Migrant Labour, Citizenship, and Social Provision in Contemporary Welfare States

International Sociological Association, Research Committee 19 Annual Conference, September 2005

Northwestern University, Chicago ABSTRACT - Migrant labour has become an increasingly significant component of many Western labour markets. A growing body of research indicates that migrant workers hold a wide range of occupations, from undocumented workers in informal economies, to workers in heavily regulated temporary labour programs, to highly paid professionals. Social policy frameworks of welfare states play a key role in shaping the ways in which migrant workers are incorporated into labour markets. As well, policy frameworks for social provision define the rights and entitlements various categories of migrants may be eligible to receive. The significance of migrant labour to contemporary labour markets, along with the wide-ranging implications for social and labour market policies within contemporary welfare states, indicates the profound and multi-faceted connections between citizenship rights, labour rights, labour mobility, labour market regulation, and social provision in contemporary welfare states. Taking migrant labour as its focal point, this paper argues that the regulation of citizenship rights, as constructed through forms of both labour market incorporation and social provision for various categories of migrant labourers, constitutes a definitive characteristic of contemporary welfare states. Further, the paper argues that the nexus of citizenship and labour rights created through the intersection of forms of labour market incorporation and social provision, processes which are simultaneously gendered and racialized, constitutes a central site through which the formation of relations of inclusion and exclusion take place, both within contemporary welfare states specifically, and the international political economy more generally. By identifying patterns of exclusion created through the nexus of citizenship and labour rights, the paper creates the means to explore models of social provision that promote social inclusion for migrant workers.

FIRST DRAFT Comments Welcome. Please do not cite without permission of the author.

Mark Thomas Assistant Professor Department of Sociology York University, Toronto, Canada, M3J 1P3 Tel: 416-736-2100 ext. 22558; Fax: 416-736-5916; Email: mpthomas@yorku.ca

Migrant Labour, Citizenship, and Social Provision in Contemporary Welfare States1

Mark Thomas

York University Migrant labour has become an increasingly significant component of many Western labour markets.2 A growing body of research indicates that migrant workers hold a wide range of occupations, from undocumented workers in informal economies, to workers in heavily regulated temporary labour programs, to highly paid professionals. Social policy frameworks of welfare states play a key role in shaping the ways in which migrant workers are incorporated into labour markets. As well, policy frameworks for social provision define the rights and entitlements various categories of migrants may be eligible to receive. The significance of migrant labour to contemporary labour markets, along with the wide-ranging implications for social and labour market policies within contemporary welfare states, indicates the profound and multi-faceted connections between citizenship rights, labour rights, labour mobility, labour market regulation, and social provision in contemporary welfare states.

Patterns of international migration create mounting social policy challenges. The combined context of economic globalization and increasing migration has produced the emergence of what Hollifield (2004) terms the ‘migration state’, where the regulation of immigration is a central economic and political concern of liberal democracies. Rising levels of international migration increase state-market tensions characterized by the economic need for labour migration and political prerogatives to construct and regulate national boundaries (Martinello 2002). Migration processes have fuelled debates over the nature of citizenship and have produced calls for strategies to improve the economic and political rights of migrants in host societies (Schuster and Solomos 2002). The goal of combining an open labour market to ensure economic growth with social protection for the growing numbers of immigrant and migrant workers is a key challenge for contemporary welfare states (Engelen 2003).

Migration, and the multiple relations that shape migrant incorporation, challenge existing typologies of welfare states (Freeman 2004), and necessitate a rethinking of welfare state theory. Taking migrant labour as its focal point, this paper argues that the regulation of citizenship rights, as constructed through forms of both labour market incorporation and social provision for various categories of migrant labourers, constitutes a definitive characteristic of contemporary welfare states. Further, the paper argues that the nexus of citizenship and labour rights created through the intersection of forms of labour market incorporation and social provision, processes which are simultaneously gendered and racialized, constitutes a central site through which the formation of relations of inclusion and exclusion take place, both within contemporary welfare states specifically, and the international political economy more generally.

Yet, this nexus of citizenship and labour rights is constructed in a variety of ways across welfare states, and with varying implications for different groups and categories of migrant labourers. Thus, using a sample of four welfare states - Canada, Germany, Denmark, and the Netherlands - this paper constructs a comparative analysis of the regulation of migrant labour in the North American and the European Union trading

1

blocs in order to both capture and evaluate the myriad of regulatory models and their implications.3 With a primary, though not exclusive, focus on temporary labour programs, the paper identifies the role of migrant labour, the segmented nature of the incorporation of migrant workers, and the variety of ways in which national and transnational regulatory frameworks shape patterns of mobility, forms of incorporation, and labour rights. The analysis suggests that existing regulatory models display variation and complexity, and include social policy models that range from increased regulation by state policies that restrict access to nationally-based labour markets to systems of labour law that produce highly unregulated working conditions for specific categories of migrant workers. Through this method, the analysis reveals patterns of segmentation and inequality between groups of migrant workers within and across each of the selected welfare states. Further, and despite key differences in models of labour market regulation, the lens of labour market segmentation theory, which draws attention to the gendered and racialized dimensions of labour market incorporation and social provision, identifies clear and common patterns of marginalization of migrants across the research sample. The paper argues that segmented approaches to labour market incorporation of migrant workers adopted by each of the selected welfare states (though in varying ways) that attempt to resolve tensions between labour market demands for high and low-skill workers and political resistance to immigrants.

The paper is organized into three sections. The first section briefly reviews migration and labour market data from the North American and Western Europe economic regions. The second section raises the key theoretical questions that guide the paper, and draws upon relevant sociological literature that is used to argue for a re-theorization of welfare states using a migration lens. The third section constructs case studies of selected migration policies from each of the welfare state types. This section highlights the intersection of processes of migration, the regulation of citizenship rights, and labour market marginalization. By identifying patterns of exclusion created through the nexus of citizenship and labour rights, the paper creates the means to explore models of social provision that promote social inclusion for migrant workers.

GLOBALIZATION AND LABOUR MIGRATION Globalization is often associated with increasing levels of transnational trade and investment. Increased labour migration is also a central component of an integrated world economy (Harris 1995). International migration has been increasing since the end of World War II and by the turn of the 20th century, 175 million people live outside their country of origin (IOM 2003). Of these, approximately 86 million are economically active migrant and immigrant workers.4

There are many historical examples of large-scale migrations in response to labour demands. In the contemporary period, large scale immigrations began after the second world war, in the context of dramatic economic growth in advanced capitalist economies. This occurred both within Europe and to North America. At that time, most migrants coming to North America were from Western and Eastern European origins and many/most were manual labourers. The influx of manual labour facilitated development of emerging ‘white collar’ work forces as immigrant labourers took on employment not

2

wanted by native-born. Immigrants were often directed towards specific occupations, for example, agricultural labour. Immigration partly facilitated the upward mobility of the native-born, as it ensured there were workers for the various forms of manual labour.

Contemporary migration patterns are connected to what the ILO terms a ‘global jobs crisis’, whereby currently the ILO estimates that over one billion people are un/underemployed.5 In this context, South to North migration is the fastest growing migration path, with approximately 60 per cent of migrants living in advanced industrialized countries (Castles 2004a). From the 1970s through the 1990s, the top ten emigration countries were in the global South (IOM 2003).

These patterns are connected to processes of economic and spatial re-organization experienced within many industrialized economies in response to the economic downturn of the early 1970s (Sassen 2002). In the context of economic globalization, there is demand for not only high skill (for example, finance, IT) workers, but also those in low-skill occupational categories (IOM 2002). Specifically, labour migrations to Northern economies are driven, in part, by demand for low wage labour created by the “downgrading” of a broad range of manufacturing sectors and the “informalization” of a wide range of economic activities. Growing numbers of immigrant and migrant workers perform many important but often invisible forms of labour in the major cities of the global economy, in both private sector services and manufacturing.

OECD countries with the largest numbers and some of the highest proportions of foreign workers include the United States, Germany, France, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Austria, the United Kingdom and Canada. Table 1 illustrates the percentage of foreign and foreign-born labour in selected OECD countries in 2002.

Insert Table 1 Here Economic growth in a global context creates new demands for workers, beyond

the capacity of domestic labour pools. Further, many of the jobs held by recent immigrant and migrant workers are jobs that are not desired by native-born. In Canada, it is estimated that immigration will likely account for all net labour force growth by 2011, and total population growth by 2031. In this context, policy emphasis has been placed on prioritizing economic criteria in the immigration selection process. While this is not a new orientation in terms of Canada’s immigration policies, reforms in the mid-1990s further emphasized these tendencies.

Those who enter Canada tend to hold strong credentials. In 1995, 41 percent of working-age immigrants and refugees had a post-secondary degree on landing, while 57 percent had one in 1999. By comparison, 42 percent of the total working-age Canadian population had a post-secondary degree in 1999. Nonetheless, academic and government reports indicate clear disparities between the labour market experiences of the Canadian-born and those who enter the country in search of employment. In the contemporary labour market, immigrant and migrant workers often fill the most ‘flexible’ and insecure forms of employment (Sassen 1998). While there has been manufacturing relocation to the South, primarily of low-skill assembly jobs, and services development in the advanced economies, not all services are high-skill, with strong growth in forms of nonstandard and precarious employment. Immigrant and migrant workers predominantly fill these types of jobs. While demographic changes have increased reliance on

3

immigration to address labour market shortages, many new immigrants with professional training are unable to translate their credentials into comparable employment and compensation in Canada (Galabuzi 2004).

This situation has translated into clear income disparities between recent immigrants and the Canadian-born. In 2000, while the low income rate was 15.6 percent for the Canadian population overall, the rate for immigrants in Canada six years or less was 35.8 percent, and for immigrants in Canada for six to 10 years was 28.3 percent. Even for immigrant workers with high skill levels, income levels declined through the 1980s and 1990s, contributing to these disparities.6 This is not a uniquely Canadian experience. In the European Union-15, between 1997 and 2002, third country nationals contributed to 22 percent of employment growth, accounting for 3.6 percent of total employment by 2002.7 As stated in the Commission of the European Communities’ First Annual Report on Migration and Integration (CEC 2004:3) “third countries’ labour is increasingly appearing as a major potential, which can be tapped to respond to both the continuing demand for low skilled as well as the growing demand for skilled labour”.

Patterns of employment of foreign workers in the E.U. are highly polarized. The majority of migrant workers are concentrated within lower skilled segments of service sectors, jobs that offer little in terms of incomes and mobility such as hotels, catering and cleaning, as well as low-skill construction and manufacturing (CEC 2004; EIRO 2003).8 Smaller numbers are found in high skill and professional occupations (e.g., medical, academic). For example, migrants from the EU-15 to the new EU member states constitute a cohort of high skill, temporary workers concentrated in large urban centres. Table 2 outlines the employment of foreign workers by sector in 2001-02 in selected OECD countries. As the table indicates, sectors that employ the largest proportions of foreign workers include mining/manufacturing/energy, construction, wholesale and retail trade, hotel/restaurant, and other services. Health and community services is also a key site in some countries, particularly in North Western Europe.

Insert Table 2 Here

These patterns of migration and employment are highly gendered. Women constitute approximately 49 percent of all migrants (UN 2004). However, migrant women are primarily employed in private service sector employment, in households as domestic workers, and in the global sex trade, intensifying conditions of marginalization and exploitation (Chang 2000; Ehrenreich and Hochschild 2002; OECD 2005). As women’s employment has increased in industrialized economies, women migrants have taken on the role of paid caregiver in these households.

Despite labour demands, unemployment rates of third country nationals remained over twice that of EU-nationals during the past decade. Lack of access to employment remains a major obstacle to social integration. This condition persists, despite labour market demand due to discrimination and racism, a gap between the credentials of migrants and recognition of these credentials in host countries, as well as language barriers.9 Denmark and the Netherlands have some of the largest differentials in employment rates between foreign workers and nations. While the labour force participation for the total population exceeded 75 percent in both countries in 2002-03,

4

employment rates for immigrants were just over 50 percent in Denmark and just over 60 percent in the Netherlands (OECD 2005).

Like the employment patterns of migrant workers, unemployment rates for migrants are themselves gendered. Labour force participation rates for migrant women are much lower those of male migrants, with a greater gender gap in employment than that between male and female nationals (OECD 2005). Table 3 indicates these disparities. The labour force participation rate of migrant women is particularly low in relation to other groups in the Netherlands, Denmark, and Germany. As one possible explanation for these disparities, family responsibilities are cited as a reason for remaining outside the labour force much more frequently among foreigners than nationals in European countries surveyed by the OECD.

Insert Table 3 There As nation-states attempt to manage tensions between labour market demand (for

both high and low skill workers), national community/identity construction, and social integration/social provision, temporary worker programs have become an increasingly common strategy. Even countries with longstanding permanent immigration programs such as Canada, the United States, Australia, and New Zealand have recently begun to place greater emphasis on increasing the numbers of workers entering on non-permanent work visas (IOM 2002).10 Temporary worker programs facilitate the entry of workers into a host country’s labour market generally for a specified period of time, and often with restrictions and/or limitations on the economic and social rights of the migrant workers. These programs may be regulated through regional agreements (NAFTA), national immigration policy (Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Act) or through specific multi-lateral and/or industry specific agreements (Canada-Mexico-Caribbean Seasonal Agricultural Workers Program) (Aleinikoff and Chetail 2003). Temporary worker programs exist for both low-skill (seasonal agricultural) and high skill (information technology) forms of employment. Generally, those in higher skilled occupational categories experience fewer barriers to entry and longer term residency than those in lower skilled categories. Those in higher skilled categories are often personnel of multinational corporations on temporary assignments or training programs.

While growth in temporary employment is a common pattern in many industrialized labour markets, foreign workers occupy a greater percentage of temporary jobs than do nationals in many OECD countries.11 In the EU, over 20 percent of third country nationals held fixed term contracts in 2001, as compared to 13 percent of EU nationals (EIRO 2003). In some countries, including Denmark, the Netherlands, and Sweden, the rate of non-EU nationals holding temporary employment contracts as compared to EU nationals is more than double.12

Table 4 indicates the numbers of temporary workers entering selected OECD countries in recent years, as well as their general employment categories. As the table indicates, countries the numbers of workers entering on temporary work permits is clearly increasing in key OECD economies. While the table does not distinguish clearly between occupational and skill categories (a topic discussed further below), temporary worker programs include both. Countries with the largest inflows of high skilled workers include the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom and Germany, in that order (IOM 2003).

5

Insert Table 4 Here

While migrant labour ranges in occupational categories, and includes both high and low skill categories of workers, workers in low-skill temporary labour programs continue to be the majority of migrants (UN 2004). Thus, many groups of immigrant and migrant workers continue form a racialized underclass of workers in low-wage, low-security forms of employment. The existence and growth of these forms of programs constitutes a key challenge for contemporary welfare states.

THEORIZING WELFARE STATES: THE CHALLENGE OF MIGRATION Welfare states are generally identified with the period of postwar Fordism and are associated with a number of advanced capitalist economies. The dominant public policy paradigm during the Fordist years (45-75) was Keynesianism and the specific state form that developed during this period was the Keynesian Welfare State (KWS). The KWS consisted of three general elements: a mixed economy (public and private sector) with demand-management economic policies; universal social services; a political consensus on the desirability of the model (Peck 1996; McBride and Shields 1997). It applied the Fordist model to the organization of government, ensuring the mass provision of standardized services and the expansion of large public sector bureaucracies. It was based on the general principles of collectivism, social rights through citizenship, equality, full employment, social entitlement, and social inclusion and integration.

Within western welfare states, there was variation in both the extent and form of the implementation of these principles. The classic typology of welfare states consists of three different models – liberal, social democratic, conservative - as developed by Esping-Anderson (1990). The characteristics of liberal welfare states include a narrow definition of eligibility for social assistance, means-tested assistance, and modest universal transfers or modest social insurance plans. Overall, the state supports the free market through a minimalist approach to welfare provision, stepping in only where the market fails to provide. Key examples of this model include Australia, Canada, United States, Ireland, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. Characteristics of social democratic welfare states include: universal social assistance programs, whereby all citizens are eligible (eligibility does not depend on need or employment status); comprehensive risk coverage with generous benefits; high levels of unionization. The social democratic welfare state attempts to eliminate the market from the provision of social security through social programs that include old-age pensions, daycare, and social assistance, and generally promote the decommodification of labour. Key examples include Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Finland. Finally, characteristics of conservative welfare states include: a corporatist system of social policy and social assistance; the integration of state and market, for example through a combination of state and employer plans and funds (for pensions, social security, etc.); an emphasis on familialism, or reliance on the family as primary care-giver and provider of welfare; and relatedly, strong job protection for adult males. Overall, the state picks up where the family fails. Key examples include Germany, Italy, France, Spain and Japan.

6

While highly influential in comparative studies of welfare states, this typology has been critiqued for overlooking the centrality of gender and household relations to the respective state types and for maintaining a narrow focus on policies and states, rather than on broader social and economic formations of which welfare states are only a part. In light of these critiques, scholars working from a feminist political economy perspective have expanded to typology to directly incorporate the ways in which different welfare regime types are constructed through varying relations between states, markets and households (O’Conner et al. 1999). Clement (2001) advances the model of a ‘class-gender nexus’ to encapsulate the ways in which states and market relations in various regime types both condition and are conditioned by relations of social reproduction. The typology of welfare states is further challenged by the aforementioned patterns of labour migration. The centrality of labour migration, and in particular temporary labour migration, to contemporary industrialized labour markets makes it necessary to rethink how and on what grounds economic and political communities are constituted. These conditions raise the following questions. What role do welfare states have in regulating labour migrations and in determining the incorporation of migrant workers? Are there differences between regime types in terms of policy frameworks, migration processes, and models of social inclusion/exclusion? While the typology of welfare regimes is highly useful in analyzing variety between state-market-household relations, a dialogue between migration research and welfare state theory is essential given the centrality of labour migration to the contemporary global economy. This paper draws upon two broad bodies of sociological literature – (1) research on globalization and migration and (2) labour market segmentation theory - to develop the theoretical argument for the need to re-theorize welfare state analysis in relation to patterns of labour migration. Globalization and Migration Contemporary patterns of labour migration take place in the context of economic globalization, a processes defined by the extension of markets, the increased mobility of capital, and the restructuring of production. Several overarching international trends define this context in relation to increased levels of international migration: a demand for low and high-skill migrant workers from receiving countries; increased ‘push’ factors including growing inequality between the North and South; intensified competition in global markets, largely due to the negotiation of free trade agreements; increased levels of marginalization of migrant worker populations due to racism, discrimination in employment, and restrictive migrant labour policies; and pressures for improvements to migrant labour rights (see Martin 2002; Stephen 2001; Taran 2000; Wall 1994).

Pellerin (1992: 91) argues that globalization has affected migration both quantitatively, by increasing “the conditions for migration and the geographical areas subject to it”, and qualitatively, through the emergence of new migration patterns. In many areas of the world, globalization has led to increased ‘poverty and precariousness’, the ‘push’ factors that stimulate migration. Political conflicts have produced growing numbers refugees and asylum seekers as well. The development of free-trade areas (EC, North America, and ASEAN countries) has promoted regionally based migrations, including the movement of low-wage labour from the periphery to the ‘centres’. The

7

promotion of emigration as a development strategy (to secure remittance income from migrant workers) is also significant, as is the related labour market demand in industrialized economies for workers for low-wage, insecure employment. In addition to these structural processes, Castles (2004a) indicates that the establishment of migrant networks, whereby families and community members support and may follow initial groups of workers to a host society, have played a key role in maintaining and furthering the migration process.

Labour migration is a central tendency in the process of globalization. Rosewarne (2001: 72) notes that migration is often considered “one of the few avenues of hope for material survival” in the highly polarized international economy. However, while globalization facilitates increased mobility of capital, the movement of people remains highly regulated. Thus, the current globalized context is characterized by “new forms of institutionalized racism and bureaucratic abuse” for migrant populations attempting to escape political or economic hardship (73). The regulation of migration is defined primarily in terms of the labour requirements of the advanced economies, and largely takes place along regional lines: within the NAFTA region, the EC, and East and South East Asia. Castles (2004a:211) highlights the centrality of the North-South divide – defined as “growing disparities in income, social conditions, human rights and security linked to globalization” - as a key factor in producing South to North migration flows. Migration policies are connected to broader North-South relations, with and hold the potential to intensify North-South inequalities.

To better understand issues surrounding labour mobility, Stasiulis (1997) argues the need to study ‘the political economy of migration’, a theoretical approach developed to explain why and how migrations happen that focuses on the economic, political, and cultural factors that produce inequality related to patterns of migration. Key to this perspective is the assertion that the migration decisions and actions of individuals and families are rooted in contemporary manifestations of histories of economic and political inequalities between sending and receiving countries. This approach places primarily emphasis on the importance of structural factors in explaining both the determinants of migration and the nature in which migrants are incorporated into a destination society. This perspective suggests that in the contemporary context, while globalization is often assumed to promote freedom of movement, mobility is primarily experienced by capital, or only certain select categories of workers.

Migration and Labour Market Segmentation These Migration processes are directly connected to patterns of labour market segmentation. Labour market segmentation theory was developed to analyze the structural divisions that exist within labour markets and to determine the sources of these divisions (Peck 1996). A key assumption of the theoretical approach is that labour markets are divided into primary and secondary markets, with the former defined by jobs of high mobility and high security, and the latter defined by low wage, low security employment. A more nuanced approach to understanding labour market insecurity has been advanced through a model of precarious employment developed by Cranford et al. (2003), which suggests a continuum of precariousness, rather than a simple model of labour market dualism. Labour market segmentation theory indicates the structural

8

processes that may shape the ways in which migrant workers are incorporated into a labour market, indicates the centrality of citizenship rights to patterns of segmentation and forms of incorporation, and highlights the need to study the role of the state in this process.

In relation to the contemporary patterns of migration referenced above, Rosewarne (2001) argues that two tiers of migrants have emerged: skilled, educated professionals with few barriers to restrict their mobility, and lower skilled workers admitted for limited periods of time, primarily for seasonal agriculture or service sector industries. In general, the entry of low-skilled workers has been highly regulated as states have increased regulations that restrict border crossing for those who do not meet specific labour market requirements. Despite increased regulation, forms of illegal entry have emerged in response to increased migration restrictions. Illegal status facilitates increased levels of exploitation by employers, who are not subject to high levels of state regulation, as “states have devoted comparatively few resources to regulating the presence of these migrant workers” (74). Castles (2004a) suggests that the propensity for undocumented or ‘illegal’ immigrant workers has increased in direct relation to neoliberal labour market reforms that promote deregulation as a competitiveness strategy, with the effect of eroding regulatory institutions and promoting growth in casual employment, where many migrants find work.

The relationship between patterns of labour market segmentation and the employment of immigrant workers is identified by Wong (1984) and confirmed in a later study by Richmond (1991), who examine immigration trends in relation to structural changes in the Canadian economy and labour market. Both see immigration patterns replicating patterns of labour market segmentation, with immigrants channelled into either skilled professional, technical and managerial positions, or unskilled, low-wage, insecure forms of employment. Both income and occupational polarization are evident between immigrants from ‘traditional’ (i.e. Western European) and ‘non-traditional’ source countries. Richmond also examines the temporary visa program and finds that almost half of the workers in the temporary visa program, once renewals are accounted for, are single women from low-income countries employed in domestic service.

