In light of the increased prevalence of European migration and migrants in European societies, it is crucial to include this topic in future demographic studies. This special issue is an attempt to encourage this line of research by bringing together studies that focus on the growing share of European migrants. The four contributions cover different periods within the individual life course and address important aspects of the demographic behaviour of European migrants, such as their choice of destination, their linked family and migration trajectories, and their settlement conditions. Each of the contributions brings up relevant and key research questions for understanding intra-EU migration and the individual consequences of the moves, including the impact of family bonds in the destination country on return migration, the potential effect of mobility on fostering marriages between Europeans of different countries or the suitability of studying residential concentration for European migrants. Overall, they provide an excellent illustration of the different issues, approaches, data and methodologies that can be used to advance our understanding of intra-EU migration. The types of data sources used in the four studies range from aggregate flow statistics, population registers, surveys and census data on small areas. Their advantages and limitations illustrate that various complementary data collection strategies are needed to capture intra-EU migration flows and intra-EU migrants’ life trajectories (Kleinepier et al., in this issue).

The contribution by Palmer and Pytlikova focuses on migration flows following the eastward enlargement of the European Union. It advances our understanding of migrants’ decisions in a scenario of multiple potential destination countries. Using annual data on migration flows and stocks organized by origin–destination pairs as well as information on legal regimes, and controlling for a set of economic, social, cultural and geographical variables in sending and destination countries, the study examines the influence of labour market laws on the magnitude and composition of intra-European migration flows. In the 2004 and 2007 enlargement processes, citizens from eastern European countries gained the right to travel and reside in any other EU country, but many potential destination countries imposed temporary restrictions on their employment. The combination of freedom of movement and restrictions on access to formal employment, which differ by country as well as over time, allows the authors to test whether migrants from new EU member states were attracted to old member states with less restrictive labour market regulations. The results of the analysis confirm that destinations that granted migrants greater access to the formal labour market received larger flows of migrants from Eastern Europe, but they also show that the importance of labour market access on migrant flows is mediated by social networks, language ability and educational level. Although labour market conditions in destination countries play an important role in migrants’ decisions, migration is also closely interconnected to the family life course (Bailey and Boyle 2004).

The links between family and migration behaviour are the focus of the contribution by Kleinepier, de Valk and van Gaalen, who study Polish migration to the Netherlands, the largest migration flow to this country over the past decade. The period analysed consists of the years after Poland became a member of the EU but during which a work permit was still required for labour migrants. Using longitudinal population register data, the authors reconstruct the family and migration trajectories of young adult Polish migrants in the Netherlands during a period of 5 years after the initial migration move. Applying sequence analysis, the study describes the predominant family and migration trajectories and analyses the factors that select migrants in typical life paths. Given that a considerable share of Polish migration is of temporary and circular nature, special attention is drawn to work circumstances and family transitions that influence return migration. The results reveal that unemployment increases the probability of return migration, but that partnership and fertility transitions matter just as much. More specifically, having a Dutch partner or having children in the Netherlands significantly decrease the likelihood of return migration. The study also finds significant gender differences: men are more likely to remain single and return to Poland, while women are more likely to enter into a partnership and stay in the Netherlands. This article provides an excellent illustration of the potential of analysing family and migration behaviour jointly and from a longitudinal perspective and corroborates the idea that migration decisions are better understood when taking the family dimension into consideration.

The links between migration and family behaviour are also addressed in the contribution by Schroedter, De Winter and Koelet, which focuses on the influence that cross-national mobility earlier in life may have on the formation of European binational couples. Applying a broad life course perspective, the authors examine to what extent mobility experiences during childhood and early adulthood influence the choice of a partner from a different European country. The analyses rely on data from a survey conducted in 2012 in the context of the EUMARR project in cities in Belgium, the Netherlands and Switzerland. The results confirm that intra-European mobility experiences during early adulthood (both short and long stays abroad) are associated with higher intermarriage rates for this population. Intra-European mobility, hence, is essential in fostering the formation of European binational couples and culturally blended families, which may strengthen transEuropean social ties and, in the long term, enhance social cohesion within Europe.

