be non-binding targets, as opposed to “hard”, judicially enforceable laws. This development
makes sense, of course, given immigration’s high degree of political salience, and given the
worries of national governments that electorates would punish them for relinquishing control
over entry into national territory (a central facet of the Westphalian state).
And yet events in the last decade have proven surprising. Despite open member state
worries over the possibility of the EU taking control over immigration policy, and despite
conscious national attempts to head off EU control through institutional innovations and
blockages, the draft European constitution made immigration an area of full EU control.
meantime, the EU has also passed binding immigration laws in a variety of areas, which now
commit national governments to implementing EU immigration policy. What factors caused this
dramatic result, and what does this mean for the future rights and freedoms of the EU’s
immigrants?
The first section of this paper will detail the evolution of the EU’s immigration regime,
from Maastricht’s modest beginnings, to the ambitious European constitution. Since
“immigration policy” is a very broad topic, the second and third sections will focus on one key
policy area, in order to consider these evolutions at a finer-grained level: the rights and freedoms
of Europe’s nearly 20 million “third-country nationals” (TCNs), who are legally resident in an
EU member state, but do not hold citizenship in any member state. Despite calls by the
European Commission, the Parliament, and several of the member states, TCNs do not possess
the same rights as EU citizens to move freely and take up employment in any member state.
Therefore these immigrants, though legally resident in the EU, cannot participate fully in the
common market. The second and third sections will detail the political struggle over granting
1
Though with one significant exception – Germany succeeded in inserting a clause into the draft constitution stating
that member states shall retain responsibility for setting levels (numbers) of immigrants who can enter their country.
Of course, the relevance of the draft constitution is now rather questionable.
Convention