EU leaders met in Brussels on Thursday with migration at the top of the agenda. Here we examine why that has happened – and what the European Commission, as well as national capitals, might do about it.
Why has immigration become such a big issue again?
Only this April, the EU finalised its new “asylum and migration pact” after almost a decade of often fraught negotiations following the migration crisis of 2015 and 2016, during which almost 2 million people, mostly Syrian refugees, arrived in the bloc.
Criticised by rights groups, the pact aims to strengthen the EU’s external borders and accelerate returns of unsuccessful asylum applicants, while also spreading the financial and practical burden of resettlement more fairly among member states.
Nonetheless, and despite irregular immigration into the EU being a fraction of what it was in 2015 (and falling more than 35% this year compared with 2023), a new anti-immigration mood is sweeping the bloc, driven in large part by the electoral success of far-right parties.
Anti-immigration, far-right and national conservative parties are in power in seven EU countries, from Finland to Italy, and propping up a minority government in Sweden. The far-right Eurosceptic Freedom party topped Austria’s recent vote and the Alternative für Deutschland has made historic gains in Germany.
In France, Marine Le Pen’s National Rally holds the fate of the government – whose prime minister has described current immigration levels as “often insufferable” – in its hands. And in Hungary, Viktor Orbán rails against “outrageous and unacceptable” EU migration policy.
What anti-immigration steps are national governments taking?
Germany, long seen as relatively liberal on migration, has tightened its asylum laws and last month reimposed checks at all nine of its land borders, a move widely seen as threatening the EU’s prized principle of free movement and its passport-free Schengen zone.
It is not alone. Citing terrorist threats and overwhelmed asylum systems, seven other Schengen countries have reintroduced border controls. The Netherlands has unveiled what it calls “the strictest admissions rules in the EU”.
Poland’s prime minister, Donald Tusk, said last weekend he wanted to go further by suspending the right to asylum for people crossing from Belarus in an effort to cut irregular migration to “a minimum” and “regain 100% control over who enters and leaves”.
That follows a similar move by Finland for people arriving from Russia. Warsaw and Helsinki complained that Minsk and Moscow were helping people, mainly from Africa and the Middle East, to enter the EU in a form of “hybrid warfare”.
Last week Italy opened two centres in Albania where it will hold men trying to cross from Africa to Europe while their asylum applications are processed by Rome, a move described by the prime minister, Giorgia Meloni, as a “a new, courageous and unprecedented path”.
What options are being discussed at EU level?
Several ideas are on the table, none clearly defined and all needing far more discussion, but most involving some form of “offshoring” the problem – removing it, as far as possible, beyond the EU’s borders in something reminiscent of, though not as radical as, the UK’s ill-fated Rwanda scheme.
Under the Rwanda scheme, irregular immigrants would have been sent to the African country for their asylum demands to be processed – and stayed there even if successful. So far that is not being publicly discussed in the EU, but offshore processing and detention centres are.
“Hotspots”, “migration centres” or “return hubs” are all terms for facilities in third countries where asylum seekers can be held while their requests are assessed, or to which people who arrive without documentation or have had their applications rejected can be deported before being returned to their home countries.
Also under discussion are more of the kind of “partnership deals” that the EU and individual members states such as Italy have sealed with countries such as Turkey, Tunisia and Libya, which are aimed at dissuading people from trying to reach Europe in the first place.
Fourteen member states, including France and Germany, have signed a letter demanding a tough “paradigm shift” on migration. Many want to see a significant increase in the “rate of returns”: the proportion of people deported after being denied asylum, currently only about one in five.
The commission president, Ursula von der Leyen, has promised action on this last point, including new legislation. She has said it is time for the bloc to look at “return hubs” outside the EU, without defining how they might work or where they might be. Albania’s prime minister, Edi Rama, has repeatedly said his country’s deal is only for Italy.
With countries such as Italy pushing to be able to return migrants to, for example, Syria, von der Leyen has further said that the commission is open to reviewing the EU’s list of “designated safe third countries”.
What might be the outcome?
The Polish government won support for its plan to suspend asylum for arrivals from Belarus and Russia, and leaders discussed setting up "return hubs" in countries outside the EU. Von der Leyen said the discussion on how to organise such hubs was still in progress.
The summit’s final statement also reflected the new mood, calling for “determined action at all levels to facilitate, increase and speed up returns from the EU using all relevant EU policies, instruments and tools”.
It will take many more meetings, however, before the bloc arrives at a new set of common policies. In the meantime, national governments will continue to take unilateral measures (according to Dutch media, the Netherlands would like to deport people to Uganda).
Although the talks were reportedly constructive, the pact on migration and asylum, due to take effect over the next two years, has already been weakened. Many now accept it is not tough enough on deportation, and the Netherlands and Hungary are demanding opt-outs.
There are major doubts about the feasibility and legality of the proposed new measures. External partnership deals, under which countries such as Tunisia and Libya are paid to contain and return irregular migrants trying to cross the Mediterranean, have already been heavily criticised by NGOs after revelations of serious human rights abuses there.
“Hotspots” and “return hubs” are equally controversial, with activists and researchers questioning whether, compared with a well-funded, EU-based asylum system, they can ever be humane, effective or even legal under international law. Four of the first 16 migrants Italy sent to Albania were sent back because they were minors or were deemed vulnerable.
More practically, besides Albania’s deal with Italy and a small-scale agreement between Denmark and Kosovo, it is unclear which non-EU might be willing to host such centres. Some diplomats suspect that for this reason alone, the idea may be a non-starter.
