Annual Report on Migration and Asylum - Luxembourg 2018

Report (2019)

This report summarises the main debates and major developments concerning migration and asylum in Luxembourg in 2018. 2018 was marked by the parliamentary elections in October 2018, which led to the ... [more ▼]

This report summarises the main debates and major developments concerning migration and asylum in Luxembourg in 2018. 2018 was marked by the parliamentary elections in October 2018, which led to the renewal of the former Government coalition. The coalition agreement provides for a number of changes related to migration policies in Luxembourg. Luxembourg remains a country with significant immigration. The population growth is largely a result of migratory movements. Family and economic migration remains at a high level. The inflow of certain nationalities is stagnating or decreasing, whileothers are progressing. This is above all the result of two phenomena: firstly, a slowdown of overall migratory flows to the country and, secondly, high rates of naturalisation. The number of residence permits issued for economic reasons increased by more than 23% year-on-year compared to 2017, continuing the clear upward trend observed in recent years. This overall increase is due in particular to the larger numbers of residence permits issued to the "salaried worker", "European Blue Card" and "intra-corporate transferee" categories. The Law of 1st August 2018 introduced significant changes in the admission policy for international students and researchers in Luxembourg. This law transposes Directive 2016/801/EU, which allows students and researchers to stay for nine months after successfully completing their master's or doctoral studies in order to find a job or start a business. The Government elected in the parliamentary elections of October 2018 intends to organise legal immigration taking into account the needs of the economy. The 2018 political agenda also saw a large debate regarding Luxembourg signing the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (GCM). This debate, both in Luxembourg and internationally, gave rise to suspicious and negative reactions, particularly in nationalist circles in some European countries. However, there was broad support for the GCM in Luxembourg with most of the political class (6 of the 7 political parties represented in the Chamber of Deputies) defending the GCM alongside the Government The number of people seeking international protection remained high but relatively stable in 2018 compared to the previous two years. The refugee recognition rate has continued to increase. Many beneficiaries of international protection (BIPs) remain in applicants for international protection (AIP) homes as they have difficulty finding housing in the private market or social housing. This in turn increases the pressure on accommodation facilities and it is one of the priorities of the national authorities, as reflected by the coalition agreement. Reception and accommodation conditions for AIPs and BIPs have sparked a number of debates and reflections within civil society. They were discussed in most political party manifestos for the 2018 parliamentary elections. It should be noted that the new multiannual National Action Plan on Integration (Integration NAP) has these as central themes, the reception and management of AIPs is one of the two main areas of action. A major institutional development is the extension, following the 2018 legislative elections, of the powers of the Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs to include the "Reception of applicants for international protection" portfolio. Previous this belonged to the Ministry for Family and Integration. Finally, at the European level the new Government confirmed its commitment to the Common European Asylum System, which emphasises European solidarity. Unaccompanied minors were another area of concern in 2018. A Bill was published, which aims to establish a multidisciplinary team to assess the best interests of the child in the context of a return procedure. In addition, there was a widely publicised debate around the practice of age assessment. The new Government has indicated that it intends to focus on unaccompanied minor AIPs, particularly in terms of improving care for these young people. In the area of integration, the Integration NAP was drafted. This document is the result of a wide consultation process with the different stakeholders involved in the reception and integration of non-Luxembourg nationals. The Integration NAP provides a general, strategic and sustainable framework to firstly develop programmes and tools to promote the integration of all non-Luxembourgers residents in the country, and secondly, to promtoe social cohesion between Luxembourgers and non-Luxembourgers. The Law of 8 March 2017 on Luxembourg nationality has had consequences for the number of individuals gaining citizenship. The impact of this law explains the stagnation, or even slight decline in the foreign population in Luxembourg and, in particular, of certain specific nationalities, as well as the increased electorate in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg since the law was introduced. Two advisory bodies representing the interests of foreign residents in Luxembourg are in operation: at the national level, the National Council for Foreigners (CNE), and, at the municipal level, Advisory Committees on Integration (CCCI) were renewed following the 2017 municipal elections. The new Government has stated that it intends to further increase the powers of these two bodies. Moreover, it intends to decentralise its Welcome and Integration Contracts (CAI), and to support the municipalities in their local integration work. The education system continues to face major challenges resulting from the heterogeneity of the school population. The second National Report on Education noted inequalities in the educational system caused by social origin and the migratory context of pupils. In order to cope with this situation, the authorities have focused on several measures such as expansion of the number of international and European schools; the development of specific classes for young migrants; the establishment of a mediator service for support, inclusion and school integration; and the introduction of the plurilingual education programme at nursery level. Knowledge of Luxembourgish as an integration factor was another concern throughout the year. The Law of 20 July 2018 presents a number of measures to promote the Luxembourgish language. The objectives of the Luxembourgish language policy, which aim to reinforce the importance of Luxembourgish, are to support the use and study of Luxembourgish, encourage the learning of the Luxembourgish language and culture, and promote culture in the Luxembourgish language. Several bodies have been set up to implement this action plan. The language question was ubiquitous during the election campaign. Most political parties emphasised the importance of the Luxembourgish language as an integration factor in their manifestos, while highlighting the advantage of multilingualism. Finally, there are some changes to note in the return policy of Luxembourg. There were two proposals to amend the Immigration Law: one, which authorises the police to enter residential premises to enforce removal orders in the case of forced return; and a second one, which provides for systematic oversight by the courts of prolonged detention beyond the 4-month period. The new Government has stated that it is committed to improving the current detention system through the creation of a specific detention structure for women, families and vulnerable persons. [less ▲]