Labour market segmentation theory attempts to account for the role of labour market institutions in the construction of patterns of segmentation. With respect to the experiences of migrant workers, this is most directly accomplished through the role of the state in constructing and regulating migrant worker programs and policies. A key concept advanced to explain this relationship is that of ‘incorporation’, the term used to refer to the manner in which migrants are inserted into the dominant relations of production of the society they are entering. With reference to the use of foreign-born labour, Satzewich (1991) argues that there are four primary forms of incorporation of foreign-born labourers: free immigrant labour; unfree immigrant labour; free migrant labour; and unfree migrant labour. The specifics of each form is reliant upon two conditions: the ability of the workers to circulate in the labour market, and their potential to attain citizenship status. The immigrant/migrant distinction is constructed in relation to citizenship, while conditions of freedom/unfreedom are defined in relation to formal labour market opportunities. For example, while those defined as free immigrant labour hold the potential for citizenship rights, and are not subject to formal restrictions on labour market mobility, those defined as unfree migrant labour are unable to become

9

citizens are formally restricted to a particular occupation. Migrant workers (non-citizens) constitute a form of “unfree” labour in the global economy: they are exploitable because their mobility is limited by the migrant labour contract; and because of the system of global inequality that produced the conditions that forced them to migrate. Freeman (2004), however, cautions against overgeneralization, and argues that despite the broad character of migration processes of course, forms and patterns of incorporation vary considerably across national contexts and may be shaped by a range of social processes and institutional arrangements.

While low-wage and high-skilled migrants experience very different sets of employment rights, Peixoto (2001) suggests that highly skilled migrant workers nonetheless experience obstacles to mobility within the E.U. as well. Despite EU policies designed to promote mobility, there remain significant political and legal obstacles to mobility even for highly skilled workers. These include government resistance to European legislation, the denial of citizenship rights (including acquisition of nationality and voting rights), varied requirements for professional recognition, and some resistance from professional groups to competition from external sources. Social and cultural barriers, including linguistic capabilities, levels of social capital, and nationally-specific skills development, compound these formal, policy-level obstacles. . While there have been legislative developments favourable to increased migration within the EU of highly skilled workers, such legislative developments have not been “directly proportional to an increase in movements” (47) for the aforementioned reasons. Thus, the most significant increase in highly skilled workers has taken place within the internal labour markets of transnational corporations.

Citizenship is a key variable in the existence of forms of social exclusion and marginalization. Citizenship denotes the formal entitlement to political rights within a national community and constitutes a central means through which migrants are excluded from full participation within the receiving society (Baines and Sharma 2002). Part of that process is the acceptance of the belief that ‘foreigners’ should not have the same rights as nationals (economic, political). Citizenship rights are often both gendered and racialized, being based on male breadwinner norms (for example Canada’s Unemployment Insurance and Family Allowance programs), and racialized conceptions of the national community. The creation of the national community is formalized and implemented through the allocation of citizenship rights, as those who are deemed as members (or potential members) of the national community are those that are granted access to the rights of citizenship. By controlling access to citizenship rights, the state plays a key role in determining the nature of incorporation experienced by newly arriving migrants. Further, there may be many ideological and cultural factors that shape the determination of the ‘appropriate citizen’. Citizenship is thus connected to the creation of groups of “highly exploitable and socially excluded workers”, for example, farm workers and foreign domestic workers (Baines and Sharma 2002: 76).

Temporary labour programs are a key example of the intersection of increased labour migration, labour market segmentation, and state regulation of migrant workers. Guestworker programs provide states with the means to address the need to both promote economic openness and resolve political concerns over the permanent settlement of immigrants (Hollifield 2004). Morris (1994:138) develops the concept of ‘underclass’ to describe “a disadvantaged group of workers with limited claims to the resources and

10

protections of the society which appropriates their labour”. Temporary migrant workers fill this position within the U.S. labour market, in particular Mexican migrants employed in agriculture. While they may pay both income tax and social security contributions, illegal migrants do not make claims upon public services. Temporary migrant workers also hold highly vulnerable positions within European labour markets, characterized by limited legal rights in their country of employment. Migrant labourers generally hold jobs that are characterized by low status, employment insecurity, that are difficult to fill, and that are highly subject to demand fluctuations. The commitment of the free movement of people within the EU through the Single European Act (1992) is ambiguous with respect to non-European Community nationals, as individual governments remain able to regulate external migration. Morris argues that an extremely vulnerable underclass of migrant workers has resulted in both the European and U.S. cases through the intersection of two goals: first, the need to address labour demands, and second, concerns over the need to protect national resources and culture from ‘outsiders’. These types of programs have the effect of creating a form of ‘differentiated exclusion’, whereby migrants are granted access to the labour market, but not to other aspects of society, for example political citizenship rights (Castles in Engelen 2003:517). Castles (2004b) argues that this process of exclusion creates a form of labour force stratification based on legal status.

These policies are constructed directly in relation to patterns of racialization. Carter, Green and Halpern (1996) construct a comparison of U.S. and British migrant labour policies. By examining migration policies in the U.S. from 1900 - 1925 and in Britain from 1948 - 1962, they argue that both states have developed ‘race’-based notions of national identity that have facilitated the racialization of migration policies. Racialized policies legitimized a system of population ranking, whereby some groups were constructed as more likely to assimilate into the national population than others. Those identified as non-assimilable were constructed as migrants. In both cases, the labour power of migrant workers was restricted in the host labour market. Satzewich (1991) demonstrates that Canada’s migrant agricultural labour program displays similar tendencies, as it accords temporary employment permits to migrants from Mexico and the Caribbean but prohibits these migrants from applying for citizenship. The prohibition on citizenship stemmed, in part, from race-based concerns over the construction of the ‘national community’. Sharma (2001) illustrates how, by controlling access to citizenship rights, the Canadian state has been able to construct differential sets of rights for workers within its borders. Racist discourses and ideologies played a central role in the construction of migrant labour policies - specifically the Non-immigrant Employment Authorization Program, as migrant workers have been constructed as ‘problems’ for Canadian society. This discursive and ideological construction has contributed to a differentiation of migrants from Canadian citizens within the Canadian labour force. The expansion of the issuance of temporary employment authorizations in 2001 is “part of a long-term move that makes it more difficult for certain groups of people to enter, live and work in Canada as permanent residents and eventually formal citizens” (416). In the context of increased international migration, the Canadian state has increased restrictions on how people are able to cross its borders. As part of this process, the categorization of some workers as ‘migrant workers’ legitimizes a differential set of rights for those workers. Within immigration policies, the category of migrant worker was constructed in

11

relation to an assumed threat to Canada as a ‘white’ nation created by immigrants of colour. Differential labour rights accorded to Mexican and Caribbean workers employed in agricultural labour are legitimized through the categorization of these workers as migrants.

Migration processes are also highly segmented through gender relations. Understanding the gendered dynamics of migration requires an analysis of not only the migration patterns and experiences of men and women, but also of the ways in which migration processes are themselves shaped by gender relations (Pessar and Mahler 2003). Pessar and Mahler illustrate that states often play key roles in shaping the gendered character of migration, for example in policies that facilitate cross-border mobility of workers, but restrict the mobility of families. Domestic worker programs, which facilitate the mobility of women from the South to work in households in North America and Western Europe as caregivers are another example (Chang 2000). A key component to the gendered character of temporary worker programs is the tendency to completely privatize the costs of and responsibilities for social reproduction. As non-citizens, migrant workers are unable to access basic social services entitled to the citizens of the host national community. Further, in some cases, such as the case of agricultural workers in Canada, migrant workers are prohibited from bringing family members to the host country. This ensures that social reproduction is managed in the home country, minimizing or eliminating the social obligation of the host nation-state and further intensifying gendered care-giving norms.

The incorporation/segmentation thesis has been challenged by Castles (2002), who argues that the increased mobility created through new communications and transportations technologies facilitates a proliferation of cross-border flows and transnational networks. Further, the overall context of globalization, according to Castles, has led to an erosion of state sovereignty and autonomy, thereby weakening systems of border (and migration) control. Combined, these tendencies have blurred the boundaries between categories of migrants, indicating that the immigrant/temporary migrant dichotomy is insufficient to conceptualize the complexity of contemporary migration processes. From this perspective, the role of the state is less significant than that presented through the traditional political economy lens. The German guestworker program, which was designed to facilitate a pool of temporary workers actually led to the permanent settlement of migrant workers and their families, provides a key example of the limited capacity of states to control the migration process in absolute terms (Castles 2004a).

Others present a different view. Martin (1997) argues that, in the current context, temporary worker programs have been restructured through increased restrictions on the residency of migrant workers. For example, during the 1950s and 1960s, migrant labour policies in Germany were designed to address macro or sectoral labour shortages. Following the termination of the program, Germany experienced large numbers of workers remaining in the country outside the scope of their employment contracts. In the contemporary period, new worker programs have made it more difficult for migrant workers to become permanent residents in order to promote a system of returning migrants. Similarly, rather than weakened state powers, Rosewarne (2001: 79) suggests that the overall state regulation of migration, in particular through temporary labour programs, “has once again become a key instrument in state endeavours to facilitate

12

particular accumulation paths within the national economy”. Through these policies, capital gains access to ‘global reserves’ of labour and nation states are able to relinquish responsibility for long term investment in the social reproduction of the labour force. Re-theorizing Welfare Regimes These research literatures demonstrate the significance of migrant labour to contemporary industrialized labour markets, the relationships between migration and patterns of labour market segmentation, and the role of states in both regulating migration and reproducing segmentation. Migration patterns and associated social processes present several challenges to welfare state analysis.

First, the process of migration itself creates a tension between a model of social inclusion based on citizenship (formal political rights) and that based on territoriality (residency without citizenship). Specifically, as Freeman (2004:955) notes, the existence of migrants receiving social benefits and social protection from the welfare state may “post a threat to the logic of the welfare state”. For example, in the EU, migrants are often considered a strain on welfare states, due to a perceived gap between tax contributions and dependence on social policy (CEC 2004). This is a key dilemma for contemporary welfare states that consist of national communities of both citizens and residents without citizenship (nonmembers), but with needs and expectations for social protection and inclusion within the policy framework of the welfare state.

This dilemma can be resolved through either the restriction of rights to members only, or through a re-conceptualization and expansion of the scope and character of the welfare state. Freeman notes, in fact, that residency has superseded citizenship in the determination of access to social benefits in European cases (for example, Germany, the Netherlands, France). However, the model of the temporary worker program continues to provide a mechanism to construct a system of differential rights, for certain categories of migrants, whether in theory or in practice. The persistence of such programs creates a political dilemma – how to address the disparity in rights experienced by some temporary residents – and a theoretical dilemma – how too explain/understand the significance of this condition to contemporary welfare states.

Second, the literature on globalization and migration indicates that a global/transnational political economy perspective is needed to study labour migration, as both contemporary migration patterns and social policy frameworks are shaped by processes of globalization. As Hollifield (2004) argues, while individual nation-states play key roles in the regulation of migration, migration takes place in transnational (often regional) contexts. Similarly, while nation-states continue to exercise regulatory authority within a national context (despite often-made claims regarding the demise of the nation state in the era of globalization), national social and economic policies are often developed both as a response to, and as a means to foster, global and/or transnational processes. Temporary migrant labour programs, which attempt to secure and regulate transnational labour forces often as a means to promote competitiveness in a global economy, are a key example of the intersection of these dynamics. Welfare state analysis must account for the relationship between the national and the transnational. A central argument of this paper is that welfare state analysis needs to incorporate a migration lens, framed through the above insights. Migration theorists have, in fact,

13

advanced alternative state typologies based upon a comparative analysis of the regulation of migration within specific state types. For example Castles and Miller (2003) organize migration destinations using an historical lens, identifying a relationship between migration histories and contemporary migration policies. Traditional countries of immigration are claimed to promote ‘multicultralism’ – the United States, Canada, Australia – and maintain annual quotas, support permanent settlement and family unification, and provide access to citizenship. A second set of countries, termed ‘guestworker’ countries, promote ‘differential exclusion’ – Germany, Switzerland, Austria – attempt to prevent family unification, and maintain greater restrictions regarding residency and naturalization. A third set of countries includes those with former colonies – France, the Netherlands, Britain – and that promote ‘assimilation’. These countries create clear distinctions between migrants from the former colonies, who are granted citizenship on entry and are permitted to bring family members, and those who are from other home countries and who may be treated less favourably.

