The EU Blue Card: Getting the Details Right

I recently ran across an article on the proposed European Union Blue Card (exact title: “The Proposed European Blue Card System: Arming for the Global War on Talent?”) written by the DC-based Migration Policy Institute (article link). It was an interesting article, but there was just one problem… portions of it are just plain wrong. It’s one thing if you can document something and come up with an opinion… it’s another if you haven’t even got significant details right. (They didn't goof it like Miss Teen South Carolina did, mind you.)

I’ll give a few examples from the article itself, and compare these to the Blue Card details over on the DIY Expat website. The Institute’s article is in italics, and my comments follow:

Comparable in theory to the US green card, which grants lawful permanent residence based on employment in addition to family relationships or refugee/asylee status…

European governments like to use the term Green Card, but they don’t actually have anything comparable. For example, in the States, if you lose your job, you still have your Green Card. (That’s permanent residency.) Lose your job in Europe, and after a few months if you haven’t landed something new, you’re out.

But there are disparities between EU Member States…In theory, a Blue Card system would aim to reduce these differences, and increase Europe's attractiveness as a whole.

Actually, the Blue Card would make it easer to attract people to work in Europe, specially on the Continent. By promoting labor mobility, skilled people might be more apt to circulate, and it would be easier for businesses to get the workers that they need.

(…The article is then OK for a while…) The current institutional context for building common EU immigration policies means Member States retain firm control over who enters their countries.

They retain some control about how people initially enter, but many countries already have eased work permits or Green Cards of their own in place. The new EU permanent residency permit also gives holders a limited right of residency in all but three Member States.

…instead of replacing current national systems, the legislation would prevent Member States from applying more advantageous rules to attract the highly skilled. This approach does not reflect the reality that European countries increasingly compete with each other… the proposal aims to create a level playing field but may be perceived as constraining those countries already capable of attracting workers, such as the United Kingdom.

I’ve actually never heard of this. If you look at the directive on permanent residency, which kind of serves as a legal forerunner of the Blue Card, Member States are allowed to give permanent residency on more favorable terms than the directive sets out. At the same time, they cannot set out more restrictive terms. (They can, however, set local conditions on access to the labor market, ask for proper housing, etc. The DIY Expat Guide goes further on this and actually tells you what you need to be able to move around, not just that you can.) I honestly think that nations would be able to continue to offer beneficial work permits, etc. on national terms… recipients just wouldn’t be able to move around.

Beyond labor-market safeguards that may do more harm than good, the proposal raises a number of other questions, not least, "What is highly skilled?" The proposal includes several criteria…

There’s lots of debate on this one, and the Institute’s article here is quite good.

The combination of wage disparities across Europe and the freedom to set national (minimum income) levels sets the stage for intra-EU competition for Blue Card workers. Highly skilled workers could be lured away by higher wages in other EU countries once their probationary period is over, while businesses could focus on poaching Blue Card workers when restricted by national policies.

Competition for labor seems to be inherent in this proposal, and the Migration Policy Institute completely misses the point. Right now, people face significant obstacles which actually encourages them to avoid Europe. The European Commission wants potential Blue Card workers to think of working in Europe as a whole, not just choosing between France or Belgium or Spain, etc. In fact the European Commission specifically says that “In order not to penalise geographically mobile workers, they are allowed to add up periods of residence in different Member States to obtain long-term EC residence.”

…Following several initial discussions of the Blue Card scheme, … a number of European countries expressed doubts that the European Union could help them become more competitive. At the joint meeting, Germany argued that its level of unemployment means that skills can still be sourced domestically.

Germany is headed for national elections soon, and ministers are playing to their core constituencies. The proposal has the backing of major political groups on the right and left in Brussels. The Blue Card is still under discussion, but it seems likely to pass. (Don’t forget that right now some national politicians are being cranky about anything from Brussels, and there’s a lot of discussion about the upcoming treaty which could radically change the powers that national governments and Brussels have vis-à-vis each other.) It’s very possible that some countries would be very open to Blue Card holders while others would try to remain as closed as possible.

Are the Member States right to be so cautious and on so many grounds? At root, their reluctance is based on general suspicion of efforts to create any common immigration policies in Europe.

Common policies already exist. The form of residency permits, for example, has been standardized, and then there’s the EU permanent residency permit.

To what degree do immigration policies affect the attractiveness of a country or continent? Surveys of highly skilled migrant workers in a variety of sectors suggest that immigration policies per se are not their primary concern… Government efforts to foster the creation of centers of excellence, both in business and academic terms, can help ensure the future success and competitiveness of Europe.

Experience shows that a country’s reputation can be built on how welcoming their initial policies are. The UK’s HSMP, for example, has given it a wonderful reputation among skilled and talented non-EU citizens. A relatively open labor market has brought increasing numbers of talented people. In turn, this has brought more international companies since they can find the people they need. (It’s a virtuous circle.)

Denmark, on the other hand, has invested heavily in creating “centres of excellence,” but these haven’t gone very far. Why? The country developed an absolutely awful reputation because of a series of highly restrictive and punitive laws passed a few years ago. The country’s government has come to its senses a bit, and is now going out of its way to attract people and get out the word that it is a pleasant place to live with flexible and easy bureaucracy.