is in force ever since 6th May 1974. Starting from December 2007, subsequent to the meeting between the president of the Senegalese republic Abdoulaye Wade and the former Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi, the political relations between Italy and Senegal, although always excellent, have seen an intensification promoted by joint signature of the “Memorandum of Understanding” setting the basis for the future program of relations between the two Countries. The official visits by both parties then came one after the other, up to the visit to Senegal of the former Minister of Foreign Affairs, Franco Frattini, in March of 2009 an that of his Senegalese counterpart Madickè Niang to Rome, exactly one year after. According to the official data, in the two-year period 2008 – 2009, the Italian entrepreneurs have been among the first investors in Senegal for a turnover amount of 57 million euro and in the last years, Italy has always been amongst the first 10 commercial partners of Senegal. In the period 2010 – 2012 the global participation of the Development Cooperation is estimated to be around 70 million euro95. Agreements on migration and other measures Italy has not signed formal agreement with Senegal, neither on managing of migratory matters, nor on readmissions, as is true for France96 and Spain97, but has expressed a clear interest in concluding one. In a press release of March 2010, the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs has declared that “the two Ministers [Italian and Senegalese] have agreed to organize and regulate the bilateral consultations and they have shown a full concurrence of views concerning fighting against illegal migration, giving way to legal migration accompanied by specific programs of co-operation and development, also related to vocational training, so as to encourage the reintegration of the immigrants returning to their country and a better use of the remittances coming from our country”98. Despite the lack of agreements, bilateral collaboration on migratory matters is satisfactory and Italy executes, on an informal basis but with the concurrence of Senegal, repatriations of Senegalese migrants irregularly staying on the Italian territory99. Moreover, it is important to mention the recent agreement on police collaboration and the “fight against illegal migration and every other kind of illegal trafficking”100. On the 28th of July 2010, on occasion of what was called by the Italian Government the “African tour”, the Italian Police Chief, mr. Antonio Manganelli, together with the former undersecretary of the Ministry of Interior Nitto Palma, stipulated a “Memorandum of Understanding between the Italian Public Security Department and the General Directorate of the Senegalese National Police for the strengthening of the police co-operation”. The agreement has not yet been made public, but it can be supposed that it is similar to other police co-operation agreements. Generally, within this framework, many initiatives are carried forward related to technical assistance, including the supply of instruments, as well as the organization of training courses, so as to improve the institutional and operative capabilities of the country of transit/origin‟s

95

Source: MAE, Italian Embassy in Dakar, www.ambdakar.esteri.it. See the agreement on gestion concertés des flux migratoires of 23rd September 2006 and the circular letter of 15 th January 2010: www.immigration-professionnelle.gouv.fr/nouveaux-dispositifs/accords-bilatéraux. 97 See the agreement of 9th November 2007 (extended to 2010) that allows the release of 2,700 resident permits for work to Senegalese who intend searching for work in Spain. 98 Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Press release, 11 th March 2010. Available on: www.esteri.it. 99 It is useful to highlight that the average National rate of readmissions is of about 45%, while for Senegal it is of 23,2%. This data reflects the lack of a readmission agreement between Italy and Senegal (Lencioni Silvia, L'immigrazione irregolare senegalese in Italia, Returnet Report, 2008). 100 An agreement “against illegal migration” has been signed with Gambia during the same tour. Migreurop, Italie: cronologie d'expulsion, débarquemets et accords signés, July 2010. 96

59

competent authorities. Furthermore, the police officials may be sent to diplomatic and consular seats as experts in migration matters101. Finally, the European Union has attempted to stipulate an Agreement of Economical Partnership with the ACP Countries, including Senegal in the ECOWAS region, based on the Cotonou Agreements of 2000. In particular, article 13 concerning migrations, if approved, would have made it easier for the member States to repatriate the irregular residents. The ACP Countries have not accepted the “readmission clause”, but they have signed a mutual declaration of cooperation on matters related to migration102. A frame agreement on co-operation and a military co-operation agreement are in advanced phase of approval103. As far as the cooperation for development and migration are concerned, Italy has established ever since 2008 a “Platform of support for the private sector and development of the Senegalese Diaspora in Italy” (PLASEPRI). The specific objective of the project is that of increasing the volume of productive investments on behalf of the small and medium enterprises to generate employment opportunities, especially in the regions where emigration is very high. At European migration management level, Senegal is further involved in Frontex operations. Ever since 2006, the European agency patrols the waters of Western Africa, up to a distance of 1.300 kilometers from the southern European coast, within the framework of the Hera Operation, dedicated to fighting against unauthorized migratory flows coming from the Western African Countries towards the Canaries. Furthermore, in 2010 Spain and Senegal have renewed their bilateral agreements for another year, allowing Frontex to operate from a base in Dakar104. Conclusions First of all, if one considers the percentage of Schengen visas (VSU) and National visas (Naz.): in 2010, on a total of 7,120 visas issued 4,964 were National visas (69.7%); in 2009, 4,617 on 6,572 (70.5%). Of the total National visas for Senegal, 83.3% in 2010 and 71.6% in 2009 were visas for family reunification, followed by those for subordinate employment (about 10% in 2010, 20% in 2009). On a general level, in 2009 the Italian Consulates have issued 21.5% of National visas and 75.1% of Uniform Schengen Visas. Senegal is therefore in countertrend with respect to the National trend, but on the same wavelength as other Countries with high emigration, where there is a high recourse to ex post entry channels for family members, and at the same time there are not any relevant details on visas for work purposes. It is interesting to observe that Senegal is in the eighth position for what concerns regularization applications in 2009 and is the only one of the first 10 Countries present in that classification who is not also in the top ten for the release of National visas for work purposes. The visas for family reunification are therefore the main category of issue, despite the difficulties 105 , clearly demonstrating the process of sedentarization of the migration for work purposes and/or the effectiveness of the migratory networks. 101

Di Pascale Alessia, Migration Control at Sea: The Italian Case, in Ryan Bernard, Mitsilegas Valsamis (ed.), Extraterritorial Immigration Control, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden, 2010. 102 Migrants at sea, EU and ACP Fail to Reach Agreement on Migration in Revised Cotonou Agreement, 23rd June 2010. For a detailed analysis of APE see: CEPII-CIREM, An impact study on the EU-ACP Economic Partnership Agreements in the six ACP regions, Final Report, Paris, January 2008. 103 Source: Ministry of Foreign Affairsa, Italian Embassy Dakar, www.ambdakar.esteri.it. 104 Presently the Frontex mission in Senegal consists of two patrol boats of the Guardia Civil, A helicopter of the Spanish National Police and an airplane provided by the Spanish Minister of Defence. Migrants at sea, Spain and Senegal renew agreement permitting Frontex to operate from Dakar, 24th May 2010. 105 Zampagni Francesca, A Visa for Schengen’s Europe. Consular Practices and regular migration from Senegal to Italy, CARIM AS 2011/59, European University Institute, Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies, San Domenico di Fiesole (FI), 2011, pp 24 e ss. (http://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/18485/CARIM_ASN_2011_59.pdf?sequence=1).

60

For what concerns the Schengen visas, the main motivation is tourism with 42.2% in 2010 and 37.2% in 2009, followed by business, invitation, mission. The visas for tourism are the highest percentage, together with those for business, for rate of refusal: 31.8% (2009) and 38% (2010) for tourism; 34.1% (2009) and 39.5% (2010) for business visas. It is in these details that one should read the European policy for short term visas, with the objective of preventing irregular migration assessing the “migratory risk”, namely the possibility that the applicant remain within the Schengen space for a longer period than that allowed (overstayers). At the front desk of the visa office in Dakar, as in other Countries of emigration, very often profiles of “at risk applicants” are developed (unmarried young people), to which one must dedicate particular attention during the interviews and in examining the supporting documents of 61

the application. If it is a first time Schengen visa, sometimes presentation to the Embassy on return is requested to notify the presence. The only measure that could have facilitated the processing of visas is the outsourcing. At the Dakar seat the service of taking appointments (Africatel) has been outsourced discharging the costs on the applicant, thus nullifying the positive effects of speeding up the long waiting periods. Finally it is important to mention the preferential channel for the application of business visas. It is the commercial office that receives the applicants, behind a desk, on direct appointment by phone, preparing a list of people “known by the Embassy” for whom the subsequent applications will receive an accelerated procedure. One can conclude by stating that in the relationship with Senegal further steps to combine the need of prevention with a more satisfactory visa policy are desirable, also considering that the Senegalese population is numerous and well established in Italy.

62

63

ITALY. Visas for consular post: Dakar and total consular posts (2001-2010) Senegal

2001 1,059 2,283 N/A N/A Total 2001 186,167 N.V. granted Total Visas granted 947,085 N/A Rejections N/A Applications N.V. granted Total Visas granted Rejections Applications

2002 N/A 2,295 N/A N/A 2002 153,830 852,347 N/A N/A

2003 1,173 2,497 5,344 7,841 2003 178,521 874,874 152,460 1,027,334

2004 1,272 2,872 3,979 6,851 2004 196,825 983,499 171,059 1,154,558

2005 1,818 3,530 N/A N/A 2005 172,390 1,076,680 N/A N/A

2006 1,660 4,381 N/A N/A 2006 161,636 1,198,167 N/A N/A

2007 4,034 7,790 N/A N/A 2007 254,854 1,519,816 N/A N/A

2008 4,971 8,476 N/A N/A 2008 190,197 1,563,567 N/A N/A

2009 4,617 6,572 750 7,297 2009 155,286 1,401,706 71,680 1,471,173

2010 4,964 7,120 1,177 8,297 2010 191,168 1,543,408 62,401 1,605,809

NB. From 2003 to 2010, along with type D Visas, the so-called D+C Visas have been included in the category of National Visas. These have been abolished after the entry into force of the Visa Code (5 th April 2010). SOURCE: EMN Italy. Elaboration on data from Ministry of Foreign Affairs Annual Report (2001-2002); Council of Europe / Ministry of Foreign Affairs (2003-2010)

ITALY. Visas disaggregated by type: Dakar consular post (2009-2010) Visa Type Adoption Business Medical care Diplomatic Acc. family member Sport competition Invitation Self employment Self empl. / Research Self empl./ Entertain. Self empl. / Sport Employed work Empl. work / Seafarers Empl. work / Research Empl. work/ Entertain. Empl. work / Sport Mission Mission /Volunteering Religious reasons Re-entry Elective residence Family reunification Study Study - Training Study - Internship Study / Research Study / University Transit Airport transit Trasportation Turism Turism / Status of approved destination Working holiday Totale