Freeman (2004) modifies this grouping somewhat by connecting it to traditional welfare state analysis. He suggests a fourfold grouping that includes: (1) liberal welfare states with open immigration and citizenship practices, and commitments to formal multiculturalism (U.S., Canada, Australia); (2) social democratic or corporatist welfare states with moderately open immigration and citizenship practices, and an ‘uneasy’ acceptance of multiculturalism (Sweden, the Netherlands); (3) conservative/corporatist welfare states with open immigration policies, but with resistance to permanent settlement and multiculturalism (Germany, Austria, Switzerland); and (4) liberal welfare states with restrictive citizenship practices, no policy on multiculturalism, but with a practice of recruiting foreign labour (Spain, Portugal, Greece).

As Freeman acknowledges, the practice of organizing such groupings risks over-generalization and compromises specificity. Like all typologies, these groupings overlook key differences both within the categories - for example vastly different approaches to multiculturalism within Canada and the United States - as well as key similarities across them – ‘multicultural’ countries that maintain guestworker policies. With respect to guestworker policies, for example, both Canada and the United States have developed such policies, most notably in the case of agricultural labour. In the Canadian case, the program has had much greater success than that of Germany’s in preventing permanent settlement and family unification indicating the problematic nature of the aforementioned typologies, or at least the difficulty in constructing such typologies through a migration lens.

Nonetheless, theorizing welfare states needs to account for migration dynamics, as the manner in which welfare states incorporate migrants is a key component of social and economic policy in the contemporary context. This does not necessarily mean a regrouping of state types, or the construction of a new typology. Rather, it means expanding the criteria upon which the welfare state model is assessed to include migration policies. Such a process will help clarify distinctions between state types, but may also challenge the distinctiveness of state types by indicating key similarities. This paper now turns to an analysis of selected migrant labour policies in order to further this task. The subsequent section attempts to address the following questions. How is labour migration regulated and how can these policies be understood in relation to the various welfare regime types? In what ways do these policy mechanisms create

14

situations of social exclusion? What differences and similarities can be observed across welfare regimes? The policy analysis focuses on the cases of Canada, Germany, Denmark, and the Netherlands, and also takes a transnational focus by examining the dynamics between national policies and transnational processes.

WELFARE REGIMES AND LABOUR MIGRATION

Insert Table 5 Here Canada Labour market needs and immigration policies have been connected throughout Canada’s history. Recent immigration policy to Canada has increasingly re-emphasized the need for economic priorities in determining eligibility for immigration. A 1994 report, Into the 21st Century, outlined the government’s strategy for immigration reform (CIC 1994). Selection criteria were to place greater emphasis on immigrant labour market credentials and labour market demand. This approach would expedite applications of immigrants needed to fill specific labour market shortages. As well, there would be streamlined processing of temporary foreign workers needed by Canadian firms and expedited processing of limited numbers of independent and business immigrants to meet economic or market development objectives of the provinces.13 The new plan involved a gradual reorientation of the immigration program in favour of economic criteria by increasing the number of immigrants under the economic component of the program in relation to the family component. Within this policy reforms process, particular emphasis was placed upon the need to streamline the regulation of temporary foreign workers within high skill occupational categories (IOM 2002).

In 2002 the new Immigration and Refugee Protection Act replaced the Immigration Act, which was approved in 1976 and has been amended more than 30 times. The Act provides the government with the flexibility to link immigration to Canada's labour market needs.14 Under the Act, applicants can be admitted to Canada as permanent residents under three corresponding classes: Family Class - people sponsored to come to Canada by a relative, a spouse, a common-law partner or a conjugal partner who is a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident of Canada.; Refugee Class;15 or Economic Class. This third and largest class of immigrants includes two streams: skilled workers and business immigrants.16 Those selected for this class are admitted on their basis to contribute to the Canadian economy.

As indicated, Canada also maintains temporary worker programs. To be eligible to work temporarily in Canada, a foreign national must have a job offer and (generally) a work permit, which is valid for a specific job and for a limited time period.17 There are a number of restrictions placed upon temporary workers, limiting their mobility while employed in Canada. They may not undertake full-time studies and may not change jobs or employers unless authorized. For employers who wish to hire temporary foreign workers, they must have job offers approved by Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC).18 Table 6 provides a more specific breakdown of entries of temporary workers into Canada, indicating the top 10 source countries. The United States and Mexico are consistently the two leading countries. While the United States provides workers of

15

higher skill levels, Mexico’s primary contribution is to the Seasonal Agricultural Workers Program. The table indicates a noticeable decline in migrants from countries that tend to supply workers for higher skill categories in recent years. Some of this decline (particularly from the U.S. and the U.K.) is explained by changes in 2002 to the IRPA that removed the requirement for temporary work permits from some of the higher skill categories of workers from these countries, including some performing artists, seminar and commercial speakers visiting for less than five days, and service repair people. Following these change, workers in lower skilled categories (intermediate, clerical, seasonal agricultural) have become the largest single group of foreign workers in Canada.19

Insert Table 6 Here

The government has also developed agreements with industry sectors facing

worker shortages, enabling those industries to expedite the hiring of temporary foreign workers. Programs in the agricultural and construction industries are key examples of sectors that utilize this process.

Historically, there has been a constant problem of labour shortages in agricultural production in Ontario. The solution to the problem of continued seasonal labour shortages came in the form of the Seasonal Agricultural Workers’ Program (Basok 2002; Satzewich 1991; Thomas 1997). The program facilitates the incorporation of migrant workers from the Caribbean and Mexico into seasonal agricultural production as unfree migrant labour.

In 1966, following intense lobbying pressure from Ontario growers, the Canadian federal government established an agreement with the Commonwealth Caribbean to import farm labourers to Ontario on a seasonal basis. Up to this point, there was a great deal of public opposition to the granting of Canadian citizenship to those applying for entry to Canada from ‘non-traditional’ (re: non-Western/European) source countries. This popular perception provided the Canadian state the means to solve the seasonal labour shortages in Ontario agriculture. Due to the perception that migrant workers from the Caribbean were not compatible with the Canadian culture, national identity, and even climate, policy makers were able to deny workers entering Canada under the SAWP the right to apply for Canadian citizenship. This then enabled the enactment of a number of entrance restrictions under the program ensuring that the foreign workers participating in the program remain in agricultural production and do not attempt to move to industries offering longer-term employment and better wages and working conditions.

In its initial year, the program brought 264 Jamaican workers into Canada. In 1967, Trinidad-Tobago and Barbados became participants in the program as well. It expanded rapidly in ensuing years, and within a decade it was incorporating approximately 5,000 workers. In 1974, Mexico negotiated a similar agreement with the Canadian government, to allow Mexican workers into Canada on a temporary basis. In 1976, the program expanded again to facilitate entry of workers from other Caribbean nations. The program now accounts for approximately 10% of the agricultural workforce in Ontario, and currently employs approximately 15,000 workers per year - half from Mexico and half from the Caribbean.

16

The workers’ period of employment in Canada ranges from 6 to 40 weeks, with a minimum of 40 hours of work per week, though this can exceed 60 hours per week. Farm labourers are paid at an hourly wage of about $7.25, and are provided with health care coverage throughout their period of employment. Their wages and working conditions are negotiated by government representatives on their behalf. Accommodations are provided by the employer, which generally include kitchen facilities. As well, employers are responsible for covering transportation costs for their employees to and from their home country. They are currently exempt from the Occupational Health and Safety Act, from the hours of work and overtime standards of the Employment Standards Act, and they are not permitted to unionize.20

Seasonal migrant workers are not permitted to seek employment outside their specified contract and are not permitted to apply for permanent residence within Canada. Nor do they have access to the political rights granted to Canadian citizens. - Through these restrictions, the state is able to continually secure a labour force that is both seasonal in nature and static in terms of upward mobility. This illustrates the contradictory nature of the use of temporary foreign workers. Migrant workers were/are needed in Ontario agriculture to fill persistent labour shortages. But it is because they are foreign workers, and not recognized as deserving of the political rights of Canadian citizens, that makes the workers so desirable. Thus, the SAWP is shaped not only by the class-dimensions of labour migration, but also race/ethnic and gender (they are male) relations that shape access to citizenship rights

Denial of access to Canadian citizenship rights is a central feature of the program. According to the models of incorporation developed by Satzewich (1991), the workers in the Seasonal Agricultural Workers’ Program are incorporated into agricultural production in Canada as ‘unfree migrant labour’: they are unable to hold any other form of employment and they are unable to apply for Canadian citizenship. Concerns over the potential for ‘race relations’ problems created by immigration from non-white source countries provided justification for the denial of citizenship status to migrants from the Caribbean. Their condition as unfree migrant labour ensures their temporary status in the country and provides Canadian growers with a seasonal labour force. Despite the existence of some (though limited) formal standards that cover basic rights, “serious absences exist even on the surface of the SAWP agreements, and further problems exist in the gaps between theory and practice”, indicating that the rights of offshore workers in the program have not been ‘fully protected’ (Suen 2000: 203). Such problems include: a lack of overtime pay, no family reunification, and a lack of mobility (due to residency requirements). Workers vulnerability is increased due to ‘language, cultural, and geographical barriers’, and a lack of access to legal authorities and social services. Liaison services do not have sufficient support staff to address worker complaints. Premature repatriation, the possibility of ‘blacklisting’, and a lack of alternative employment constitute further disincentives to registering complaints. Race-based discrimination that was present in the construction of the original program continues to be present in a “systematic fashion” as it creates a “transnational dark-skinned underclass welcome to do menial work but not welcome as immigrants” (208).

While there are similarities with the U.S.-Mexico Bracero program, there are key differences as well (Basok 2000). Policy differences and differences in program administration have created varied impacts on the workers in terms of their ability to

17

remain in their host country following the termination of the employment contract. Many Mexican workers in the Bracero program remained in the U.S. illegally, while virtually all of the workers in the Canadian program return to Mexico at the end of their employment contract. The U.S. program was constructed almost solely to meet the needs of agribusiness employers, while the Canadian program takes into account concerns about preventing ‘unwanted’ immigrants from remaining in the country and also the need to provide some protection for domestic labour. A program recruitment strategy that provides for continued participation in the program encourages Mexican workers in Canada to return home once their contract is complete. The small size of the Canadian program in relation to the U.S. program makes it easier to control the workers and ensure their return and the lack of support networks in rural Ontario for Mexican migrants also discourages illegal residency in Canada. In recent years, the Government of Canada has explored the possibilities of expanding the model developed through the SAWP into other industries including construction (in Toronto) and meat processing (in Manitoba) as a means to provide for temporary entry of workers into Canada in areas of continued labour shortages. The North American Free Trade Agreement Within the North American region, labour migration remains primarily regulated through national immigration policies. Nonetheless, while the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which was implemented in 1994 to create a free trade region between Canada, the United States, and Mexico, is primarily an instrument that regulates trade, it also has several implications for labour mobility.

First, NAFTA promotes the mobility of workers in high skill occupational categories. Specifically, Chapter 16 of the NAFTA delimits a general temporary labour policy within the North American region. Through this provision, citizens of Canada, the United States and Mexico can gain temporary entry into each of the three countries to conduct business-related activities. While Chapter 16 purports to apply equally to citizens of the three countries, it actually only applies to four specific categories of business persons: business visitors; professionals; intra-company transferees; and persons engaged in trade or investment activities. Chapter 16 enables each of these categories of business persons to enter Canada without a labour market test being applied.21 The specific application of NAFTA to business investors indicates the class-based dimensions to labour mobility, as NAFTA does not create a situation of free movement for workers, as most “do not have the legal right to search out the markets where wages are highest in the same way that capital can seek the highest profit” (Moody 1995: 55-6).

