Working Papers Global Migration: Consequences and Responses Paper 2019/24, August 2019 Border Management and Migration Controls in Poland Research report Monika Szulecka Centre of Migration Research University of Warsaw © Monika Szulecka Reference: RESPOND 2.1 This research was conducted under the Horizon 2020 project ‘RESPOND Multilevel Governance oF MiGration and Beyond’ (770564). The sole responsibility For the content oF this publication lies with the author. The European Union is not responsible For any use that may be made oF the inFormation contained therein. Any enquiries reGardinG this report should be sent to: [email protected] This document is available For download at www.respondmiGration.com. Horizon 2020 RESPOND: Multilevel Governance oF MiGration and Beyond (770564) 2 3 Contents AcknowledGements 6 About the project 7 Executive summary 8 1. Introduction 10 2. Methodology 13 3. Developments since 2011 15 3.1 The development oF miGration and asylum policy 15 3.2 Selected leGal chanGes 17 4. Legal Framework 20 4.1 Pre-entry measures 20 4.1.1 Visas 20 4.1.2 Carrier sanction leGislation 23 4.1.3 Advance passenGer inFormation/ PassenGer Name inFormation 24 4.1.4 ImmiGration liaison oFFicers 26 4.2 Control at the border 27 4.2.1 The rules oF border crossinG and border checks 27 4.2.2 ReFusals oF entry 28 4.2.3 The use oF IT systems 29 4.2.4 Provisions reGardinG unlawFul border crossinG and security threats 30 4.2.5 Border surveillance 31 4.3 Internal controls 31 4.3.1 Control oF the leGality oF stay 31 4.3.2 Control oF the leGality oF work 33 4.3.3 SpeciFic permits For stay in Poland 33 4.4 Return, detention For return and readmission 35 4.4.1 Apprehension and detention 35 4.4.2 Returns oF third-country nationals 37 5. Key discourses and narratives oF miGration control 41 5.1 Main narratives oF admittinG immiGrants and asylum seekers to the Polish territory 41 5.2 ConFlictinG notions oF the Fear oF threats and humanitarian considerations 42 5.3 Narratives on asylum seekers at the eastern border 44 5.4 ConcludinG remarks 47 6. Implementation 48 6.1 Key actors 48 6.2 Key issues with implementinG border and miGration controls 50 6.2.1 Pre-entry 50 4 Visas 50 PNR data 52 Carrier Sanctions 53 6.2.2 ‘At the border’ 53 ChanGes in the leGislation and in practice 53 Access to asylum procedure at the land border 53 6.2.3. Internal controls 58 Control oF the leGality oF work and stay 58 Detention oF people From vulnerable Groups 59 Conditions in the detention centres 60 6.2.4 Dublin transfers, return and deportation 61 Risk oF abscondinG as justiFication oF detention For return purposes 61 Dublin requests and Dublin transfers 62 Perception oF Dublin transfers amonG asylum seekers and experts 64 Detention aFter Dublin transfers 65 The involvement in monitorinG oF returns 66 6.3 Co-operation among sub-national, national and supranational actors 67 7. Conclusion 69 ReFerences 73 Appendices 83 Appendix 1: Qualitative data collected and analysed within the RESPOND project 83 Appendix 2: Main sources oF documents analysed For the purpose oF identiFyinG key narratives oF border manaGement and miGration control 84 5 Acknowledgements This report includes FindinGs From desk research and qualitative interviews conducted as part oF the project titled RESPOND – Multilevel Governance of Mass Migration in Europe and Beyond. The content is solely the responsibility oF the author. However, I owe words oF Gratitude to several persons who have provided me with valuable help. I would like to express my very Great appreciation to the external reviewer, Katarzyna Przybysławska. Her comments and support were very valuable. Special thanks should be Given to Sabine Hess and Lena Karamanidou, From the team oF the RESPOND project For their detailed comments. I would also like to acknowledGe the internal reviews and support in lanGuaGe editinG provided by colleaGues From the Centre oF Migration Research: Agata Górny, Barbara Jancewicz, SolanGe Maslowski, Konrad Pędziwiatr, Karolina Sobczak-Szelc (who also patiently coordinated the work reFerred to in this report) and last but not least Marta Pachocka, who provided me with helpFul comments as internal reviewer and at the last staGe oF preparinG the report. I am also particularly GrateFul For the support provided by Justyna Szałańska. Her help in improvinG the fifth part oF the report was invaluable. 