Challenges TO Asyllum Seekers’ Rights in 2024 post the Impact of new EU Migration Policies

Introduction

The European Parliament has approved significant reforms to transform its approach to borders and migration. The Migration and Asylum Pact marks a pivotal moment, following nearly a decade of stalemate on migration policy, largely sparked by the 2015 migration crisis. The policies constrain access to asylum in ways that raise questions about conformity with international human rights norms, particularly the Principle of Non-Refoulement. They also reflect the EU's move towards speedier processing and hastened returns.

Mandatory pre-entry screening, expedited border processing for asylum applications, and more stringent regulations to stop asylum seekers from travelling between member states are important aspects of the changes. This shift raises concerns about outsourcing responsibilities to non-EU nations with weaker human rights protections and side-lining refugee integration efforts. Although the EU claims to monitor violations through Frontex and the Fundamental Rights Agency, critics argue these measures are insufficient and risk perpetuating old patterns of neglect in asylum management. 

This blog decisively examines whether these reforms offer meaningful progress or merely disguise a continuation of outdated EU practices.

The Drawbacks of the 2015 Pact on Migration and Asylum

In 2015, close to a million migrants risked perilous sea crossings via the Mediterranean and Aegean to seek refuge in Europe. This massive influx, predominantly comprising refugees and asylum seekers from Africa and the Middle East, placed immense pressure on several EU countries. European nations have made their surroundings unfriendly to migrants and refugees as a result of securitisation, the practice of painting something as an immediate threat. 

The European Commission introduced the Pact on Migration and Asylum in 2015, but it has only recently been approved after several amendments. The pact aimed to balance the interests of member states, giving countries like Italy and Greece more authority to deport ineligible asylum seekers, while other nations could choose to host migrants or contribute financially. Despite this compromise, the pact has been highly controversial, with every aspect sparking debate, highlighting its ineffectiveness in addressing migration issues.

The pact endangers refugees by increasing the likelihood of their detention and denying them fair processing of asylum claims, violating international refugee laws. Another concern is that the pact allows member states to bypass asylum laws in exceptional situations, often when the need for protection is greatest.

“Fortress Europe” – A Racist Approach?

The refugee situation in Ukraine is not like any other. While over seven million people are internally displaced within Ukraine, over eight million have migrated to neighbouring nations. Furthermore, Europe's response to the displaced Ukrainians is unusual, in terms of public reaction, civil society involvement, and the prompt protection procedures provided by European countries under the EU Temporary Protection Directive. This stands in sharp contrast to how the European nations treat those escaping poverty or conflict in the Middle East, Africa, and Afghanistan. While providing refuge to Ukrainians fleeing Russian aggression has been hailed as "the noble thing to do," asylum applicants who are not Europeans or White people have been painted as hybrid security concerns.

The New Migration Policy: A Heightened Risk of Human Rights Violations?

The Migration and Asylum Pact has been designed to primarily focus on 4 essential aspects of Migration that ensure strong borders while guaranteeing rights to people:

1. Secure External Borders

2. Fast and Efficient Procedures

3. Effective System of Solidarity and Responsibility

4. Embedding migration in international partnerships

   
   

Pushbacks and Non-Refoulement Violations

The Right to Asylum is a Human Right that grants protection to asylum seekers against being expelled or returned to situations that endanger their lives. This principle is also known as the Principle of Non-Refoulement and forms the basis of International Asylum rights. The UNHCR safeguards the rights of asylum seekers by providing legal support for their claims, ensuring access to essential services, advocating against unjust detention, and working to strengthen asylum systems worldwide. 

The EU's continued attempt to evade its duties under international law towards asylum seekers is evident in its failure to establish a common European asylum system with clear rules and regulations, to not ease pressure from entry countries, to further militarize border control, and to outsource the problem of migration to third countries. The possible collapse of the international system, which would imply the end of the human rights framework as we know it, is the long-term result of disregarding and downplaying international legal principles.

The Externalisation of Asylum Responsibilities

The one area of agreement among member states is Externalization, or moving the EU's refugee duties outside of Europe. These ideas are part of a larger trend that intends to externalise the processing of asylum applications to Albania or transfer authority for border control and refugee protection to non-EU nations. These initiatives include recent agreements with Tunisia, Egypt, and Mauritania. These actions put individuals at risk of being imprisoned in countries where their human rights are violated, make the EU complicit in any subsequent violations, and undermine Europe's capacity to protect human rights outside of the union.

Furthermore, the relocation system, which would have required them to absorb refugees, has been rejected by nations like Poland and Hungary. They can pay their way out of their commitments under European and international law by choosing to pay 20,000 euros ($21,550) for each refugee, as per the agreement. This implies that fundamental legal standards for the protection of refugees are being undermined, in addition to placing an even greater burden on the nations at the EU's external borders.

Detention and Containment Practices

EU provisions distinguish between different grounds for detaining third-country nationals: during asylum procedures, to prevent irregular entry, or for return proceedings. This set of policies unfortunately runs the potential of putting more people—including families with children—into de facto custody at EU borders, depriving them of a thorough and impartial evaluation of their protection requirements. In addition, the plan allows for additional emergency measures that will expose a great number of individuals to deprivation, arbitrary detention, and pushback at European borders.

The Report “Guidance on investigating alleged ill-treatment at borders” by EUFRA reveals that a large number of grave human rights abuses occurring at borders are not adequately looked into. Incidents of mistreatment and fatalities during border management were not adequately investigated by national authorities in Greece, Croatia, or Hungary. 

Way Ahead: Navigating solutions to the recurrent Violations

Addressing the recurring challenges to asylum seekers’ rights in the EU requires a recalibration toward a more humanitarian approach, balancing security with responsibility. First, an effective solution would be to establish a standardised, EU-wide asylum system that adheres strictly to international human rights standards, ensuring that every application is fairly assessed regardless of the applicant’s origin. Rather than shifting responsibilities to third countries with inconsistent human rights records, the EU should invest in mechanisms that enhance the capacity for safe and humane border processing within its borders, reducing reliance on detention and containment practices that exacerbate suffering. 

The second step involves reinforcing the accountability of border management through independent oversight mechanisms, as well as implementing transparent investigations into allegations of ill-treatment and pushbacks. Programs like Frontex should be restructured with a stronger commitment to protecting human rights, rather than solely focusing on border security. 

Lastly, integrating migrants and asylum seekers into host societies, rather than viewing them as transient “burdens,” could help reshape public and political attitudes, fostering solidarity rather than division. These changes, though challenging, are necessary for the EU to align its migration practices with the fundamental rights it claims to uphold.