Unpacking the European Council Summit Leak

Earlier this week, the draft conclusion of a European Council summit on migration was leaked to the press. You can find the complete document here. Below, we’ve analysed some of the main points.

Making a distinction between ‘economic migrants’ and ‘refugees.’

“…Such platforms should provide for rapid processing to distinguish between economic migrants and those in need of international protection and reduce the incentive to embark on perilous journeys.”

Making a hard and fast distinction between economic migrants and ‘real’ refugees is deeply problematic. Most importantly, who decides just how bad economic conditions have to be before they count as a danger? Is the risk of starving to death or living in constant financial struggle so different from a risk of, say, political persecution?

Moreover, what is the justification for this lengthy and complex process of dividing refugees? If Europe is really being crushed under a regulatory and administrative burden, perhaps the exhaustive means testing of hundreds of thousands of refugees is not likely to ever be fully realised. And, as we’ll see below, a haphazard process of determining eligibility poses more of a moral hazard than not doing it at all.

Economic migration is itself a deeply racialized concept. The current rash of deportations from the United States has focussed disproportionately on people of Latino heritage, with almost none of the hundreds of thousands of ‘economic migrants’ from Ireland, the U.K., and Canada facing forced removal. Europe is no different. There are plenty of legal instruments in place for attracting citizens of other nations in the Global North to the U.K. so that they can advance their careers or enhance their earnings. Mobile professional lives are swiftly becoming the norm among high-educated professionals around the world, an opportunity denied to those with the poor luck not to be born in the right place. In 2015, the UN Special Rapporteur to Syria proposed that Syrians be offered temporary work visas to destinations in the West so that they would have a legal opportunity to continue their lives without undertaking dangerous and clandestine escapes. Programs like this are common throughout the West, allowing people of any skill to have a good shot at ‘making it’ elsewhere. Needless to say, this particular proposal has not yet had any takers.

Human flows follow money because money follows injustice. In a world where cash equals healthcare, education, and nutrition, separating a person’s economic struggle from politics and physical danger is entirely disingenuous.

(And finally, a quick reminder that immigration is probably good for the economy.)

Exporting the Crisis

“…the European Council supports the development of the concept of regional disembarkation platforms in close cooperation with UNHCR and IOM.”

[…] The European Council will also strengthen EU external instruments on migration

Without a doubt, there is a need to relieve the administrative burden that migration places on Greece and Italy. Mutual aid a foundational benefit of E.U. membership, and the scale of the crisis demands an integrated response. All good so far. In principle, North African nations could be included in this integrated response if the purpose of their inclusion were to spread the administrative workload across the region and ensure.

However, if the purpose is merely to export vulnerable people to those nations in full knowledge that that vulnerability will be exploited, then such a policy must be rejected.

As it stands, people are being detained with Europe’s blessing in conditions that severely violate its own internal standards, conditions that have likely not been seen in European detention centres since the end of the Second World War. Using such facilities is not a solution to the crisis; it is merely a human rights violation by proxy.

Encouraging the detention of asylum seekers in nations that are currently under condemnation by human rights watchdogs is unacceptable. International and European law dictates that refugees cannot be treated like ordinary criminals. As these centres are in effect a form of involuntary detention, they must be treated as such and held to the same standards. Any move to house European asylum seekers outside of Europe must be accompanied by a guarantee that human rights can and will be upheld in those centres, in accordance with Articles 83a and 93.1 of the Council of Europe’s 2006 ruling on imprisonment

3. Sending Refugees Back

“The EU will continue to stand by Italy in [stopping smugglers from Libya], and will step up its support for the Libyan Coastguard, coastal and Southern communities, humane reception conditions, and voluntary humanitarian returns.”

“As regards the Eastern Mediterranean Route, more efforts are needed to ensure swift returns…”

How voluntary is voluntary return? This method of migration control is controversial due to its status as something of a misnomer. Here’s a simple breakdown: Voluntary return refers to offering people who have been denied asylum or have been caught entering a country illegally the option to go home with help from the government of the nation they sought to enter. It is distinguished from the barred forced repatriation, which violates the principle of non-refoulement, a aspect of international law that forbids nations from returning asylum seekers to places where they would suffer persecution.

Given the terrible conditions endured in both irregular camps such as those in Calais, the notoriously brutal centres in North Africa, and indefinite detention centres in the U.K. the voluntariness of this process comes into question. When a refugee is placed in an unbearable situation, it is nothing short Orwellian to provide a single alternative course and describe it as ‘voluntary.’ Human Rights Watch has recently called on the UNHCR to cease cooperation with such programs, describing them as “against its core mandate of refugee protection”

Furthermore, extensive program of voluntary return is a massive bureaucratic undertaking; doing it humanely requires real detective work in order to make sure that people are guaranteed safety and security when they return home. It is doubtful that this applies to many people. The very fact that someone was willing to undertake the arduous journey to Europe indicates that they are not guaranteed a life at home that most Europeans would rank as acceptable. Is the risk posed by ‘irregular migration’ into Europe great enough to justify the tragic human consequences of a mistaken return?

By Oscar Leonard, a long-term volunteer with Help Refugees and L’Auberge des Migrants in Calais.

If you want to add your voice to calls for a more welcoming response to migration in European, you can sign here. If you would like to get involved directly, consider donating or volunteering.