EU nations signed the Pact on Migration and Asylum barely a year ago. It is already falling apart.
The pact aims to better distribute migrants and asylum seekers among EU countries, but many governments object. Hungary and the Netherlands are adamantly opposed. Poland is also refusing to implement the pact, pointing to the fact that they have already accepted many Ukrainian refugees and saying they can’t afford to take more from elsewhere. Even NGOs don’t like the pact. One called it ‘structural genocide.’ Brussels needs a new approach.
The main stipulation of this binding pact is mandatory solidarity. All member states are required to accept a certain number of immigrants assigned to them, pay €20,000 for each one they refuse to relocate, or make a significant financial contribution to the EU’s asylum system.
This measure will be expensive, complex, and inefficient. To begin with, there is a lot of new red tape. Each immigrant needs to be registered. The time it will take and the cost of translation, will be borne by the entire EU, which means we are creating a slow and costly process.
The pact’s approach is also very inefficient. Countries with cultural and linguistic barriers, fewer job opportunities and fewer subsidies are not attractive for immigrants. Eventually, they are going to move to a more appealing country, making all the costly efforts in vain.
Member states like Poland argue the relocation of immigrants will place unsustainable strain on their social services, healthcare systems, and welfare programmes, especially in countries with limited resources that need to prioritise other aspects, such as safety.
Poland also complains the pact represents a flagrant violation of national sovereignty. For them, a forced relocation agreement undermines this principle by imposing obligations that may not align with a country’s capacity, public opinion, or national interests.
This makes it impossible for a country to ensure it can prioritise the safety, integration, and welfare of both its citizens and any migrants it accepts. The ability to control immigration policy, they argue, is vital for maintaining national identity, security, and the social cohesion of the state. This debate cuts to the heart of what the European Union is all about. Poland wants to be part of the EU, but it does not want to cede all control over domestic policy to Brussels. There is a limit to what states will swallow and the EU is beginning to find that limit.
Ultimately, the pact is a short-term solution. It fails to address the root cause of the issue. The EU is confronting a significant challenge. Illegal immigration is increasing and becoming more dangerous. Last year, it was reported that 239,000 immigrants arrived at our borders, most from the eastern Mediterranean. The number arriving by sea, one of the most dangerous routes, increased by 10%, reaching one of the highest rates ever. The number of unaccompanied minors choosing this route increased by 14% last year. Almost 10,000 died before arriving at their destination.
The only real solution to this problem is proper border control. Stronger border controls are necessary to ensure migration remains safe, orderly, and fair for all involved. While Europe is committed to offering protection and support to those in need, stricter border management helps prevent a ‘pull effect’ which could unintentionally lead to an increase in irregular migration. Without proper controls, individuals may take dangerous and uncertain journeys in the hope of being relocated or granted asylum, which can put their lives at risk.
By ensuring migrants are processed through legal and safe channels, we can protect their rights and well-being while also ensuring European countries can provide adequate support and resources for those who truly need it. Effective border management helps create a balanced system that respects both the needs of migrants and the capacities of receiving countries. This pact is just an inefficient attempt at a shortcut, not a real solution.
