The world is experiencing its greatest migratory apogee. Conflict, insecurity, poverty and climate change are forcing millions of people to leave their homes in search of a better and safer life. By mid-2023 alone, 110 million people had been displaced, more than twice as many as in 2012. This reality is particularly noticeable on the routes to Europe. From 2014 to the present, more than 50% of recorded deaths during migration have taken place in Europe or in transit to the continent via sea or land routes. These statistics place Europe as the most dangerous destination for migration, the result of its increasingly aggressive policies and practices.
Far from seeking humanitarian ways to reverse the situation, the EU-27 has signed a new agreement to try to control these movements and the arrival of migrants at their borders. A pact in which the deterrence of unauthorized cross-border movements of people, forced returns and detentions are the cornerstone of future EU migration policy. We talked about it with Silvia Carta and Louise Bonneau, advocacy officers of PICUM -a network of organizations working to ensure social justice and human rights for undocumented migrants- who came to Madrid a few weeks ago for the organization’s general assembly.
What’s the story behind this pact?
The Pact on Migration and Asylum was proposed in 2020 as this big political initiative to completely overall the EU migration and asylum system, after a period where we saw a so-called migration crisis where, basically, the EU Member States didn’t manage to agree on common solutions to address migration. So, the new Commission tried to come up with new proposals that were supposed to completely change this and to bring about more solidarity and more responsibility sharing in the EU.
However, what we saw through the years was a Pact that was extremely detached from the realities of international migration and the reality of the fact that people will move to seek better lives or to reunite with families. It’s also detached from the input of civil society organizations and people working with migrants on a day-to-day basis. A pact which, unfortunately, has a strong focus on containment and detention and tries to create procedures to keep people out of the EU or return them out as quickly as possible. A pact that considers asylum international protection the only ground for which people might have the right to stay in the EU.
What do these concepts of “solidarity à la carte”, “no entry” or “safe third country” that seem to be the cornerstones of the text imply?
Solidarity should have been one of the cornerstones of the pact, meaning a better sharing of responsibilities among the Member States. Because, although this is not always the case, Member States at the borders have been the ones with more obligations in terms of processing asylum applications, rather than countries more in the central and northern part of Europe. The central issue of the pact was how to help countries that were facing migration challenges and make sure that as a Union we share the responsibility to help and welcome people.
However, the pact proposed a mechanism called “mandatory but flexible solidarity”, which is an oxymoron, because it creates forms of solidarity with the possibility for states to pay out their contributions through financial contributions either to other Member States, or even to foreign countries. And here we start seeing the first trend towards externalizing migration.
The second point is the “non entry and push back policies”. It’s not explicitly part of the Pact, but it’s a consequence of what the Pact’s novelties will entail. For example, the establishment of new screening procedures at the border. All the states that receive people coming from outside the EU will have to keep them in facilities for a certain number of days for procedures of identification and security checks. This is a new obligation, in addition to what was already happening, and links up to other procedures such as the border accelerated procedures, that followed this screening phase, with fewer safeguards for the processing of the asylum application. So that creates a more complex and burdensome mechanism for states and especially for people that will find themselves detained for long periods from their arrival to the moment in which they are required to apply for asylum or potentially be returned. In PICUM, we calculated the cumulative possible detention could go up to 8 months procedure by procedure, but this can be further extended in specific situations such as crisis. And the crisis provisions in the Pact are also extremely broad.
All of this has implications. First, we see that countries at the borders might have an incentive to do more border management in a way that keeps people out because without any solidarity or any sharing of responsibility, it will be more difficult for them to also open up and have a more accepting position towards migrants. Now the trend will be to keep people as close to the border as possible and to return them back to the countries where they came from, or to countries where they are supposed to be able to receive protection or live in safety, which is the “safer country” concept.
But “safe countries”, like Turkey, don’t grant any form of protection. Today, there are thousands and thousands of Syrians living undocumented without any support from the government. And the police go around looking for people to detain and further deport, even to Syria and to countries where they might really be at risk.
Another important thing which I think is important to highlight is that the Pact introduces these screening procedures that I mentioned not only for people that arrive at the border, but also for people that are apprehended in the territory of the Member States, and that cannot prove that they have entered regularly. It is one additional challenge and one additional racial profiling element that have an impact on people that will have to face the fear of being found as undocumented, potentially detained and put into procedures that will lead to deportation and return.
– There are many differences about previous pact?
Many of these practices are not different, but now have been brought into the legislation. Basically, it will be a continuation of what we have. What we used to sort of call out as a violation, now it’s in the law, and it would be even more difficult to challenge it.
– And what can be done once the pact is adopted?
The pact has been adopted. It has been published in the Official Journal, so we have the final text and legislation. In 2026, Member States will have to start implementing the pact, all its elements. Now it’s an important period because the Commission will soon come up with implementation plans and then the Member States will also have to adopt the national implementation plans. It’s an important moment to also speak to the authorities and to try to understand whether it’still possible to advocate for some more protective rules to be implemented because the Pact does leave a bit of discretion in certain things to Member States. It’s important to try to preserve some protection where it’s possible.