Beneficiaries of international protection travelling to their country of origin: Challenges, Policies and Practices in the EU Member States, Norway and Switzerland

Report (2018)

The main objectives of this study of the European Migration Network are to provide objective and reliable information about beneficiaries of international protection who travel to their country of origin ... [more ▼]

The main objectives of this study of the European Migration Network are to provide objective and reliable information about beneficiaries of international protection who travel to their country of origin or come into contact with national authorities of their country of origin, and information on cases where international protection statuses were ceased leading to, for example, the status being ended, revoked or not renewed (as per Article 45 and 46 of the recast Asylum Procedures Directive) and, ultimately, the permission to stay withdrawn. For the Luxembourgish case, it is firstly important to note that beneficiaries of the refugee status and of the status of subsidiary protection are not subject to the same restrictions with regard to travel to the country of origin or contact with national authorities. While refugees are in principle not permitted to travel to the country of origin, beneficiaries of subsidiary protection are not subject to this restriction. In this context, the phenomenon of beneficiaries of the refugee status travelling to their country of origin is currently not considered a policy priority in Luxembourg. While it does occur, there are no statistics providing information on how many refugees undertake this journey or contact the national authorities, on the reasons for travel to the country of origin, nor is there any case law on the cessation of the refugee status for reasons of travel to the country of origin. Luxembourg’s authorities are not systematically informed of such events by the authorities of other Member States. Luxembourg has no external borders with the exception of the international airport of Luxembourg, from where only an extremely limited number of flights to third countries depart. Thus, it is extremely difficult to capture the extent of the phenomenon in Luxembourg. Luxembourg’s Asylum Law establishes the re-availment of the protection of the country of origin and the voluntary re-establishment in the country of origin as grounds for cessation of the refugee status. Travel to the country of origin or contact with its national authorities are not explicitly forbidden by legislation. In principle, refugees are not permitted to travel back to the country of origin. They are provided with this information on multiple occasions: for instance at the moment of the introduction of their application, as well as when they are issued the decision granting them protection. Their travel document also clearly states the restriction. There is no notification or authorisation procedure that would authorise such travel in Luxembourg. When the Directorate of Immigration has the information that a refugee travelled back to the country of origin, it will proceed to an in-depth analysis of the personal situation of the individual. Determining that this travel is proof of the voluntary re-establishment in the country of origin is however considered extremely difficult, as it is nearly impossible to ascertain the reasons for which the refugee returned. Furthermore, a short stay in the country of origin is not necessarily considered like the (permanent) establishment in the country of origin or a proof thereof. This is also due to the fact that the Luxembourgish authorities cannot contact the authorities of the country of origin and have no tools to undertake an investigation there in order to verify that the refugee has re-established him/herself. The travel and the surrounding circumstances can be taken into account if the minister decides to re-examine the validity of the status, which could potentially lead to a withdrawal. The Directorate of Immigration has never considered ceasing protection because a refugee contacted the authorities of the country of origin. Proving that this contact occurred in the first place, and next, proving that it constitutes a re-availment of the protection of the country of origin, is considered nearly impossible. In addition, it is a fact that certain administrative procedures require the production of official documents and that the substitution of these documents with affidavits are in practice not always feasible. As previously mentioned, beneficiaries of subsidiary protection are authorised to travel back to their country of origin and are permitted to contact the authorities of their country of origin. They are even encouraged to contact the national authorities in order to obtain a national passport. These actions can thus not lead to the cessation of the status of subsidiary protection. If the decision to cease the status is taken, the beneficiary is notified of this decision in writing. The decision can be appealed before the First instance Administrative Court. If the decision of the Court is negative, the individual can file an appeal before the Second instance Administrative Court. In principle, the decision to cease international protection carries a return decision. However, the individual can apply for another residence permit if s/he fulfils the conditions established in the Immigration Law. The same is true for family members who got a residence permit through family reunification with the concerned person: the family members will lose their right to stay unless they can gain access to another residence permit under the Immigration Law. [less ▲]

Rapport annuel sur les migrations et l'asile (2017)

Report (2018)

The present report provides an overview of the main developments and debates in relation to migration and asylum in Luxembourg in 2017. The number of people applying for international protection remained ... [more ▼]

The present report provides an overview of the main developments and debates in relation to migration and asylum in Luxembourg in 2017. The number of people applying for international protection remained high in 2017 (2.322 applications) compared to the levels registered pre- ‘migration crisis’ (1.091 in 2014). However, the number of registrations remained relatively stable if compared to the two preceding years (2.447 in 2015 and 2.035 in 2016). This relative stability in numbers also reflected on the general public and policy debate in the field of migration and asylum. Since 2016, its focus has continuously shifted from an ‘emergency’ discourse axed on the implementation of reception measures and conditions towards discussions on longer-term integration measures and policies. In this regard, the newly introduced Guided Integration Trail (parcours d’intégration accompagné - PIA) can be considered a flagship project of OLAI, the national agency responsible for the reception and integration of foreigners. This multidisciplinary package of measures aims to empower applicants and beneficiaries of international protection and to support them in developing their life project. The trail, compulsory for all adult applicants for international protection, consists of a linguistic component and a civic component and is split into three phases. Although increasing housing capacities for the reception of applicants for international protection was high on national authorities’ agenda, housing remained a challenging aspect of the asylum system and triggered debate on a national scale. Alongside access to training, problems related to housing were among the issues most frequently raised by applicants for international protection in 2017. The lack of affordable housing on the private market, an increasing number of family reunifications as well as the increasing number of beneficiaries and persons who have been issued a return decision who remain housed in structures of OLAI were all identified as interplaying barriers for finding available accommodation for applicants for international protection. The difficulties with the construction of modular housing structures also persisted in 2017. A certain reticence of the population towards the construction of these so-called ‘container villages, planned in response to the increasing influx that started in August 2015, was visible in the appeals introduced into Luxembourg’s First Instance Administrative Courts to annul the land-use plans related to the projects. Living conditions in the various reception facilities were also one of the subjects of discussion in 2017. This included a debate on the (lack of) kitchen infrastructure in reception facilities and the varying systems for provision of food, the types of food available, as well as the availability of internet. As an answer to the resurgence of an increased influx of applicants of international protection from the Western Balkans in early 2017, a new ‘ultra-accelerated procedure’ was put in place for applicants of international protection stemming from the Western Balkans. According to the state authorities, the ultra-accelerated procedure was set up to take pressure off the reception facilities, but also as a deterrent to avoid creating false hopes for long-term stay. In April 2017, a ‘semi-open return structure’ (Structure d’hébergement d’urgence au Kirchberg – SHUK) was put in place, from which people are transferred to states applying the Dublin regulation. Due to home custody (assignation à résidence), the SHUK is considered to be an alternative to detention by national authorities. The newly created structure as well as the related conditions for assignment, were nevertheless criticised by civil society. The outcry among civil society was equally high during and after the adoption the Law of 8 March 2017, which endorses the extension of the permitted period of detention of adults or families with children from 72 hours to 7 days, in order to improve the organisation of the return and ensures that it is carried out successfully. A commission in charge of determining the best interests of unaccompanied minors applying for international protection was decided at the end of 2017. The commission is in charge of carrying out individual assessments regarding the best interest of the child with the aim of delivering an authorisation of stay or a return decision. Among the elements taken into consideration when the best interest of the child is evaluated in the context of a potential return decision is information provided by the International Organization for Migration (IOM). The latter made an agreement with the Directorate of Immigration in 2017 to search for the parents of UAMs in the country of origin. With the focus of debates having slowly shifted towards long-term integration issues, the Council of Government also approved the elaboration of a new multiannual national action plan on integration. The plan will be based on two axes: (1) the reception and follow-up of applicants for international protection and (2) the integration of Luxembourg’s