Migration and the EU: At the Edge of a Precipice
The Trump administration infamously enacted a number of policies contrary to international law and detrimental to the well-being of asylum-seekers, limiting their ability to make an asylum claim with the United States, militarizing the border, and forcing asylum-seekers to wait in dangerous and often inhumane conditions in Mexico while their asylum claims were processed. Many of these policies, especially the separation of children from their parents, were met with considerable criticism and pushback, including from some members of the European Union, and severely damaged global public opinion of the United States. These policies also strengthened anti-immigrant and racist sentiment in the US public and empowered xenophobic actors by providing them with a national platform. EU institutions and member states criticized this aspect of Trump’s political impact as well, and the European Commission released a working paper with the stated aim of battling against such sentiment.
Despite its criticism of the Trump administration and its immigration policy, however, the EU and some of its member states have demonstrated a reluctance to abide by their own standards, enacting (or acquiescing to) policies that are similarly restrictive of the rights of asylum-seekers. This includes agreements with other countries, like Turkey and Niger, to limit the flow of asylum-seekers into the EU (despite the poor conditions asylum-seekers often face upon arrival in these countries), and hundreds of miles of fencing on the borders of EU member states. Most recently, Poland has sent thousands of soldiers to its border with Belarus, pushing back asylum-seekers and preventing them from receiving shelter in Poland, despite a rising death toll amongst those trapped on the Polish border.
Poland has disregarded a ruling from the European Court of Human Rights that called for better treatment for those seeking refuge in Poland, and has been criticized by the UN for violating the rights of asylum-seekers. Yet its fellow EU members, far from placing significant pressure on Poland regarding this matter, have instead tacitly endorsed its actions. The European Commission and its member states have focused their criticism on Belarus, whom they blame for ‘funneling’ asylum-seekers towards the EU’s eastern borders, while also backing Poland’s aggressive response to the crisis. Additionally, human rights groups have provided evidence that Frontex, the EU’s border management agency, has undertaken similarly harsh measures elsewhere.
As noted above, this is not the first time that EU institutions or its member states have taken a hard line on migration issues, and a number of major voices within the Union are calling for further tough measures. A number of member-state leaders, such as President Macron of France, seem to have decided on a path that critics have referred to as ‘Fortress Europe,’ seeking to exclude as many migrants as possible, regardless of whether or not they potentially have legitimate asylum claims, in line with recent trends in public opinion showing support for measures that reduce immigration. This echoes Trump’s efforts, and the impact of those measures on the United States’ global prestige and domestic politics provides a cautionary tale for the EU.
First, the Trump administration’s anti-immigrant stance played a measurable role in undermining the positive perception of the United States many in the international community held during the Obama administration. Opinion polling suggests that the publics of a large number of countries, including US allies and partners, opposed both Trump’s border wall initiative and his goal of reducing immigration to the United States. Recent polling indicates that public opinion about the European Union outside of Europe is quite high, a factor that helps to reinforce the EU’s soft power and thus increase its impact in the international arena. However, if the EU consistently turns a blind eye to abuses perpetrated by some of its member states against asylum-seekers — or even explicitly backs such efforts through its own programs or verbal support — this goodwill is likely to be lost, just as the Trump administration squandered much of the goodwill developed during President Obama’s time in office. The EU views itself as a global leader and seeks to further assert this status on the global stage, especially in the form of moral and values-based leadership that recognizes the “dignity” and rights of all people. This goal will be more difficult to achieve in a world where the EU is viewed negatively due to overly aggressive, cruel immigration policies out of line with international law and expectations; the EU cannot focus on values-based leadership when it fails to act in line with its own values.
Second, the EU risks legitimizing xenophobic sentiment within its member states. Trump’s presidency again provides an example. For instance, the UN noted that President Trump had legitimized racist and xenophobic attacks against Asian-Americans during the COVID-19 pandemic through his rhetoric and the rhetoric of other members of his administration. Similarly, Trump’s anti-immigration allies within the administration included Stephen Miller, a senior advisor who promoted the idea that immigrants were a major source of crime and believed that immigration would cause “white genocide” in the United States. Their success in impeding immigration and blocking asylum-seekers emboldened those with similarly racist and xenophobic viewpoints in the country, likely contributing to the insurrection on January 6th of this year.
By taking the same path, the EU risks emboldening similar elements within the Union. The EU has already suffered considerably from this discourse, as anti-immigrant sentiment fueled the Brexit campaign’s success. Conceding to such viewpoints by allowing or supporting aggression against asylum-seekers will only further empower those who may similarly undermine the European project. Additionally, EU citizens are, overall, less xenophobic than the actions and visibility of far-right leaders would suggests, and human rights groups have argued that much of the supposed support for anti-immigration policies stems largely EU institutions and member states failing to challenge the “manufactured crisis” pushed by far-right parties and politicians. By failing to counter the rhetoric of these groups, or further conceding to them by enacting tougher border rules and harsher treatment of asylum-seekers and other migrants, EU institutions and member states will continue to make the same mistake while legitimizing and bolstering xenophobic extremists.
The EU is at the edge of a precipice, and the United States should act as a warning for those within the European Union that believe ceding ground to anti-immigrant sentiment will benefit the EU, or that failing to do so will harm the Union. The EU faces the loss of much of its soft power, and thus its ability to act as a global leader, while also potentially bolstering the very far right and populist elements that can damage the Union. Starting with the current crisis in Poland, the EU Commission and a number of influential nations within the EU, such as Germany, should push back against the most heinous of Poland’s abuses, while also offering to take-in many of the asylum-seekers while their claims are processed. They should then take steps to align every member state with current international law on asylum-seekers — threatening to withhold funding, as they have done in light of Poland’s anti-democratic actions — while publicly challenging xenophobic elements in European politics. Failing to do so could prove fatal to its future.
