LOCAL WELCOMING POLICIES FOR EU MOBILE CITIZENS

Transcription

1 LOCAL WELCOMING POLICIES FOR EU MOBILE CITIZENS CITY REPORT BRUSSELS CAPITAL REGION Author: Marie Van Wayenbergh Local Welcoming Policies for EU Mobile Citizens brings together the cities of Amsterdam, Brussels, Copenhagen, Dublin, Gothenburg and Hamburg in collaboration with the University of Gothenburg and Mira Media in an effort to support the fundamental right of EU citizens to freely move, work and live in any EU country. The research study of the Brussels Capital Region is part of the project s Lessons Learned report in which participating cities look back and define the successful and unsuccessful elements in their Welcome and integration policies in the last decades. This publication has been produced with financial support from the European Union s Fundamental Rights and Citizenship Programme. The information and views set out in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the Commission. The Commission does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this publication. Neither the Commission nor any person acting on the Commission s behalf may be held responsible for the use which may be made of the information contained therein. 1

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Executive Summary. 4 II. Introduction Chapter 1: Lessons Learned.. 8 1: , The guest worker framework : , From guest workers to immigrants.. 9 3: , From immigrants to new citizens : Lessons learned Chapter 2: Analysis Current Flows of EU Migrants : General trends, Nationality and background EU migrants 16 2: Residential Pattern : Characteristics of EU migrants. 20 4: Employment of EU Migrants : Level of income 24 6: Housing of EU Migrants. 26 7: Language and Education of EU Migrants.. 27 III. Mapping of Local Welcoming Policies. 29 Chapter 1: General Information Needs of Newcomers Chapter 2: Training of Front Desk Staff in Local Administrations Chapter 3: Language Education Policies 34 Chapter 4: Housing Policies 36 Chapter 5: Labour Market Policies Chapter 6: Civic Participation, Citizenship.. 41 Chapter 7: Diversity and Intercultural Dialogue

3 Chapter 8: Social Rights Chapter 9: Schooling.. 45 IV. Conclusions V. Bibliography.. 51 VI. Annexes 57 3

4 I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This is the research paper on the Local Welcoming Policies for EU migrants in the Brussels- Capital Region. It fits within the larger frame of a project aimed at supporting the European Union s Citizens Fundamental Rights with financial support of the European Union s Fundamental Rights and Citizenship Programme. The same research was conducted simultaneously in Amsterdam, Copenhagen, Dublin, Goteborg and Hamburg. The research serves as a stepping-stone to develop and share good practices regarding welcoming policies for EU citizens between the participating cities. The project started in January 2015 and will end in December This paper begins with an introduction. The first part consists of desk research on previous migrations in the Brussels-Capital Region. We will take a look at the first migration waves until The second part is an analysis of the current flows of EU migrants in the Brussels- Capital Region. To map the Local Welcoming Policies, two focus groups were conducted consisting of European citizens living in the Brussels Capital region. Sixteen respondents with different backgrounds were selected, representing different countries of origin, educational backgrounds, professional activities, family compositions and experiences. For practical reasons, both of the focus groups were addressed in French, implying a biased picture: citizens already speaking one of the official languages of the city have a clear advantage over those who do not have a contact language. Moreover, the sample of respondents is simply too small to draw general conclusions about the experiences of the European citizens living in the Brussels-Capital Region. However, interesting findings were made and taken into account during the ten formal interviews with actors who play a central role in the reception of (EU) migrants. The first interview was held with a staff member of bon, the Brussels Reception Office founded in 2004, subsidized by the Flemish government and part of the 'Agency for Integration and Citizenship' [Agentschap Integratie en Inburgering] since January The second and third interview was held with the first aldermen of the communes of Brussels and Schaerbeek. Both cities have a very high number of EU nationalities: in 2014, one out of five citizens of these communes held a European passport. The highest concentration of Romanians, Spaniards and Italians are to be found in Brussels, while Schaerbeek has the highest number of Bulgarian and Polish citizens. Moreover, both communes were candidates to participate in the creation of BAPA (Bureau d Accueil pour les Primo-Arrivants). The fourth interview took place with staff of the Expat Welcome Desk of the Brussels Commissioner for Europe, which assists employees of the European institutions upon their arrival. The fifth interview was conducted with OR.C.A., an organisation for undocumented workers. The sixth one was 4