Appl 2010

Appl 2009

27 514 70 31 30 13 394 3 0 107 0 490 0 0 0 2 276 0 62 265 0 4,295 211 0 0 0 14 29 1 0 1,463 0

%Var. Issued Issued Nat. Nat. USV Appl. 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010 28 -4% 27 28 27 28 0 448 15% 311 295 0 0 311 51 37% 63 51 3 20 59 55 -44% 31 54 31 54 0 38 -21% 29 37 29 37 0 94 -86% 13 91 0 0 13 352 12% 321 290 0 0 319 7 -57% 1 1 1 1 0 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 10700% 54 0 0 0 54 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 962 -49% 481 936 477 927 4 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 3 -33% 2 3 2 3 0 375 -26% 265 370 15 18 247 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 43 44% 62 43 9 14 53 174 52% 176 142 176 142 0 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 3,395 27% 4,134 3,305 4,134 3,305 0 146 45% 202 122 47 46 155 7 -100% 0 7 0 7 0 1 -100% 0 1 0 1 0 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 14 0% 14 14 13 14 0 9 222% 27 9 0 0 27 3 -67% 0 3 0 0 0 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 1,092 34% 907 745 0 0 906 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0

0 8,297

0 7,297

0% -

0 7,120

0 6,547

0 4,964

0 4,617

0 2,148

USV 2009

LTV 2010

0 295 31 0 0 91 288 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 348 0 29 0 0 0 76 0 0 0 0 9 3 0 745 0

0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0

0 1,924

0

LTV Reject. Reject. 2009 2009 2010 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 203 7 0 1 0 73 2 0 53 0 9 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 89 0 161 9 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 556 0

0 8

6

0 1,177

0 153 0 1 1 3 62 6 0 0 0 26 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 32 0 90 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 347 0 0 750

NB. From 2003 to 2010, along with type D Visas, the so-called D+C Visas have been included in the category of National Visas. These have been abolished after the entry into force of the Visa Code (5 th April 2010). SOURCE: EMN Italy. Elaboration on data from Ministry of Foreign Affairs

64

ITALY. Residence permits: first release to Senegalese nationals (2008-2010) 2008 2009 6.,140 7,399 Senegal 550,226 506,833 Total SOURCE: EMN Italy. Elaboration on data from Eurostat

2010 15,654 58,988

ITALY. Residence permits released to Senegalese nationals (1991-2010) 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 24,194 19,235 20,043 19,383 20,816 31,543 32,037 31,420 40,890 39,170 Senegal 648,935 589,457 649,102 677,791 729,159 986,020 1,022,896 1,090,820 1,340,655 1,379,749 Total 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 37,806 36,959 49,720 47,949 47,085 49,805 60,982 65,943 80,359 90,330 Senegal 1,448,392 1,503,286 2,227,567 2,245,548 2,286,024 2,414,972 2,621,580 3,035,573 3,587,653 3,525,586 Total SOURCE: EMN Italy. Elaboration on data from Istat (1991-2007) and Eurostat (2008-2010)

ITALY. Residence permits released to Senegalese nationals by type (2001-2010) 2001 2002 Study Employ. Family Total Study Employ. Family 34 34,670 2,835 37,806 36 33,333 3,366 Senegal 33,215 840,966 421,761 1,448,392 38,012 829,761 477,959 Total 2003 2004 Study Employ, Family Total Study Employ, Family 27 45,187 4,215 49,720 35 42,836 4,766 Senegal 37,367 1,479,381 545,300 2,227,567 40,355 1,412,694 624,404 Total 2005 2006 Study Employ, Family Total Study Employ, Family 84 40,938 5,670 47,085 103 42,601 6,670 Senegal 48,718 1,419,285 682,365 2,286,024 51,625 1,463,058 763,744 Total 2007 2008 Study Employ, Family Total Study Employ, Family 93 41,735 18,391 60,982 207 43,991 11,070 Senegal 45,458 1,239,263 1,238,678 2,621,580 87,260 1,408,044 873,627 Total 2009 2010 Study Employ, Family Total Study Employ, Family 166 54,412 14,623 80,359 102 61,355 28,194 Senegal 81,386 1,825,755 1,017,102 3,587,653 39,803 1,783,561 1,594,841 Total SOURCE: EMN Italy. Elaboration on data from Istat (1991-2007) and Eurostat (2008-2010)

Total 36,959 1,503,286 Total 47,949 2,245,548 Total 49,805 2,414,972 Total 65,943 3,035,573 Total 90,330 3,525,586

65

ITALY. Refusals at the border of Senegalese nationals (2001-2010) 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 304 382 213 302 195 323 327 185 115 Senegal 30,287 37,183 24,003 24,003 19,336 20,267 9,394 6,405 3,700 Total SOURCE: EMN Italy. Elaboration on data of the Ministry of Interior (2001-2007) and Eurostat (2008-2010)

ITALY. Refusals at the border of Senegalese nationals disaggregated by type (2008-2010) 2008 2009 185 115 Total 15 5 No valid travel document(s) 10 10 False travel document(s) 40 25 No valid visa or residence permit 10 5 False visa or residence permit 110 50 Purpose and conditions of stay not justified 0 0 Person already stayed 3 months in a 6 months period 5 5 No sufficient means of subsistence 5 10 An alert has been issued 0 0 Person considered to be a public threat SOURCE: EMN Italy. Elaboration on data from Eurostat

ITALY. Apprehensions/Expulsions of Senegalese nationals found to be illegally present (2001-2010) 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2,324 3,366 2,521 1,875 2,340 2,702 3,094 4,190 3,800 Senegal 90,160 92,823 59,535 61,024 83,809 92,029 54,140 68,175 53,440 Total SOURCE: EMN Italy. Elaboration on data of the Ministry of Interior (2001-2007) and Eurostat (2008-2010)

2010 90 4,215

2010 90 5 5 30 5 35 0 5 5 0

2010 3,250 46,955

66

5. EFFECTS OF EU POLICY AND LEGISLATION

The EU policy and legislation concerning visa procedures are included in the Italian system following an organic procedure that has always characterized the national visa policy. The continuity of this line has been further guaranteed by the standardization process necessary to implement the EU Visa Code and the EU directives related to immigration. In particular, the new instruments provided by the EU directives have been incorporated into the national system without creating problem situations. The agreements for the facilitation of visas on EU basis have, for example, represented for various Countries a consolidation of the bilateral policies already in force since some time. The liberalization of visas for short stays under 3 months for the citizens of the various Balkan Countries, promoted in particular by the Italian Foreign Ministry itself, has so far produced the strengthening of the bilateral exchanges, without creating invasive effects in terms of human mobility, so that the Countries concerned are an integral part of the Italian international relations system. As far as the introduction of the Visa Information System (VIS) is concerned, both the Ministry of Foreign Affairs as well as the Ministry of Interior are involved. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is taking care of updating the Italian “World Visa Network” in order to interface it with the VIS. The VIS, that will be progressively applied, is currently in force only in the consulates of North Africa. The Ministry of Interior has also developed an information technology solution in order to connect to the Central VIS system through the international interface system called Sezione Sistema Visti del Ministero dell’Interno (Visa Section System of the Ministry of the Interior)(I-VIS), to be provided to the Immigration Offices of the Police Stations and to the Border Police Stations (Cost of the I-VIS: 6 million Euro). This new support will have the responsibility of issuing and controlling at 114 marine borders and 53 airport borders and of only controlling at 103 Immigration Offices of the Police stations and 11 internal land border Offices. Furthermore, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is completing the updating and modernization of its technological supplies, as well as the training of its personnel for what concerns the innovations coming from the new EU directives. To this extent, the Fund for the External Borders (2007 – 2013) has allocated an average of 165.000 euro per year. In particular for what concerns the biometrical data, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is gradually proceeding in the supply of fingerprint scanning instruments to all its diplomatic-consular seats, including the delegated front offices (about 600) all over the world. The same updating in terms of instrumentation, technology and training of the operators is valid also for the Border Police, who is using the Border Information System (SIF), supporting the border control operators in those activities related to the Schengen Border Code (Cost of SIF: 3,2 million euro)106. Finally, in general terms, considering the recent introduction of the EU Visa Code, it should be noted that so far there has not been a public debate on its functioning nor on the financial budget required for its application.

106

In 2011 these instruments have been provided to 15 Border Offices who are mainly interested in passenger traffic from and to extra-Schengen (Airport Borders of Fiumicino, Malpensa, Verona, Bologna, Bergamo – Orio al Serio, Linate and marine Borders of Genova, Venezia, Civitavecchia, Napoli, Palermo, Trapani, Ancona, Bari e Brindisi). See: Programma annuale Italia. Fondo Europeo per le Frontiere Esterne: www.interno.it/mininterno/export/sites/default/it/assets/files/21/0365_programma_annuale_2011.pdf. 67

6. EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE AND DATA ON VISA MATTERS AND MIGRATION FLOWS

This section shall analyze the visas issued in recent years in order to identify the characteristics, extent and origin of migration flows that had Italy as destination in the period under review. In particular, we will compare the data on the issuance of entry visas, on the issuance of residence permits and on the activities to combat irregular immigration for what concerns the border rejections and interception of immigrants found to be illegally present in the country. 6.1. The entry visa During the year 2010 a total of 1,543,408 entry visas (A + C + D) was issued, about 10% more than the previous year and over 63% more compared to 2001. By analysing the historical overview, after a slight fall in the process of released visa for the years 2002-2003, it was found a progressive increase in the volume of visas issued, albeit not always constant. The largest increase occurred in 2007, when there was an increase over the previous year of 321,649 units (+27%), although the peak of the issuance refers to 2008, when 1,563,567 visas were issued (20,159 more than in 2010). Regarding the relationship between the submitted applications and those actually accepted, the rate of success in the year 2010 reached 96.1%, an increase of about 10 percentage points as for the figure recorded at the beginning of the decade (it is stressed that these figures refer to the total number of visas issued, regardless of their type). For the purposes of this research, it was decided to focus the analysis on the trend of national visas. The magnitude of this particular type of visa has grown from 186,167 units in 2001 to 218,318 in 2010 (+32,151 visas, an increase of 17%). Again, growth was not constant and, for the first 4 years, the volume stood below 200,000 units. This threshold has been exceeded for the first time in 2005 (224.080), reaching its peak in 2007, when steps were taken on the issuance of 363,277 national visas. From this moment, the opposite tendency has prevailed, which led to a sharp fall so that, in 2010, there was a decline to 144,959 units (-66 %) compared with the year 2007. ITALY. Percentage of national visas on the total of visas issued (2001-2010) Total number of visas Of which national 947,085 186,167 2001 852,347 153,830 2002 874,863 178,532 2003 1,154,558 196,825 2004 1,076,680 224,080 2005 1,198,167 217,875 2006 1,519,816 363,277 2007 1,563,567 318,872 2008 1,401,706 301,561 2009 1,543,408 218,318 2010 NB. From 2003 to 2010, along with type D Visas, the so-called D+C Visas have been included in the category of National Visas. These have been abolished after the entry into force of the Visa Code (5 th April 2010). SOURCE: EMN Italy. Elaboration on data from Ministry of Foreign Affairs Annual Report (2001-2002); Council of Europe / Ministry of Foreign Affairs (2003-2010)

68

ITALY. National and total visas issued: a comparison of trends (2001- 2010) 2 500 000 2 000 000 1 500 000 1 000 000 500 000 0

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Totale visti

947 085

852 347

874 863

1 154 558

1 706 680

1 198 167

1 519 816

1 563 567

1 401 706

1 543 408

di cui nazionali

186 167

153 830

178 532

196 825

224 080

217 875

363 277

318 872

301 561

218 318

SOURCE: EMN Italy. Elaboration on data from Ministry of Foreign Affairs Annual Report (2001-2002); Council of Europe / Ministry of Foreign Affairs (2003-2010)

As for the reasons underlying issuance of national visas for the several years concerned, generally it should be noted that the predominant types are those related to family and employment reasons. There has been a prevalence of visas for family reasons (accompanying family member + family reunification), which stood steadily between 37% and 44% with a peak reached in 2004, with the exception of 2007, when the incidence had amounted to 25.7%. However, it is interesting to note the preponderance of visas for employment in the period between 2007 and 2009 and, in particular, in 2008 when 59.3% of the issued visa was due to professional reasons, and only 25.7% were motivated by family reasons.

ITALY. National Visas issued on reason: incidence (2001-2010) Total Study % Employment % Family % Other % 186,167 14.4 29.9 37.8 17.9 2001 153,830 20.1 26.1 42.9 10.9 2002 178,532 18.0 33.1 38.9 10.0 2003 196,825 15.7 30.4 44.1 9.8 2004 224,080 14.1 35.6 40.7 9.6 2005 217,875 15.1 38.1 36.8 10.0 2006 363,277 9.6 59.4 25.8 5.2 2007 318,872 11.7 41.3 40.5 6.6 2008 301,561 11.4 43.8 37.1 7.7 2009 218,318 16.9 31.6 41.8 9.7 2010 NB. From 2003 to 2010, along with type D Visas, the so-called D+C Visas have been included in the category of National Visas. These have been abolished after the entry into force of the Visa Code (5 th April 2010). SOURCE: EMN Italy. Elaboration on data from Ministry of Foreign Affairs Annual Report (2001-2002); Council of Europe / Ministry of Foreign Affairs (2003-2010)

69

ITALY. National visas issued: reasons (2001-2010)

SOURCE: EMN Italy. Elaboration on data from Ministry of Foreign Affairs Annual Report (2001-2002); Council of Europe / Ministry of Foreign Affairs (2003-2010)

The change in the number of visas is connected, as regards the types that indicate a permanent settlement, to the annual flow decrees. There are also flows, such as family reunification where the will of migrants already present in Italy, as well as their ability to meet the conditions laid down by law, plays an important role. For highly skilled workers, as well as for other categories non-included in the quota i.e. art. 27 of the Consolidated Act on immigration, the Italian legislation does not limit the quantities, as is the case for other flows of non-EU workers within the determination of quotas. In 2005 it was established the quota of 79,500 for non-EU workers and 79,500 for workers from new EU member States, in 2006 it was 520,000 (with two flow decrees, the first of 170,000 entries and the second of 350,000 entries), in 2007 there were 170,000 entries, in 2008 150,000 entries and in the year 2009 there was no entry quota; however, it was approved a measure to regularize the employment of domestic and care attendants. The Flow Decree 2010 (approved at the end of the year, and implemented in 2011), compared with the applicants‟ request to regularize those already present and also working in sectors other than the home help sector, has registered nearly 400 thousand applications, four times more with respect to the available quota (98,080). In addition, as part of the 2010 entry quota of seasonal workers from non-EU countries (80,000), an additional quota of 4,000 entries has been set for non-EU citizens interested in coming to fulfil certain types of self-employment, partly as a result of Italian-Libyan agreement (a preferential quota of 1,000 entries), or conversion into a residence permit for self-employment of non-EU citizens present for study (up to 1,500 preferential quota) and a quota of 2,000 entries for non-EU citizens who have completed appropriate training and education courses (art. 23 of the Consolidated Act 286/98)107. As for the principal consular offices responsible to issue the visas, data for the past 3 years (2008-2010) have been taken into account. Among the diplomatic representations, Casablanca and New Delhi offices have stood out for the number of visas issued, which have consistently ranked in the first three on the list, even if, over the years, there was a progressive decrease in number from both missions. The 36,052 national visas issued by Casablanca office in 2008 fell to 18,793 visas in 2010, while New Delhi has gone in just 2 years from 17,573 visas to 11,098 issued visas. Interestingly, most of the visas issued in Casablanca is due to family reasons, albeit with a slight 107

Caritas/Migrantes (ed.), Immigration Statistics Dossier 2011, Idos, Rome, 2011, pp.140-142. 70

decrease of 3 percentage points over the biennium, while applicants in New Delhi applied primarily for visas on work purpose (62.1% in 2001, rising to over 80% in 2010). Other missions have, however, marked only for a short period of time for the high number of national visas issued. The Kiev mission in 2008 was in second place with 6.2% of total national visas issued during the year (equal to 19,890), subsequently became the sixth (14,951) and, later, the ninth diplomatic representation (6,401) in the ranking of the visa issued for the next two years. Even Shanghai, which in 2009 turned out to be the first consular office for issuance of national visa (24,132, equal to 8,0%) in just 12 months fell to just over 9,000 visas a year. The consular services at the Italian Embassy in Chisinau, since its recent opening, stood between about 12,000 and 16,000 national visas issued annually, with an average incidence of 5.5% of the total. Therefore, as will be shown in the following analysis of the residence permits issued, a strong differentiation between the various communities is noted in terms of settlement pathways and strategies.

ITALY. First ten consular posts issuing national visas: reasons (2008-2010) Consular National % of Study Employment Family Others Mission Visas v.a. issuance on % % % % total 36,052 11.3 0.7 35.6 62.6 1.0 2008 Casablanca Kiev 19,890 6.2 0.9 71.7 22.2 5.2 New Delhi 17,573 5.5 1.2 62.1 35.7 1.1 Tirana 17,028 5.3 3.3 24.5 70.1 2.1 Bucharest 15,756 4.9 0.6 51.2 43.5 4.7 Shanghai 12,435 3.9 9.0 42.4 48.2 0.4 Manila 11,424 3.6 0.7 66.4 30.0 2.9 Dacca 10,690 3.4 1.2 58.9 39.5 0.4 Lima 9,372 2.9 1.0 56.4 36.1 6.5 Tunis 7,729 2.4 6.3 44.4 44.9 4.4 24,132 8.0 4.0 70.0 25.6 0.4 2009 Shanghai Casablanca 22,400 7.4 1.4 38.2 57.4 3.0 New Delhi 18,929 6.3 1.3 80.5 17.1 1.2 Chisinau 16,294 5.4 1.0 43.4 54.2 1.4 Islamabad 16,246 5.4 1.4 33.2 64.8 0.6 Kiev 14,951 5.0 1.0 63.1 28.8 7.0 Tirana 11,756 3.9 4.8 28.2 64.0 2.9 Lima 10,779 3.6 0.5 59.8 31.9 7.8 Manila 9,988 3.3 0.7 59.3 36.4 3.6 Dacca 8,933 3.0 1.3 57.3 40.8 0.5 18,793 8.6 1.6 38.5 57.6 2.2 2010 Casablanca Chisinau 11,935 5.5 0.7 35.5 60.5 3.3 New Delhi 11,098 5.1 2.0 83.6 12.6 1.8 Dacca 9,839 4.5 1.1 63.7 34.3 0.9 Shanghai 9,335 4.3 2.9 18.9 67.5 10.6 Tirana 8,533 3.9 4.9 27.6 62.9 4.6 Manila 8,442 3.9 0.9 46.4 48.5 4.2 Islamabad 7,402 3.4 3.8 43.7 51.5 1.1 Kiev 6,401 2.9 3.2 27.5 57.9 11.5 Lima 5,897 2.7 1.8 31.6 57.9 8.6 NB. From 2003 to 2010, along with type D Visas, the so-called D+C Visas have been included in the category of National Visas. These have been abolished after the entry into force of the Visa Code (5 th April 2010). SOURCE: EMN Italy. Elaboration on data from Council of Europe / Ministry of Foreign Affairs

71

6.2. Residence permits Regarding the analysis of residence permits issued, the flows taken into consideration cover the period from 2008-2010 108 . Between 2008 and 2010, due to a slight contraction in 2009 (506,833), it is conveyed an increase of about 7% on the total of the first issuances (550,226 in 2008 compared to 589,988 in 2010). Examining data on residence permits issued in 2010 can lead to the following disaggregation: 60.9% of permits were issued for work purposes, and 30.6% as a result of family reunification. In addition, 4.4% were connected to the purpose of study while the remaining 4.2% were due to other reasons. This distribution differs from disaggregated data collected by purpose of issuance for the previous two years, especially as regards work and residence permits for family reasons that, in 2010, increased of 14.3% and 15.8% compared to the last year. Permits related to study activities increased slightly in the previous two years (from 5.2% to 6.4%), but they decreased to 4.4% in 2010. ITALY. Residence permits issued: reasons (2008-2010)

SOURCE: EMN Italy. Elaboration on data from Eurostat

Comparing data from 2009 with those of the previous year, there has been an overall consolidation of the presence of the first six nationalities, each of which has increased by several percentage points: China (+400.6%), Morocco (+80.8%), Albania (+42.0%), Ukraine (+86.6%), India (+248.1%), Moldova (+87.3%). Basically these communities hold the first two thirds of the total permits issued in 2009 (63.3%). Moreover, the same communities have continued to occupy the first six places in 2010, despite their overall incidence on the total of permits issued fell to 49.0%. So as for entry visas, some peculiarities may be noticed even in the most frequent types of residence permits issued for each community. Albania and Morocco are the countries that, through the reunification as well as through moving for work purposes, have shown a marked tendency for the permanent settlement. For example China has stood out for the large number of residence permits for work, the Chinese being interested to stay for a long period, but not in a definitive way. Moldovan and Ukrainian communities have begun to be characterized by an increasing tendency to the permanent settlement while albeit they mostly have permits to stay for work reasons, there has been an increase of permits issued for family reasons. It is, however, a more recent immigration 108

