Print
See related documents
Resolution 1973 (2014) Final version
Integration tests: helping or hindering integration?
1. Knowledge of a receiving society’s
language(s) without doubt facilitates the successful integration
of migrants. This is the foundation on which integration tests were
introduced by a small number of member States, initially for citizenship
purposes. They have now, however, been embraced by a growing number
of States and applied not only for citizenship, but also for residence,
and even as a pre-entry requirement, primarily in cases of family
reunion.
2. Not only has the use of tests increased significantly, but
the standards required have also gone up. Furthermore, alongside
language, a range of “citizenship” issues, such as facts about history
and knowledge of political institutions, society and democratic
values, have been introduced in a number of countries.
3. There are two primary concerns over the use of these tests.
The first is whether they promote integration or have the opposite
effect. The second is whether they are being used not so much as
an integration measure, but rather as a migration management mechanism
to limit the number of migrants entering and/or remaining in the
country concerned. A drop of at least 20% of people seeking family
reunion in one member State and a drop of 40% of those seeking or
granted permanent residence permits in another gives a clear indication
of the effect, intended or otherwise, that the introduction of these
measures can have. These decreases are a reason for concern, as
family reunification and greater security in terms of residence
rights are beneficial for the integration of migrants. Especially
vulnerable migrants need to be supported in the integration process
by granting them access to these rights, instead of excluding them.
4. Encouraging integration through language and other testing
is not in itself problematic, and it is a measure that many member
States are likely to continue with in one form or another. It is,
however, important to be aware of the limitations of such tests
and ensure that they contribute to integration and do not become
a barrier to it. Rather than promoting testing, offering language
courses and possibly obliging migrants to participate in these courses
may offer greater advantages and develop their language skills without
running the risk of excluding migrants. They may also promote integration
as a two-way process, requiring an investment by both the host society
and the migrants. Furthermore, testing of knowledge does not, as
such, improve language skills and can only be effective if it is
offered at the final stage of a language course provided by the host
State.
5. The Parliamentary Assembly is concerned that current integration
tests in Europe are not as effective as they should be. In the first
place, the level of knowledge required sometimes exceeds what is
reasonably attainable by many immigrants or candidates for immigration,
leading to the exclusion of many people who would otherwise have
no problems integrating. This raises human rights issues, notably
with regard to the right to family life and protection from discrimination.
It is particularly problematic in the case of family reunification and
when dealing with people who are illiterate or with low levels of
education, old people, refugees and others. Furthermore, where integration
tests are a barely veiled migration management measure, they inhibit
and are detrimental to integration and they should be discontinued.
6. Member States of the Council of Europe are therefore invited
to reappraise their approach to integration tests by evaluating
their long-term effectiveness as a tool for efficient, sustainable
and user-friendly integration, in order to ensure that:
6.1. the language proficiency levels
set in these tests are attainable. This will require that:
6.1.1. the language levels be not set too high and that they
be differentiated with regard to what is expected in terms of speaking
and listening ability (not going beyond the A2 level of the Council of
Europe “Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning,
Teaching, Assessment” (CEFR)), and writing and reading ability (remaining
at the basic A1 level of the CEFR);
6.1.2. the discriminatory effect of testing be avoided by giving
preference to graduated scales of attainment, reflecting recognition
of effort rather than simply achievement. Furthermore, testing has
to take into account the needs and abilities of those who do not
have the same levels of literacy and education, or those who may
be in a position of vulnerability or have other difficulties, such
as the elderly and refugees;
6.1.3. tests should not be the only method. Rather than, or in
addition to tests, one should consider other ways of showing commitment
to integration, such as civic commitment or progress, or by using
mechanisms adopted in other countries, such as interviews with trained personnel
to ensure fairness;
6.2. adequate financial support is provided by the State for
preparatory courses. Wherever possible these should be free of charge
for migrants, as it has been shown that making migrants pay for
courses, which can run to 400 hours of learning or more, acts as
a major barrier and disincentive;
6.3. appropriate measures are in place to ensure that failure
rates in the tests, which can be high, do not have a discriminatory
effect and do not lead to exclusion or a state of limbo for those
who do not succeed. Failure could have the consequence of requiring
further efforts, but it should not lead to the denial of the right
to family reunification, permanent residence rights or citizenship;
6.4. particular attention is paid to pre-entry requirements
and the impact they can have on the right to family life as enshrined
in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ETS No.
5), and also family reunion as established in the European Union
Directive (2003/86/EC) on the Right to Family Reunification. In
this respect, failure in the test should never be the sole reason
for excluding migrants from family reunification when they fulfil
all the other criteria;
6.5. alternatives to these tests are explored and monitored,
and used where appropriate.