- Spitzer, D., Family Migration Policies and Integration (United Nations Expert Group Family Policies for Inclusive Societies), 2018.
- Cantwell, N., The Best Interests of the Child in Intercountry Adoption, 2014.
Many countries do not have official policies for family migration as part of their overall migration management. Whether family members can accompany or join migrants is sometimes regulated under policies related to other policy sectors, such as labour migration policies or regional agreements. For instance, in OECD countries, where policies allow accompanying family members, approximately one family member enters for every principal migrant worker (Chaloff and Poeschel, 2017). (Read more on work visas that allow migrant workers to apply to the admission of family members in Labour and migration). Where they exist, family migration policies vary considerably and can focus on different aspects of family migration.
In what concerns family formation, for instance, many European countries have legislation to prevent marriages of convenience, that is, a marriage with a national or resident of the country of destination the purpose of which is to obtain a residence permit (Psaila et al., 2016). Requirements for family formation may include waiting for a probationary period, during which couples are required to stay together, and a period of waiting for spouses before they can obtain an autonomous residence permit and, in some instances, in order to access social services and welfare benefits. Such measures strive to prevent abuse of a system that is based on the international rights framework and, in particular, the right to family life. Age limits for sponsors and sponsored spouses getting married sometimes also exist, to mitigate the risk of forced marriages (Chaloff and Poeschel, 2017).
Regarding intercountry adoption, policies have emerged in response to this phenomenon that surfaced after the Second World War and that requires considerations related to the rights of children (Cantwell, 2014).
Given family migration is strongly linked to labour migration, countries sometimes also include provisions related to family members accompanying temporary migrant workers. These provisions are often included in regional agreements and bind the States that are party to such agreements. In countries belonging to MERCOSUR, for instance, migrant workers may be accompanied by family members irrespective of the skill level or occupation of the worker. In other cases, requirements can be specific. For instance, in Qatar, an expatriate worker earning a minimum salary may obtain residence permits for his or her spouse, for male children who have not completed their university studies up to the age of 25 and for unmarried daughters according to the 2015 law regulating the entry, exit and residence of expatriates (Zahra, 2018).
Finally, policies related to family reunification are perhaps most developed, especially in Europe, as reunification is often the largest reason bringing family migrants into a country (Chaloff and Poeschel, 2017; OECD, 2021). This section will focus on these policies.
To Go Further
Conditions of eligibility for family reunification
Policies for family reunification vary greatly across countries, just as they do for accompanying migrants. There are also significant differences between policies concerning migrants holding a temporary visa, and those concerning migrants holding a permanent visa. For instance, in OECD countries, migrants with permanent residence generally have access to family reunification after a minimum period of residence. Those with a non-renewable temporary status do not have the same right, although there are exemptions for highly skilled workers (Chaloff and Poeschel, 2017). The discussion in this chapter focuses on migrants holding a permanent visa and the possibilities they have for relatives to join them in the destination country for family formation or reunification.
Example
Sponsorship conditions for family reunification
Among thirty-five OECD countries, citizens can generally sponsor spouses and minor children without restrictions to have those relatives join them in the destination country.
Table 1. General conditions of eligibility for family reunification in OECD in 2017
|
CONDITION OF ELIGIBILITY FOR |
NUMBER OF OECD STATES ACCEPTING SUCH CONDITIONS |
|
LEGAL SPOUSES |
All States Note: Age of marriage for sponsors and spouses is generally 18 years but there are exceptions where the minimum age is higher |
|
REGISTERED (that is, partners either |
19 States |
|
SPONSORS AND SPOUSES ARE |
Yes, with exceptions Examples: 21 years (Austria) or 24 years (Denmark, Netherland, Norway in 2017) |
|
DEPENDENT CHILDREN (unmarried and |
All States, but only seven allow entry of dependent adult or married children. Also, age of unmarried children may vary (from 15 years in Denmark to 24 years in New Zealand) |
|
ADULT RELATIVES |
Dependent adult relatives: 20 States Parents: 13 States Siblings, grandparents, aunts and uncles: 7 States Some countries allow all categories (for example, the United States of America and Sweden) while others reduce eligibility to members of the nuclear family only (for example, Japan, Korea, Turkey, Poland) |
Source
Chaloff and Poeschel, 2017.
Over the past decade or so, the conditions of eligibility for being able to sponsor family members in OECD countries have also changed considerably. In some, they have become more strict (Spitzer, 2018; Kofman, 2018). Requirements can include:
- Earning a defined income and other financial requirements, which may range from:
- A sponsorship that guarantees migrants can support the designated family members for a specific period of time (for example, Australia, Canada);
- Not relying on social assistance (for example, Canada, Denmark);
- Earning minimum wage or an income above a higher threshold (for example, Norway and the United Kingdom).
- Providing evidence of adequate accommodation.
- Taking pre-arrival language tests for the sponsored (only demanded in a minority of countries, generally in the European Union and only for spouses).
