Sign up to our newsletter Join our membership and be updated daily!
Join Now

Does EU lawmakers approval of migration law overhaul provide solutions or further challenges

Posted by Prudence Journal April 11, 2024
EU lawmakers
European Parliament President Roberta Metsola, centre right, chairs as Members of European Parliament participate in a series of votes during a plenary session at the European Parliament in Brussels [Credits: Geert Vanden Wijngaert/AP]

On Wednesday, European Union lawmakers approved a significant overhaul of the bloc’s migration laws, aiming to resolve years of discord over the management of unauthorised entries and to neutralise the far-right’s use of the issue as a vote-winning campaign tactic ahead of June elections.

In a series of 10 votes, members of the European Parliament endorsed the regulations and policies comprising the Pact on Migration and Asylum.

The reforms tackle the contentious issue of determining responsibility for migrants upon their arrival and whether other EU countries should be compelled to offer assistance.

The proceedings faced a brief interruption from a small but vocal group of demonstrators in the public gallery, sporting shirts with the slogan “this pact kills” and chanting “vote no!”

The reform package must now receive endorsement from the 27 EU member countries, possibly through a vote slated for late April, before it can be implemented.

European Parliament President Roberta Metsola, a former lead lawmaker on migration who played a key role in advancing the reform package, celebrated the milestone by posting “History made” on X (formerly Twitter) after the votes.

“It has been more than 10 years in the making. But we kept our word. A balance between solidarity and responsibility.

“This is the European way,” she wrote. German Interior Minister Nancy Faeser hailed the outcome as a “significant and very important success”.

“After years of challenging negotiations, we have reached agreement on this comprehensive package.

We have thus overcome deep divisions in Europe,” stated Faeser, whose country has been a primary destination for individuals seeking refuge, in a written statement.

“We remain committed to protecting individuals fleeing from horrific wars, terror, torture, and violence. However, the responsibility for refugees will be more evenly distributed in the future,” she added.

The plan was formulated in response to the influx of 1.3 million individuals, predominantly those fleeing conflict in Syria and Iraq, who sought refuge in Europe in 2015.
The EU’s asylum system faltered, reception centres in Greece and Italy became overwhelmed, and countries farther north erected barriers to prevent individuals from entering.
Solution or problem masking: What you need to know 
Despite the adoption of the new policy response to one of Europe’s most significant political crises, few have expressed satisfaction with the outcome.
Even lawmakers who contributed to drafting aspects of the new regulations are hesitant to endorse the entire reform package.
“I’m not celebrating with champagne after this,” remarked Dutch lawmaker Sophie i’nt Veld, who formulated the assembly’s stance on migrant reception conditions, to reporters ahead of the plenary session in Brussels.
Swedish parliamentarian Malin Bjork, who focused on refugee resettlement, criticised the pact for failing to address “any of the questions it was meant to solve.”
Bjork criticised the reform package for eroding the individual right to seek asylum in Europe, citing plans by some EU countries to process migrants abroad, such as Italy’s agreement with Albania. She noted that her Left group voted against the pact.
The new rules entail controversial measures, including the collection of facial images and fingerprints from children as young as six, as well as the potential detention of individuals during screening processes.
Fast-track deportation could also be implemented for those not granted permission to stay.
However, the package also includes provisions requiring countries to assist their EU partners by accommodating individuals eligible for asylum or covering the costs of housing them elsewhere if necessary.
Migrant and human rights organizations largely criticised the reform package. In a collective statement, 22 charitable organizations, including the International Rescue Committee and Oxfam, asserted that the pact “leaves troubling gaps in Europe’s approach to asylum and migration and does not provide sustainable solutions for individuals seeking safety at Europe’s borders”.
While acknowledging that some aspects of the reforms concerning the resettlement of migrants from outside the bloc offer hope for many refugees worldwide, critics emphasised the broader failure of the reforms to demonstrate global leadership.
Eve Geddie of Amnesty International characterised the reforms as “a failure to show global leadership.”
She emphasised that for individuals fleeing conflict, persecution, or economic insecurity, the reforms would result in reduced protection and increased risks of human rights violations across Europe, including illegal pushbacks, arbitrary detention, and discriminatory policing.
Mainstream political parties aimed to reach consensus on the pact prior to the Europe-wide elections scheduled for June 6-9. Migration is anticipated to be a prominent campaign issue, and proponents of the reforms believe they address concerns surrounding an issue that has consistently garnered support for far-right parties.
Beata Szydlo, a member of Poland’s nationalist Law and Justice party and former prime minister, criticised the pact in a post on X, stating, “The migration policy of the EU is wrong and needs to be changed. But you can’t put out the fire by adding more oil to it.”
The outcry over migrants in Europe largely targets the small minority who enter on unseaworthy boats or by crossing borders on foot, despite millions legally entering each year.
Less than 10% reside in Europe illegally, with many having initially entered legally but overstayed their visas.
The main concern, once the regulations are fully endorsed, is whether member countries will fully implement them, and whether the European Commission, the EU’s executive branch, will enforce the rules, given its past reluctance to do so to avoid worsening political crises.
Share with friends
Tags: