Conf. Univ. Dr. Roxana Cristina Radu Absolvent: Gilbert Gabriela CRAIOVA 2018 UNIVERSITATEA DIN CRAIOVA FACULTATEA DE DREPT BUSINESS LAW (DREPTUL… [610572]

UNIVERSITATEA DIN CRAIOVA
FACULTATEA DE DREPT
BUSINESS LAW
(DREPTUL AFACERILOR)

LUCRARE DE DISERTA ȚIE

Coordonator științific:
Conf. Univ. Dr. Roxana Cristina Radu Absolvent: [anonimizat]
2018

UNIVERSITATEA DIN CRAIOVA
FACULTATEA DE DREPT
BUSINESS LAW
(DREPTUL AFACERILOR)

EQUAL TREATMENT AND RIGHTS FOR
EMPLOYMENT OF NATURALIZED CITIZENS AND
IMMIGRANTS
( TRATAMENTUL EGAL ȘI DREPTUL PENTRU ANGAJARE
AL CETĂȚENILOR NATURALIZAȚI ȘI IMIGRANȚILOR )

Coordonator științific:
Conf. Univ. Dr. Roxana Cristina Radu Absolvent: [anonimizat]
2018

CONTENT
INTRODUCTION ….………………………… .…………………
Chapter I
Citizenship and immigrants’ integratio n……… ……………………
1.1. General considerations ………………………..
1.2. Access to citizenship ………………………………..…
1.3. Access to the labor market ………………………………….

Chapter II
The principle of non -discrimination on the basis of citizenship or
nationality in EU norms and treaties ……………….… ……………

2.1. EU treaty provisions in the field of equal treatment ……………
2.2. The provisions of the European directives in the field of equal
treatment ………………… …..………….

Chapter III
Immigration policies in the European Union ……………….
3.1.

3.2 New policies and trends towards immigration in the European
Union …………… …………………………..
Immigration policies in Romania ………………………………..

3.3. Immigration policies in France ………………………………….

Chapter IV CONCLUSIONS ……………………………………………………….
BIBLIOGRAPHY ………………………………………………………

3

INTRODUCTION

4
Chapter I
Citizenship and immigrants’ integration

1.1 General considerations
Issue of immigration was for a long time controversial concern throughout
the Europe. Because of its demand for labor, Europe needs certain level of
qualified immigration. However, in late decades a big amount of refugee
immigration flow created serious ch allenges as well. Perceived ‘threat’ of
immigration resulted in restrictive policies at both national and EU level. EU
level policies in this respect are very interesting to research on. Because of great
sensitivity of immigration issues to state sovereign ty, formulation of EU level
policy also faces challenges in terms of balancing intergovernmentalist and
supranationalist logic of integration. Therefore, we have studied those policy
and decision -making processes in immigration policy focusing on two issue s:
first, the motives behind the cooperation at EU level and the role of
supranational institutions in shaping these EU level policies, second, the scope
and capabilities of those policies. Immigrant integration policy have been
chosen as a case to compreh end issue more closely and detailed.
Immigrant integration policy is very important for the social cohesion of
European societies and is inseparable part of immigration policies. Immigrant
integration debate is very new in EU agenda; it is just getting its way to
Brussels. Although EU has no competence on this issue, we found out that there
are quite real opportunities for EU to have its own way of helping with member
states’ policies. The paper identifies and discusses important aspects of
immigration a nd immigrant integration policies at EU level, the reasons why EU
level policies are not pro -active and not suprantionalised yet. It further explores
the available EU level instruments and sources for constructing strategy of
integrating immigrants. All th ese study is done in the light of theoretical
framework which is the combination of several theories, due to the complexity
of the immigration matters. Every theory explains either some stage in the
development of EU level policies (liberal intergovernment alism and new
institutionalism) or the possible EU level policy -making framework (intensive
transgovernmentalism and policy coordination/benchmarking) for the studied
issues.

5
Immigrant integration is crucial part of migration policies. Integrating the
existing immigrant population to the society, if hasn’t implemented properly,
can create serious social, economic problems and in fact is creating, as many
Europeans consider immigrants as a burden and threat to their society. If the
state doesn’t succeed in s uch policy, they run the risk of having ethnic
segmentation and the hostile reaction of native population. It is remarkable
therefore to examine if there is a common European policy regarding this and
what kind of policies is constructed, and should be pur sued to gain the wanted
result. This specific area of immigration policy is not researched well enough,
that is why we have chosen this interesting issue in order to open up new
tendencies in it .
As we mentioned above, immigration concern have become major issue in
the European research agenda. The main dilemma in front of the EU is a
challenge of creating a real common supranational immigration policy. The
reason for that is a sensitivity of immigration for the state sovereignty. Some
argues that it needs to be analyzed and consequently resolved in the
supranational level, which means that independent national policies will be
insufficient to confront an immigration crisis. But at the same time, others urge
that the considerable concerns like immigration is sues must be viewed at the
national levels.
While today’s intra -European migration is largely unrestricted, the
regulation of immigration flows from outside the EU remains primarily the
responsibility of the individual national governments. These flows f rom third
countries differ greatly across European host countries, both in terms of size and
composition, as a result of a variety of factors ranging from each country’s
colonial past and prior immigration policy stances.
Throughout the 1990s and 2000s, mi gration shifted back to European
source countries, with migrants now arriving predominantly from Romania,
Albania and the former Yugoslavia and settling overwhelmingly in the
economically more prosperous North of the country. Both geographical and, in
the case of Romania, linguistic proximity have made Italy particularly
interesting for this set of source countries. Since the 1990s, legal immigration in
Italy is regulated by means of a system of annual quotas (see Triandafyllidou
and Veikou, 2001, and Fasa ni, 2009). Today’s immigrant flows into Italy are
relatively balanced, with about equal shares due to work -related reasons,

6
family -related reasons, and intra -European mobility . In many ways, the
migration experience of Spain resembles that of Italy.

1.2 Access to citizenship

One of the main dimensions of policy convergence has been the growing
emphasis on citizenship by birth (jus soli). To illustrate this point, we use data
produced by Bertocchi and Strozzi (2010) to compare the laws governing
citizenship at birth for our countries of interest.
With the exception of the UK, there is a clear general trend toward a larger
prevalence of jus soli provisions among our six countries of interest between
1975 and 2001. Interestingly, these developments are at odds with the status quo
in the rest of the world, where the trend has been toward jus sanguinis re gimes
(from a modal index of 3 in 1948 to a modal index of 1 in 1975 and 2001).
Among the countries included in the table, the policy reversal regarding access
to citizenship is particularly noteworthy in the case of Germany. The large
inflows of guest wor kers in the postwar era, mainly from Turkey, gave rise to a
large population of first and second -generation immigrants that lacked German
citizenship. In response to the social and legal tensions that this was producing,
the German government has gradually adjusted its immigration law so that
those immigrants rooted in the country (and their children) can become German
citizens. In particular, since 1 January 2000, children born to non -German
parents who have legally resided in Germany for at least eight years are
automatically granted German citizenship in addition to their parents’
citizenship.
Citizenship policies have also converged somewhat on other dimensions.
Most countries have made changes to better link the applications for residence

7
and work permits in order to facilitate the transition of immigrants into the labor
market.
Furthermore, several countries have increased the requirements to obtain
permanent residence or citizenship, often involving language and civic
knowledge test ing (as in France, Germany and the UK). Both France and
Germany have also adopted more stringent requirements for family
reunification, which include passing a language test.
The country with both the highest stock of refugees and the consistentl y
highest inflow of asylum seekers per capita in Europe is Sweden, whose recent
applicants originate primarily from Somalia and Iraq, followed by France and
the UK, whose main groups originate from Serbia and the Russian Federation,
and Zimbabwe and Afghan istan, respectively.
During the 2000s, the European countries with a sizeable refugee
population, notably Sweden and Germany, have passed a number of measures
aimed at streamlining the processing of applications and making it more
transparent.
Spearheaded by Sweden, there is also a noticeable trend toward extending
the concept of refugee, for example to include those in fear of persecution
because of their gender or sexual orientation. Under new German legislation,
refugees who are entitled to asylum are also given faster access to the labor
market.
From a European perspective, the legal cornerstone of how to deal with
individuals seeking asylum in any EU member state is the so -called Dublin II
Regulation (which also applies to Norwa y, Iceland and Switzerland). Adopted in
2003 with the objective of avoiding “asylum shopping” in several EU member
countries and to reduce the number of asylum seekers orbiting between EU
member states, the Dublin Regulation determines which EU member stat e is
responsible to examine a given asylum application.22 In most cases, this is the
state through which the asylum seeker has first accessed the EU territory. The

8
introduction of this regulation has put a particularly heavy burden on those
member states t hat are situated at the European periphery, such as Greece,
whose annual inflow rate of asylum seekers (per 1,000) has increased from an
average of 0.6 during 2001 to 2005, to an average of 1.5 during 2006 to 2010.
Naturally, the issue of asylum seeking is closely related to border control
and the decisions regarding those individuals apprehended while attempting to
enter into the country illegally, which we discuss next.
While legislation concerning citizenship is still largely determ ined at the
national level and will probably remain so for the foreseeable future, the degree
of coordination between EU member states regarding border controls has
increased significantly over the last decade. It is helpful to organize the
discussion arou nd two issues: border controls and management of the
unauthorized population already in the country. The two EU countries where
these issues are particularly relevant are Spain and Italy, as a result of their close
physical proximity to the North African c oastline.
Regarding border control, two recent developments are worth
mentioning. First, in 2007, new EU regulation approved the creation of Rapid
Border Intervention Teams, which consist of teams of border guards from other
member states that can be deployed at the request of a member state facing an
exceptional influx of illegal migrants. For instance, these forces were requested
by the Italian government to deal with the large displacement of individuals
during the Libyan uprising in 2011. Se cond, Spain has pioneered the strategy of
deploying attachés to several West African countries to try to stymie illegal
entries before they arrive to Spanish territory.
This is partly motivated by the desire to reduce the high death toll due to
the dangers of open sea travel and to make it more difficult for criminal
organizations to profit from illegal smuggling by sea. In exchange for their
cooperation in patrolling the main gateways and in speeding up repatriation, the
countries of origin are off ered development aid and legal work visas for their

9
nationals. From the EU perspective, an action plan for 2008 -2010 has been
adopted to try to engage several African governments in a partnership, so far
with limited success. In contrast, during 2007 re -admission agreements were
signed with Russia, the Ukraine and the former Yugoslavia by offering short –
stay visas, which have been implemented quite successfully. Italy has also
established mobility partnerships with several countries, starting with Moldova
in 2003, Morocco and Egypt in 2005, and many others thereafter.
While border enforcement has been an important aspect of European
migration management, it has not been able to prevent a large number of
immigrants to take up residence in Europe ill egally. It is estimated that between
0.4 and 0.8 percent of the total population and between 6.7 and 13.2 percent of
the total foreign population in the EU in 2008 are undocumented immigrants
(Kovacheva and Vogel, 2009).
Ordinary naturalization is a mode of acquisition of citizenship after birth of a
citizenship not previously held by the target person that requires an application
by this person or his or her legal agent. Whereas traditionally naturalization
required a discretionary act of granting c itizenship by a public authority,
increasingly often countries in Europe have laws that provide for the nearly
automatic acquisition of citizenship by a person who evidently fulfills the
eligibility criteria and is thus entitled to such acquisition upon ap plication. Yet,
in the EU, only 7 out of 28 member states currently have such an entitlement to
citizenship in their ordinary naturalization procedure.7 Hence in most countries
the acquisition of citizenship remains based on a discretionary decision by,
usually, administrative officials .
Apart from the legal uncertainty deriving from a discretionary application
procedure, a key implication of a contractual view which seems widely held
among politicians and electorates designing these procedures i s that the way
in which eligibility requirements for naturalization and other procedural
requirements, such as fees, are designed are structurally biased towards the

10
‘supply side’, i.e. the state ‘supplying’ citizenship. In other words, certainly in
those economically most developed states in Europe, naturalization policies
reflect a seller’s market where there is great demand but limited supply and
‘buyers’ of citizenship are at the mercy of what ‘sellers’ demand for it. Such
asymmetry between t he interests of the citizenship granting state and the
citizenship requesting individual is at odds with a ‘citizenship
stakeholder’ principle, which assumes that the interests of the community and
the prospective citizen are mutual ly constitutive (Bauböck 2016; Bauböck
2017). In this alternative view, naturalization policies should take into account
not just supply side concerns, but also demand side concerns and provide a
pathway to citizenship to newcomers and their chi ldren as part of a general
concern of democratic inclusion.
The access to ordinary naturalization is also conditioned by the existence of,
among others, a) language requirements, b) so called integration requirements,
c) economic requirements and d) by the fees required to start the application
procedure. As for language requirements, we find that most EU member states
nowadays have a formalized language requirement, either at level A2 (‘Can
understand sentences and frequently used expressions related to areas of most
immediate relevance’) or level B1 (‘Can understand the main points of clear
standard input on familiar matters regularly encountered in work, school,
leisure, etc.’) from the Common European Framework of References for
Languages (CEFR). S ome states maintain high, but unstandardized language
requirements, as is the case in Hungary, Italy, Malta, Romania, Slovakia and
Spain (MIPEX 2015). Only two countries, Ireland and Sweden, have no formal
language requirements at all in the citizenship la w.

11
1.3 Access to the labor market

Most of the nations examined here make presumptively permanent
residents eligible for noncontributory and contributory benefits programs on
similar terms as citizens. In some instances recently arrived immigrants
(citizens of an EU nation or “return” immigrants in Germany and Israel) are
accorded full social and labor market rights upon entry. Their treatment is in
sharp contrast to the handling of third -country nationals who constitute a
majority of EU immigrants and whose social and labor rights accrue over time.
(By third -country nationals we refer to foreign and native -born residents who
hold non -EU citizenship.) These third -country nationals from outside the
European Union typically need to establish permanent status or naturalize to
obtain access to labor and welfare rights.
Accordingly, rationing of immigrant benefits occurs by granting or
withholding established immigrant status.
Immigrants whose presenc e is considered temporary and whose return is
expected, enjoy fewer rights and their eligibility varies widely across nations. In
fact, the immigrants who can be classified as temporary immigrants are quite
heterogeneous. The group is composed of those who are in a probationary phase
and on their way to established status, as well as those who are in the process of
eventual voluntary or involuntary return from the host nation.
In contrast, progress to citizenship in certain immigration countries (the
United States, Australia and Canada), generally occurs in two stages, with the
immigrant entering as a legal permanent resident or landed immigrant and then
converting to citizenship.6 Accordingly, many of the comparisons we make are
between this first stage in the immigration nations (that is, those of permanent
resident or landed immigrant status) and Europe’s second stage (established
immigrant) .

12
It is important to recognize the degree to which each nation’s integration
policies are bound up in its immigratio n policies. Put simplistically, citizenship
for many European nations is essentially a three -stage (or even more graduated)
process that generally ascends from temporary to established status, and then to
citizenship.
While the conditions for making the tr ansition from temporary to
permanent status vary widely across nations of the EU, the share of third –
country nationals with established status appears to be roughly similar. In
Austria 55 percent hold established permit status; 66 percent do so in France.
The time period for the subsequent transition from permanent residence to
citizenship varies across the nations studied. In Australia, legal immigrants can
naturalize two years after entry. Non citizens in Britain, France, the Netherlands
and the United States are eligible for naturalization after five years of
permanent residency status (spouses of U.S. citizens may naturalize in the U.S.
in three years).
Longer periods generally pertain in Germany, where the wait is a
minimum of eight years under th e usually applicable rules, and in Austria, where
non-citizens may wait anywhere between six and thirty years before obtaining
citizenship (Groenendijk, Guild, and Barzilay 2000). All the countries in our
study, with the exception of Austria, have establis hed jus soli principles for
conferring citizenship to second and third -generation immigrants, typically
making citizenship immediately available to third generation immigrants and
widely available to second -generation immigrants once they reached the age of
majority.
While the use of citizenship (versus permanent residence) to ration social
rights proves to be the exception and not the rule across countries, there are
important exceptions, including the United States, Austria and Britain.
Following the U.S . Congress’ enactment of welfare reform legislation in 1996,
many newly entering immigrants were denied federal health insurance, nutrition

13
benefits, welfare and related work supports, and aid to the aged and disabled
until naturalization. The restriction s apply more forcefully to immigrants
arriving after 1996. Exceptions are made for immigrants who have worked for
forty quarters (ten years) in formal or “covered” employment, (typically in jobs
where Social Security taxes are paid), for refugees and asylees, and non -citizens
who have served in the military. The $20 billion in savings over five years these
restricti ons were expected to generate would have accounted for half of welfare
reform law’s total savings.
The United States has not been alone in rationing benefits in this manner.
Five out of the nine Austrian provinces bar third -country nationals (that is,
foreign and native -born residents who hold non EU citizenship) from many of
their social assistance programs altogether. And in other provinces third country
nationals receive lower benefits than citizens. Third -country nationals are barred
from receiving hou sing subsidies that would permit them to buy or build houses,
and until recently they have been prohibited from renting any subsidized flats
owned by the municipality of Vienna (Groenendijk, Guild, and Barzilay 2000).
Nations’ restrictions on non -citizens' benefit use can also take the form of
new sponsorship requirements. For example, the English -speaking immigration
countries (Australia, Canada and the United States) introduced new controls in
the mid 1990s that shift the legal obligations for immigrants’ support from the
state to their sponsors. The support requirement’s duration varies across
countries, as does its scope. Immigrant families in the United States are expected
to pay for health insurance; in Canada and Australia they are not. In each case,
though, the obligation is lifted when the immigrant becomes a citizen, thereby
creating a powerful incentive to naturalize. By creating these new incentives to
naturalize, policy makers have altered immigrants' motives for seeking
citizenship, giving inst rumental concerns greater weight and subordinating the
arguably more "authentic" motives of national loyalty and solidarity .

14
A number of arguments may be offered in support of limiting non –
citizens’ access to public benefits. First, income disparities betw een developed
and developing countries are so wide that benefits offered by the host country
exceed income opportunities in the sending countries (Borjas 2001). As a result,
nations that offer immigrants generous benefits serve as a magnet for poor
immigr ants who would qualify for subsidies and repel those who would have to
pay for them. Thus, welfare’s availability changes the composition of the
immigration flow and enables some unintegrated immigrants to stay who would
have otherwise returned, leading to a decline in immigrant quality.
Second, immigrants represent a disproportionately large share of welfare
users, imposing high costs on taxpayers. This drain on state resources, it might
be argued, jeopardizes the social contract that maintains the welfar e state, and
turns public opinion against more inclusive immigration policies.
Further, it is reasonable that the immigrant's support should fall to his or
her sponsor, who benefits from being able to unite with a family member or by
obtaining a new emplo yee (or both, in some instances).
Finally, restricting benefits to citizens provides an incentive to naturalize
(Archer and Smith 2000). The naturalization process, in turn, has an independent
integrating effect produced by requirements to learn the lang uage and to develop
at least a rudimentary historical, political and cultural understanding of the host
country .

15

Chapter I I
The principle of non -discrimination on the basic of
citizenchip or nationality in EU norm and treaties

2.1. Eu treaty provisions in the field of equal treatment

The establishment of a common legal framework setting out the rights and
obligations of TCNs underpins the EU approach to the integration of
immigrants. In only last four years, EU have developed fairly good amount of
binding legislative basis for immigrants integration policies. They set mostly the
minimum standards in different areas for TCNs which should be observed by
member states while treating TCNs. Commission took the principle set out in
Tampere counc il which requested ‘more vigorous integration policy’ which
‘should aim at granting legally resident TCNs’ rights and obligations
comparable to those of EU citizens’ as a starting point when it proposed
legislative to establish common framework for status of TCNs .
The Directive on the right to family reunification was adopted in Council
in September, 2003. The right to family reunification is, by itself, an essential
element in the integration of immigrants. The establishment of stable family
communities en sures that migrants are able to contribute fully to their new
societies. The directive recognises the right to family reunification for TCNs
holding a residence permit of two years or more who have reasonable prospects
of obtaining permanent residence.
Following that, Council approved the Directive concerning the status of
third -country nationals, who are long -term residents in November, 2003. This
directive is based on the tradition in the member states that the length of stay has
an influence on the lev el of rights of the person concerned. According to

16
Directive, long term residence (which is permanent) will be obtained after 5
years of legal and continuous stay. The 5 year period corresponds with the
period for EU citizens to get permanent residence rig hts, thus giving TCNs a
comparable legal status to EU citizens. This status allows TCNs to move within
the EU under certain conditions (they should have a job offer), but they are not
entitled to move freely and seek a job. Council added a provision that M ember
state may require TCNs to comply with integration measures. Moreover,
refugees and persons enjoying temporary protection are not included to those
who benefit these rights, although Commission has proposed it initially. By
analysing the wording of di rective, it is seen that these directives do not really
offer comparable treatment between TCNs and EU citizens, and it leaves too
much room for member states’ discretion.
EU also has developed the legal framework for combating discrimination,
which can seriously impede the integration process, and in particular, common
minimum standards to promote equal treatment and to combat discrimination on
grounds of racial or ethnic origin. EU adopted a package of anti -discrimination
measures. First two elements of this, Directive implementing the principle of
equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin and
Directive establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment
and occupation, was adopted in June and November of 2000 .122 Anti –
discrimination directives of 2000 have put in place policy frame that appears to
draw heavily from UK and Dutch understanding of anti -discrimination. Another
element – ant-discrimination Action Program was also agreed in 2000: this
program will r un for six years from 2001 and will have a budget of 100 million
Euros, including the activities combating discrimination on the ground of race
and ethnicity. The scope of Community legislation banning racial discrimination
is wide and covers employment, e ducation, social security, health care, access to
goods and services and to housing. Those directives were to be transposed into
National law with the deadline of 2003; Commission monitors this process.

17
The EU has made progress towards granting TCNs the same protection as
EU workers in the field of social security when moving within the EU. Council
Regulation was approved in May 2003, extending the provisions of Regulation
No 1408/71 and Regulation No 574/72 to TCNs who are not already covered by
those pr ovisions solely on the ground of their nationality. This was first binding
measure concerning legal migration ever agreed in Council.
All those legally binding measures show the progress in the field of
migrant inclusion agenda and point to norm -setting fu nction of EU. Most of
them do not address directly to the European integration policy, except from
antidiscrimination directives which are directly related to this issue. That is
because EU has not yet got the full competence on integration. But all those
legal measures really do affect the life of immigrants. Moreover, this can not
prevent EU from influencing the member states policies, at least, based on
OMC, by facilitating the exchange of information, practices and policy models;
from assisting them to get to know each other’s policies; from offering open
discussion forums to define problems, reach to possible solutions.
On one hand, when immigrant residence concentrates in one area, it
creates the risk of isolation from host society. On the other hand, in the
ethnically mixed areas racism and xenophobia emerges as an obstacle to
migrants’ sense of belonging and participation. Therefore, those factors should
be taken in integration policies into account.
✓ Health and social services , this is also key issue for integration.
✓ The social and cultural environment , meeting others is an important
step in settling down and becoming a part of the host society and
interaction between different cultures and religions will increase
tolerance and respect. Measures are n eeded to encourage this
participation in local community life, and they should be
encouraged to take part in public debate. Therefore, accurate
information about immigrants and their positive contribution, both

18
economically and culturally, to our societies needs to be publicised
as failure to meet this challenge may fuel resentment, social
exclusion and the rise of racism and xenophobia. Here politicians
and the mass media have a major responsibility in their role as
educators of public opinion.
✓ Nationalit y, civic citizenship and respect for diversity , obtaining
nationality is a facilitator to integrating immigrants as it increases
the sense of belonging to the host society. Therefore, EU urges
member states to make easy for legally resided immigrants for
sufficient time to get the citizenship of that country, especially for
2nd and 3rd generations it should be automatically available.
However, it should be noted that naturalisation itself is not enough
for integrating immigrants. Participation in the politi cal decision –
making process is considered last hurdle in integration process.
Most countries have granted immigrants some political rights at
local level. This is very crucial step in offering foreigners similar
rights and obligations as EUnationals. This also takes away the
‘object’ image of immigrants and instead gives it the opportunity to
be the potential ‘actor’ in political process.
✓ Civic education or orientation for new immigrants , this aspect
wasn’t stressed in Communication, but further examinat ions show
that a need for civic education – the understanding of basic norms
and values of host society, such as information about fundamental
rights and obligations, including equality of men and women – is
crucial. Many member states organise ‘introducti on programmes’
for this purpose, which includes language courses as well. This
ensures that immigrants understand and respect those values of host
society.

19
✓ fight against discrimination and racism , this aspect has been turned
into even more complex in t he recent political climate, with the
sometimes negative stereotyping of immigrants in the media and
the rise in support for far -right political parties in some member
states. Anti – discrimination policies are not always connected to
integration policies i n many member states. Effective translation of
two anti -discrimination directives can have very positive effect on
combating discrimination. However, it is observed that principle of
equal treatment among the migrants in member states is far from
being ach ieved. There is still discrimination towards immigrants
especially in employment.
Comprehensive integration policy should involve both mainstreaming and
specific programmes addressed to integration. Mainstreaming immigration
means actively and openly taki ng into account immigrant issues in all relevant
policies and measures at EU and national level. As mentioned above,
Commission report on integration has the task to ensure that interests of
immigrants are streamlined in all other relevant EU policies. How ever, the
report shows that, in some policy fields the mainstreaming of immigration issues
remains slow.
As Thessaloniki Council stressed the need for developing a common
European framework, EU institutions have since been working on the Common
Basic Pri nciples for immigrant integration policy in EU. Recently, European
Council adopted conclusion which defines these common basic principles. It
establishes following principles for immigrant integration policy of EU159: –
Integration is a dynamic, two -way pr ocess involving both legally residing TCNs
and host society;
– Integration implies respect for the basic values of EU and fundamental
human rights;

20
– Employment is e key part of integration process and is essential to
participation of immigrants, to the contributions immigrants make to the host
society and to make this contributions visible;
– Basic knowledge of the host society’s language, history and institutions
is indispensable for integration; enabling this knowledge to the immigrants is
essential fo r successful integration;
– Efforts in education are critical to preparing immigrants and particularly
their descendants, to be more active and more successful participants in
society;
– Access for immigrants to institutions, as well as public and pr ivate goods
and services, on a basis equal to native citizens, and in non -discriminatory
way is a critical foundation for better integration;
– Frequent interaction between Member State citizens and immigrants is
fundamental mechanism for integration. Sha red forums, inter -cultural
dialogue, education about immigrants, and immigrant cultures, and
stimulating living conditions in urban the environments enhance the
interaction between those two parties;
– The practice of diverse cultures and religions is gua ranteed under the
Charter of Fundamental Rights and must be safeguarded, unless practices
conflict with other inviolable European rights or with national law;
– The participation of immigrants in democratic process and in
formulation of integration polic ies and measures, especially at local level,
supports their integration;
– Mainstreaming integration policies in all relevant policy portfolios and
levels of government and public services is an important consideration in
public policy formation and imple mentation;
– Developing clear goals, indicators and evaluation mechanisms are
necessary to adjust policy, evaluate progress on integration and to make
exchange of integration more effective.

21

Although those basic principles are not binding, it can be a good
framework for greater coordination of national integration policies and EU
initiatives. National policies of integration can benefit from it in a large sense.
All those measures set out in both Commission Communication and Council
Conclusion, if impl emented properly, would make a significant contribution to
the economic, social, cultural, and political integration of migrants across the
European Union.

2.3. The provisions of the European directives in the field of
equal treatment

The general conditions for legal immigration are not harmonized at the
EU level. However, this work shows that certain conditions are applied by the
vast majority of countries as general conditions. The conditions imposed at the
national level with regard to financial means, accommodation, conditions related
to health, conditions related to integration and quota systems will be studied
below. A brief reference will also be made to the general reasons for the
rejection of residence permit applications.
Regar ding the financial means, t he legislation of over two thirds of the
Member States contains a provision relating to the financial means that the third –
country national must have at his disposal in order to obtain a residence permit.
In doing so, States ar e seeking to ascertain that the arrival of the third -country
national will not have negative repercussions on the national economy. Hence,
proof is requested that the foreigner will not become a financial burden on the
State. States often impose a conditio n requiring the possession of “sufficient
financial means”. However, the method by which “sufficient financial means” is
determined varies between the Member States. States might require that the

22
foreigner does not have recourse to public funds (e.g. Germa ny); alternatively,
they might require a certain lump sum that must be at the disposal of the
foreigner, or a certain monthly income. If expressed as a monthly income, States
may require as a minimum, for example, the equivalent of the current national
social assistance (Poland), national subsistence level (Czech Republic) or
national minimum monthly income (Slovakia). In Austria, a lack of financial
means can be compensated by a “declaration of liability” (NAG, Art. 2 No. 15).
The “declaration of liability ” comprises a statement from a third party
undertaking to cover all expenses that the State may incur in connection with the
stay of the foreigner. The declaration is made for the duration of five years. An
Austrian public notary or court shall certify tha t the third party is able to fulfil
these obligations. The requirement of sufficient financial means is either
expressed as a condition for the granting of the residence permit, or lack of
financial means is included in the catalogue of reasons for its rej ection.
Accomodation, is another condition through which states are trying to
ensure that the individual will not be a burden to the national economy is the
requirement of proof of accommodation. For approximately one third of the EU
Member States57 this condition has been incorporated in their immigration
legislation. Often, it is required that the accommodation must be adequate in
terms of size or even in relation to hygiene standards. It was reported for the
Czech Republic that proof of accommodation can be the most difficult criteria
for foreigners to satisfy: due to gaps in the law, it is not possible to deregister a
foreigner from the address of his place of residence against his will, thus
landlords are reluctant to rent to foreigners. Moreover, much accommodation is
leased in breac h of the law (for example, for tax evasion purposes or simply sub –
letting without the landlord’s agreement); hence the landlord is reluctant to, or
unaware that he is required to sign any official document proving the rental
arrangement. As a result, many foreigners are not living at the addresses at

23
which they are registered and consequently sometimes purchase proof of
accommodation from third persons.
Also, regarding the conditions related to health, a ll Member States impose
some kind of health related re quirements on third -country nationals. These
conditions are meant to protect public health and also to prevent excessive
demand on the national health care system. Broadly speaking, health related
conditions can be divided into three groups: a) the require ment to hold valid
health insurance; b) absence of any diseases endangering public health; and c)
the completion of an obligatory health assessment. There are also Member
States that will not admit foreigners coming from areas suffering from an
epidemic, o r will at least require such persons to provide proof of non -infection
before entry (e.g. Slovenia). The requirement of holding valid health insurance
is the most common condition amongst Member States. The inclusion of this
requirement in a number of EU D irectives (namely, each of the three EU
Directives of direct relevance to this study)58 reflects the endeavor of states to
avoid charges to the public health budget and the importance attached to the
standardization of this obligation at the EU level. More over, Council Directive
2004/114/ EC on the conditions of admission of third -country nationals for the
purposes of studies, pupil exchange, unremunerated training or voluntary
service59 (Studies and Training Directive) explicitly mentions health insurance
as a “general condition”.
Often, the specific diseases contemplated under the requirement to be free
of diseases that could endanger public health are listed in the relevant law. In
Hungary, HIV/AIDS infection is listed as a disease that could endanger pub lic
health (Decree No. 48 of 27 December 2001). Proof of good health is most often
evidenced by a certificate issued by a public health institution of the concerned
EU Member State (for example, a public hospital). A few countries have
adopted the conditio n of an obligatory health assessment for immigrants. The
form this health assessment takes varies between States, for example: in France

24
it is applied only with regard to first time applications; in the Netherlands it is
applied only to check for certain c onditions (for example, tuberculosis); and in
Cyprus it is applied only if there are indications that the individual carries a
communicable disease. In a number of States, suffering from a disease that,
according to national legislation, endangers public health is a reason to reject an
application for a residence permit. The Country Reports show that where
applications for residence permits can be rejected on the basis of a threat to
public health, the national legislation also provides for exceptions to this
principle.62 However, it is beyond the scope of this study to examine whether
these clauses adequately comply with the standards imposed by European and
International Law.
The other condition is that one related to integration . This section
examines g eneral conditions imposed by Member States relating to integration,
such as knowledge of the host country’s language, history, society or social and
legal system (“civic knowledge”). It is important to note that this section is
dedicated only to integratio n related conditions, that is, requirements that must
be fulfilled in order to be granted a residence permit. Integration measures, such
as integration programmes implemented by the States after the foreigner has
been admitted, are not studied.63 The vast majority of EU Member States do not
impose integration -related conditions as general conditions (that is, applicable to
all immigration categories) or to non -permanent residence applications. The
three States that do are outlined below. Integration -related conditions for
settlement or permanent residence permits are more common and will be
discussed in the relevant section .A trend can be noted towards inclusion of
integration -related requirements as general conditions in national legislation,
particularly o ver the last two years. As of 15 March 2006, with some exceptions,
every person between the ages of 16 and 65 who wishes to reside in the
Netherlands for a prolonged period and is required to apply for an authorization
for temporary stay (MVV – Machtiging tot Voorlopig Verblijf) must take the

25
civic integration examination abroad. This test is an oral examination consisting
of a language test and questions regarding Dutch society. Questions concerning
Dutch lifestyle, geography, transport, history, constitut ion, democracy,
legislation, language and the importance of learning it, parenting, education,
healthcare, work and income may be asked. The test must be taken at a Dutch
embassy or Consulate abroad and successful completion is a prerequisite for the
grant ing of a temporary permit. The fee for taking the exam is 350 EUR. On 24
July 2006, under the Law on Immigration and Integration, an integration -related
condition became mandatory in France. A “reception and integration contract” is
required for adult newc omers and foreigners between 16 and 18 years old who
frequently enter the French territory and have applied for residency. Only
foreigners who do not intend to settle in France, such as students and seasonal
workers, as well as foreigners who have studied at a French secondary school
for at least three years, are not subject to this requirement. Within the framework
of this contract the foreigner will follow civic training and, if necessary,
language lessons. Compliance with the “reception and integration c ontract” is
taken into account by the competent authorities when renewing a temporary stay
card or granting a long -term residence permit. In Austria, an obligation to fulfil
integration -related conditions was introduced in 2002. Foreigners who apply for
a residence permit are required to fulfil an “integration agreement.” The
integration agreement consists of two modules: one focusing on “acquisition of
the ability to read and write” and the other focusing on “acquisition of
knowledge of the German language and becoming able to participate in the
social, economic and cultural life in Austria”. A final exam, rated as “passed”, is
required to fulfil the integration agreement. The integration agreement is an
obligation required by law. The consequences for fail ing to fulfil this obligation
can be administrative punishment, financial disadvantages or, as a means of last
resort, expulsion. It can be seen from the above that States attach most
importance to knowledge of the host country’s language. Furthermore, the

26
Netherlands requires civic knowledge and France requires training in civic
knowledge. The most significant difference between States lies in the way the
requirements are applied and the related legal consequences. Austria and France
impose an obligation requiring nearly all immigrants (although some exceptions
do apply) to follow an integration programme. Moreover, the Austrian law
foresees that immigrants must pass the final examination; failure to do so is
sanctioned and in the worst case the immigrant faces expulsion. In France,
manifest disrespect of the integration programme can lead to the refusal to
renew a temporary stay card, or to the rejection of an application for a long term
residence permit. On the other hand, the Netherlands requires that th e potential
immigrant learns the language and acquires civic knowledge whilst still abroad;
otherwise no residence permit will be granted. It has to be reiterated that the
condition is of a general nature and hence applies, in principle, to all
immigrants. Fulfilment of this condition requires, in most cases, that the
potential immigrant invests money, time and effort into acquiring the demanded
knowledge. It should be noted that opportunities to learn and practice German or
Dutch outside these countries ar e far more limited than opportunities to learn
English. Moreover, if the potential immigrant comes from a rural area and/or
developing country, this requirement becomes even more onerous. The
condition hence constitutes an important obstacle to immigration . In the
Netherlands, the integration monitor 2006 showed a decrease of MVV, which is
most likely the result of the mandatory integration test abroad (TK 2006/07, No.
39; see also Country Report Netherlands). Not surprisingly, therefore, the
integration re lated general conditions for immigration are the subject of heated
debate in the public as well as the academic world.64 The Justice and Home
Affairs Council Meeting on 19 November 2004 in Brussels adopted the
European framework on integration, stating int er alia that, “Basic knowledge of
the host society’s language, history and institutions is indispensable to
integration; enabling migrants to acquire this basic knowledge is essential to

27
successful integration.” (JHA Council 2004). While the JHA Council
Conclusion speaks of “enabling migrants,” it can be noted with regard to current
integration provisions that there has been a shift away from viewing integration
as a positive social measure and towards predominantly viewing it as a
repressive immigration me asure (Besselink 2006), that is, integration conditions.
Moreover, it is questionable how efficient these integration conditions are. For
example, learning and teaching a language abroad when there is no possibility to
practice the language in daily life w ill require a far greater investment than
learning in the host country, and is hence not the most efficient way of ensuring
language knowledge (Groenendijk 2007). The level of knowledge that is
actually required by the relevant national legislation in orde r to pass the
language test is, in any case, far too low to enable access to the regular labour
market (Groenendijk 2007). Also, it is argued that the imposed integration
conditions are no panacea in solving integration problems such as housing and
urban p lanning, or social and cultural isolation (Besselink 2006).
Also, the aquota system is onother section that is applied in some EU
Member States. Unlike some of the traditional immigration countries (for
example, the United States of America or Australia), in the European context it
is rather unusual that immigration is subject to a quota system that applies to all
immigration types (as a general condition).
In the European context, a quota is sometimes used for the intake of
refugees; the Nordic countries a s well as the Netherlands, Ireland and the UK
commit to accepting a certain number of refugees referred to them by the United
Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) every year. Moreover, and
equally importantly, quota systems are used in a number of EU Member States
as a tool to regulate the access of foreigners to their labour markets. Indeed,
approximately one quarter of all the Member States employ a quota with regard
to immigration for the purpose of work (see section Comparison, 2.3.3.2.1).
Only two countries, Austria and Estonia, subject all immigration to a quota.

28
Thus it can be classified as a general condition. Austria introduced a quota
system at the beginning of the 1990s. Thus, for most residence purposes
(studies, for example, being an exc eption) permits can only be issued if a certain
quota is not exceeded. Quotas are determined annually by the Austrian Federal
Government and divided according to the different kinds of residence permits.
Allocations are made for key -employees, self -employe d key -staff, family
reunification, private stay and holders of a long -term residence permit of another
Member State. Permits are allocated among the provinces “in a way consistent
with their facilities and requirements” (NAG, Art. 13). It is noteworthy tha t even
though the quota applies to categories other than work, reference is specifically
made to the capacities of the domestic labour market as an aspect to take into
consideration when determining the quota (NAG, Art. 13). Estonia introduced a
quota syst em in 1990: the Estonian Aliens Act fixes the annual immigration
quota at a maximum of 0.05 per cent of the permanent population of Estonia.
The Minister of Internal Affairs is responsible for determining the distribution of
the immigration quota. However, the law defines various exceptions. Given this,
the efficiency and efficacy of the quota system is questionnable (see Country
Report Estonia). It is suggested that any reform efforts should start with
consideration of the country’s real labour migration n eeds (Indans et al 2007;
see Country Report Estonia). The application of a quota across all immigration
categories is rare in Europe. The most common use of “quota systems” is in the
context of labour migration. However, the analysis of the functioning of the
above mentioned quota systems shows that even though applied in a general
fashion, the actual objective is to regulate access to the national labour market.
Thus, Austria’s quota is set depending on the capacities of the domestic labour
market and disc ussions in Estonia seem to presuppose that the quota system
should serve the purpose of regulation of labour migration.
The general reasons for rejection, is a section that is applicable to all types
of residence permits. The research shows that Member Sta tes consistently apply

29
certain reasons for rejecting residence permit applications. These include:
danger to public health (discussed above), danger to public security, risk to the
international relations of the country, conviction of a criminal offence, p rovision
of false information during the application process or indications that the
immigrant is actually pursuing an alternative immigration purpose to that which
he claims (for example, Member States specifically mention “marriages of
convenience”).
Applicable General Procedures This section will consider procedures
relating to the granting of residence permits that apply generally to all
immigration categories in the various EU Member States. Competent
authorities, place of application, length of pro cedure and appeal rights will be
discussed. Competent Authorities This section studies the authorities that are
competent to issue residence permits in the different EU Member States. The
numerous other public bodies that are concerned with migration issue s more
broadly are not examined here. As regards the competent authority for issuing
residence permits, four main structures can be noted: 1) The most common
option amongst EU Member States is that permits are issued by an Immigration
Office, operating wit hin the Ministry of the Interior. Currently, there are 11
countries68 that organize the issuance of residence permits in this way. 2) In
some countries69 residence permits are issued by the Police Department, also
operating under the Ministry of the Inter ior. 3) Another important group is
countries70 where residence permits are issued by Immigration Offices within
the Ministry of Justice. 4) In the fourth group, permits are issued by the
competent regional authorities.71 This is not only the case for count ries that
have a federal structure (like Germany and Austria) but also, for example, for
France, where the Prefect is in charge of issuing the residence permits. In
relation to the few countries that do not fall within one of the above categories,
the foll owing can be noted. In Denmark, an Immigration Office (“Danish
Immigration Service”) works under the Ministry for Refugee, Immigration and

30
Integration Affairs, dealing with migration matters. Denmark is the only EU
Member State to have a specific and separ ate Ministry for handling migration
issues that does not form part of another Ministry, as is the case for Sweden and
the Netherlands (where the Migration Minister is part of the Ministry of Justice).
Slovenia has not got a specific immigration office; rat her, residence permits are
issued by administrative units under the Directorate of Administrative Internal
Matters of the Ministry of the Interior. In Italy, depending on the type of
residence permit, it is either issued by police authorities or by regiona l migration
offices. However, both authorities operate under the Ministry of the Interior.
Hence, it can be concluded that the vast majority of countries rely on the
expertise of specialized offices for the issuance of residence permits. This
reflects the importance immigration has on national agendas. Although there are
differences regarding to whom these offices are responsible, it appears that in
most cases the competent authorities are working under the Ministry of the
Interior. As regards the assessmen t of the work of these authorities, problems
concerning a lack of service provision to the public and the foreigner, as well as
a lack of transparency, are reported from various countries. In some countries,
such concerns have led to a restructuring of the Immigration Office with the aim
of becoming more service orientated (e.g. Denmark). In relation to the Czech
Republic, the researcher reported that this lack of performance is to be attributed
to under -staffing and limitations in office space and opening hours (see Country
Report Czech Republic). Whilst for Slovakia, the research noted a problem with
the institutional set up and the absence of appropriate offices and official
parliamentary or governmental committees to cover the issue of immigration
legall y and politically (see Country Report Slovakia). Reports were received
from several countries that the Immigration Offices are not “migrant friendly”
or, indeed, that there is “a certain feeling of xenophobia in the department due to
the fact that most for eigners are viewed as being trouble makers or as creating
unemployment”. It was also reported on several occasions that public authorities

31
are often perceived as discriminating against foreigners according to their
countries of origin. Immigrants from Asia n, African and Middle Eastern
countries on occasion complain of unfair treatment, demonstrated through an
unwillingness of the competent authorities to grant them residence and work
permits or through the use of artificial obstacles prior to granting a per mit, such
as problems with visas, health certificates and invitations for family members.
Another reported recurring problem is that often different authorities are
involved in reaching a decision on a residence permit application, leading to
overlapping competencies and hence duplication and problems of coordination
and delay. This is especially the case for permits related to work, as often an
agency concerned with employment also has to be consulted.
Another procedural requirement is that, in most coun tries, residence
permit applications must be lodged abroad. This causes practical problems for
applicants resident in States where no embassy of the intended host country is
situated. In such circumstances, the applicant must travel to another country in
order to submit an application, which can be very expensive and in some cases
even impossible due to the visa regulations of the State where the competent
embassy is situated. As a result, it is reported that the requirement to apply for
residence permits f rom abroad is a major obstacle to legal immigration,
demanding both financial resources and time from the migrant. Moreover, the
procedural requirement can lead to hardship in cases where foreigners are
already legally on the territory of a State and would like to change the purpose
of their residence (“switching”). For categories where in -country applications
are not permitted (and no exception is made to this principle), it means that the
foreigner must travel back to his country of origin and apply from there, before
re-entering the country of immigration. Length of Procedure Unfortunately, little
information is available on the maximum processing time regarding applications
for residence permits as established by law. Only seven countries reported the
existence of a maximum processing time for applications for residence permits.

32
Finland reported that there are no such provisions, while Belgium reported that a
relevant provision exists, but only in the case of family reunification. The
specified processing times are often those established for general administrative
procedures and are the same as for other administrative decisions. In those
countries that do establish a maximum processing time, the specified period
varies significantly; namely, from five da ys to six months. It is to be noted that
these time -limits refer solely to the period of time the authority needs in order to
decide on the application for the residence permit. In practice, more time is
needed in order to collect all the necessary papers and prepare the application. It
can be noted, however, that the timelimits established by law are well under that
which is prescribed in Council Directive 2003/86/EC on the right to family
reunification (Family Reunification Directive), that is, nine month s. It is
noteworthy that Latvia has established a system whereby the fee paid is tied to
the processing time. Reports were received from several countries highlighting
that, in practice, one of the obstacles for immigrants is in fact the long waiting
perio ds, resulting, for example, from the routine application by administrators of
exceptional extensions of the permit processing time. In Italy, in response to this
situation, the Directive of 5 August 2006 of the Ministry of the Interior extends
the rights o f foreigners waiting for the renewal of a permit. Likewise, the
Disegno di Legge 2007 underlines that, while awaiting the permit renewal, the
foreigner will benefit from the rights the permit will grant. Appeal Rights This
section examines the rights of ap peal in the different Member States where the
granting of a residence permit is refused. The research shows that all EU
countries have some form of appeal right against decisions issued by the
competent authority with respect to residence permits. Worth me ntioning is the
situation in Ireland: in the event of a negative decision on a residency
application, it is possible to request an internal review by a more senior official
of the immigration authority. Negative decisions cannot, however, be appealed
to an independent tribunal. A negative decision can instead be the subject of

33
judicial review proceedings in the High Court. The role of the High Court is,
however, different from an appeal: while it can set aside a decision because of
illegality, procedural un fairness or irrationality, it cannot reexamine the merits
of the decision and cannot substitute its own view for that of the initial decision –
making authority. Moreover, the decision of the High Court on these
immigration applications is final; there is no appeal to the Supreme Court,
unless the High Court itself certifies that its decision involves a point of law of
exceptional public importance and that it is desirable in the public interest that a
further appeal should be heard. Most countries foresee a two step procedure:
firstly an administrative review and secondly a judicial one. Countries where the
appeal can be made directly to the courts without having first gone through an
administrative appeal are the exception. The administrative appeal is carri ed out
either by the same authority that was in charge of issuing the decision, or by its
superior administration; while the judicial review is filed with the appropriate
court. In most cases the procedure follows general administrative rules, for
example, an Administrative Procedure Act. Deadlines fixed for administrative
and judicial review are thus the same as for other administrative acts. The court
with which the judicial review is filed is, in most cases, the Administrative
Court. Depending on the nat ional Administrative Law provisions, an appeal
against the decision of the Administrative Court to a superior Court (Supreme
Administrative Court, Constitutional Court or Council of State) is possible.
However, the research shows that certain Member States establish specific
bodies for dealing with appeals against decisions on residence permits, such as
Belgium’s Council of Aliens Appeals (with a specialized administrative
jurisdiction) or Malta’s Immigration Appeals Board. Another example concerns
Sweden, where with the introduction of the Swedish Aliens Act in March 2006,
Migration Courts were established. Subsequently, reviews of migration courts’
decisions are made in the Migration Court of Appeal. In the UK, on the other
hand, there are Asylum and Immig ration Tribunals working according to

34
specific Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (Procedure) Rules. A few countries
restrict the right of appeal to decisions in relation to certain permits. The appeal
rights as regards permits related to work (including empl oyment, self –
employment and seasonal work) seem to be the most affected by limitations.
Moreover, lodging an appeal does not always have the effect of suspending the
decision. This has been reported as a gap in ensuring an effective remedy in
some countrie s. Unfortunately, a detailed analysis on this issue goes beyond the
scope of this study.

35
Chapter I II
Immigration policies in the European Union

3.1. New policies and trends towards immigration in the
European Union

Before examining the EU policy on immigrant integration, it is crucial to
give the definition of the concept of ‘integration’ itself initially. The answer to
the question ‘what is integration?’ is not so simple if we take into account the
multiple areas that it appeals to and di verse definitions given by different
countries which describes their own perceptions and priorities on the issue.
According to the Commission’s relevant Communication, integration is defined
‘as a two -way process based on mutual rights and corresponding ob ligations of
legally resident TCNs and the host society which provides for full participation
of the immigrants. This implies on the one hand that it is the responsibility of the
host society to ensure that the formal rights of immigrants are in place in s uch a
way that the individual has the possibility of participating in economic, social,
cultural and civil life and on the other, that immigrants respect the fundamental
norms and values of the host society and participate actively in the integration
proce ss, without having to relinquish their own identity .
The process of integration of immigrants into a society is not as one –
dimensional as it may first seem at first glance. It is a many -faceted
phenomenon in which we should at least make a distinction betw een the
institutional and normative dimension. Two important aspects emerge from this:
legal -political and cultural. Accordingly, legal -political aspect entails the legal
status of immigrants and is affected by the jus soli and jus sanguinis systems of
citizenship in member states. Jus soli system is based on principle of
territoriality; under this system all people resident in a territory have the same

36
rights, irrespective of their ancestry. The jus sanguinis system, by contrast, is
governed by the princi ple of descent; citizenship and political status are acquired
by birth passing from one generation to the next along ‘the lines of blood’.116
Those systems have great implications for immigrant integration.
Although European countries do not identify them selves as immigration
countries and pursue ‘zero’ immigration polices, with the continuing
immigration flows, all of them by and large were transformed de facto into
immigration countries and faced similar problems regarding this.
Simultaneously, Europe wa s experiencing integration process aiming to create
an ‘ever closer union’ between the peoples of Europe, assisted by common
institution and joint policymaking. However, this integration project didn’t
include immigration issues until recent times. Therefo re, the emergent of
common EU immigration policy is still incomplete, covering only specific parts
of member states’ domestic policies, and witnesses a coexistence of
intergovernmental with supranational forms of cooperation. In order to answer
the questio ns ‘why the need for common policy in the area of immigration
appeared?’ and ‘why has European integration drawn migration policy into the
EU’s sphere of competencies?’ it is important to briefly trace the historical
development of the integration in this area.
First efforts to manage immigration issues at EU level go back to mid –
1970s within the framework of Trevi group established in 1975 which
afterwards resulted in the creation of the Ad Hoc Immigration Group of senior
Officials (AHIG)44 in 1986 to deal with immigration mainly as security issues.
However, this kind of ad hoc institutional infrastructure wasn’t adequate to
respond properly to the challenges posed by immigration.45 Mid -1980s is
characterized with the intensification of coordinating immig ration matters
among European states. This was drawn mainly by two factors:
First ground was the consequences of immigration for domestic policy
makers and pressures derived from that. Here, it is good to delineate the patterns

37
of immigration to Western Europe after the WWII, in order to appreciate the
distinct challenges raised by various dimensions of migration and to better
understand how they affect the policy -making of EU states. Three main waves
of migration are of importance for the study.
❖ First wave captures labour immigration to Europe which occurred
in 1950s and 60s massively. The grounds of this initial wave were
the postwar economic boom that created acute labour shortages in
European labour markets. To address these structural economic
probl ems, private employers and governments across Europe
actively recruited cheap foreign workers. They had made important
economic contributions to the economic reconstruction and
prosperity in Europe. These migrant workers were labelled as
‘guests’, which as sumed return to their countries of origin when
labour conditions changed. Contrary to these expectations, most of
the migrants decided permanently settle in Europe. Moreover, in the
early 70s, Western Europe experienced economic recession resulted
from the oil crisis of 1973 -74. All these pushed governments to
increasingly stop the immigration by terminating recruitment
agreements. This shift was significant for European policy and
heralded the restrictive policies of future.
❖ Restrictions in European st ates toward labour migration fuelled
second wave of immigration – family reunifications; settled
migrants began to bring their families. Liberal democratic character
of domestic environment easily allowed it. This wave was more
robust and greater in scope. Thus, a pattern that began as a
temporary, economically motivated policy of labour recruitment
became permanent settlement. EU states could not individually stop
this unwanted and unexpected reality.

38
❖ The third and most recent wave of immigration to Euro pe,
increasing in the late 1980s, is asylum and illegal migration. The
origins of this ‘new’ wave can be divided into two instants:
reduction of the scope for legal immigration by restrictive policies;
and the end of the Cold War which resulted in number o f conflicts
and revolutions in Eastern Europe in the late 1980 and early 1990s.
During the span of only seven years (1988 -94) more than three
million persons sought asylum in Western Europe. For
humanitarian reasons and because of domestic constraints, suc h as
judicial and bureaucratic, and as a consequence of international
treaty obligations, the immigrant receiving countries had initially
far less room for manoeuvre to restrict the flow of asylum seekers
and refugees. Unlike previous waves, they didn’t co ntributed to
welfare state; instead those immigrants needed care of receiving
state and depended largely on public benefits. The image of new
immigration has been affected by this development. Consequently,
asylum seekers flow generated more negative react ion in the
welfare societies, and was perceived as a ‘threat’ to welfare state .
As one wave of migration petered out, either through natural loss of
momentum or state restrictions, another soon gathered strength, thus migration
was transformed but never ce ased in Europe. The third wave of migration
deserves closer attention because it has become so central to the politicisation of
migration since 1990s. The entire postwar immigration was certainly large in
scale. It generated 21 million immigrant population s living in Western Europe.
In late 1990s, immigration to EU fluctuated around a total for the EU of 850,000
net international migrants per annum by the end of the decade.
Second ground affecting the cooperation in immigration issues was
related with the d evelopment in integration process achieved by Single
European Act of 1985. SEA expected to reach the completion of common

39
market, including the free movement of people within the community territory
by 1992. Because internal free movement and abolition of internal borders posed
the challenge of external frontier control at the borders of single market and
internal security policies, supranationalisation of intra -EC free movement of
people by Treaty provisions necessarily made immigration and asylum issues
common interests for EU states. ’Low politics’ of free movement impelled
cooperation and integration in ‘high politics’ of immigration and asylum.
However, as we will see from the subsequent tendencies, while free movement
was ‘constitutionalised’48 at EU l evel, the same wasn’t applied to immigration
and asylum; they have remained mainly subject to intergovernmental
cooperation and been largely unchecked by judicial overview or democratic
accountability at both national and supranational level.
Consequently, those factors gave impetus for cooperation on the sensitive
issue such as controlling the national territory and population which is
considered the very core of state sovereignty. Schengen agreement, which was
signed by five pro -integration countries (Bel gium, France, Germany,
Luxemburg, and the Netherlands) in 198550, was first coordinated institutional
effort to achieve multilateral cooperation, even though it couldn’t initially
include all member states and was negotiated outside the EU framework.
Schen gen involved some important measures that later became central for
shaping EU common immigration policy. Geddes notes that, Schengen
signatories were pushing fundamental EC objectives, albeit beyond the
‘constraints’ imposed by the EC’s legal and political order, also excluding those
reluctant members to cooperate on the immigration and asylum issues.51 At the
core of the agreement are commitments by signatory states to dismantle their
internal border control regarding their nationals, establish common ex ternal
borders, adopt a common visa policy for TCNs, strengthen internal controls,
designate a state responsible for the review of an asylum claim, and exchanging
information by creating a common Schengen Information System (SIS).53

40
Schengen was a paralle l development that reflected intensive patterns of
cooperation on free movement and internal security.
These developments were ad hoc and intergovernmental, relying on
unanimity, in character. This informal cooperation defined immigration and
asylum within security frame and because it was largely run by those with a
security -centred understanding of migration and determination to restrict those
forms of migration defined as unwanted. An implication of this for immigration
and asylum cooperation was that ‘ lowest common denominator policies’
emphasising intergovernmentalism and restrictive policies emerged.
Many authors argue that, EU member states have largely failed to
properly integrate immigrants; their integration policies have not been
sufficiently eff ective so fa r. If the democratic states do not succeed in the proper
integration policy, they run the risk of having ethnic and social segmentation
coinciding in a lasting and systemic fashion. And here emerges the need for
common action in this area. Alth ough member states have pursued diverse
integration policies, there is an increasing tendency towards convergence arising
form similarity of problems and from the growing influence of supranational
authorities.
As EU is acquiring more and more competen ces in the immigration field,
its supranational institutions capitalise this by advancing and developing more
comprehensive and holistic EU immigration policy. Immigrant integration issue
has been drawn to EU scene only in 3 or 4 years. Before, it deemed t o be
responsibility of member states to integrate immigrants. Furthermore, EU policy
agenda were busy with elaboration of restrictive measures to keep TCNs out of
the union, rather than to improve status of TCNs already settled within its
boundaries. This was changed with Amsterdam Treaty108 and following
Tampere Council meeting; both had very important role in further development
of integration policy initiatives.

41
Tampere Council gave real impetus by defining the immigrant integration
as one of the four key elements of EU Common immigration policy. It states
that ‘the European Union must ensure fair treatment of TCNs who reside legally
on the territory of its member states. A more vigorous integration policy should
aim at granting them rights and obligat ions comparable to those of EU citizens.
It also should enhance non -discrimination in economic, social and cultural life
and develop measures against racism and xenophobia.’ Commission was
mandated to take the lead on this process.
While, the development of integration policies is largely the responsibility
of member states with local authorities having a very important role to play, EU
policies in this field could became facilitator for those local policies. Penninx
notes that there are different possibl e functions for EU in the field of integration:
first, framework -setting, where the EU should influence the way a society looks
at migration and integration; second, norm -setting, where such norms should
codify immigrant status, develop anti -discrimination policies and examine the
extent to which immigrants have access to public institutions, and to economic,
social, political and cultural spheres of the host society.For example,
Commission’s communications on the issue is seen as frame -setting initiatives,
and legislative measures related to integration can be norm -setting instruments.
EU has at its disposal several unique levers to make an effective contribution to
the development of integration policy, complementing the primary responsibility
of its membe r states.
As immigrant integration is relatively new issue in EU agenda, there are
limited political activities and developments. The Commission has been very
active so far to propose legislatives, present common frameworks by
Communications. It presented its Communication on Immigration, Integration
and Employment in 2003, which is the most developed document on this issue.
Therefore, mostly this document will be taken as a main referent through the
examination of immigrant integration policy of EU. Anoth er important

42
document is again from the Commission, the Annual Report on integration of
2004. It is important to mention that integration process involves many EU
policy areas which affect the status of immigrants other than immigration policy,
such as emp loyment social cohesion, education policies; therefore, it can be
considered a cross -policy matter.
EU also has developed the legal framework for combating discrimination,
which can seriously impede the integration process, and in particular, common
minimum standards to promote equal treatment and to combat discrimination on
grounds of racial or ethnic origin. EU adopted a package of anti -discrimination
measures. First two elements of this, Directive implementing the principle of
equal treatment between p ersons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin and
Directive establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment
and occupation, was adopted in June and November of 2000.122 Anti –
discrimination directives of 2000 have put in place policy fra me that appears to
draw heavily from UK and Dutch understanding of anti -discrimination. Another
element – ant-discrimination Action Program was also agreed in 2000: this
program will run for six years from 2001 and will have a budget of 100 million
Euros, including the activities combating discrimination on the ground of race
and ethnicity. The scope of Community legislation banning racial discrimination
is wide and covers employment, education, social security, health care, access to
goods and services and to housing. Those directives were to be transposed into
National law with the deadline of 2003; Commission monitors this process.

43
3.1. Immigration policies in Romania

The 2015 refugee crisis brought the topic of migra tion into the limelight
of public debate in Romania, from the point of view of Romania as a des tination
country. This situa tion was caused by the massive influx of people in search of a
safe haven away from the conflicts in Syria and Afghanistan, people that were
trying to reach developed European countries via the Balkan Route. The
concentra tion of a large number of refugees in the European Union (EU)
Member States situated in the Mediterranean (Italy and Greece) and the transit
to the West through countries such as Macedonia, Se rbia and Hungary – poorly
prepared to face such an influx – generated tensions between the local
popu lation and the immigrants, and these tensions were further fuelled by the
disagreements between Member States themselves.
Apart from the refugees and the immigrants that will come and that will
choose to stay or leave Romania, foreigners have been living among us for many
years. Almost 60.000 immigrants from third countries have decided to stay,
temporarily or permanently, in Romania. According to previous research,
foreigners’ access to Romanian territory is pre tty difficult, because “although the
entry and residence requirements are clearly stipulated in the relevant
legisl ation , namely Emergency Ordinance no. 194/2002, with its modific ations
and later add itions, these are hard to meet, at least for some categories of foreign
nationals.
Against the backdrop of pressures from the EU to accept in the next two
years 4.837 refugees, in mid September 2015, the Romanian Government
approved The National Immigration S trategy 2015 – 2018 and The Action Plan
for 2015, which have the following general strategic goals:
❖ to promote legal migra tion for the benefit of all parties: Romanian
society, the immigrants themselves and their countries of origin;
❖ to strengthen the con trol system of legal residence of third country
nationals on Romanian territory and the proper implementa tion of
removal and restric tive measures;
❖ to improve the na tional asylum system so as to make it efficient and
compliant with the n ational, European and intern ational applicable
legal standards;

44
❖ to take an ac tive part in the intern ational community’s and the EU
member states’ efforts to id entify sustainable solu tions for people in
need of interna tional prote ction and to socially integrate third
country n ationals.
One basic cond ition for the economic and social p articipation of
foreigners is finding accommoda tion. In Romania, foreigners’ access to an
apartment depends on several factors. Asylum applicants and individuals that
are granted a form of intern ational protec on are temporarily provided with
accommoda tion in local territorial centres belonging to the General Inspectorate
for Immigra tion (IGI). Other types of foreigners , those who come for work,
study, family reunifi cation etc , or who live in rented apartments, very few are
owners, and their access to social housing is p ractically impossible .
Foreigners’ access to both higher and secondary level educa tion is
guaranteed by the Na tional Educa tion Law no. 1/2011 which provides that third
country na tionals are granted access in equal cond itions as the ones enjoyed by
Romanian ci tinzens. Beyond this formal equality, ensuring immigrants’ actual
participation in the educa tion system is not a priority for public authori ties.
According to the ex isting data, in the school year 2014 – 2015, 7.110 third
country na tionals were registered.
The official valida tion of studies or professional skills acquired by an
individual in the country of origin is difficult in Romania. The consequence is
that immigrants cannot pur sue a con tinuation of their studies or p ractice their
profession on Romanian territory. For those who possess the actual ju stifying
documenta tion, the lack of bilateral agreements between the Romanian state and
some countries of origin regarding the recogn ition of diplomas/quali ficati ons is
one of the reasons behind this blockage. Furthermore, for those individuals who
lost/abandoned the aforem oned documents, the non -formal evalua on of their
competences is possible in Romania only for 103 professions via evalu ation
centres accredited by the Na tional Authority for Quali ficati ons (ANC).
The right to work of third country na tionals is restric tively regulated in
Romanian legisl ation for some categories, especially for those who came with
the purpose of seeki ng employment. In Romania, the number of third country
nationals who possess a residence permit with the purpose of seeking
employment is approximately 5.80010. Their right of residence is to their right
to seek employment. In case the working cond itions are abusive and the

45
immigrant decides to leave his/her work place, the abovemen tioned fact entails
that the immigrant has only 60 days at his/her disposal to obtain a new contract,
together with the related employment approval. This term is extremely s hort if
we take into consider on the labour market situa tion in Romania. If immigrants
fail to sign a new contract, their right of residence ceases and they end up in
illegal situa tions.
The recommenda tions within this policy brief stem from the results of the
study en titled „Discrimina tion, abuse and exploit ation: immigrants’ access to
civil rights” which inves tigates the integra tion problems faced by immigrants
present in Romania in five key areas related to fundamental rights: housing,
health, educa tion, work and access to goods and services (banking and
telecommunica tions). Some of the recommenda tions are also based on the
conclusions drawn from three public consulta tion sessions that brought together
public and NGOs which are ac tive in the migra tion field in order to debate the
draft policy proposals of the abovemen tioned study.

46

3.3.Immigration policies in France

This work provides an overview of how asylum and migration policies are
organised in France, including the organisation of the institutional and
regulatory context and framework for dealing with thirdcountry nationals
coming for the purpose of legal immigration or for international protection. It is
based on information provided in the France National Report of the EMN Study
The Organisation of Asylum and Migration Policies in EU Member States1, as
at January 2009.2 The Report was based on desk research: key sources were the
General Secretariat for Immigration and Integration of the Ministry of the
Interior; the French Office for Immigration and Integration (OFII); the French
Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons (OFPRA); the
French National Ins titute of Statistics and Economic Studies (INSEE); and the
Central Directorate of Border Police (DCPAF).
The Inter -Ministerial Committee on Immigration Control (CICI) is
chaired by the Prime Minister and made up of representatives from nine other
Ministrie s. CICI sets out policy guidelines in relation to migratory flows and
asylum, and approves an annual report to Parliament. The Ministry of the
Interior implements migration and asylum policy under Decree N° 2012 -771 of
24 May 2012. A Secretary General for Immigration and Integration coordinates
the departments in charge of migration, asylum and integration within the
Ministry of the Interior. The French Office for Immigration and Integration
(OFII), established in 2009, is the State operator responsible for the integration
of newly -arrived migrants. It also manages family and economic migration
procedures, national reception of asylum seekers, as well as assisted return and
reintegration. The French Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless
Persons (OFPRA) handles asylum cases. A number of organisations work as
partners of the public authorities in handling reception and integration of legally
staying foreigners .
Major legislative reforms have been implemented in 20113 including new
tools for promot ing economic migration, combating irregular migration and
strengthening integration policy and access to nationality. Increased focus has
further been put on combating irregular migration by reforming procedures for

