The principal argument of this article is that 1974 marked a turning point in European migratory movements. Since the end of the Second World War, migration had been characterized by the influx of workers from around the Mediterranean. This manpower was a key factor in the economic expansion of Western Europe. Due to the worsening economic crisis experienced in the 1970’s, traditional migration patterns were replaced with a reduction in the volumes permitted to legally seek employment in Western Europe and an increase in the number of those returning to their home countries. These changes brought with them new problems and a reevaluation of governmental migration policy.

All European countries, both those which had resorted to the employment of foreign nationals and those which experienced the expatriation of their own nationals were affected greatly by the new pattern of migratory relations. Many traditional manpower-exporting countries were particularly hurt by the ongoing economic crisis, as the domestic job market shrunk alongside the external job market without any corresponding reduction in demand for employment. In addition, with the return of migrants these countries lost a valuable source of currency (i.e. transferred funds) necessary to pay for imported raw materials and tools (i.e. means necessary for economic development). Those countries which allowed, if not encouraged a foreign labor force were under the moral obligation to grant migrants and their families a free and real choice among the various solutions open to them (i.e. return to the home country, assimilate, or integrate).

In addition to the natural returns there were ‘encouraged’ returns, the latter was welcomed by the receiving countries but arose legitimate fears among the sending countries. Different procedures were introduced successively or simultaneously to encourage returns. The first involved the provision of a repatriation allowance (i.e. a single lump sum + travel expenses), which was awarded upon the worker surrendering his residence and work permit and departing with his family. The second involved the provision by the receiving country of vocational training to facilitate the resettlement of the returnee. The third involved the provision of development assistance aimed at job creation in the sending country. The fourth involved the provision of direct assistance (i.e. technical assistance and or partial funding) by the receiving country to returning workers that wished to establish a business in their home country. Bilateral and multilateral job creation schemes proved the most effective. Irrespective of the procedures offered, migrants were supposed to be guaranteed that the decision was voluntary and that no discriminatory or retaliatory measures would be taken.

The possibility of assimilation was another alternative. This could have been achieved either through mixed marriages or naturalization. This alternative was rather controversial, as it was a matter for debate the extent to which receiving countries were obliged to make this available to first and especially second generation immigrants. As a manifestation of national sovereignty, naturalization legislation varied from country to country (i.e. varying preliminary requirements: minimum residence, degree of knowledge of the written language, and waiting period between naturalization and acquiring full citizen benefits).

As the periods of residence for foreign nationals were increasingly extended, integration (i.e. workers adapting to a host society while preserving the characteristic features of both their working and living conditions) became an important alternative. The guarantee of appropriate living conditions involved five key elements: 1) the right of the family to be reunited (i.e. migrants deprived of this right remain marginalized from ordinary social activities), 2) the right to decent housing (i.e. should be comparable with that available to nationals and where necessary there should be a provision of large accommodation, low cost facilities), 3) access to information and guidance from ordinary or specialized social services (i.e. to aid with language and settling in issues and to protect their rights), 4) the right to appropriate schooling (i.e. bilingual programs and adaptation classes for young migrants), and 5) maintenance of cultural and religious identity (i.e. radio and television programs + cultural events).

The guarantee of appropriate working conditions involved three key components: 1) right to work (i.e. access to employment other than that for which originally employed, if a legal worker), 2) right to real equality of treatment in all work conditions (i.e. elimination of discriminatory dismissal and compensation practices), and 3) right to transfer earnings.

Despite the temporary alteration in the migration patterns due to the economic crisis, immigrant labor continued to be crucial to the economic prosperity of Western Europe as fertility rates in this region were already no longer or only barely guaranteeing population replacement. Even with increased productivity brought about through automation of manufacturing processes and reorganization of the production machinery and the growing number of working women, immigrant labor would be necessary albeit at varying levels well into the future. In addition to the demand side, the supply of immigrant workers (both legal and illegal) continued to expand as the main sending countries’ labor supply increasingly exceeded domestic employment possibilities.

Summary by David A. Ritchie