What's next for the EU’s Migration and Asylum Pact?

Many member states are hardening their borders — before the migration deal they agreed to months ago is even implemented.
Poland's centrist-liberal government of Donald Tusk wants to cut off border crossings like these, calling them "hybrid warfare."

By Julia Kaiser

Julia is a reporter at The Parliament Magazine

22 Oct 2024


Co-Author Sarah Schug


The European Union appears increasingly eager to stop many kinds of migration to the bloc. Leaders are dipping into the far-right playbook to do so, even as they fret about the rise of far-right parties.   

At last week's European Council summit, the leaders of the EU's 27 member states agreed to prevent unauthorised arrivals to the bloc and accelerate returns “using all relevant EU policies, instruments and tools.”  

Ahead of the meeting, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen endorsed the “idea of developing return hubs outside the EU.” These holding centres for asylum seekers are a major policy proposal by hard-right Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, but they face legal hurdles to operate.  

"We're appalled by the growing support among member states and the Commission for sending people to deportation centres outside of the EU," Michele LeVoy, director of the Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants, said in a statement.  

The law-and-order frenzy over border security reflects political developments in member states. Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk announced plans to temporarily suspend the right to asylum along his country's border with Belarus, citing the threat of "hybrid war.” It follows an earlier move to do so in Finland.  

Germany has become the latest country to expand checks along its national borders, joining at least seven other Schengen members that already do so. 

What about the EU’s Pact on Migration and Asylum?  

The EU's nearly decade-long waffling over immigration was meant to end with the Pact on Migration and Asylum. Approved by the European Council in May, it is designed to manage migration and establish a more coordinated asylum system for the EU.  

The pact, set to take effect within two years, looks increasingly in doubt. The Netherlands and Hungary requested to opt out of it last month. Policymakers on both sides of the debate have been unhappy with the legislation ever since it made its way through EU institutions for approval.   

The Left group in the European Parliament called it a "bow to right-wing extremists and fascists,” while Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, a leading advocate for clamping down on migration, said it was “another nail in the coffin of the European Union.”  

Human rights NGOs have also been divided. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch denounced the pact. The International Rescue Committee and Oxfam signed a joint statement with 20 other groups, describing some aspects of the deal as “a glimmer of hope.”    

The hard-fought deal comes nearly a decade after a migration-fuelled political crisis saw more than 2.3 million border crossings into the EU. 

Solidarity mechanism    

The solidarity mechanism is a cornerstone of the pact. The idea is to encourage responsibility-sharing among the EU member states, given countries located at the bloc’s external borders have to manage a higher influx of people. The mechanism is supposed to replace the Dublin Regulation that currently manages migration transfer around the EU.  

The pact envisions the transfer of at least 30,000 people each year from EU countries with a high number of migrants or asylum seekers to countries with fewer arrivals. Asylum seekers have no say in where their application gets processed.  

If member states do not meet their annual quota of asylum seekers, they can instead provide logistics, such as staff and other resources, or pay into an EU-wide pool of €20,000 for every asylum seeker they do not receive.   

Critics have pointed out that this process gives member states the opportunity to buy their way out of accepting their share of asylum seekers. Without mandatory redistribution, countries of first arrival are likely to continue shouldering the burden.     

Screening rules and border procedures    

To speed up and harmonise asylum procedures at the EU's external borders, third-country nationals are supposed to be “screened” within seven days. This is meant to determine if they have to return to their country of origin or qualify for a standard or accelerated asylum procedure. It includes a health and vulnerability check, an identity check, biometric data collection, and a security check.    

The new screening process at the external borders is legally known as “fiction of non-entry” because the person's arrival to the EU is not officially recognised as such.  

The European Council on Refugees and Exiles has said that such a transit zone establishes a temporary legal space that allows states to “exert control by restricting access to rights for third-country nationals. In the context of asylum, the fiction of non-entry inhibits asylum seekers’ mobility, access to rights and asylum procedures.”  

This, the ECRE added, increases the risk of asylum seekers being forcibly returned to countries where they may face persecution.  

Crisis regulation    

The crisis regulation was developed as a way to deal with sudden, large-scale arrivals, as the EU experienced in 2015-2016. It aims to give governments the opportunity to deviate from EU legal standards and apply stricter measures, while allowing the European Commission to request additional solidarity measures.   

Under the new rules, a situation is considered a crisis if a member state becomes overwhelmed processing applications, or if a third country uses migrants to destabilise a member state. While the crisis mechanism is intended only for exceptional cases, requiring approval from the Council, the International Rescue Committee has said it could be used as a legal technicality to circumvent the rules. 

As with all EU law, it is up to the member state to interpret and implement the pact. The months since its approval have shown that many states are less than eager to do so.  

This article has been updated to reflect the latest developments. 

Read the most recent articles written by Julia Kaiser - Is the Green Deal on track?