Free movement for third country nationals? Immigration policy at the European level

This dissertation focuses on the proposed expansion of free movement rights for legally resident third country nationals within the European Union (EU). This issue highlights the tensions between the governments' desire to retain control and the European Commission's desire to expand its competencies in order to facilitate the single market and the integration of immigrants across Europe. Although the member states have willingly allowed the free movement of goods, services, capital, and citizens across their borders, they have been less favorable towards allowing permanent residents the right to free movement. By using the case study method and focusing on the directive on the status of third country nationals who are long-term residents which was passed in November of 2003, I explain why the member states have not agreed to free movement for third country nationals. I show how the member states are able to protect their sovereign interests yet are also able to pass a revised directive that expands the EU competencies without granting permanent residents the right to free movement.; I argue that the states, through their interior ministries who actually negotiate immigration policy at the EU level, expand the competencies of the EU in order to legitimize their definition of migration policy, relative to other ministries, and in order to monitor and shape each other's immigration policies. Furthermore, I argue that it is the interior ministries that have agreed to set up a convoluted and complex regime on the movement of third country nationals that conforms to the German government's interests and is grounded in EU law. This European legal order legitimates that national authorities retain the final say in the entry of EU permanent residents, thus abrogating any real rights of free movement for third country nationals.; My arguments use the venue shopping approach to explain how and why the interior ministries have allowed the EU to expand its competencies in the field of justice and home affairs and the intergovernmental model to explain the particulars of the directive as the interests of the most powerful states shaped its final outcome.