non-Luxembourgish residents. Luxembourg’s National Employment Agency (ADEM) set up a “cellule BPI” (beneficiaries of international protection cell) in its Employer Service in early 2017. This cell provides employers with information regarding job applications and evaluations of the competences of beneficiaries of international protection. A new law on the Luxembourgish nationality entered into force on 1 April 2017. Given the particular demographic situation of Luxembourg characterised by a significant increase in the total population and a decrease in the proportion of Luxembourgers in the total population, the reform intends to promote the societal and political integration of non-Luxembourgish citizens and to strengthen cohesion within the national community. The main changes introduced by the law include a decreased length of residence requirement for naturalisation (from 7 to 5 years), the right of birthplace (jus soli) of the first generation, a simplified way of acquiring Luxembourgish nationality by ‘option’, as well as new scenarios to avoid cases of statelessness. The law maintains previous linguistic requirements but makes some adjustments in order to prevent the language condition from becoming an insurmountable obstacle. Ahead of the local elections held on 8 October 2017, the Ministry of Family, Integration and the Greater Region launched a national information and awareness-raising campaign titled “Je peux voter” (I can vote) in January 2017. This campaign aimed to motivate Luxembourg’s foreign population to register on the electoral roll for the local elections. The government’s intention to legislate face concealment was arguably one of the most debated topics in the field related to community life and integration in the broader sense, both in parliament as well as in the media and public sphere. Bill n°7179 aims to modify article 563 of the Penal Code and to create the prohibition of face concealment in certain public spaces. The bill defines face concealment as the action of covering part of or all of the face in a way of rendering the identification of the person impossible and provides a wide variety of examples, such as the wearing of a motor cycle helmet, a balaclava or a full-face veil. Opposing views among stakeholders, whether political parties, public institutions, civil society or the media, emerged with regard to the necessity to legislate in the matter and if so, on the basis of which grounds and to what extent. The phenomenon of migration has also led to a more heterogeneous population in Luxembourg’s schools. To face this situation, the education authorities continued to diversify Luxembourg’s offer in education and training, creating for instance a bigger offer for youngsters and adults who do not master any of Luxembourg’s vehicular languages, offering more alphabetisation courses or basic instruction courses. The Minister for National Education continued to develop and adapt the school offer to the increased heterogeneity by increasing the international and European school offer, introducing of a new mediation service and putting in place a plurilingual education programme. In the area of legal migration, the most significant changes concerned admission policies of specific categories of third-country nationals. In this respect, bill n°7188 mainly aims to transpose Directive (EU) 2016/801 of the European Parliament and the Council of 11 May 2016 on the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for the purposes of research, studies, training, voluntary service, pupil exchange schemes or educational projects and au pairing. The directive aims to make the European Union a world centre of excellence for studies and training, while favouring contacts between people and favouring their mobility, these two being important elements of the European Union’s external policy. Bill N°7188 intends to facilitate and simplify the procedures for intra-European mobility of TCN researchers and students. Moreover, the proposed changes include incentive mechanisms to retain students and researchers. To this end, it proposes that students and researchers, once they have completed their studies/research, can be issued a residence permit for “private reasons” for a duration of 9 months at most in view of finding employment or creating a business. Finally, bill n°7188 also foresees provisions to regulate the family reunification of a researcher staying in Luxembourg in the context of short- and long-term mobility with his/her nuclear family. The legislator furthermore transposed Directive 2014/36 on seasonal workers and Directive 2014/66 on temporary intragroup transfer into national law, and adapted Luxembourg’s immigration law to the needs to the economy, by introducing, amongst other things, and authorisation of stay for investors. Organising the admission of stay and the issuance of authorisations of stay was also a key component within the agreement between Luxembourg and Cape Verde on the concerted management of migratory flows and solidary development. Other objectives of the agreement include the promotion of the movement of people, detailing readmission procedures, fighting against irregular migration, strengthening the legal establishment and integration of the concerned nationals, as well as the mobilisation of skills and resources of migrants in favour of solidary development. [less ▲]

Family reunification of third-country nationals in the EU: national practices (country report Luxembourg)

Report (2017)

In Luxembourg, family reunification is one of the main reasons for immigration of third-country nationals. In fact, “family member” and “private reasons (family links)” residence permits (first deliveries ... [more ▼]

In Luxembourg, family reunification is one of the main reasons for immigration of third-country nationals. In fact, “family member” and “private reasons (family links)” residence permits (first deliveries and renewals) represented more than a third of all residence permits issued during the last three years. While the right to family reunification was solely provided by international law and regulated by administrative practice until 2008, the transposition of Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification led to a much more precise and detailed legal framework. A notable change in legislation has been proposed with the introduction of bill n° 6992 , namely the harmonisation of the conditions that apply to third-country national employees with those of Blue Card holders and researchers. Thus, family reunification requirements for certain categories of applicants shall be alleviated through the abrogation of the 12-month residence requirement for the sponsor. In order to apply for family reunification in Luxembourg, sponsors have to meet a number of requirements for exercising the right to family reunification, which include the provision of suitable accommodation for the size of their family; meeting health and safety standards; health insurance; as well as stable and regular resources to provide for themselves and their family members. As recommended by Directive 2003/86/EC, Luxembourg sets out more favourable conditions to beneficiaries of international protection for the exercise of their right to family reunification. Thus, they do not have to comply with the above-mentioned requirements in case they apply for family reunification within 3 months of being granted the status. Family members who have come to Luxembourg under family reunification have access to education, orientation, vocational training, lifelong learning and professional retraining once their residence permit has been issued. Family members furthermore have access to the labour market. In case the family member has resided in Luxembourg for less than one year when the application is submitted, it will be submitted to the labour market test. Family members can also, under a number of conditions, benefit from guaranteed minimum income, social aid, long-term residence status as well as citizenship. National stakeholders noted that the requirement of finding appropriate accommodation and proving stable and regular resources is one of the main challenges for sponsors. For family members as well as sponsors, having sufficient financial resources to cover the costs of family reunification can be another challenge to accessing family reunification. Family members of beneficiaries of international protection in particular face the more procedural challenge of providing proof of identity and family links, which can be difficult due to lacking documentation, differing administrative practices in the country of origin and/or the lack of cooperation of institutions. Gaining access to family reunification is also particularly difficult for beneficiaries of international protection who arrived in Luxembourg as unaccompanied minors but reached adulthood during the examination of their file, as they must provide proof of their family member’s dependency upon them. The limited number of diplomatic representations of Luxembourg abroad poses a challenge both to family members who must present themselves there, as well as for the Luxembourgish authorities who require information on certain countries. Perceived as a best practice with regard to family reunification are the information that NGOs and the lawyers in the field of migration and asylum provide to beneficiaries of international protection with regard to procedures of family reunification, thereby contributing to the beneficiary’s ability to enter an application for family reunification within the 3-month period. The practice of accepting the submission of an application of family members of beneficiaries of international protection that contains only a commencement of proof of family links and allowing for the finalisation at a later date is also perceived as a good practice, as it enables them to exercise their right to family reunification while benefitting from more favourable conditions. Furthermore, the issuance of a “laisser-passer” for beneficiaries of international protection who cannot obtain travel documents is perceived as a big step forward by national stakeholders. Lastly, Restoring Family Links, a service provided by the Luxembourgish Red Cross, is also considered a reliable tool with regard to tracing missing family members abroad. [less ▲]

