If not for European unity, then unity for humanity
Italy, Malta, and Spain display another failure for Europe to stand together in the migration crisis
My personal stance on migration, whether it be towards refugees or economic migrants, has always been open-minded. Growing up in a multicultural city in Canada, and being of a multicultural ethnicity, I’ve never felt uncomfortable with the idea of foreigners seeking my home as their own. My country has even established legislation on multiculturalism that promotes, as well as protects, the existence of various cultures in our society. So when the migration crisis in Europe began, I could not understand the difficulty of some countries to welcome these people with open arms. That is not to say that everyone in Canada has held open arms for migrants—over the past few years, there has definitely been an increase in anti-Islamic sentiment. But my experiences with incoming refugees and migrants in Canada differ greatly than those experiences in Europe.
With the existence of conflict, poverty, and climate change, millions of people are being forced to migrate in search of new homes—and a large number are choosing to migrate to Europe because of its proximity. As a result, EU citizens have seen a change in the dynamic of their societies, with massive influxes of foreigners. It is broadly understood that these migrants are coming to Europe for better economic opportunities, or a safer place to establish their lives—however, there have been cases of newcomers driven by other intentions. As a result of past experiences, the recent spring Eurobarometer produced by the European Commission stated that immigration and terrorism were the main concerns of European citizens. The migration crisis has begun to loosen the solidarity among EU member-states, with some acknowledging their international responsibility, as well as moral obligation, to provide protection for those seeking it, and with others closing their doors under the pressure of taking in foreigners they believe threaten their societies, whether that be due to physical harm or cultural differences. This is dangerously leading to a blurred differentiation on migrants and refugees by the populations of migrant-host countries and, as Professor Eugene Quinn describes in his article The Refugee and Migrant Crisis: Europe’s Challenge, “public perception of refugees and migrants is often shaped by water-images—‘floods’, ‘waves’, and ‘flows’, metaphors that dehumanize and strip individuals of their identity.”
Migrants travel to Europe in hopes of establishing better lives in a society driven by liberal principles, solidarity, acceptance, and tolerance—a society much different from their own societies, which are torn apart by failed institutions, poverty, inequality, and conflict driven by varying factors, such as ethnicity, religion, or the mere evil of dictators, like Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. However, to their surprise, these migrants are arriving to a Europe that is less and less what they thought it to be. This was particularly evident in last week’s crisis when Italy and Malta rejected the ship, Aquarius, which was carrying 629 mostly sub-Saharan Africans, from docking at their ports. Italy’s new deputy prime minister, Matteo Salvini, expressed an anti-immigrant sentiment, declaring that “Italy will no longer be Europe’s refugee camp” and “either Europe gives us a hand in making our country secure, or we will choose other methods.” Contrarily, Spain’s new Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez took a more liberal stance and came to the aid of the ship.
The migration crisis has put asymmetrical pressure on southern European states as the main routes used to reach Europe are the Central Mediterranean to Italy and Malta, the Western Mediterranean to Spain, and the Eastern Mediterranean to the Western Balkan passage. Adding to this, the Dublin System—a regulation that determines which EU member-state is responsible for examining an asylum application—declares that the responsibility lies with the member-state where the asylum seeker first entered the EU. The regulation aims to provide migrants quick access to asylum procedures and efficient examinations of applications. However, the system has failed to ensure a sustainable sharing of immigration responsibilities across EU member-states.
The large numbers of people migrating to Europe are a combination of individuals who seek international protection, as well as economic potential and both types of migrants tend to take the same routes. In an attempt to reduce the number of migrants, the European Council President Donald Tusk has proposed the development of regional disembarkment platforms outside of the EU, where migrants could be categorized and differentiated between refugees in need of protection and economic migrants. In the case that they are the latter, these migrants may be forced to remain or return back to their country of origin. Thus, the proposal would aim to discourage economic migrants from pursuing the dangerous journey to Europe.
However, this proposal proves to be controversial for two main reasons. First, although the regional disembarkment platform attempts to dissuade individuals from pursuing the long journey if it is understood that they will be deemed unacceptable applicants, some people may resort to irregular migration routes. Migrants attempt the journey to Europe because they have run out of options and leaving is their only choice, even if they might not make it there. The journey of irregular migration poses serious dangers in terms of physical or sexual violence, exploitation, human trafficking, theft, and extortion. But despite these potential consequences, people are willing to take greater risks, and according to the International Organization for Migration (IOM), from January 1st, 2018 to June 18th, 2018, there have been 857 migrants who have died or gone missing from the journey to Europe.