Data following the entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 862/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11th July 2007 on Community statistics on migration and international protection and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 311/76 on the compilation of statistics on foreign workers (Text with EEA relevance). See: http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32007R0862:it:HTML. 72

compared to the one that characterizes the other communities and continues to be outstanding for the prevailing character of temporariness. The number of family reunifications of migrants from India is significant, for it is a growing community. The same trends are found, therefore, both in data concerning the issue of entry visas and those that are more closely connected with the stay. To demonstrate this phenomenon, here below is enclosed a table where a comparison of the two streams is portrayed for the years 2008, 2009 and 2010. However, as regards the last two years, some communities are facing a discrepancy between the data concerning the issuing of visas and residence permits due to the effects of the last regularization in 2009, called sanatoria colf e badanti (regularization of domestic workers and care attendants) for it was limited to the category of man and women working in the home help sector. This measure was decided by Law n. 102 of 3rd August 2009 and called for 295,126 employment applications submitted by employers. Most applications (222,182 75.3%) were approved, while 34,559 applications were refused (11.7%) and 2,713 abandoned within 14th March 2011 (the remaining applications were still under consideration at the editorial closing date)109. To demonstrate this phenomenon, it is reported an almost complete correspondence among the first 10 nationalities of the beneficiaries of the measure for regularization of migrant communities and the main holders of residence permits issued in 2010. To facilitate the reading of the table it is specified that nationality is not intended here as the citizenship of the applicant (data not available) but as the sum of data from the various consular offices in each country. It should be noted also that certain consular jurisdictions are extended to the neighbour States and, therefore, this must be considered in the quantification of the phenomenon. ITALY. Comparison between national visas and residence permit: first ten nationalities (2008-2010) National Visas: first 10 nationalities Residence permits: first 10 nationalities Country v.a. % Country v.a. % Morocco 39,820 12.5 Albania 32,860 13.6 2008 Albania 30,576 9.6 Morocco 28,731 11.9 USA 22,331 7.0 Ukraine 21,243 8.8 India 21,893 6.9 Brazil 19,083 7.9 Ukraine 19,883 6.2 Moldova 16,576 6.9 China 18,610 5.8 China 10,484 4.3 Moldova 15,760 4.9 India 10,029 4.2 Philippines 11,525 3.6 Tunisia 7,769 3.2 Bangladesh 10,716 3.4 Macedonia 6,379 2.6 Peru 9,421 3.0 Cuba 5,895 2.4 China 30,079 10.0 China 52,489 10.4 2009 Morocco 24,768 8.2 Morocco 51,942 10.2 India 23,778 7.9 Albania 46,674 9.2 Albania 21,567 7.2 Ukraine 39,640 7.8 USA 20,597 6.8 India 34,912 6.9 Moldova 17,216 5.7 Moldova 31,040 6.1 Pakistan 16,618 5.5 Peru 19,833 3.9 Ukraine 14,987 5.0 Philippines 15,773 3.1 Peru 10,845 3.6 Egypt 14,524 2.9 Philippines 10,097 3.3 Pakistan 14,191 2.8 USA 21,021 9.6 Morocco 64,604 11.0 2010 Morocco 20,759 9.5 China 48,655 8.2 Albania 15,446 7.1 Ukraine 48,249 8.2 India 15,240 7.0 Albania 47,602 8.1 China 14,062 6.4 Moldova 41,806 7.1 Moldova 11,924 5.5 India 37,985 6.4 Bangladesh 9,866 4.5 Bangladesh 20,928 3.5 Philippines 8,521 3.9 Egypt 20,532 3.5 Pakistan 7,549 3.5 Pakistan 20,237 3.4 109

www.interno.it/mininterno/export/sites/default/it/assets/files/20/0099_Emersione_colf_e_badantidati_al_14_marzo_2011.pdf. 73

Ukraine 6,458 3.0 Peru 19,100 3.2 NB. From 2003 to 2010, along with type D Visas, the so-called D+C Visas have been included in the category of National Visas. These have been abolished after the entry into force of the Visa Code (5 th April 2010). SOURCE: EMN Italy. Elaboration on data from Council of Europe / Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Eurostat

6.3. Tackling irregular immigration: refusals of entry and people apprehended To ensure the effectiveness of visa policies as migration channel in Italy, it is essential to analyze the data concerning the competent authorities‟ activity to combat irregular immigration. This statistical flow includes both refusals at the border and apprehensions of foreign nationals found to be illegally present on national territory. As regards the refusals of entry there has been a trend reversal in the last year. Indeed, the refusals of entry have continued to fall down to 3,700 individuals in Italy until 2009, compared with 9,394 refusals in 2007 and 6,405 in 2008. As partial explanation of the trend, ongoing for some years, there is the lack of data entry on Bulgarian and Romanian citizens that prior to joining EU were among the largest communities to be refused. Another explanation is the absence of border control at land borders due to the accession of Slovenia (2007) and Switzerland (December 2008) to the Schengen Agreement110. Regarding the ranking of the nationalities concerned, the countries most involved in the refusals were Iraq (6.0%), Albania (5.5%), Serbia (5.1%), Morocco (5.0%), Afghanistan (4.8%), Turkey (4.2%), Brazil (4.2%), Nigeria (3.4%), China (3.1%) and Paraguay (3.0%) in 2008; while in 2009 Albania (11.8% of total) was ranked first, followed by Morocco (7.2%), Iraq (5.5%), Afghanistan (4.7%), Turkey (4, 2%), Brazil (4.1%), Nigeria (3.9%), China (3.6%), Senegal (3.1%), Algeria (3.0%). However, there was a new growth in 2010 with 4,215 refusals at the border, even if the figure is less than that recorded in 2008. As in 2009, Albania is still on the first place and represents 13.6% of total refusals implemented. For the first time there is Macedonia (5.1%), followed by Serbia (4.9%), Morocco (4.5%), Brazil (4.5%), Turkey (3.6%), China (3.6%), Afghanistan (3.1%) and Russia (2.7%). There is a large number (500 refusals equal to 11.9% of total) of migrants whose nationality is not indicated, but who have been refused entry since they did not meet the necessary entry requirements. Most of these refusals occurred at air borders (420) and only a small part (80) took place at the maritime borders of the country. In the latter case half the number of people were without a valid travel document. As regards the refusals implemented at air border, 46.4% of cases are attributable to the lack of justification of the purpose and accommodation of stay in Italy, while 20.2% is related to persons without an entry visa or a residence permit. The remaining case record is linked, in equal parts, to the absence or falsification of a travel document, visa or residence permit, and to a lesser extent (3.6%) to the lack of sufficient means of subsistence. ITALY. Refusals: first 10 nationalities (2008-2010) 2008 2009 Country v.a. % Country Total Iraq 385 6.0 Albania 435 Albania 355 5.5 Morocco 265 Serbia 330 5.2 Iraq 205 Morocco 325 5.1 Afghanistan 175 Afghanistan 310 4.8 Turkey 155 Turkey 275 4.3 Brazil 150 Brazil 270 4.2 Nigeria 145 Nigeria 220 3.4 China 135 China 200 3.1 Senegal 115 Paraguay 195 3.0 Algeria 110 Total 6405 100.0 Total 3700

% 11.8 7.2 5.5 4.7 4.2 4.1 3.9 3.6 3.1 3.0 100.0

Country Albania Unknown Macedonia Serbia Morocco Brazil Turkey China Afghanistan Russia Total

2010 Total 575 500 215 205 190 190 150 150 130 115 4215

% 13.6 11.9 5.1 4.9 4.5 4.5 3.6 3.6 3.1 2.7 100.0

110

EMN Italy (ed.), Annual Report on Immigration and International Protection Statistics, Idos, Rome, 2011, p. 24. See: http://www.emnitaly.it/rs-25.htm. 74

SOURCE: EMN Italy. Elaboration on data from Eurostat

While in 2008, 49.0% of refusals have been implemented at airport stations, 28.4% at land borders, and 22.6% took place at sea borders; in 2009 refusals, once disappeared land borders, occurred in two thirds of cases (67.8%) at air borders represented by the Italian international airports, whereas the remaining third at sea borders. A similar proportion was maintained in 2010, with 69.9% of refusals that took place at air borders against the 30.1% that have been implemented at sea borders. Regarding the grounds for refusal, in most cases the purpose and accommodation of stay were not justified (from 2008 to 2010, respectively 26.0%, 22.4% and 20.9%), whereas there has been a lower incidence of cases where an entry visa or residence permit were invalid (3.3%, 4.9%, 5.0%). ITALY. Refusals: grounds for the decision (2008-2010) 2008 v.a. % 210 3.3 falsification of visa or residence permit 1,675 26.0 absence of visa or residence permit 6,405 100.0 Total SOURCE: EMN Italy. Elaboration on data from Eurostat

2009

2010

v.a. 180

% 4.9

v.a. 210

% 5

830

22.4

880

20.9

3,700

100.0

4,215

100.0

During the year 2009, 53,440 people illegally present have been apprehended. A comparison with the data referring to the previous year denotes a decrease of 14,735 individuals. The 2010 data seem to confirm this trend, with an overall decline of 13.8% that resulted in 46,955 apprehensions recorded. The nationalities most represented are Morocco and Tunisia which, over the past 3 years, have always placed respectively first and second place, with an overall incidence that, in the past three years, has increased from 16.8% to 17.7% for Morocco and from 11.0% to 15.3% for Tunisia. There is a growing presence of the Nigerian community that from the sixth community in 2008 has come to occupy the third place in 2010 for the number of migrants found to be illegally present. There has been a slight decrease over the previous biennium in the number of people from Senegal, China, Albania, Egypt and Ukraine who, however, continue to be present predominantly in relation to other communities. Compared with 2009, two new communities have appeared: the Algerian community, with an incidence of 3%, and the Indian, which represents 2.7% of the apprehensions, already present with an incidence slightly higher (3.8%) in 2008. ITALY. Apprehensions of migrants found to be illegally present: first 10 nationalities 2008 2009 Country v.a. % Country v.a. % Country Morocco 11,520 16.9 Morocco 9,450 17,7 Morocco Tunisia 7,860 11.5 Tunisia 8,175 15,3 Tunisia Egypt 4,245 6.2 Senegal 3,800 7,1 Nigeria Senegal 4,190 6.1 China 3,460 6,5 Senegal China 4,150 6.1 Nigeria 3,370 6,3 China Nigeria 4,045 5.9 Egypt 3,170 5,9 Albania Albania 3,635 5.3 Albania 2,875 5,4 Egypt India 2,570 3.8 Bangladesh 1,600 3,0 Ukraine Moldova 2,230 3.3 Moldova 1,485 2,8 Algeria Ukraine 2,090 3.1 Ukraine 1,480 2,8 India Total 68,175 100.0 Total 53,440 100.0 Total SOURCE: EMN Italy. Elaboration on data from Eurostat