5 with Italian self-organisation La commune del Belgio. The seventh interview was with Actiris, the regional employment office of Brussels. Interview eight is a consultation with the Roma service of NGO Foyer. The ninth interview was conducted with Ciré (Coordination et Initiatives pour refugiés et étrangers) and finally, the last interview took in place in the House of Dutch, the umbrella organisation of Dutch language courses. With these ten interviews we tried to generate a view on the different policies concerning EU-mobile citizens. With a limited period of time and a highly fragmented landscape of (political) structures and (self)organisations, we do not claim that this work is all-embracing. Nevertheless, we can certainly extract some conclusions and reflections from the research that was conducted. In the Brussels-Capital Region, there is no culture of welcoming (EU) newcomers at City Hall. With the dual structure of Brussels, the division of the city in nineteen communes and the multitude of organisations, newcomers may experience difficulties. Not surprisingly, most of the focus group respondents obtained their first information via their social network. Other sources of information are the Internet, self-organisations and organisations that give social orientation courses. However, newcomers are not always aware of the existence of these programmes or do not enrol due to the impossibility of following only one element of the programme, the unavailability of their language, or non-matching schedules. Furthermore, the integration policy targets especially non-eu newcomers, as EU nationals are not considered in need of targeted integration efforts. One exception is the Expat Welcome Desk, a contact point for employees of the European institutions that guides them in the practical issues they may encounter in their new city. During the social orientation courses, social rights are an important theme. According to the respondents of the focus groups, it can be quite hard to gain insight in these matters without a general overview. There is no policy regarding social rights for EU newcomers. Neither are there any special provisions targeting EU migrants vis-à-vis housing, labour market and language education. In general, the same services are offered to nationals, EU migrants and third-country citizens. Regarding civic participation and voting, none of the respondents of the focus groups had ever voted. Although Town Halls proactively send letters to invite EU citizens to register for the elections, this generates little effect. There are reception classes for newcomers, but these are (mostly) limited to one school year, both at French and Dutch sides. The four European schools located in Brussels are specifically intended for children whose parents work at the European institutions. Finally, there is no policy regarding diversity and intercultural dialogue directed at EU citizens, although this is organised organically within the expat community. To conclude, we can say that there is no (regional) vision on a welcoming policy meant for (EU) newcomers in Brussels. Nonetheless, there are initiatives from society and NGOs to meet the needs of (EU) newcomers. Those initiatives are described in this paper. 5

6 II. INTRODUCTION This paper is aimed at giving a view on the local welcoming policies for EU migrants in the Brussels-Capital Region. We will try to analyse how EU migrants find their way in the bilingual capital of Europe, where so many nationalities and organisations co-exist. In order to provide a clear view on the structure of how the Brussels-Capital Region functions, let us start with a small introduction. Belgium has been a federal state composed of Communities and Regions since The federal government gradually delegated powers to the federated entities (Communities and Regions) during six state reforms, taking place between 1970 and Today, there are five levels of power: 589 communes or City Halls, 10 Provinces, 3 Regions (Flanders, Wallonia and the Brussels-Capital Region), 3 Communities (the Flemish Community, The German Community and the French Community, which was recently renamed Communauté Wallonie-Bruxelles) and finally, the Federal State. Competencies are distributed between these different authorities. Spatial planning, for example, is part of the competencies of the regions. Other matters are shared responsibilities. Education, for instance, is a shared responsibility of the Communities and Municipalities. In 1980, the integration of foreigners became a competency allocated to the three Communities. In the Brussels-Capital Region, the Flemish Community Commission and the French Community Commission 1 have been the competent bodies for the integration of foreigners since 1998, while the federal authority holds overall responsibility for a number of relevant programmes. Some of those programmes provide support and funds for integration policies designed by the Regions and Communities (e.g. Federal Impulse Fund for Immigrant Policy), so different authority levels can (and do) adopt different integration policies. This implies that any description of the Belgian integration policy is always a presentation of different policy opinions taken at every level (Boone, 2012). The totality of the nineteen municipalities, generally called 'Brussels' 2, is referred to as a 'city' in daily life although legally it is not. This could create some confusion. What is commonly called 'Brussels' (the nineteen municipalities) is an administrative region (the Brussels-Capital Region) with a special status within the Belgian framework. As such, it is not a city and does not have a city government as a whole, but is a region with its own regional government and representative body alongside nineteen municipal councils. To avoid any 1 The Flemish Community Commission and the French Community Commission are the representational bodies of the Flemish Community Government and the French Community Government within the Brussels-Capital Region. 2 When the term Brussels is used in this report, the Brussels-Capital Region will be meant, unless mentioned otherwise. 6

7 misunderstanding: this paper concerns the Brussels-Capital Region. Only one of the nineteen municipalities is officially named 'the city of Brussels' (in Dutch: "Brussel", in French: "Bruxelles") and covers the historical (and touristic) centre. The other eighteen municipalities (respectively in Dutch and/or French) are: 1) Anderlecht, 2) Elsene / Ixelles, 3) Etterbeek, 4) Evere, 5) Ganshoren, 6) Jette, 7) Koekelberg, 8) Oudergem, 9) Schaarbeek / Schaerbeek, 10) Sint-Agatha-Berchem / Berchem-Sainte-Agathe, 11) Sint-Gillis / Saint-Gilles, 12) Sint-Jans-Molenbeek / Molenbeek, 13) Sint-Joost-ten-Node / Saint-Josse-ten-Noode, 14) Sint-Lambrechts-Woluwe / Woluwé-Saint-Lambert, 15) Sint-Pieters-Woluwe / Woluwé- Saint-Pierre, 16) Ukkel / Uccle, 17) Vorst / Forest and 18) Watermaal-Bosvoorde / Watermael-Boitsfort (Bousetta, 1999). 7

