The EU’s New Migration Deal: A Recipe for Border Suffering

New EU Migration Deal: More Harm than Good

The recent agreement among European Union countries on asylum procedures and migration management has been considered a recipe for more abuse at EU borders. The European Union interior ministers meeting in Luxembourg adopted unfavorable policies that would entrench rights violations, including expedited procedures without sufficient safeguards, increased use of detention, and unsafe returns. This article seeks to explore the implications of this new EU migration deal and how it is likely to increase suffering at borders.

Expedited Border Procedure and Increased Use of Detention

According to the agreement, the EU intends to create an expedited “border procedure” aimed at handling asylum seekers who present themselves at the border. This procedure would be mandatory for asylum seekers from countries whose nationals have a low rate of being granted some form of protection and anyone who authorities say withheld or used false information. In practice, many, if not most, individuals will be channeled into these sub-standard accelerated procedures with fewer safeguards, such as legal aid, than the normal procedure.

Moreover, people are likely to be detained during this border procedure, which could take up to six months, with few exceptions for people with vulnerabilities, families, or children. The use of detention or detention-like conditions is directly linked to the interests of many EU countries. They aim to prevent people travelling further into Europe from countries of first entry and deporting people as quickly as possible. However, this move disregards the fact that detention leads to physical and emotional suffering, especially for vulnerable people.

Unsafe Returns and Vague Notions of “Safe Third Country”

The agreement would allow each country to determine what constitutes a “safe third country” where people can be returned based on a vague concept of “connection” to that country. This could lead to people being sent to countries they have merely transited or where they have a family member but have themselves never been, where their basic rights cannot be guaranteed.

This move explicitly exposes refugees and asylum seekers to violence and other forms of human rights abuses. It is a known fact that some “safe third countries” like Libya have a poor human rights record in terms of treating refugees and asylum seekers. Therefore, this move is likely to increase the risk of these people being exposed to violence.

Minimal Changes to the Dysfunctional System

The agreement makes minimal changes to the dysfunctional system for sharing responsibility among EU countries for refugees and asylum seekers. It does not address the fundamental flaws in the system. EU countries have rejected a mandatory relocation scheme and instead seek to allow countries that will not take asylum seekers to pay into a common fund that would finance unspecified projects in non-EU countries, presumably focused on preventing migration.

This move continues the trend of externalization, deterrence, containment, and return of refugees and asylum seekers. This proposal defies the recommendations of over 70 organizations that argued that it would exacerbate the situation at the borders.

Advice and Way Forward

The EU‘s approach towards migration seems to be focused more on deterring refugees and asylum seekers from coming to the EU rather than finding a lasting solution to the problem. This begs the question- how will the use of sub-standard conditions and the denial of basic rights help to solve the migration issue? Instead, the EU should focus on creating strong partnerships with countries of origin and transit to address the root causes of migration.

Additionally, the EU should ensure that they uphold human rights standards and Fair and efficient asylum procedures while identifying more humane and sustainable alternatives to detention. Moreover, the EU should work towards a more comprehensive and equitable approach to refugee and asylum policy, including making respect for fundamental rights non-negotiable and removing sanctions on NGOs that offer humanitarian assistance and legal aid to refugees and asylum seekers.

In conclusion, while the EU‘s approach towards migration has changed over the past few years, it still leaves much to be desired. The recent migration deal only solidifies the approach that puts doing anything possible to avoid granting asylum and protecting refugees over respecting the rights and dignity of refugees and asylum seekers. The EU can do better than this.