2010 v.a. 7,900 5,160 3,965 3,250 2,965 2,820 2,720 1,460 1,420 1,260 46,955

% 16,8 11,0 8,4 6,9 6,3 6,0 5,8 3,1 3,0 2,7 100.0

75

Comparing the data of 2010 related to removals of migrants who do not meet legal requirements for entry with the flow relating to the national visas issued and the stock of residence permits, one can observe some peculiar characteristics for certain communities. To understand the magnitude of flows it is necessary, besides, to consider both the volume of the visas issued and the valid residence permits, and also the removals of irregular migrants coming from the same geographical area. For example, in 2010 there were 20,789 Moroccan citizens holding a valid visa for entry, equal to 9.5% of the visas issued during the year; yet for the same community there were 190 rejections at the border, that is 4.5% of the total number of expulsion orders of the year under review. Interestingly, in 53% of cases, this decision was due to the fact that the Moroccans were not in possession of a valid visa or residence permit. Also a special relevance has the case of China with 14,062 citizens holding a visa and 150 refusals due to the absence (33%) or counterfeiting (33%) of the visas or other documents necessary to enter the national territory, as well as the case of Albania, the third country for the number of visas issued (15,446) and the first in the list with 575 expulsion orders issued, 17% of which took place due to the absence of visa or residence permit. Summing up, in 2010, the citizens of these three Countries subject to the provisions have reached to 27.9% of refusals at the border due to failure to possess a visa (245 of 880). Especially, China is the first country for refusal due to the forgery of visas and residence permits, representing about one quarter of the measures recorded in 2010. On the other hand, Morocco, Albania and China are also the first three countries for the number of residence permits issued (stock data) and represent 14.2%, 13.7% and 7.9 % of total residents in Italy on 31st December 2010. Even in the ranking of the first issuance of residence permits for the year 2010, these communities are located in the first four places (with Ukraine) with an incidence of 11% for Morocco and just over 8% for China and Albania. All this suggests that the migration pressure from these geographic areas is particularly strong and tends to flow in both regular and irregular channels. ITALY. Comparison between national visas, refusals due to the absence or falsification of visa, resident permits (stock and flow) and apprehensions of irregular migrants from some communities (2010) Visas Refusals v.a. % v.a. % % Absence of % Falsification visa or of visa or residence residence permit permit 20,759 9.5 190 4.5 53 5 Morocco 15,446 7.1 575 13.6 17 1 Albania 14,062 6.4 150 3.6 33 33 China Total 218,318 100.0 4,215 100.0 100.0 100.0 Residence permits (stock) Residence permits (flow) Apprehensions v.a. % v.a. % v.a. % 501,308 14.2 64,604 11.0 7,900 16.8 Morocco 483,705 13.7 47,602 8.1 2,820 6.0 Albania 278,863 7.9 48,655 8.2 2,965 6.3 China Total 3,525,586 100.0 589,988 100.0 46,955 100.0 SOURCE: EMN Italy. Elaboration on data from Eurostat

From the comparison of the overall data on the action of tackling irregular migration, it comes out that since 2001 there has been a decrease in both the apprehensions and the refusals of irregularly staying migrants. Despite this common trend, however, there is a clear preponderance of apprehensions with regard to refusals. All this suggests that most migrants have fall into the category of “overstayers”, persons who despite having made regular entry remained without permission in the State beyond the time limited by the visa. Moreover, as noted in the “2010 Report on crime in Italy”111 (Rapporto sulla criminalità in Italia 2010) by the Ministry of the Interior, migrants entering Italy by evading border controls do not represent the most conspicuous part of the 111

See: www.interno.it/mininterno/export/sites/default/it/assets/files/14/0900_rapporto_criminalita.pdf. 76

irregular presence of foreigners. On the contrary, a large part of unauthorized immigration in Italy is made up of the category of “overstayers”, usually provided with regular entry visa. These data confirmed the importance of an effective management of visa policy, not only to promote regular immigration but also to limit the irregular flows. ITALY. Apprehensions and refusals (2001 – 2010) 140 000 120 000 100 000 80 000 60 000 40 000 20 000 0

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Apprehensions

90 160

92 823

59 535

61 024

83 809

92 029

54 140

68 175

53 440

46 955

Refusals

30 287

37 183

24 003

24 003

19 336

20 267

9 394

6 405

3 700

4 215

SOURCE: EMN Italy. Elaboration on data from Eurostat

77

7. CONCLUSIONS The visa policy should be undoubtedly considered an important context for intervention in the field of mobility, both when it is effectively regulated against those who should have this document, and in cases where the obligation is exceeded in view of the enlargement of the free movement of persons, one of the most significant achievements of the EU. It is even more important to highlight the fact that this advantage, which makes borders relative and does not attach an absolute value to the existence of Nation States, is not only of benefit to European Union citizens but also to those citizens from countries that make up the European Economic Area and, albeit to a less degree (for short periods of stay), to people from other Countries. In Italy, among all those who enter the country for various reasons, only 1 in 50 enters after he/she gets a visa. This clarification helps to understand, albeit the problems arising from different situations (the last one linked to events in North Africa), that the reaction cannot be reduced to insisting on a reductionist perspective, which would undermine a setting that reflects the great European humanitarian tradition. The open attitude shall be balanced with the implementation of strict control which, nevertheless, should not be vexatious, and it would be useful to prevent people from cheating, and to stop the economic interests of those who practice smuggling. A clear analysis of visa policy gives the opportunity to highlight several points: 1) the communitarisation of visa rules has had a great effect in the European context, however, it is to be considered incomplete and needs to be complemented with other common rules with regard to the stay, to the quotas for work, to the rights of access to labour market, to interventions in emergencies that exceed the individual states, to ensure development aid to countries with strong migratory pressure, and so on; 2) great efficiency is achieved by a visa regulations which should be conveyed to Countries with strong migratory pressure, which should be handy and applied upon purely administrative directions and should also be specifically targeted at those who seek to circumvent the law. The legal way should not only be virtuous but also should be the most convenient way in terms of waiting times, cost and fairness. Several past experiences show that this way implies a channeling into regular pathways; 3) it is very important that in case an applicant has been refused a visa, the diplomaticconsular authorities will be able to intervene in time, giving the reasons for decisions taken or, when considered necessary, revise them. Each applicant must be able to have a psychological perception (therefore not subject to long delays) between his/her request and the response of the structure: this is also a way to streamline legal procedures; 4) the Italian experience on visa matters is characterized not only by the large number of visa applications that were examined, that in fact is common to some other Member State too, but also by the large number of consular requests submitted by more than 4 million Italians living abroad. The sum of the commitments on both sides confirms that consular posts are faced with a complex task, especially in a time when financial resources are scarce, and, nevertheless, the standard achieved by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is highly remarkable.

78

Statistical Annex

Table 1: Total visas by type (2001-2010) Total

2001

Issued

2001

Total A

Total C

Total D

947,085

37,572

723,346

186,167

Applied

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2001

Rejected

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2002

Issued

852,347

165,393

533,124

153,830

2002

Applied

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2002

Rejected

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2003

Issued

874,863

8,143

585,162

167,950

2003

Applied

1,027,334

N/A

N/A

N/A

2003

Rejected

152,460

N/A

N/A

N/A

2004

Issued

983,499

7,561

679,281

181,884

2004

Applied

1,154,558

N/A

N/A

N/A

2004

Rejected

171,059

N/A

N/A

N/A

2005

Issued

1,076,680

6,173

763,097

172,390

2005

Applied

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2005

Rejected

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2006

Issued

1,198,167

6,458

912,040

161,636

2006

Applied

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2006

Rejected

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2007

Issued

1,519,816

5,195

1,104,425

254,854

2007

Applied

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2007

Rejected

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2008

Issued

1,563,567

2,183

1,179,113

190,197

2008

Applied

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2008

Rejected

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2009

Issued

1,401,706

1,392

1,087,616

155,286

2009

Applied

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2009

Rejected

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2010

Issued

1,543,408

931

1,270,109

191,168

2010

Applied

1,605,809

N/A

N/A

N/A

2010

Rejected

62,401

N/A

N/A

N/A

NB. From 2003 to 2010, along with type D Visas, the so-called D+C Visas have been included in the category of National Visas. These have been abolished after the entry into force of the Visa Code (5 th April 2010). SOURCE: EMN Italy. Elaboration on data from Ministry of Foreign Affairs Annual Report (2001-2002); Council of Europe / Ministry of Foreign Affairs (2003-2010)

79

Tables 2: D visas issued by reason and citizenship

Table 2.1 : D visas issued by reason (2001-2010) Total

Education Employme nt

Family

Other Other Other Other reasons: reasons: reasons: reasons: Total Humanitar Residence not ian/interna only specified tional prot.

Other reasons: national category

2001

186,167

26,777

55,680

70,346

33,364

0

791

32,573

N/A

2002

153,830

30,890

40,154

66,033

16,753

0

852

15,901

N/A

2003

178,532

32,077

59,096

69,532

17,828

0

818

17,010

N/A

2004

196,825

30,940

59,747

86,898

19,240

0

814

18,426

N/A

2005

224,080

31,691

79,764

91,165

21,460

0

968

20,492

N/A

2006

217,875

32,928

83,086

80,181

21,680

0

928

20,752

N/A

2007

363,277

34,933

215,720

93,554

19,070

0

952

18,118

N/A

2008

318,872

37,236

131,692

129,007

20,937

0

896

20,041

N/A

2009

301,561

34,462

132,019

111,775

23,305

0

888

22,417

N/A

2010

218,318

36,794

69,041

91,224

21,259

0

1,073

20,186

N/A

NB. From 2003 to 2010, along with type D Visas, the so-called D+C Visas have been included in the category of National Visas. These have been abolished after the entry into force of the Visa Code (5 th April 2010). SOURCE: EMN Italy. Elaboration on data from Ministry of Foreign Affairs Annual Report (2001-2002); Council of Europe / Ministry of Foreign Affairs (2003-2010)

80

Table 2.2 : D visas issued by reason and main 10 extra EU – 27 countries of citizenship (2001-2010)

Pos Country 2001 1 Albania

Other reasons: Humanita rian / internatio Other Other nal reasons: Employm reasons: protection Residence Total Education ent Family Total reasons only 23,125 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Other reasons: Other reasons not specified N/A

2001 2 Romania

20,545

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2001 3 Morocco

16,519

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2001 4 U.S.A.

