Handbook on Regularisation Policies: Practices, Debates and Outcomes

HANDBOOK ON REGULARISATION POLICIES PRACTICES, DEBATES AND OUTCOMES Edited by Jill AHRENS Albert KRALER Imanol LEGARDA Michele LEVOY 2 Handbook on Regularisation Policies [email protected] https://irregularmigration.eu/ Images: Visuality and Unsplash 3 Handbook on Regularisation Policies Acknowledgments The handbook has benefited from the collegial support, critical feedback and contributions coming from the MIrreM project team, which form the backbone of the handbook. We also thank the members of the MIrreM advisory board who not only gave critical feedback, but also opened doors to relevant stakeholders outside the project. Moreover, we are indebted to the wider ‘community of practice’ engaged in this field for often critical yet helpful feedback on the handbook and getting us involved in different fora where we could test our ideas. We especially would like to thank the contributors to this handbook who have been instrumental in extending the scope of this handbook beyond the confines of the MIrreM project, and allowing us to cover a much broader ground than we would have been able to do and turning this into a truly collective endeavour. We also wish colleagues who have taken time to review drafts of chapters and textboxes, including Diego Acosta, Norbert Cyrus, Alan Desmond, Francesco Pasetti, Stephanos Stavros, Constança Urbano da Sousa, and Laetitia Van der Vennet. Last but not least, the handbook would not have been possible without the support from Chloë Bouvier and Imanol Legarda of MIrreM’s project partner PICUM (Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants). Special thanks also to Adriana Harm and Franziska Klauser at the Department for Migration and Globalisation at the University for Continuing Education (Danube University) Krems. © MIrreM, 2025 4 Handbook on Regularisation Policies Jill Ahrens, Albert Kraler, Imanol Legarda Díaz-Aguado & Michele LeVoy (eds.) Handbook on Regularisation Policies: Practices, Debates and Outcomes Krems: University of Krems Press, 2025 ©. ISBN: 978-3-903470-25-5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.48341/chqk-ey86 Authors: Jill Ahrens, Maristella Cacciapaglia, Franck Düvell, Abigail Goldfarb, Maegan Hendow, Jussi Jauhiainen, Albert Kraler, Imanol Legarda Díaz-Aguado, Jasmijn Slootjes, Bernard Steiner and Anna Triandafyllidou. Contributors: Norbert Cyrus, Alan Desmond, Ruth Heylin, Michele LeVoy, Stephanos Stavros and Constança Urbano de Sousa. Design and layout: Chloë Bouvier and Imanol Legarda Díaz-Aguado. Special thanks to Laetita Van der Vennet, Norbert Cyrus, Diego Acosta, Shiva M. Mohan, Markus Gonzalez Beilfuss, and Franziska Klauser. Publisher: University of Krems Press, © 2025 Product safety according to EU regulation: [email protected] Funding acknowledgement: This book has benefited from financial support from the European Union’s Horizon Europe research and innovation programme, UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) under the UK government’s Horizon Europe funding guarantee and the Canada Excellence Research Chairs Program of the Government of Canada. Views and opinions expressed are, however, those of the authors only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union, the Research Executive Agency, UKRI and the Government of Canada. Co-funded by: This work is openly licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/): 5 Handbook on Regularisation Policies Table of Contents Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 Preface Albert Kraler, Jill Ahrens, Michele LeVoy and Imanol Legarda Díaz-Aguado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 CHAPTER 1: Migrants in an irregular situation and regularisation – A longstanding debate Jill Ahrens and Albert Kraler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Box 1 .1 Pathways out of migrant irregularity Albert Kraler and Jill Ahrens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 CHAPTER 2: Regularisation as a policy tool: Defining scope, purpose, and limits Jill Ahrens and Albert Kraler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Box 2 .1 What’s in a name? Jill Ahrens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Box 2 .2 Various designs of regularisation Albert Kraler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Box 2 .3 Regularisation mechanisms in practice Jill Ahrens and Norbert Cyrus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 CHAPTER 3: Overview of regularisation types – Policy diversity and implications for migrant inclusion Jill Ahrens and Albert Kraler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 CHAPTER 4: Stakeholders: Key actors in the debate, design, and implementation of regularisation measures Imanol Legarda Díaz-Aguado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 CHAPTER 5: Access to and implementation of migrant regularisations Maristella Cacciapaglia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Box 5 .1 The case of Ireland Alan Desmond and Ruth Heylin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 6 Handbook on Regularisation Policies CHAPTER 6: Effects of regularisation Albert Kraler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Box 6 .1 The benefits of regularisation: Insights from Portugal Constança Urbano de Sousa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 CHAPTER 7: Navigating policy options: Addressing the presence of long-term irregular migrant populations Maegan Hendow, Albert Kraler, Veronika Bilger and Martin Hofmann . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Box 7 .1: The temporality of policy responses Albert Kraler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Box 7 .2: Where do firewall policies exist? PICUM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Box 7 .3: Conditional statuses: Temporary protection in Türkiye and toleration status in Germany Maegan Hendow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Box 7 .4: Regularisation programmes: The case of the 2022 Irish regularisation scheme Maegan Hendow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Box 7 .5: Permanent mechanisms: The case of arraigo in Spain Maegan Hendow and Imanol Legarda Díaz-Aguado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 CHAPTER 8: Regularisations in today’s political context Imanol Legarda Díaz-Aguado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Box 8 .1: Lessons from Portugal Imanol Legarda Díaz-Aguado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Box 8 .2: The meaning of rule of law Stephanos Stavros . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 CHAPTER 9: Temporary protection of war-fleeing Ukrainians in the European Union Franck Düvell and Jussi Jauhiainen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 CHAPTER 10: Lessons from North America on regularisation Abigail Goldfarb, Jasmijn Slootjes, Bertrand Steiner and Anna Triandafyllidou . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 7 Handbook on Regularisation Policies Executive Summary Rather than an exceptional measure, regularisation is a frequent response to resolve situations of longer term, protracted irregularity. This handbook argues that regularisation should be considered a standard element of the migration policy toolbox, providing a structured route for irregular migrants to regularise their status when other options, such as return, are not feasible. Irregular migration should be understood as a structural feature of contemporary societies, arising from ongoing labour demand, family and social networks, individual migration aspirations, and restrictive entry and residence policies. This handbook provides practical, evidence-based guidance on the design, implementation, and evaluation of regularisation policies, highlighting their impacts on labour markets, social cohesion, and migrant rights. Drawing on experiences from Europe, North America, and other world regions, it examines how different policy approaches operate, how key actors shape outcomes, and how procedural design affects accessibility, inclusivity, and legitimacy. It underscores that regularisation, when carefully implemented, can reduce informality, enhance integration, and strengthen fiscal and social contributions. Purpose and audience This handbook is intended for policymakers, migration authorities, civil society actors, and researchers involved in migration governance. Situating regularisation in a broader historical context and clarifying its scope, it provides: • Evidence-based guidance on the design and evaluation of regularisation policies. • Insights into the practical consequences of policy choices for migrants, institutions and societies. • Examples of good practice from Europe, Canada and the United States and other countries. • Tools to anticipate (un)intended effects, simplify administrative procedures, and manage tradeoffs between humanitarian, legal, and socioeconomic priorities. • Resources to support public communication strategies and debate around regularisation. 8 Handbook on Regularisation Policies Defining regularisation: Concepts and scope A clear understanding and careful framing are essential for effective policymaking. • Cleardefinition: In this handbook, regularisation is understood as an official, state-defined process that grants a residence status to individuals who were previously in an irregular situation, including persons whose deportation order was temporarily suspended (such as Duldung in Germany) (Chapter 2). • Pragmatic tool: Regularisation addresses longterm irregular stay, humanitarian needs, and social inclusion, especially when other policy options are not, or no longer, feasible or desirable (Chapter 1). • Diverse regularisation policies: Regularisation encompasses temporary programmes, permanent mechanisms, and policies that may not officially carry the label of regularisation, all of which, if well-designed can achieve similar results. • Clear communication: Transparent and consistent communication is essential to build trust among migrants and the public (see Chapter 2). Rule of law and legal considerations for regularisation Regularisation policies operate within legal frameworks, including fairness, equality and access to justice, emphasising the rule of law as a framework for protecting migrants rather than simply enforcing existing rules. Although the EU often states that it has no direct competence over regularisation, its institutions shape national choices through soft coordination, legal frameworks, and political discourse. • EU legal frameworks: The 2008 Return Directive allows Member States to grant residence permits “on any grounds” (Art. 6(4)), while other directives mandate or enable issuance of residence permits for vulnerable groups, including survivors of violence, trafficking victims, and those exploited at work (see Chapter 4). • EU rulings: Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) rulings have required states to grant residence rights or refrain from removal (see the rulings Ruiz Zambrano and Metock and Others) (see Chapter 1). • National courts: Domestic rulings, such as in Ireland (Luximon & Balchand in 2018), show that courts can also shape targeted regularisation programmes. • Legal justification: Measures such as firewalls, temporary suspensions of deportation, or timelimited regularisation schemes, enhance legal certainty and reduce exploitation (see Box 8.1 Rule of Law). 9 Handbook on Regularisation Policies Policy variations: Regularisation programmes vs mechanisms Regularisation takes different forms, from time-limited programmes designed to address specific needs or crises, to ongoing regularisation mechanisms embedded in legislation. Both approaches can be effective, depending on how they are designed and implemented. • Time-limited regularisation programmes can respondtospecific situations. Germany’s 2022 Chancen-Aufenthaltsrecht provides a transitional 18-month residence permit to individuals with at least five years of Duldung, linking temporary regularisation to integration requirements like employment and language acquisition (see Chapter 2). • Continuous regularisation mechanisms create ongoing pathways for individuals with an irregular or precarious status. Spain’s permanent ‘arraigo’ mechanism (first introduced in 2004 and then expanded) now offers multiple pathways to regularisation based on social, employment, family, educational, or prior-status criteria, providing long-term stability for irregular migrants (Chapter 7). • Design impact: Policy design choices reflect broader political priorities and shape migrants’ rights, administrative capacity, and the legitimacy of policies. Stakeholder engagement and policy design While regularisation remains primarily a national competence, effective regularisation relies on collaboration across multiple actors, including national authorities, EU institutions, trade unions, employers, civil society and migrant-led groups. • National and local governments: National authorities set the legal framework for regularisation, but cities often adopt more inclusive measures (such as ‘sanctuary cities’), including access to services, municipal IDs, or support for applications. These local initiatives may diverge from national policy. • Civil society: In Ireland’s 2022 Regularisation of ‘Long-Term Undocumented Migrants Scheme’, civil society organisations played a crucial role in outreach and direct applicant support, ensuring accessibility for otherwise excluded groups (see Box 5.1). • Advocacy initiatives: Migrant-led and faith-based movements have advocated for regularisation and also built political alliances. In Spain, #RegularizaciónYA initiated a popular legislative initiative, collecting over 700,000 signatures by 2022 to push for a regularisation programme addressing workers in precarious sectors often excluded from existing pathways (see Chapter 4 and Box 7.5). Chapter 1 Migrants in an irregular situation and regularisation - A longstanding debate By Jill Ahrens (University for Continuing Education Krems and Radboud University) and Albert Kraler (University for Continuing Education Krems) 17 Handbook on Regularisation Policies Irregular migration, broadly defined as the movement or stay of individuals in contravention of a state’s administrative and legal regulations governing entry or residence, is not a new phenomenon. Movement and stay outside of a regulatory framework have a longstanding history linked to the ascendance of nationality as a primary membership status in Western societies in the late 18th and in the 19th century, and the related emergence of migration policies regulating movement across international borders and migrants’ residence in countries of immigration. However, it is only since the mid-20th century that irregular migration has gained prominence in political and public debates. In particular, from the 1960s and 1970s onwards, it became more widely labelled as ‘illegal migration’, reflecting heightened concerns about territorial sovereignty and border control. More on terminology: See Chapter 2 This issue intensified in the 1970s, following the termination of guestworker recruitment programmes in many Western European countries, a change largely driven by the economic downturn created by the 1973-1974 oil crisis, and marking a decisive turn towards more restrictive migration policies. In earlier decades, migration policies in Europe were primarily shaped by labour demand, economic cooperation, and historic ties with former colonies. However, by the 1990s, the policy discourse shifted firmly towards control and security. Governments both restricted regular migration pathways and strengthened enforcement measures to prevent irregular entry and stay. Evidence suggests these measures often had counter-productive effects, because with fewer regular migration pathways available, some migrants resorted to using unauthorised channels. During this period, policy fragmentation also added further complexity to the governance of irregular migration. For instance, restrictive asylum reforms, such as the adoption of the principle of ‘safe third Key take-aways • Irregular migration as a structural feature: Irregular migration has deep historical roots but gained political salience in Europe from the 1970s onwards, shaped by restrictive policies that limited regular migration pathways and often unintentionally reinforced irregularity. • Regularisation becoming more common: Regularisation has evolved from a reactive labour-market measure to a recurrent and sometimes legally required instrument of migration governance, used to protect rights, address humanitarian needs, and enhance labour market regulation. • Regularisation as a pragmatic response: Evidence shows regularisation can reduce informality, increase fiscal contributions, and strengthen social cohesion, but success depends on administrative capacity, transparent communication, and embedding regularisation within wider migration reforms. Introduction 18 Handbook on Regularisation Policies country’ and fast-tracking of so-called ‘manifestly unfounded’ claims, resulted in lower recognition rates for those seeking international protection. At the same time, an increasing emphasis on return policies since the 1980s and 1990s started to signal a greater focus on enforcement and removal, which also inevitably led to many more non-deportable migrants living in legal limbo (Kraler and Rogoz, 2011). As a result, migrant irregularity increasingly arose due to unauthorised border crossing as well as from legal and administrative barriers to the renewal and acquisition of residence status. Recent efforts to make sense of the complexity of migrant irregularity include the MIrreM project’s classification, which aims to move beyond simple dichotomies (e.g. regular/irregular status, forced/ voluntary migration, deserving/undeserving migrants, etc.) in order to capture the diversity of migrant population in irregular situations (Kraler and Ahrens 2023). This is highly relevant for policymakers, because simplified categories can obscure the diverse realities of migrants’ residence situations, limiting the effectiveness of policy responses. The MIrreM classification builds on the model of ‘demographic balance’, first applied by the Clandestino project (2007-2009) to gather data and produce estimates on the undocumented population in Europe. This model illustrates how the ‘stock’ of irregular migrants is shaped by various demographic, geographic and status-related inand outflows that can affect the stock (Vogel and Jandl, 2008). Although not shown here for reasons of space, the MIrreM classification system allows us to unpack several pathways into and out of migration-related irregularity and to see how these flows directly shape the number of irregular migrants present in a given country. We argue that regularisation should not be seen as an exceptional or ad hoc measure, but rather a recurring and often necessary feature of migration governance. Regularisation as a policy tool The debate on the regularisation of migrants in an irregular situation has been a persistent issue in migration governance, shaped by political, economic and social considerations. It has long been viewed as a ‘technical’ instrument – initially conceived as a corrective mechanism to address gaps and unintended outcomes in labour migration systems. International discussions on this topic gained traction in the 1970s, when many former guestworkers lost their regular residence status after these labour recruitment schemes were suspended. Regularisation was seen as a pragmatic response to the presence of irregular migrants, because it improved labour market conditions and social integration. Yet the debate has always been contested. Critics raised concerns about a potential ‘pull factor’ or ‘magnet effect’ (Böhning 1983), warning that expectations of future regularisations could encourage more irregular entries. Others questioned its fairness, arguing that regularisation could be perceived as rewarding unauthorised entry or stay, thereby disadvantaging those who comply with the rules. Still, others argued that the recurring need for regularisations actually 19 Handbook on Regularisation Policies indicated a structural need for wider migration reform. Over time, regularisation has remained a recurring feature of migration governance, though its objectives and framing have evolved alongside shifting migration patterns and policy priorities. Up until the 1970s, regularisation was primarily linked to labour migration policy and used to redress deficiencies of these policies. Many European countries recruited migrant workers through guest workers programmes in order to support the reconstruction efforts after 1945 and industrial expansion. However, spontaneous recruitment outside of the regulatory framework also formed part of these migration flows (see for France Hollifield 1986; and for Germany Karakayali 2015). The oil crisis in 1974 led to the suspension of guestworker admissions in some countries while other countries continued recruiting (Hollifield 1986), thus creating considerable uncertainty both about the continuation of the programmes and about the futures of the guest workers already present. Some governments introduced targeted regularisation measures to retain migrant workers in essential industries, though these were often small-scale and reactive initiatives. These early measures reflected a reluctance to institutionalise regularisation as a long-term strategy. Legal considerations The debate over regularisation is affected by broader tensions in migration governance, balancing migration control with economic and social interests, as well as compliance with legal and human rights obligations. In some cases, regularisation measures have been introduced not only for policy reasons but have been mandated by law. For example: • The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) rulings, as seen in Ruiz Zambrano and Metock and Others, clarified that, under EU law, residence rights must sometimes be granted to protect EU citizens’ rights or family unity. • The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has held that Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman treatment) and Article 8 (right to family and private life) of the European Convention on Human Rights may require states to refrain from removal in specific cases. • In Ireland, for example, several court rulings have influenced the introduction of targeted regularisation programmes (see for example Luximon & Balchand in 2018). Thus, regularisation is not only a discretionary policy tool but, at times, a legal necessity. This reinforces the need for policymakers to view regularisation not as optional concession but also as part of a state’s legal and institutional obligations. 20 Handbook on Regularisation Policies Box 1.1 Pathways out of migrant irregularity By Albert Kraler and Jill Ahrens Pathways out of irregularity encompass a range of legal, administrative, and political responses. Regularisation is one option, typically differentiated by pathways: either as one-off programmes introduced in response to political, social, or economic pressures, or as ongoing mechanisms embedded in national law and practice. Importantly, regularisation is not only justified by the outcome of providing a residence status but often framed as a means of safeguarding other rights or entitlements, such as access to healthcare, education, or labour protections. A simplified typology distinguishes six principal pathways through which irregular migrants may move towards regular status or exit irregularity: • Regularisation programmes and mechanisms: Regularisation of residence status for individuals already in an irregular situation, through either extraordinary time-limited programmes or continuous mechanisms integrated into law and policies. • Available admission pathways: Access to standard regular migration channels (e.g. work, study, family), provided that in-country applications are permitted and irregular residence does not automatically exclude eligibility. • International protection: Refugee status under the 1951 Convention, subsidiary protection under EU law, or national complementary protection for individuals unable to return safely to their countries of origin. • Conditional statuses (potentially leading to regularisation): Temporary, ‘tolerated’, or discretionary statuses (e.g. suspended deportation, humanitarian leave to remain) that may evolve into more secure residence if conditions are met. • Return: Departure to the country of origin, whether voluntary, assisted, or through enforced return measures. • Onward migration: Relocation to another country, sometimes through secondary movements within the EU, though often constrained by legal and policy restrictions. 21 Handbook on Regularisation Policies Recent drivers and impacts of regularisation The effects of regularisations extend beyond the individual migrants, as regularisations also influence labour markets, public finances and social cohesion. By regularising migrant workers, governments can reduce informal employment, increase tax revenues, and improve working conditions (Gordon et al. 2009). Research on Spain’s 2005 regularisation programme found that it led to increased social security contributions (Finotelli and Arango 2011) and more recent research on Spain’s various ongoing arraigo regularisation programmes also highlighted that the duration migrants stayed in an irregular situation decreased (OPI 2025). For detailed statistics on types of valid arraigo permits since 2013, and data cross-linked with social security records, showing labour force participation: Check the dashboard on valid arraigo permits under the Observatorio Permanente de la Inmigración (OPI) on the Spanish Ministry website. You can also create user defined results tables. Nevertheless, policymakers also need to consider other aspects, such as planning for adequate administrative capacity necessary to process applications and adopting communication strategies that build public understanding and support. This is important given that regularisation measures are not inherently costly or unpopular, when well explained and well managed. Recent developments in migration governance continue to bring regularisation into focus. The Covid-19 pandemic, for instance, illustrated the reliance on irregular migrants in essential sectors. This prompted Italy to introduce temporary regularisation measures for the agricultural, domestic and care work sectors. Other states, such as Greece, Ireland, Italy, France, Luxembourg, Poland, Slovakia and Finland, put in place measures to avoid that people would become undocumented by extending residence permits during lockdowns (PICUM 2020). Portugal went further, temporarily regularising all migrants with pending applications during the pandemic to ensure universal access to testing and vaccinations for all residents. These cases demonstrate how regularisations can function as one policy option to respond to evolving economic and humanitarian needs, but they also demonstrate how regularisations are often implemented in response to perceived ‘crises’. Conclusion Regularisation thus remains both a pragmatic and sometimes legally required instrument within a broader migration management strategy. o Its design, implementation, and long-term outcomes should be closely examined and embedded in broader migration reforms, with careful consideration of societal wellbeing, economic needs, and administrative feasibility. As the historical debate, legal frameworks, and recent pandemic responses demonstrate, regularisation is neither exceptional nor temporary but an integral part of migration governance. Best practices show that wellmanaged, regularisation can contribute to predictable, fair and sustainable migration systems, while upholding states’ legal and human rights obligations. 22 Handbook on Regularisation Policies References Boehning, W. R. (1983). Regularising the irregular. International Migration, 21(2), 159-173. Finotelli, C., and Arango, J. (2011). Regularisation of unauthorised immigrants in Italy and Spain: Determinants and effects. Documents d’Anàlisi Geogràfica, 57(3), 495–515. Gordon, K., Scanlon, K., Travers, T., Whitehead, C. (2009). Economic impact on the London and UK economy of an earned regularisation of irregular migrants to the UK. London: Greater London Authority. https://www.london.gov.uk/programmes-strategies/business-and-economy/business-and-economypublications/economic-impact-earned Holliefield, J. F. (1986). Immigration Policy in France and Germany: Outputs versus Outcomes. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 485(1), 113-128. https://doi.org/10.117 7/0002716286485001010 Karakayali, S. (2015). Gespenster der Migration: Zur Genealogie illegaler Einwanderung in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Transcript Verlag. Kraler, A. and Ahrens, J. (2023). Conceptualising migrant irregularity for measurement purposes. MIrreM Working Paper No.2 (version 3). Krems: University for Continuing Education Krems (Danube University Krems). https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7868237 Kraler, A. and Rogoz, M. (2011). Irregular migration in the European Union since the turn of the millennium – Development, economic background and discussion, Database on Irregular Migration, Working paper 11/2011. http://irregular-migration.net/ Observatorio Permanente de la Inmigración (OPI) (2025). Personas con autorización de residencia por arraigo en vigor. Ministerio de Inclusión, Seguridad Social y Migraciones. Accessed: July 2025. https:// www.inclusion.gob.es/web/opi/estadisticas/catalogo/arraigo?tab=ultimos-datos PICUM (2020). Regularising undocumented people in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, PICUM Blog, https://picum.org/blog/regularising-undocumented-people-in-response-to-the-covid-19-pandemic/ Chapter 2 Regularisation as a policy tool: Defining scope, purpose and limits By Jill Ahrens (University for Continuing Education Krems and Radboud University) and Albert Kraler (University for Continuing Education Krems) 24 Handbook on Regularisation Policies Migration governance presents states with complex challenges, especially when managing the presence of populations with a precarious migration status. Among policy instruments available to respond to such challenges, regularisation plays a key role. This chapter provides a practical and precise definition of regularisation, while also considering other ways of obtaining a residence status beyond explicit regularisation policies. We also clarify the scope and contours of regularisation as a policy tool, in order to distinguish it from related processes. Key take-aways • Regularisation is a core migration governance tool. Far from being an exceptional or lenient measure, regularisation provides a structured response to the realities of longterm irregular residence, humanitarian need, and social embeddedness of migrants with precarious residence status. • Design choices matter. The balance between time-limited programmes and continuous mechanisms reflects wider political priorities about inclusion, stability, and control, with significant consequences for migrants’ rights and state capacity. • Terminology shapes perception. Framing regularisation as a pragmatic governance tool rather than an ‘amnesty’ or ‘legalisation’ can reduce political resistance and build public legitimacy, but it still needs to be attentive to underlying power dynamics and exclusionary criteria. Introduction 25 Handbook on Regularisation Policies Migrants with a precarious residence status Migrants with an irregular residence status are individuals residing in a country without formal authorisation required under the national legal framework. Their status may be the result of a variety of circumstances, such as unauthorised entry, overstaying a visa, rejection of an asylum application, family breakdown, or being born to undocumented parents, etc. Others may fall into a grey zone, including individuals awaiting an asylum decision or those unable to return to their origin country for various reasons, due to lack of safety in the origin country, travel restrictions, or absence of valid travel documents. In some countries, return decisions can be formally suspended, with migrants issued documents confirming this suspension, protecting them from deportation and detention, as well as providing access to other rights. We consider both categories of migrants – migrants without formal authorisation to stay and other migrants provisionally staying – as part of the population of migrants with a precarious residence status. Importantly, regularisation policies often target both categories. Despite lacking a stable residence status, many such migrants are embedded in societies through work, family ties, community participation, or long-term residence. Yet, their precarious status means that they face considerable vulnerabilities, such as restricted access to rights and services, heightened risk of exploitation, and limited ability to participate fully in society. Defining regularisation