Short-term fix, long-term risks: MPG reacts to the letter on migration Ursula von der Leyen sent to EU leaders

Von der Leyen’s letter to EU leaders on migration: short-term fix, long-term risks

Migration Policy Group reacts to the President of the European Commission’s letter.

On 14 October 2024, European Commission President von der Leyen sent a letter to EU leaders ahead of a two-day summit in Brussels where migration is at the top of the agenda.

In her letter, President von der Leyen supported further externalisation of EU migration policies through fostering collaboration with third countries. She outlined several proposals to curb numbers of asylum applications, irregular border crossings and people smuggling.

While MPG supports a cohesive, efficient approach to migration policy across the EU, we are concerned about some key points raised by the President’s letter.

We believe significant challenges may arise in the next two years during the implementation of the new Pact on Migration and Asylum, due in particular to fragmented policies and divergent practices across EU Member States. One of our primary concerns is the difficulty in ensuring cooperation, notably around the solidarity mechanism, which is critical for a fair distribution of responsibilities among all Member States and for easing the burden on countries at the EU’s external border.

A key focus of the letter is the push to establish a common approach to return policies across Member States. The President’s call for better harmonisation of these policies across Europe is both reasonable and necessary. In our MPG research we stress the importance of a holistic approach to defining a fair return process, which should include:

• Comprehensive assistance: providing returnees with pre- and post-return support, including information on rights, legal support, material and financial aid for reintegration
• Detention as last resort: ensuring detention is only used when necessary
• Human rights protections: making sure human rights are upheld and monitoring mechanisms are in place to prevent violations
• Alternatives to return: making return decisions on a case-by-case basis and providing alternatives to return – such as regularisation – according to individual, family and labour market needs
• Stakeholder involvement: involving NGOs, human rights groups, and migrant organisations at all stages of the return process.

We will be regularly assessing the adherence of EU Member States to these crucial dimensions of returns policies via the Migrant Return Policy Index (MIREX) indicators. Considering the lack of common standards within the EU in this area, externalising returns via so-called “return hubs” is likely to pose risks in relation to human rights.

Another key policy area highlighted by the President of the European Commission is that of building comprehensive partnerships with third countries, including return agreements as the backbone of EU externalisation policy. While these partnerships may work in the short term, they have unintentionally empowered third countries in relation to the EU, leading to to the weaponisation of migration. This has been evidenced by several border crises with these countries across the years. While President von der Leyen has called on Member States to address this instrumentalisation, the policy of externalisation itself creates fertile ground for it, reducing the effectiveness of the policy in the long run.

Furthermore, research on public opinion and media content in partner third-countries illustrates how these partnerships are undermining the image of the EU as a normative power and an anchor for democratic values and respect for human rights. NGOs also warn of a risk that these partnerships will lead to the turning of a blind eye to unlawful pushbacks and deportations.

President Von der Leyen invites Member States to cooperate to prevent the smuggling and trafficking of migrants, which is very important. However, it is also important to understand the often impossible or dangerous living conditions of migrants in their countries of origin and that they still lack adequate safe and legal pathways to reach Europe. This lack of options leaves many with no choice but to undertake risky journeys in the hands of people smugglers, an unintended consequence of restrictive migration policies.

The ‘whole-of-route’ approach outlined in the letter may seem to offer a partial solution. However, if in practice it results in outsourcing asylum processes and returning asylum seekers to offshore facilities while their cases are being heard, this would be very problematic. It would be difficult to ensure individuals’ right to asylum and hinder asylum seekers’ integration into their destination countries. Uprooting an asylum seeker from their new community and workplace, and severing them or their children from essential education systems into which they have enrolled, would profoundly interrupt their processes of integration and undo all financial and societal investment in these processes.

by Başak Yavçan, Head of Research, and Carmine Conte, Senior Legal Policy Analyst, Migration Policy Group