European policies towards immigration: a controversial model
Posted 11:45 PM by Internal Voices in Labels: 10th edition
Manon Letouche, UN Regional Information Center in Brussels, Benelux Desk
The European Union often appears as being at the vanguard regarding the respect of human rights and the protection of civil liberties and likes to encourage its partners to follow its example. As Navanathem Pillay, the United Nations High Commissioner for human rights pointed out, the EU is « a strong moral voice for many human rights problems that people are facing around the world ».(1) Nonetheless, the situation is far from being perfect in Europe, in particular regarding the treatment of migrants and asylum seekers. Indeed, lately, the EU and some of its Member States have been the subject of many criticisms from the media, the NGOs and international organisations for their policies towards migrants and asylum seekers.
While the European policy making process is often very slow and full of pitfalls, the area of « liberty, security and justice » has been very dynamic and many measures have been taken since the European Council of Sevilla in 2002, where the leaders of the EU decided to adopt a new strategy of European security “recognizing that the citizens of Europe and elsewhere are facing threats of terrorism, multiplication of massive destruction weapons and illegal immigration”.(2) External boundaries were thus reinforced; directives were implemented notably to fight against people that help, employ or exploit migrants. In particular, the passing of the directive on return of illegal migrants - often qualified as « directive of the shame » because it does not seem to ensure the respect of human rights - and the common operation of repatriation – « operation return » - that are now commonly organized by several countries to rationalize costs, were very controversial. Immigration has thus become an essential part of the community project of internal security, but the « fight » against illegal immigration raises many tricky questions.
First, there is of course the issue of human rights and of the respect of international law, in particular the Geneva Convention regarding the rights of refugees. Migrants are often the subject of discriminatory law(3); asylum seekers have to sleep in the streets, parks and stations(4) and with the common « return » operations, the principle of non refoulement appears to have been violated. Indeed, this principle forbids the expulsion of refugees to any country in which they might be subject to persecution. When we hear that Italy sent 500 migrants back to Libya and that England and France conjointly send Afghans back to Afghanistan, it is difficult to imagine that not a single one of these migrants was in a situation in which his life or freedom was threatened in his country of origin or that none of them were eligible to the status of refugee.
Second, we need to take into consideration the human and social reality of the fight against illegal immigration. Between 1993 and 2008, around 11,100 people have lost their lives at the European boundaries, and there were around 2500 deaths between 2007 and 2008. These deaths are often linked to drowning, suffocating, or even mines or action of the police forces and these are not independent from the policies of the EU. Indeed, when a country reinforces its boundaries and implements measures to prevent migrants from reaching its territory, the migrants will try to find another migratory way, which is often much more dangerous. This was the case in Spain, where migrants eventually tried to reach the country through the Canary Islands, leading to thousands of deaths in a single month. This implies that in many cases these plans do not slow down the migratory flows but only deviate or displace them, making them more risky and deadly.(5) Moreover, the increasing severity of immigration policies encourages human trafficking and exploitation.(6)
As these controversial policies do not seem to be really efficient, one can wonder why the EU seems so keen to be quickly involved in this area. We have to replace this in the global context of fear and anxiety with regards to security that has become predominant since the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Since then, the priority has clearly been given to internal security, and the immigration policies have become increasingly restrictive. Immigration was presented as a threat, and in the end, "the Union’s area of freedom, security and justice increasingly looks like an area of exlusion and stigmatisation"(7) This is because among the public opinion, immigration has often a very negative image. The common stereotype is that migrants take the place of the local workers, exert a negative pressure on wages and excessively use the social services. The arrival of migrants can provoke other wariness among the inhabitants, notably regarding the potential increase of criminality and concerns about the cultural and social cohesion.(8) The EU, when fighting against illegal immigration, is thus undoubtedly looking for more legitimacy vis-à-vis its citizens.
Nonetheless, as the United Nation Programme for Development has demonstrated in its last report on human development, these fears are exaggerated. Actually, the report argues that migrants stimulate the economy and that the costs for the host countries are either very limited or even inexistent. Migration brings generally many benefices, notably directly thank to the money sent by the migrant to his family. In the country of origin, migration increases incomes, stimulates consumption, improves health and education.(9) Mobility can facilitate the access to knowledge, ideas and resources, and is beneficial both economically and culturally. Migration and mobility are in fact advantageous for human development: for those who migrate, for the ones that stay in their country of origin and for the majority of the host countries.(10)
Immigration is an issue that deserves to be looked at differently and that deserves attention from governments and civil society. European policies towards immigration have been focused on blocking out and on closing boundaries and were in the end characterized by more illegality and more danger for the migrants. It is thus time for a change in mentalities and in the policies of government, both at the national and the European level, and not only because of the important advantages of mobility but also because of the risks that migrants have to take - risk that could decrease if better policies were implemented. Europe could show the example for its “strong moral voice” to be relevant again.
References:
(1) Press conference with Navanathem Pillay, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, on Thursday 14 October 2009
(2) COMMISSION EUROPENNE, Un acteur mondial, les relations extérieures de l’Union, Luxembourg, 2004, p.10
(3) For example, in Italy – more severe penalty towards non european migrants.
(4) For example, in Belgium (camps in Brussels) and France (with the destruction of the Jungle in Calais)
(5) Duez D., L’Union européenne et l’immigration clandestine, ed. de l’Université Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, 2008
(6) Carling J, « Migration, Human Smuggling and Trafficking from Nigeria to Europe », Geneve : Organisation internationale pour les migrations, in UNDP , World report on Human Development,
(7) BRETHERTON C. and VOGLER J., op. cit., pp 174 BRETERHON C. and VOGLER J., The European Union as a Global Actor, ed Routledge, 2006, USA.
(8) UNPD, World report on human development 2009, p.3
(9) UNPD, World report on human development 2009, p.3
(10) UNPD, Op.cit, p.127
The European Union often appears as being at the vanguard regarding the respect of human rights and the protection of civil liberties and likes to encourage its partners to follow its example. As Navanathem Pillay, the United Nations High Commissioner for human rights pointed out, the EU is « a strong moral voice for many human rights problems that people are facing around the world ».(1) Nonetheless, the situation is far from being perfect in Europe, in particular regarding the treatment of migrants and asylum seekers. Indeed, lately, the EU and some of its Member States have been the subject of many criticisms from the media, the NGOs and international organisations for their policies towards migrants and asylum seekers.
While the European policy making process is often very slow and full of pitfalls, the area of « liberty, security and justice » has been very dynamic and many measures have been taken since the European Council of Sevilla in 2002, where the leaders of the EU decided to adopt a new strategy of European security “recognizing that the citizens of Europe and elsewhere are facing threats of terrorism, multiplication of massive destruction weapons and illegal immigration”.(2) External boundaries were thus reinforced; directives were implemented notably to fight against people that help, employ or exploit migrants. In particular, the passing of the directive on return of illegal migrants - often qualified as « directive of the shame » because it does not seem to ensure the respect of human rights - and the common operation of repatriation – « operation return » - that are now commonly organized by several countries to rationalize costs, were very controversial. Immigration has thus become an essential part of the community project of internal security, but the « fight » against illegal immigration raises many tricky questions.
First, there is of course the issue of human rights and of the respect of international law, in particular the Geneva Convention regarding the rights of refugees. Migrants are often the subject of discriminatory law(3); asylum seekers have to sleep in the streets, parks and stations(4) and with the common « return » operations, the principle of non refoulement appears to have been violated. Indeed, this principle forbids the expulsion of refugees to any country in which they might be subject to persecution. When we hear that Italy sent 500 migrants back to Libya and that England and France conjointly send Afghans back to Afghanistan, it is difficult to imagine that not a single one of these migrants was in a situation in which his life or freedom was threatened in his country of origin or that none of them were eligible to the status of refugee.
