A version of this article was published on CapX
Mass
migration has become the most important topic in Western political debate.
Across the political spectrum, the ideas are changing. Any criticism on chaotic
migration management is no longer seen as “far right”. At the same time, most
people realise that in the age of fast moving globalization and all the
opportunities it brings, it would be foolish to impose overly harsh
restrictions on immigration. A cross-ideological consensus seems to have
emerged that in any case, the way migration happens needs to be controlled.
Precisely there, Europe seems to be failing. While the numbers have fallen a
lot, still around
44.000 irregular migrants have crossed the Mediterranean in 2018. Tragically, more
than 1.000 have drowned at sea this year. Since 2014, almost 2 million
irregular migrants crossed Europe's sea border, with an estimated 16,607 having
died in trying to do so. EU estimates
on the total number of illegal border-crossing amount to 204.719 in 2017,
511.047 in 2016 and 1.8 million in 2015. That’s 2.5 million in total for these
three years of intense irregular migration.
The arrival
of Italy’s new “populist” government looks like the key game changer in this
regard which truly may force Europe’s politicians to make choices. Here’s an
overview of what won’t work and what is likely to work to control Europe’s
external border, which first and foremost should end the drownings.
What
won’t work:
1. Reforming the “Dublin” rules
The Italian
government has increased the pressure on France to allow people to pass its
border freely, while it has demanded
from other EU leaders to change the so-called “Dublin regulation” which
mandates that the country where an irregular migrant arrives is responsible to
process his or her asylum request. The latter is an old Italian demand and most
analysts agree it’s unlikely to go anywhere.
Also, if
implemented, it may not ease the pressure on Italy’s sea border. When one knows
that the chance has increased one will be able to apply for asylum in Germany,
if Germany would take over a percentage of those who were initially forced to
apply for asylum in Italy, one would surely try harder to make it illegally
into the EU.
2. Relocating people within the
passport-free Schengen zone
This is an
old desire by German Chancellor Angela Merkel. In the fall of 2015, despite
warnings from France not to do it, Germany chose to outvote Eastern European
opposition and impose “mandatory refugee
quotas” at the EU level. These really have contributed to a lot of
Euroscepticism in Central and Eastern Europe as well as to legal
challenges, while the few people that have been relocated to poorer EU
member states, like Portugal, have mostly already
left these countries.
It’s
obviously a good idea to avoid that migrants and asylum seekers are all
concentrated in one place, but the truth of the matter is that this is not possible
in the Schengen zone, where there are no passport checks between countries, at
least in principle.
That said,
if EU countries indeed would create centres outside of the EU where people can
apply for asylum, EU countries may need to figure out a certain distribution
key among them, as well as a common asylum procedure.
In the
first place, this idea is obviously also completely unrelated from the question
how to stop irregular entry into the European Union. Then many politicians have
linked the two issues, as they don’t know the answer to the border protection
challenge.
3. Economic development (at least not
in the short to medium term)
Many policy
makers have suggested “development aid” as a solution. Those who understand
that development aid actually has a pretty
bad track record to promote economic development have suggested more free
trade and less agricultural export subsidies. Naturally, I’m very much in
favour of these policies and am convinced that more liberal economic policies
will lift the poor up, as has happen with around 1 billion Chinese.
However,
this all won’t be enough to prevent people from trying to make it to Europe.
What we see
is that it is precisely not the very poor but those who have reached certain
income that try to make it to Europe. The very poor can’t afford the fees paid
to smugglers. That said, of course, in the long term, serious economic
development would prevent mass migration.
What may
work:
1. Stop the boats
Interior
Minister Matteo Salvini has pledged
to no longer allow boats with asylum seekers to dock in Italian ports. His
policies are a bit confused and seem mainly oriented against boats run by NGOs.
Under Salvini’s watch, asylum seekers were brought to Italy after they were saved
by the US Navy who handed them over to the Italian coastguard, while also a
Danish commercial ship owned by freight company Maersk
which had saved people was allowed
to dock in Italy, after some haggling, as it appeared that the Italian
authorities may have asked the Maersk to rescue the migrants.
After Spain
decided to welcome one NGO boat with asylum seekers, it made clear it wasn’t
going to repeat this. A Spanish Minister stated
his country could not "become the sea rescue organization for all of
Europe."
This
illustrates why this measure alone wouldn’t be sufficient.