Regularisation is an official, state-defined process that grants a residence status to individuals who were previously in an irregular situation. Often regularisation also extends to other persons with a precarious residence status, such as rejected but non-removable asylum seekers or migrants with temporarily suspended return orders (such as Duldung in Germany). In essence, it represents a transition from precarious to a regular status, incorporating an individual into the legal and administrative framework of immigration governance. Regularisation is best understood as a form of status adjustment that provides a regular residence status. Yet, some see it as conceptually distinct from other forms of status transitions that result, for example, from a successful asylum claim or collective changes of the residence status of specific groups, such as temporary protection in the case of Ukrainians (see chapter 11), residence rights acquired through family ties, such as marriage to an EU citizen, or through accession of a country to the EU. Chapter 3 Overview of regularisation types - Policy diversity and implications for migrant inclusion By Jill Ahrens (University for Continuing Education Krems and Radboud University) and Albert Kraler (University for Continuing Education Krems) 33 Handbook on Regularisation Policies Regularisation is a key, though often politically sensitive, element of migration policy. It refers to the legal processes through which individuals without a residence status gain the right to remain, usually with access to work and social protection (BaldwinEdwards and Kraler 2009, 9). While the specific policies differ across contexts, regularisations can be broadly grouped into two main formats: time-limited programmes, typically introduced in response to political, social or economic pressures, and permanent or continuous mechanisms embedded in national legal and administrative regulations. This distinction is central to understanding how different countries manage irregular migration and the institutional pathways they provide for long-term inclusion. In addition to design, regularisation measures vary according to their underlying rationale – whether grounded in labour market needs, humanitarian concerns, protection obligations, or long-term migrant inclusion – and by the type of status transition they facilitate. Individuals may move from full irregularity, tolerated stay, or temporary residence to more stable regular status, and in some cases towards permanent residence or even citizenship. While a comprehensive typology requires attention to these multiple axes, the programme - versus - mechanism distinction, combined with the stated policy rationales, offers a clear framework for comparing practices across countries. Key take-aways • Policy diversity. Regularisation remains a politically sensitive yet essential tool, shaped by divergent national approaches ranging from one-off programmes to ongoing mechanisms, with no harmonised EU framework. • Migrant outcomes. Despite being framed as a route to stability and inclusion, regularisation can also result in insecure or conditional statuses, highlighting the need for long-term security, equal rights, and inclusion measures. Different types of regularisation options in Europe and North America 34 Handbook on Regularisation Policies Grey areas and conceptual ambiguities: What counts as regularisation Regularisation remains a contested and variably interpreted policy domain across European states. It is marked by conceptual ambiguities and definitional inconsistencies. While it generally refers to legal mechanisms that confer regular residence permits to individuals, there is no common legal or institutional understanding of what ‘regularisation’ constitutes. Some states apply the term narrowly, limiting it to exceptional, time-bound programmes (for example, Spain’s 2024 draft Royal Decree on extraordinary authorisations). Others include ongoing administrative practices such as case-by-case humanitarian decisions, tolerated stay, or sector-specific schemes. As a result, the approaches in the policy landscape remain fragmented. Similar administrative outcomes – such as temporary residence, work authorisation, or de facto protection – may be classified differently depending on national legal traditions, migration priorities, and political sensitivities. A recent MIrreM report (Hendow et al. 2024) notes that these ‘grey zones’ are both legal and operational. In particular, the report notes that states often engage in functional regularisations without naming them as such. In the Netherlands, for instance, localised mechanisms like the LVV (Landelijke Vreemdelingen Voorzieningen) pilot project resulted in regular residence status for some long-term irregular migrants (see Hajer et al. 2024), though the process is discretionary and after the termination of national funding the mechanism now relies on municipallevel efforts to maintain support. Similarly, Portugal’s former ‘Expression of Interest’ (Manifestação de Interesse) regime allowed irregular migrants who were employed or self-employed to access residence, despite not being labelled a regularisation policy. Germany’s Duldung (a temporary suspension of a deportation order) illustrates this conceptual fluidity. While not technically a form of regularisation, Duldung suspends deportation and allows for temporary stay, sometimes for several years, under defined but insecure conditions. Holders may eventually access secure status through pathways such as §25a or §25b of the Residence Act. The 2022–2025 ‘Chancen-Aufenthaltsrecht’ (Opportunity Residence Act) also offers a transitional permit to those with long-term suspension of deportation. Yet these routes remain conditional, bureaucratically demanding, and reversible. They show how Duldung may evolve into a form of de facto regularisation without the legal clarity or permanence usually associated with the term. In contrast, countries such as Italy, Spain, and Ireland have repeatedly enacted time-limited regularisation programmes. These are often tied to labour market needs or humanitarian concerns. Such programmes usually result in a recognised residence permit with work rights and the potential for renewal or permanence. However, even in these cases, the criteria and permanence of status can vary widely. Access is often subject to political negotiation as well as administrative capacity. MIrreM research conducted on the topic of regularisation, underscores that ‘regularisation’ should be understood not only as a legal-institutional process but also as a political act. It reflects how states interpret, tolerate, or manage irregularity in practice, often simultaneously using a mix of different policy responses. Consequently, the boundary between regularisation, toleration, and exclusion remains blurred, reinforcing the need for more precise comparative frameworks. 35 Handbook on Regularisation Policies Comparative patterns of regularisation policies Across Europe, the use of regularisation varies not only in its legal form but also in its temporal structure. Some countries have relied on one-off, extraordinary programmes, typically implemented during specific political windows or crises. Others have built continuous or structural regularisation mechanisms into their migration governance systems. This temporal variation significantly influences both the inclusiveness and long-term impact of regularisation as a policy tool. • Spain and Italy have conducted multiple largerscale regularisations since the 1990s responding to demographic, economic, and political pressures. Spain’s 2005 programme was notable for its scale and employment-based criteria. Italy’s 2020 sectoral regularisation, launched during the COVID-19 pandemic, focused on care and agricultural workers. • Portugal stands out as a partial exception. It has institutionalised mechanisms that allow migrants with pending applications to access rights, such as healthcare and employment, even before formal residence is granted. Nonetheless, more restrictive measures were introduced after the new centre-right government came to power in 2024. • France and Belgium maintain ongoing, caseby-case systems. These are typically based on factors such as length of residence, family ties, employment history, or humanitarian need. France’s ‘Circulaire Valls’ (2012) and subsequent guidance empowered prefects to use discretion when granting residence permits under broad criteria. However, the lack of transparency and consistency in these decisions often leads to legal uncertainty and perceptions of arbitrariness. • Germany: A hybrid model combining restrictive statuses such as Duldung with formal legal pathways to regularisation under certain conditions. Examples include §25a and §25b of the Residence Act and the 2022 ‘ChancenAufenthaltsrecht’. This fragmented landscape reflects regional patterns. Southern European countries have historically embraced larger-scale regularisation initiatives, while Northern and Central European states tend to favour individualised, integration-based approaches. This has contributed to fragmentation of regularisation policies in the countries covered by MIrreM. Each country uses different legal tools and policy rationales, producing highly uneven outcomes. At the EU level, there is no harmonised framework for regularisation. National discretion remains the guiding principle. The EU’s Return Directive (2008/115/EC) allows Member States to grant residence permits on humanitarian or other grounds, but it does not promote regularisation as a common objective. These divergences complicate comparative analysis and make policy coordination at the EU level more difficult. They also reflect deeply rooted national ideologies and institutional legacies in migration governance. 36 Handbook on Regularisation Policies Perceived vs actual experience of regularisation For many irregular migrants, regularisation is perceived as a pathway to stability, regularity and inclusion. Public messaging, media coverage, and civil society campaigns often present regularisation as a major turning point – from a life of precarity to legal recognition. However, the actual experience of regularisation frequently falls short of this promise. There is often a clear gap between a formal change in residence status and the reality of social and economic inclusion. Migrants who obtain residence permits may still face barriers to secure housing, stable employment, welfare benefits, and full participation in society. This is particularly true when the status granted is short-term, conditional, or difficult to renew. • Spain’s 2005 programme illustrates this disconnect. Many migrants who were regularised continued to struggle with access to the formal labour market. • In Italy’s 2020 regularisation, applicants and migrant rights advocates reported problems, such as complex procedures, dependency on employers, and high rejection rates. As a result, many individuals remained undocumented despite meeting the stated eligibility criteria. • Even in systems with ongoing regularisation routes, such as France’s discretionary humanitarian permits, local implementation may still be inconsistent. Applicants in similar situations may receive different outcomes depending on where and by whom their case is processed. Once regularised, many migrants remain in a state of limbo and may experience ‘befallen irregularity’ (González-Enríquez 2009). Statuses such as Germany’s Duldung or Italy’s temporary residence permits provide limited security and often depend on maintaining employment, family ties, or other eligibility factors. Regularisation renewal procedures can also be complex and uncertain. This creates what researchers have described as ‘liminal legality’ (Menjivar 2006) where migrants may have a temporary or conditional residence status that allows some rights and protections but remains fragile and uncertain. Similarly, the term ‘semi-legality’ (Ahrens 2013; Kubal 2013) highlights how migrants can occupy inbetween legal statuses, because they may fulfil de facto regularisation conditions without formal de jure recognition (e.g. due to administrative backlogs; etc.). This also limits their ability to plan for the future, invest in education or housing, and participate in society. 37 Handbook on Regularisation Policies Conclusion Ultimately, the idea of regularisation as a clear and permanent solution is often at odds with the lived experiences of those it affects. While regularisation is an essential component of managing irregular migration, it should not be seen as an endpoint. Effective regularisation policies must be accompanied by pathways to long-term security, equal rights, and support for migrant inclusion. Without these elements, regularisation risks reinforcing cycles of insecurity rather than resolving them. References Ahrens, J. (2013). Suspended in Eurocrisis: new immobilities and semi-legal migrations amongst Nigerians living in Spain.Journal of Mediterranean Studies,22(1), 115-139. Baldwin-Edwards, M. and Kraler, A. (eds.) (2009). REGINE: Regularisations in Europe, Amsterdam: Pallas Publications. https://www.icmpd.org/file/download/48690/file/Regine_ Regularisations%2520in%2520Europe.pdf González-Enríquez, C. (2009). Undocumented Migration: Counting the Uncountable. Data and Trends Across Europe. Country report – Spain. Report for the Clandestino project. https://www.eliamep.gr/wpcontent/uploads/2017/12/clandestino_report_spain_final_2.pdf Hendow, M. et al. (2024). Compilation of 20 Country Briefs on Irregular Migration Policy Context. MIrreM Report. Krems: University for Continuing Education Krems (Danube University Krems). https://doi. org/10.5281/zenodo.12565528 Kubal, A. (2013). Conceptualizing semi-legality in migration research. Law & Society Review, 47(3), 555–587. https://doi.org/10.1111/lasr.12031 Menjívar, C. (2006). Family reorganization in a context of legal uncertainty: Guatemalan and Salvadoran immigrants in the United States. International Journal of Sociology of the Family, 32(2), 223–245. Hajer, M., Vasileiadi, C., & van Liempt, I. (2024).The Legal and Policy Infrastructure of Irregularity: Netherlands. I-CLAIM Country Report. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10966079 Chapter 4 Stakeholders: Key actors in the debate, design and implementation of regularisation measures By Imanol Legarda Díaz-Aguado (PICUM) 39 Handbook on Regularisation Policies Regularisation policies do not emerge in a vacuum. They are the result of complex interactions between institutional, political, and social stakeholders at different levels of governance. From EU institutions and national authorities to employers, trade unions, civil society, migrant-led organisations and public opinion, each actor plays a role in shaping the trajectory and feasibility of regularisation schemes. While regularisation remains primarily a national competence, external pressures and supranational dynamics also influence national decisions. Understanding these layered interactions is key to designing and advocating for effective and inclusive regularisation schemes. Key take-aways • Benefits of involving different actors. Engaging unions, civil society, migrant-led organisations, and employers improves policy efficiency, legitimacy, and outreach, helping regularisation programmes operate more effectively. • No direct EU competence? While regularisation is primarily a national competence, EU institutions can influence national choices through legal frameworks and political discourse, shaping protections and procedural approaches for migrants. Introduction 40 Handbook on Regularisation Policies Key actors Political parties Broad political consensus is often necessary to determine whether regularisation succeeds. In some contexts, like Portugal, cross-party agreement facilitated the embedding of regularisation mechanisms over time. In more polarised settings, such as Spain, centre-right actors have also shown openness to regularisation under specific conditions, including humanitarian or economic justifications. Civil society, faith-based and migrant organisations When parliamentary consensus is lacking, intermediary actors often step in. In Spain, for example, the Citizen Legislative Initiative (ILP) to regularise 500,000 undocumented migrants gained traction with strong support from Catholic faithbased and migrant-led organisations, and the Spanish Episcopal Conference, traditionally aligned with the conservative majority party Partido Popular, reached them directly advocating for the regularisation. Civil society actors, including faith-based actors, migrant and refugee-led associations, in many contexts play a key role in the design, implementation and evaluation of regularisation schemes. Research has demonstrated that their participation improves policy legitimacy, targeting, and reach, overall elevating the efficiency of the policy measures. • Switzerland, Operation Papyrus, 2017: Civil society organisations in Geneva played a key role in designing and implementing the regularisation programme. They participated in technical and political committees, maintaining regular dialogue with authorities. • Spain, Forum for the Social Integration of Immigrants: The Spanish government is required to consult a civil society forum when reforming migration law. This forum, along with open public consultations, allows organisations to contribute to policy on regularisation and broader migration issues. • Ireland, 2022 Regularisation Scheme: After deciding to launch a regularisation programme, the Irish government consulted civil society to define details like eligibility and application procedures, incorporating feedback into the final scheme. The trust, proximity, and service experience of some migrant-led organisations can make them essential channels for outreach and policy feedback. Their involvement can also mitigate barriers to access such as language, literacy, digitalisation, disinformation or fear of deportation. For more on this, check Regularisation mechanisms and programmes: Why they matter and how to design them - Laetitia Van der Vennet (PICUM, 2022) 41 Handbook on Regularisation Policies Employers Employers have played a notable role in advocating for regularisation programmes or mechanisms in various countries, particularly when facing labour shortages or seeking to protect essential workers. • Italy, 2020 Regularisation (COVID-19): Employers, especially in the agricultural and domestic work sectors, pushed the government to regularise undocumented workers after labour shortages became critical as borders closed. Their demands were central to the government’s justification of the measure. • Canada, Guardian Angels Program, 2020 (COVID-19): Canadian hospitals and care institutions advocated for pathways to regularisation for undocumented healthcare workers. In Québec, this led to the ‘Guardian Angels’ initiative to grant permanent residence to some healthcare workers. Employers framed regularisation as recognition of essential work and a pragmatic response to labour market needs. • The Netherlands: Dutch temp agencies played a role in the legal procedures to improve labour market access for asylum seekers. For more on the role of employers in the Netherlands: Eerlijke kansen. Doel en nuttig effect van het recht van asielzoekers op toegang tot de arbeidsmarkt. De lange weg naar opheffing van de Nederlandse 24-wekeneis – Lange and Oers, 2024 Labour market participation by beneficiaries of temporary protection in the Netherlands. A natural pilot for policy change – Geertsema, Lange and Oers, 2024. Trade Unions Labour unions can play a decisive role in pushing for sectoral or broader regularisations, especially when labour shortages or exploitation become visible. • Italy, 2020 Regularisation (COVID-19): The FLAI (Agro Industry Workers Federation), part of the CGIL, facilitated regularisation outreach among seasonal workers during COVID-19 collaborating with cultural mediators in key languages spoken by many targeted agricultural migrant workers. • Canada, Ontario’s agricultural migrant workers during COVID-19: Trade unions such as the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) and several sectoral unions have been instrumental in advocating for the regularisation and better labour protections of migrant workers, particularly Temporary Foreign Workers in agriculture. During the pandemic, unions pushed federal and provincial governments to regularise the status of migrant workers on temporary permits facing precarious conditions and barriers to permanent residency, collaborating with migrant rights groups to document exploitation, highlight labour shortages, and lobby for policy changes, which contributed to expanded pathways to permanent residency for many seasonal agricultural workers and other essential migrants through programs like the Agri-Food Immigration Pilot and temporary COVID-specific immigration measures. Effective implementation also depends on local actors’ capacity to communicate with migrant communities — highlighting the importance of outreach workers who understand the cultural, linguistic, and legal barriers migrants face. 48 Handbook on Regularisation Policies Integration requirements such as language proficiency, civic orientation, or societal participation are increasingly prevalent in Europe. Germany’s recent policies, including Chancen-Aufenthaltsrecht, link regularisation to the achievement of specific integration benchmarks. Belgium also considers indicators of schooling or length of residence. Though not always formally codified, such indicators function as proxies for presumed willingness and capacity to integrate. In the Latin American context, by contrast, integration conditions, such as language proficiency, civic knowledge, or societal participation, are rarely applied at the regularisation stage, though they are more common for naturalisation. National origin or geopolitical context further shape access to regularisation. In the United States, Temporary Protected Status (TPS) is limited to nationals of designated unsafe countries and offers only temporary protection and without a permanent pathway to regular residence status. The U.S. approach remains fragmented and restrictive globally, relying on narrowly defined, exceptional mechanisms. By contrast, Latin American frameworks analysed tend to be broader and more inclusive, also reflecting regional commitments. For example, the Andean Migration Statute facilitates a regularisation for nationals of Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru, through simplified procedures without reliance on specific humanitarian or emergency conditions. A key distinction can be made between discretionary and rights-based systems. France and Belgium rely on heavily discretionary systems, where humanitarian need, integration indicators, or medical conditions may justify residence status being granted. Portugal’s 2017 legal reform moved to an entitlement-based model, granting status to applicants meeting objective criteria (such as employment and social security contributions) and limiting administrative discretion. Similarly, Spain’s ongoing arraigo framework applies standardised, time-bound eligibility conditions that reduce case-by-case arbitrariness. In Latin America, Bolivia continues to rely on broad administrative discretion, whereas countries like Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico have adopted more rights-based procedures, allowing migrants who meet specific conditions to initiate regularisation procedures as an enforceable right. Overall, regularisation policies across countries reveal significant variation in scope, accessibility, and underlying rationale. While some frameworks are framed around humanitarian need or longterm presence, others prioritise economic utility, social cohesion, or state sovereignty. Despite these differences, most systems share a selective logic, offering regular status only to those migrants who meet tightly defined and often difficult-to-verify criteria. Complex implementation Even when migrants formally meet the eligibility criteria, regularisation often remains complex and difficult to access in practice: legal entitlement does not necessarily ensure effective access to rights. While the cases analysed in this study highlight the existence of promising practices, they also underscore the many persistent limitations that still need to be addressed in order to realise more inclusive and mutually beneficial outcomes. One of the most pervasive issues is bureaucratic delay and overload. In many countries, the wait for a 49 Handbook on Regularisation Policies decision can be agonisingly long, leaving applicants in legal limbo. For example, Italy’s 2020 regularisation quickly became mired in administrative delays. By late 2023, many applicants were still unable to work regularly, travel, or access services. Bureaucratic delays are a common challenge in Belgium as well, often linked to the extensive documentation requirements, which civil society organisations have criticised as excessively complex. This pattern of delay is also evident in the Caribbean, where countries such as Suriname (2017) and Trinidad and Tobago (2019) launched their first extraordinary regularisation schemes only after significant postponement— highlighting the region’s slower institutional response to irregular migration. Another widespread obstacle is in fact the heavy documentation burden. Migrants often lack formal records yet are required to present extensive proof. In Belgium, Article 9bis demands identity documents, evidence of continuous stay (such as school or medical records), and signs of integration (language certificates, letters of support). In Canada, procedural complexity similarly limited the impact of a programme for undocumented construction workers. Despite aiming to regularise hundreds, strict requirements —such as proof of employment and support from a union or employer sponsorship— narrowed access. Comparable challenges were evident in the 2005 bilateral agreement between Bolivia and Argentina, which required Bolivian nationals residing irregularly in Argentina to submit complete documentation within a strict 365-day window in order to benefit from regularisation—placing significant administrative pressure on applicants. Cost also poses a major barrier. While not exorbitantly priced, Spain’s arraigo application process includes fees and sometimes requires proof of financial means. For those living hand-to-mouth, expenses related to documents, translations, notarisation, or legal help can be prohibitive. In Germany, while initial applications under the “opportunity residence” may not involve high fees, moving toward long-term status often entails hidden costs—such as language exams, integration courses, and certified documentation. When the financial or documentary bar is set too high, many eligible migrants are effectively excluded, defeating the policy’s purpose. This concern is mirrored in Bolivia, where the 2013 extraordinary regularisation decree (DS 1800) waived accumulated overstay fines in order to facilitate access to regular status—demonstrating that financial penalties can otherwise deter eligible individuals from applying. Discretionary decision-making adds another layer of uncertainty. In France, where prefectures exercise significant autonomy, the application of national guidelines varies widely. Similar cases can receive different outcomes especially depending on the region, creating what NGOs call a “postcode lottery.” Conversely, Portugal’s Law 102/2017 limited the discretionary power of border authorities to reject regularisation requests under certain conditions. This measure aimed to facilitate the granting of residence permits to the growing number of undocumented migrants attracted by renewed economic opportunities. In Bolivia, by contrast, regularisation is granted entirely at the discretion of the General Directorate for Migration, which possesses the legal authority to approve temporary or permanent stays without the applicant possessing a formal entitlement—highlighting the potential insecurity inherent in discretionary regimes. In many systems, migrants also depend on third parties whose cooperation can make or break an application. Italy’s regularisation has long been tied to employer sponsorship, giving them disproportionate power. While some acted in good faith, others saw this as an opportunity to blackmail and abuse migrants. By contrast, as further discussed in the text box that follows, Ireland’s 2022 scheme allowed migrants to apply independently, removing a major barrier and reducing the risk of exploitation. A similar dependency was institutionalised in Mexico’s 2003 regularisation initiative, which only applied to migrants able to demonstrate either an offer of formal employment or close family ties—rendering access highly contingent on the support of third parties. Even after approval, challenges persist. Germany’s opportunity residence grants temporary status for 18 months, during which migrants must meet integration goals or risk falling back into Duldung (a temporary suspension of a deportation order). High renewal costs and legal uncertainty further reduce the scheme’s effectiveness. Similarly, in the U.S., programmes like DACA and TPS offer only temporary protection, with strict criteria and no path to permanent status. Frequent legal battles have left many in prolonged insecurity, showing that without long-term stability, regularisation remains fragile. This dynamic is also present in Trinidad and Tobago, where the 2019 extraordinary regularisation initiative granted only a one-year residence permit—thus perpetuating insecurity by offering temporary protection without a stable long-term horizon. 50 Handbook on Regularisation Policies Box 5.1 The Case of Ireland By Alan Desmond and Ruth Heylin The 2022 Regularisation of Long-Term Undocumented Migrants Scheme is the most far-reaching regularisation scheme undertaken by the Irish state. The scheme was open for online applications from individuals and family units from 31 January – 31 July 2022. In 2022, the population of the Republic of Ireland was 5.1 million, while the state’s undocumented population was estimated to be between 15,000 and 17,000, including up to 3,000 children. Accessibility: The target group was long-term undocumented migrants in Ireland, without distinction as to national origin or labour market profile. The residence requirement, the primary eligibility criterion, was the chief barrier to access: individual applicants had to demonstrate four years of continuous undocumented residence immediately prior to 31 January 2022. Applicants would satisfy the continuous residence requirement, even if they had been absent from the state for up to a combined maximum total of 60 days. Where a family unit application was made, the main applicant’s family members (spouse, de facto partner, civil partner, children aged 18-23), were required to meet a two-year residence requirement. Where an applicant had a child under 18, the residence requirement was reduced to three years for the main applicant, as long as the child had been resident in the state and living with the main applicant immediately prior to the date of publication of the scheme. Applicants also had to meet a good character and conduct requirement. The minimum age requirement for an individual applicant was 18, meaning that children under 18 were precluded from applying except as members of a family unit. Similarly, the requirement that applicants’ continuous residence for the purposes of the scheme had to have been unlawful precluded otherwise eligible applicants. For example, an individual who had been lawfully resident in Ireland for four years as a student, but only six months unlawfully resident prior to the opening of the 2022 Scheme, was precluded from applying. FAQ documents were provided in multiple languages, as well as applicant guides and a demonstration video on how to apply. A wide range of documentation was accepted as proof of identification and proof of each year of undocumented residence. Applicants could prove their identity by submitting, for example, a valid or expired passport, travel document or Irish-issued drivers’ licence. Applicants could prove their residence in Ireland by submitting, for example, previous Irish Residence Permit cards; utility bills (from electricity, phone, gas, cable television, or broadband providers); letters from doctors or hospitals in Ireland; COVID-19 vaccination cards issued in Ireland; proof of money transfers between the applicant and a third party, carried out at a money transfer facility in the state such as Western Union. Application fees were €550 for an individual applicant and €700 for a family unit application. The application fees, which could only be paid using a bank card, and the possibility to submit applications online only, could have prevented otherwise eligible migrants from applying to the scheme, were it not for the support provided to applicants by civil society organisations such as Migrant Rights Centre Ireland (MRCI). Implementation: Civil society played a key role in raising awareness about the scheme, building the confidence of irregular migrants to submit an application, supporting applicants to make the online application, and providing financial support to applicants unable to cover the cost of the application fee. MRCI ran 19 application support clinics in Dublin city centre and supported Nasc, a migrant-rights CSO, in running an application support clinic in Cork city. There were cases of commercial agents charging an increased rate for vulnerable individuals for whom it was not clear whether their application to the scheme would be successful. Picture: Cork, Ireland 51 Handbook on Regularisation Policies References Acosta, D., & Harris, J. (2022). Migration policy regimes in Latin America and the Caribbean: Immigration, regional free movement, refuge, and nationality (IDB Monograph No. 1010). Inter-American Development Bank. https://publications.iadb.org/en/publications/english/viewer/Migration-Policy-Regimes-in-LatinAmerica-and-the-Caribbean-Immigration-Regional-Free-Movement-Refuge-and-Nationality.pdf Cacciapaglia, M. et al. (2025). Regularisation in Europe and North America: Comparative Reflections on Societal Challenges and Benefits. MIrreM Working Paper No.13. Krems: University for Continuing Education Krems (Danube University Krems) https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17072115 Hendow, M., Bilger, V., Hofmann, M., & Kraler, A. (2024). Policy responses to the presence of irregular migrants: A typology. MIrreM Working Paper No. 10. Krems: University for Continuing Education Krems (Danube University Krems). https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13683689 Ince-Beqo, G., Ambrosini, M., Torres Chedraui, A. M., Conte, C., & McLean, A. (2024). Inventory of existing alternative to returns policies. FAIR Project. https://fair-return.org/working-paper-inventory-of-existingalternative-to-returns-policies/ Van der Vennet, L. (2024). Guidance for policy makers and practitioners on regularisation mechanisms for people transitioning into adulthood. Brussels: Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants (PICUM). https://picum.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Guidance-for-policy-makers-andpractitioners-on-regularisation-mechanisms-for-people-transitioning-into-adulthood.pdf Van der Vennet, L. (2022). Regularisation mechanisms and programmes: Why they matter and how to design them. Brussels: Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants (PICUM). https://picum. org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Regularisation-mechanisms-and-programmes_Why-they-matter-andhow-to-design-them_EN.pdf Van der Vennet, L. (2023). The use of fees in residence procedures in Europe: Pricing people out of a residence permit? Brussels: Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants (PICUM). https://picum.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/The-use-of-fees-in-residence-procedures-in-Europe_ Pricing-people-out-of-a-residence-permit.pdf Chapter 6 Effects of regularisation By Albert Kraler (University for Continuing Education Krems) 53 Handbook on Regularisation Policies This chapter explores different effects or impacts of regularisation, outlines different types of effects, and illustrates the discussion with some examples from available studies. The chapter is complemented by a textbox on the benefits of regularisation in the Portuguese case (Box 6.1, below). Not all arguments for or against regularisation involve empirical claims about the implications of regularisations. To start with, it is useful to reflect on the meaning of the potential ‘effects’ of regularisation. Objections raised against regularisation in public and policy debates are often based on principled arguments – for example, that regularisation rewards non-compliance with immigration rules and that it therefore undermines the rule of law, or that regularisation disadvantages ‘law abiding’ immigrants, allowing irregular migrants to Key take-aways • Regularisations have effects that can be studied and evaluated. • Not all arguments for or against regularisation involve empirical claims about the implications of regularisations. • It is helpful to translate contested issues, often based on conflicting values, into practical questions that can be addressed in policy design. 54 Handbook on Regularisation Policies ‘jump the queue’ (Song & Bloemraad, 2022). While such concerns need to be addressed, the reasoning of these arguments is largely normative rather than empirical, grounded in ethical considerations or (political) value judgements (see Song & Bloemraad, 2022, see also responses to this article compiled in Bauböck et al., 2024). As a result, arguments in favour of or against regularisation often depart from moral or political positions, rather than observable or measurable facts. This said, often there is an empirical dimension that can be empirically assessed. For instance, a central aspect in debates about the rule of law involve the legitimacy – of the legal system in general but also specific pieces of legislation – which can be studied through public support and opinion surveys. Similarly, arguments referring to fairness can be linked to concrete (measurable) dimensions. For instance, one strategy is to evaluate the legal and actual accessibility of different admission pathways compared with regularisation measures (see Chapter 5). This allows for an empirical analysis of whether claims of ‘queue jumping’ hold in practice. Nonetheless, issues such as ‘justice’ and ‘rule of law’ inevitably involve value conflicts and ethical dilemmas that cannot be resolved by empirical evidence alone (Bauböck et al., 2022). Transforming contested political issues into issues of technical feasibility can, however, be a useful strategy to shift the focus away from irresolvable value conflicts and turn them into solvable practical issues. In this approach, objections to regularisations are taken seriously and addressed through policy design. In the MIrreM project, we call this approach ‘critique guided design’ (Cyrus, 2023). While not framed in this way, several regularisation initiatives in the past have been based on such an approach, translating ethical considerations into practical measures that could then be empirically assessed. A good example are the discussions leading to the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986 in the United States in the U.S. Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy (SCIRP) (Martin, 2022). Empirical effects of regularisation policies Beyond value-based arguments, many debates focus on observable effects. Opponents of regularisation frequently claim that regularisation incentivises irregular migration and that it creates a ‘pull-effect’ (see Chapter 8). Others argue that regularisation undermines law enforcement against irregular migration and return policies (Ince Beqo et al., 2025). Yet evidence from Germany (see Box 7.2 in Chapter 7) suggests that regularisation should not be conceived as an alternative to return but rather can also be a pathway out of irregularity when return is no longer a feasible or desirable option. Research from the Netherlands further highlights that the lack of return often reflects social ties, notably the presence of family ties in the country of residence, but also fears about individuals’ safety (Leerkes & Kox, 2017), or non-cooperation of countries of origin (Van Houte et al., 2021). In such contexts, regularisation is not an incentive to resist return but offers an exit option when it is already clear that return does not materialise (Cyrus & Kraler, 2025). Another objection against regularisation is that migrants may fall back into irregularity, as seen in Spain (Sabater & Domingo, 2012). While this objection raises a valid point, it is essentially a question of how regularisation policies are designed and thus can – in principle – be addressed by designing policies in a way that the risk of regularised migrants falling back into irregularity is minimised, for example by ensuring people can change jobs without losing their residence permit, or including 55 Handbook on Regularisation Policies income and other criteria that allow the renewal of residence permits (see also Chapter 5). There is also a fear that regularisation leads to higher public service costs because regularised people would have access to benefits and other services they were previously excluded from. However, estimates show that the impact would be minimal, at least at first, as undocumented people already use publicly funded services, like public transport, and would also be able to access less expensive services once regularised, like general medical practitioners instead of emergency health care services (Portes & Ventura-Arrieta, 2022). Use of benefits and other supports is linked to the concrete profiles of regularised migrants which in turn is related to the overall conditions for irregular migrants in a particular country. Arguably, ‘thick enforcement’ regimes (Leerkes and Van Houte, 2020) keep irregular migrants and especially those already identified and in principle obliged to leave - at bay from the labour market, while providing access to some minimal social benefits, or ‘poor relief’ as Leerkes (2016) calls these policies (see on the Netherlands Van Meeteren et al., 2015). Welfare dependency of a certain share of regularised migrants in this context can thus be seen as a consequence of particular institutional settings, amounting to what Täubig refers to as ‘organised disintegration’ (Täubig 2019). A recent study on Germany shows that ‘tolerated’ migrants show similar employment trajectories as refugees (Stache, 2024), reflecting similar institutional settings for both groups. The main difference been persons who are under an ‘obligation to leave’ (i.e. persons with ‘tolerated’ status) relates to their wellbeing and life-satisfaction – which is low in the case of ‘tolerated’ migrants, highlighting how important a residence status is as a basis for well-being. In a similar vein, other research (for example Jackson et al., 2019; Kraler, 2019) has also highlighted the importance of security of stay and access to services, notably health as an important consequence of regularisation. In countries characterised by a ‘thin’ enforcement regime (Leerkes & Van Houte, 2020) labour force participation of irregular migrants is much higher and remains high after regularisation, as data available for Spain on the number of regularised migrants who are contributing to the social security system shows. Whether regularisation has macro-level effects – for example on labour force participation, wage levels or unemployment in general - depends on a variety of factors (see Kossoudji, 2016), an in particular on the scale of regularisation. In most European contexts, the scale of regularisations is too limited to have measurable effects on the macro-level. This is different in countries like Portugal or Spain where regularisation provides a major de facto pathway for labour migration and impacts on tax revenues or wages are significant (See Box 7.1). Thus, studies found a positive impact on the country’s GDP and income through taxes, as well as labour mobility, wages and well-being (PICUM, forthcoming). Effects vs. effectiveness of regularisation policies It is important to distinguish between policy effects and effectiveness. Policy effects refer to any consequences of a policy intervention, that is any kind of change to a situation that can be linked to a policy change (Czaika & de Haas, 2013). These changes may involve intended as well as unintended effects. In addition, policies not specifically about irregular migrants, for example the overall regulatory framework for employment and the type of labour market regime, may impact the situation of migrants in a situation of ‘protracted irregularity’ and thus also shape the context for regularisation – as the examples discussed earlier in this chapter show. 56 Handbook on Regularisation Policies Effectiveness, by contrast, is about the intended consequences of a policy. Whether policies are effective depends on a variety of elements. In regard to regularisation a number of elements of effectiveness – such as accessibility, selectivity or complexity of the bureaucratic process - have already been discussed (see Chapter 5). Reaching target groups requires effective communication and involvement of civil society and collaboration with community groups. Finally, whether it is possible to attain longer-term goals, such as addressing labour shortages or fostering sustainable integration of migrants, depends on both the design of the measure and contextual factors like the condition of the overall economy, and is ultimately a matter for ongoing monitoring. and evaluation over longer periods. Box 6.1 Thebenefitsofregularisation:InsightsfromPortugal By Constança Urbano de Sousa In many countries, a range of economic sectors such as agriculture, construction, hospitality, and elderly care — face a shortage of local labour. Immigrants often fill these vacancies and are essential to the functioning and sustainability of strategic sectors. This is the case of the Portuguese economy, which has been performing well since 2017 (GDP growth of more than 2% per year) and has created jobs that are often only filled by immigrants, having benefited from the process of permanent regularisation of immigrant workers that was in force until June 2024. Therefore, the regularisation of immigrants is a public policy with positive effects, four of which stand out. 1. The existence of immigrants in an irregular situation often fuels sectors of the informal economy, where there is less supervision, wages below the legal minimum, absence of labour contracts and violations of labour rights. By regularising immigrants’ status, the state provides the conditions for these workers to formally enter the labour market, reducing informality and improving the enforcement of labour laws. Regularisation allows these workers to perform their jobs in a dignified and regular manner, with greater stability, thus contributing to the productivity and competitiveness of the economy. Regularisation also favours employers who wish to comply with the law, avoiding unfair competition from companies that hire undeclared workers. It is, therefore, an essential step towards transparency and fairness in the labour market. For example, until June 2024, a Portuguese regularisation mechanism enabled the granting of residence permits to those already integrated into the formal labour market and, from 2019 onwards, waiving the requirement of regular entry (under a short term or under a visa waiver regime) for immigrants who had contributed to social security for twelve months (Sousa, 2025). This allowed a very significant number of immigrants to be integrated into the formal labour market. 2. When immigrants are in an irregular situation, they are usually unable to contribute to social security and don´t pay income tax. By regularising their status, they begin to pay income tax and social security contributions, which increases public revenue and helps finance pensions, healthcare, and other social services. This contribution is particularly relevant in countries with ageing populations, where the base of contributors is shrinking. Working-age immigrants can help balance the welfare system, ensuring its sustainability in the medium and long term. For example, in 2024, immigrants contributed €3.6 billion to the 57 Handbook on Regularisation Policies Portuguese social security system, an increase of 30 per cent (Dantas, 2025), which had a highly positive impact on its sustainability. 3. Regularisation is a measure that restores the dignity of these individuals, allowing them to access their fundamental rights and participate fully in society. Irregular status places immigrants in a situation of extreme vulnerability: fear of deportation, exploitation at work, lack of access to healthcare, education, or adequate housing. Moreover, regularisation reduces the risk of marginalisation and social exclusion — factors which can generate tension and insecurity for both immigrants and host communities. 4. Regularisation is crucial step in facilitating access to language education, vocational training, culture, and eventually, citizenship. By promoting regularisation and integration, states create the conditions for building more cohesive, safe and inclusive communities, based on mutual respect and valuing diversity. However, regularisation processes may also have inadvertent negative effects, especially if the state lacks the administrative capacity to respond and faces a sudden and significant increase in immigrant communities, without adequate preparation from public services or the host society. Conclusion This chapter has reviewed the existing knowledge on the effects of regularisations. While regularisation policies have empirical effects that can be studied, they also carry ethical, political or legal implications. It is important to consider these implications, which are shaped by value judgements rather than empirical evidence. Therefore, it is helpful to translate these contested issues into practical design questions that can be addressed in policy frameworks. Evidence shows that regularisation positive impacts in several cases, but the concrete effects of regularisation are highly context dependent, influenced by the nature of the migration and enforcement regimes, and broader factors, such as labour market characteristics. Across different contexts, however, a consistent finding is the positive impact of regularisation on migrants’ well-being, underscoring the importance of a durable residence statuses for stability and social cohesion. Picture: Porto, Portugal 64 Handbook on Regularisation Policies The policy options considered here have been identified in the MIrreM research and analysed according to the following criteria: • Access to rights in line with international and regional human rights frameworks. • Effectiveness, in terms of impact on the size and composition of the irregular migrant population. • Knock-on effects on related policy domains and public opinion. • Labour market implications for both migrants and host societies. Based on the typology of policy responses to the presence of irregular migrants, we focus on policy options that states implement in response to a situation of long-term irregularly present migrants. These policy options are not mutually exclusive; states may use one or more at the same time. In practice, a number of states use most or all of the following policy options to varying degrees concurrently: 1. Ensuring access to services and justice through firewalls. 2. Granting a conditional residence permit. 3. Granting residence permit through a timebound regularisation programme. 4. Granting residence permit through a permanent regularisation mechanism. 65 Handbook on Regularisation Policies Policy options 1 . Firewalls: Ensuring access to services and justice by prohibiting the sharing of personal data of irregular migrants between immigration authorities and service providers and justice officials Under this approach, states establish ‘firewalls’ that safeguard access to essential services while separating service provision from immigration enforcement. This is designed to facilitate access to education, healthcare and other essential services and to mitigate the negative societal and individual consequences of exclusion. In most cases, firewalls prioritise access to education and healthcare, though they may also encompass other areas such as access to legal aid, integration-related opportunities, civic services, municipal registration, as well as structures that protect irregular migrants. A core element is the prohibition or restriction on data sharing (e.g., through firewalls), between service providers and immigration enforcement authorities, preventing access to services from leading to detection, detention or deportation. National, regional and local governments may develop firewalls for both pragmatic and strategic reasons. Gaining knowledge about the size and composition of the entire resident population (including irregular migrants) allows for more accurate planning of service delivery (e.g. health, housing, education), without legal obligations. In recent years, the COVID-19 pandemic led to the development of firewalls as a response allowing access to health and housing services to control the spread of the virus. Rationale Potential negative outcomes • Enable more accurate design and planning of health, housing and education systems, preventing overburdening and overcrowding. • Facilitate access to health, housing and education (public goods) for all residents. • Respond to specific health or other urgent public service-related needs (e.g. pandemic control). • Firewalls themselves do not grant residence status. As such, they do not address the number or presence of irregular migrants, who remain with continued legal precarity, with potential negative impacts on integration, social cohesion and equality. 66 Handbook on Regularisation Policies 2 . Conditional Permits: Grant residence permits to irregular migrants through a regularisation mechanism (either existing or newly established), providing temporary permits with additional conditions applied related to protection or obstacles to deportation . All types of residence permits are tied to specific criteria and may be revoked should those criteria no longer be met (e.g. termination of employment, dissolution of marriage, etc). However, many states grant conditional permits based on specific humanitarian or statelevel factors, which the state considers temporary in nature (e.g. whether a country of origin cooperates in a return procedure; if the destination country decides the conditions in the country of origin situation have improved; if the person’s medical situation resolves; if the child reaches the age of majority, etc). Examples of conditional permits for longer-term irregular migrants include: Temporary Protection Box 7.2 Wheredofirewallspoliciesexist? By PICUM In most countries that grant legal entitlements to irregular migrants to access some form of services or justice, people can access public education and health services without their data being shared with immigration enforcement. However, even if reporting is not required, it may still occur in practice. To prevent this, laws and policies need clear safeguards. These should prohibit data sharing between public services and immigration enforcement (‘firewalls’) and prevent the use of personal data collected through service provision for enforcement purposes. Examples of explicit firewall policies include (Source: PICUM 2025) Belgium: A 2003 circular from the Flemish education administration clarified that undocumented children should not be reported to the police or immigration authorities when enrolling in or attending school. Netherlands: The national “free in, free out” policy (2015) allows undocumented people to report abuse to the police without fear of immigration enforcement. Spain: Undocumented people can report gender-based violence to the police without risking immigration enforcement. They can also register at the town hall (empadronamiento) to access healthcare and education, with a strict firewall ensuring their data is not shared with immigration authorities. Germany is one of few countries which requires specific public service providers to denounce irregular migrants to the immigration authorities, enshrined in paragraph 87 of the Residence Act, first introduced in the 1990s. Yet, in response to the advocacy work of an alliance of human rights organisations, churches, welfare associations, trade unions and employer associations, a specific firewall mechanism was introduced in 2011 to protect the rights of children of undocumented parents through an amendment of the Residence Act. The amendment prohibits employees of schools and other educational institutions from transferring knowledge on the presence of enrolled children without residence rights to police or foreigners’ offices. (Source: Cyrus 2017, PICUM 2024) 67 Handbook on Regularisation Policies regimes; humanitarian protection permits; permits for unaccompanied children whose asylum claim has been rejected but who still remain protected from expulsion; temporary suspensions of deportation (such as the German Duldung); and permits granted for those requiring urgent or ongoing medical treatment unavailable in the country of origin. States may issue conditional permits to long-term present irregular migrants who cannot return, due to practical obstacles (e.g. non-cooperation of the country of origin in return procedures). Legal reasons are also a key justification for granting conditional permits (e.g. the principle of non-refoulement or the rights of children under EU or international law). Some states may consider labour market needs when issuing temporary permits or suspending deportation should the person have specific skills for shortage sectors (e.g. Duldung in Germany provided for those who are in vocational training in specific occupational fields). Temporary statuses related to protection may also be provided for humanitarian reasons, geopolitical or practical (e.g. to avoid overburdening the asylum system). In practice, conditional statuses can be granted to individuals or to entire groups in particular situations (e.g. people fleeing natural disasters or conflict). While conditional permits can provide temporary stability, they do not necessarily lead to long-term residence and often leave recipients in a state of legal uncertainty. Rationale Potential negative outcomes • Depending on design, temporarily regularise subset of irregular migrant community. • Facilitate access to more stable status after a period of residence, where national law allows (e.g. to spousal permit or permanent residency after 5 years of regular stay). • Facilitate participation in the labour market broadly (links with tax revenue) and/or for specific sectors. • Fulfil obligations under international law and regional human rights law, including nonrefoulement. • For protection-related status, ease pressure on asylum systems by providing alternative forms of protection. • Once integrated in law, reduce vulnerability to political changes • Enable administrations to develop sustainable capacity, procedures and expertise. • High potential for the community to fall back into irregularity, through revocation of status. • Depending on criteria selected (e.g. if nationality-based), risks highly differentiated trajectories for groups in a similar situation. • Continued experience of precarity by migrants (through temporality and revocability), potential negative impact on integration and social cohesion. • Limited uptake of conditional status processes by irregular migrants, due to fears of revocation of status leading to return (e.g. policy changes revoking a temporary status at large or for specific nationalities). • Risk of public backlash, including claims of encouraging irregular migration. 68 Handbook on Regularisation Policies Box 7.3 Conditional statuses: Temporary protection in Türkiye and toleration status in Germany By Maegan Hendow In the EU and Türkiye, respectively, Temporary Protection regulations are explicitly designed as temporary, tied to protection concerns in a specific country and in situations of mass influx. Temporary protection status in each context is also designed to ensure against overburdening of the asylum system*. Temporary protection remains indeed temporary in nature, although it can persist for a long period of time: in Türkiye, Syrians have had this status for nearly 15 years. In both respective contexts, it can also be revoked by a host governmental decision, even in situations where safe, voluntary and durable return is still uncertain. In the EU, an EU Council decision can end temporary protection should it decide the situation in the country of origin allows for return in line with human rights. In the German context, Duldung offers a temporary suspension of deportation. Traditionally, a toleration permit is issued when an irregular migrant with a return order cannot depart or be removed, for practical reasons or for reasons of non-refoulement. Yet in the German context, toleration is also granted for the purpose of training under specific vocational training programmes, as well as for the purpose of employment (under certain criteria). Recently, a specific regularisation programme was implemented to provide a residence permit to those with toleration status for more than five years (Chancen-Aufenthaltsrecht). Recent research (Schütze, 2023) has demonstrated that this toleration status can also persist for years, where irregular migrants and their families remain in a limbo status, with limited rights and entitlements, without a time limit. Moreover, the administrative burdens on both the state and the migrant to maintain this limbo status are heavy: renewals are required every one to six months, together with updated required documents. * In the EU’s Directive this is explicit, whereas in the Turkish Regulation it is framed as triggered when international protection requests cannot be assessed individually, due to the mass influx. Picture: Berlin, Germany Picture: Istanbul, Türkiye 69 Handbook on Regularisation Policies 3 . Regularisation programme: Grant residence permits directly to irregular migrants through a time-bound regularisation programme, offering permits for work or stay without the conditions of temporary permits noted above . Regularisation programmes are based on a new or revised legal instrument and operate within a limited time period in which those seeking regularisation may apply. Although often described as ‘one-off’ measures, MIrreM research indicates that many states have implemented regularisation programmes multiple times. This repetition is potentially related to the effectiveness of the programme (i.e. to reach a broader target group than initially achieved) or the greater political acceptability of time-limited programmes as compared to permanent mechanisms. States may launch regularisation programmes for various reasons, including to meet labour market needs by providing status to individuals with specific in-demand skills and to address the situation of long-term irregular migrants facing insurmountable obstacles to return. Rationale Potential negative outcomes • Regularise a defined subset of irregular migrant population (depending on eligibility criteria). • Address specific policy needs through tailored programme (i.e., timeliness, flexibility, effectiveness). • Reduce relative potential for migrants to fall back into irregularity (depending on length of validity and conditions of renewal). • Depending on the design, collect information on status trajectories and entry routes to better understand irregular migration dynamics incountry. • Facilitate migrants’ participation in society more broadly, with stability. • Reduce risk of exploitation among the population addressed. • Facilitate economic and labour market participation if residence permit gives (unrestricted) access to the labour market. • Align skills and labour market needs if given (unrestricted) access to the labour market. • Depending on the design, clear migration management system-related backlogs. • Support family cohesion and child development. • Depending on the design, a limited scope or scale risks limited reach, potential need for additional efforts to reach policy goal. • Potential for politicisation and negative public perception: ‘incentivising’ irregular migration or increased labour market competition. • Potential for delays in processing some individual regularisations related to legal or administrative challenges. 70 Handbook on Regularisation Policies Box 7.4 Regularisation Programmes: The case of the 2022 Irish regularisation scheme By Maegan Hendow In 2022, Ireland implemented two parallel regularisation programmes: the Irish International Protection Process Regularisation Scheme and the Regularisation of Long-Term Undocumented Migrants Scheme. The former was open to applications for regularisation from all those who were in the international protection determination process for at least two years (i.e., commencing before or on 7 February 2020) and still awaiting a first instance decision. The second granted regular status to applicants who could demonstrate four years of continuous irregular residence prior to 31 January 2022, or two years residence demonstrated for a whole family unit, or three years for the main applicant who has a child under the age of 18, as long as the child was resident since 31 January as well. With this two-fold regularisation approach, the government aimed to both clear the backlog of asylum cases accrued during the pandemic, and also to address the protracted situation of long-term irregularly present. The scheme itself, while emerging as a political priority during the pandemic, was also the culmination of decades of civil society advocacy, also in terms of design and criteria selected. For the Regularisation of Long-Term Undocumented Migrants Scheme, 6,548 applications were submitted, in respect of 8,311 individuals (5,654 single applications and 894 family applications). As of 3 July 2023, 87% of applications have been processed: 4,617 (almost 71%) applications have been granted, 1,002 (15%) applications have been refused, and 118 (almost 2%) applications have been withdrawn by the applicants for various reasons (Dáil Éireann debate 2023). For the International Protection Process Regularisation Scheme, as of 1 June 2023, 3,244 applications were made, with 1,585 applicants granted permission under the scheme. During the scheme, a further 1,102 applicants were granted an equivalent, or higher, immigration permission. This means that, by 1 June 2023, some 2,687 persons who made an application under the scheme, or more than 82% of all scheme applicants, had been granted a two-year renewable permission that allows holders to work without an employment permit and is reckonable as residence for applications for citizenship. 