15,889

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2001 5 China

10,396

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2001 6 Tunisia

5,861

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2001 7 Poland

5,643

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2001 8 India

5,470

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2001 9 Philippines

5,061

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2001 10 FYROM

4,529

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2002 1 N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2002 2 N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2002 3 N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2002 4 N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2002 5 N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2002 6 N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2002 7 N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2002 8 N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2002 9 N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2002 10 N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2003 1 Romania

22,952

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2003 2 Albania

18,706

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2003 3 USA

15,456

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2003 4 Morocco

14,816

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2003 5 Poland

9,632

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2003 6 Slovakia

6,313

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2003 7 China

5,240

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2003 8 India

5,061

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2003 9 Tunisia

4,505

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2003 10 SerbiaMontenegro 2004 1 Romania

3,629

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

33,005

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2004 2 Albania

21,138

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2004 3 Morocco

17,027

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2004 4 USA

15,715

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

81

2004 5 China

8,925

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2004 6 India

6,069

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2004 7 SerbiaMontenegro 2004 8 Filippine

5,664

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

4,800

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2004 9 Tunisia

4,769

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2004 10 FYROM

3,945

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2005 1 Romania

42,322

962

34,048

7,129

183

0

0

183

2005 2 Albania

23,530

1,795

5,594

15,266

875

0

7

868

2005 3 USA

20,231

12,957

683

223

6,368

0

465

5,903

2005 4 Morocco

17,343

102

4,754

12,155

12,487

0

0

12,487

2005 5 China

13,621

1,188

2,869

9,365

199

0

2

197

2005 6 Ukraine

7,925

191

3,201

3,857

676

0

0

676

2005 7 India

7,222

592

1,759

4,239

632

0

6

626

2005 8 Philippines

6,953

287

3,951

2,457

258

0

0

258

2005 9 SerbiaMontenegro 2005 10 FYROM

6,297

455

2,522

3,139

181

0

0

181

5,429

110

1,508

3,736

75

0

0

75

2006 1 Romania

42,299

1,066

36,050

4,986

197

0

0

197

2006 2 USA

21,507

14,623

699

259

5,926

0

466

5,460

2006 3 Albania

20,864

1,674

4,986

13,396

808

0

4

804

2006 4 Morocco

19,447

143

5,419

13,518

367

0

0

367

2006 5 China

9,257

1,666

3,461

3,924

206

0

7

199

2006 6 India

8,465

741

2,113

4,806

805

0

3

802

2006 7 Ukraine

7,069

145

3,151

3,363

410

0

1

409

2006 8 Philippines

6,357

159

4,195

1,642

361

0

0

361

2006 9 SerbiaMontenegro 2006 10 FYROM

5,889

489

2,657

2,506

237

0

0

237

5,514

130

1,763

3,473

148

0

0

148

2007 1 Morocco

49,926

219

34,657

14,651

399

0

1

398

2007 2 Albania

37,415

848

19,357

16,639

571

0

8

563

2007 3 Ukraine

29,003

154

23,888

4,367

594

0

3

591

2007 4 Romania

28,622

87

24,275

4,178

82

0

0

82

2007 5 China

23,559

2,074

15,778

4,913

794

0

0

794

2007 6 USA

21,256

15,038

720

617

4,881

0

445

4,436

2007 7 India

17,612

761

11,121

4,997

733

0

3

730

2007 8 Bangladesh

14,133

63

11,264

2,767

39

0

0

39

2007 9 Philippines

13,661

109

10,463

2,759

330

0

0

330

2007 10 Sri Lanka

9,782

47

6,645

2,873

217

0

0

217

2008 1 Morocco

39,820

371

14,113

24,841

495

0

0

495

2008 2 Albania

30,576

991

8,137

20,793

655

0

2

653

2008 3 USA

22,331

15,340

775

261

5,955

0

378

5,577

2008 4 India

21,893

907

13,565

6,627

794

0

5

789

82

2008 5 Ukraine

19,883

202

14,223

4,410

1,048

0

3

1,045

2008 6 China

18,610

2,792

7,855

7,796

167

0

1

166

2008 7 Moldova

15,760

95

8,695

6,851

119

0

0

119

2008 8 Philippines

11,525

96

7,611

3,430

388

0

1

387

2008 9 Bangladesh

10,716

133

6,318

4,214

51

0

0

51

2008 10 Peru

9,421

100

5,293

3,410

618

0

2

616

2009 1 China

30,079

2,679

19,455

7,670

275

0

2

273

2009 2 Morocco

24,768

436

9,355

14,150

827

0

1

826

2009 3 India

23,778

822

18,491

3,653

812

0

0

812

2009 4 Albania

21,567

991

6,772

13,244

560

0

0

560

2009 5 USA

20,597

13,855

643

255

5,844

0

353

5,491

2009 6 Moldova

17,216

167

7,525

9,282

242

0

0

242

2009 7 Pakistan

16,618

273

5,643

10,596

106

0

0

106

2009 8 Ukraine

14,987

165

9,440

4,327

1,055

0

6

1,049

2009 9 Peru

10,845

77

6,464

3,459

845

0

2

843

2009 10 Philippines

10,097

86

5,939

3,644

428

0

2

426

2010 1 USA

21,021

14,710

654

250

5,407

0

351

5,056

2010 2 Morocco

20,759

403

7,894

11,927

535

0

0

535

2010 3 Albania

15,446

676

4,882

9,214

674

0

2

672

2010 4 India

15,240

718

11,537

1,937

1,048

0

0

1,048

2010 5 China

14,062

3,378

2,512

7,738

434

0

0

434

2010 6 Moldova

11,924

118

4,238

7,199

369

0

0

369

2010 7 Bangladesh

9,866

145

6,267

3,383

71

0

0

71

2010 8 Philippines

8,521

86

3,939

4,104

392

0

0

392

2010 9 Pakistan

7,549

332

3,250

3,868

99

0

0

99

2010 10 Ukraine

6,458

225

1,773

3,719

741

0

10

731

NB. From 2003 to 2010, along with type D Visas, the so-called D+C Visas have been included in the category of National Visas. These have been abolished after the entry into force of the Visa Code (5th April 2010). SOURCE: EMN Italy. Elaboration on data from Ministry of Foreign Affairs Annual Report (2001-2002); Council of Europe / Ministry of Foreign Affairs (2003-2010)

83

Tables 3: residence permit by reason and citizenship Table 3.1 : residence permit by reason (2008-2010) Total

Other reasons: Humanita rian / internatio nal protection reasons 0

Other reasons: Residence only 808

Other reasons: Other reasons not specified 171,254

2008

550,226

Education 28,609

Employm ent 272,791

Family 76,764

Other reasons: Total 172,062

2009

506,833

32,634

235,966

75,153

163,080

1,486

863

160,731

2010

589,988

25,676

359,051

180,391

24,870

1,536

642

22,692

SOURCE: EMN Italy. Elaboration on data from Eurostat

84

Table 3.2 : residence permit by reason and 10 main extra EU - 27countries of citizenship (2008-2010) Pos.

Country

Total

Education Employm Family

2008

1

Albania

32,860

210

19,628

Other Other Other Other reasons: reasons: reasons: reasons: Total Humanit Residence Other arian / only reasons internatio not nal specified protectio n reasons 12,881 141 0 16 125

2008

2

Morocco

28,731

792

13,825

14,047

67

0

8

59

2008

3

Ukraine

21,243

152

17,434

3,626

31

0

8

23

2008

4

Brazil

19,083

107

15,723

3,213

40

0

6

34

2008

5

Moldova

16,576

2,356

11,110

3,082

28

0

1

27

2008

6

10,484

50

8,479

1,870

85

0

7

78

2008

7

China (incl. Hong Kong) India

10,029

555

6,603

2,835

36

0

6

30

2008

8

Tunisia

7,769

95

6,052

1,615

7

0

5

2

2008

9

6,379

100

4,431

1,843

5

0

0

5

2008

10

Macedonia FYR of Cuba

5,895

32

4,326

1,460

77

0

0

77

2009

1

52,489

3,684

33,046

5,774

9,985

10

0

9,975

2009

2

China (incl. Hong Kong) Morocco

51,942

484

16,825

14,072

20,561

28

6

20,527

2009

3

Albania

46,674

1,692

12,772

15,001

17,209

21

2

17,186

2009

4

Ukraine

39,640

268

29,080

2,632

7,660

19

15

7,626

2009

5

India

34,912

1,093

21,837

3,993

7,989

9

8

7,972

2009

6

Moldova

31,040

212

17,846

4,598

8,384

8

1

8,375

2009

7

Peru

19,833

161

12,978

1,896

4,798

5

2

4,791

2009

8

Philippines

15,773

166

8,271

2,149

5,187

2

1

5,184

2009

9

Egypt

14,524

225

7,509

1,530

5,260

8

2

5,250

2009

10

Pakistan

14,191

326

5,658

2,804

5,403

51

1

5,351

2010

1

Morocco

64,604

267

38,385

25,018

934

13

5

N/A

2010

2

48,655

3,243

32,580

12,229

603

11

2

N/A

2010

3

China (incl. Hong Kong) Ukraine

48,249

230

40,082

7,384

553

23

8

N/A

2010

4

Albania

47,602

1,029

21,341

23,941

1,291

28

0

N/A

2010

5

Moldova

41,806

149

29,955

11,339

363

8

1

N/A

2010

6

India

37,985

740

28,136

8,012

1,097

9

2

N/A

2010

7

Bangladesh

20,928

91

15,643

4,924

270

32

1

N/A

2010

8

Egypt

20,532

245

13,804

6,096

387

7

0

N/A

2010

9

Pakistan

20,237

240

10,652

8,939

406

64

0

N/A

2010

10

Peru

19,100

95

13,870

4,857

278

2

3

N/A

ent

SOURCE: EMN Italy. Elaboration on data from Eurostat

85

Table 4: D visas issued by consular post and reason Table 4.1 : D visas issued by consular posts and reason (2001-2010)