Second, while it does not include a migrant labour program for low skill occupational categories, NAFTA has produced migration such migration flows, particularly from Mexico into the U.S., due to the structural inequalities between the two countries (Canales 2000). Within Mexico, flexible labour strategies have been pursued through export-oriented production industries, particularly along the U.S. border region. In general, Mexican workers have continued to experience increased insecurity and “worsening conditions of employment” and have thus continued to migrate to the U.S. (417). In the U.S., an expansion of low-wage, low-skill, insecure forms of employment,

18

particularly in the service sectors of large urban areas, and has contributed to the further segmentation of the U.S. labour market and has created new labour demands for migrant workers, which are met due to continued pressures on workers to migrate out of Mexico.

Finally, with respect to workers in low skilled occupational categories, when it was implemented, there was concern from labour groups that NAFTA would produce highly vulnerable work forces, as competitive pressures upon workers intensified. The North American Agreement on Labour Cooperation (NAALC), a side agreement to NAFTA, was negotiated in response to public concerns and pressure that free trade would lead to an erosion of labour standards within the North American region. The agreement includes a commitment to the promotion of guiding principles in the area of labour standards, subject to each signatory’s domestic laws, including providing migrant workers in a Party's territory with the same legal protection as the Party's nationals in respect of working conditions.22 There are many weaknesses to the regulation of labour standards through the NAALC, however, both in general and with respect to the treatment of migrant workers. The NAALC does not attempt to establish common labour standards for the NAFTA countries, but instead encourages the NAFTA countries to comply with their own existing labour laws. The principles themselves are ineffective, as the Commission for Labor Cooperation has very limited power to ensure compliance.23 A review of 28 NAALC cases filed between 1994 and March 2004 indicates that most cases are resolved through seminars, public forums, studies and reports, and government-to-government meetings, rather than actual sanctions for violations.24 In the case of several complaints regarding the conditions of migrant workers, the U.S. and Mexican governments have issued commitments to work to improve the rights of these workers. Overall, the current labour side agreement of NAFTA does not provide effective human rights protections for migrant workers (Suen 2000).

The European Union Within the EU-15, there are approximately 19 million ‘non-nationals’, constituting just over five percent of the total population (EIRO 2003). Of these, approximately six million are members of other EU states (one in which they are not currently residing) and 13 million ‘third country’ (non EU) nationals. Nationals of EU member states have mobility and residency rights within the Union, as well as the ability to access employment and to secure family reunification. Third country nationals are not subject to the freedom of mobility and employment rights of EU nationals.

Intra-EU migration by citizens of the EU was originally regulated by the 1957 Treaty of Rome, which encouraged a common market facilitated by the abolition of “obstacles to the free circulation of goods and services, persons and capital” (quoted in Peixoto 2001:35). These principles were reinforced in the European Single Act and the Maastricht Treaty. The Treaty of Rome, however, only applied to workers who were moving between member states of the European Economic Community. Labour migrations originating from outside the EEC were to be regulated at the national level (Castles 2004a).

Migration flows from former colonies to the respective colonial powers constitute a significant proportion of contemporary migration in the E.U. (Muus 2001). Large

19

numbers of temporary workers were recruited by the major western European economies through the 1960s until the early 1970s and incorporated into a variety of low-wage, low skilled employment. Recruitment was halted in the mid-1970s. Other categories of migrants include asylum seekers, EU migrants, highly skilled migrants, and clandestine migrants (who enter employment in informal economies). The migration of EU citizens is governed by EU regulations, which provides these individuals with the basic principle of ‘free movement’. Migration of non-EU citizens is regulated by individual nation-states, which have recently become more restrictive with respect to non-EU migration. Temporary and seasonal labour is predominant, largely in response to labour shortages in agriculture. Unemployment among non-EU citizens is much higher than EU citizens, particularly among low-skilled workers and former guestworkers.

Currently, there remains a great deal of variation within EU member states regarding migration and integration policies, including the regulation of work permits and temporary workers (IOM 2002). As part of the ongoing project of European unification, efforts have recently been made to move towards a common immigration policy within the EU, particularly in the context of the implementation of the Treaty of Amsterdam, which came into effect in 1999. The goals of a common policy framework include: the removal of controls on third country nationals crossing internal borders; standards and procedures of control on persons crossing external borders; the right to free travel within the EU; residence permission, including family reunification; the definition of rights and conditions of residence of third country nationals. Several recent Directives – on family reunification, long-term residents, and residence permits for victims of trafficking and smuggling - have facilitated this push. A common directive on ‘admission of third country nationals for employment purposes’, proposed in 2002, has not yet secured agreement. However, with the expansion of the EU in 2004 to include new member states from central and eastern Europe, transitional arrangements were established to enable the older member states to limit the movement of workers from new member states for a period of up to seven years, until 2011. These arrangements were initiated to alleviate concerns over sudden inflows of migrants from new member states.25

In the EU today, there is continued demand for both high and low skilled labour and employers’ organizations in many countries advocate for the ability to employ migrant workers to counter demographic changes that will negatively affect the labour force (EIRO 2003). Due to labour market demands, and displaying a similar approach to Canada, there has been renewed interest in orienting migration policies along the lines of ‘managed migration’, or a “more selective employment-related approach” (CEC 2004 5). For example, in 2001, approximately 40 percent of all residency permits were granted for employment purposes, as compared to approximately 30 percent for family reunification. Table 7 indicates the percentage of immigrant admissions by category (worker, family reunification, refugee) in selected countries. The overall trend demonstrates increased emphasis on employment-based immigration and a decline in family reunification, with France and Sweden as notable exceptions.

Insert Table 7 Here

Another commonality with the Canadian case lies in the method of regulation of migrants in low and high skill occupational categories. In both the European and

20

Canadian cases, the tendency is to ease the regulations on the entry of skilled workers, while increasing the controls that regulate those in low skill and seasonal categories.26 The intensification of regulation on seasonal workers persists as these programs grow in numbers and as they move into new sectors and occupations.

Temporary, migrant labour is increasingly sought in the contemporary Western European economy as an alternative to postwar migration policies that permitted or facilitated longer-term residency for migrant workers (Fekete 1997). The shift towards temporary status has been sought as it reduces social costs in the areas of housing, health care, welfare, and education. Guestworkers and seasonal workers are two of the groups most vulnerable to this form of exclusion. In agricultural production, migrant labour has become more central to European agribusiness, as employers are able to recruit migrant workers to do the physically demanding and low paid labour that nationals are unwilling to do. New programs are designed to ensure that the worker leaves once the contract is terminated, thereby preventing any opportunities for settlement, most notably in Germany (discussed below). Across Western Europe, shifts in migration policy have been influenced by fiscal policy shifts towards reduction in public expenditures. Rather than reduce social services generally, governments are reducing or restricting access to the benefits available to the most vulnerable populations, including guestworkers and seasonal workers, as in the case of Denmark (discussed below). Germany The most widely noted European migrant worker program is Germany’s guestworker program. The original guestworker program, developed in the 1950s, recruited foreign labour for low wage employment. Permission to remain in Germany was dependent upon the ability to work. Residency permits were limited to one year, with extension requiring an employer request. And work permits could be restricted to specific firms (Rudolph 1996). The program promoted the recruitment of workers from Italy, Spain, Greece, Turkey, Portugal and Yugoslavia through bilateral agreements signed in the 1950s and 1960s.27 While the program was premised upon temporary employment contracts, these contracts were often renewed as employers required labour force continuity (Fekete 1997). The policy of active recruitment was ended in 1973, with the beginning of the major economic downturn in the world economy. While the program was designed to facilitate only temporary residency, many guestworkers became permanent residents and secured family reunification (Hollifield 2004). In response to the labour market demands experienced across many OECD countries, German employers’ organizations have called for measures that promote ‘controlled immigration’ – a process that ensures that ensures labour supply, particularly of skilled workers, and at the same time prevents abuse of asylum laws (EIRO 2003). Like other EU countries, Germany’s current approach to immigration maintains a very strong connection to employment demands. In 2001, over 80 percent of residency permits were granted for employment purposes (CEC 2004). Developments in temporary worker programs reflect the desire to meet labour market needs, but at the same time maintain strict controls over permanent settlement, particularly with respect to workers in lower-skill occupational categories.

21

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, a new guestworker program was developed, based on similar principles, this time with workers from Central and Eastern Europe, including Yugoslavia, Hungary, and Poland. In 2002, 374,000 temporary work permits were issued, the majority to Polish citizens and for agricultural employment. The program is designed to facilitate labour market flexibility (i.e. to provide workers for low-wage employment) through the recruitment of foreign workers, but with increased restrictions on their employment and residency (Rudolph 1996). Under the program, German workers are given priority, maximum annual quotas are placed on the foreign workers, the initiative for recruitment must be taken by the employer, and the time period for residency remains short. The new guestworker program enacts stricter controls on the migrants, including: no opportunity to extend the work permit; no right to bring one’s family into Germany; and no opportunity to upgrade one’s legal status in the country. The new regulations were designed to ensure temporary migrant labour, for example in seasonal and construction employment. Work and residency permits range from three months to two years.

With the expansion of the EU in 2004, members some of these sending countries became members of the Union, and thus were to be granted access to the mobility rights accorded to EU nationals. Through a ‘transitional arrangement’, Germany has extended the requirement for temporary work permits until 2006 for these new EU nationals and will conduct labour market assessments to determine the possibility for further extension of these ‘exceptional circumstances’. EU nationals from the new EU states will not secure full free movement into Germany until 2011.28

Reflecting the overall patterns of segmentation with respect to the recruitment of migrant workers, and consistent with the general pattern of promoting the entry of skilled workers, in 2000/01 Germany introduced a ‘Green Card’ program to recruit information technology specialists from non-EU countries to be employed for up to five years (IOM 2002; Hollifield 2004). Spouses of those within the program are eligible to hold employment in Germany as well, but after a waiting period of one year. Proposals for an expanded model of the program and for entitlement to permanent residence have also been considered. While the program is essentially a policy to promote the recruitment of temporary foreign workers, the residency and reunification possibilities construct a considerably different model of entry into the German labour market than that experienced by workers in the lower skill occupational categories. Denmark As a welfare state with a social democratic orientation, Denmark has sought to balance demands for high and low-skill workers with concerns over downward pressure on wages and working conditions and the potential impacts of large influxes of migrants on welfare systems. Specifically, labour migration policies have sought to address the former while minimizing the later.

Denmark’s approach to labour migration reflects priorities of both promoting integration, while also restricting access. On integration, in 2002 Denmark adopted efforts to promote the integration of migrants from non-EU member states into the Danish labour market. These included 12 month work permits for third country nationals at an ‘introductory’ wage level and access to language training in the workplace. To

22

further promote integration, residency permits will be accessible after five years (rather than seven) for those who have demonstrated ‘good performance’ (those who have made efforts at language acquisition and are self-supporting) (EIRO 2003). These measures accompanied changes to asylum regulations, which introduced a requirement for asylum seekers to work in order to receive social benefits while applying for asylum. While promoting social integration, these measures were undertaken in the context of a broader effort to reduce the provision of social benefits to immigrants and refugees.29

Denmark also joined other ‘old’ EU member states in enacting ‘transitional arrangements’ to restrict the movement of workers from the new member states. Denmark’s model differs from that of Germany’s, in that nationals from the new EU member states are accorded the same rights to seek work in Denmark as are nationals from the old EU member states. These groups of migrants (most likely to be from Poland and the Baltic states) are not accorded full equal treatment, however. Unlike nationals of old EU member states, once they have found employment, they must apply for a work and residency permit. Such permits will be granted only if the employment is full time and is at conditions on par with those established by sectoral or company-level collective agreements. If they are unable to find work, or if they lose their job, they are required to leave the country. Denmark’s transitional arrangement also includes the ability of the government to halt entry to specific sectors, depending on labour market demands. As of March 2005, the majority of permits were for workers in agriculture and gardening, followed by public and personal services (health, culture, educational institutions), building and construction, industry, and trade, hotel and restaurant.30 Differential treatment for migrants from the new EU member states is also experienced in relation to social provision. Specifically, consist with the shift to reduce access to social benefits to migrants discussed above, nationals from new member states do not have the rights to social (unemployment) benefits while they are searching for work. The Netherlands Post-World War II labour migration to the Netherlands reflected the German guestworker model, with workers from Italy, Spain, Turkey, Morocco, and Yugoslavia. Like in Germany, migration for family reunification continued following the end of guestworker recruitment in the early 1970s.31 The guestworkers of earlier decades became permanent residents by the 1980s (Engelen 2003).