472 applicants (14%) were unsuccessful, and 84 applications still remained to be determined (MIrreM Country Profile 2023). During the regularisation application process, Ireland also collected information on entry routes, to better understand irregular pathways. Picture: Cliffs of Moher, Ireland 71 Handbook on Regularisation Policies 4 . Regularisation mechanism: Grant residence permits directly to irregular migrants through a permanent mechanism (existing or new), offering residence permits for work and residence, without conditions applied related to protection needs or obstacles to return . Unlike time-limited regularisation programmes, regularisation mechanisms accept applications for regularisation on an ongoing basis. These are typically established under law, enabling irregular migrants to apply for a residence permit if they meet defined criteria. Other forms may rely on discretionary powers of state authorities such as ministers, commissions or judges, as well as official guidance for the issuance of permits (such as the Valls Circular, in France). States grant residence permits through mechanisms for a range of reasons. As with regularisation programmes, the mechanism design may address situational needs (e.g. long-term irregular migrants without return options) or strategic priorities (e.g. labour market shortages for specific in-demand skills). In some cases, however, permanent mechanisms are used to grant resident permits where required under EU and/or national law – for instance, to parents of EU citizen children (in line with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and CJEU case law), or to victims of crime or trafficking (as mandated by EU Directive 2004/81/EC). While broader mechanisms such as those in Spain are well established and have been running for several decades, smaller scale mechanisms are also common and may be framed as granting residence permits under a case by case basis or due to ‘exceptional circumstances.’ Rationale Potential negative outcomes • Regularise part of the irregular migrant community on an ongoing basis. • Reduce relative potential for some irregular migrants to fall back into irregularity (depending on length of validity and renewability of permit). • Promote migrants’ participation in society more broadly, with stability and lower risk of exploitation. • Facilitate economic contribution through labour market participation, tax revenue and other systems (e.g. social security). • Depending on the design, reduce pressure on other migration systems (e.g. asylum procedures). • Strengthen family cohesion and support child development. • Facilitate employers’ continued access to needed labour. • Embed regularisation within law, reducing reliance on shifting political landscape. • Enable administrations to develop sustainable capacity, procedures and expertise. • Potential for politicisation and negative public perception, including claims of ‘incentivising’ irregular migration or increased labour market competition. • Potential for administrative backlogs if resources are constrained or low. • In the longer-term, potential for secondary movement within the EU. 72 Handbook on Regularisation Policies Box 7.5 Permanentmechanisms–Thecaseof‘arraigo’ in Spain By Maegan Hendow and Imanol Legarda Díaz-Aguado In Spain, a permanent regularisation mechanism (‘arraigo’) was introduced in 2005, which has been revised and expanded several times, most recently with the Foreigners Law reform in May 2025, which reduced required periods of stay and introduced the new ‘second chance’ arraigo. Currently, there are five main types of eligibility domains for the arraigo mechanism: i) Social arraigo – this applies to those who can demonstrate social integration through proof of staying in Spain continuously for a minimum period of two years; have family ties with other resident foreigners, or present a report showing their social integration level; and have an employer contract signed by the worker and the employer. ii) Employment-based arraigo – this is eligible for those who have stayed continuously for a minimum of two years and who can prove continuous employment for at least six months. iii) Family arraigo – this offers a pathway to regularisation for parents or guardians of Spanish minors; those who provide support to a Spanish person with a disability or who require support measures for the exercise of his or her legal capacity; the spouse or accredited unmarried partner of a Spanish citizen, an ascendant over 65 years of age or under 65 years of age, a descendant under 21 years of age or over 21 years of age of a Spanish citizen, or of his/her spouse or unmarried partner; children of a father or mother who were originally Spanish. iv) Socio-educational arraigo – this applies to those who have been in Spain for a minimum of 2 years and are enrolled in training courses by the Public Employment Service, aimed at addressing the labour market needs. v) Second-chance arraigo – this applies to those who previously held a residence permit that was not renewed (except for reasons of public order or safety), with the aim to facilitate reintegration of those who lost their status without committing serious offenses. Spain is also considering a regularisation programme to address those irregular migrants in the country unable to access these mechanisms. The migrant-led movement #RegularizaciónYA highlights the persistent irregularity of workers in precarious sectors – such as domestic work, manteros (street vending), sex work, hospitality and agricultural workers – who are often excluded from arraigo eligibility. In 2021, a Popular Legislative Initiative was launched, requiring 500,000 signatures from citizens with regular status. By late 2022, over 700,000 signatures had been collected, and the proposal was admitted for debate in Congress. By June 2025, the Spanish government acknowledged that even after recent reforms to broaden eligibility under arraigo, particularly vulnerable groups and those with pending asylum claims may still be unable to regularise their status after years in the country and thus showed public support for the Popular Legislative Initiative. Ongoing parliamentary negotiations suggest that an expanded programme could benefit more than half a million people, but no final decision has been made. Picture: Granada, Spain 73 Handbook on Regularisation Policies References Cacciapaglia, M. et al. (2025). Regularisation in Europe and North America: Comparative Reflections on Societal Challenges and Benefits. MIrreM Working Paper No.13. Krems: University for Continuing Education Krems (Danube University Krems) https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17072115 Hendow, M., Bilger, V., Hofmann, M., & Kraler, A. (2024). Policy responses to the presence of irregular migrants: A typology. https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.13683689 Hendow, M., Qaisrani, A., Rössl, L., Schütze, T., Kraler, A., Ahmad Yar, A. W., Bircan, T., Oruc, N., Mohan, S. S., Triandafyllidou, A., Jauhiainen, J. S., Smolander, S., Toivonen, H., Cyrus, N., Nikolova, M., Desmond, A., Heylin, R., Cacciapaglia, M., Bonizzoni, P., … Sohst, R. R. (2024). Pathways and Policy Evolution: Comparing National Laws and Policies Addressing Irregular Migrants (MIrreM Working Paper No. 6/2024). Krems: University for Continuing Education Krems (Danube University Krems). https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10782561 Conclusion For long-term irregular migrants in a country, policymakers have several policy options at their disposal to respond – yet they are unequal in terms of both scale and outcome. From the above, one can observe the wide range of policy rationales that can be employed in support of specific policy options, as well as the potential negative consequences for which policymakers should prepare. Policymakers’ decisions on policy options to employ (and for which target group) can be based on broader policy goals and contextual factors; yet there are specific rationales employed and potential consequences for migrants, for politicians and policymakers, for the labour market and for society as a whole. With this chapter, we have aimed to provide an overview of these potential implications, for which policymakers should prepare as they consider their policy response options. Going forward, policymakers may use this chapter to reflect on the following questions in preparation of a policy response to situations of longer-term irregularly present migrants: • What policy rationales resonate within the national political and social context? • How can potential negative outcomes be mitigated, and where may mitigation prove challenging? • What methods can be used to effectively track and communicate positive potential outcomes in relation to policy goals? 80 Handbook on Regularisation Policies To learn more about the differences between regularisation and suspension of deportation, see: Policy responses to the presence of irregular migrants: A typology In Germany, Duldung functions as an obligatory detour rather than a direct pathway to regularisation. Migrants may eventually gain regular residence, but only through a lengthy, uncertain process. This system prolongs insecurity and reinforces exclusion before any possibility of integration. Other countries opt for low profile regularisation programmes or mechanisms, trying to minimize the presence in the public debate. This would be a way to address irregularity without facing a potential electoral loss for political parties with an antimigration discourse. Hostile Discourses and Their Consequences Several countries, including the Netherlands and Finland have adopted restrictive stances, where anti-migrant rhetoric fosters discrimination, violence, and exclusionary policies. Such discourse fuels xenophobia, complicating migrant integration. In some cases, as seen in Tunisia and Cyprus, these narratives lead to direct threats and violence against migrant communities and civil society. Hostile discourses also shape policymaking, reinforcing punitive approaches that limit pathways to regularisation. By framing migration as a threat, political actors create an exclusionary climate, further marginalising undocumented migrants. In the Netherlands, restrictive migration narratives impact key sectors such as agriculture, where labour shortages highlight the contradictions between political rhetoric and economic needs. Employers, as seen in the project DignityFIRM, may ultimately push for pragmatic migration solutions despite official hostility. The visibility of regularisation policies that respond to the needs of a given territory emerges as a dilemma in contexts where public debate not grounded in scientific evidence may entail a political cost. In such cases, the strategic implementation of regularisation with limited visibility may constitute a solution. Conclusion Given its frequent and widespread use, regularisation deserves to be recognised as a legitimate policy instrument when applied in a more consistent and applicant-friendly manner. This also raises broader questions, as regularisation responds to restrictive migration policies misaligned with the reality of demand for migrant workers. For further information, BRIDGE key findings on the production impact of migration narratives CIDOB’s decalogue on alternative narratives on migration. 81 Handbook on Regularisation Policies References González-Enríquez, C. (2009). Spain, the cheap model: Irregularity and regularisation as immigration management policies. European Journal of Migration and Law, 11(2), 139–157. https://doi. org/10.1163/157181609X440004 Chauvin, S., & Garcés-Mascareñas, B. (2020). Contradictions in the moral economy of migrant irregularity. In S. Spencer & A. Triandafyllidou (Eds.), Migrants with irregular status in Europe: Evolving conceptual and policy challenges (pp. 41–60). Springer. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-34324-8_3 Desmond, A. (2015). Regularization in the EU and the US: The frequent use of an exceptional measure. In D. Acosta & A. Wiesbrock (Eds.), Global Migration: Old Assumptions, New Dynamics (pp. 69–99). Praeger. https://research-information.bris.ac.uk/en/publications/global-migration-issues-old-assumptions-newdynamics Desmond, A. (2025). Regularisation. In V. Chetail (Ed.), Elgar Concise Encyclopedia of Migration and Asylum Law. Edward Elgar Publishing. https://www.elgaronline.com/display/book/9781802204155/chapter80. xml Desmond, A. (2020). Out of crisis comes opportunity: Reconsidering regularisation of irregular migrants in the EU in light of COVID-19. UNESCO Chair on International Migration Policy Brief Series. https://unescochair. yasar.edu.tr/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/ALAN_D_October2020.pdf?csrt=13129460706825308281 Suggested practices and projects: Public preferences for policies vis-à-vis irregular migrants in Europe: the roles of policy design and context from PRIME Understanding and Reframing Migration Narratives: Towards an Evidence-based Policy Discourse in Europe from I-CLAIM Comparative analysis of migration narratives in political debate and policymaking from BRIDGES Chapter 9 Temporary protection of war-fleeing Ukrainians in the European Union By Franck Düvell (Osnabrück University) and Jussi Jauhiainen (University of Turku) 83 Handbook on Regularisation Policies Russia’s large-scale military invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022 triggered one of the largest and fastest forced displacements in recent European history. Millions of Ukrainians fled their homes, either independently—often by car—or through organised evacuations. The Ukrainian state railway service alone facilitated the swift evacuation of approximately four million individuals—around one-third of all displaced persons—from northern, eastern, southern, and central Ukraine, the main regions under direct attack. Some sought safety within Ukraine while others fled abroad. The European Union (EU) responded swiftly. On the day of the invasion, the Council of the European Union publicly condemned Russia’s aggression and began preparing the activation of legal and financial mechanisms to support those fleeing the war. Within a week, over one million Ukrainians had entered the EU under the pre-existing visafree regime, mainly through Poland, followed by Slovakia and Hungary, and via Moldova into Romania. Subsequently, Ukrainians fleeing the war reached all EU member states, as well as other parts of Europe, Turkey and North America. On 4 March 2022, the Council unanimously activated Council Directive 2001/55/EC— commonly known as the Temporary Protection Directive (TPD)—for the first time ever. This mechanism was originally adopted in 2001 to respond to large-scale, sudden inflows of displaced persons (Dalkiran & Lipman, 2025). The TPD grants displaced Ukrainians (and certain third-country nationals or stateless persons with permanent residence permits in Ukraine and who cannot safely return to their country of origin) temporary residence rights, access to essential services, and temporary protection across the EU and European Economic Area. The EU’s policy response was shaped by moral, historical, and political obligations toward a neighbouring state Key take-aways • Temporary protection in forced migration situations is an exceptional swift and unbureaucratic measure to prevent large-scale irregularity of journeys, entry and stay to and in the EU. • Temporary protection can be a step towards long-term or permanent regular stays but also a precursor to large-scale return. • On the other hand, because it is only temporary, it also inherently involves the risk of irregularisation once it expires. Introduction 84 Handbook on Regularisation Policies (Düvell, 2025). As the war persisted, the Directive was extended several times and is currently set to remain in effect until at least 4 March 2027. The scale and pace of displacement from Ukraine have been exceptional. By June 2025, approximately 7 million Ukrainians remained abroad due to the war, with around 4.3 million holding temporary protection status in the EU (Eurostat, 2025). This far surpasses earlier displacement episodes, such as the refugees from former Yugoslavia caused by four wars between 1991 and 2001 (Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Kosovo) where over one decade around 700,000 people sought protection in EU member states (Duijzings 2019). Or the 2.4 million arrivals during the 2015– 2016large-scale migration of asylum seekers of 20 different nationalities, with Syrians being the singlelargest nationality—only half of whom qualified for international protection. Notably, two-thirds of the Ukrainian arrivals occurred within just six months following the invasion. As of early 2025, over one million Ukrainians had returned from the EU to Ukraine, including several hundred thousand who entered the EU during the early phase of the war but did not apply for protection and returned within months as the situation stabilised. Cross-border mobility remains high, facilitated in part by the TPD’s provision allowing temporary return visits to Ukraine. Throughout the war, monthly border crossings to and from Ukraine have consistently exceeded one million. The TPD, among other measures, has provided a crucial legal framework for war-fleeing individuals: granting temporary residence permits, access to work, health care, education and social support–serving as a cornerstone for regularising the status of displaced Ukrainians in the EU and EEA (European Economic Area). It also extends protection to third-country nationals and stateless persons who had permanent residence in Ukraine at the time of the invasion, and who cannot safely return to their country of origin. As an inherently temporary measure, the TPD is a form of regularisation by operation of law with the expectation that beneficiaries will eventually return once protection is no longer required. However, given the continuation of war into 2025, several member states (e.g. Austria, Czech Republic, Italy and Poland) have introduced alternative residence pathways (e.g. work permit and long-term residence permits) to facilitate regular stay beyond the TPD’s expiry date (Wagner and Grama 2025). Picture: Kyiv, Ukraine 85 Handbook on Regularisation Policies The escalation of the war in Ukraine in February 2022 tested the EU’s capacity to respond to mass displacement. Anticipating such scenarios, the EU had adopted the TPD in 2001 to provide a subsidiary form of protection in exceptional circumstances involving large-scale inflows of displaced persons (Council of the European Union, 2001). According to Article 2(a), the TPD constitutes “a procedure of exceptional character”, intended to offer immediate and temporary protection to third-country nationals who cannot safely return to their country of origin, especially when asylum systems risk becoming overwhelmed. It obliges Member States to uphold the principles of non-refoulement and equitable burdensharing, while ensuring beneficiaries have access to housing, healthcare, education for children, work, social support, and a residence permit for the entire duration of protection (Council of the European Union, 2001; European Commission, 2022). Additional rights include access to information, eligibility for asylum procedures, basic banking services (e.g. the right to open a bank account), and family reunification in specific cases. Beneficiaries may travel freely for up to 90 days within a 180-day period across EU Member States after receiving residence status. Individuals cannot be returned to a Member State where they were previously granted protection, thereby preventing forced secondary movements and promoting responsibility-sharing. Implementation of the TPD was delegated to individual member states, resulting in significant variation. Nevertheless, the process fostered a multilevel governance framework involving EU institutions, national authorities, local governments, NGOs, and, in some cases, private actors (Jauhiainen & Erbsen, 2023). This required sustained coordination, shared objectives, and iterative feedback. The TPD applies primarily to Ukrainian citizens and their family members who fled Ukraine following the Russian invasion on 24 February 2022. It also covers certain non-Ukrainians, including stateless persons and third-country nationals with international protection or permanent residence in Ukraine at the time of the invasion (European Commission, 2022). In principle, it can cover all third-country nationals with permanent residence in Ukraine who are unable to return safely. In practice, implementation has been inconsistent—especially in relation to Russian nationals. Nevertheless, by October 2024, beneficiaries included 12,300 Russians, 5,000 Nigerians, and 4,200 Azerbaijanis (IOM, 2024). In 2021, before the escalated war, 1.57 million Ukrainian citizens, primarily labour migrants, were authorised to stay at the EU (Eurostat 2022). Though not in principle covered by the TPD, many received support through national-level mechanisms. The TPD, unintendedly, also enabled regularisation of preexisting irregular statuses and provided a subsequent status to expired visas, particularly for those unable to return to Ukraine. According to the European Union Agency for Asylum estimates, a proportion of TPD beneficiaries were already in the EU prior to the invasion. Temporary Protection Directive (TPD) 86 Handbook on Regularisation Policies Conclusion The TPD was implemented for the first time in the EU in 2022, and provided a rapid, temporary regularisation for millions of war-fleeing individuals from Ukraine. Its successful implementation comprised several enabling factors. These included Ukrainians’ regular entry into the EU and initial stay there, as it had been agreed between the EU and Ukraine already in the 2010s, protection for war-fleeing individuals with the TPD facilitating their rapid access to residence, essential services and employment, a broadly supportive socio-physical environment, and the possibility for temporary return visits to Ukraine while under protection. However, as the war in Ukraine continues and the TPD in the EU remains in effect, the long-term outcomes of the TPD and temporary regularisation still remain uncertain. Key issues include: • how many Ukrainian TPD beneficiaries will return to Ukraine during or after the war • the degree of their long-term settlement in destination countries abroad • potential post-war out migration from Ukraine especially by Ukrainian men seeking family reunification or work • the risk of irregularisation of Ukrainians once the TPD expires. Despite these uncertainties, the TPD proved an efficient framework for both temporary protection and regularisation for millions of war-fleeing residents of Ukraine in a challenging wartime context. Exclusions from TPD protection are only justified on exceptional grounds. These include individuals implicated in war crimes, crimes against humanity, serious non-political crimes, acts against the UN Charter, or where individuals pose national security threats or are convicted of serious crimes (Council of the European Union, 2001). A key limitation in the TPD is the lack of participatory governance: beneficiaries are treated as passive recipients of services, with little input in decisions affecting their lives. While designed as a short-term instrument, the protracted nature of displacement has exposed a mismatch between the TPD’s minimum standards and the growing need for integration, especially in work, education, and language acquisition. Some Member States have responded with targeted integration measures, revealing the evolving function of the TPD in promoting long-term social cohesion (Jauhiainen & Erbsen, 2023). Sandberg et al. (2025) view the TPD as emblematic of a broader “temporary turn” in EU migration and asylum governance—where protection is framed in restrictive, time-bound terms. While it offers security, it also limits pathways to longterm regularisation through integration. 87 Handbook on Regularisation Policies References Council of the European Union (2001). Council Directive 2001/55/EC of 20 July 2001 on minimum standards for giving temporary protection in the event of a mass influx of displaced persons and on measures promoting a balance of efforts between Member States in receiving such persons and bearing the consequences thereof. https://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2001/55/oj Dalkiran, M. and Lipman, J. (2025). ‘But we have to be realistic’: Examining the origins of temporary protection in the USA and European Union. Journal of Refugee Studies 2025 https://doi.org/10.1093/jrs/ feaf005 Düvell, F. (2025). Ukrainische Vertriebene in der EU: Ein Fall rassistisch motivierter Privilegierung? In Oltmer, J. et al. (eds) Report Globale Flucht 2025. Frankfurt: Fischer Verlag, pp. 115–125. Duijzings, G. (2019). Der Bürgerkrieg in Jugoslawien als Fluchtursache – Impressionen eines Sozialanthropologen. In R. Etzold, M. Löhnig, & T. Schlemmer (Eds.), Migration und Integration in Deutschland nach 1945 (pp. 90–98). Boston: De Gruyter Oldenbourg. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110568318-009 European Commission (2022). Temporary protection. https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/policies/ migration-and-asylum/common-european-asylum-system/temporary-protection_en Eurostat (2025). Temporary protection for persons fleeing Ukraine - monthly statistics - Statistics Explained. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Temporary_protection_for_persons_ fleeing_Ukraine_-_monthly_statistics Eurostat (2022). Ukrainian citizens in the EU. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index. php?title=Ukrainian_citizens_in_the_EU Gálvez-Iniesta, I. (2020). The size, socio-economic composition and fiscal implications of the irregular immigration in Spain. Working Paper, Economics, https://e-archivo.uc3m.es/rest/api/core/ bitstreams/1f19ed21-ac46-4007-9637-bd60e73bbc19/content IOM (2011). Migration in Ukraine: Facts & figures. https://www.iom.int/sites/g/files/tmzbdl486/files/jahia/ webdav/shared/shared/mainsite/activities/countries/docs/Ukraine/Migration-in-Ukraine-Facts-andFigures.pdf Jauhiainen, J. and Erbsen, H. (2023). Multi-level governance in the temporal protection and integration of Ukrainians within the European Union: The case of Estonia. Journal of European Integration 45 (3), 415– 430. https://doi.org/10.1080/07036337.2023.2190109 88 Handbook on Regularisation Policies Sandberg, M., Schultz, J. and Syppli Kohl, K. (2025). The temporary turn in asylum: A new agenda for researching the politics of deterrence in practice. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies. https://doi.org/1 0.1080/1369183X.2024.2441594 Vakhitova, H., and Fihel, A. (2020). International migration from Ukraine: Will trends increase or go into reverse? Central and Eastern European Migration Review, 9(2), 125–141. https://doi.org/10.17467/ ceemr.2020.09 Wagner, M. and Grama, M. (2025). Phasing out temporary protection? Shaping EU policies through national experiences. Vienna: International Centre for Migration Policy Development (ICMPD) https://www.icmpd. org/file/download/63746/file/Phasing_out_temporary_protection_Shaping_EU_policies_through_ national_experiences.pdf Chapter 10 Lessons from North America on regularisation By Abigail Goldfarb, Jasmijn Slootjes, Bertrand Steiner (MPI Europe) and Anna Triandafyllidou (CERC in Migration and Integration of Toronto Metropolitan University) 96 Handbook on Regularisation Policies Finally, all post-IRCA mechanisms suffer from policy volatility rooted in executive discretion and litigation. A change of administration, or a court ruling, can freeze new DACA applications, terminate a TPS designation, or expand it overnight. This stop-and-go environment perpetuates a gap between the promise of regularisation and its lived reality, leaving millions ‘provisionally included’ but permanently uncertain. Lessons learned – patterns and pitfalls Nearly four decades of regularisation policy developments in the U.S. reveal several consistent patterns. First, regularisations can succeed administratively only when paired with broader strategies to manage labour flows and enforce workplace standards. IRCA demonstrated that mass regularisation is operationally feasible, but weak employer sanctions and visa quotas misaligned with labour demand allowed irregular migration to persist. Moreover, programmes that confer merely temporary protection—no matter how generous the work rights—tend to entrench precarity when renewal is uncertain or capped. Two decades of Temporary Protected Status and a decade of DACA show that indefinite extension without a conversion pathway leave families in legal limbo and perpetuate inter-generational vulnerability. Additionally, eligibility dates that are frozen in time steadily erode coverage as the years pass. Because programmes rarely reset their continuous-presence requirements, the pool of potential beneficiaries shrinks annually. By 2025, most undocumented youth arrived after DACA’s 15 June 2007 entry cut-off, leaving them without relief even when they meet all other criteria. Stagnant dates thus transform initially broad reforms into increasingly selective instruments. Finally, public attitude is generally permissive toward conditional regularisation, yet political and legislative gridlock continue to block systemic reform. For instance, surveys indicate that roughly three-quarters of Americans support offering regular status to irregular migrants brought to the U.S. as children, but polarised politics within the Senate and House of Representatives prevent comprehensive legislative reform. 97 Handbook on Regularisation Policies Conclusion – Lessons for the EU from North America The experiences of the United States and Canada offer important, if cautionary, lessons for EU policymakers considering regularisation. In the U.S., repeated largescale programmes have provided relief but failed to embed long-term, structural solutions. Temporary measures like DACA and TPS offer protection but lack the permanence needed for true social and economic integration. The absence of a systemic pathway since 1986 highlights the risks of relying on ad-hoc responses without broader legislative reform. Canada’s more selective approach has shown promise in some areas, particularly where programmes were simple, transparent, and supported by civil society. Yet, even with strong political signals, efforts to regularise undocumented workers stalled due to overly restrictive criteria, bureaucratic complexity, and lack of sustained political will. Together, these cases underscore the importance of designing regularisation programmes that are inclusive, transparent, and accessible – backed by political commitment and institutional support. References Bolter, J., Chishti, M., & Meissner, D. (2021). Back on the table: U.S. legalization and the unauthorized immigrant groups that could factor in the debate. Migration Policy Institute. https://www.migrationpolicy. org/sites/default/files/publications/mpi-rethinking-legalization-2021_final.pdf Chishti, M., & Bolter, J. (2021). Immigration policy and the growing role of executive power. Migration Policy Institute. Chishti, M., Hipsman, F., & Meissner, D. (2013). Comprehensive immigration reform: A history of support and opposition. Migration Policy Institute. Goldfarb, A., Slootjes, J., & Steiner B. (2025). United States Country Brief on Regularisation Policy Context. MIrreM Country Brief. Krems: University for Continuing Education Krems (Danube University Krems). This handbook demonstrates that migrant regularisation is not an exceptional measure but a core policy tool of migration governance. It examines policy designs, actors, and implementation challenges, highlighting impacts on labour markets, rights and social cohesion. Drawing on evidence from Europe and other world regions, it equips policymakers with practical options to address the presence of irregular migrants effectively and sustainably.