Local Level Laws and Policies Addressing Irregular Migration

Local responses to irregular migrants vary widely. Some cities have formal policies regarding irregular migrants and a specific budget allocation for related services. Others make adjustments that are less formal in approach or less coordinated within the agency. Still other cities have yet to develop an approach to the irregular migrant population. Based on data from the City Initiative on Migrants with Irregular Status in Europe (C-MISE) and primary and secondary data collected by MIrreM partners from Canada, Italy, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Poland, this working paper aims to provide an analysis Local level responses to address irregular migrants, including innovative practices where they have emerged and ongoing challenges in policy implementation. 

The way cities respond to irregular migrants has evolved significantly. They reveal a complex pattern of privileges and constraints at the international, national and local levels, as well as the tensions that  can arise in multilevel governance when interests diverge at the local, state and federal levels. National legal frameworks provide irregular migrants with minimal or no access to most legal services. At the local level, this can lead to social problems such as homelessness and poverty, which
communities have to deal with. Between and within countries, laws governing access to services for different categories of irregular migrants may vary.

Cities across Europe and North America have led the way with some promising practices toward irregular migrants, ranging from stopping irregularity to helping them access essential services such as access to health, accommodation, education, and legal advice. Several examples of city initiatives are discussed in this paper. However, despite the availability of promising practices by different cities in dealing with irregular migrants, a number of persisting challenges remain which include: growing
anti-immigration discourse; growing national legal restrictions to essential services; limited data on irregular migrant populations at both national and local levels; limited funding and capacity of local authorities.

The paper reflects on some implications for policy and practice that emerged from and which include effective firewalling and joined-up approach across departments and between organisations; maintain or continue some of the good practice adopted during Covid-19; and resolve administrative bottlenecks where they heighten the risk of migrants falling into irregularity.