6 About the project RESPOND: Multilevel Governance oF Mass MiGration in Europe and Beyond is a comprehensive study oF responses to the 2015 ReFuGee Crisis. One oF the most visible impacts oF the reFuGee crisis is the polarization oF politics in EU Member States and intra- Member State policy incoherence in respondinG to the crisis. Incoherence stems From diverse constitutional structures, leGal provisions, economic conditions, public policies and cultural norms, and more research is needed to determine how to mitiGate conFlictinG needs and objectives. With the Goal oF enhancinG the Governance capacity and policy coherence oF the European Union (EU), its Member States and neiGhbours, RESPOND brinGs toGether fourteen partners From eleven countries and several diFFerent disciplines. In particular, the project aims to: • provide an in-depth understandinG oF the Governance oF recent mass miGration at macro, meso and micro levels throuGh cross-country comparative research; • critically analyse Governance practices with the aim oF enhancinG the miGration Governance capacity and policy coherence oF the EU, its member states and third countries. The countries selected For the study are Austria, Germany, Greece, HunGary, Iraq, Italy, Lebanon, Poland, Sweden, Turkey and the United KinGdom. By FocusinG on these countries, RESPOND studies miGration Governance alonG Five thematic Fields: (1) Border manaGement and security, (2) ReFuGee protection reGimes, (3) Reception policies, (4) InteGration policies, and (5) ConFlictinG Europeanization. These Fields literally represent reFuGees’ journeys across borders, From their conFrontations with protection policies, to their travels throuGh reception centres, and in some cases, endinG with their inteGration into new societies. To explore all oF these dimensions, RESPOND employs a truly interdisciplinary approach, usinG leGal and political analysis, comparative historical analysis, political claims analysis, socio-economic and cultural analysis, lonGitudinal survey analysis, interview based analysis, and photo voice techniques (some oF these methods are implemented later in the project). The research is innovatively desiGned as multi-level research on miGration Governance now operates beyond macro level actors, such as states or the EU. MiGration manaGement enGaGes meso and micro level actors as well. Local Governments, NGOs, associations and reFuGees are not merely the passive recipients oF policies, but are shapinG policies From the ground-up. The project also Focuses on learninG From reFuGees. RESPOND deFines a new subject position For reFuGees, as people who have been Forced to Find creative solutions to liFe threateninG situations and as people who can Generate new Forms oF knowledGe and inFormation as a result. 7 Executive summary The report Focuses on the laws and practices oF border manaGement and miGration control in Poland. The main analysis is preceded by the introduction and a short description oF the methodoloGy. Part 3 includes a description oF the main developments in miGration policy and laws concerninG border control and since 2011, FocusinG on the arrival oF asylum seekers, the lack oF siGniFicant chanGes in the law, and substantial chanGes in the state's attitude towards immigration. The necessity oF introducinG new laws and revisinG miGration policy has been emphasised by the Government from late 2015 onwards. However, till the beGinninG oF 20191 no new miGration policy was announced by the Government and the expected chanGes in the leGal Framework (mostly related to the modiFication oF the asylum system and introduction oF border procedure) have been postponed. This may stem From political reasons (the approachinG elections to the EU parliament in May 2019 and the domestic parliament in October/ November 2019). Part 4 includes a detailed description oF the leGal Framework related to border manaGement and migration control concerninG diFFerent phases oF the miGratory process: beFore entry, at the border, within the territory, and durinG return procedures. The domestic laws are presented aGainst the background oF the European Union law. In General, the laws concerninG non- nationals are compliant with the EU law. However, the transposition oF the EU directives to the Polish leGislation only meet minimum standards. The leGislation is not based on elaborating the rules that could be beneFiciary For the main addressees oF these acts. The better application oF the EU directives miGht decrease the doubts related to the application oF these laws (e.G. reGardinG the appeal in visa procedures and access to leGal aid in return procedures). Part 5 is based on the analysis oF the documents available publicly, released by the institutions or orGanisations dealinG with immiGration, and in particular Forced miGrants. This part contains the main conclusions oF the qualitative analysis oF documents selected purposively from the archives oF the parliamentary proceedinGs between 2011 and 2019, inFormation and requests published by the oFFice oF the Ombudsman, the website oF the OFFice For ForeiGners, the website oF the Ministry oF Internal AFFairs and Administration, and the reports aimed at eliminatinG improper laws or practices, published by non-governmental orGanisations. These sources oF inFormation were identiFied as the most relevant and provided suFFicient data to answer the question of how the policy and laws concerninG forced miGrants and protection oF the EU and national borders are discussed in the public space. The main conclusion From this analysis is that despite no siGniFicant chanGes in the reality oF arrivals oF Forced miGrants to Poland, the state’s and social attitudes towards admittinG asylum seekers and reFuGees chanGed dramatically as politicians and the society became divided into those open towards reFuGees and those who reFused to admit them.