Currently, there are few restrictions on employment for members of EU states. Third country nationals, however, require work permits, which are granted on a temporary basis to a maximum of three years for a permanent position, or one year otherwise. To obtain a work permit, an employer must apply on the basis that no Dutch citizen, legal resident or EU citizen is available. Work permits are not needed after three years of legal residence (IOM 2002). To promote economic integration, in the 1990s the Dutch government implemented legislation requiring employers to work towards proportional employment of migrant workers (in relation to the regional population). Reflecting the corporatist model, the legislation is implemented in conjunction with works councils. By 2000, over 70 percent of employers were found to be operating in compliance with the legislation (EIRO 2003).

23

With respect to social provision, the Netherlands provides an example of a middle ground between the social democratic and the conservative welfare state models, providing for a mix of universal and corporatist social and economic rights that are tied to legal residency, rather than political citizenship (Engelen 2003). Social programs such as family allowance, social assistance, public pensions, basic health care are available to all legal residents including migrant workers. Some of these programs are not dependent upon residency. Family allowances are available for children of legal residents who remain in the sending countries and pensions are available for workers who have returned home after retirement. Similarly, legal residence is not tied to key programs managed through corporatist arrangements between employers and trade unions, including unemployment, disability and supplementary pension benefits.

The Dutch model would appear to provide migrants with a much greater level of social inclusion than in the cases of Canada, Germany, and Denmark. Nonetheless, there are clear limits to the Dutch model, as conditions of “differentiated exclusion” created by patterns of labour market segmentation are evident within the Dutch labour market (Engelen 2003:512). Specifically, foreign workers, particularly those from Turkey, Morocco, and Surinam, are disproportionately employed in low-paid service sector employment and self-employment. In 2002, approximately 20 percent of migrant workers held ‘flexible’ (temporary) employment contracts, as compared to 7 percent of Dutch nationals. Growth in low-skill, flexible forms of employment contributed to declining rates of unemployment amongst migrant workers. But while rates of unemployment amongst these groups of workers declined significantly through the late 1990s, the unemployment rate of non-western migrants in the Netherlands was 9 percent in 2001, as compared to 3 percent for Dutch nationals.32

Despite the emphasis on residency and employment rather than citizenship to determine access to social benefits, patterns of labour market segmentation limit the extent of social inclusion experienced by migrants within the Dutch welfare state model. Access to the corporatist elements of the social and economic rights package, being dependent upon economic contributions, is compromised by the preponderance of immigrant workers in low-wage employment, which minimizes their capacity to contribute, and hence their available benefits. While the model provides greater levels of social benefits, it does not protect against the general situation of labour market precariousness experienced by non-citizens due to over-representation in these forms of employment.

CONCLUSION As has been argued throughout this paper, welfare state analysis must take labour migration into account as a key structural feature of contemporary labour markets. Each of these cases illustrates the centrality of temporary foreign worker programs to contemporary welfare states. In all four states – Canada, Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands – temporary foreign worker programs play a key role in filling labour market demands for both high and low skill occupational categories. As well, systems of temporary work permits are designed by the respective states to manage tensions over immigration and national community formation. Restrictions on access to citizenship rights and residency rights limit the full political participation and social integration of

24

foreign workers. As these cases demonstrate, occupational status plays a key role in this process.

In all cases, workers entering higher skill occupational categories experience far fewer restrictions on their mobility. In the context of NAFTA, Canada’s approach has been to reduce and in some cases eliminate the regulations that govern their entry into the labour market. Conversely, workers in lower skill occupational categories are not included within the NAFTA framework, and are instead regulated through bi-lateral agreements like the Seasonal Agricultural Workers’ Program, which restricts workers’ mobility within the labour market and prevents their permanent settlement. Workers in high skill categories also have much greater potential for social integration. In the case of Germany, family reunification is possible for IT professionals, but not for workers in the new low-skill ‘gastarbeiter’ program.

The above cases are based on different models of welfare regimes (liberal, conservative, social democratic, mixed). The migration lens provides new insight into the character of these models, yielding some key commonalities: specifically, the segmentation of migrant labour markets along the high skill/low skill distinction. This distinction manifests itself not only in income levels and job security, as within traditional accounts of labour market segmentation, but also in the form of mobility and residency rights. Overall, segmented approaches to labour market incorporation resolve tensions between labour market demands for high and low-skill workers and political opposition to immigration. They also produce heightened relations of commodification, exploitation, and marginalization for specific groups of migrant workers.

In the case of the liberal regime (Canada), temporary foreign workers in the SAWP exist within a highly commodified state, with few labour laws to regulate their conditions of work, and limited access to social benefits. Further, the state has completely privatized the relations of social reproduction by prohibiting family reunification, by repatriating the workers upon completion of their employment contracts, and by minimizing access to social benefits (for example, unemployment insurance) in between employment contracts. The conservative regime (Germany) bears a striking similarity for workers in the low skill occupational categories. These workers are tied to specific sectors for limited time periods within the labour market and family reunification is prohibited. The social democratic regime (Denmark) also limits the ability for temporary foreign workers from new EU member states to access social benefits, specifically unemployment insurance. The mixed model of social provision in the Netherlands produces a somewhat similar result, though in a distinct fashion. Social democratic principles ensure access to social benefits for temporary foreign workers. However, corporatist arrangements, combined with persistent patterns of labour market segmentation, limit the ability of foreign workers to access social benefits on equal terms to Dutch citizens.

Thus, while each of these regimes maintains key differences in the organization of market relations and social reproduction with respect to members of the respective national community (i.e. full citizens), the marginalization of migrant workers in the labour market, and in terms of access to social provision, cuts across regime types, including the social democratic model. In all cases, migrant workers in low skill occupational categories experience extreme exposure to market forces, or low levels of decommodification, regardless of regime type. Limited access to benefits and over-

25

representation in forms of low-wage, insecure employment, contribute to social stratification between migrants and nationals in each case. Women’s employment patterns, specifically, the much higher levels of unemployment experienced by women migrants, heightens gender inequality, most notably in the European cases. With respect to the treatment and integration of migrant workers, welfare state theory must take into account these commonalities in regime types.

That is not to say there is no distinction between regime types, however. In Denmark (social democratic), migrants from new EU member states are permitted to enter and search for employment. This not the case in Canada (liberal), where migrants require a work permit attached to a specific employer before entering. While Germany’s low-skill temporary worker program bears greater resemblance to Canada’s, its history reveals the potential for a distinct model, if new guestworkers, specifically those from new EU member states, are able to eventually secure greater residency rights. This would open the possibility for a new wave of family reunification, along the lines of that which took place in the 1970s and 1980s. The high levels of unemployment experienced by women migrants to Germany would reinforce the conservative model of social reproduction. The mix of corporatism and social democracy in the Netherlands’ approach to social provision, while not fully effective in securing benefits for foreign workers, nonetheless provides greater access to benefits than the other models.

The question of mobility within the EU adds to the complexity of the migration lens in relation to welfare state analysis. While enhanced labour mobility is a key principle of the EU, the above case studies indicate that mobility remains largely that – a principle – with key exceptions in its practice. The limits on mobility experienced by new EU members as they enter the labour markets of the EU-15 (due to transitional arrangements) is a striking example. While this is a site for commonality, it is also a site of difference, as Germany retains the greatest restrictions on the entry of new EU members of the cases considered. This provides key indication of the ways in which nation states retain regulatory capacities in an era of transnationalism.

As the examination of both NAFTA and the EU reveal, however, welfare states must be situated within a transnational context. The study of migration policies indicates that both regional arrangements (EU and NAFTA) have influence on policy arrangements within nation states. Labour mobility is much more advanced within the EU than it is within NAFTA, which only has a labour mobility provision for workers in high skilled occupational categories. While nation states retain primary control over migration policies, the development of both the EU and NAFTA have promoted, though in varied ways, the increased mobility of specific groups of workers. Further, these arrangements contribute to the entrenchment of regional migration patterns, for example, flows of professionals between the U.S. and Canada, or the movement of workers from eastern Europe into the EU-15. In both cases, welfare state polices and welfare regimes within the respective regions, cannot be abstracted from the regional, transnational context.

These conditions are not simply fuel for further academic debate, as the marginalization of many groups of migrant workers presents a key political challenge for contemporary welfare states. The Commission on European Communities has called for a ‘level playing field’ for economic migrants across the E.U., as well as stronger efforts at promoting social integration (CEC 2004). Proposed strategies to promote social integration include efforts to combat unemployment, language training, involvement in

26

political decision-making processes, increasing access to affordable housing, increasing dialogue with migrant organizations, and efforts to combat discrimination and racism. In effect, this could lead to the promotion of a regional model of citizenship (see Hollifield 2004), which could then serve as a model for other economic and political regions, such as NAFTA. As a beginning point, a model is needed whereby foreign workers are ensured equal rights and equal treatment as nationals, where membership in a national community is eliminated as a means through which to intensify labour exploitation.

A key social policy challenge lies in the need to address marginalization and social exclusion in a transnational context. While many nations have adopted international human rights standards, they have applied them only to nationals, and have excluded migrants. While there are a number of international instruments designed to protect the human rights of migrants, there are also many political, social, or economic obstacles that prevent their application (Mattila 2000).33 The 1990 UN Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families was developed to address this gap. But by 2000 it still had not been ratified by many states. Conventions developed by the International Labour Organization (Conventions 97 and 143) provide a normative model to promote the protection of migrants, but not a mechanism to ensure adoption or enforcement. Overall, current models of international standards have been ineffective in protecting the rights of migrants often because individual nation states have failed to implement them effectively (Taran 2000). This last point indicates that while a broader (regional and/or transnational) approach is needed, the role of individual nation-states should not be overlooked in the development of such strategies, as the state remains the key mechanism through which legal rights are established and enforced.

Beyond specific social policy measures, much deeper processes of social transformation are likely required, in particular, addressing and reducing the conditions of North-South inequality that underlie the migration patterns of contemporary global capitalism (Castles 2004a), a full discussion of which is beyond the scope of this paper. At present, as labour migration continues apace, overcoming the conditions of commodification, exploitation, and marginalization experienced by migrant workers constitutes a key challenge for contemporary welfare states.

27

Table 1 - Foreign or Foreign-born labour force in selected OECD countries, 200234

Country Thousands % of Total Labour Force Austria 387 9.9 Belgium 357 8.2 Canada 3151 19.9 Czech Republic 50 1.0 Denmark 104 3.7 Finland 38 1.4 France 1612 6.2 Germany 3511 8.9 Greece (2001) 413 9.5 Ireland 101 5.6 Italy (2001) 801 3.3 Luxembourg 83 43.2 Netherlands 295 3.6 Norway 80 3.4 Portugal 125 2.5 Spain 490 2.7 Sweden 205 4.6 Switzerland 864 21.8 United Kingdom 1406 4.8 United States 21291 15.3

Source: SOPEMI-Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, “Trends in International Migration 2003 edition,” OECD, 2004.

28

Table 2 – Employment of Foreign Workers by Sector, 2001-02 (Percentage of total foreign employment)

Country Agri-culture and Fishing

Mining, Manu-facturing and Energy

Con-struction

Wholesale and Retail Trade

Hotel and Restau-rant

Education Heath and Community Services

House-holds

Other Services

Austria 1 24 13 15 11 2 6 <1 25 Belgium <1 21 9 16 8 4 8 <1 32 Canada 2 19 5 14 7 6 9 <1 37 Czech Republic

3 31 11 19 7 3 5 - 18

Finland - 15 8 14 11 11 11 - 27 France 3 17 17 11 7 3 5 7 28 Germany 1 33 8 13 11 3 7 <1 24 Greece 3 18 28 11 10 2 2 17 9 Ireland 3 17 7 10 14 5 10 - 30 Luxembourg <1 10 16 14 8 2 6 3 38 Netherlands 4 21 5 15 8 4 12 - 31 Norway - 16 6 12 7 9 21 - 23 Spain 9 11 16 11 16 3 2 15 17 Sweden - 19 3 11 6 8 19 - 32 Switzerland <1 23 10 18 7 5 12 1 23 United Kingdom

- 12 4 12 11 8 14 1 37

United States

3 17 6 20 10 6 11 1 23

Source: The Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations, World Economic and Social Survey 2004: International Migration, New York: UN, 2004, p. 155.

