Migration is a polarising issue in European and UK politics, reflecting broader debates about national identity, values, and sovereignty. Events such as the 2015 refugee crisis, Brexit, and the war in Ukraine have highlighted how migration shapes policy and discourse. In 2023, global migration reached record levels, with 6.5 million people moving to wealthy economies. In the UK, net migration hit 900,000—the highest annual total on record—fueling debates about border control and asylum policies. The European Union's New Pact on Migration and Asylum, passed in April and set to be fully implemented by 2026, aims to address the long-standing challenges of asylum processes and border control. However, questions remain about the EU's ability to balance humanitarian obligations with political realities.
Political leaders frame migration through multiple dominant narratives: as an opportunity, as a threat, or as a moral responsibility. In some contexts, migration is framed as an opportunity for economic growth and social renewal. Germany has integrated refugees into its workforce to address labor shortages in sectors like healthcare and agriculture. Syrian doctors comprise a significant number of foreign doctors in Germany, and the healthcare sector will suffer if migrants move back to Syrian en masse. The UK also faces pressing labor shortages, especially in sectors like construction that are buttressed by migrant workers. If the UK is to achieve its goal of boosting the economy through building more homes, legal routes of migration are necessary to reach the required number of workers.
Now, more than ever, migration has become a securitised topic - portrayed as a threat to security, cultural identity, and economic stability. In Hungary, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán frames migration as an existential threat to European values, opposing EU refugee quotas and emphasizing national sovereignty. Similarly, in the UK, post-Brexit rhetoric has depicted migration as a threat to sovereignty. These threats often boil down to concerns about migrants draining the resources of relatively wealthier EU countries.
Nevertheless, these countries have a humanitarian obligation, as enshrined in treaties, to host refugees and migrants. This creates a paradox wherein countries want migrants to drive economic growth and prosperity, yet simultaneously frame migration negatively to curb irregular migration.The contradictions within the EU's approach become apparent through how it funds refugee-hosting nations like Turkey while tightening its own asylum pathways. The EU's response to the Ukraine conflict espouses solidarity, granting Ukrainian refugees temporary protection and work rights across member states. However, similar generosity has not been granted to asylum seekers from the Middle East or Africa, revealing inconsistencies in Europe’s commitment to human rights. Furthermore, external border agreements such as the EU-Turkey deal aim to manage migration, but often raise ethical concerns as they focus on deterrence rather than protection.
Migration continues to be weaponised in political discourse, with outsourcing asylum responsibilities emerging as a controversial strategy. The EU increasingly outsources migration management to other countries, with mixed results. This strategy involves sending asylum seekers or rejected applicants to countries outside Europe, where claims can be processed or individuals await deportation. However, such policies are deeply controversial, raising concerns about feasibility, usefulness, and potential human rights violations.
The outsourcing of asylum responsibilities by the EU and the UK has its roots in the 2015-2016 migration crisis, which saw over 2 million people—mainly fleeing the Syrian civil war—arrive in Europe. The sheer scale of arrivals overwhelmed frontline countries like Greece and Italy, which under the EU’s Dublin rules were responsible for registering asylum seekers at their first point of entry. Meanwhile, wealthier northern nations like Germany, where many migrants traveled onward, accused southern countries of shirking their responsibilities. To manage the crisis, in 2016 the EU struck a deal with Turkey providing €6 billion (topped up to €9 billion in 2021) in exchange for Turkey to host Syrian refugees and increase border controls. The agreement led to a 50% drop in irregular arrivals by 2017. However, this arrangement has made the EU vulnerable to political blackmail: Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has repeatedly leveraged the presence of refugees to secure additional funding or concessions, even threatening to “open the gates” to Europe in 2020.
The success of the Turkey deal set a precedent for further outsourcing migration management to third countries. In 2017, Italy signed an agreement with Libya, backed by the EU, to fund the Libyan coastguard and detention centres. While this curbed departures, it also led to documented abuses, including the imprisonment, enslavement, and torture of migrants in Libyan facilities. A 2023 UN report accused Libyan authorities of potential war crimes and crimes against humanity, highlighting the moral and legal risks of such agreements.
More recently, the EU’s Tunisia agreement reflects a continuation of this strategy. Brussels pledged €164.5 million over three years to bolster Tunisia’s security forces, funding maritime patrols, radar systems, and land border posts. This has significantly increased boat interceptions, with 81,000 migrants stopped in 2023 alone. However, the EU-Tunisia partnership has sparked serious human rights concerns. Tunisian security forces have been accused of unlawful detentions and expulsions of migrants. At the moment, Italian Prime Minister Meloni seeks to send asylum seekers to Albania despite protest from the opposition and Italian courts. Italy's offshore processing agreement with Albania is hailed by some as a potential game-changer as the Albanian facilities will be staffed by Italians, with approved asylum seekers ultimately relocated to Italy.
This flagship project however, has been critiqued by the opposition and raised to the EU court over concerns human rights abuses. Prime Minister Meloni claims that opposing her policy “would risk compromising...the repatriation policies of all member states", framing this policy as spearheading humanitarian responsibility and maintaining EU unity. Understandably, outsourcing migration management is an enticing option as it allows governments to distance themselves from ethical obligations while externalising border controls. Nevertheless, reliance on outsourcing is a short-term solution as it simply distances oneself from ethical responsibilities while risking complicity in human rights violations.
Migration is often framed as a "crisis" to justify restrictive policies and galvanise public support for deterrent measures. In particular, right-wing governments such as Italy’s Meloni government frame illegal migration across the Mediterranean as threatening Italian citizens’ quality of life. Even centrist and left-leaning parties adopt restrictive stances to counter the far-right. In the UK, Starmer’s Labour has supported tougher border controls to address voter concerns over illegal immigration post-Brexit.
Viewing migrants, especially irregular arrivals, as a byproduct of crises means a strong desire to repatriate these groups once the perceived crisis is over. The recent fall of the 57-year long Assad regime sparks hope for a safer Syria and one that will enable refugees to return. This has led multiple EU countries, led by Germany, the host of the largest number of Syrian refugees, to suspend asylum applications and encourage migration back to Syria. Migration law experts and civil activists advise against such encouragement as the situation has not yet stabilised and issues regarding housing as well as social and political insecurity persist.
Regardless, sustainable migration policies require addressing root causes, balancing national interests with humanitarian obligations, and fostering international cooperation. Hopefully the EU’s New Pact will break the currently persisting cycle of restrictive measures and human rights challenges, which undermine long-term solutions and Europe’s core values.
Comments