Europe wants to regain control of its external borders with faster procedures and closed centres. But according to NGOs, the ‘historic’ migration deal is unpalatable and unworkable. ‘This only plays into the hands of the extreme right.’
What has been decided?
The political impasse over European asylum policy was broken after a sprint of two days and two nights. All member states have agreed on the five pillars of the pact, which should ensure, among other things, stronger external borders, a better return policy and more solidarity between the member states.
From 2026, every asylum seeker must undergo a standard procedure at the external borders. Those who come from ‘safe third countries’ – such as Morocco or Bangladesh with a recognition rate below 20 percent – enter an accelerated process. This is to prevent hopeless profiles from traveling within Europe.
During the procedure, the EU wants to detain migrants in centers with limited freedom of movement. This is also the case for women and children, but there are exceptions for unaccompanied minors. This strengthening of the external borders is accompanied by more cooperation with countries outside the European Union, such as recently with Tunisia.
A solidarity mechanism must ensure that each Member State supports the asylum system, according to a fixed distribution key. Member states that receive too few asylum seekers have a choice: either they accept asylum seekers voluntarily, or they make a financial contribution to a European fund. This should lead to at least 30,000 relocations and 600 million euros.
What is the impact of this agreement?
Although policymakers call this migration deal ‘historic’, it is also a difficult compromise “that doesn’t really make anyone happy,” said the press conference. The impending elections and the extreme right-wing wind blowing through Europe undeniably accelerated the decision-making process.
“The right to asylum has been preserved in a political landscape where the anti-migration discourse is gaining more and more ground, which must be emphasized here,” says Hanne Beirens, director of the Migration Policy Institute Europe. According to her, the agreement offers an opportunity to counter frustration at the borders. “Countries such as Italy and Greece have long had the feeling that they are on their own, and in these places they are therefore increasingly opting for measures that are contrary to the legislation, such as pushbacks.”
“In any case, it will take years to put these proposals into practice,” says Beirens. The agreement must first be developed into conclusive legal texts, and then passed through parliament before the European elections in June. This will happen under the presidency of Belgium. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has already announced that his country will resist.
What’s controversial?
According to Beirens, there is no doubt that the rights of migrants will be “diluted” by the deal. Faster procedures may provide certainty more quickly, but this also creates the risk “that people seeking protection will not have the time and opportunity to defend their rights”.
In addition, there is a fear that rejected asylum seekers will be pushed even more into the hands of government leaders with little respect for human rights. For example, Tunisia deported more than a thousand black migrants to the desert, it emerged this summer.
An international coalition of NGOs calls the agreement “a dark day for Europe”. According to Amnesty International, the measures cause “a significant increase in suffering every step of the way for someone seeking asylum in Europe”.
Joost Depotter, policy coordinator at Vluchtelingenwerk Vlaanderen, criticizes a split: the real migration pressure on border countries increases through systematic border procedures, while countries that are already doing little can buy off their solidarity. “This compromise is unworkable, it reinforces the gaps that are already in the current system. In this way you only further pave the way for the extreme right.”
Beirens also questions another mechanism. Under certain crisis circumstances, Member States may deviate from the rules. “But some countries have been bogged down in a series of migration crises in recent years.” Then what should be exceptional – such as Belgium renouncing its reception obligations – threatens to become the accepted norm.
Does this change anything for Belgium?
Our country has already received around 31,500 asylum applications this year. According to State Secretary for Asylum and Migration Nicole De Moor (CD&V), there would have been 20,000 fewer with the new distribution key. Our country must bear 3.19 percent of the total European burden.
The European border procedure can also relieve pressure for Belgium from some ‘safe’ countries such as the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), says De Moor. Of the more than a thousand applications, 86 percent were refused. The majority of applications come from conflict areas such as Syria, Afghanistan and Palestine, according to figures from the Commissioner for Refugees and Stateless Persons (CGRS).
This theoretical exercise assumes that each Member State chooses reception and does not surrender its solidarity, and that the border procedures work. In a critical blog post, predecessor and MP Theo Francken (N-VA) writes that rapid screening and return “requires immense reception facilities and asylum authorities” and that “countries like Greece and Italy have never succeeded in this in the last 30 years”.
