Foreign investment and immigration: when bureaucracy punishes the people we want to attract

Recently, Andorra’s Head of Government, Xavier Espot, gave an interview to RTVA in which the controversy surrounding foreign investment and its desirability came up.

In an argument that I thought was very well put, the Head of Government made the point that we cannot have everything. If we want pensions in the long term, infrastructure in the medium term and a public budget to fund public policies in the short term, we need economic activity—and foreign investment undoubtedly generates a substantial amount of it.

That is clear to anyone willing to understand it. Obviously, if you are among those who believe that money grows on trees, or that there is a magical printer that creates money out of thin air, or you simply never think about it, you will not understand this article. 

On the other hand, if you know something about economics—or are at least interested in it—and apply common sense, you will understand. Resources are limited. Limited by what? By the country’s wealth.

And what generates wealth? Businesses that are up and running. Businesses consist of entrepreneurs and workers: the engine that enables the country to produce goods and services and generates returns that can then be redistributed. That is what secures our future as an economy and as a country.

Against this backdrop, the country’s immigration policies have recently been tightened. Why? Because, despite the economic activity that new residents bring, the rise in housing prices resulting from their arrival was creating short-term pressure that, at a particular moment, outweighed long-term thinking.

What Andorra can seek to attract are residents who bring value and stability, who do not harm the country’s reputation and who pay taxes and social security contributions, so that we have infrastructure, more public resources and guaranteed pensions for all Andorrans.

Well, now that this law has been tightened—in my view, abruptly and far too hastily, but with the worthy aim of regulating the mass arrival of residents—we find that these new residents are sometimes mistreated. Are we in favour of attracting residents with a more suitable profile?

Of course we are. But the service the country provides must be good enough and must meet the expectations of these new residents whom we have selected and want to attract.

I am referring specifically to the report also published by La Veu Lliure about the revocation of residence permits held by many new residents. The immigration regulations are frankly complicated and, in my opinion, flawed. When someone moves to the Principality, they do not move alone: the entire family unit moves with them.

What sense does it make not to process the entire family unit together, through a single application? Would it not be more logical to submit the documents demonstrating the financial means of the whole family at once?

Currently, the head of the family must first arrive and pay three full months of contributions to CASS, which can mean a wait of up to four months before family reunification can take place. 

And, of course, families do not simply split up. A mother or father cannot leave their children and partner behind in another country and set off alone on an expedition. Families move together. Moving together means that the whole family stays in the country during the months it takes to complete the paperwork.

But what happens when the various procedures and bureaucratic requirements involving foreign investment, notaries, registries or business licences drag on? 

Sometimes, a family unit may be unable to complete family reunification within the ninety-day period allowed for a tourist stay, leaving them in an irregular situation. Irregular because the person is breaking the law?

No: irregular because the way the rules are structured, combined with the practical reality of unacceptable administrative delays in Andorra, creates an unforeseen situation. 

The applicant, of course, takes steps to resolve that situation by submitting the family reunification application. Sometimes, however, they do so a few weeks or months after the ninety-day deadline.

The Immigration Department has deemed this late submission—made entirely voluntarily and in good faith, and caused in every case by delays within the administration itself—to be grounds for revoking the residence permit. Because, of course, the children spent a few months with irregular immigration status while attending school.

I believe this is nonsensical, an utterly disproportionate application of the rules. Their purpose was never to produce this outcome, but to ensure that no child is left unprotected and that there are no irregular situations in which applicants conceal the presence of children.

In this case, we are not dealing with an irregular situation: we are dealing with a situation caused by administrative delays, which the parents themselves are trying to resolve by submitting the family reunification application. There can therefore be neither bad faith nor any harm to the administration.

Logic cries out for this failure to be corrected by declaring residence permit revocations null and void in cases where applicants have acted voluntarily and in good faith. A legislative amendment should also be considered that takes account of processing times across other administrative bodies. 

At the very least, the current rules should be retained but interpreted fairly and consistently, recognising that a family staying in the Principality while completing various administrative procedures cannot, under any circumstances, be considered to have irregular immigration status.