Wednesday will see the European Parliament cast their votes on a significant set of new laws intending to revamp its immigration policy, despite increasing disapproval accusing it of fuelling far-right ideologies as opposed to providing protection to individuals in dire circumstances. First suggested in 2018, this comprehensive assortment of laws has been tailored to expedite asylum procedures, ensuring judgement on eligibility and obligatory repatriation could occur within a mere 12 weeks.
The implementation of these laws would set up a single, centralised screening procedure at every entry point along the EU’s external frontier. Additionally, it would bring to life a “solidarity” protocol, insisted upon by Greece and Italy, permitting nations overwhelmed by the influx of arrivals to transfer the asylum process to a fellow member country.
Should the legislation be approved, it would create Eurodac, a central databank that would enable member countries to discover if an individual has sought asylum in another nation. On Tuesday, Ylva Johansson, the home affairs commissioner and primary proponent of the legislation, stated that the reforms aimed to “regulate migration in a structured manner” and subsequently neutralise the extreme right-wing populism within the 27-member group.
However, even amongst its advocates, the suite of laws is considered controversial. Critics argue that rather than neutralising the far-right, the new laws simply serve to legitimise its viewpoints while making no effort to halt the escalating death count occurring along immigration paths to the EU. Malin Björk, an MEP from the Swedish Left party, criticised the legislation for not addressing the issues it was supposed to solve, such as the number of people perishing during risky crossings.
Since 2014, over 29,000 individuals have either lost their lives or disappeared in the Mediterranean, making it the world’s most perilous migration route, although other routes have also been marked with a high death toll. In the first two months of this particular year, over 12,000 persons attempted to cross the Atlantic Ocean to reach the Canary Islands, with more reportedly being trafficked from Lebanon to Cyprus and Greece.
Three political factions within the European Parliament – the centre-right European People’s Party (EPP), the Socialists and Democrats from the left, and the liberal Renew group – are anticipated to support majority of the proposed laws on the debate’s agenda this Wednesday. However, there were uncertainties on Tuesday regarding whether every MEP within those factions would back the legislation.
The Greens and the European Free Alliance, which comprises 72 members out of the 705 MEPs, are expected to be in favour of only two out of the 10 legislative clusters being debated. Their approval is believed to be restricted to the clusters addressing standards in resettlement and reception centres.
Insiders in the group have purported that the proposed laws represent “a significant regression for refugee rights”, and are filled with legal inconsistencies that will inevitably result in violations of fundamental rights. The suggested legislation should be focusing more on safe systems for everyone and less on deterrence, in collaboration with international partners. According to insiders, the only laws proposed that achieve this are those aimed at standardising conditions in reception centres and settlement schemes.
A major concern that has cast a shadow over migration debates is the inability of member states to exercise their existing powers to deport individuals who have been unsuccessful in their asylum applications. This has often resulted in individuals being able to reside and travel within Europe for years before a decision is arrived at. According to Ms Johansson, the new legislation intends to “close the loopholes” and address the protracted periods between asylum decisions and court orders instructing unsuccessful applicants to leave the EU.
On the day before the vote, 161 civil society organisations’ representatives urged MEPs to turn down the legislation, contending that it was fundamentally flawed from the beginning.