The fourth contribution, by Sabater, examines whether the residential patterns of recent intra-EU immigrants in the UK exhibit signs of socio-spatial exclusion comparing different cohorts of migrants. Immigrants’ levels of residential segregation are known to shape their patterns of daily social interactions and thus may condition the pace of adaptation and integration in the host society. Mobile EU citizens are presumed to have few integration needs, as they are often regarded as temporary residents enjoying the same rights as natives do. However, they may face similar barriers to the hosting society as non-EU migrants, such as insufficient language proficiency, difficulties to access local social networks and housing, as well as spatial concentration in disadvantaged neighbourhoods (Kennedy 2008; Collett 2013; Van Mol and Michielsen 2014). The study by Sabater assesses whether the traditional pattern of residential concentration in ethnically similar neighbourhoods upon arrival being followed by dispersal towards areas with better living conditions also applies to migrants from Eastern and Southern Europe. Using data from the 2011 UK census and a comprehensive geo-demographic classification of small areas, the author describes the main socio-spatial characteristics of the neighbourhoods where immigrants from Poland, Spain, Italy and Portugal live. The results show that immigrants predominantly settle in urban areas upon arrival. Compared with former migrants with very clustered residential patterns, recent migrants exhibit more spatial dispersion in their residence choices. There are, however, important differences across immigrant groups: Spanish and Italian migrants are more widely dispersed across neighbourhood types than their counterparts from Portugal and Poland. In addition, Polish immigrants are overrepresented among migrants living in disadvantaged neighbourhoods. Overall, this study illustrates the potential of socio-spatial analysis to understand the interrelationship between residential choices and social exclusion or inclusion of intra-EU migrants.

This special issue offers a snapshot of recent research on intra-EU migration from a demographic perspective, shedding light on intra-EU migrants’ destination choices, odds of return migration, intermarriage and residential patterns. In this regard, the life course framework, which stresses the importance of the timing, sequencing and interdependencies of different life transitions, serves as a valuable theoretical guideline for studying mobility decisions, the life trajectories before and after migration, the family dynamics, and the integration processes of intra-EU migrants and their descendants (de Valk et al. 2011). A migration move within the EU is probably less disruptive on the life course than is the case for other international migration moves because legal obstacles have been removed and intra-EU migrants enjoy similar rights as natives in the countries of settlement. Nevertheless, the move constitutes a key life transition that will shape migrants’ life trajectories in multiple domains, including work, partnership formation, childbearing, social networks and further migration paths. In the context of ageing European societies, it is crucial to know more on how these moves affect intergenerational care relations, particularly for parents left behind. It may impact relations between parents and young children to an equal extent. It has been suggested that some migrants leave their young children behind when moving across Europe. The effect the separation might have on the well-being of both parents and children has yet to be addressed. At the same time, those European migrants who do have children in the country of destination still face the challenges of an educational system with which they are not familiar. In this regard, similar issues may come up as have been reported for non-European children of immigrants, including language barriers, lack of knowledge about the system or tracking into lower educational tracks, all potentially resulting in lower educational outcomes for these children.

The demographic implications of young adults’ intra-EU mobility for sending countries have so far largely been neglected. However, especially in a potentially highly dynamic migration context such as the EU, ignoring the country of origin perspective is extremely problematic (for more details, see the newly started Mobile Welfare project). Furthermore, the second generation’s own transnational movements and links as well as family behaviour also have yet to be studied. The studies in this special issue are a first attempt in this regard but need to be replicated in other countries in order to ascertain whether findings can be generalized across countries and groups. Comparative research in a borderless Europe is particularly promising, as it offers a unique opportunity to explore how the family domain and the socio-economic context in multiple sending and receiving countries shape the drivers, constraints and patterns of migration when there are no legal barriers. This last issue is especially relevant in and of itself: the extent to which EU legal distinctions between categories of migrants and associated rights are leading to new inequalities in the life trajectories of intra-EU and non-EU migrants and thus have an impact on social cohesion at large is significant for both researchers and society at large.

The broad transformation brought about by the process of economic, social and political European integration, as well as the relatively recent context of free mobility, has modified many features of migration which have not yet been examined. Whereas migration has traditionally been studied as a single move to a new country, contemporary intra-EU migration is often multidirectional, temporary or circular. These multiple moves of the individual and the family may have important consequences for the person in terms of social relations and well-being. In particular, the effects of high levels of mobility for the later life outcomes of children are still to be understood.

Migration studies have also drawn attention to various aspects of structural integration and social inclusion, such as the spatial settlement of migrants in the host country. Previous research has mainly focused on the ethnic dimension of the phenomenon (Bolt 2009), which is often more salient for migrant groups from outside the EU. However, recent studies have shown for the case of Spain that the intensity of residential segregation of eastern European migrants (mainly Rumanians and Bulgarians) in large Spanish cities is similar to that of migrants that arrived in the same period from other parts of the world (Sabater et al. 2012).

The wide variety of reasons for migration results in a highly heterogeneous profile of intra-EU migrants and their demographic behaviour. Compared with immigration waves from outside Europe, which involve visa and work permits, the free movements of Europeans across borders is also often more difficult to capture in data. These features of intra-European migration challenge studies on mobility within Europe. At the same time, given the importance of migration for European populations both now and in the future, demographic studies should pay extra attention to it in all its complexity. A life course perspective on intra-EU migration will increase our understanding of the dynamics of past, present and future migration flows within the European Union and their consequences. This special issue illustrates the fruitfulness of studying intra-EU migration from a life course perspective and provides valuable insights that can be the point of departure for further studies of key interest to not only demographers, but also scholars from adjacent disciplines, as well as policy makers.