Policies such as the ones listed above aim to ensure that family members integrate well into society. Requirements related to showing evidence that the principal migrant can support his or her relatives are meant to prevent families from living in poverty or substandard conditions, and to ensure that families also do not become dependent on government-provided social assistance (Chaloff and Poeschel, 2017). Often, requirements differentiate between nuclear or immediate family members (spouses, minor and dependent children) and other relatives (such as parents, grandparents and siblings).
Obstacles to family reunification
Some eligibility criteria for family reunification can make it difficult for families to reunite. While policies are generally in place to ensure families will have the means to support themselves without abusing or becoming dependent on the system, certain requirements and even the process of granting family reunification visas may serve as obstacles to family reunification. In some cases, family members unable to fulfil the requirements may resort to alternative avenues to reunite with families, such as applying for tourist and student visas or even undertaking irregular migration (IOM, 2018; Chaloff and Poeschel, 2017). Alternatively, they may suffer the impacts of family separation (for more, see Separation of families, next in this chapter).
As noted earlier, the discussion here focuses on families of migrants with permanent residency in the destination country.
Pre-admission requirements: minimum income
In order for migrants to sponsor their relatives to join them, policies often require migrants prove they earn a minimum level of income. These requirements may be hard to meet, especially for younger people and women, who face age and gendered barriers to earning higher incomes (Chaloff and Poeschel, 2017). In the United Kingdom, the minimum per annum income to be earned by the sponsor, introduced in 2012 (equivalent to about 140 per cent of the minimum wage: £18,600 for a spouse), reduced the number of spouses joining migrants, at least in the initial period after the implementation of the directive (Migration Observatory, 2018). Analysts have noted that a high level of financial requirements has created new axes of exclusion (for instance, Kofman, 2018).
Pre-admission requirements: language tests
Although pre-entry language requirements are not very widespread, some countries have begun to require that spouses prove that they have some language proficiency before arriving in the destination country (for example, the United Kingdom, Germany, the Netherlands). Children are exempted from such requirements, and, in most OECD countries, language proficiency is only required later, as part of the permanent residence or naturalization process. Where they are required, pre-admission language requirements have been associated with a significant and sudden drop in in visa applications for family migrants, and with rejected reunification applications when spouses fail the language tests (OECD, 2017). These requirements tend to affect less-educated family members much more, both in terms of the ability to pay for the tests and the probability of passing them (Chaloff and Poeschel, 2017).
Other costs with reunification
Document translation and verification or, at times, DNA testing, may be required and expensive.
Application deadlines
Deadlines to gather required documentation may also be short and financing travel costs to submit the application to the consulates may be difficult, especially for those families in vulnerable situations. The situation can be more difficult if family members live far from consulates or in contexts where there is instability, conflict or political repression (IOM, 2018).
Visa processing times
Increased administrative burdens on immigration authorities can result in backlogs and long waiting times, especially when numbers of applications are high (Hooper and Salant, 2018). The processing time of visas can be so long that some children may become adults and no longer meet eligibility criteria. The long waiting times may also impact negatively on the children’s educational path and outcomes (Chaloff and Poeschel, 2017). As well, highly qualified migrants that countries seek to retain may be discouraged from staying if the process to bring their families closer is long and cumbersome (Chaloff and Poeschel, 2017).
Limitations to entry of non-immediate family members
Requirements for relatives outside of the nuclear family are often distinct and more limited. For instance, in Canada, there is an annual quota for parent and grandparent visas (10,000 per annum), and children must agree to sponsor their parents for 20 years. In 2014, a “super-visa” was developed to provide an alternative, faster route for the entry of adult relatives (valid for 10 years, allowing multiple entries). However, under this scheme, which is essentially a temporary visitor programme, parents sponsored by their children do not have the right to work, do not have access to public health care or citizenship, must leave the country to renew the visa every two years, and must hold private health insurance (Spitzer, 2018; Bélanger and Candiz, 2020; Bragg and Wong, 2016). This scheme prevents parents and grandparents from working and thereby making economic contributions to the receiving society. Limiting sponsorship of parents and grandparents may also prevent the migrant from benefiting from the support through care and other unpaid work that family members provide, in addition to contributing to the emotional stability of the overall family.
Minimum residency requirement for sponsorship
Some countries may require migrants to reside in the country for a certain period before being eligible to sponsor family members. This may serve to filter out applications from migrants with no intention to stay long term, and to provide reunification only to those who are committed to staying in the country (OECD, 2017). It also may serve to establish whether migrants can live up to the necessary requirements (such as a minimum income) for reunification (OECD, 2017). However, such requirements can delay reunification processes with negative consequences similar to those caused by delays to visa processing times.
A number of challenges to regulations have been mounted at national and regional levels against eligibility conditions, such as age of marriage, degree of attachment to a country, financial requirements, and language requirement for spouses. Cases have been brought to court by individuals and by civil society organizations that have become active in this field. Arguments have been based on incompatibility with domestic and regional law.
Example
Contestation of family policies in national and regional courts in Europe
In some countries, major regulation has been contested through the national courts. In the United Kingdom, for instance, such rulings have challenged conditions for admission concerning the minimum income rules (MIR) and adult dependant relatives (ADR). The Supreme Court maintained the minimum income but, at the same time, suggested that certain conditions such as alternative forms of financial support should be allowed in the case of MIR. It added that emotional needs should be considered in addition to the everyday care needs of those unable to look after themselves in the case of ADR.