8 CHAPTER I: LESSONS LEARNED In order to deduct possible lessons that can be learned from the past, let us take a look at history, and more precisely at the period between the first migration flows and As is common in Belgian migration literature, we will distinguish three periods. A first period, from 1945 to 1973, covers the so-called guest worker regime in which migration policy was primarily defined in the context of economic needs and migration considered to be temporary. The second period runs from 1974 to 1985 and is characterised by an official migration stop for non-european migrants and family reunification as the main migration mechanism. The third period, from 1985 to 2004, is characterised by increasing asylum flows and the policy recognition that guest workers have indeed become new citizens. In each period we will focus on the areas of Migrant Welcoming Policies, Language Education Policies, Housing Policies for newcomers, Labour Market Policies, Civic Participation and Intercultural Dialogue. 1: , THE GUEST WORKER FRAMEWORK Context After the Second World War, Belgium - as most other Western European countries - had a shortage of low-skilled workers in specific sectors (notably mining and heavy industry). In the 1950s, workers were needed for post-war reconstruction and in the 1960s for general expansion of the economy. Employers, trade unions and the government agreed to recruit foreign labour to alleviate the workforce shortages. Initially, a bilateral agreement was fixed with Italy (1946). Later on, covenants were made with Spain and Greece (in 1956), Morocco and Turkey (in 1964) and Algeria, Tunisia and Yugoslavia (at the end of the sixties). These migrants were literally called guest workers [gastarbeiders], reflecting the idea that their stay was purely instrumental for the labour market and that they would at one point return to their country of origin. Migrant Welcoming Policies Regarding welcoming policies, we can roughly say that not much was put in place by federal or local governments. There were no government policies related to language acquisition, diversity and intercultural dialogue, or schooling policies for newcomers. The migrants were thought to be here temporarily and a short-term vision characterised the government s attitude. There was a naive belief in the regulation possibilities of migration, both in quantitative and qualitative terms (Deslé, 1997). In the educational system, some provisions were developed to foster country of origin education of language and culture to enable 8

9 migrant children to keep ties with their homeland. Less attention was paid to the language acquisition of the new country. Housing Policies In the course of the fifties and sixties, the foundations were laid for the current pattern of housing segregation in the Brussels-Capital Region. Under the impulse of increasing purchasing power and rising (auto)mobility, the inhabitants of Brussels who could afford it, traded the central districts of the city for the green and peaceful outskirts. The resulting vacancies in the light of this suburbanisation were filled by foreign workers. They focused on the area with 19 th -century working class houses, which is called the banana ; it forms a belt, a half-moon around the City of Brussels and stretches from Saint-Josse to Schaerbeek, from Molenbeek and Anderlecht to Saint-Gilles. Labour Market Policies As the need for cheap labour was persistent, the Belgian government basically adopted a laissez-faire attitude from 1962 to Even if in theory one needed a work and residence permit within the framework of a bilateral agreement, a simple visa was in reality often sufficient to enter the country, find work and get regularised afterwards. Civic Participation, Citizenship, Voting Rights The associational life of migrant groups often reflected the civil society structures of their countries of origin. Over time, links with political and associational structures of the country of origin became less important and migrants became more included in Belgian organisational structures or developed local organisational dynamics in the diaspora. From the early seventies onwards, migrant groups and the labour movement have been pleading for political rights for guest workers. The right to vote and stand as a candidate in so-called social elections (i.e. for worker councils) was granted, but demands to also extend formal electoral rights on the local or regional level were systematically rejected by the government(s). However, consultative bodies for migrants were created in several urban areas (Jacobs, 1999). 2: , FROM GUEST WORKERS TO IMMIGRANTS Context Migration policy fundamentally changed in the years 1973 and The oil crisis provoked a slowdown in economic growth and as a result Belgium, like its European neighbours, decided to close its borders to economic migration. In the following years, the sociological reality of guest workers changed as well. Initially, the foreign workers had considered their stay as temporary. Gradually, migrants de facto had to accept that their future would in 9

10 reality be one of permanent migration to Belgium. Indeed, their children started to be fully integrated in the schooling system. Furthermore, leaving the country would hold the risk of being unable to return to Belgium if resettlement in their country of origin would fail. Among both policy makers and migrants, perceptions were changing. Guest workers gradually became immigrants, indicating their gradually changing situation into permanent migration. Given the changing economic reality, these immigrants were gradually considered competitors on the labour market. A crucial factor was the use of provisions for family reunification (for Moroccans provided in the bilateral agreement of 1964 as an incentive for migration to Belgium in competition with other destination countries). Migrant Welcoming Policies Parallel to a more stringent implementation of migration law, socio-cultural actors started to emphasise the need for immigrant integration initiatives more clearly (Schoonvaere, 2010). In the absence of an official policy, social workers and local NGOs started to defend the rights of immigrants and their families, and created some basic reception structures. From the mid-seventies onwards, some of these structures were financed by the government. This gradually led to a certain professionalization (Deslé, 1997). Language Education Policies On Francophone side, there was a widespread belief that given the dominance and international status of the French language, linguistic assimilation did not require policies beyond general alphabetisation. In 1983, Lire et Écrire was founded, an organisation of the French Community to fight illiteracy. The Flemish, however, adopted a more proactive position (given their demographic minority). The attention for language education increased and resulted in an offering of Dutch language courses organised by the VGC, the Flemish Government in Brussels (Vandenbrande, 1997). Housing Policies During this period, the spatial division in Brussels was consolidated. The Southern Europeans who saved enough money during the golden sixties largely moved to the outskirts of Brussels, while a lot of non-european migrants can still be found in central areas even today. Former popular neighbourhoods transformed into migrant neighbourhoods. This generally led to socio-economic segregation and urban polarisation: the wealthier middle class at the Western border of Brussels, the top class in the Southeast and the poor neighbourhoods in the centre (Vandecandelaere, 2012). In an attempt to limit the creation of ghettos and concentration neighbourhoods, a procedure was implemented for a period of eight years, which limited the enrolment of non-eu citizens in certain municipalities of the Brussels- Capital Region. From 1985 to 1992, it was not possible to register as a non-eu citizen (aimed at Moroccan and Turkish people) in the following communes: Forest, Saint-Gilles, Molenbeek, Saint-Josse, Schaerbeek and Anderlecht. Analyses of the impact of the legal disposition on the mobility of non-eu foreigners have all shown that the procedure has not 10

11 been able to stop the demographic increase of the foreign population in the municipalities concerned (Bousetta, e.a., 1999). Labour Market Policies The economic crisis of the 1970s modified the employment situation of migrant groups. A number of new patterns arose. Due to strong ethno-stratification of the labour market, migrants came to be overrepresented in particular sectors of the labour market (cleaning sector, services, etc.). Large infrastructural works in Brussels furthermore provided some niche employment opportunities for low-skilled labourers. The best-known example is the expansion of the transportation company MIVB-STIB. This kind of work demanded a lot of unskilled labour force. The irregular hours and hard digging work for the metros were not very attractive to the Belgian labourers. But the MIVB-STIB, as a governmental organisation, offered job security and a social service which provided help with administrative procedures. In the early seventies, one out of four of its employees were Moroccan (Foyer, 2014). The psychological shift towards a long-term perspective also pushed a number of migrants towards entrepreneurship. Immigrants started to invest in their own shops where they sold typical hard-to-find products such as halal meat, fresh mint, etc. Civic Participation, Citizenship, Voting Rights At the end of the 70s, a lot of minority organisations were founded. Until 1984, however, foreigners were only allowed to have legally recognised associations if three in five of the active consisting members were of Belgian nationality (Bousetta, Jacobs, Kagné, Martiniello, Rea, Swyngedouw, & Nys, 1999). Newcomers mostly made use of the networks and infrastructure previous immigrant groups (Italians, Spaniards and Greeks) had created. Aside from the formal organisations and the extremely important informal family and community networks, there were popular meeting places like pubs and soccer clubs where (mostly) men met and supported each other (Foyer, 2014). Over time, however, the gender composition also induced changes in associational life. Family reunification impacted the demographic structure of the migrant groups. Trends towards political and associational inclusion continued. The trade unions tried to adapt their services to the new demographic reality by creating special sittings for syndicated foreign workers. The ACV (the catholic trade union) even had an Arabic department responsible for newcomers from Morocco, Algeria and Tunis. These services helped with translations, juridical and other assistance (Foyer, 2014). Perhaps the most important immigrant (related) politics-oriented association was Objective 82, a network of three Belgian and thirty-five migrant organisations (of different origins), striving for a better legal status and voting rights for foreign residents in the late seventies and early eighties (Bousetta, e.a., 1999). In the seventies, several municipalities in Brussels installed advisory immigrant committees, partly to counter the call for formal enfranchisement. Their mission was above all informative. The advisory committees on the one hand had to provide 11

12 information on the situation of immigrant communities to local councils; on the other hand local administrations were expected to inform the immigrants on local and regional administrative services. Often they were explicitly forbidden to be involved in (party) political activities. Continually confronted with their limits to gain political power and influence, and de facto functioning as a surrogate for genuine political rights for foreign residents on the local level, the advisory committees were doomed to question their own reasons of existence and most of them disappeared in the 1980s (either officially or de facto) (Jacobs, 1999). Diversity and Intercultural Dialogue In theory, policies related to the integration of immigrants became a prerogative of the Communities in In reality this meant that patronage and subventions for local NGO initiatives were now taken over by the Community level in Brussels, either linked to the Flemish or the Francophone public sphere. The Brussels-Capital Region did, however, from its inception, indirectly develop several initiatives pertaining to immigrants (Bousetta, et all, 1999), particularly related to issues of social cohesion and urban development (Jacobs, 1999). 3: , FROM IMMIGRANTS TO NEW CITIZENS Context In 1984, the acceptance of permanent residence of immigrants received political recognition. An important modification of legislation on nationality acquisition was made in which the predominant logic of jus sanguinis (blood-based rights) was replaced by elements of jus soli (territory-based rights). For a decade, family reunification was the main source of new migration flows. From the mid-1980s onwards and particularly after the fall of the Iron Curtain, flows of (political) asylum seekers became increasingly important. In 1986, an important new migration wave from the former Belgian colony Congo started. This evoked a strong rise in the number of asylum requests (Gemeenschappellijke Gemeenschapscommissie, 2007). In the same period, the government decided to open the first shelter for asylum seekers, in a former military barrack in the centre of Brussels. Migrant Welcoming Policies At the end of the eighties, the topic of migration problems became a political priority, not in the least because of the electoral success of extreme-right-wing political parties. The French and Dutch Communities developed different types of policies, influenced by the divergent intellectual and policy traditions of their neighbouring countries. The Flemishspeaking Community pursued a multiculturalist policy influenced by Dutch and Anglo- 12