47
the removal of illegally -staying migran ts. Legislative measures aimed at
improving the management of asylum applications and the functioning of the
CNDA were also introduced in 2011.
For entry, all foreign nationals must, as required, provide documents and
visas, accommodation certificates (for private visits), documents related to
purpose and conditions of stay and return, and documents required to carry out
work. Short -stay visas are issued within the framework of the common
regulations. Circulation visas are valid for several years, but with a limit of 90
days in a six month period. Long -stay visas are issued mainly for study, family
reunification and employment. A long -stay visa equivalent to a residence permit
(VLS -TS) was introduced in June 2009. Applications for international protection
are made with State representatives (Prefects), and the applicant receives
temporary stay. If an applicant does not have documents to enter, the division of
asylum at the border of OFPRA may carry out interviews at the border to decide
whether a case can be made. To settle, a residence permit is required. Generally,
temporary residence permits are valid for a maximum of one year, and are
renewable. They may be issued for: persons living on their own resources and
not taking up work; employment; private and fa mily reasons (issued to persons
granted subsidiary protection); study; scientific research; and artistic and
cultural activities. In addition, “skills and talents”, “employees on assignment”
and “European Blue Card” permits, valid for three years; full res idence permits,
valid for ten years (issued to recognised refugees); residence permits for
Algerian nationals; retired person's permits, valid for ten years; and EU and
EEA permits are also available. The integration policy for all legally resident
foreign nationals takes into account various economic, social and cultural
aspects. The most important feature is the contract of reception and integration,
and there are various employment -oriented initiatives. Citizenship can be
acquired automatically (by birth or by reaching the age of majority for children
born in France), by declaration (for young people born in France, who at the age
of 16 may acquire French nationality, and spouses of French nationals) and by
naturalization (by application after a minimum o f five years of residence,
reduced to two years in certain cases, knowledge of French and "good
character"). In principle, foreigners who wish to have paid employment must
hold a work authorisation, issued by Regional Directorates for Companies,
Competitio n, Consumption, Work and Employment (DIRECCTE) and a medical
certificate issued by the OFII. The various categories of work authorisations
include residence documents with permission to work (permanent residence card

48
or temporary residence permit) or provi sional work authorisations (APT), which
are valid for a maximum period of 12 months. In order to respond to the
recruitment needs of certain economic sectors, a list of fourteen shortage
occupations, open to third -country nationals, was established in Augu st 2011.
Asylum applicants are not permitted to work. However, if a decision has not
been reached within a year, they may apply for a work authorisation. Various
administrative and legal measures set out the conditions for returns, and the
police may car ry out (escorted) expulsions. There are a number of financial
incentive measures to facilitate voluntary return. For those not qualifying for
assisted voluntary return, humanitarian assisted return is an option.
The migration and asylum system is linked i n particular to two other
policy areas: 1) urban policy, which through actions in disadvantaged
neighbourhoods, includes the priority areas of employment, education, public
order and safety, and urban renewal; 2) health care policy, where all persons
with continuous residence for more than three months are entitles to health care
(AME).
There have been significant changes in recent years with the objective of
controlling migratory flows and redirecting them to contribute to the needs of, in
particular, the economy. Bilateral agreements with countries of origin have been
instrumental to this end. Preferential treatment is given to migration for certain
professional purposes, and the number of family reunifications has decreased. In
addition, transferable skil ls, in particular with students, are increasingly
promoted. A more pro -active integration policy has been implemented, and
integration is seen as a key challenge in the coming years.

49

CHAPTER 3
PIP’S CRISIS OF IDENTITY
3.1 Pip, between guilt and shame

Guilt does have a role to play throughout many different parts of the book. After Pip
first helps the convict Magwich by bringing him food and supplies, the next weeks are spent
wracked with guilt; he is sure that someone will find out, and that Joe espec ially will find
fault in him for helping a prisoner. Guilt makes Pip jump at small noises, quail in fear when
news comes, and it even interrupts his sleep. Eventually, his guilt over helping the escaped

50
convict does fade to the background, but for quite some time, Pip was ridden with a guilty
conscience over the entire thing.
Guilt comes into play again after he has received his fortune and lived in London for a
while. He realizes that he has been treating Joe and Biddy horribly. He never talks to them,
hardly ever writes, and when Joe visits, Pip is awfully embarrassed by Joe's simple ways and
embarrassing familiarity. Pip doesn't treat them very well, and he knows this –it is a constant
force, eating away at the back of his mind. His guilt keeps him from fully enjoying the
benefits of his new life, because he feels like he is a bad person, even if he is now a
"gentleman." When Pip does finally return home, and gets sick, he is so driven by guilt that
in his feverish ramblings he focuses quite a bit o n it. After that, he repents his bad behavior
and learns to treasure his family for the prize that they are.
One last rather unexpected area that guilt comes in is in relationship to Magwich's
capture and death. When Magwich arrives and reveals himself a s Pip's benefactor, Pip is, at
first, horrified, embarrassed and shocked. Eventually though, he comes around, feels bad for
Magwich, and as the old man is captured, Pip feels guilty for having treated him so horribly
and having thought of him in such nega tive terms. He stays by Magwich's side until his
death; guilt and fondness drive him to be a good friend to him until the end.
Guilt is a significant theme in Great Expectations and plays a major part in Pip's life.
In his formative years, he's constantl y made to feel guilty by his sister about still being alive
while his parents and five brothers are lying buried in the churchyard. Mrs. Joe, as is her
wont, also constantly reminds Pip how lucky he is that she's been so generous in raising him.
This in tu rn merely compounds his guilt at putting Mrs. Joe to so much trouble.
Such a guilt -ridden upbringing inevitably bears heavily upon Pip's interactions with
the outside world. When he encounters Magwitch on the Romney Marshes, although on the
face of it abso lutely terrified, Pip nonetheless instinctively feels a certain kinship with the
escaped convict.
He's been made to feel so guilty for just about everything that's happened in his short
life that he might as well be one of those wretched criminals festering away on that prison
ship hell -hole. So one could reasonably argue that Pip's almost -pathological guilt is as much a
motivation for helping Magwitch as fear. When Pip steals the food from the larder and a file
from the forge there's no prizes for guessing what emotion he feels later on.
Try as he might, Pip just cannot escape the burden of guilt. Even a change of scenery
doesn't do him much good in that regard. As a young gentleman and man about town Pip is

51
naturally keen to forget his humble backg round. Unfortunately, this leads to his treating Joe
with ill -disguised snobbery and disdain. Joe has been the best friend that Pip could ever have
had, and yet he treats him as an embarrassing reminder of his true social origins. After Joe
leaves, Pip is wracked with guilt once more. Yet guilt ultimately serves a didactic function for
Pip. That is to say it teaches him a number of very important life lessons. His good fortune in
life has come from a hardened criminal, a man guilty of many crimes over many years. Pip's
status as a gentleman of quality is a direct consequence of someone else's guilt. Not just his
status, but also a certain wisdom offer a profound understanding of the fundamental
connection we share with one another.
This universal guilt bin ds us all together in a gigantic human drama in which we all
play a part. The basic unity it embodies dissolves the artificial differences between the
blacksmith and the gentleman, the convict and the lawyer, old money and new. Guilt is a
unifying theme in the development of humanity, especially since the dawn of Christianity, and
is represented in miniature by Pip's convoluted journey to wisdom and understanding.
Throughout the novel, symbols of justice, such as prisons and police, serve as
reminders of th e questions of conscience that plague Pip: just as social class provides an
external standard of value irrespective of a person’s inner worth, the law provides an external
standard of moral behavior irrespective of a person’s inner feelings. Pip’s wholehea rted
commitment to helping Magwitch escape the law in the last section of the novel contrasts
powerfully with his childhood fear of police and shows that, though he continues to be very
hard on his own shortcomings, Pip has moved closer to a reliance on hi s own inner
conscience, which is the only way, as Joe and Biddy show, that a character can truly be
“innocent.”
Pip is feeling guilty of not visiting Joe more often, guilty of not telling the others about
the things he pilfered to feed the escaped convict, but especially to Joe, guilty of lying
everybody after he return from Miss Havisham, regarding the way her room looks like. Even
in this last example, Pip is feeling guiltier for not saying the truth to Joe, who he will later
reveal the truth, than to the others: Mrs. Joe Gargery and Mr. Pumblechook.
Secondly, Dickens reveals shame in Great Expectations especially in the relation between Pip
and Estella, as a profound feeling of humiliation produced by the heartless Estella. Since their
very first encount er, she laughed of his clothes and his boots, of his hands and of his social
class: “`With this boy? Why, he is a common laboring -boy!`” (Dickens, 1994: 104) and “`He

52
calls the knaves, Jacks, his boy!` said Estella with disdain, before our first game was o ut.
`And what coarse hands he has! And what thick boots!`” (Dickens, 1994: 105).
Estella, being the adoptive daughter of Miss Havisham, was taught since she was a
little girl that she should make men suffer by manipulating their feelings. That is exactly w hat
she did to poor little Pip, who believed the mean girl and tried to change himself in order to
please her, because she made him feel so ashamed: “I had never thought of being ashamed of
my hands before; but I began to consider them a very indifferent p air. Her contempt for me
was so strong, that it became infectious, and I caught it.”
Philip Pirrip, better known as Pip, feels guilty toward his uncle and best friend, Joe
Gargery even from the beginning. He steals some food and drink from the pantry “as soon as
the great black velvet pall outside” (Dickens, 1994: 24), for the escaped convict from the
churchyard. He feels guilty toward everybody of not telling what he did wrong, he is full of
remorse only for Joe: “as to him, my inner self was not so easil y composed” (Dickens, 1994:
70). Later, Pip feels ashamed of Joe and how little he knows compared with his beloved
Estella. He reproaches Joe with teaching him “to call Knaves at cards, Jacks; and I wish my
boots weren’t so thick nor my hands so coarse.” ( Dickens, 1994:122). He is not pleased with
his social status; he is not satisfied at how little he studies at the evening school held by Mr.
Wopsle’s great -aunt, so he decides to ask Biddy to learn him more, after he meets Estella.
After Pip acknowledges t hat he has a benefactor, Pip feels that Joe is his best friend
and a good man, but he wishes that he could learn more so that he could fit better in his new
world, in London. “I wanted to make Joe less ignorant and common, that he might be worthier
of my s ociety and less open to Estella’s reproach.”(Dickens, 1994: 193). He says that he was
disturbed when Joe came to visit him in London, that “if I could have kept him away by
paying money, I certainly would have paid money.” He feels ashamed of Joe’s manners at
table and his manner of speech, when the last one was calling Pip not “old Pip, old chap” as
always, but Sir. Pip feels guilty from time to time for not visiting Joe after he left the small
village behind, as promised, but he cannot convince himself to do so, although he thinks that
Joe would fall into his old tone in his forge.
While Pip was ill, Joe cared for him, falling back in his old tone, calling him “old
chap” once again. Pip told him once awake and conscious: “O, Joe, you break my heart! Look
angry at me, Joe. Strike me, Joe. Tell me of my ingratitude. Don’t be so good to me!”
(Dickens, 1994: 827). He felt guilty of not being able to be a good friend to his uncle, as Joe
was to him, who asked nothing in return and left when he got better.

53
Estel la is the one big love of Pip, whom he appreciates the most, even if she is so cold,
mean, and expecting him to cry because of her. She even succeeded to make him feel
ashamed of his own house that was not as big and as decorated as hers, although Satis Ho use
was nearly a ruin nowadays. “It is a most miserable thing to feel ashamed of home. There may
be black ingratitude in the thing, and the punishment may be retributive and well deserved;
but, that is a miserable thing, I can testify” (Dickens, 1994: 188) . When he was supposed to
expect Estella at the coach -office, he felt ashamed of the fact that he knows the ugly part of
London, the prison and even a convict with whom he encountered. He tried to escape of the
filthy smell from his lungs and his clothes, thinking “with absolute abhorrence of the contrast
between the jail and her” (Dickens, 1994: 468) but no luck.
Furthermore, even if Pip declared his love to Estella, she always warned him that her
heart is cold, not used to love or feel any emotion; she ma rried Bentley Drummle, the most
repugnant man, in Pip’s opinion. He loved her and thought about her his entire life, even
when she was married, although he tried to deny it in front of Biddy. “Nevertheless, I knew
while I said those words, that I secretly intended to revisit the site of the old house that
evening, alone, for her sake. Yes even so. For Estella’s sake.” (Dickens, 1994: 861) .
Pip had a life full of all sort of feelings: from fear, to love. However, guilt and shame
are dominating his life; he i s not satisfied with his living, with his friends or with his lack of
money. He dreams of becoming a gentleman and when he learns of his benefactor, he
experiments happiness and eagerness, but even this is ruined when Abel Magwich reveals
himself. Pip is d isgusted of him, at first, then he fears of losing him, and in the end, he says
that Abel is a better friend to him than he was to Joe and this thought fills his heart with
shame and guilt.