2. Create a place where asylum seekers
can await their asylum request
Australia’s
centre-right government led by Tony Abbott did implement
a “stop the boats” policy in 2013, but there, it was preceded by a solution
which was much more key: to create a place where migrants could be brought,
through the “Regional Resettlement Arrangement between Australia and Papua New
Guinea” and before that with Nauru. This was agreed in 2012 and 2013 by
Australia’s Labour government, which really merely restored a policy which started
in 2001 but had been suspended by the same Labour government in 2007, leading
to a big increase in irregular arrivals by boat.
In March 2016,
Greece effectively copied
what Australia had done, in order to stem the flow of migrants trying to enter
Greece irregularly from Turkey. Greece banned
asylum seekers from leaving a number of Greek islands. A Greek administrative
court decision recently ended
the policy but the Greek government is implementing legislation so to reinstate
it. Greece was really forced to do this as a result of the closure of the
so-called Balkan Route. When Macedonia shut its border with Greece, the Greek
government basically “sacrificed” the islands so to prevent that many of these
migrants would be stuck in mainland Greece.
To be fair,
cooperation with Turkey in the form of the “EU-Turkey deal
probably played a part as well, but the key reason why people no longer risked
their life by making it from Turkey to the Greek islands was that they knew
they would be stuck on a Greek island.
The solution
has been an enormous success in terms of avoiding drownings-at-sea. In
Australia, the number went from
at least 1000 in the 13 years before to near-zero. In Greece, Undocumented
migrant deaths in the Aegean Sea plummeted
85 percent in 2017 compared to 2016. It all makes clear that expanding EU
border patrol force “Frontex” may perhaps help a bit with patrol capacity, but
the problem is not really related to the number of border guards but to the
question what happens after border guards discover irregular entry. When one
can then continue one’s journey, there’s not much point of having border
guards. Then it must be added that the conditions in these Greek and Australian
off-shore shelters are pretty bad.
This is not acceptable but it is unrelated to the success in bringing down
drownings-at-sea.
At this
week’s EU Summit, EU leaders are about to agree
to "a new approach to disembarkation of those who are saved in Search and
Rescue operations", this "to eliminate the incentive to embark on
perilous journeys". This is a very important decision, even if it only
concerns an agreement on an idea that needs to be implemented.
Many
details are lacking, but one of the requirements for these processing centres for asylum seekers, which the Benelux, Austria and
Italy think should be located outside of the EU, is that they should be
"secure".
Unsurprisingly,
the first reaction of non-EU countries that would be expected to host these
centres has been negative. Algeria, Egypt, Morocco, Libya, Tunisia and Niger
have been named
as possible locations and the latter three have already openly rejected. Libya
even rejects
Italy’s idea to host such migrant reception centres at its southern borders,
which are scarcely populated.
France and
Spain have suggested to locate these centres on EU territory. According to some
sources they are considering to beef up
the “hot spots” located in Greece and Italy. These
really are centres where migrants are fingerprinted
and receive
documents in return, so they can travel on. Countries like Belgium can then
send them back to Italy when they try to illegally sneak into lorries heading
to the UK. When one doesn’t have to await a positive asylum verdict before
being able to travel on, it’s clear there is big incentive to risk one’s life
and pay a smuggler to cross the sea from Libya into Italy.
According to another
source, the Franco-Spanish plan would be to host this reception centre in the Spanish enclaves of Ceuta and
Melilla. These are on EU territory but on the other side of the Gibraltar
straits. Around 160.000 people live there, so this will likely be met with some
protest as well.
The
Austrian Interior Ministry would go even further and has suggested
that “no applications for asylum filed on EU territory” would be ideal, with
only limited exceptions.
One thing is for certain: if one wants to
remove the incentive to make it to Europe illegaly, one must make sure that
who-ever manages to enter the EU won’t be able to travel on and awaits one’s
asylum request somewhere. But even if this could be pulled off, either at an EU
enclave in Africa or through financial compensation for the non-EU country
hosting centres for migrants, it wouldn’t even be the full solution. The
obvious remaining question will be: what to do with those that have been denied
asylum?
3. Create a place where those denied
asylum can be sent if they have no other place to go
Vincent
Cochetel, the head of UN refugee agency UNHCR EU, has stated
that "Many risk migrating [to the EU] because those denied asylum are
hardly ever sent back". Last year, there were an estimated
600,000 people illegally in the EU, down
from 2.2 million people in 2017. In a report on Germany, the Wall Street
Germany notes
that “on paper, rejected asylum seekers should be swiftly deported. But most
linger on, shielded by bureaucratic inertia, lack of resources or sympathetic
judges”
A policy
paper drafted by Austria’s Interior Ministry suggests
to send
failed asylum claimants that already are in the EU to a facility in a country
outside the bloc. This plan is also supported by Danish Prime Minister Lars
Lokke Rasmussen, who has stated that
“I’m optimistic. Based on my discussions with other European leaders - and the
dialogue that is going on at official level - it is my expectation that we will
be able to take the first step this year”. Austria’s Chancellor Sebastian Kurz
has confirmed
that talks have already reached an advanced stage.