Policy Report on Migration and Asylum (2016)

Report (2017)

The present report provides an overview of the main debates and developments in relation to migration and asylum in Luxembourg in 2016. The issue of migration remained on the forefront of public and ... [more ▼]

The present report provides an overview of the main debates and developments in relation to migration and asylum in Luxembourg in 2016. The issue of migration remained on the forefront of public and political debate, a debate axed on both planned legislative changes as well as the concrete migratory situation in Luxembourg. Four topics dominated public and policy discussions over the course of the year: the reform on Luxembourgish nationality, economic migration, the organisation of reception, as well as support and integration measures, linked to the continued inflow of applicants for international protection (AIPs) in 2016 and steps taken to adapt formal and informal education to the increasing heterogeneity of Luxembourg’s population. The debate on international protection that arose in 2015 was carried onward in 2016, the focus shifting towards reception, support and integration measures. As the inflow of AIPs remained relatively high in 2016 with 2.043 applications, Luxembourg’s Reception and Integration Agency (OLAI) warned throughout the year that the country’s structures would soon reach the limits of their capacity. Linked to the high recognition rate, the legal challenges that local residents put to the plans for the construction of new reception facilities and the difficulty of beneficiaries of international protection (BIPs) in finding appropriate accommodation, the perceived dearth of housing was discussed broadly by the public, the media, as well as civil society and political actors. The continued inflow of AIPs also put a strain on the concerned administrations, both in terms of financial and human resources, leading to discussions regarding the duration of procedures and the variations of this duration. Moreover, the question of integration or support measures for beneficiaries and applicants stepped to the forefront: the changed profile of people arriving in Luxembourg posed new challenges to language learning and education for the newly arrived, and overall, emphasised the need to adapt existing and create new integration and support measures for beneficiaries and applicants. At the same time, the role of non-governmental organisations in supporting the government in the reception of applicants and in establishing new projects facilitating their integration also grew over the course of 2016, not least due to over 80 projects being granted funding by the Oeuvre Nationale de Secours Grande Duchesse Charlotte (henceforth Oeuvre). The Luxembourgish Centre for Integration and Social Cohesion (LISKO), part of the Red Cross and supported by convention to the Ministry for Family and Integration opened its doors in April 2016. The newly created centre will take care of the integration of BIPs into Luxembourg’s society, putting its emphasis on facilitating access to housing. The planned extension of the maximum period of detention for families with children and unaccompanied minors (UAMs) from 72 hours to 7 days precipitated strong reactions from civil society and the public. Luxembourg furthermore followed through on its resettlement and relocation commitments made in 2015, with 167 persons being relocated from Greece and Italy to Luxembourg and with 52 being resettled in the context of the EU-Turkey agreement over the course of 2016. The adaptation of Luxembourg’s legislation in the domain of legal migration also took shape over in 2016 and was broadly debated during the law-making process, while warranting less public attention. With the introduction of one bill, the legislator started the process of transposing Directive 2014/36/EU on seasonal workers and Directive 2014/66/EU on intra-corporate transfers into national law. The same bill furthermore introduced an authorisation of stay for investors, the aspect most commented on by civil society; a mechanism for continuation of activity; detailed the conditions under which a TCN (third country national) corporate officer (mandataire social) can apply for an authorisation of stay, extended the period of validity of the "European Blue Card" residence permit from two to four years, modified dispositions regarding the change of status of students and facilitated family reunification. These developments are to be framed within a wider context of economic diversification, encouragement of entrepreneurship and the repositioning of the financial centre. The reform of the Luxembourgish nationality, another major subject of discussion, was recognised as the best way to counteract Luxembourg’s increasing democratic deficit after the electorate’s refusal to extend legislative voting rights to foreign residents, decided in the referendum of 2015. This reform further proceeded over the course of 2016, reintroduced the perennial language debate in Luxembourg, a larger debate on the role and status of the Luxembourgish language as well as its relation to integration of migrants into Luxembourgish society. In order to increase foreign residents’ participation in the upcoming municipal elections of October 2017, the government launched an awareness campaign encouraging foreign residents to register on the electoral roll, and provided support for organisations wishing to organise complementary actions. The Ministry of National Education and Youth made efforts to find responses to the growing heterogeneity of Luxembourg’s population, aiming to diversify and broaden the post-primary school offer, to develop plurilingual education in nurseries and to develop non-formal education by reforming in-kind benefits, this with the aim of promoting integration and equal opportunity. The transposition of Directive 2013/55/EU on the recognition of professional qualifications was also completed in 2016. The law further amended several national provisions, recast the legislation in the field of recognition of diplomas, combined all applicable provisions in a single legislative text and simplified the procedure for recognition. The debate regarding the return of irregular migrants circled around a number of issues in 2016: the exclusion of Kosovar nationals from the AVRRL programme, the Schengen evaluation and the aforementioned resulting changes to provisions on detention, the debate on the enforcement of the EU-Afghanistan ‘Joint way forward on migration issues’ agreement, as well as the continuation of the elaboration of readmission agreements. Luxembourg’s government took further steps in the fight against trafficking in human beings (THB) over the course of 2016. The Council of Government adopted the National Action Plan on trafficking in human beings, which focuses on the detection and protection of victims, the prosecution and punishment of perpetrators and a policy to combat trafficking. Luxembourg’s strategy on prostitution was presented, consisting of a National Action Plan on prostitution and a bill strengthening the fight against the exploitation of prostitution, procuring and THB. Additionally, the Consultative Commission on Human Rights (Commission Consultative des Droits de l’Homme – C2DH) published its first report on THB, which reviewed the years 2014-2016. In reference to migration and development, Luxembourg continued putting emphasis on vocational training and integration programmes in its indicative cooperation programmes with partner countries. Additionally, the Council of Government approved the bill on the agreement between the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and the Republic of Cape Verde on the concerted management of migratory flows and solidarity-based development, facilitating the movement of persons and to encourage temporary circular professional migration between Luxembourg and Cape Verde. [less ▲]

INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION IN LUXEMBOURG Continuous Reporting System on Migration OECD

Report (2016)

Luxembourg has been a country of immigration for more than 50 years. Located in the heart of Europe, it holds a strong attraction for EU citizens and nationals from countries all around the world, who ... [more ▼]

Luxembourg has been a country of immigration for more than 50 years. Located in the heart of Europe, it holds a strong attraction for EU citizens and nationals from countries all around the world, who play a central role in the national economy, making an important contribution to the population growth and the labour market. Over the course of 2015, Luxembourg’s population has continued its steady growth of approximately 13.000 people per year, increasing by 2,36%, from 562.958 on 1st January 2015 to 576.249 on 1st January 2016. Foreign citizens have continued to play an essential role in Luxembourg’s population growth, both in terms of net migration and births. The total net migration amounted to +11.159 individuals in 2015, which signifies a surplus of arrivals over departures. Foreign EU citizens accounted for 76,1%; third-country nationals represented 32,9%, while Luxembourgish nationals’ contribution was negative, at -9%. The number of births in 2015 was the highest on record, equal to that in 2013, with 6.115 births in total. Foreigners contributed a birth surplus of 2.150 to Luxembourg’s natural increase, while a birth deficit of -18 was recorded for Luxembourgish nationals. 2015 also marked a record year regarding naturalisations, with Belgians remaining the citizens that obtain citizenship most frequently, followed by the French and the Portuguese. On 1st January 2016, 46,7% of Luxembourg’s residents were foreigners. Representing 34,6% of the total foreign population, Portuguese remained the most represented nationality, followed by France (15,5%) and Italy (7,5%), while the most numerous third-country nationals were Montenegrins. Due to the war in Syria and the influx of applicants for international protection that followed, the Syrian population living in Luxembourg showed the highest proportional increase during 2015, growing by 461,5% from January 2015 to January 2016. A look at Luxembourg’s labour market also reveals the central role that foreigners play in the national economy. In the first quarter of 2016, residents of Luxembourg represented 55% of the country’s salaried workforce. Of these, 27,5% were Luxembourgish nationals, while EU nationals represented 24,2% and third-country nationals 3,3%. Cross-border workers from France, Belgium and Germany represented 45% of all salaried workers in Luxembourg. They mainly work in the manufacturing industries, construction and commerce. A majority of recruitments in the HORECA sector are of foreign residents. Third-country nationals who do not benefit from free movement must be issued with a residence permit in order to enter Luxembourg. An increase in first issues of residence permits was recorded for most categories compared to the preceding year, which had experienced a decrease in almost all categories. In 2015, residence permits were most frequently issued in the “family member”, “salaried worker” and “European Blue Card” categories. 2015 was marked by a significant increase in the number of applications for international protection, which has more than doubled when compared to 2014 (2.447 applications in 2015). While there was a strong increase at the end of 2015, the trend slowed down in 2016. Nonetheless, the number of applications for international protection remains higher than levels in 2013/2014. Most applications were from Syrians and Iraqis (27,3% and 22% respectively), who accounted for only 9% and 1% respectively in 2014. Moreover, both the rate of status recognition (refugee and subsidiary protection status) and of return decision increased. In 2015, Luxembourg pledged to relocate 557 individuals to Luxembourg in the framework of the EU Council decision to relocate 160.000 international