Second, we need to take into consideration the human and social reality of the fight against illegal immigration. Between 1993 and 2008, around 11,100 people have lost their lives at the European boundaries, and there were around 2500 deaths between 2007 and 2008. These deaths are often linked to drowning, suffocating, or even mines or action of the police forces and these are not independent from the policies of the EU. Indeed, when a country reinforces its boundaries and implements measures to prevent migrants from reaching its territory, the migrants will try to find another migratory way, which is often much more dangerous. This was the case in Spain, where migrants eventually tried to reach the country through the Canary Islands, leading to thousands of deaths in a single month. This implies that in many cases these plans do not slow down the migratory flows but only deviate or displace them, making them more risky and deadly.(5) Moreover, the increasing severity of immigration policies encourages human trafficking and exploitation.(6)
As these controversial policies do not seem to be really efficient, one can wonder why the EU seems so keen to be quickly involved in this area. We have to replace this in the global context of fear and anxiety with regards to security that has become predominant since the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Since then, the priority has clearly been given to internal security, and the immigration policies have become increasingly restrictive. Immigration was presented as a threat, and in the end, "the Union’s area of freedom, security and justice increasingly looks like an area of exlusion and stigmatisation"(7) This is because among the public opinion, immigration has often a very negative image. The common stereotype is that migrants take the place of the local workers, exert a negative pressure on wages and excessively use the social services. The arrival of migrants can provoke other wariness among the inhabitants, notably regarding the potential increase of criminality and concerns about the cultural and social cohesion.(8) The EU, when fighting against illegal immigration, is thus undoubtedly looking for more legitimacy vis-à-vis its citizens.
Nonetheless, as the United Nation Programme for Development has demonstrated in its last report on human development, these fears are exaggerated. Actually, the report argues that migrants stimulate the economy and that the costs for the host countries are either very limited or even inexistent. Migration brings generally many benefices, notably directly thank to the money sent by the migrant to his family. In the country of origin, migration increases incomes, stimulates consumption, improves health and education.(9) Mobility can facilitate the access to knowledge, ideas and resources, and is beneficial both economically and culturally. Migration and mobility are in fact advantageous for human development: for those who migrate, for the ones that stay in their country of origin and for the majority of the host countries.(10)
Immigration is an issue that deserves to be looked at differently and that deserves attention from governments and civil society. European policies towards immigration have been focused on blocking out and on closing boundaries and were in the end characterized by more illegality and more danger for the migrants. It is thus time for a change in mentalities and in the policies of government, both at the national and the European level, and not only because of the important advantages of mobility but also because of the risks that migrants have to take - risk that could decrease if better policies were implemented. Europe could show the example for its “strong moral voice” to be relevant again.
References:
(1) Press conference with Navanathem Pillay, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, on Thursday 14 October 2009
(2) COMMISSION EUROPENNE, Un acteur mondial, les relations extérieures de l’Union, Luxembourg, 2004, p.10
(3) For example, in Italy – more severe penalty towards non european migrants.
(4) For example, in Belgium (camps in Brussels) and France (with the destruction of the Jungle in Calais)
(5) Duez D., L’Union européenne et l’immigration clandestine, ed. de l’Université Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, 2008
(6) Carling J, « Migration, Human Smuggling and Trafficking from Nigeria to Europe », Geneve : Organisation internationale pour les migrations, in UNDP , World report on Human Development,
(7) BRETHERTON C. and VOGLER J., op. cit., pp 174 BRETERHON C. and VOGLER J., The European Union as a Global Actor, ed Routledge, 2006, USA.
(8) UNPD, World report on human development 2009, p.3
(9) UNPD, World report on human development 2009, p.3
(10) UNPD, Op.cit, p.127
0 comment(s) to... “European policies towards immigration: a controversial model”
0 comments:
Post a Comment