EU leaders met in Brussels today with migration at the top of the agenda. Here we examine why this has happened and what the European Commission, as well as national capitals, could do about it.
Why has immigration become such an important problem again?
Only in April of this year did the EU finalize its new “asylum and migration pact” after almost a decade of often tense negotiations following the migration crisis of 2015 and 2016, during which almost 2 million people, mostly Syrian refugees arrived at the block.
Criticized by human rights groups, the pact aims to strengthen the EU's external borders and speed up the return of rejected asylum seekers, while distributing the financial and practical burden of resettlement more fairly between member states. .
However, despite irregular immigration to the EU being a fraction of what it was in 2015 (and falling by more than 35% this year compared to 2023), new anti-immigration sentiment is spreading in the bloc, fueled in largely due to the electoral success of far-right parties.
Anti-immigration, far-right and national conservative parties are in power in seven EU countries, from Finland to Italy, and support a minority government in Sweden. The far-right Eurosceptic party Liberty led the recent vote in Austria and Different für Deutschland has made historic gains in Germany.
In France, Marine Le Pen's National Rally holds the fate of the government in its hands, whose prime minister has described current immigration levels as “often unbearable.” And in Hungary, Viktor Orbán criticizes the “scandalous and unacceptable” EU migration policy.
What anti-immigration measures are national governments taking?
Germany, long seen as relatively liberal on migration, has tightened its asylum laws and last month reimposed controls at its nine land borders, a move widely seen as a threat to the EU's cherished principle of free movement. and its passport-free Schengen zone.
He is not alone. Citing terrorist threats and overwhelmed asylum systems, seven other Schengen countries have reintroduced border controls. The Netherlands has introduced what it calls “the strictest admission rules in the EU.”
Poland's Prime Minister Donald Tusk said last weekend that he wanted to go further by suspending the right to asylum for people crossing from Belarus in an effort to reduce irregular migration to “a minimum” and “regain the 100% management on who comes and goes.” .
This follows a similar measure by Finland for people arriving from Russia. Warsaw and Helsinki complained that Minsk and Moscow were helping people, mainly from Africa and the Middle East, enter the EU in a form of “hybrid warfare.”
Last week, Italy opened two centers in Albania where it will hold men trying to cross from Africa to Europe while their asylum applications are processed in Rome, a move described by Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni as a “brave and new path.” unprecedented”.
What options are being discussed at EU level?
There are several concepts on the table, none clearly defined and all needing much more discussion, but most involve some way of “delocalizing” the problem – eliminating it, as far as possible, beyond the borders of the EU into something that reminiscent, although not as radical, of the United Kingdom's ill-fated plan for Rwanda.
Under Rwanda's plan, irregular migrants would have been sent to the African country to have their asylum claims processed, and would have stayed there even if they were successful. So far this is not being publicly debated in the EU, but processing and detention centers abroad are.
“Hotspots”, “migration centres” or “return centres” are terms that designate facilities in third countries where asylum seekers may be held while their claims are assessed, or to which arriving persons may be deported. without documentation or whose application has been rejected. before being returned to their countries of origin.
There is also more discussion of the type of “association agreements” that the EU and individual member states such as Italy have sealed with countries such as Turkey, Tunisia and Libya, which aim to discourage people from trying to reach Europe in the first place. .
Fourteen member states, including France and Germany, signed a letter demanding a harsh “paradigm shift” on migration. Many want to see a big improvement in the “return rate” – the number of people deported after being denied asylum.
Commission president Ursula von der Leyen has promised action on this last point, including new legislation. He has said it is time for the bloc to look for “return centres” outside the EU, without defining how they might work or where they might be.
Although some European leaders have openly questioned whether Italy's deal with Albania could be replicated at EU level, Albanian Prime Minister Edi Rama has repeatedly insisted that it is only for Italy.
As countries like Italy push to be able to return migrants to, for example, Syria, von der Leyen has also said that the commission is open to reviewing the EU's list of “designated safe third countries.”
What could be the result?
The Polish government won support for its plan to suspend asylum for those arriving from Belarus and Russia, and the summit's final declaration reflected the new mood, calling for “decisive measures at all levels to facilitate, increase and accelerate returns.” from the EU using all relevant means.” EU policies, instruments and tools.
The commission must now present legislation to speed up deportations and a legal mechanism to allow immigration centers abroad. Many more meetings will be needed before the bloc arrives at a new set of common policies.
Meanwhile, national governments will continue to take unilateral measures (according to Dutch media the Netherlands would like to deport people to Uganda).
Although the talks were supposedly constructive, the pact on migration and asylum, which will come into force in the next two years, is already weakened. Many now argue it is not tough enough on deportation, with the Netherlands and Hungary demanding opt-outs.
None of the proposed new measures will be easy. Attempts to expand or replicate external partnership agreements, under which countries such as Tunisia and Libya are paid to contain and return irregular migrants attempting to cross the Mediterranean, will come under fire from NGOs following revelations of serious abuses. against human rights in that country.
“Hotspots” and “return centers,” however defined, are equally controversial: activists and researchers question whether they are, as their advocates suggest, humane and effective – or even legal – compared to a system of well-funded and EU-based asylum. Four of the first 16 migrants Italy sent to Albania this week were returned because they may have been minors or have health problems.
In more practical terms, apart from Albania's agreement with Italy and a small-scale agreement between Denmark and Kosovo, few if any non-EU countries have said they might be willing to host such centres. Some diplomats suspect that for this reason alone the idea may fail.