3.2 Pip’s transformation

Charles Dickens’ Great Expectations co ntains a wealth of moral, social, and
philosophical insights. Life with rich characterizations, fairy -tale elements, grotesque and
bizarre plot twists, Victorian social issues, and a beautifully thoughtful and imaginative
commentary on the universal human themes of loss, guilt, abuse, identity, money, social
status, and love, this novel remains an outstanding example of truly great art, both popular
and classic. Great Expectations stands out among Dickens’ writings as a story that does not

54
end as happily as many of the author’s other works, and in fact possesses two separate
endings.
In this book, Dickens uses the young protagonist Pip to explore the idea of the
identity of the Victorian gentleman in relationship to his society, employing fairy tale
constru cts to ridicule the romantic illusions of the time period. A bildungsroman of epic
proportions, the formation, distortion, and redemption of Pip’s identity illustrates Dickens’
narrative of secular transformation.
Although Pip is a radically different hero from Scrooge, Oliver Twist, Amy Dorritt, or
other more typical Dickensian protagonists, he embodies characteristics of Dickens’ thought
in extremely vivid and complex form. Pip’s story of identity formation in a nineteenth century
English context demonstr ates how Dickens’ life and writings, influenced by spurious and
inconsistent theological beliefs, express the idea that sin is largely social rather than personal,
and that therefore redemption is a secular rather than a religious concept, illustrated in t wo
different ways in the multiple endings to Great Expectations. Although unique among
Dickens’ characters, Pip also remains an archetypal Dickensian protagonist in his attempts to
form his identity.
Any status he attains in the world will be the result o f his own efforts. He will be
totally responsible, himself, for any identity he achieves”. Great Expectations, like many other
Dickens works, investigates themes of identity, social class, and relationships. Dickens
protagonists such as Pip, David Copperfi eld, Esther Summerson, and Martin Chuzzlewit
engage in the search for a unified, coherent identity. They must learn who they are in
themselves and in relation to the rest of the world. Pip’s quest to find his true identity is
especially tragic and multifa ceted, remaining one of the finest examples of Dickens’ tendency
toward realism in his vision of the world. This vision is both Victorian and timeless, for while
at first Pip believes his identity is that of a gentleman, the most coveted position in Victor ian
society, he eventually realizes that a true gentleman is one characterized by gentlemanly
qualities, not one merely possessing gentlemanly trappings.
The story of Pip’s transformation into a gentleman, like David Copperfield and large
portions of Bleak House, is told by a first -person narrator. Characters in need of redemption
generally become rather disagreeable, and Pip’s story fits this pattern.
Although likeable enough at the beginning as a kind and abused orphan, Pip eventually
becomes a guilt -ridden snob who outwardly comes to conform to society’s idea of a
gentleman while despising his true friends and engaging in a self -destructive relationship with

55
the dangerous Estella. Established firmly within the bildungsroman or coming -of- age genre,
Pip’s story is the tale of a young boy whose identity is distorted as it is forming, but is
eventually reconstructed in the end. Because Pip becomes twisted, however, he becomes less
and less likeable, with some exceptions, as the novel progresses. Yet it in ord er for readers to
be instructed and find catharsis in Pip’s transformation, they must be able to identify with the
deluded young man.
The effect of using the first -person is completely to reverse the normal problem about
keeping a reader’s sympathy. Peopl e do not, in the ordinary way, have much difficulty in
liking someone who tells the audience how bad he has been. Pip’s identity re -formation is far
more powerful because of his sadder, but wiser narration throughout the course of his
ethereal, haunting st ory.
Consequently, Dickens writes Pip’s identity distortion as a study of twisted emotional
socio – economic values, not spiritual deficiency. As a fallen character, Pip possesses an
identity that for much of the novel is characterized by remorse, guilt, an d shame.
One of the great questions of the book is the analysis of guilt: who is at fault? Pip or
society? More explicit examination of what wrongs have actually been committed by Pip or
society provides a background for the redemption of Pip’s identity: if Pip is morally culpable,
then he is in need of personal redemption, and he is defined by his fall and the necessity of
restoration. If the primary fault lies with society, however, then Pip must simply learn to
overcome society’s negative projections of guilt onto himself. Dickens seems to answer that
the wrongdoing lies both within society and also within Pip (though mostly within society),
although unlike for Pip, no real provision is made for the restoration of society. Society is
certainly guilty of abusing and distorting Pip’s identity. This abuse, in turn, produces
tremendous shame in Pip, which overshadows his guilt for actual wrongdoing. Growing up,
Pip is abused by most of the adults in his life, and by his older sister in particular.
Pip’s story is told in both first and third person, and at the outset he explains, “Within
myself, I had sustained, from my babyhood, a perpetual conflict with injustice. I had known,
from the time when I could speak, that my sister, in her capricious and violent coe rcion, was
unjust to me. I had cherished a profound conviction that her bringing me up by hand gave her
no right to bring me up by jerks” (Dickens, 1994: 109).
Pip’s great expectations of education, money, and social status stem in part from the
abuse he r eceived at the hands of the adults in his life. Everyone else aggressively abuses Pip,
thereby eroding his self -concept, but through his well -intentioned but disastrous passivity, Joe

56
inadvertently sends Pip the message that Pip is not worth defending. Ad ditionally, despised
by Estella and made to feel dreadfully ashamed of who he is and where he comes from, Pip
reacts by deciding to become someone he will not be ashamed of being, a man of great
expectations. Mortified and devalued by the abuse of adults a nd the scorn of the wealthy
Estella, Pip searches for redemption throughout the novel, needing to have his shame relieved
so that he can form a coherent identity by dealing with his guilt.
Encouraged passively or actively by most of the other characters i n the novel to
believe that Miss Havisham is his benefactress, that he can become a gentleman merely by
acting and looking the part, and that Estella is meant to be his bride, Pip lives for a long while
in world of illusory fairytale expectations where all his dreams come true and he is blissfully
free of moral responsibility to God or his fellow man.
Great Expectations is a story about identity, specifically the identity of the protagonist
Pip and the origin, distortion, and transformation of his identity and the resulting clarification
of the relationship between himself and the world around him. Great Expectations begins with
Pip’s announcement in the second sentence of the novel, “I called myself Pip, and came to be
called Pip,” (Dickens, 1994:2) and sev eral lines later that “my first most vivid and broad
impression of the identity of things” (Dickens, 1994:3) was formed during the story’s opening
incident with Magwitch in the graveyard on Christmas Eve. Pip’s name, emphasizing the
concept of growth, is e xtraordinarily fitting. Unique names often characterize their possessors
in literature: Peter Pan, for example, another orphan boy, has a name appropriately
reminiscent of the Greek god Pan, a god of nature and nymphs.
As an abused orphan, Pip is not only completely lacking in a positive bestowed
identity, but he is also so undefined that he actually names himself. Consequently, Pip’s
journey to finding his true character involves great struggle and conflict and contains many
missteps and failures. Through out the course of Dickens’ novel of transformation, Pip must
learn to claim his identity through recognizing the difference between morally -induced guilt
and socially -induced shame, and coming to accept the loss of his illusions and the love or
forgiveness of those whom he has wronged and been wronged by, regardless of whether his
redemption ends up being more social or moral in nature.
Like most children, young Pip was utterly unable to retain or even begin to form a
healthy identity in the face of his orp haned state and the violent physical and emotional abuse
perpetrated by most of the caregivers in his life, so his identity is defined from the first by
shame. Pip feels ashamed of simply being alive, and worthless and unloved as a result.

57
His sister cons tantly reminds him that she brought him up “by hand,” yet
simultaneously implies that Pip was not worth the upbringing. When he has been to visit his
parents’ graves in the churchyard without informing her, Pip is appalled by his sister’s
outraged reaction . He recounts the conversation: Mrs. Joe asks, “Who brought you up by
hand?’ ‘You did,’ said I. ‘And why did I do it, I should like to know!’ exclaimed my sister. I
whimpered, ‘I don’t know.’ ‘I don’t!’ said my sister. “I’d never do it again” (Dickens,
1994:14).
From his earliest years, Pip is raised to believe that he is utterly valueless as a person.
Despite Joe’s kind assurances of Pip’s value, Mrs. Joe is a far more powerful and dominating
figure in Pip’s life, so she is the one Pip listens to, not the kindly but powerless Joe.
Upon first being introduced to the wonders of the upper class through his initial visit to Satis
House, Pip suddenly begins to dream of an identity he might one day attain that could bring
him social acceptance: the identity of th e gentleman. Because all he consciously searches for
is social acceptance, the gentlemanly identity that Pip begins to construct in earnest at
eighteen when he inherits a fortune is an identity that is solely focused on external social
mores.
Human nature in the Victorian Era was similar in that the attainment of respect from
one’s peers meant that in his tortured quest for personal value, Pip would have to obtain the
correct education, spend the right amount of money, be seen at popular locations, live in
socially acceptable accommodations, and wear all the proper clothes and accessories. In this
way, Pip was trying desperately to be accepted by his society and to convince himself that he
did in fact possess genuine worth as an individual, as he looked to society’s acceptance to
validate his worth. In allowing his society’s views of power to determine his values, Pip
moves further away from establishing a realistic identity and genuine relationships.
When Pip begins to see the colossal foolishness of having built his identity around the
idea of becoming a socially acceptable gentleman and marrying Estella; shockingly, the great
expectations that he had thought were being realized are immediately and perhaps forever out
of his reach. Pip is unable to accept t hat the convict, a man who represents the lowest part of
the lower classes, an aspect of his identity from which Pip has deliberately tried to escape, is
actually financially responsible for making Pip the gentleman he has become. Once he
realizes that the money is “tainted,” Pip refuses to accept it , although this is quite simply an
act of pride.

58
Although Magwitch’s motivations for his generosity were complex and somewhat
self-serving, they did involve genuine love, and the money was honestly earned. Pip had no
charitable reason for refusing to continue to accept the money. Because his identity was so
class -conscious and external, he simply could not stand to obtain his social status through the
means of a lowest -class citizen.
As Pip comes to focus on ou tward appearances more than inward qualities, he
inexorably begins to lose his soul or identity while it is yet forming, as he comes to the point
of crisis in which he meets Estella at the young age of thirteen. Pip comes to despise his
occupation as a bla cksmith, and is discontent with his “coarse hands and . . . common boots”,
the external reminders of his life as a poor commoner. Pip detests his life, his friends, for they
are common, his occupation, and those interior and exterior qualities in himself w hich he
perceives to be “coarse and common.”
Pip’s illusory world of external socioeconomic expectations comes crashing violently
down on his head when he learns that Magwitch is his mysterious benefactor. When
Magwitch reveals the truth, Pip says, “All th e truth of my position came flashing on me; and
its disappointments, dangers, disgraces, consequences of all kinds, rushed in in such a
multitude that I was borne down by them and had to struggle for every breath I drew”
(Dickens, 1994: 568). Not only is P ip devastated to learn that Miss Havisham is not his
benefactor, and that therefore he has not been groomed and dandified for Estella’s sake, but
also, he is horrified to discover that all his attempts to escape the dark violence of his past are
for naught , and that it is that very violence itself that has made his rise in social status
possible. Because Pip’s great expectations and very identity itself are constructed upon an
external foundation, his expectations are utterly shattered by Magwitch’s revelat ion.
When Pip comes face to face with Magwitch towards the end of the novel, Pip is
suddenly forced to realize that his very soul, his entire identity, is based on a lie. All his hopes
and dreams for the future immediately appear to be distorted and unatta inable, and Pip is left
to wonder who he really is, what he truly values in life, and how on earth he can live in
poverty after having lived as a gentleman, in a world where a gentleman is defined by either
his parentage, or his money, or both. Pip snobbis hly decides that Magwitch’s money is
“tainted” and that he, Pip, can no longer accept it.
One ironic aspect of Pip’s disillusion, however, is the fact that even had he known all
along that Miss Havisham was not his benefactor and even if he had loved Biddy , not Estella,
he might well have ended up becoming the same kind of gentleman that he did in fact turn

59
into. Pip is the consummate class -conscious Victorian gentleman, and he values the same
external things that his society values, neglecting the importan ce of internal qualities of
nobility.
The devastation of Pip’s illusions is in some ways similar to Estella’s disillusionment.
Raised without authentic love or empathy, Estella’s identity never included much kindness or
compassion. However, her abusive ma rriage to Bently Drummle, and through this torment
Estella finally realizes, like Pip, that she has been proud and selfish, basing her identity upon
meaningless externals rather than internal priorities.
When Pip and Estella are confronted by great sufferi ng and the destruction of their
illusory values, only then is the opportunity for any kind of redemption possible in their lives.
Faced with the reality of their value distortions, each is challenged to re -form his or her
identity in correlation with kindn ess and humility. For Pip, being expected to show gratitude
and friendship towards Magwitch becomes the turning point in his shallow existence. After
attempting to help Magwitch escape the country, Pip finally comes to empathize with the
convict, and he te lls the reader that “in the hunted wounded shackled creature . . . [was] a man
who had meant to be my benefactor, and who had felt affectionately, gratefully, and
generously, towards me with great constancy through a series of years. I only saw in him a
much better man than I had been to Joe” (Dickens, 1994: 796).
Only once Pip finally comes to terms with his selfish love of money and prestige at
the expense of his humanity is he able to show great loyalty and love to Magwitch, humble
himself before Joe an d Biddy, and obtain a sort of works -based absolution from his guilt. For
Estella, the turning point takes place outside of the story, as she is terrorized and abused by
Drummle.
She tells Pip that “suffering has been stronger than all other teaching”(Dick ens, 1994:
865) and has clearly been changed for the good as a result. Once the identities of Estella and
Pip are thus brought to crisis, the two are then afforded the capacity for rebuilding their souls,
and re -forming their identities into that which is more humble and compassionate.
Throughout the trials and frustrations that Charles Dickens experienced in his quest to
become a Victorian gentleman, the author came to believe deeply in the necessity of holding
an accurate perception of one’s life prioriti es. Like many Victorian society members, Pip’s
moral and socioeconomic values have an external, social, romantic, and monetary slant, and
his idea of the nature of a true gentleman is deeply flawed.

60
Pip’s expectations and very identity are shattered by th e appearance of Magwitch and
his inescapable relationship to violence near the end of the story, Pip is prompted to come to
terms with the hollow and false identity that he has constructed for himself, based upon
flawed premises of what was truly valuable in life. It is only when Pip’s gentleman identity is
inadvertently destroyed by Magwitch, its patron, that Pip is able to begin to understand his
need for the internal values that define a true gentleman. Estella’s soul, scarred as it was being
formed, is similarly undone by her abusive husband Bently Drummle outside the pages of the
book, and it is only after this suffering that she, too, is afforded the opportunity to construct a
new identity for herself based upon qualities of true nobility.

