“I can't say that things didn't work at all, but in relation to expectations, these first hundred days can't make me overcome the doubts I had” following the procedure that led to the creation of AIMA, said the researcher.


100 days

AIMA was created on October 29, a hundred days ago, following the end of the Foreigners and Borders Service (SEF), also absorbing the functions of the High Commission for Migrations, to respond to the 350,000 processes pending regularisation and to facilitate the process of integration of immigrants.

“It seems to me that, from the point of view of principles, the creation of AIMA is good, as it separates the police part from the implementation part of migration policy and the management of processes that have to do with integration”, but the response “to the huge backlog of requests that have been left behind” has been managed “in a way that has many absurdities” and “much more careful planning with the transition process is necessary”, stated Jorge Malheiros.

“Several things have left me with doubts over these hundred days”, such as the “relationship with the associative fabric that works with immigrants”, which “was not done and this opportunity was lost”.

The “structural dialogue” with civil society “is happening in a deficient way” and to this are added some problems in the issue of integration of immigrants

The integration component in AIMA's strategy must also be valued in its relationship with the labour market and education.

“We were already much more dynamic and more active in this matter”, he summarised.

“Although there is an urgency to respond to what is delayed, we cannot stop the other components of migration policy” which include integration, warned the researcher.


Asylum

Although he praises the reference to asylum in AIMA's own name – “an issue that has to do with human rights and with Portugal's international commitments regarding the reception of those who suffer persecution for different reasons in their country of origin, either in the context of the Convention on Geneva, or other forms of international protection”, Jorge Malheiros regrets the focus of the new structure.

In asylum, there has been “a discourse where the security component, the idea that we have to protect the national territory and that abusive asylum requests override the humanitarian component”, he said.

“There is a lack of stronger discourse here in relation to reception”, including the “issue of the distinction between what is effectively an asylum request that should be accepted or not”.

The specialist, who has developed several works in the area of human geography and migration processes, praised the facilitation of online procedures, from requesting documents to the recently announced family reunification processes.

But “even here there are some questions” with an increase in complaints about the online platform, the investigator concluded.