13 American ideas, the French-speaking Community opted for a less specific approach more in line with French republican assimilationism (Jacobs, 1999). Although contradicting, both are now co-present in the Brussels-Capital Region. Favell and Martiniello (1998) have pointed out that this peculiar multi-levelled governance situation in Brussels enables and encourages new types of immigrant opportunities and political voice. Indeed, immigrant associations can now - to give but one example - go 'shopping' for funding and influence in either the Flemish or Francophone Community and can strategically opt for different forms of collective mobilisation - stressing either ethnic identity or neutral forms of social insertion (Jacobs & Swyngedouw, 2002). Language Education Policies No major developments took place with regard to language education policies. The Francophone side continued to develop general policies of alphabetisation in the framework of social insertion and social cohesion policies, while the Flemish invested more energy in target-language-related activities to promote the knowledge and use of the Dutch language. Perhaps more important than the target offering towards adult migrants, was the strategy to promote inclusion in the Flemish educational system for children of all origins (and no longer consider it normal that migrants children would enter the Francophone system), in order to counter falling enrolments in the Flemish educational system in Brussels (Jacobs, 2004). Housing Policies Given the structure of the housing market in which public housing is of minimal importance, earlier settlement patterns continue to consolidate further. New groups of non-european migrants tend to settle primarily in the North and West of the city, which is also called the "poor moon" or the banana, making use of the private housing market (Eggerickx, Kesteloot, Poulain e.a., 1999). Social housing which remains of relatively limited importance is gradually less influenced by political patronage and becomes more easily accessible to non-belgian migrant groups. Labour Market Policies The Brussels-Capital Region developed a number of projects aimed at activating the unemployed, indirectly but firmly targeted towards immigrant groups. On a local level, there is strong collaboration with several coordination centres (missions locales) which have been created by the Region in order to coordinate local employment initiatives in the most problematic neighbourhoods (Bousetta,e.a., 1999). These policies do not directly target migrants as individuals, nor migrant groups, but have a territorial logic focussing on disfavoured neighbourhoods where migrants happen to be concentrated. 13

14 Civic Participation, Citizenship, Voting Rights In the early nineties, individual immigrants and immigrant associations were quite active in movements acting against racism and extremist right-wing parties. In the late nineties, the political activities focused on the asylum policy and the issue of undocumented foreigners (Jacobs, 1999). There were advisory committees of immigrants on both local and regional levels. Shortly after its creation in 1989, the four regional assemblies of the Brussels-Capital Region jointly took an interest in integration policy issues and the participation of immigrant communities. The Regional parliament, the Flemish Community Commission (VGC), the Francophone Community Commission (COCOF) and the Common Community Commission (GGC) decided on 27 March 1990 to create a so-called 'explorative' commission on immigrant issues. Over time, the importance of these consultative commissions gradually decreased and they became entirely obsolete once local and regional representative bodies started to reflect the diverse ethno-cultural composition of the population. Local enfranchisement for non-nationals was on the political agenda for over four decades since the 1970s. The Treaty of Maastricht led to enfranchisement of EU citizens in 2000 and it took until 2004 to introduce voting rights for third-country nationals (being allowed to register as voters after a period of five years of residence, but not being granted the right to stand as a candidate) (Jacobs, 1999). Diversity and Intercultural Dialogue In 1990, the centre for Equal Opportunities and Opposition to Racism was created and entrusted with the task of fighting all forms of racial discrimination (Boone, 2012). A notable initiative in March 1990, by the government of the Brussels-Capital Region, was the creation of a (yearly) fund of 100 million francs to finance initiatives aimed at improving the integration and coexistence of different local communities. This fund is called the fund for 'integration and cohabitation of local communities' [l'intégration et la cohabitation harmonieuse des communautés locales]. Although officially not limited to projects regarding immigrants (but aimed at all inhabitants of disfavoured neighbourhoods), the fund in reality often clearly held immigrants as target group. The fund implied close collaboration between the Region and the municipalities, since the Region's administrative control over the municipalities was used as a legal loophole to allow the development of some kind of regional integration policy (Jacobs, 1999). The first initiatives on intercultural education arose in the nineties. There was a growing awareness of the importance of taking measures to improve the education in certain disadvantaged neighbourhoods. Positive discrimination measures were tested in some schools, which would lead to more general differential financing of schools in deprived neighbourhoods in the next decades (Martiniello & Rea, 2012). 14

