Brussels, 17/06/2008 (Agence Europe) - The Commissioner-designate for immigration, Jacques Barrot, indicated on Tuesday 17 June in Strasbourg that he supported the idea of “concerted immigration” between member states and third countries,. He therefore takes up the leitmotiv of “chosen and concerted immigration”, which France soon hopes to propose in its European pact on immigration. During the presentation of the two communications on common immigration and asylum policy (EUROPE 9683), Mr Barrot explained, “We have between 1.5 and 2 million third country nationals arriving in European every year…This immigration needs regulating”. The Commissioner explained that, “the principles making up these two communications will not be in opposition to the French approach and could even be judged as being complementary”. According to Barrot the Commission approach consists in setting down landmarks, which could then be taken by the French presidency to a member state level on a voluntary basis. He admitted that the Commission was unable to mobilise what the presidency was capable of doing but provided assurances that it would now be up to the Commission to propose application texts. In a reference to the document on common immigration policy, Barrot declared, “we want a Europe that is open to immigration in a spirit of solidarity, prosperity and security”. On this same theme, he expressed his support for the ban on mass approvals of residency for illegal immigrants. On the document on asylum, Barrot indicated that he wanted national legislation to converge in order to reach a higher level of protection and harmonisation in the EU, whether these were for immigration reception procedures or rules determining the state responsible for examining asylum requests (Dublin 2). Given the Irish no vote on the Lisbon treaty, Barrot declared that he was completely ready to propose use of the “passerelle clause” (Article 67 of the treaty) and submit legal immigration to codecision (for the instant it is decided at unanimity at the Council, with European Parliament consultation required). Nevertheless, he did call for a little time to propose this solution, because it required Council unanimity and consultation at the national parliaments. In the meantime, he is proposing greater dialogue between the Council and parliament on the texts. The Commissioner points out that he had such thirst for action that, “I don't want to suspend the institutional changes at all, which would delay our action”. (B.C./trans.r.h19.15)