Albania has
been named as a possible location, and although the Albanian government has rejected
it, Albania’s opposition alleges the government wants to open centres in order
to accelerate Albania's accession
to the EU.
To find a
place to send denied asylum seekers may be an even bigger challenge than to find
a place to welcome people to await their asylum request. And even if all that
would succeed, we are still not there. If people that are denied asylum are
being sent somewhere, they will obviously need to develop their life. How to
avoid that such a place would degrade into something like the Palestinian
refugee camps, where people are often not even legally allowed to make a
living?
To deal
with that question, I have proposed
to develop refugee cities where everyone – people denied asylum, economic
migrants or even Westerners – could live. I won’t repeat the whole argument,
which can be found here.
It’s not particularly original. Bob Pleysier, the head of Belgium’s asylum
department, who has seen it all, supports this idea and there are even
campaigns in favour of it, such as the “refugee
cities” campaign.
The
Economist recently highlighted
research which argued that completely open borders would result in gains
amounting to 78 Trillion USD. The researchers who calculated this admit that
there are serious challenges but that these could all be bought off with the
gains resulting from unrestricted migration. Even if they would be right, there
is no way on earth to sell this politically in the West. Therefore: why should
the West then not replicate itself somewhere else? After all, the main reason
why people chose to migrate to the developed world is the high protection of
rule of law, which ultimately results in great economic development.
The great
precedent is of course Hong Kong: a city governed by Western officials outside
of the West, where many refugees from Communist China not only found shelter
but also stable rule of law so to develop their life. If the British could pull
this off on their own more than 50 years ago, there is literally no reason why
it couldn’t be copied today, in our technologically advanced age of rapidly
growing cities and with the combined forces of European countries struggling to
deal with migration flows.
Money
really shouldn’t be an issue. The cost of the refugee crisis for Germany alone
has been estimated
to be about 20 billion euro per year. The Belgian State’s police and justice
system costs around 3 billion euro per year, to serve 11 million people. Of
course there’s infrastructure, but there also is the EU’s 130 billion euro
budget, while private investors should be interested to invest in a project
involving all that human capital that is currently wasting their precious time
in refugee shelters in the Middle East or in Europe’s underground economy.
Refugees and economic migrants could use their savings for something better
than handing it over to organized crime groups to smuggle them to Europe.
Naturally,
it’s possible that European countries will manage to “stem the flow” by merely
creating a center outside of the European Continent where few migrants would go
to that don’t stand a chance for asylum. Maybe that will fix the issue, but
given the fact that Africa’s population is about to double or even triple in
the next few decades, I wouldn’t be so sure. At the moment, there are
more than 13.000 people on the Greek islands, which serve as such an
off-shore center, in limbo. What if there are 100.000? 1 million? How
unrealistic becomes such a project then? In Italy, the asylum pressure is
currently relatively low, due to a shaky
deal
between Italy and Libyan tribes, but what if this collapses?
In my view,
there are three main conditions where to locate such a safe place for people
denied residency in Europe. First, there must be enough space, so to be able to
welcome millions. Secondly, nobody should currently already live there, so to
safeguard consent from the host state, which could be paid a fair amount of
rent. And thirdly, people should be able to develop a life there. That means
providing justice, rule of law, police, external security and support. Surely
when multinational companies invest fortunes in very shaky countries, they
should in theory be interested to invest in such a place run by the developed
world. And even if it wouldn’t only replicate half of the success of Hong Kong,
that would be a major step forward for the world’s “bottom billion”.
The EU’s
new approach of “disembarkation centres” outside of the EU means that Europe’s
leaders are realizing that modest solutions are no longer sufficient to deal
with such a great and complex challenge as mass migration. A lot of planning
and diplomacy will be required to realise this, and given that Europe’s leaders
will need to answer the question what to do with those denied asylum,
especially as Africa’s population is about to boom, it’s likely they may also
consider it a proper answer to develop something like a refugee city, run by
European countries, guaranteeing a high level of rule of law for those seeking
protection or simply a better life.