This chapter explores the questions of what is a ‘family’ in EU law and whether EU policies sufficiently address family diversity and its consequences. The chapter departs from the premise that the prevalence of the nuclear family model has traditionally meant that the only valid form of family in EU law was one consisting of an adult man and an adult woman who live together in a single-state context and produce their own biological children. This model is, also, based on the sexual division of labour: the man is the main breadwinner, whilst the woman is the homemaker. Nonetheless, in recent years there is growing evidence of diversity in family forms. Moreover, there is an increasing departure from the traditional sexual division of labour. Although many EU Member States are already acknowledging this changing landscape of family life in their law and policy, the important question is whether the EU has been influenced by this: does EU law now sufficiently address family diversity and its consequences? In this chapter, this main question is analysed by examining the concept of ‘family’ employed across a spectrum of fields of substantive EU law.

One of LBJ’s signature civil rights achievements, the 1965 Hart–Celler Immigration Act still stands in providing the overarching structure for immigration regulation in the US today. Its enactment ended decades of overtly racist immigration laws, crowning the almost equally long campaigns by immigration reformers seeking a more egalitarian system. In securing passage of the legislation, LBJ provided essential leadership but accepted significant compromises to do so. The immigration overhaul succeeded in abolishing the most discriminatory aspects of the old system for immigration regulation, even as it has implemented new forms of inequalities that have criminalized migrations particularly from the US’s closest neighbors. This law has transformed the US through the most diverse immigration in national history, even as it has produced a large and persistent caste of second-class residents whose unauthorized immigration bars them from citizenship.

Following the 2015 refugee crisis, Norwegian politicians introduced proposals to extend a family reunification income requirement to refugee sponsors and to introduce an income requirement for permanent residence. Family sponsors must make enough money to qualify; and migrants must ‘get to work’ to qualify for permanent stay. This chapter seeks to explain why one of the income requirements was implemented and the other not. It harnesses Carol Lee Bacchi’s approach to policy analysis, asking, ‘What is the problem represented to be?’ in a close reading of relevant documents. It finds the two requirements inscribed into different narratives. One narrative establishes the arrival of an unprecedented number of asylum seekers foremost as a problem for the Norwegian society and the sustainability of the welfare state. An alternative problem representation brings attention to the concrete effects of such requirements on specific groups of refugees. The analysis identifies an economic drift and stratification of migrants’ rights. It argues this drift is part of the more general development in Europe, where money has become a more important tool to regulate migration.

The Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ) should enable citizens to travel, work and live anywhere in the EU safely and protected by the rule of law. This chapter discusses that claim by highlighting the interaction between free movement and non-discrimination rights of EU citizens on the one hand and specific AFSJ measures on immigration and criminal and civil matters on the other. It shows that the law has not evolved unidirectionally and that the interpretation of the objective of the AFSJ is unpredictable. At times, the law goes in the opposite direction to fostering free movement and is not in line with the fundamental nature of both EU citizenship and free movement rights.

The focus of this chapter is on the right to family life and the best interests of the child in the field of migration, and specifically on the Family Reunification Directive. The question addressed is whether and to what extent the Court of Justice of the EU relies on fundamental rights in giving shape and meaning to the directive. Following a brief overview of the main lines of scholarly analysis and state practice relating to the directive, and an exposition of the international human rights benchmark relating to family life and the best interests of the child, the chapter critically analyses the burgeoning case law of the CJEU on the directive from a fundamental rights perspective, beginning with the influential European Parliament v Council judgment and culminating in the most recent preliminary references. The key finding is that the Court is ambiguous about the role that fundamental rights should play in this contorversial policy area.

Categories traditionally accorded residence permits on humanitarian grounds are medical cases, unaccompanied children, persons with ties to a country, such as family or long-term residence. The chapter discusses whether these categories are entitled to human rights or humanitarian protection.

This chapter focuses on EU laws and policies on family reunification in order to demonstrate how they create new ‘others’. The creation of Union citizenship disrupted the binary logic of ‘national’ and ‘foreigner’ in national immigration regulation even though, at first sight, it seemed to have recreated it at the EU level as the ‘EU citizen’ and ‘Third Country National’ (TCN). However, on a closer look, it becomes apparent that the new picture is much more complex, as a new hierarchy of statuses with different packages of rights has been created at the EU level for nationals, EU citizens, and TCNs alike. This chapter compares and contrasts family reunification rights of Union citizens and TCNs granted under the Treaties, international agreements, and secondary EU law and sheds light on the different degrees of ‘otherness’ and privilege created at EU level.

The process of 'othering' is not a concern only of foreigners, but also of citizens with an immigrant background, being a label that is passed down from generation to generation. This chapter will look at the perceived discrimination, alienation, and feelings of 'othering' among second-generation Turkish immigrants in the Netherlands, involving an analysis of family reunification measures and how they are applied. To this end, the impact of the legal context on the lives of second-generation Turks is assessed not only through legal research, but also ethnographic field research. It can be concluded that the outcomes of the Dutch family reunification measures undertaken in the name of integration are in direct contravention with the stated intention. Rather than their legal situation, it is the administrative and legal hurdles that immigrants must overcome that alienate them and feed their feelings of exclusion and increase the distance between them and the native Dutch, just when they think they are getting closer.

Family reunion in exile may be a complex and challenging experience. Refugee families are often reunited in the host countries after having lived through long periods of separation, insecurity and violence. Assisting families in the process of reunification is discussed as an issue of priority, both from a psychological and a human rights point of view. Based on clinical experiences, the authors suggest that accompanying families in this process of transition is meaningful and useful. The chapter argues that work with refugees should be seen through a family lens, and that mental health professionals have the knowledge and background regarding families and systems that enable them to offer good assistance to families in reunification processes. A model for assisting families and dealing with the many challenges involved in the process of reunification is explored and discussed. The need for a more systematized approach is underlined, and research on the effect of conversations to families reunited in exile is called for.