15 4: LESSONS LEARNED The terminology reflects the most important lesson learned: the guests became immigrants who later became citizens. Belgium became more aware of its status as an immigration country and realised it had to adapt to the reality of temporary migration transforming into permanent migration, leading to modifications in nationality legislation and access to political rights. With regard to housing policy, labour market policy and educational policy, adaptions have however been slow, because of the lack of an adequate vision and coordination. In 2004, The Flemish Government came up with a civic integration decree which led to the creation of Reception Offices [Onthaalbureaus] such as bon, the Brussels Reception Office. 15

16 CHAPTER II: ANALYSIS CURRENT FLOWS OF EU MIGRANTS 1: GENERAL TRENDS, NATIONALITY AND BACKGROUND EU MIGRANTS Registered Versus Unregistered Migrants First of all, it should be noted that the data and numbers used in this research are merely an indication. That is because there is no possibility to obtain exact numbers. Although there is a freedom of movement within the European Union, foreigners are expected to register if they are planning to stay for longer than three months, and within eight days after their arrival in the municipality where they live and have obtained an official address. A lot of them do not register because they do not see the advantages of doing so or fear the consequences. EU nationals can stay in Brussels if they are studying, working, looking for a job or have sufficient resources. If they do not meet these conditions, or do not find work within a certain period of time, for instance, they can receive an order to leave the territory. Others, in spite of having an EU nationality, do not have a regulatory residence permit. All of this means that the numbers in this report are a huge underestimation of the reality in Brussels where the situation of the most vulnerable ones in particular remains largely unknown (Aerts, 2004). Representation of Countries In January 2015, the Brussels-Capital Region counted 181 different nationalities and 1,175,173 inhabitants. Of these inhabitants, 776,447 are Belgian and 39,726 are foreign residents. This means that one third of the Brussels population does not hold a Belgian passport, which is a much higher rate than in the rest of Belgium (10.9%). Of these 398,726 foreigners, two thirds (264,738) are members of the European Union. Figure 1. Representation of the top ten main foreign nationalities in the Brussels-Capital Region in

17 Source: BISA Brussels Institute for Statistics and Analysis, When we take a look at the top ten nationalities represented in Brussels, we see that eight are European. The French are best represented with 60,751 citizens. The Romanians form the second biggest group of EU migrants with 33,399 people, followed by the more traditional groups of Belgian migrants; the Italians (31,361) and Spaniards (27,466), closely followed by the Poles (26,590). The Portuguese (19,609), Bulgarians (10,722) and Germans (10,304) close the line. Figure 2. Evolution ( ) of the ten main foreign nationalities in 2015 in the Brussels- Capital Region France Morocco Romania Italy Poland Spain Portugal Bulgaria Germany Democratic Republic of Congo Source: BISA Brussels Institute for Statistics and Analysis, 2015 The number of French citizens rises very steadily. They have been the biggest EU group for more than ten years. Possible explanations are the common language, proximity, fast connections and the lower prices to rent and buy property in comparison to France. The number of Italians, Spaniards and Portuguese declined at the end of the years This could be related to the fact that the natural population stock decreased without being counterbalanced by a lot of newcomers. An increase can be seen from 2010 onwards, which can be associated with the crisis that affected their countries more than Belgium. The most remarkable evolution however concerns the immigration of people from three Central and Eastern European countries: Poland (the country joined the European Union in 2004), Romania and Bulgaria (members of the European Union since 2007). Polish, 17

18 Romanian and Bulgarian immigrants combined amount to almost 70,711 people, or 1 in 17 citizens. Figure 3. Evolution ( ) of the number of citizens from Romania, Bulgaria and Poland in the Brussels-Capital Region Romania Poland Bulgaria Source: BISA Brussels Institute for Statistics and Analysis, 2015 Lately, the number of Poles has stabilised, while the number of Bulgarians and Romanians is still on the rise. One of the reasons could be that there is more circular migration 3 between Poland and Belgium; the distance is smaller and the networks of mutual assistance are stronger. Moreover, the current socio-economic situation in Bulgaria and Romania is less promising than in Poland. For these reasons, migration of Romanians and Bulgarians has a more 'long-term' character than that of the Poles, who often have a return to their country in mind. (BISA, 2015). 2. RESIDENTIAL PATTERN 4 The Brussels-Capital Region displays a defined socio-economic spatial residential pattern. This pattern has barely evolved over the course of time and has determined the settlement patterns of newcomers to the capital city for a number of decades 5. As in the traditional working-class districts along the canal, a poorer population of immigrants is concentrated in the 19 th -century belt of municipalities in the first crown. The classical effect of chain migration has led to the development of relatively concentrated cores of immigrant communities (Deboosere, e.a. 2009). 3 Circular migration is the movement of individuals who divide their lives between two countries and have regular contacts with their family in their country of origin, while retaining their job in the country of arrival. 4 Absolute numbers of the nationalities per commune are to be found in Annex 1. 5 For more information, see Chapter one, Lessons Learned, Housing Policies. 18

