On October 17th, European leaders gathered in Brussels at the occasion of the European Council, where immigration took center stage under mounting pressure from several heads of state. Three days before, Ursula von der Leyen addressed a letter to the 27 member states, asserting that work would be done to reduce illegal immigration and facilitate deportations, promising “innovative solutions”. The anti-immigration wind has returned and is ominously blowing over European legislation, signalling a shift toward rigid migration policies that risk sidelining human rights.
EU’s Hardline Migration Policies Unveiled
The European Council has been fruitful for migration hardliners. The Conclusions call for partnerships with countries of origin and transit to prevent illegal departures. Leaders also agreed that the Commission should urgently submit a legislative proposal to facilitate and accelerate deportations from the European Union at all levels. The Union reiterated its commitment to resisting the instrumentalisation of migrants for political purposes and strengthening border control at its external borders. However, the statement on considering “new ways” to resist illegal migration is the most worrying. What are these new ways, and do they align with European and international human rights laws? They mostly refer to the implementation of “return hubs” outside the EU, where migrants would await their final deportation. This proposal was rejected in 2018 for violating EU law, which prohibits forcibly sending migrants to countries they have never been to, especially where they risk facing ill treatment. Still, it is back on the table.
Only a few months before, in May, after years in the making, the European Parliament and the Council adopted the New Pact on Migration and Asylum, set to take effect by 2026. The Pact focuses on reinforcing the EU’s external borders and accelerating the return of unsuccessful asylum claimants. While Frontex reports a 42 per cent drop in irregular entries during the first nine months of 2024 compared to last year at the same period, European leaders argue that stricter and faster legislation is required.
Taboos on asylum and immigration policy are being shattered, with Ursula von der Leyen now openly supporting accelerated deportations and offshore camps to process asylum applications. This Council meeting marks a significant and worrying turn in the history of European legislation on migration, mainly driven by far-right parties.
Far-Right Takes the Migration Stage
This shift toward harder stances can mostly be explained by a change in the ideological power balance of the EU. The June Parliamentary and National elections have demonstrated a significant right turn for Europe. Far-right parties now hold positions in the governments of seven countries – Croatia, the Czech Republic, Finland, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, and Slovakia – while increasingly gaining substantial popular support in France and Germany for their nationalist and xenophobic agendas. At the EU scale, the conservative European People’s Party managed to build a majority coalition, with traditional liberal and socialist forces and including far-right groups, the latter pushing for the anti-immigration agenda. The growing influence of far-right parties has allowed tongues to loosen on immigration and asylum policy.
National Actions and Italy’s Leadership
Across Europe, states have been taking unilateral actions to tighten migration legislation, with some seeking exemptions from EU laws and obligations. Brussels is in a difficult position, facing a deadlock, and forced to take action. Germany, usually liberal on its migration policy, has been increasing its immigration control and tightening its asylum laws. France’s former Prime Minister, Michel Barnier, and former Interior Minister, Bruno Retailleau, presented a law draft for 2025 that would curtail immigrants’ rights by reintroducing the offence of irregular stay and lengthen the detention period. Retailleau had expressed a desire to “put an end to the migratory disorder”, challenging the rule of law if needed. Poland took an even more radical position, asking for the suspension of asylum rights for migrants entering illegally, echoing the Finnish stance. Taking it a step further, Italy has moved beyond rhetoric to action by sending sixteen migrants intercepted at sea to camps in Albania on October 16th. They were brought back within two days, following the ruling of an Italian’s Court. Still a second deportation took place on November 6th.
Italy’s first post-fascist Prime Minister, Giorgia Meloni, has seen this new anti-immigration wind blowing over Europe as an opportunity to take the lead. Ahead of the Council, she hosted an informal meeting with ten heads of state, aligned with her approach, promoting innovative solutions such as implementing “return hubs” for rejected asylum seekers. Members are asking for new partnerships outside Europe, similar to existing agreements with Tunisia and Mauritania. Leyen has asserted she would discuss the matter with Senegal and Mali. While some European countries remain skeptical, many find Meloni’s “solutions” appealing.
A New Wind or a Repeat of History?
Whether this Council marks a new turn in European attitude toward migration, the outcome of a gradual process, or a history repeat, is up for discussion. Migration often returns to the forefront of EU discussions, and the so-called “innovative solutions” echo past ideas – many of which have proven ineffective and dangerous. Moreover, this situation strongly resembles the European response to the 2015 migrant crisis. The numbers show that the EU has been facing the highest number of asylum applications since 2016, sparking fears of another migration crisis. These fears, along with xenophobia, and the political instrumentalization of immigration, have driven voters toward far-right parties and their strict migration agendas. However, what sets the current moment apart is the scale of the consensus on the question. As such, far-right parties have gained considerable influence, shaping European migration policy in unprecedented ways.
What About Human Rights?
The calls for stricter legislation against migration raise significant human rights concerns. Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) reports that Europe has been following a dangerous path, furthering the erosion of human rights. The measures taken during the 2015 migrant crisis and the recent New Pact on Migration and Asylum have already emphasized structural violence against those seeking refuge and safety, and current negotiations risk reinforcing the normalization of violence. The main concerns are proposals for “hotspots” and “return hubs” outside the EU, where asylum seekers could be confined with little regard for their rights.
These hubs would violate article 33 of the 1941 Geneva Convention, which stipulates that refugees cannot be sent to a place where they may be persecuted. This principle is known as “non-refoulement” and also applies to places where a person may suffer any inhuman or degrading treatment. Still, it has already been shamelessly breached in several instances. In 2023, a European deal with Tunisia caused tremendous deadly repression, with migrants deported in the middle of the desert and dying of thirst; which did not constitute an obstacle to receiving European funds. Dutch MEP Sophie in ’t Veld has called out the European Union’s lack of transparency and accountability regarding such deals.
The rise of far-right parties in Europe has led to an ability to leverage more push toward hardline migration legislation, creating a new consensus in the Union. At a time where many people need to find refuge from wars and genocides, this shift raises alarming concerns about the potential for disastrous human rights violations. By mobilizing public opinion and putting pressure on governments to uphold international legal standards, Non-Governmental Organizations will be key in safeguarding rights and dignity of asylum seekers.
Edited by Alice Viollet
The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and they do not reflect the position of the McGill Journal of Political Science or the Political Science Students’ Association.
Featured image by Riccardo De Luca through Wikimedia Commons