Family 70,346

Other reasons: Total 33,364

Other reasons: Humanita rian / internatio nal protection reasons 0

Other reasons: Residence only 791

Other unspecifie d reasons 32,573

2001

Total 186,167

Education 26,777

Employm ent 55,680

2002

153,830

30,890

40,154

66,033

16,753

0

852

15,901

2003

178,532

32,077

59,096

69,532

17,828

0

818

17,010

2004

196,825

30,940

59,747

86,898

19,240

0

814

18,426

2005

224,080

31,691

79,764

91,165

21,460

0

968

20,492

2006

217,875

32,928

83,086

80,181

21,680

0

928

20,752

2007

363,277

34,933

215,720

93,554

19,070

0

952

18,118

2008

318,872

37,236

131,692

129,007

20,937

0

896

20,041

2009

301,561

34,462

132,019

111,775

23,305

0

888

22,417

2010

218,318

36,794

69,041

91,224

21,259

0

1,073

20,186

NB. From 2003 to 2010, along with type D Visas, the so-called D+C Visas have been included in the category of National Visas. These have been abolished after the entry into force of the Visa Code (5 th April 2010). SOURCE: EMN Italy. Elaboration on data from Ministry of Foreign Affairs Annual Report (2001-2002); Council of Europe / Ministry of Foreign Affairs (2003-2010)

86

Table 4.2 : D visas issued by reason and 10 main extra EU - 27countries of consular posts (2001-2010) Pos.

Consular post

Total

Education Employm Family ent

Other Other Other Other reason: reasons: reasons: unspecified Total Humanitar Residence reasons ian / only internation al protection reasons N/A N/A N/A N/A

2001

1

Bucharest

20,545

N/A

N/A

N/A

2001

2

Tirana

14,361

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2001

3

Casablanca

13,416

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2001

4

Shangai

8,859

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2001

5

Tunis

5,861

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2001

6

Warsaw

5,643

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2001

7

Manila

5,061

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2001

8

Vlore

4,597

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2001

9

Skopije

4,529

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2001

10

Skhoder

4,167

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2002

1

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2002

2

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2002

3

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2002

4

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2002

5

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2002

6

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2002

7

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2002

8

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2002

9

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2002

10

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2003

1

Bucharest

22,952

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2003

2

Casablanca

12,636

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2003

3

Tirana

9,876

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2003

4

Warsaw

9,632

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2003

5

Bratislava

6,313

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2003

6

Tunis

4,505

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2003

7

Skhoder

4,486

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2003

8

Vlore

4,344

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2003

9

Shangai

3,821

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2003

10

Belgrade

3,436

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2004

1

Bucharest

29,511

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2004

2

Casablanca

15,403

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2004

3

Tirana

10,939

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2004

4

Shangai

7,048

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2004

5

Skhoder

5,210

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A 87

2004

6

Vlore

4,989

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2004

7

Manila

4,800

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2004

8

Tunis

4,769

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2004

9

Belgrade

4,086

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2004

10

Skopije

3,945

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2005

1

Bucharest

29,195

750

22,007

6,274

164

0

0

164

2005

2

Casablanca

14,933

57

4,216

10,425

235

0

0

235

2005

3

Timisoara

13,117

212

12,041

855

9

0

0

9

2005

4

Tirana

13,100

763

3,101

8,744

492

0

6

486

2005

5

Shangai

9,985

181

2,345

7,406

53

0

0

53

2005

6

Manila

6,953

287

3,951

2,457

258

0

0

258

2005

7

Skhoder

5,350

350

1,649

3,146

205

0

1

204

2005

8

Skopije

5,429

110

1,508

3,736

75

0

0

75

2005

9

Tunis

4,977

160

1,997

2,464

356

0

1

355

2005

10

New Delhi

4,707

109

524

3,870

204

0

3

201

2006*

1

Bucharest

29,494

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2006*

2

Casablanca

17,282

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2006*

3

Timisoara

12,750

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2006*

4

Tirana

11,644

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2006*

5

Manila

6,346

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2006*

6

New Delhi

5,353

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2006*

7

Dakha

4,762

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2006*

8

Tunis

4,740

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2006*

9

Skhoder

4 ,281

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2006*

10

Belgrade

3,592

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2007

1

Casablanca

44,691

137

31,770

12,499

285

0

1

284

2007

2

Kiev

29,003

154

23,888

4,367

594

0

3

591

2007

3

Bucharest

28,622

87

24,275

4,178

82

0

0

82

2007

4

Tirana

20,775

532

10,394

9,540

309

0

3

306

2007

5

Shangai

17,642

880

13,792

2,895

75

0

0

75

2007

6

Dhaka

14,133

63

11,264

2,767

39

0

0

39

2007

7

Manila

13,661

109

10,463

2,759

330

0

0

330

2007

8

New Delhi

13,573

211

8,610

4,625

127

0

0

127

2007

9

Colombo

9,782

47

6,645

2,872

218

0

0

218

2007

10

Lima

9,446

123

6,147

2,589

587

0

0

587

2008

1

Casablanca

36,052

258

12,849

22,583

362

0

0

362

2008

2

Kiev

19,890

182

14,256

4,411

1,041

0

1

1,040

2008

3

New Delhi

17,573

205

10,908

6,267

193

0

1

192

2008

4

Tirana

17,028

565

4,164

11,940

359

0

0

359

2008

5

Bucharest

15,756

89

8,072

6,856

739

0

0

739

2008

6

Shangai

12,435

1,116

5,276

5,991

52

0

0

52

88

2008

7

Manila

11,424

81

7,580

3,426

337

0

1

336

2008

8

Dakha

10,690

124

6,296

4,222

48

0

0

48

2008

9

Lima

9,372

90

5,285

3,386

611

0

0

611

2008

10

Tunis

7,729

490

3,432

3,470

337

0

0

337

2009

1

Shangai

24,132

958

16,897

6,176

101

0

3

98

2009

2

Casablanca

22,400

323

8,556

12,853

668

0

1

667

2009

3

New Delhi

18,929

243

15,231

3,231

224

0

0

224

2009

4

Chisinau

16,294

161

7,077

8,825

231

0

0

231

2009

5

Islamabad

16,246

226

5,393

10,527

100

0

0

100

2009

6

Kiev

14,951

150

9,441

4,313

1,047

0

4

1,043

2009

7

Tirana

11,756

568

3,320

7,526

342

0

0

342

2009

8

Lima

10,779

55

6,443

3,438

843

0

1

842

2009

9

Manila

9,988

72

5,921

3,639

356

0

1

355

2009

10

Dakha

8,933

120

5,119

3,648

46

0

0

46

2010

1

Casablanca

18,793

300

7,239

10,834

420

0

0

420

2010

2

Chisinau

11,935

78

4,239

7,220

398

0

0

398

2010

3

New Delhi

11,098

219

9,280

1,396

203

0

0

203

2010

4

Dakha

9,839

106

6,266

3,375

92

0

0

92

2010

5

Shangai

9,335

271

1,766

6,305

993

0

1

992

2010

6

Tirana

8,533

421

2,351

5,369

392

0

2

390

2010

7

Manila

8,442

80

3,916

4,095

351

0

0

351

2010

8

Islamabad

7,402

279

3,233

3,810

80

0

0

80

2010

9

Kiev

6,401

205

1,758

3,704

734

0

10

724

2010

10

Lima

5,897

106

1,866

3,417

508

0

0

508

NB. From 2003 to 2010, along with type D Visas, the so-called D+C Visas have been included in the category of National Visas. These have been abolished after the entry into force of the Visa Code (5 th April 2010). * Not available by consular posts; nationalities based on consular posts have been reported instead. SOURCE: EMN Italy. Elaboration on data from Ministry of Foreign Affairs Annual Report (2001-2002); Council of Europe / Ministry of Foreign Affairs (2003-2010)

89

Table 9: Residence permits issued by reason and 10 main extra EU–27 countries of previous residence (2008-2010) Position

Country of previous residence

Total

Education

Employment

Family

2008

1

Albania

448,447

15,005

176,880

163,139

Other reasons: Total 93,423

2008

2

Morocco

438,897

2,777

199,272

133,069

103,779

2008

3

China (incl. Hong Kong)

205,819

9,027

111,730

42,689

42,373

2008

4

Ukraine

177,473

1,860

127,221

37,214

11,178

2008

5

Philippines

118,316

1,312

74,692

17,280

25,032

2008

6

Moldova

103,232

1,584

66,080

25,103

10,465

2008

7

India

101,870

2,451

45,818

29,710

23,891

2008

8

Tunisia

101,659

1,335

45,374

28,689

26,261

2008

9

Serbia

90,638

2,234

36,151

25,925

26,328

2008

10

Egypt

83,051

898

39,739

19,929

22,485

2009

1

Albania

522,851

12,044

214,071

199,177

97,559

2009

2

Morocco

507,370

2,090

236,559

159,198

109,523

2009

3

China (incl. Hong Kong)

280,766

9,544

170,378

55,730

45,114

2009

4

Ukraine

229,427

1,318

174,675

42,413

11,021

2009

5

India

145,186

2,175

74,746

39,591

28,674

2009

6

Moldova

138,274

1,218

89,513

35,929

11,614

2009

7

Philippines

137,300

836

90,236

22,010

24,218

2009

8

Tunisia

118,030

1,212

56,696

32,418

27,704

2009

9

Peru

103,939

1,204

66,482

23,523

12,730

2009

10

Egypt

99,547

483

53,669

22,315

23,080

2010

1

Morocco

501,308

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2010

2

Albania

483,705

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2010

3

China (incl. Hong Kong)

278,863

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2010

4

Ukraine

218,191

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2010

5

India

144,791

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2010

6

Moldova

140,954

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2010

7

Philippines

138,359

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2010

8

Tunisia

116,504

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2010

9

Egypt

108,524

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2010

10

Bangladesh

101,757

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

SOURCE: EMN Italy. Elaboration on data from Eurostat

90

Table 10: Third country nationals refused entry at the external borders

Table 10.1: Overall trend by reason (2001-2010)

Total

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

30,287

37,183

24,003

24,003

19,336

20,267

9,394

6,405

3,700

4,215

SOURCE: EMN Italy. Elaboration on data from Ministry of Interior (2001-2007) and Eurostat (2008-2010)