Notable cases brought to the European Court of Justice have concerned different levels of minimum income for family reunification and family formation: a higher income level of 120 per cent was considered unlawful because it differentiated between the two categories. The level had to be treated as a reference point allowing for an individual decision rather than operating as a hard-and-fast threshold. Another example concerns the attachment rule, stipulating that one spouse must either have been a citizen for over 25 years or be someone who was born and has lived in the country for that many years. This rule was found to be indirect discrimination, violating article 14 of the European Constitution on Human Rights in conjunction with article 8 of the same.
Source
Desira, 2017; Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), 2010; Schluter, 2016.
Reshaping immigration policies to better enable family reunification can benefit both the families and the receiving society. Policies facilitating reunification can relieve families of the negative consequences of separation, and can enable families to achieve a better life through migration. They can foster safe and regular migration as well as migrants’ integration and contribution to society. Migrants, especially those with needed skills, are encouraged to come, work and stay in the country of destination. Stable family life enables migrants and their families to better engage with and contribute to their new society.
Good Practice
Using new technology and contact centres to support visa processing
Some States have sought partnership with international organizations to help with the administrative procedures related to family reunification. For example, the German Federal Foreign Office (GFFO) partnered with IOM to initiate the Family Assistance Programme (FAP) in 2016. The programme aims to assist families in vulnerable situations to reunite with their relatives in Germany. With FAP centres in nine countries (Turkey, Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, Ethiopia, Kenya, Germany, Sudan and Afghanistan), the programme offers both in-person and remote assistance, providing beneficiaries with timely, trusted and accurate information as well as visa-related support services in their native language.
The programme relies on an integrated system to help process reunification applications. This system uses contact centres spread across different countries and centralized virtual information and communications technology (ICT) solutions to receive and process applicants’ contacts, and document their cases in full compliance with data protection standards (namely, the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation requirements). Digital solutions include online (cloud-based) and physical, onsite infrastructure to maintain case-management systems across multiple locations. For the same purpose, it also includes the resources to communicate with beneficiaries and programme stakeholders, such as messaging and document management functions within an integrated system and automated processes that facilitate services for beneficiaries via phone, email, and social media.
Over 390,000 beneficiaries have been supported by FAP since 2016, including remotely.
Source
IOM, n.p.; IOM, 2019.
Example
Local support for family reunification: the New Families in Barcelona programme
In Spain, the “New Families in Barcelona” municipal programme supports foreigners from outside the European Union living in Barcelona in their application to be reunited with their family members by offering legal and social services throughout the family reunification process.
Source
Barcelona City Council, n.d.
Policy Approaches
Making family migration more accessible
- Make information about the process, timeframe and documentation necessary for applications to family reunification accessible. This should include offering pre-departure orientation on this topic so that migrants know what to prepare for when they sponsor family members to join them.
- Establish clear guidelines concerning the requirements for sponsorship and the consequences of not meeting them or of breaking the conditions of sponsorship.
- Establish reasonable requirements for the sponsor in relation to housing and income, considering the sponsor’s overall circumstances.
- Consider permitting the entry of spouses without requiring language tests, imposing them only after arrival, if at all.
- Ensure family reunification policies reflect human rights and gender-responsive approaches.
- Consider expanding the definition of family and the scope of family reunification to facilitate reunification for dependent and independent adults, including parents and grandparents.
- Establish minimal fees and facilitate access to visa processing.
- Provide flexibility in the documentation required, and travel assistance for the family reunification of persons with protection needs.
- Enhance application processing capacity to ensure timely processing of cases and reduced backlogs, including through the use of new technology.
Source
Some of these measures are drawn from Chaloff and Poeschel, 2017 and OECD, 2017.
To Go Further
- IOM, IOM Thematic Paper: Family Reunification, 2017a. Paper developed to support the consultations preceding the adoption of the Global Compact for Migration.
- IOM, Family Reunification for the Benefit of All: Policies and Practices Supporting Safe, Regular and Orderly Migration, 2018.
Key messages
- Many countries do not have specific family migration policies. However, other policies (such as regional agreements and labour migration policies) regulate how family members can accompany migrants or join them in the destination country. When policies do exist, they vary considerably and have been changing.
- Family migration policies generally endeavour to ensure that the right to family life is observed and that families can support themselves and not fall into poverty. Policies also aim to prevent abuse of family migration as a means to enter the country (for example, through a marriage of convenience).
- Requirements for migrants to sponsor family members, and for family members to join relatives in the destination country, can be restrictive and prevent family reunification. Obstacles include pre-admission criteria such as minimum income or limitations to specific categories of relatives, which usually privilege the reunification of spouses and children over other relatives (siblings, parents, grandparents). Long visa processing times also constitute obstacles to family reunification.
- Family migration policies can foster safe and regular migration, and given that family life enables greater stability, family migration encourages migrants’ participation in economic, social, cultural and political life. A failure to facilitate family migration can result in family separation, with negative impacts for families, decreased incentives for migrants with needed skills, and misalignment with domestic and international law.