19 The French, for example, are located mainly in the Southeastern districts of the city (Uccle and Ixelles), where about one resident out of nine is French. The Romanians spatial distribution is clearly focused around the poor curve of the lower town, of Saint-Josse-Ten- Noode to Anderlecht. They are not strongly present in the Southeast of the region, but proportionally more numerous in the commune of Koekelberg, where they represent about 5% of the total population. According to these findings, we could roughly divide the European Union into two classes: the Europe of 15 (excluding Belgium) and the other 13 countries that were added recently (2004, 2007 and 2013), as the migration flows are not the same and the socio-economic situation leads to different migrants profiles (BISA, 2014). Figure 4. Geographical pattern of EU-15- citizens in Brussels (%) Legend Source: BISA, Brussels Institute for Statistics and Analysis, 2013 Figure 5. Geographical pattern of the new member states, joined 2004, 2007 and 2013 (%) Legend Source: BISA, Brussels Institute for Statistics and Analysis,

20 3: CHARACTERISTICS OF EU MIGRANTS Sex Absolute numbers of the nationalities per commune and sex are to be found in Annex 2 (men), and Annex 3 (women). There is a notable gender imbalance in favour of men among the Romanians and in the benefit of women among the Poles (BISA, 2015). Age Distribution Figure 6: Age distribution of EU-28 (without Belgium) by commune in the Brussels-Capital Region, January 2014 Commune 0 -> > > > > > > Total Anderlecht % % % % % % % % Oudergem % % % % % % 378 6% 261 4% 6530 Sint-Agatha-Berchem % 218 8% % % % % 190 7% 164 6% 2582 Brussel % % % % % % % % Etterbeek % % % % % % 710 4% 391 2% Evere % 368 7% % % % % 296 6% 241 5% 4978 Vorst % % % % % % 787 6% 689 6% Ganshoren % 187 7% % % % % 186 7% 155 5% 2821 Elsene % % % % % % % 878 3% Jette % 444 7% % % % % 385 6% 336 5% 6346 Koekelberg % 277 8% % % % 324 9% 205 6% 158 5% 3476 Sint-Jans-Molenbeek % % % % % % 779 6% 638 5% Sint-Gillis % % % % % % 953 6% 738 4% Sint-Joost-ten-Node % 569 9% % % % 532 8% 198 3% 151 2% 6525 Schaarbeek % % % % % % % 936 3% Ukkel % % % % % % % % Watermaal-Bosvoorde % % % % % % 253 7% 200 6% 3566 Sint-Lambrechts-Woluwe % % % % % % 874 6% 545 4% Sint-Pieters-Woluwe % % % % % % 765 7% 574 5% Source: BISA (Brussels Institute for Analysis and Statistics), FPS Economy - Statistics Belgium, 2014 Figure 7: EU population by age and sex in the Brussels-Capital Region, January 2013 Source: Crossroads Bank for Social Security: Data warehouse Labour; processed by the Agency of Civic Integration 20

21 For both males and females, the biggest representation of age groups lies between 18 and 39 years old. We find the biggest percentage (27%) in the age group of years old, in the commune of Ixelles. This can be explained by the proximity of the two biggest universities of Brussels (ULB and VUB), located in this commune. The Romanians and Bulgarians have a significant overrepresentation of (young) adults between 30 and 44 years old, as well as very young children. There is a very low number of older people (BISA, 2015). 4: EMPLOYMENT OF EU MIGRANTS Payroll Income Figure 8: Type of main income of EU migrants in 2013 Year: 31/12/2013 Socio-economical position: everything District: Brussels Capital Region District Socio-economic position Nationality Brussels Capital Region wage-earning EU Brussels Capital Region Self-employed EU Brussels Capital Region Helper EU 2895 Brussels Capital Region Wage-earning and self- employed/helper - main activity: wage-earning EU 1723 Brussels Capital Region Wage earning and self- employed/ helper - main activity: Self-employed EU 251 Brussels Capital Region Wage-earning and self- employed/ helper - main activity: Helper EU 34 Brussels Capital Region Job seeker after fulltime employment, with unemployment benefits EU 8338 Brussels Capital Region Job seeker after a voluntary parttime employment, with unemployment benefits EU 1046 Brussels Capital Region Job seeker after studies, with transitional benefits EU 712 Brussels Capital Region Full interuption of the carreer EU 482 Brussels Capital Region exempted work seeker EU 1453 Brussels Capital Region Retirement (unemployed) EU Brussels Capital Region Fully unemployed with farm payment EU 464 Brussels Capital Region Other EU Brussels Capital Region Totaal EU Source: BISA (Brussels Institute for Statistics and Analysis), FPS Economy - Statistics Belgium, 2014 The category other consists of children and dependants. Furthermore, some European officials are classified in this category. If we exclude this category, we see that the majority of European citizens are wage-earning: 52%. Additionally, 26% of them are self-employed (either fulltime or partially) and 10% are looking for a job. 21

