Asylum redistribution in the EU is not the solution

By
BrusselsReport.eu
-

By Swedish MEP Charlie Weimers (SD – ECR)

A lot of international observers have expressed horror at the recent election results in Sweden, which saw the opposition parties, including the Sweden Democrats, rise to power. There has been much speculation on what exactly it is we seek to accomplish and, more importantly, on how to stop us.

As an MEP representing the Sweden Democrats, I would like to humbly suggest that, rather than mindlessly focusing on how to stop us, European leaders should instead pay attention to the issues we care about – issues that a large portion of voters also care about – and consider the solutions that we promote. What then are these issues and solutions?

The Sweden Democrats do not reject the notion of international solidarity

Throughout my three years in the European Parliament, I have brought attention to and fought for the rights of Christians in the Middle East, for the right of Ukraine to remain an independent state under its pre-2014 borders, and for Taiwan’s right to self-determination. I have personally used my platform as a member of the European Parliament to support the people protesting in Iran and I do so with the full backing of my party that topped the polls among Swedish-Iranians.

Solidarity needs realism in order to be sustainable

Asylum and migration policies in Sweden and many other EU states have been guided by a Willkommenskultur prioritizing values over realism. Economic migrants were granted asylum as were citizens of countries suffering through war, regardless of whether the applicant actually lived in his or her home country prior to arriving to the country in which they applied for asylum.

Most troubling in the current crisis is that the high level of migration to Sweden and many other member states in previous decades has left preciously few resources to spare as Ukrainian women and children are fleeing war in our near abroad.

Some claim prosperous countries in Europe are able to help everyone that is seeking shelter. After the 2015 refugee crisis and subsequent tribute payment to Turkey, many European leaders have (implicitly or explicitly) come to view asylum migration as being more or less an issue of the past. They could not be more wrong. The number of people in need of international protection is growing exponentially as is the number of people willing to migrate to Europe for economic reasons. Both these challenges need to be addressed.

Migratory pressure on Europe will only increase

Based on international surveys of people’s intentions, demographers estimate that the number of people wishing to immigrate to another country is around 1.4 billion. Agence Française de Développement estimates that Europe is the preferred destination for 35-40 percent of these. That means over 500 million, more than the population of the EU, could be heading our way.

These people do not currently have a legal right to asylum, but the EU will nevertheless struggle to turn them away. The reasons are both practical and political.

Since the refugee crisis of 2015, strong political pressure has been exerted on EU Member States to accept a redistribution system that would allow the EU to force each member state to accept its “fair share” of asylum seekers arriving to the Union. It should not be surprising to anyone that the loudest calls for redistribution have come from leaders of countries that for decades have prided themselves on liberal and supposedly humanitarian migration policies. To this day, this approach remains a massive pull factor, causing these countries to attract a greater share of asylum seekers in relation to their population than others. Redistribution will always be the obvious solution to open-borders advocates and asylum activists.

EU Member States, that are democratically accountable to voters, must retain the power to decide the volumes of migration, without penalties or punishments. If this principle of power sharing would be undermined, severe damage would be done to the legitimacy of the EU in the eyes of many voters. To undo this principle and force migrants on Member States, using punishments and incentives, as the EU’s proposed Asylum- and Migration pact does, would likewise sow further division.

Aside from the sovereignty issue, the sheer quantity of people who may seek asylum is greater than what Member States of the EU can handle. Hundreds of millions could potentially be arriving in the coming decades. Many countries still struggle to assimilate those that arrived in 2015 and no matter how these new asylum seekers are going to be distributed, there are simply too many of them.

A redistribution system will cover up the impact of migration

When Sweden, Germany and other western member states were totally overwhelmed by asylum seekers in late 2015, the EU finally pulled the brake. Member states were allowed to suspend the rules of the Schengen agreement and introduce border controls, and the EU, lacking the ability to guard its own borders and turn away boats carrying asylum seekers, quickly agreed to Turkey’s demands of tribute. Had countries like Sweden and Germany been able to redistribute asylum seekers away from our own countries to other member states, this would have allowed our governments to sweep the problem under the rug, keep borders open and ignore the problem for even longer.

The same holds true for the coming migration crisis. If we were to allow the next crisis to continue unabated until every single member state -through redistribution – had received enough asylum seekers to reach the breaking point that Sweden and Germany reached in late 2015, there would be no salvaging the situation. No Turkey-style tribute agreements or internal border checks would turn the tide if we get to that point.

Redistribution will add to brain drain and hold developing countries back

Migrants that are granted asylum in Europe rarely return to their home countries, even once these countries are safe to return to. This permanent loss of human capital slows down the rebuilding of countries ravaged by conflict or disaster, causing additional suffering for those who remained in their countries throughout the war.

Then of course, there is the practical issue of how one would redistribute migrants

Given the difficulty that so many European member states have to deport migrants who have been denied asylum, it beggars belief to think that they would be capable of redistributing “their” asylum seekers to other member states, even if those states were willing to take them. For logistical purposes, ‘redistribution’ is just deportation by another name, albeit to another EU member state with less generous welfare, rather than to the migrant’s home country.

The voluntary redistribution scheme is failing

When the agreement was struck on the EU Voluntary Solidarity Mechanism in June 2022 it was described as “a first step in the gradual implementation of the New Pact on Migration and Asylum”. It was “designed to support the Member States most affected in the Mediterranean as well as other Member States under pressure, including on the Western Atlantic route, by offering relocations, financial contributions and other measures of support.” It was supposed to “provide useful lessons for the permanent mechanism on solidarity” and Migration Commissioner Ylva Johansson claimed the scheme “shows that with pragmatism, leadership and trust Europe can deliver on migration.”

However, there is scant enthusiasm for redistribution. Member States such as France have refused candidates for relocation citing security reasons and other states have done little to nothing. The goals for relocation will not be reached: of the planned 3000 only 1000 persons are expected to be relocated from September 22 to the end of this year. This is a drop in the ocean.

Redistribution sends the wrong signal and amplifies the already massive migration pressure

Hundreds of millions of potential migrants will see such schemes as a way to get from frontier states to welfare states in a safe manner, thinking: “All I have to do is to make it to EU soil and the door is open.”

Europe’s message to would-be migrants should be that illegal entry no longer will be rewarded with welfare

The EU should launch multi-language deterrence campaigns in the Middle East, Africa and other countries of origin and transit, informing prospective migrants that, whatever the smugglers may tell them, Europe is serious about turning them back, and their journey and sacrifices will be for nothing. Australia has proven that campaigns targeting diaspora communities as well as countries of origin and transit can be effective if done right.

Border enforcement will be vital to ensure the safety and prosperity of all the member states in the EU. Relying on foreign powers like Turkey should only ever have been a temporary solution, if even that. Unfortunately, it has become increasingly clear over the years that the EU is content with the status quo: paying tribute to Erdogan. Despite countless hybrid attacks and migrants being used as human ammunition against member states, the European Commission continues to refuse to fund physical border barriers.

Instead of relying on Turkey or on farfetched dreams of redistribution, the border needs to be secured physically, migrant boats need to be returned to their ports of origin and illegal arrivals sent to third country reception centres under a scaled up Danish model. Such policies would bankrupt the human smuggling gangs and save lives of migrants and European citizens.

International protection outside of Europe for those in need

A sustainable model for providing international protection to those most in need would be based on collaboration with politically stable developing countries and safe zones for asylum seekers in their vicinity. Denmark, the United Kingdom and aforementioned Australia have led the way on this: Both Denmark and the U.K. have come to agreements with Rwanda that, if implemented, will see asylum seekers relocated to Rwanda for processing. Those granted international protection will be provided safe haven in Rwanda and will never set foot in Europe. This is a proven model. For years Australia has sent asylum seekers to Nauru from which successful applicants are relocated to Papua New Guinea, which grants them permanent right to live and work in exchange for financial compensation from Australia.

More cost efficient to help there, rather than here

Helping migrants in the same region as their countries of origin is both more cost-efficient and allows western aid efforts to have a greater impact than if we try to integrate migrants in our countries. Instead of individual countries competing and scrambling to strike deals with safe countries in the third world as migrant numbers rise, the EU could lead the way and help facilitate agreements with safe countries in every developing region, countries to which asylum seekers from that region could be transferred for processing and possible protection. The EU could at the very least help instead of criticizing Denmark in their efforts to secure such agreements.

The deterrence effect Europe needs

While the coming decades will no doubt witness a great surge in the number of refugees, we know from experience that every wave of refugees also brings at least as many economic migrants without valid reasons to claim asylum. These economic migrants would be deterred from applying for asylum if they knew that being granted asylum would result in a one-way journey to a country where their living standards could not be expected to be significantly higher compared to what they enjoyed in their home countries.

Refugees on the other hand would be happy to be accept shelter from a safe zone, even if the safe zone could not provide a higher quality of living than the refugees’ home countries. Thus, economic migrants would effectively be deterred, while refugees are effectively helped.

Discouraging economic migration will also reduce brain drain from the developing world, while regional safe zones would make it easier for refugees to return to their home countries if and when it is safe to do so which would help countries ravaged by conflict to rebuild quicker.

Our vision of sustainable solidarity

If the EU wishes to counteract the rise of parties critical of mass migration and further societal disintegration; then the policies I’ve outlined are the ones to adopt. I, as well as the Sweden Democrats, and the ECR, by way of its Migration Policy Working Group, stand ready to work with everyone, including the Commission, to develop solutions that will ensure that the EU helps those most in need, deters economic migration and preserves Member States’ sovereignty, welfare systems and our way of life.

 

Disclaimer: www.BrusselsReport.eu will under no circumstance be held legally responsible or liable for the content of any article appearing on the website, as only the author of an article is legally responsible for that, also in accordance with the terms of use.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR