EU summit: crackdown on migration?
At their summit in Brussels, the EU member states have decided to "urgently" revise current legislation to speed up deportations of migrants whose asylum claims have been rejected. "New ways" to combat irregular migration are also to be considered. The setting up of asylum centres in third countries like those operated by Italy in Albania was also discussed. Europe's press takes stock.
Beneficial immigration is being demonised
News website In sharply criticises the new approach:
“We live on a continent whose population is ageing. Yet instead of being treated as a solution and a breath of fresh air for the real challenge of integration, refugees and migrants are being treated as a problem, a threat and a security issue. ... Instead of discussing the issue seriously, we are dealing with it from a far-right perspective: People are being demonised, 'dehumanised'. Instead of lives, they have become 'flows'. And if up to now this rhetoric had come from Le Pen and Orbán, now the Social Democrat Scholz, faced with the advance of the AfD, is reducing Schengen to a scrap of paper. As for Tusk, on the one hand he swears he is a pro-European, but on the other he temporarily suspends the right to apply for asylum in order to put the brakes on the Belarusians.”
Orbán can celebrate
The EU is moving ever closer to the harsh policy demanded by the Hungarian prime minister, observes hvg:
“Viktor Orbán must have been the most satisfied person there, because now there is much talk of the importance of protecting external borders, speeding up the deportation of rejected asylum seekers and processing applications in centres in third countries, which is precisely what the Hungarian leader has been calling for for a long time. And full understanding was shown for Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk, who is currently planning to suspend the right to asylum procedures for illegal immigrants from Belarus and Russia.”
A political red herring
Immigration is being used to divert attention from more pressing problems, Corriere della Sera complains:
“If migrants didn't exist, they'd have to be invented. They are the most formidable weapon of distraction used by politicians of all stripes in the 21st century. Do we have a money or credibility problem? Are reforms necessary yet impossible? ... Just shine the spotlight on the foreigners supposedly flocking to our borders and hey presto, the public debate immediately shifts. Setting aside Trump's tales of Haitians eating cats and dogs and the Brexiteers lies, we have plenty of examples of our own. Yet according to recent polls, the topic that the Italians are most concerned about right now is not immigration but healthcare.”
Mutual trust no longer enough
Commenting in Maaleht, migration expert Annika Murov fears irrevocable changes to the Schengen Area:
“The reintroduction of border controls reflects the growing concerns of European countries regarding migration and the threat of terrorism. Freedom of movement and [fixed] external borders foster a sense of unity and self-determination in Europe. ... So far, Schengen and the protection of external borders have functioned largely on the basis of trust in member states to carry out the appropriate border procedures and cooperate with each other. However, it will clearly be difficult to maintain the Schengen Area in its current, unaltered form without internal borders.”
2024 could be the turning point
The decisions being taken now could signal a fundamental change of course, 444.hu believes:
“The acceptance-oriented welcome culture has long since disappeared. Europe is taking a hard line, and it is no longer just the far right that wants a change in migration policy; this demand has become the slogan of centrist politicians in decision-making positions in a number of countries. ... 2024 could well be the year that posterity will associate with a fundamental shift in migration policy and the sealing off of Europe.”
Conflicting values
For Tygodnik Powszechny, this debate is not about left and right but about assessing legal rights:
“One of the most restrictive asylum policies in the EU was created by the left, by the Danish Social Democrats. In Finland, meanwhile, the possibility of suspending the right of asylum in response to Russia's use of migrants as a hybrid warfare weapon was decided by an alliance spanning the right and the left. The Polish government's recently presented migration strategy can also be seen as an attempt to strike a balance between values. Because it's not just about helping the migrants in the forest [along the Belarus-Poland migration route]. It's also about protecting the security of the state and its individual citizens.”
Europe's enemies are not those coming from outside
El Periódico de Catalunya comments:
“The Italian proposal won't work because apart from Albania, and perhaps Kosovo, there won't be any countries that want to maintain illegal detention centres like Guantánamo. ... A framework for the legal entry of migrants into Europe, with organised applications in their countries of origin and with quotas that minimise human trafficking would probably be more effective. Without immigrants there will be no pensions and no welfare state. The discourse is being manipulated by radical movements that have the sole goal of getting into power, while the rest of the parties are incapable of making more humane and effective proposals. The enemies of Europe are not those who come from outside, but those who spread fear and chaos within.”
Several taboos broken
The Neue Zürcher Zeitung welcomes the new momentum in European asylum policy:
“In terms of migration policy, the EU summit that ended on Friday was extraordinary. Over the past few days, the 27 heads of state and government have broken several taboos that until recently seemed to be all but sacrosanct. ... So there is a new dynamic in European migration policy. But will it really lead to the innovative solutions that were constantly invoked at the summit? The fact that individual states or groups of states are now experimenting with repatriation agreements and the outsourcing of procedures is to be welcomed.”
Just who is defining EU policy?
Večernji list is astonished:
“In addition to announcing a law to facilitate deportation, von der Leyen called on other leaders to think about setting up migrant centres outside the EU's borders - or 'hubs' for repatriation, as she called them (Brussels is always creative when it comes to nice names that disguise the real purpose). This shows that it is no mere coincidence that the Italian prime minister referred to the Italian centres in Albania as an example for the rest of the EU. But this poses the question of who is actually defining EU policy at this moment: Ursula von der Leyen or her political ally and friend Giorgia Meloni?”
Meloni showing the way
Italy's government is by no means alone in its stance, Phileleftheros comments with concern:
“Giorgia Meloni has developed from someone on the far right to a leader who is showing the way forward for Europe. Her idea of setting up concentration camps in Albania to hold those who cross Italy's land and maritime borders is envied by almost all of Europe. The Netherlands is negotiating with Uganda to do the same, Finland is building fences on its border with Russia, and Ursula von der Leyen is pointing to Italy as an example to be followed.”
Rome relying on vaguely worded regulations
On Friday an Italian court blocked the detention of the first migrants in the Shëngjin asylum centre in Albania. This won't stop Meloni, Corriere della Sera believes:
“The central issue here is which countries are 'safe third countries'. ... The European Court of Justice redefined the criteria [on 4 October 2024]. Egypt and Bangladesh, the countries of origin of the twelve people admitted to the Shëngjin centre, are not among them, a fact of which those responsible for the transfer to Albania were well aware. However, these criteria are open to interpretation and, as such, will be redefined by the Meloni government with a decree that will arbitrarily expand the list of 'safe' countries, with the stated aim of better protecting countries of arrival like ours.”
Germany and Spain putting up resistance
The new hard line on migration is meeting with significant resistance in Europe, notes Jornal de Notícias with relief:
“Against the backdrop of wars that are becoming more and more globalised, the flight from death, destruction and hunger is legitimate and poses major challenges for Europe. Europe must pursue a common and sensible policy, because it also needs these people. It is important to explain that not everyone is submitting to the process of legitimising the far right promoted by von der Leyen. The Spanish and German governments, for example, have spoken out for a different direction, criticising the lack of ethics and effectiveness of the Italian prime minister's plan and refusing to participate in a migration summit organised by Meloni.”
Human rights and democracy are losing
El País, by contrast, seeks a true counter-force:
“There are signs of resistance, some from the judiciary, such as the Italian court that questioned the Meloni model, just as a British court did with the Rwanda model. ... But this should not blind us to the political struggle in Europe and the West. We who stand up for human rights and democracy are losing. ... In the face of this erosion, there is no sign of a political counter-force. ... The German government is in a terminal state. ... It is questionable whether the French government will ever get off the ground. ... Italy and the Netherlands are in the hands of the far right. In Spain, the social democrats are holding out. ... They say things that put them on the right side of history, but their inner weakness detracts from their appeal.”