protection applicants from Greece and Italy. Within this framework, 114 refugees have been relocated from Greece and 20 from Italy up until mid-August 2016. Furthermore, 46 refugees were resettled from Turkey in 2015, followed by 52 further refugees as a result of Luxembourg’s pledge to resettle 194 refugees from Turkey in the context of the EU-Turkey agreement of March 2016. Additionally, 44 Syrians were welcomed in 2015 following a request for assistance by German authorities. Faced with the increased inflow of applicants for international protection, an emergency reception plan was developed in 2015. The plan included the establishment of first-instance reception centres and the strengthening of the capacity in human resources of both the Luxembourg Reception and Integration Agency (OLAI) and the Directorate of Immigration, which is under the authority of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs. The OLAI also strengthened the collaboration with stakeholders at inter-ministerial and local levels. A strong focus has also been put on integration, where major developments include the setting up of integration projects by the municipalities in the context of the ‘Communal Integration Plan’ project and the creation of Luxembourg’s Centre for Integration and Cohesion (LISKO), a service supporting the beneficiaries of international protection in their process of integration in Luxembourgish society. Over the course of 2015 and 2016, Luxembourg continued to transpose and implement several EU directives. The law of 18th December 2015 on the reception of applicants for international protection and temporary protection transposes Directive 2013/33/EU (re-cast reception conditions) into national law. The law of 18th December 2015 on international protection and temporary protection transposed Directive 2013/32/EU (re-cast procedure), establishing the procedures for granting and withdrawing international and subsidiary protection and the standardisation of the content of this protection. The bill implementing Directive 2013/55/EU on the recognition of professional qualifications was introduced into parliament in 2015 and the bill implementing Directive 2014/36/EU on seasonal workers and Directive 2014/66/EU on intra-corporate transferees and investors’ residence permits was introduced in 2016. Regarding the transposition of the Blue Card Directive, a Government Decree was issued on 22nd May 2015 establishing the professions to which the lower salary threshold for hiring highly qualified workers applies. On the national level, a number of legislative changes address some of the challenges set by Luxembourg’s heterogeneity. The bill no. 6410 on youth, introduced into parliament on 6th February 2015, gives cross-border workers access to the care service voucher system which was previously only available to Luxembourgish residents. Bill no. 6893 on the recognition of qualifications was introduced in parliament in October 2015. At the referendum of 7th June 2015, the proposal to extend the right to vote of non-Luxembourgish residents was rejected by a large majority, who argued in favour of the acquisition of nationality as the more appropriate way to acquire the right to vote. Consequently, the government took steps towards reforming the law on nationality in order to soften the requirements for acquisition of nationality, and in this way enable the broadening of participation in elections. Bill no. 6977 on nationality was introduced in parliament on 24th March 2016. It includes the reduction of the required duration of residency from seven to five years and the reintroduction of procedure of option in cases of close links with Luxembourg. The level of fluency in Luxembourgish required has become a central focus of the debate on the bill on nationality, some fearing that linguistic requirements would become an obstacle to foreigners’ acquisition of nationality, others underlining the command of the language as a central factor in integration and thus also in the acquisition of nationality.   [less ▲]