The European elections (May 26) will be an opportunity to debate many essential themes and make choices.
But to decide, one needs or would need to be aware of the contents of the problems being discussed or, at least, know what is being talked about.
Unfortunately, this is not always the case!
According to public opinion research institutes, the issue of immigration is considered central by European citizens.
This is why we return to it with a series of articles that can enhance reflection and debate.
Resettling more refugees who are in first host countries
by Marcus Engler, lecturer at Humboldt University (Berlin)
Contrary to a commonly advanced idea, migratory flows cannot be easily regulated. First, because it is not always possible to clearly and quickly distinguish between people who are entitled to international protection and those who might have different motivations (escaping poverty, reuniting with family members…). More often than not, various motivations are intertwined. Especially, it is very difficult for the state examining the asylum request to know the conditions (repression, insecurity, discrimination, poverty…) in which the person was living and the extent of the various threats they faced.
Furthermore, regardless of what conservative political forces say, in practice, restrictive migration policies can only be realized at the expense of human rights. This has been happening in Europe since 2016 with the implementation of the European Union (EU)-Turkey agreement, cooperation of certain member states with Libya, and the criminalization of non-state maritime rescue.
It is true that these policies have contributed to a significant decrease in the number of arrivals on European shores, but they are accompanied by severe human rights violations, particularly in Libya. Nevertheless, many European governments want to go further down this path. Some, led by Italy and Austria, want to prohibit migrants from applying for asylum on EU territory. Applications would only be allowed on boats or in centers located outside the Union. This would imply shifting the burden of reception to transit countries, which are very ill-prepared to accommodate a larger number of migrants.
For Safe Routes
In the past, European leaders have often promised to open legal and safe routes to the EU to prevent migrants from putting their lives in the hands of smugglers. But so far, the number of refugees who can legally and securely come to Europe is very limited. Yet, European states have various instruments to receive migrants and asylum seekers in an organized way. For example, resettlement programs provide for the transfer of asylum seekers from one first host country to another, willing to grant them permanent residence. However, for the period 2017-2019, European states accepted to resettle only 50,000 people. Private sponsorship programs, implemented by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) or Churches, have also been successfully tested. Moreover, immigration channels such as family reunification, study visas, or work visas could also be more generous than they are today.
The failure to expand such channels is not primarily due to legal or organizational obstacles, but to a lack of political will and presumed resistance among populations. In Germany, however, a majority of the population is not opposed to immigration as long as it is organized. Expanding legal pathways can reduce current fears of uncontrolled immigration.
At the same time, redirecting flows towards such pathways can only work if people who want to migrate perceive these channels as realistic opportunities. This requires a substantial opening of migration routes for at least five to ten years. Even though today, in the EU, the political signals in this area seem negative, efforts must continue in the long term to build a coalition of willing countries, both in Europe and beyond.