Another important part of civil society work will be strategic litigation against, for example, arbitrary detention or against the use of the “safer country” concept, for example, and slowly going against all the parts of the pact which are potentially not in line with international legislation and obligations.
And individual cases, in the case of children or people who have specific needs and health conditions, might also be an opportunity. Because, due to the specific health situation, people might be entitled to specific conditions in terms of reception, and if they are brought to special procedures and they are detained without access to the medical help they need, this would be illegal. So, if there is the possibility for lawyers and organizations to challenge that in front of courts, it will be certainly helpful.
Practices such as these have been documented for decades, and yet migration increases year after year. Is there evidence to show that these policies really reduce migratory flows?
Restrictive measures have not been proved to work independently from the number of arrivals. We know that now there are still 100,000 people who are undocumented across the UE, and I think this is a testimony of the fact that restrictive policies only feed into the problem rather than restricting it. We certainly saw that when people move, they do it for a wide variety of reasons, and that migratory routes will change as well. It’s very difficult to tell, but it’s clear that the way that things have been managed so far has not been successful or even respectful with fundamental rights applications.
Are there examples of more inclusive and successful migration policies?
In a smaller scale, there are projects done to sort of counter these trends… and they have been working. One thing which PICUM and some of our members have worked a lot is community-based alternatives to detention and return, implementing and advocating for regularization. Is a case management approach that helps people to get the legal assistance and support they need. Also shelter, while they figure out their migration status applied for regularization that might be existing at national level. In the small pilot projects that have been implemented, this has been working quite well with people being accompanied rather than left to find themselves in very complex administrative systems. However, for this to happen, it’s also important for regularization pathways to exist, which is something that is not the same at the same level across the EU. Spain is a good example with the Arrigo social, which of course has all its flows, but if compared to other countries, you can still see as a good practice. But it’s fundamental for people to be able to access it, to understand the system, to know how to apply, and to be accompanied also in the administrative procedures, which should be easy and accessible.
The increasingly unsafe routes, the violence that exists during travel and detentions… All this encompasses a public health crisis, physical and mental, that will accompany the person during their migration, but also afterwards. How do we address this issue?
The migration policies are having a dramatic impact on people’s health. First, as there are no safe or regular migration pathways for people to travel, they are experiencing lots of trauma and violence along the journey. And so being in detention of course, which means higher risk of abuse, from the workers and their peers.
And there is one important issue within the pact, relative to procedures during detentions that has important health implications, not only for mental health but also because it makes accessing proper care difficult. By rule, detention centers should be close to the borders, but it is very likely that many countries will want to put them in remote and difficult to access locations. So even though on paper there should always be the possibility to access a doctor or for civil society to access people, in practice this is very unlikely to happen.
And there are also health problems also with people living in Europe as undocumented. Their life is all around violence and fear. Can you go to the doctor? Can you go safely to your job? If something happens along the way, do you risk getting stopped? They are always fearing the tension of being put in detention, unsafe working conditions with employers being abusive, very bad housing, homelessness… So, there’s a lot of uncertainty and fear that has huge consequences on the people’s mental and physical health, and their status makes very complicated for them to seek help.
We have a Europe that, with one hand, promotes a 2030 agenda that leaves no one behind, global health strategies, plans for Universal Health Coverage; and with the other hand, signs pacts such as the PEMT and finances countries that do not comply with human rights to prevent migration from reaching their borders.
The EU has grades. Political discourse around leaving no one behind, 2030 goals on different areas, including health, dignity, and a lot of other things… The reality is that it’s for everyone except marginalized communities in Europe, and particularly, undocumented migrants. They are not really included in the measures that Member States will take to try and achieve these goals.
The EU promotes universal healthcare coverage, but people who aren’t documented don’t have access to it. Some countries have a strong sort of legislation. It’s not perfect, but they have quite provided good access to preventative care for undocumented migrants. France, Belgium, Portugal… Spain as well. Legislatively speaking, on paper, of course; we know practice is another thing. But, at the same time, we also see more and more that access to healthcare is something member states are looking at how this can also be used to further their goal of detention, deportation and return. One example: right now, in Sweden, there’s a bill that will be proposed very soon about what we call the reporting obligation. They want to force health professionals, teachers, workers, and employers to report anyone undocumented that they come in contact with. That will have, of course, a significant impact on health. It’s not even yet law, but people are worried, so people are not going to access the services because of the fear of return and deportation. And that’s a trend that we see in different countries.
– Finally… In the imaginary collective, migration is essentially associated with war and poverty/lack of opportunities, however more and more cases of migration are occurring because of the climate. What role is climate change going to play in the migratory processes over the next few years?
We need to look at all the possible reasons for which people move: looking for protection, work, family reasons, and it’s also likely that, with climate change, migration might become bigger. In addition, I think that the climate crisis is going to bring changes also in the way we live and potentially to make resources even more expensive or scarce. We saw it with the energy or the housing crisis. And we will probably see that this discrimination and the access to opportunities that undocumented people face now might be even heightened in these circumstances: pay for heating in the winter, access to housing adapted to heat, not to work in a 40° weather and to know that your employer will not have the possibility to threaten you with expulsion, etc. So, all these basic rights will be even more relevant in a context where climate change might polarize society even more.
