There is no one categorical answer to this main question if “Europeanization in the field of Migration Policy is limited because this field is dominated by domestic party politics” or not. First of all we must define how do we understand Europeanization in the field of Migration Policy. It could be understood slight differently: (i) as an Europeanization in assimilation of rules for regular and irregular immigrants; (ii) as an Europeanization in “external dimension” of European Union migration policy; (iii) as an Europeanization in terms of free movement of working force within European Union, etc. These cases might have very different national interests within member states. Member states can easily agree on one point and have inconsistent positions on the other. First two points might be valued as ones that member states could hardly find an agreement to.
From the first view, there are many problematic points in EU Migration Policy. In the research of Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies these main problematic points are defined as (1) limited ability of the EU to define its migration policy within its all 27 member states; (2) tensions between the national and supranational level in the EU, regarding international cooperation on migration; (3) the diverging interests and priorities of sending regions and/or partner countries; (4) the limited implementation capacities of the EU and its member states, as well as partner countries (Weinar, 2011, psl. 5). Nevertheless, these problems are more related to administrative issues than to domestic political issues.
While analyzing member states domestic competences in Migration Policy we can see, that long-stay visas, integration policy and domestic politics towards immigration are still national competences (Reslow, 2012). Agnieszka Weinar argues that migration matters in European Union have been perceived as a field where State sovereignty should not be surrendered and the common approach is undesirable (Weinar, 2011, psl. 6). “The EU member states have certainly been wary of ceding too much of powers up to the EU, creating a de facto European space of 27 different approaches to migration policy, allowing only for minimum harmonization” (Weinar, 2011, psl. 6-7). That clearly shows that migration is very sensitive policy and is strongly influenced by political decisions within member states.
The main shortcoming of the European migration policy framework is its ambiguity and dispersed focus. It addresses the common interest of the EU member states in some fields, while leaving out those common interests in others (Weinar, 2011, psl. 7). So what makes some fields more attractive to common interests?
Elspeth Guild states that at the heart of the EU there is and has always been an ambition and duty to reconfigure the territory of the Member States in order to achieve economic aims (Guild, 2006, psl. 631). Human rights were not part of the original schema of the EU (Guild, 2006, psl. 632). So if...