29

Table 3 – Labour Force Participation (%) by Nationality and Sex, 2001

Men Women Country Nationals Foreigners Nationals Foreigners Austria 78.9 85.1 62.4 63.3 Belgium 73.3 72.4 57.0 41.0 Canada (1996) 73.8 68.4 60.2 52.9 Czech Republic 78.7 87.8 63.3 56.3 Denmark 84.1 71.2 76.2 53.0 Finland 79.4 83.1 74.6 60.2 France 75.1 76.6 63.3 48.6 Germany 78.9 77.6 64.7 50.7 Greece 76.2 89.2 49.0 56.0 Ireland 79.2 77.0 55.9 56.2 Italy 73.6 87.7 46.6 50.7 Luxembourg 74.0 79.7 47.7 57.7 Netherlands 84.9 69.5 67.2 49.0 Norway 84.6 82.1 76.8 67.2 Portugal 79.0 81.5 64.0 65.3 Spain 77.3 85.4 50.9 59.1 Sweden 78.0 63.1 74.2 60.3 Switzerland 89.2 89.5 73.3 68.6 United Kingdom 83.1 75.6 68.4 55.8 United States 80.7 85.6 71.4 61.7

Source: SOPEMI-Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, “Trends in International Migration 2003 edition,” OECD, 2004.

30

Table 4 – Entries of Temporary Workers in Selected OECD Countries by Economic Categories, 1992, 2002 (Thousands)

Country 1992 2002 Country 1992 2002 Germany United States Contract for services

115.1 45.4 Highly skilled workers

38.8 189.7

Seasonal workers

212.4 298.1 Seasonal workers

7.2 31.5

Trainees 5.1 4.9 Industrial trainees

1.8 1.4

Total 332.6 348.4 Total 47.8 222.6 United Kingdom Canada Work permits issued

36.3 88.6 Total 70.5 87.9

Working holiday makers

24.0 41.7 France

Seasonal agricultural workers

3.6 19.4 Employees on Secondment

0.9 1.8

Total 63.8 149.7 Researchers 0.9 1.6 Other holders

of provisional work permits

2.8 6.4

Seasonal workers

13.9 13.5

Total 18.1 23.4 Source: SOPEMI-Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, “Trends in International Migration 2004 edition,” OECD, 2005, p. 32.

31

Table 5 - Selected Migrant Labour Policies Country Welfare

Regime Migrant Worker Categories Policy Details

Seasonal Agricultural Workers - Seasonal employment of agricultural workers - No rights to apply for citizenship - Viewed as a model for other industries (construction; meat-processing)

Canada Liberal

Business and Skilled Class Migrants

- Immigration policy geared towards those in high-skill occupational categories - Recent reduction in regulations governing entry of temporary workers in these categories

Low-skill Guestworkers - Temporary work permits with stricter controls over residency - Family reunification not permitted

Germany Conservative

IT Workers New program to attract skilled migrants - Family reunification possible

3rd Country Nationals - Efforts to promote integration of asylum seekers into the labour market: work permits, language training, faster access to permanent residency

Denmark Social Democratic

Members of new EU states - Restrictions on labour market mobility of new EU members: temporary work permits in specific occupations - No access to social benefits if unemployed

Netherlands Conservative/social democratic

3rd Country Nationals - Temporary work permits for up to 3 years - Policy attempts to promote greater equity in the labour market - Persisting conditions of segmentation produce continued exclusion - Access to social benefits; but compromised due to corporatist arrangements that are undermined by low-paid employment

Region NAFTA Business Migrants - Freedom of movement within the

NAFTA region for workers in professional occupational categories

EU EU Members - Mobility a formal policy goal - But many restrictions within individual nation states (e.g. transitional arrangements for workers from new EU member states)

32

Table 6 – Temporary Workers in Canada - Top 10 Source Countries, 2001-2003

Country 2001 2002 2003 Total Rank Total Rank Total Rank United States 23,849 1 20,302 1 15,423 1 Mexico 11,112 2 11,393 2 11,074 2 Australia 4878 6 5661 4 5916 3 Jamaica 5810 4 5519 5 5898 4 United Kingdom 7044 3 6316 3 5848 5 Japan 4377 7 5383 6 5425 6 Philippines 4020 8 4615 8 4886 7 France 4976 5 4648 7 4794 8 India 1944 10 1865 11 2105 9 Germany 2528 9 2155 10 1867 10 Total Top 10 70,538 67,857 63,236 Total Other Countries

22,545 20,053 18,905

Total 93,083 87,910 82,141 Source: Citizenship and Immigration Canada: http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/monitor/issue01/03-workers.html, “The Monitor”, Issue 1; http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/monitor/issue05/03-workers.html, “The Monitor”, Issue 5; http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/monitor/issue08/03-workers.html, “The Monitor”, Issue 8. Table 7 - Immigrant admissions by category, selected OECD countries, 1991 and 2001

Percentage Workers Family Reunification Refugees Receiving

Country 1991 2001 1991 2001 1991 2001

Canada Denmark France Sweden Switzerland United Kingdom United States

18 20 27 2

47 49 10

26 22 20 2

55 54 19

64 60 58 62 51 42 75

62 53 69 65 42 35 70

18 20 15 36 2 9

15

12 25 11 33 3

11 11

Source: The Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations, World Economic and Social Survey 2004: International Migration, New York: UN, 2004, p. 48.

33

NOTES 1 Research for this paper was conducted through a larger collaborative research project on ‘Restructuring Work and Labour in the New Economy’. The project is funded by a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada Initiative on the New Economy grant held at the Centre for Research on Work and Society at York University. I would like to thank Mark Kerpel and Tod Duncan for research assistance with this project. 2 The terms ‘migrant labour’ and ‘foreign labour’ are used interchangeably throughout the paper as neither is used consistently or universally within available data sources. The terms are generally used to refer to people who are employed in a country of which they are not a citizen, though there are limitations to this conceptualization. 3 Data sources utilized in the paper include the labour law and social policy databases of the North American Commission for Labour Cooperation, the International Labour Organization, and the European Industrial Relations Observatory, as well as labour market data collected by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and the International Labour Organization. 4 International Labour Organization, Facts on Migration, http://www.ilo.org/public/english/bureau/inf/download/factsheets/pdf/migrants.pdf. Accessed June 2005. 5 International Labour Organization, “ILO Director-General says global jobs crisis puts democracy, freedom at risk”, 6 June 2005, http://www.ilo.org/public/english/bureau/inf/pr/2005/26.htm. Accessed June 2005. 6 Citizenship and Immigration Canada, http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/monitor/issue05/06-feature.htmlThe Monitor, Issue 5; http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/monitor/issue07/03-workers.html, “The Monitor”, Issue 7. 7 Third country nationals living in the EU-15 in 2001 was estimated at 14.3 million, or 3.8 percent of the total population (CEC 2004). The largest group of third country nationals living in the EU are Turkish citizens residing in Germany. 8 In 2002, over 60 percent of third country nationals were low skill, with five percent high skill. 9 Unemployment rates vary by country of origin, with migrants from Africa and Turkey experiencing rates well below the norm. 10 The IOM (2002) notes that the U.S. currently maintains a quote for temporary workers that is higher than their quota for permanent immigrants. 11 Selected countries include Spain, Portugal, Sweden, the Netherlands, Denmark, France, the U.K., Norway, Germany, Switzerland, Belgium, Italy, Greece, Finland, Czech Republic, Ireland and Australia. SOPEMI-Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, “Trends in International Migration 2004 edition,” OECD, 2005, p. 68; The Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations, World Economic and Social Survey 2004: International Migration, New York: UN, 2004, p. 156. 12 The rates of temporary employment contracts held by third country nationals as compared to EU nationals in 2001 were as follows: Denmark – 18.6%, 9.3%; the Netherlands – 32.4%, 13.8%; Sweden – 35.3%, 13.9%. 13 Under the Canadian Constitution, immigration is a shared responsibility between the federal government and the provinces, with federal legislation prevailing. Section 8(1) of the Act provides for federal-provincial agreements on immigration. Immigration agreements have been concluded with a number of provinces and territories. The most comprehensive of these is an agreement with the Province of Quebec. The Canada-Quebec Accord gives Quebec certain selection powers and sole responsibility for integration services. Canada maintains responsibility for defining immigration categories, determining inadmissible persons, planning levels of immigration and enforcement. Ontario has sought an “Ontario focused” immigration arrangement. 14 For example, a planning range of 210,000 to 235,000 was confirmed for 2002. Skilled workers, business people and provincial or territorial nominees, together with their families, made up about 60 percent of the movement in 2002, and family members of Canadian citizens and permanent residents, slightly more than one-quarter. Refugees accounted for more than 10 percent of newcomers to Canada in that year. This is consistent with the planning range announced earlier for 2002 and reaffirms the long-term objective of moving gradually to immigration levels of approximately one percent of Canada's population. 15 Canada admits between 20,000 and 30,000 Convention refugees and other displaced persons each year. 16 Skilled workers are foreign nationals who are chosen based on their labour market skills, whereas

34

business immigrants are investors and entrepreneurs with a net worth of at least $800,000 or $300,000 respectively. Economic class may also include the self-employed, based on the following criteria: demonstrated relevant experience and the intention to establish a business. Like the skilled workers, these groups of workers are admitted based on their score on a points system. 17 Some categories of temporary foreign workers are exempt from the requirement for permits, including: some commercial speakers, seminar leaders and guest speakers; some performing artists, students, athletes, sports officials, journalists and providers of emergency services; business visitors; and diplomats, consular officers and other representatives or officials of other countries. 18 HRDC considers the impact of the use of temporary foreign workers on the Canadian labour market. Job offers are approved following an assessment of the economic effect on the Canadian labour market if HRDC determines that qualified Canadians are not available. 19 Citizenship and Immigration Canada, http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/monitor/issue03/03-workers.html“The Monitor”, Issue 3; http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/monitor/issue01/03-workers.html“The Monitor”, Issue 1. Skill Level based on the 2001 National Occupational Classification Matrix: O – Management Occupations; A – Occupations usually require university education; B – Occupations usually require college education of apprenticeship training; C – Occupations usually require secondary school and/or occupation-specific training; D – On-the-job training is usually provided for occupations. 20 Agricultural workers will be covered under the Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act as of June 30, 2006. Government of Ontario, “Extending Health And Safety Coverage Will Mean Increased Farm Safety: New Regulation To Cover Farm Workers”, http://www.gov.on.ca/lab/english/news/2005/05-83.html. Accessed June 2005. 21 The Canada-Chile Free Trade Agreement (CCFTA) is modeled on NAFTA and facilitates temporary entry on a reciprocal basis, by eliminating the requirement for an economic effect opinion. The rules governing temporary entry are similar to those in NAFTA and include the same four categories of business persons who can enter Canada without a labour market test being applied. 22 North American Agreement on Labour Cooperation (NAALC) Between The Government Of Canada, The Government Of The United Mexican States And The Government Of The United States Of America 1993. Final Draft, 13 September 1993. Other principles contained within the NAALC include: freedom of association and the right to organize; the right to bargain collectively; the right to strike; prohibition of forced labour; labour protections for children and young persons; minimum employment standards, including minimum wages and overtime pay; elimination of employment discrimination on such grounds as race, religion, age, or sex; equal pay for women and men; prevention of occupational injuries and illnesses; and compensation in cases of occupational injuries and illnesses. 23 The NAALC contains no enforcement mechanisms for most of the principles, and sanctions can only be levied in cases where there is “a consistent pattern of failure to enforce its own labour laws” (Carr 1999,54) and only in cases involving child labour, health and safety, or minimum wages. Further, judgements or sanctions cannot be levied against private companies. In Canada, the agreement is limited due to the requirement that it must be ratified by each province and, to date, only four provinces (Alberta, Manitoba, Quebec, and Prince Edward Island) have done so (Bensusan 2002). Other weaknesses in the NAALC’s capacity to regulate labour standards generally, and protections for migrant workers specifically, include a lengthy investigation and sanctions process (over a year for investigations) and the lack of periodic monitoring of standards. 24 NAALC, Summary of Public Communications (as of March 2004), http://www.naalc.org/english/public.shtml, accessed March 2005. Eighteen complaints have been laid regarding conditions Mexico, nine regarding the United States, and two regarding Canada. Twenty-one complaints included the issues related to unionization (freedom of association; the right to organize; the right to bargain collectively; the right to strike). Three were subsequently withdrawn and five were not accepted for review. Fifteen complaints resulted in ministerial consultations with follow-up activities. 25 EIRO, “Controversy over rules for workers from new EU Member States”, http://www.eiro.eurofound.ie/rint/2004/04/feature/dk0404103f.html. Accessed June 2004. 26 A key European example is Austria, which has recently sought to expand its seasonal workers categories and quotas, while at the same time limiting residency periods and preventing family unification. 27 Migration Policy Institute, http://www.migrationinformation.org/Profiles/display.cfm?ID=235. Accessed June 2005.