22 Self-Employed Figure 9: Number of self-employed in the Brussels-Capital Region by type of activity and nationality (December 2013) Main Activity Additional activity Active after retirement Total Belgium Austria Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Germany Denmark Estonia Greece Spain Finland France Croatia Hongaria Ireland Italy Lithuania Luxembourg Latvia Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Sweden Slovenia Slovakia United Kingdom European Union (without Belgium) European Union Brasil Morocco Pakistan Turkey Other countries Outside European Union and rest of the world UN refugees, stateless persons, refugees,unknown Total Brussels Capital Region Source: BISA, Brussels Institute for Statistics and Analysis, 2014 In 2013, the biggest population of non-belgian self-employed people in the Brussels-Capital Region are by far the Romanians (10,478), followed by the Poles (4,754), French (4,434) and Bulgarians (2,257). The number of non-belgian self-employed people increases every year, especially amongst the Central and Eastern countries, which is strongly linked to the enlargement of the EU. On a national level, between 2006 and 2010, the number of self-employed Romanians quadrupled. The number of self-employed Bulgarians, and more particularly Romanians, has 22

23 especially increased since The number of self-employed people has also increased for a number of EU-15-countries-of-origin such as France, the Netherlands and Italy Figure 10: Number of self-employed Poles, Bulgarians and Romanians in Belgium from Poland 5,819 7,283 7,780 7,714 7,914 Bulgaria 827 1,961 2,770 3,365 4,279 Romania 2,363 4,726 6,183 7,337 9,321 Total 9,009 13,970 16,733 18,416 21,514 Source: Van Assche, According to a study undertaken by UNESCO in 2011, 42% of the self-employed Bulgarians and Romanians had no income from their official economic activities while being registered with this status for three years. There thus may be a high number of false entrepreneurs or 'bogus self-employed' people who may still be working in the irregular sector and using selfemployment as a means to obtain a residence permit (Rea en Godin, 2011). This practise should have diminished with full access to the labour market. However, if we take a look at more recent data (still on national level), we can see that in 2014, there were 22,284 starting foreigners, 17,985 of them EU citizens, representing 18,57% of the total number of starters (96,844 units), which is almost one fifth (19.46% in 2012 and 17.62% in 2013). In 2014, the Romanians represented the biggest group of non- Belgian starters, with 6,071 people. Compared to 2013 (5,325 Romanian starters) this represents an increase of 14.01%. In the same ranking, Bulgaria occupies the 2 nd place (from 2,184 in 2013 to 2,099 in 2014 or -3.89%) and the Netherlands the 3 rd place (from 1,728 anno 2013 to 1,978 in 2014 or %). 23

24 Figure 11: Number of affiliates and starting self-employed people at the Social Security Fund on a national level Nationalities Number of Affiliates Source: Social Security Fund for Self-employed Entrepreneurs, Number of Starters Belgium Germany Greece Spain France Italy Holland Portugal United Kingdom Poland Bulgaria Romania Other EU-member states sum EU-member states Foreigners from outside the EU Nationality unknown Sum Foreigners Total In 2014, 103,630 people of foreign origin were registered at the Social Security for Selfemployed Entrepreneurs, 86,111 of them having an EU nationality. Compared to 2013, this represents an increase with 1,698 units or +1.67%. The three best-represented groups are EU members: Romanian, Dutch and French nationalities are strongly represented. The number of Romanians rose sharply compared to 2013 (a gain of %; from 16,233 in 2013 to 18,035 in 2014). Compared to 2013, the number of Dutch entrepreneurs remains stable (from 16,045 in 2013 to 16,086 in 2014, or +0.26%), and the number of French ones increased (from 11,373 to 11,822 or +3.95%). 5. LEVEL OF INCOME Type of Main Income There is no available information on the levels of income of different EU groups. Earnings are related to professional status and sector, varying across the different nationalities. It should be noted that those people who work as EU administrators (especially as functionaries) have substantial revenue, as they are exempt from Belgian taxes. 24

25 Benefits: Unemployment Figure 12: Number of EU nationals receiving unemployment benefits in 2014 Belgian Eu-natioanals Foreigners from outside the EU Total Anderlecht Oudergem Sint-Agatha-Berchem Brussel Etterbeek Evere Vorst Ganshoren Elsene Jette Koekelberg Sint-Jans-Molenbeek Sint-Gillis Sint-Joost-ten-Node Schaarbeek Ukkel Watermaal-Bosvoorde Sint-Lambrechts-Woluwe Sint-Pieters-Woluwe Brussels Capital Region Source: BISA, Brussels Institute for Statistics and Analysis, 2014 On the 1 st of January 2014, the restrictions for Bulgarians and Romanians on the labour market were lifted in Belgium. In January and February 2014, looser regulations allowed 1,300 Bulgarians and Romanians to register as unemployed with Actiris (the Brussels employment office), which at its turn made the unemployment percentage rise to 20.7% in the Brussels-Capital Region (Brussel Nieuws, 2014). Figure 13: Activity, employment and unemployment rates on a national level in 2010 Source: Godin& Rea, 2011 In 2010, the unemployment rate for EU nationals was slightly higher (11%) than for Belgians (7.5%). 25