1. Key findings for Greece

2. Tool to compare, analyse, and improve integration policy Do all residents have equal rights, responsibilities and opportunities to help them improve their integration outcomes? Benchmark policies and implementation measures, according to European & international standards on Equal Treatment Public “Quick Reference Guide” Debate government objectives, progress, and results

3. Largest and most rigorous study of its kind (148 policy indicators) 7 Policy Areas for immigrants to participate in society: 1) Labour market mobility* 2) Family reunion* 3) Education 4) Political participation* 5) Long-term residence* 6) Access to nationality 7) Anti-discrimination Covers 27 EU Member States, Norway, Switzerland, Canada, United States of America 7 comparative research partners worked on policy indicators 100+ national independent legal experts answer and peer review, all based on policies passed by 31 May 2010

4. Key Findings Just 50%: Halfway favourable Political will counts, more than tradition Policies similar & strong with EU law

5. GR +10: Improves most of any country with 3 laws Will reforms be well implemented & impact integration? What other policy weaknesses may undermine new strengths?

6. 20th 13th 21st 19th 17th 24th 16th 18th GR @ EU Average; behind established migration countries; in-between ES/PT/IT & MT/CY Stronger: Citizenship, (like EU15) Average: Education, Political part (EU12) Weaker: LMM, FreU, LTR, AD, below strong EU average, since GR ‘minimum’ access/conditions out-of-touch with societal realities

7. Education In GR, Legal Access at all levels (as in half) Not all migrant pupils entitled to ongoing assistance as in established migration countries Migrant languages & intercultural ed. could open to all pupils (e.g. ES, PT)

8. Political participation Law 3838 opens major reform, limited opportunities (+15), like new mig. countries Any implementation & effects in Nov. 2010 election? Major weakness: structural support for migrant civil society (see PT, ES) Bodies weaker than most, need migrant rep./leadership GR one of few with local but no national migrant body

9. Law 3838 x2 score: 3 rd worst to EU15 average (like DE,FR) MIPEX used to inform change Follow EU reform trends/ objectives on short residence, dual nationality, ius soli Limit discretion: time limits, Citz. Acquisition Commissions Implementation & effects? Access to Nationality

10. GR naturalisation remains one of most expensive gambles Cost/discretion trade-off: cost effective for migrants, state? ‘More realistic’ 700, not 1500, EU’s 4 th highest, lower in 23 Reasoned decision: common/ constitutional practice, still security scores 7/100 Independent appeal (in 20) Limited withdrawal (18)...To meet citizenship criteria, what earlier obstacles to legal integration? http://eudo-citizenship.eu 2010

11. Labour market mobility Once in job, legal workers rights & general support Slightly unfavourable access to get & keep job & legal status No measures against migrants’ additional job vulnerabilities Behind average European country (esp. in South)

12. Anti-discrimination Before naturalisation, migrants face additional discrimination based on nationality (unlike in 15) Mostly only the EU Minimum standards No explicit protections from racial profiling No class actions (14) No alternative mechanisms (19) Limited roles for Ombudsman to help victims access justice (13)

13. Countries often chose similar strengths & weaknesses for both EU law creates basic security/rights (e.g. GR) GR restricts access to secure status more than EU averages, neighbours that give clearer path to legal integration GR: Little changed since created (Note: Sept 2010) Family reunion, Long-term residence & their conditions

14. Effects: Long-Term Residence Eurostat statistics

15. Areas of weakness for legal integration Despite below-average labour market policies, highest econ. resource requirements (just AT, CY) Most countries use “equal responsibilities” as benchmark with nationals Most do not require job; instead basic household income around poverty line or minimum wage

16. Areas of weakness for legal integration Law 3838 reduced exorbitant’ LTR fee of 900€ to ‘realistic’ 600€ Still Highest LTR fee in EU MIPEX finds in most countries, only 50-160€ Commission notes on similar issue that MS should not set fees in a way to undermine Directive’s effect… Risk of Court/ECJ action

17. Areas of weakness for legal integration Long, problematic delays: not in 23, esp. in South Parents/adult children not entitled (20) For LTR, need course on ‘integration’ (24, most ask just basic language) For LTR Greek test, no exemptions for vulnerable groups (most) No entitlement to free language courses for all (7, e.g. CZ, FR, LV, PT, RO)