35

28 Migration Policy Institute, http://www.migrationinformation.org/Profiles/display.cfm?ID=235. Accessed June 2005. Recently, German unions have raised concerns that the existence of a low-wage temporary labour force may undermine existing German wage standards and prevent a reduction in the unemployment rate of German workers, and have sought to challenge these tendencies through court actions to ensure wage protection for migrants and through organizing efforts. European Industrial Relations Observatory, “European Migrant Workers Union Founded”, http://www.eiro.eurofound.ie/print/2004/09/feature/de0409206f.html. Accessed June 2005. 29 European Industrial Relations Observatory, “LO and DA sign agreement on integration of refugees and immigrants”, http://www.eiro.eurofound.ie/2002/01/feature/dk0201166f.html. Accessed June 2005. 30 European Industrial Relations Observatory, “Transitional scheme agreed for workers from central and eastern Europe”, http://www.eiro.eurofound.ie/rint/2004/04/feature/dk0404103f.html, “The expected invasion of cheap labour from the new Eastern EU countries did not take place”, http://www.eirofound.ie/2005/05/inbrief/dk0505101n.html. Accessed June 2005. 31 Migration Policy Institute, http://www.migrationinformation.org/Profiles/display.cfm?ID=156. Accessed June 2005. 32 European Industrial Relations Observatory, “Job creation project for foreign nationals in SMEs achieves limited success”, http://eiro.eurofound.ie/print/2002/08/feature/n10208102f.html. Accessed June 2005. 33 Mattila (2000) presents a summary of the central instruments of international human rights law, including those that provide protections for migrant workers (see pp. 55-59) and outlines some obstacles to the full implementation of these protections. 34 Data indicate foreign-born for Canada and United States and foreign for all others. REFERENCES Aleinikoff, T. A., and V. Chetail (eds.) (2003) Migration and International Legal Norms. The Hague, Washington, D.C.: T.M.C. Asser. Baines, D., and N. Sharma (2002) “Migrant Workers as Non-Citizens: The Case Against Citizenship as a Social Policy Concept.” Studies in Political Economy, Autumn, 75-107. Basok, T. (2000) "He Came, He Saw, He. Stayed: Guest Worker Programmes and the Issue of Non-Return." International Migration Review, Vol. 38, No. 2, 215-37. ----- (2002) Tortillas and Tomatoes: Transmigrant Mexican Harvesters in Canada. Kingston and Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press. Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) (1994) Into the 21st Century: A Strategy for Immigration and Citizenship. Hull, Québec : Minister of Supply and Services Canada. Canales, A. I. (2000). "International Migration and Labour Flexibility in the Context of NAFTA." International Social Science Journal, No. 165, 409-19. Carter, B., M. Green, and R. Halpern (1996) "Immigration Policy and the Racialization of Migrant Labour: The Construction of National Identities in the USA and Britain." Ethnic and Racial Studies, Vol. 19, No. 1, 135-57. Castles, S. (2002). "Migration and Community Formation under Conditions of

36

Globalization." International Migration Review, Vol. 36, No. 4, 1143-1168. ----- (2004a) "Why Migration Policies Fail." Ethnic and Racial Studies, Vol. 27, No. 2, 205-227. ----- (2004b) “"The Factors that Make and Unmake Migration Policies." International Migration Review, Vol. XXXVIII, No. 3, 852-84. Castles, S., and M. J. Miller (2003) The Age of Migration: International Population Movements in the Modern World. New York, Guilford Press. Chang, G. (2000) Disposable Domestics: Immigrant Women Workers in the Global Economy. Cambridge, MA: South End Press. Clement, W. (2001) “Who Works: Comparing Labour Market Practices.” In J. Baxter and M. Western (eds.) Reconfigurations of Class and Gender. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 55-80. Commission of the European Communities (CEC) (2004) First Annual Report on Migration and Integration. Brussels: CEC. Cranford, C. J., L. F. Vosko, and N. Zukewich (2003) “Precarious Employment in the Canadian Labour Market: A Statistical Portrait”. Just Labour, Vol. 3, Fall, 6-22. Engelen, E (2003) “How to Combine Openness and Protection? Citizenship, Migration, and Welfare Regimes”. Politics and Society, Vol. 31, No. 4, 503-36. Ehrenreich, B., and A.R. Hochschild (2002) Global Woman: Nannies, Maids, and Sex Workers in the New Economy. New York: Metropolitan. Esping-Andersen, G. (1990) The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Princeton: Princeton University Press. European Industrial Relations Observatory (EIRO) (2003) Migration and Industrial Relations. Dublin: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions. Located at http://www.eiro.eurofound.eu.int/2003/03/study/tn0303105s.html, accessed June 2005. Fekete, L. (1997) "Blackening the Economy: The Path to Convergence." Race & Class, Vol. 39, No. 1, 1-17. Freeman, G. (2004). "Immigrant Incorporation in Western Democracies." International Migration Review, Vol. XXXVIII, No. 3, 945-69. Galabuzi, G.E. (2004) “Racializing the Division of Labour”. In J. Stanford and L.F.

37

Vosko (eds.) Challenging the Market: The Struggle to Regulate Work and Income. Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 175-204. Harris, N (1995) The New Untouchables: Immigration and the New World Worker. London & New York: I.B. Taurus. Hollifield, J. (2004) "The Emerging Migration State." International Migration Review Vol. XXXVIII, No. 3, 885-912. International Organization for Migration (IOM) (2002) International Comparative Study of Migration Legislation and Practice. Geneva: IOM. ----- (2003) “Facts and Figures on International Migration”. Migration Policy Issues, No. 2, March. Marr, W. (1985) "The Canadian Temporary Visa Programme as an Alternative to the European Guest Worker Scheme." International Migration Review Vol. XXIII, No. 3, 381-95. Martin, P. (1993) Trade and Migration: NAFTA and Agriculture. Washington: Institute for International Economics ----- (1997) "Guest Worker Policies for the Twenty-First Century." New Community Vol. 23, No. 4, 483-94 ----- (2002) "Mexican Workers and U.S. Agriculture: The Revolving Door." International Migration Review, Vol. 36, No. 4, 1124-1142. Martinello, M (2002) “Protections of Migrants – Human Rights: principles and Practice”, International Migration Review, Vol. 38, No. 6, 53-69. McBride, S., and J. Shields (1997) Dismantling a Nation: The Transition to Corporate Rule in Canada. Halifax: Fernwood. Moody, K. (1995) "NAFTA and the Corporate Redesign of North America." Latin American Perspectives, Vol. 22, No. 1, 95-116. Morris, L. (1994) Dangerous Classes: The Underclass and Social Citizenship. London and New York, Routledge. Muus, P. (2001) "International Migration and the European Union, Trends and Consequences." European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, Vol. 9, 31-49. O’Conner, J., A. Orloff, and S. Shaver (1999) States, Markets, Families. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

38

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2005) Trends in International Migration, Annual Report 2004 Edition. Paris: OECD. Peck, J. (1996) Work-Place: The Social Regulation of Labor Markets. New York & London: The Guilford Press. Pellerin, H. (1992) “Global Restructuring in the World Economy and Migration: The Globalization of Migration Dynamics.” In M. Oliver (ed.) The Movement of Peoples: A View from the South. Ottawa: The Group of 78, 90-99. Peixoto, J. (2001). "Migration and Policies in the European Union: Highly Skilled Mobility, Free Movement of Labour and Recognition of Diplomas." International Migration Review, Vol. 39, No. 1, 33-61. Pessar, P. R., and S.J. Mahler (2003) "Transnational Migration: Bringing Gender In." International Migration Review, Vol. 37, No. 3, 812-846. Richmond, A. H. (1991). "Foreign-Born Labour in Canada: Past Patterns, Emerging Trends, and Implications." Regional Development Dialogue, Vol. 12, No. 3, 145-61. Rosewarne, S. (2001). "Globalization, Migration, and Labor Market Formation – Labor’s Challenge?" Capital, Nature, Socialism, Vol. 12, No. 3, 71-84. Rudolph, H. (1996). "The New Gastarbeiter System in Germany." New Community, Vol. 22, No. 2, 287-300 Sassen, S. (1998) Globalization and its Discontents: Essays on the New Mobility of People and Money. New York: The New Press. ----- (2002) “Deconstructing Labor Demand in Today’s Advanced Economies: Implications for Low-Wage Employment.” In F. Munger (ed.) Laboring Below the Line: The New Ethnography of Poverty, Low-Wage Work, and Survival in the Global Economy. New York: Russell Sage, 73-94. Satzewich, V. (1991) Racism and the Incorporation of Foreign Labour: Farm Labour Migration to Canada Since 1945. London and New York: Routledge. Schuster, L., and J. Solomos (2002) “Rights and Wrongs across European Borders: Migrants, Minorities, and Citizenship.” Citizenship Studies, Vol. 6, No. 1, 37-54. Sharma, N. (2001) "On Being Not Canadian: The Social Organization of ‘Migrant Workers’ in Canada." Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, Vol. 38, No. 4, 415-39. Stasiulis, D. (1997) “The Political Economy of Race, Ethnicity, and Migration.” In W.

39

Clement (ed.) Understanding Canada: Building on the New Canadian Political Economy, Kingston & Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 141-171. Stephen, L. (2001) "Globalization, the State, and the Creation of Flexible Indigenous Workers: Mixtec Farmworkers in Oregon." Urban Anthropology, Vol. 30, Nos. 2-3, 189-214. Suen, R. L. W. (2000) "You Sure Know How to Pick’Em: Human Rights and Migrant Farm Workers in Canada." Georgetown Immigration Law Journal, Vol. 15, No. 1, 199-227. Taran, P. A. (2000). "Human Rights of Migrants: Challenges of the New Decade." International Migration Review Vol. 38, No. 6, 7-47. Thomas, Mark (1997) The Search For a Reliable Workforce: The Canadian State and the Seasonal Agricultural Workers’ Program. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, University of Guelph. United Nations (UN) (2004) World Economic and Social Survey 2004, International Migration. New York: United Nations. Wall, E. (1994) "Farm Labour Markets and the Structure of Agriculture." Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, Vol. 31, No. 1, 65-81. Wilcox Young, L. (1995). "Free Trade or Fair Trade? NAFTA and Agricultural Labor." Latin American Perspectives, Vol. 22, No. 1, 49-58. Wong, L. T. (1984) "Canada’s Guestworkers: Some Comparisons of Temporary Workers in Europe and North America." International Migration Review, Vol. XVIII, No. 1, 85-98.

40