3.3 Crime and Punishment

The World of Laws, Crime and Punishment in Great ExpectationsGreat Expectations
criticises the Victorian judicial and penal system. Through the novel, Charles Dickens
displays his point of view of criminality and punishment. This is shown i n his portraits of all
pieces of such system: the lawyer, the clerk, the judge, the prison authorities and the convicts.
In treating the theme of the Victorian system of punishment, Dickens shows his position
against prisons, transportation and death penal ty.
The main character, a little child who has expectations of becoming a gentleman to be
of the same social position of the girls he loves, passes from having no interest on criminality
and its penalties to be very concerned on the issue. By means of oth er characters, for instance
Mrs. Joe Gargery, Dickens tries to define the people’s common view about convicts,
transportation and capital punishment. In portraying the character of the convict, Dickens sets
out the case in hand of two people sentenced to t ransportation for forgery of banknotes and
analyses their psychology. By reading the novel, the reader becomes aware of the Victorian
unfair justice regarding poor and illiterate people, but advantageous towards the rich and
educated middle -class.
Througho ut Great Expectations, Charles Dickens's attitudes toward crime and
punishment differ greatly from his real -life views. The author's contradictions toward crime
stem from the fact that Dickens was constantly torn between his childhood memories of
prison an d poverty and the legal training he gained as an adult. Dickens knew how hard –
pressed life was for thousands of English families in mid -ninteenth century England, and he
knew the legal side of such desperation –a jungle of suspicion and fear and hate. As a result,

61
an ideological dichotomy is created within Dickens that reveals a more liberal stance towards
crime in his fiction, than in his non -fiction writing.
The majority of Dickens's writing, both fiction and nonfiction, focuses on "social
questions such as crime and punishment. As a novelist, Dickens tends to take a more liberal
view on crime. This is evident throughout Great Expectations which expresses clearly enough
a reaction against penological reformism. Using Pip as a vessel to express his latent v iews of
criminals, Dickens expresses his deep -rooted memories of poverty and a father sentenced to
debtor's prison. This contradicts the fact that in real life, Dickens believed the ,,model
prisons” to be too lenient to their inmates and extolled instead t he virtues of hard and
unrewarding labour, a regime which relied more upon punishment than moral improvement.
During this period, London was a city that was experiencing industrialization and risein
wealth. Althought not everyone benefied from this develop ment, all members of society were
obsessed with growing and sustaining financial fortunes.
For this reason, those members of society who were forced to commit crimes in order
to survive were very harshly dealt with and punished; theft represented a threa t to an
individual’s wealth and was therefore determined to be as serious as murder.
As crime increased in Victorian England through widening gaps between the rich and
the poor, the government was forced to find alternative solutions to the overcrowded pr ison
houses. A new form of punishment emerged in the form of deportation to foreign colonies. An
interesting episode in Great Expectations is about Pip’s visit to the legal office of Mr.Jagger’s.
Mr. Jagger’s office is located within a catchment area of Lo ndon that is synopsis with the
legal system, this being near the courts and the prison, Newgate. Pip’s view of the offices is
described through words such as dark and dirty and seems to contradict with the archetypical
view of solicitor’s office and thus p resents a view of law and order as something that is
corrupt or unsanitary. Dickens locates these houses of law near to a slaughterhouse, thus
drawing a direct comparison between the public slaughter of animals and the implementation
of capital punishment through open executions.
For Pip, Mr. Jaggers, portrays a sinister air that horrifies the young man. This is
further impeded by his introduction to the housekeeper Molly, a former client who has been
acused for murder. She is treated inhumanely and is forc ed to dispay her scars to Pip,
Dummle and Startop, almost like an animal in a zoo. Even though she has been cleared of her
crime, her mere association with the wrong side of the justice system has left her as a second –
rate citizen who must serve and honor the great Mr.Jaggers.

62
Dickens’ view of criminals differ from the popular view of convicts during the Victorian age.
He represents the prisioners and those accused of crime in a sympathetic light, clearly
differentiating between those who are victims of an unjust society whose toleration of poverty
necessitated such crims and those who commit acts aimed at self profit. Furthermore, through
the dramatization of characters such as Compeyson, he criticizes the inconsistency through
wich the punishments are impl emented. Compeyson, like Magwith has commited the crime of
forgery but because of his higher social ranking and appearance of elevated status he is
handed a lesser sentence during the trial and the inconsistencies of the law is demonstrated.
While, charac ters of the legal system are represented as corrupt and evil, the convicts
themselves are shown to be honest. Magwith, for example, is portrayed as a loving, generous,
sympathetic man who spends his fortune to repay Pip for one act of kindness. When Pip
learns of the source of his wealth he feels repugnanc towards Magwitch, he cannot
comprehend the fact that a gentleman can be created through the act of someone who is
related to crime and theft. Pip, sees the true nature of the justice system and recognizes that it
punishes the wrong people : ,,my repugnance to him had melted away, and in the hunted
wounded shackled creature who led my hand in his, I only saw a man who ment to be my
benefactor, and who had left affectionately, gratefully towards me with grea t constancy
through a series of years” (Dickens, 1994: 796) .
Parts of the plot depend on crimes committed in the past by Magwitch and Compeyson
are both convicted for various kinds of fraud and by Mollie, Jaggers' housekeeper has been
acquitted of murder, although she is almost certainly guilty.
In more general terms, Pip's contacts with Wemmick and Jaggers and his visits to Newgate
make him very aware of the consequences of crime, and of sentences that are often out of
proportion with the crime committed. At the end of the book, by planning to help Magwitch
escape, Pip himself is in danger of punishment.
The themes of crime and punishment and justice naturally arise around Magwitch
since he is an escaped criminal when Pip first encounters him in the openi ng of the novel and
is called to account for his crimes in the end of the novel. "You have a returned Transport
there," said the man who held the lines. "That's the man, wrapped in the cloak. His name is
Abel Magwitch, otherwise Provis. I apprehend that ma n, and call upon him to surrender, and
you to assist" (Dickens, 1994: 792). Pip sees how crime and punishment works in what
Dickens portrays as a corrupt justice system. Pip also sees the injustice one person can
express toward another when he comes to val ue Magwitch differently than he did before. "I

63
will never stir from your side," said I, "when I am suffered to be near you. Please God, I will
be as true to you as you have been to me!" (Dickens, 1994: 798).
Even though Magwitch is not by any means a model citizen, he displays many traits
that makes him in many aspects a much better person than most of the law -abiding characters
in the novel. This includes Pip, who turns his back against those who loved and cared for him
most. First, he turns his back agai nst Joe and Biddy out of shame for their poverty. Then he
turns against Magwitch when he finds out that he's Pip's benefactor. Although his repulsion
towards Magwitch is somewhat justifiable, Dickens' point still comes through clearly, which
is that a pers on should not be not be judged for the clothes one wear, or even always for the
crimes one commits.
Ultimately, through Pip's development and that of the characters around him, the novel
suggests that the only true and enduring scale of justice is the huma n conscience. As Pip
becomes more compassionate, he inspires empathy among previously stoic characters like
Wemmick and Miss Havisham as well. In the end, the novel's most fulfilling portraits of
justice are the sincere apologies and forgiveness exchanged between Pip and Miss Havisham
and between Pip, Joe and Biddy.

CONCLUSIONS

All in all, Great Expectations is considered the best balanced of all of Dickens' novels,
though a controversy still persists over the ending. Dickens had originally written an ending
where Pip and Estella never get back together. Nevertheless, Dickens pub lished the ending
where all is forgiven and Estella and Pip walk out of the Satis House garden together. It was,
perhaps, an ending that Dickens would have like to have had for his own life.
The novel clearly imparts a lesson that one should never assume or expect too much as it
could lead him or her to lose sight of his or her goal. In addition, the story also depicted the
value of gratitude as shown in Pip’s desire to help Magwitch even though he was initially
reclutant to do so.

64
In the above -mentioned paper, I have chosen to analyze everything that involves social
emancipation with regard to the main character, Pip, which goes through several stages in
order to achieve in the end what he has the most wanted, namely social emancipation.
First of all, fo r a better understanding of the chosen topic, I decided that the first chapter
should cover and refer to the period in which the novel was written. Also, the information
about the life and work of the author and the role of social class, in my opinion brin g to the
readers a suitable background and also added value. Another important issue addressed in the
first chapter is represented by the social class and the examples of characters belonging to
different classes. This is represented very well through the character of a child entering his
adulthood with many complications. Pip goes through many life difficulties, which, in the
end, ultimately trains him to become a strong person. Charles Dickens' approach is very
interesting because the social class has bee n a topic of interest in the past and continues to be
in our day. The way he presents Pip's life and his immense desire to advance, awakens to the
readers curiosity and increase the interest.
Secondly, I have proposed that through my work, to better and m ore concretely
illustrate the negative effects that are brought with the burning desire of the main character of
being a gentleman, and for this I have presented both in the second chapter as well as in the
third, the stages of Pip's transformation and its spiritual states. Throughout the work are
presented Pip's transformation steps, which I have chosen to summarize in chapter three,
through the presentation of the guilt and shame, but also a central theme, crime and
punishment.
The Gothic elements, as wel l as the relations of the main character with the others, are
the key points of the work, because through them is realised the transposition of the main idea
of the novel, which is in fact a novel of development. The novel is also considered to be semi –
autobiographical of Dickens, meaning he draws ideas from his own experiences and portrays
these in the book. For instance, when Dickens was a youth, his mother forced him to work in
a factory for which he never forgave her for. In the novel, the 'mother -figur es' such as Mrs
Joe, treat Pip cruelly representing Dickens' adolescence. Charles Dickens was known as a
'social reformer' meaning he did not believe in how the community was run and also with
people's frame of mind and perspective on society. During the t ime the book was written,
many key events were happening in history such as the industrial revolution. The revolution
caused many social and economic changes. For example, people that were once extremely
deprived now had the chance to even become an aristo crat. Despite this, there were still

65
extremes in the difference between the affluent and the poor. This often led to shocking
injustices in society that were being unpunished due to that the committer of these crimes,
were sometimes classed as a gentlemen.
Charles Dickens uses characters to represent different classes, and that's why I chose
to talk in chapter 2, about how he created some memorable characters. The lower working
class is shown by Joe. Joe’s character is based on Dickens’ father who was also a congenial,
hospitable and generous man very much like Joe. Pip describes him as a mild, good -natured,
sweet -tempered, easy -going, foolish dear fellow. Charles Dickens is trying to show that
working class are more pleasant than the upper classes. Joe is happy and very comfortable
with his class. Pip describes him as being very uncomfortable when he is made to step away
from his working class identity.
The concepts of self -responsibility and the cost for choices made make up his lessons
in the last part of the work. My opinion on the research results that materialized in the paper is
that nothing in life comes free and one must accept the consequences of the choices made.
There are disadvantages and advantages of ordinary people. As a realistic writer, Char les
Dickens is through the description of the ordinary people, reflecting the reality in his life time.
No one is perfect, and everyone has its markers. Seeing from the novel the hero Pip, we still
even have a lot to learn, such as his kindness, his streng th, and his optimistic attitude, etc.
Individual growth is a process of growing to be a perfect oneself. Though Pip’s great
expectations disillusion, he finally still gets back to the good moral character, and begins a
new life.
As a possible plans to capi talize on the research undertaken or to pursue the research in the
direction of the topic approached is an analysis about the novel’s two endings: the “official”
version, in which Pip and Estella are reunited in the garden, and the earlier version, in whi ch
they merely speak briefly on the street and go their separate ways.
In conclusion, the main idea that emerges from, is that Pip should be what he has
become, that his present human maturity is worth what it has cost him, and that if he had not
done so much to be ashamed of, he would not have been so redeemed. Pip escapes the tragedy
of the wish fulfilled since it was good that in a measure he have his desires, so that he can
know the degree of their falsity, and find himself a better man, with a better chance for
happiness in the uncertain future.

66

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Berberich, Christine. The Image of the English Gentleman in the Twentieth -Century,
London: Ashgate, 2007;
2. Bloom, Harold (ed.) -Charles Dickens's Great Expectations. New Edition (Bloom's
Modern Critical Interpretations).2010;
3. Bloom, Harold, Jason B. Jones -Charles Dickens (Bloom's Classic Critical Views) .
2007;
4. Clayton, Jay. Charles Dickens in Cyberspace: The Afterlife of the Nineteenth Century
in Postmodern Cu lture. New York: Oxford University Press. 2003;

67
5. Campbell, Elizabeth. Great Expectations: Dickens and the Language of Fortune.
Dickens Studies Annual. 1995;
6. Chesterton, G. K. Criticism and Appreciation of the Works of Charles
Dickens.Yorkshire: Ho use of Strauss, 2001;
7. Dickens, Charles, Great Expectations, London: Penguin Books. 1994;
8. Dickens, Charles. Charlotte, Mitchell. David, Trotter -Great Expectations -Penguin
Classics. 2002;
9. Gilmour, Robin. Pip and the Victorian Idea of the Gentleman. New Casebooks: Great
Expectations. Ed. Roger D. Sell. Hong Kong: Macmillan, 1994;
10. Hobsbaum, Philip. A Reader’s Guide to Charles Dickens. London: Thames and
Hudson, 1988;
11. Hagan, John H. The Poor Labyrinth: The Theme of Social Injustice in Dickens’s Great
Expectations. Nineteenth -Century Fiction, 2001;
12. Lindberg, John. Individual Conscience and Social Injustice in Great Expectations.”
College English. (Nov., 1961): 118 -122.
13. Miller, J. Hillis. Charles Dickens: The World of His Novels. Cambridge and
Massachusetts: Harvard UP, 1970;
14. Pugh, Edwin. The Charles Dickens Originals. New York: Scribner’s, 1912;
15. Paroissien, David. A Companion to Charles Dickens. Wiley -Blackwell. 2008;
16. Schilling ,Bernard. Rain of Years – Great Expect ations and the World of Dickens.
Univ ersity of Rochester Press. 2001.