91

Table 10.2: Main 10 countries of citizenship (2001-2010) Position

country of citizenship

Total

2001

1

N/A

N/A

2001

2

N/A

N/A

2001

3

N/A

N/A

2001

4

N/A

N/A

2001

5

N/A

N/A

2001

6

N/A

N/A

2001

7

N/A

N/A

2001

8

N/A

N/A

2001

9

N/A

N/A

2001

10

N/A

N/A

2002

1

N/A

N/A

2002

2

N/A

N/A

2002

3

N/A

N/A

2002

4

N/A

N/A

2002

5

N/A

N/A

2002

6

N/A

N/A

2002

7

N/A

N/A

2002

8

N/A

N/A

2002

9

N/A

N/A

2002

10

N/A

N/A

2003

1

N/A

N/A

2003

2

N/A

N/A

2003

3

N/A

N/A

2003

4

N/A

N/A

2003

5

N/A

N/A

2003

6

N/A

N/A

2003

7

N/A

N/A

2003

8

N/A

N/A

2003

9

N/A

N/A

2003

10

N/A

N/A

2004

1

Bulgaria

4,463

2004

2

Romania

4,368

2004

3

Albania

1,339

2004

4

Nigeria

1,047

2004

5

Croatia

862

2004

6

Turkey

839

2004

7

Serbia Montenegro

815

2004

8

Bolivia

788

2004

9

China

639

2004

10

Brazil

512

2005

1

Romania

3,511

2005

2

Bulgaria

2,209 92

2005

3

Albania

1,019

2005

4

China

876

2005

5

Serbia-Montenegro

861

2005

6

Nigeria

838

2005

7

Croatia

722

2005

8

Turkey

614

2005

9

Brazil

581

2005

10

Bolivia

499

2006

1

Romania

6,254

2006

2

Bulgaria

2,083

2006

3

Serbia Montenegro

956

2006

4

Nigeria

819

2006

5

Albania

675

2006

6

Croatia

582

2006

7

Turkey

562

2006

8

China

482

2006

9

Bolivia

474

2006

10

Morocco

416

2007

1

Serbia & Montenegro

797

2007

2

Paraguay

504

2007

3

Albania

499

2007

4

Morocco

439

2007

5

Brazil

410

2007

6

China

375

2007

7

Senegal

327

2007

8

Turkey

312

2007

9

Nigeria

281

2007

10

Macedonia, FYR of

250

2008

1

Iraq

385

2008

2

Albania

355

2008

3

Serbia

330

2008

4

Morocco

325

2008

5

Afghanistan

310

2008

6

Turkey

275

2008

7

Brazil

270

2008

8

Nigeria

220

2008

9

China (incl. Hong Kong)

200

2008

10

Paraguay

195

2009

1

Albania

435

2009

2

Morocco

265

2009

3

Iraq

205

2009

4

Afghanistan

175

2009

5

Turkey

155

2009

6

Brazil

150

2009

7

Nigeria

145

93

2009

8

China (incl. Hong Kong)

135

2009

9

Senegal

115

2009

10

Algeria

110

2010

1

Albania

575

2010

2

Unknown

500

2010

3

Macedonia FYR of

215

2010

4

Serbia

205

2010

5

Morocco

190

2010

6

Brazil

190

2010

7

Turkey

150

2010

8

China (incl. Hong Kong)

150

2010

9

Afghanistan

130

2010

10

Russia

115

SOURCE: EMN Italy. Elaboration on data from Ministry of Interior (2001-2007) and Eurostat (2008-2010)

94

Table 11: Refusals at the borders due to the absence of a valid visa or residence permit Table 11.1: Overall trend (2008-2010) 2008 Total

2009 1,675

2010 830

880

SOURCE: EMN ITALY. Elaboration on data from Eurostat

95

Table 11.2: Main 10 countries of citizenship (2008-2010)

Position 1

country of citizenship

2008 2008

2

Morocco

120

2008

3

Albania

115

2008

4

China (incl. Hong Kong)

100

2008

5

Russia

70

2008

6

Tunisia

65

2008

7

Turkey

60

2008

8

Egypt

60

2008

9

Ukraine

55

2008

10

Bosnia and Herzegovina

50

2009

1

Morocco

120

2009

2

Albania

95

2009

3

China (incl. Hong Kong)

75

2009

4

Unknown

55

2009

5

Turkey

40

2009

6

Egypt

40

2009

7

Russia

35

2009

8

Serbia

35

2009

9

Ukraine

30

2009

10

Algeria

30

2010

1

Unknown

100

2010

2

Morocco

100

2010

3

Albania

95

2010

4

China (incl. Hong Kong)

50

2010

5

Serbia

45

2010

6

Egypt

45

2010

7

Turkey

40

2010

8

Ukraine

35

2010

9

Tunisia

35

2010

10

Algeria

35

Serbia

Total 210

SOURCE: EMN ITALY. Elaboration on data from Eurostat

96

Table 12: Refusals at the borders due to the presentation of a false visa or residence permit

Table 12.1: Overall trend (2008-2010)

Total

2008

2009

2010

210

180

210

SOURCE: EMN ITALY. Elaboration on data from Eurostat.

97

Table 12.2: Main 10 countries (2008-2010) Position 1

country of citizenship

2008

Total

Nigeria

35

2008

2

Albania

20

2008

3

Morocco

15

2008

4

China (incl. Hong Kong)

10

2008

4

Serbia

10

2008

4

Senegal

10

2008

4

Iraq

10

2008

4

Ghana

10

2008

4

Pakistan

10

2008

4

Peru

10

2008

4

Syria

10

2009

1

Unknown

15

2009

1

Sri Lanka

15

2009

1

Albania

15

2009

1

Egypt

15

2009

1

Nigeria

15

2009

2

China (incl. Hong Kong)

10

2009

2

Morocco

10

2009

2

Serbia

10

2009

3

Turkey

5

2009

3

Côte d'Ivoire

5

2009

3

Senegal

5

2009

3

Iraq

5

2009

3

Moldova

5

2009

3

Ghana

5

2009

3

Colombia

5

2009

3

Afghanistan

5

2009

3

India

5

2009

3

Pakistan

5

2010

1

China (incl. Hong Kong)

50

2010

2

Unknown

30

2010

3

Bangladesh

15

2010

3

Sri Lanka

15

2010

4

Turkey

10

2010

4

Morocco

10

2010

5

Albania

5

2010

5

Serbia

5

2010

5

Somalia

5

2010

5

Algeria

5

2010

5

Egypt

5

2010

5

Tunisia

5

2010

5

Côte d'Ivoire

5

98

2010

5

Nigeria

5

2010

5

Senegal

5

2010

5

Iraq

5

SOURCE: EMN ITALY. Elaboration on data from Eurostat

99

Table 13: Refusals at the borders for stay longer than 3 months per semester

Table 13.1: Overall trend (2008-2010) 2008 Total

2009 40

2010 40

70

SOURCE: EMN ITALY. Elaboration on data from Eurostat

100

Table 13.2: Main 10 countries of citizenship (2009-2010)

2009

Position 1

country of citizenship Brazil

Total 30

2009

2

Venezuela

5

2009

3

-

-

2009

4

-

-

2009

5

-

-

2009

6

-

-

2009

7

-

-

2009

8

-

-

2009

9

-

-

2009

10

-

-

2010

1

Brazil

45

2010

2

Unknown

10

2010

3

Mexico

5

2010

4

-

-

2010

5

-

-

2010

6

-

-

2010

7

-

-

2010

8

-

-

2010

9

-

-

2010

10

-

-

SOURCE: EMN ITALY. Elaboration on data from Eurostat

101

Table 14: Apprehensions

Table 14.1: Overall trend (2001-2010)

Total

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

90,160

92,823

59,535

61,024

83,809

92,029

54,140

68,175

53,440

46,955

SOURCE: EMN Italy. Elaboration on data from Ministry of Interior (2001-2007) and Eurostat (2008-2010)

102

Table 14.2: Main 10 countries of citizenship (2004-2010) Position

country of citizenship

Total

2004

1

Romania

18,059

2004

2

Morocco

5,764

2004

3

Albania

3,447

2004

4

Moldova

3,296

2004

5

Ukraine

2,373

2004

6

Tunisia

2,099

2004

7

Nigeria

2,064

2004

8

Palestine

2,059

2004

9

Senegal

1,875

2004

10

Bulgaria

1,594

2005

1

Romania

26,010

2005

2

Morocco

7,722

2005

3

Albania

4,130

2005

4

Moldova

4,013

2005

5

China

3,779

2005

6

Palestine

3,034

2005

7

Nigeria

2,893

2005

8

Ukraine

2,756

2005

9

Tunisia

2,714

2005

10

Egypt

2,447

2006

1

Romania

28,973

2006

2

Morocco

13,122

2006

3

Albania

4,889

2006

4

Tunisia

4,560

2006

5

Moldova

3,451

2006

6

China

3,079

2006

7

Egypt

2,865

2006

8

Nigeria

2,705

2006

9

Senegal

2,702

2006

10

Ukraine

2,629

2007

1

Morocco

9,526

2007

2

Albania

3,832

2007

3

Egypt

3,366

2007

4

China

3,356

2007

5

Senegal

3,094

2007

6

Tunisia

3,006

2007

7

Nigeria

2,523

2007

8

India

2,481

2007

9

Algeria

2,294

2007

10

Moldova

2,065

2008

1

Morocco

11,520

2008

2

Tunisia

7,860 103

2008

3

Egypt

4,245

2008

4

Senegal

4,190

2008

5

China (incl. Hong Kong)

4,150

2008

6

Nigeria

4,045

2008

7

Albania

3,635

2008

8

India

2,570

2008

9

Moldova

2,230

2008

10

Ukraine

2,090

2009

1

Morocco

9,450

2009

2

Tunisia

8,175

2009

3

Senegal

3,800

2009

4

China (incl. Hong Kong)

3,460

2009

5

Nigeria

3,370

2009

6

Egypt

3,170

2009

7

Albania

2,875

2009

8

Bangladesh

1,600

2009

9

Moldova

1,485

2009

10

Ukraine

1,480

2010

1

Morocco

7,900

2010

2

Tunisia

5,160

2010

3

Nigeria

3,965

2010

4

Senegal

3,250

2010

5

China (incl. Hong Kong)

2,965

2010

6

Albania

2,820

2010

7

Egypt

2,720

2010

8

Ukraine

1,460

2010

9

Algeria

1,420

2010

10

India

1,260

SOURCE: EMN Italy. Elaboration on data from Ministry of Interior (2001-2007) and Eurostat (2008-2010)

104