Coalitions needed towards humane reception policies to promote already existing solutions

Are politicians lagging behind companies, NGOs&trade unions? 

At a time when reception system in Europe are sometimes overwhelmed and new asylum seekers / refugees will face challenges to integrate in the host labour markets and not experience poverty, it seems particularly absurd to legally bar them from working. Barring them from working risks only to make them more vulnerable to exploitation and increase the workforce available on the black market (increasing competition for the other workers, resulting also in the loss of taxes for the State and disempowerment of asylum seekers). 

We strongly believe that NGOs, companies, trade-unions and business associations should voice their concerns and unite in common political campaigns to promote the right to work of asylum seekers and refugees so as to remove existing legal and practical obstacles to their access to the labour market.

Broad coalitions needed!

Initiatives from European companies and trade confederations are being publicly released to promote the early access of asylum seekers and refugees to the labour market. It seems that the momentum has come for politicians to understand the goals at stake and the fact that economic, demographic interests and enhancing the rights of refugees and asylum seekers goes hand in hand (see our previous article on this blog for concrete examples and figures). 

Past experiences in different  countries have shown that mostly broad coalitions including trade- unions, business confederations, companies, NGOs, students associations, politicians and citizen have succeeded in removing legal and practical obstacles for asylum seekers and refugees to access the labour market.  

Keeping Reception  policy humane in case of influx?

We believe that the current reception policies of some European countries (that force asylum seekers to remain only in reception centres before getting their refugee status and bar them from accessing the labour market) should be rethought in the current context of mass arrival of refugees.

Ready- made solutions to old and current problems? 

Existing alternatives (or complementary alternatives) to the direct provision systems (where asylum seekers have no choice but to live in determined reception centres) have proved their utility in such contexts. Legal frameworks for example exist in some European Countries to organise the shift in case of influx from a  '100% direct provision system' to a 'mixed reception system' where Direct provision' and 'direct financial aid' are combined.

The following political answers have proved useful in time of past influx of refugees to provide or maintain humane solutions to the challenges reception systems, politicians and refugees face:  

• Provide asylum seekers with direct financial aid (sufficient to pay for a rent in the housing private sector and for a decent living),
• allow asylum seekers to work at a very early stage of their refugee determination status process (just after it has been lodged if politically possible),
• Fund communes and NGOs to help asylum seekers and refugees access the individual and private housing sector and provide social support. 
• Recognize temporary protection to certain groups 'en masse'. Shift from a recognition process carried on an individual basis into a collective process, as it is less time consuming and does not slow refugees' integration. 

• Increase the number of persons resettled and mobilise the commune and NGOs to integrate them (see before) within the framework of comprehensive plans.