In December 2024, Human Rights Watch published a study showing that Poland is breaking the law on the border with Belarus. This is not amazing – the Amnesty global Association and national human rights organizations have previously drawn akin conclusions.
"Poland's inhumane and illegal expulsion of safety seekers is contrary to its obligations under national and EU law and the foundations of humanitarianism" – said Lydia Gall, European and Central Asia expert at HRW. And while specified an assessment from an internationally recognised organisation could have been met respective years ago with a strong consequence from EU bodies, present there is simply a silent agreement.
Almost at the same time as the publication of the HRW report, the European Commission supported the thought of Prime Minister Donald Tusk to restrict the right to apply for asylum. This agreement applies only to countries on the east border of the EU and only in exceptional situations, but it gives the ruling people considerable area for interpretation.
Tusk proposed this in mid-October at the European Council in Brussels. The leaders expressed their enthusiasm and the conclusions of the gathering were clear – the Community cannot let Russia or Belarus to abuse the right to asylum. And while it has been ensured that the "effective protection" of the EU's external borders must go hand in hand with compliance with global law, the reality is rather different.
Migration outsourcing
The actions of the Polish government designate a fresh trend in European migration policyLike the plan Premieres of Giorgia Meloni from the far right organization of the Italian Brothers. In October, her flagship task to return migrants to Italian reception centres built in Albania was to begin.
The centres stand ready, but the court in Rome has decided that sending to a non-EU country people who want to apply for global protection in Italy is not lawful. The thing is, in Albanian centres, asylum procedures would be much shorter than normal.
Only those who come from alleged safe countries would be sent to Albania, but Meloni considers it safe for countries that are not so in the eyes of the EU Court of Justice. This was brought to the attention of the court in Rome, as the Italian Prime Minister's list included Egypt and Bangladesh.
Until the Italian government and the court come to an agreement, Albanian centres will stay vacant (the first 2 groups of migrants who went to Albania were returned to Italy in a fewer days). We know that the situation will not change for at least a fewer months.
There are questions in the air – what if Meloni finds a way to restart his project? Will migration outsourcing become a common practice of EU countries? In the end, akin projects had already tried to push the governments of Britain and Denmark, entering into agreement with Rwandawhere applicants for global protection were to be returned.
After accepting applications, refugees would settle permanently in Rwanda – this is the difference compared to Meloni's thought that persons with granted exile position would be transported to Italy – and those who were not granted protection, deported to countries of origin.
In the case of Britain, which was much closer to the plan than Denmark, the ultimate Court stood in the way. In December 2023, he ruled that Rwanda is not a safe country (even if there is no armed conflict there), and it cannot be guaranteed that the Kigali government will not send refugees back to their homelands in which they are in danger. The Danish plan was stuck in a dead end at the planning stage, and was yet abandoned in the face of social criticism.
Despite these failures, EU countries are investigating further ways to reduce irregular migration. Especially since this is what more and more citizens and citizens request - even at the price of human rights, on which the European Union has grown.
Europe turns right
Over the past year, nationalist parties have won elections in the Netherlands (the Freedom Party, PVV) and Austria (the Freedom organization of Austria, FPÖ). The right held power in Italy and Hungary, and in the German Eastlands amazingly good results were achieved extreme nationalist organization alternate to Germany (AfD). Each of these winning parties is powerfully against migration.
Right-wing populists who argue that immigrants must be stopped at any cost, skillfully ignore the fact that irregular migration to Europe and so on fell by almost 40% compared to 2023. They besides stay silent that the Union needs abroad workers without which national economies will not manage in the next decades. And these are frequently drawn to work from the same countries that effort to limit immigration.
On the 1 hand, right-wing governments are exerting expanding force on Community-wide migration policies. On the another hand, people fleeing war, persecution, hunger or deficiency of prospects in their own country became pawns in the political game of the East with the West. More and more violations of their laws justify "hybrid war".
This argument was utilized not only by Polish, but besides by the Finnish government, which decided to close all border crossing points with Russia in late 2023, severely limiting people's ability to apply for protection.
"Since the hybrid attack carried out by Belarus in November 2021 on Latvia, Poland and Lithuania, we all know how Putin and his allies are instrumentalizing migrants to test our defences and effort to destabilise the situation in these countries. Now Putin is focusing on Finland," said Head of KE Ursula von der Leyen, supporting the decision of Prime Minister Petteri Orpo of the Liberal-Conservative National Coalition.
However, the Finnish tightening offers any possibilities to apply for asylum and, against the background of another associate States, Finland remains, nevertheless, more liberal towards migration. Unlike the Netherlands, whose asylum minister Marjolein Faber announced "the strictest migration policy in history". At the same time, concerns arise as to whether the ever-increasing force on EU countries will lead to its disintegration.
