Migration Dominates EU Leaders’ Summit Agenda

Migration Takes Center Stage at EU Leaders’ Summit

Migration Takes Center Stage at EU Leaders' Summit

The upcoming summit of European Union leaders, set to commence on Thursday morning in Brussels, is poised to be dominated by discussions surrounding migration. A growing chorus of voices is advocating for the offshoring of asylum procedures and expedited deportations. This shift comes despite stern admonitions from non-governmental organizations (NGOs), which warn that such approaches could jeopardize fundamental human rights.

While the summit will also address critical issues such as Russia’s ongoing invasion of Ukraine, the turmoil in the Middle East, and the political situations in Georgia, Moldova, and Venezuela, the topic of migration is expected to overshadow all others. This is particularly significant as some leaders perceive their political futures to be directly linked to the outcomes of these discussions. The dialogue surrounding migration has intensified following the EU’s completion in May of a comprehensive overhaul of its asylum regulations, culminating nearly four years of complex negotiations that many had deemed unlikely to succeed. Despite the EU’s self-proclaimed “historic” achievement, there is a growing sentiment among various governments that more decisive action is necessary to curtail irregular border crossings and diminish the number of asylum claims, which soared to 1,129,000 last year.

The current discourse has shifted towards seeking “innovative solutions,” with a pronounced emphasis on deportations. For years, the EU has grappled with the challenge of effectively returning asylum seekers whose applications have been denied. The complexities at hand involve legislative differences regarding deportation processes, administrative hurdles where return orders are not universally recognized among member states, enforcement challenges as authorities lose track of migrants, and diplomatic struggles as countries of origin are often unwilling to accept their nationals back.

This complicated landscape has resulted in a sluggish deportation success rate, estimated between 20% and 30%, a figure that many capitals are eager to improve. One proposal that has transitioned from a fringe idea to mainstream consideration is the establishment of “return hubs” outside EU territory. Under this largely untested plan, migrants whose asylum applications have been denied would be transferred to these external centers, where they would await the completion of their deportation processes.

This initiative was first proposed in May by a coalition of 15 member states in a joint letter and has gradually garnered broader support, although specifics regarding potential locations for these facilities remain elusive. A senior diplomat noted, “Minds are changing,” but cautioned that the current proposals are “extremely vague,” lacking detailed plans or blueprints.

Additionally, the letter proposed other measures for offshoring migration policy, including the idea of rescuing migrants in perilous waters and transporting them to a non-EU nation for asylum processing. This concept underpins the Italy-Albania protocol, which is already operational; however, Tirana has indicated that this arrangement is “exclusive” to Rome.

Last week, fresh demands emerged from another coalition of 17 European nations advocating for a “paradigm shift” in deportation policies, insisting that governments “must be empowered.” The coalition’s document emphasized the necessity for individuals without the right to remain in the EU to be held accountable, proposing a new legal framework that clearly outlines their obligations and the consequences of non-compliance.

In a proactive move, Ursula von der Leyen, the President of the European Commission, offered her most explicit endorsement of “return hubs” to date. In a ten-point letter directed to EU leaders, she promised a revamped approach to deportations, utilizing visa and trade policies as leverage to persuade reluctant countries to accept their citizens back. She also discussed revising regulations to facilitate the detention and expulsion of individuals deemed a threat to public order. “The EU’s migration policy can only be sustainable if those who do not have the right to stay in the EU are effectively returned,” von der Leyen asserted.

Clash of Perspectives

While these joint documents signify a growing convergence among EU leaders—an unthinkable development in years past—deep-seated disagreements about migration persist. Consequently, the summit’s conclusions could end up with a blank chapter regarding this contentious issue. Spain’s left-leaning government has expressed its opposition to the concept of “return hubs,” arguing that such initiatives would violate human rights, incur enormous costs, and fail to address the underlying causes of migration. The spokesperson for the Spanish government stated, “Spain expresses its position against return hubs,” following the public release of von der Leyen’s letter.

Countries like Spain, Germany, France, Belgium, and Sweden are advocating for the swift implementation of the migration reform agreed upon in May, contending that the EU cannot afford to delay for two years while waiting for the five laws to become effective. In stark contrast, Hungary and Poland are intensifying their opposition, vowing to disregard the legislation altogether, despite its binding nature for all 27 member states.

A diplomat remarked, “Even member states who claim to oppose the reform largely want it implemented,” highlighting the predicament these nations find themselves in after presenting misleading narratives to their domestic audiences, making it difficult for them to reverse their positions. Poland has gone so far as to suggest a “temporary territorial suspension of the right to asylum,” paralleling an emergency law enacted by Finland during the summer. Warsaw asserts that this measure is imperative to combat the influx of migrants being pushed to the border by Belarus as part of a hybrid warfare strategy. “Poland must take back 100% control over who comes to Poland,” declared Prime Minister Donald Tusk, a close ally of von der Leyen.

Brussels has responded by stating that such a suspension would violate EU and international law, emphasizing the importance of combating the instrumentalization of migration. Davide Colombi, a researcher at the Centre for European Political Studies (CEPS), expressed concerns regarding Tusk’s strategy, asserting, “The right to asylum is one of the fundamental rights that cannot be suspended, even during a declared political crisis.” He underscored that this right is safeguarded by EU law, international law, and the Polish constitution, indicating that the issue transcends mere migration and touches upon broader legal principles.

The deportation of rejected asylum seekers has emerged as a pressing priority for EU nations. Poland’s radical proposal aligns with a broader trend within the bloc: as governments face mounting pressure from far-right opponents, frustrated electorates, and overwhelmed reception centers, they are increasingly willing to test the boundaries of established norms in order to curb irregular migration.

Recent months have witnessed Germany reintroducing border controls at all land crossings, the Netherlands making a (rejected) request for an opt-out clause, and Hungary threatening to transport migrants “free of charge” to Belgium in retaliation for a ruling by the European Court of Justice. These rapid developments have raised alarm bells among humanitarian organizations, which fear that the push for offshoring will undermine the asylum process, lead to unjust decisions, and exacerbate violations of fundamental rights. A coalition of 90 NGOs warned in July, “These controversial proposals seek to dismantle the core tenet of international protection: that individuals under a jurisdiction have the right to seek asylum and have their claims fairly evaluated.”

In addition to migration, EU leaders are expected to discuss continued support for Ukraine, including the G7 initiative aimed at providing Kyiv with a €45 billion ($50 billion) loan, which will be fully repaid through the windfall profits generated from Russia’s frozen assets. Although member states have already approved the EU’s financial contribution of up to €35 billion, a crucial aspect of this initiative designed to secure greater participation from the United States remains blocked by Hungary. Diplomats are concerned that Hungary’s stance may ultimately backfire, as reduced U.S. involvement could increase the financial risks faced by the EU.

More From Author

The Apprentice: Tracing the Rise of Donald J. Trump

Tragic Death of Photojournalist Paul Lowe: Son Charged with Murder

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *