Citizenship, migration and the valuation of care in the European Union

Abstract

This paper examines the relationship between care and mobility. It does so within the specific context of intra‐EU migration and the development of European citizenship. Citizenship of the Union bestows valuable social rights on mobile community nationals. Entitlement under the provisions is not, however, universal but conditional and privileges those in paid work. The paper considers the implications of this emphasis on paid work in two related respects: firstly, the impact on those people who move as part of the ‘male breadwinning family’ but are not engaged in paid work (the partners and families of workers); and secondly those community citizens whose migration decisions are shaped by the need to provide unpaid care to family members. Drawing on empirical research with migrant families, the paper concludes that the concept of work in Community law places those people who are not engaged in paid work (and family carers in particular) in a highly vulnerable and dependent position. Furthermore, the assumption of fixed and predictable dependency relationships within migrant families that underpins the law (and to some degree migration theory) fails to take account of the fluid and complex nature of dependency and caring relationships over the life‐course.

Keywords:

• Migration
• Mobility
• Care
• Citizenship
• Family
• European Law
• Life‐Course

Notes

Professor Louise Ackers is Director of the Centre for the Study of Law and Policy in Europe at the University of Leeds. Correspondence to: Professor Louise Ackers, Centre for the Study of Law and Policy in Europe, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT. E‐mail: [email protected].

The term ‘migrant worker’ is used in this paper to refer to mobile Community nationals only. The paper does not discuss the status of third‐country migrants.

I am aware that the concept of care has itself been criticised, in particular from disabled people’s perspectives, as ‘overtly patronising and unhelpful’ (World Health Organisation Disability and Rehabilitation Team 2001).

The projects were all directed by the author. The studies adopted a common research strategy involving an element of legal and policy analysis, statistical analysis and in‐depth interviews with a sample of the migrants concerned. The projects are as follows: Women, Citizenship and EC Law (European Commission Project SOC‐94‐101784‐05A03, 1994–1997); Children, Citizenship & Internal Migration in the European Union (European Commission & the Nuffield Foundation, Project Ref. SOC‐94‐101784‐05A03, 1997–1999); Citizenship and Retirement Migration in the European Union (The Wellcome Trust, Project 048853); Evaluation of the Gender Impact of the Commission’s Training & Mobility of Researchers’ Schemes (European Commission Project ERBFMARCT980006). Details of these projects are contained in the publications cited.

These ideas and the concept of work in Community law are discussed in more detail in Ackers and Dwyer (2002).

Referring to Article 7(2); Ministère Public v. Even & ONPTS, Case 207/78[1979] ECR 2019, [1980].

Similar conditions are attached to the ‘General Right of Residence’ (Council Directive 90/364).

In some cases migrants may be able to export national pensions and benefits or to benefit from various bilateral agreements.

Lawrie‐Blum v. Land Baden‐Württemberg, Case 66/85 [1986] ECR 2121.

Bettray v. Staatssecretaris van Justitie, Case 344/87 [1989] ECR 1621.

Martinez Sala v. Freistaat Bayern, Case C‐85/96 (see f/n 27 & 85)/96 [1998] ECR I‐2691.

The judgement was nevertheless interesting as it considered the legal impact of the new citizenship provisions and the extent to which they could be relied upon by all Community nationals as the basis of welfare claims. For more discussion of this important case, see Fries and Shaw (1998).

The title used in this piece is based on a German publication dated 1921 which when translated reads: ‘Those who raise pigs are productive while those who raise children are unproductive members of this society’.

The term informal care is used here to refer to unpaid care provided by family members. Whilst it remains true to say that migration research has neglected care in a more general sense, recent work by Phizacklea (2000) and Williams (2001) has focused on the migration of domestic workers to provide paid care in people’s homes.

This is also the case for dependant children and ascendant relatives who accompany the worker.

Case 267/83 Aissatou Diatta v Land Berlin [1986] 2 CMLR 164.

Return home to access family support is the ‘typical’ response of many women following family breakdown (Ackers and Stalford 2000).

This situation arose in Centre public d’aide sociale de Courcelles v Lebon, Case 316/85 [1987] ECR 2811. For more discussion see Ackers and Stalford (1999).

Joined Cases 389 and 390/87 Echternach & Moritz v. Netherlands Minister for Education [1989]1 CMLR 393 at para. 48.

A similar situation was considered by the Court of Justice in Snares. In this case a British worker with severely impaired mobility following an accident at work was in receipt of disability living allowance in the UK. He decided to settle in Tenerife in order to be cared for by his mother. Following his move, the UK authorities set aside his disability living allowance on the grounds that he was no longer resident in the UK. The Court of Justice found that this was not contrary to Regulation 1408/71 as certain forms of social security benefit were not transportable.

The children and migration research identified some complex step‐parenting relationships (Ackers and Stalford 2003).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Louise Ackers

Professor Louise Ackers is Director of the Centre for the Study of Law and Policy in Europe at the University of Leeds. Correspondence to: Professor Louise Ackers, Centre for the Study of Law and Policy in Europe, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT. E‐mail: [email protected].