Border Patrols
Questions about the future of the EU as an economical community arose after Germany introduced police controls at all the external borders of the country in September 2024, de facto suspending freedom of movement in the Schengen area. This was a decision by German head of the MMA Nancy Faeser, who stated that limiting irregular immigration into the country is essential to defend society from “Islamic panic and serious crime”. The regulation was introduced after the knifesmith attack at the Solingen Festival. A 26-year-old Syrian confessed to killing 3 people and hurting respective others.
Schengen law, although it assumes the free movement of persons and goods within the EU, provides for solutions specified as those applied by Germany, if they are justified by safety reasons. Since 2015, i.e. since the beginning of the alleged migration crisis, many countries have benefited from this possibility, repeatedly extending the time of the checks by months.
"Members and MEPs have repeatedly opposed frequent reintroduction of controls, as this hinders the free movement of people in the EU" – read on the website of the European Parliament. In practice, German controls have proven to be random and have limited the mobility of Europeans and Europeans, but specified a long-term state could weaken marketplace integration.
The European Parliament so introduced a regulation in May 2024: interior border controls must not last more than 3 years. Despite this decision, the German closure of borders angered the neighbors. Austria announced, for example, that it would not accept foreigners who would be withdrawn by Bundespolizei.
Regardless of how long patrols will defender border crossings, the Faeser Minister's declarations are a symbol of change. They show how far Germany has strayed from the open-door policy of Chancellor Angela Merkel – and how German and European migration policies have gone over the past decade.
Controversial Pact
The provisions on strengthening the Fortress of Europe fall not only in individual associate States but besides at EU level. 1 of the key events was the signing of the Pact on Migration and Asylum in April 2024, widely criticised by human rights organisations.
Negotiations on the final plan of the task lasted almost a decade. He was mainly opposed by Poland and Hungary, although not only due to the fact that the pact assumes solidarity with countries that are under peculiar "migration pressure". Ultimately, the EU countries have come to an agreement, leaving themselves a choice as to the form of support – it could be relocation of applicants for protection, financial assistance or alternate solidarity measures, primarily operational support.
When the decision-makers yet came to an agreement, the Union rejected success. "The migration strategy will be fairer and stronger and will bring concrete benefits in practice. The fresh rules will increase the effectiveness of the European asylum strategy and strengthen solidarity between associate States," said Nicole de Moor, Belgian Secretary of State for Asylum and Migration.
The Pact assumes, among another things, the extension of the rule of a "safe 3rd country" which allows for accelerated deportation to the homeland. It was this provision that Giorgia Meloni willingly utilized erstwhile creating centres in Albania.
According to more than 50 NGOs that have signed a joint Appeal to the EU, the Pact is simply a major step backwards in the protection of human rights. They pay attention, for example, to racial profiling of those seeking protection and improvement of surveillance technology. They besides point to arbitrary designation of countries of origin as safe, which could exposure migrants and migrants to further persecution and danger upon return.
In parallel to the implementation of the Pact's objectives, which countries have until 2026, the EU signs further agreements with countries specified as Tunisia and Egypt (in 2024) and earlier Turkey, Morocco and Libya, from which people are on their way towards the Old Continent. The presumption in each case is the same – authoritarian leaders receive millions of euros to alleged support socio-economic development. Instead, they are to halt people from reaching Europe. By default, at any cost.
What future awaits the Syrians?
In 2022, the Union clearly demonstrated that migration policy is guided by double standards. As hundreds of people died in the Mediterranean and the first deaths were reported on the Polish-Belarusian border, millions of people fleeing Russia's aggression were sheltered in the Community countries.
Not counting Ukrainians, the largest group of refugees and refugees in Europe are Syrians. erstwhile the rebels seized Damascus in December 2024 in a fewer days and forced dictator Bashar al-Assad to flee, EU leaders did not wait a moment. Poland, Germany, the Czech Republic, Denmark and Italy immediately stopped the examination of asylum applications from citizens of that country.
Although the situation in a late authoritarian state is uncertain and there is inactive a massive humanitarian crisis, Austria has gone 1 step further and is preparing a task "for an orderly repatriation and deportation to Syria". European Commission spokesperson Stefan de Keersmaecker responded to this reminder that "Every decision on asylum should be taken on a case-by-case basis after considering the person's request".
In the context of the controversial migration pact and agreements with authoritarian states, Keersmaecker's words seem only to be a PR procedure. The last year has left no illusion that both political decision-makers and most European society want to free Europe of refugees, regardless of the consequences.
