The EU migration pact: our five objections
1. Lack of a fairer distribution system
Despite years of negotiations, the rules of the Dublin Regulation remain intact. Under those rules, the first country where a refugee is fingerprinted is responsible for that person’s asylum procedure and reception. These are typically the southern European border countries, such as Greece, Italy and Spain.
‘The lack of effort to create a fairer distribution system is a missed opportunity’ says DCFR chair Frank Candel.
2. Inhumane border procedure
We are also concerned about the mandatory border procedure (which is distinct from the ‘regular’ asylum procedure). This measure not only applies to people from ‘safe’ countries, but it can also be imposed on asylum seekers who are transiting through a ‘safe’ third country (like refugees who enter the EU via Turkey). This procedure applies to ALL refugees without valid documents.
‘Many refugees do not have valid passports’, Frank Candel explains. ‘In practice, this measure will lead to long-term stays in substandard conditions in (partially) closed centres along Europe’s external borders. Families with children also risk being detained. That violates the Convention on the Rights of the Child and, above all, is inhumane.’
3. A failing system
The new pact perpetuates a failing system. It has been proven that the current rules, including the Dublin rules, do not work. Countries along Europe's external borders cannot handle the influx of people. The result is overcrowded refugee camps (like the Greek camp Moria) and illegal and violent pushbacks. There is an urgent need for a structural solution to prevent pushbacks and human rights violations at the external borders.
4. Migration deals
The new pact expands the rules for so-called ‘safe third countries’. Those are countries outside the EU that are not the refugee’s country of origin and are considered ‘safe’ places for them to seek protection. A refugee who has travelled through such a country will have their asylum request rejected at their destination because they should have sought protection in that third country.
Under the new rules, a country can be considered a safe third country if they have reached an agreement with the EU or one of its member states. All the country needs to do is promise that its protections will be in line with the UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. It is no longer necessary for that country to have actually signed the convention. This worries us a lot because such agreements and promises provide no guarantees. The Tunisia deal is a glaring example of how agreements on paper differ from actual practice.
5. Attitude of the Netherlands
Finally, we are unhappy with the positions taken by the Netherlands during pact negotiations. The country opposed proposals for a fairer distribution of responsibilities, including the ‘sibling criterion’. That criterion means that a member state would be responsible for a refugee’s asylum request if they have a family member who lives in that country.
‘This criterion is a perfect means to ensure a more equitable distribution of asylum procedures and reception’, Frank Candel notes. ‘At the same time, it is crucial for the integration of refugees in the different member states. After all, people who are fleeing are like anyone else: they want to be with their families.’
Fleeing is not a choice
Nobody flees voluntarily. Leaving behind everything you hold dear is something you only do when you really have no other option. Because refugees have no choice, we never abandon them. We assist people from arrival to a future.