The second problem is this proposal does not resolve discriminatory practices in EU member-states’ migration policies. An economic migrant is generally understood as an individual from an impoverished or underdeveloped country. Some have argued against accepting these types of migrants into the EU because their safety is not threatened, and they are not eligible for asylum under international law. However, this is often an argument utilized by anti-immigration and right-wing populist parties in Europe in an attempt to stem the number of migrants they may have to accept. Officials have stated that the platform will be implemented in conjunction with efforts by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the International Organization for Migration (IOM), but this does not prevent EU member-states from further closing their doors to refugees and migrants nor does it teach them how to be more welcoming of them, most notably in those countries who have failed to accept migrants throughout this crisis.
This is due to the divide in the values of EU member-states and how they approach migration—especially with regards to those refugees and migrants who may be culturally different from Europeans, as some member-states have noted a threat to their values. For example, in August 2015, Slovakia declared it would only accept Syrian refugees who were Christian. Similarly, Poland’s immigration office expressed in the past that religious backgrounds were considered in refugee applications. That is not to say that all EU member-states will use the platform to discriminate against non-Christian refugees and migrants, but the idea was first suggested in 2016 by the Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán—someone who has expressed a preference for non-Muslim migrants in the past—and these countries could use the new platform to further establish discriminatory practices.
While the EU is overwhelmed with the large number of immigrants now residing within its borders, migration is occurring at greater rates in other parts of the world. For example, in Asia, there are approximately 80 million migrants residing throughout the continent. This is not to criticize Europe for struggling to take in more numbers or even discrediting it for the efforts it has made, but to let Europe know that its not doing it alone. Changes in the cultural homogeneity of one’s community can be an overwhelming feeling—its almost like experiencing culture shock when you travel abroad, except its happening in your own home—so the divide among those who are more willing to accept incoming migrants with open arms and those who are hesitant to adjust to such changes is not a European trait, but could happen in any other region. And we see it happening in countries like the U.S., where Donald Trump has imposed discriminatory immigration policies and pursued unethical actions against immigrants who already reside in the U.S.
But our response to the crisis should not revolve around cultural differences and the EU member-states’ inability to collectively come to this realization is causing a rift in cooperative action. As unfavorable the reality of welcoming in foreigners may be, Europeans should consider one thing—being a continent that has seen the destruction of poverty and war, they undoubtedly stand for principles and ideas of freedom, rights, and the ability to achieve basic human security for themselves, their loved ones, and the people in their community. Many of these migrants are experiencing threats to those exact freedoms, rights, and abilities, whether it be as a refugee or asylum-seeker attempting to escape conflict, war or political insecurity, and whether it be as an economic migrant attempting to flee poverty, famine, and the negative effects of climate change. If we can demand that the people close to us deserve to be free from such threats, we should be able to demand that for every human being, regardless of their ethnic origin, because rights are universal and inalienable.
It is clear that these threats are becoming more and more serious because its not just adult males risking their lives to cross the sea, but families that consist of young children, women, elderly, and disabled. The willingness to take these sort of risks for more vulnerable groups is something that EU member-states need to take into deep consideration and they must take the necessary steps for protecting all migrants regardless of their migration status. However, this is not only the responsibility of the governments, nor is it only the responsibility of Europeans—the migration crisis is a concern for all of humanity. People are being forced to flee their homes because humanity as a whole failed to stop dictators willing to use chemical weapons on their citizens, and humanity as a whole failed to end poverty. Now the consequences are standing at our doorstep and there is no time for the EU to argue about political differences on the ideal types of migrants and refugees, better yet to close their door on incoming ones. Nor is there time for citizens to fall short of urging their government to make the right moves and create inclusive environments for these migrants. Political differences may be driving the struggle for politicians of EU member states to establish a united front on the future of Europe and the migration crisis, but as humans, we need to drive ourselves with the compassion that we all have, and stand together in unity for the rights that belong to all of humanity. As soon as we start making exceptions to whose rights can be guaranteed, this opens the door to the potential for more violations.
