Social Europe

  • EU Forward Project
  • YouTube
  • Podcast
  • Books
  • Newsletter
  • Membership

A fair, humane and realistic asylum policy

Gesine Schwan 10th December 2020

A workable asylum policy in line with European values could be pursued by a Schengen-style coalition of the willing.

asylum policy,refugees,asylum-seekers
Gesine Schwan

The European Commission has presented a proposal for a new European asylum and refugee policy, although much is still to be worked out. Commitment to a solidarity-based, intra-European reception of refugees whose asylum applications have been recognised will be terminated.

In this sense the national governments—not just the Visegrad states—have been successful. In future, solidarity will not be promoted by a positive incentive system or by clear sanctions.

Deportations

Governments which do not want to accept the number of refugees calculated for them will be financially responsible for the deportation of an equal number. If these fail to be deported, those governments must take the deportees to their country and deport them from there—how might that be for the refugees who have been pushed back and forth?

Governments, however, have still to commit to this. Why should they? If they don’t, nothing changes. Refugees remain as before in the countries of arrival, permeate there or continue to migrate—unregulated and uncared for—and further diffuse. The impression among the populations of the European Union is confirmed that the union is not in a position to deliver a satisfactory refugee policy.

To facilitate deportation at Europe’s external borders, the commission is proposing ‘readmission agreements’. If, as hitherto, this does not succeed, nothing again will change. There will certainly be no mass repatriations as a result. Conversely, if only a few are repatriated, Europeans will hardly notice it. Perhaps Hungary and Poland, with their deportations already, above all should demonstrate the European loyalty to the rule of law which they are dismantling in their own countries.

The Dublin agreement is no longer to matter legally, although still de facto. For family reunifications it can be ignored. Otherwise, the southern-European countries of arrival will remain responsible. If they are overwhelmed, they can ask for take-up by other countries. They could also do that before—without appreciable success. So there is no incentive for change here either.



Don't miss out on cutting-edge thinking.


Join tens of thousands of informed readers and stay ahead with our insightful content. It's free.



Essentially, the commission’s aim is to organise deportations more quickly and effectively and to close Europe’s external borders as completely as possible. This is not even the lowest common denominator of all European governments but only of those who want if possible to keep all refugees out of the EU.

Many questions remain. In particular, where and how can an examination of the right to asylum take place which is ‘exterritorial’ and at the same time sovereign and is commensurate with existing law—let alone human rights?

And what has been gained from the commission’s proposal? In practice, at most, a strengthening of family reunification.

What is lost? An opportunity to serve the well-understood, long-term interests of the EU—to overcome the poisoning of societies by hateful discourses on migration, specifically through functioning, just and thus socially-easing regulations, which would strengthen democracies; to build constructive co-operation with Africa; to find a wise, measured response to the economically dangerous loss of population, and all in all to end the EU’s moral self-contradiction, which will further undermine its cohesion.

What would be an alternative?

Sustainable solidarity

A common European asylum and refugee policy which corresponds with our values can only succeed if it is freely supported by a majority of Europeans. It also needs the co-operation of the refugees or the other migrants—to be distinguished from them—because migration cannot be regulated by compulsion alone.

It must therefore, at the same time, be impartial towards all involved and take their interests into account. Solidarity is only sustainable when it is freely manifested, when justice is respected and when people’s interests are recognised and incorporated as realistically as possible.

Justice today must be conceived and realised globally. A realistic European refugee and migration policy can therefore only succeed if, particularly in Africa, the EU simultaneously intensifies development co-operation, which offers people in their home country—or at least close by—a perspective for life.

This will not be possible overnight. Central, however, is the insight that cities and municipalities in Africa should be much more points of co-operation for development, because, as in the EU and globally, they are more solution-oriented than national governments. This has long been known in development co-operation. Here, the EU can massively support town twinning, which already exists and can be connected up and expanded.

Partnership exchanges on good administration, infrastructure for education, health, housing, sanitation, waste management and so on are essential and very promising. A key task is to build reliable governance which ensures a functioning infrastructure and administration.

Of course, massive private-sector investments are indispensable. However, these will only succeed, sustainably and in the interests of both parties, if companies are willing to engage in good governance with the public administration, especially in the municipalities, and civil society. This matches their own interest in secure and profitable investments, because good governance ensures social peace and stimulates responsible co-operation and economic dynamism.

Legal opportunities

Even if this succeeds, there will continue to be migration. People will seek better living and working opportunities, even if they are not acutely forced to flee by civil war, dictatorships or, for example, a climate-induced drying up of their sources of life. They must have legal immigration opportunities so that they are not in fact dependent on the right of asylum which does not fit them—that leads to accusations of abuse and creates resistance.

Moreover, what they are currently sending home in terms of financial support worldwide far exceeds the development ‘aid’ financed by Europe, the World Bank or private donors. That is why they are often sent to Europe by their families.

We must take this context into account in a realistic European asylum and refugee policy. For that to succeed, we must simultaneously intensify our development co-operation and frame it more effectively. It is also important to distinguish between asylum and flight, on the one hand, and labour migration on the other, and to find different, workable paths for both.

Then we can refute the concern that successful reception of refugees could act as a ‘pull factor’ towards Europe which overwhelms the EU. In fact, as migration research shows, 95 per cent of African refugees remain in Africa and as close as possible to their homeland. This is certainly not just about money and living standards.

Furthermore, we cannot choose between stopping or drastically reducing flight and migration on the one hand and allowing them to happen on the other. Rather, the choice realistically lies only between regulating them fairly and in the common interest or building destructive walls that do not last and that harm everyone.

In the latter case, misery will continue to spread, unregulated and private, leading in European societies to ever more fear and brutality—on all sides—in light of the loss of control. This promotes right-wing extremism and threatens our democracies.

Common procedure

Against this background, a European asylum and refugee policy first needs a common European procedure for admission—the right of refugees to remain in the EU—or repatriation. For this, places have to be found. All attempts to set up such places outside the EU, for example in north Africa or artificially ‘extraterritorial’, have so far failed and will continue to fail.

Initiatives to force north-African states to set up border camps are not only against their interests. They also undermine fruitful co-operation, which is necessary to achieve a satisfactory regulation of migration (including repatriation) and a better relationship with Africa. If we leave it open whether the places should be located inside or outside the EU or wherever else, no solution will be found.

Places for such asylum procedures can only be set up within the EU. This however requires a reliable regulation for the decentralised reception of persons entitled to asylum or right to remain (subsidiary protection) and also of such persons who, for whatever reason, cannot be repatriated. At the same time, repatriation of those who are not entitled to remain must be regulated.

We must not allow such new European testing centres to be overcrowded, as they are on the Greek islands. No country will voluntarily allow such ‘hotspots’.

The EU should set up several places to assess claims for asylum and right to remain in various European countries (not only in the southern countries of arrival), with the examination carried out under common law. The Dutch or Swiss procedure can serve as a basis. This provides for a fast and at the same time careful, transparent and therefore confidence-building procedure: every refugee or family is offered immediate legal assistance and at the same time civil-society organisations can ensure transparency.

For a period of about three months (including revision procedure), it is reasonable that refugees should have to stay at the location of the examination. If this gives them a fair chance of entry, they will remain there. With this asylum procedure, the rapid ‘preliminary examination’ which is currently being proposed for political motives—but which cannot be legally serious and would sow mistrust—becomes superfluous.

Those who do not have the right to be admitted should be repatriated from these places. Anyone granted asylum or a (temporary) right to stay or who could not be repatriated should be able to obtain a place of residence in the EU. We must abolish the grey areas of unsolved cases in which people are kept in the dark for years.

Voluntary take-up

All attempts to ensure a reliable ‘distribution’ of recognised refugees through compulsory allocation of national quotas have so far failed and will continue to fail. Paradoxically, reliability can only be based on voluntary take-up. This requires incentives which meet the interests of host countries and municipalities.

Such incentives can be offered by a ‘European Integration and Development Fund’ for municipalities, as this is about the financing of European asylum and refugee policy. Municipalities ready to take in refugees could apply for the financing of integration costs, as well as match funding for their own projects.

The application should be simple, non-bureaucratic and secure against misappropriation or corruption by means of integrity agreements such as Transparency International has developed. Funding should be valid for at least five years. Available funding for the recovery of municipalities after the coronavirus offers a favourable opportunity.

To anchor the reception of refugees reliably in local society, mayors could form ‘development advisory councils’ in pursuit of the United Nations sustainable-development goals. To this end, they should invite representatives of organised civil society and business, together with elected members of the municipality and its administration. Together, they could work out longer-term development perspectives for the community: reception of refugees, sustainable climate measures and infrastructure investments alike.

Decisions would still be taken by the elected institutions but the prior collective elaboration of the joint development strategy would bring citizens together and favour implementation. In this way, reception of refugees in municipalities would receive broad support in local society. At the same time, this would ‘square the circle’ of an effective direct participation of citizens which is compatible with representative democracy.

Offers for take-up of refugees could be shared with the ‘hotspots’ by municipalities, so that refugees could consider where they wanted to go in Europe during their asylum procedure. A matching system could mediate among the preferences of municipalities and refugees. The decentralised take-up of recognised refugees would follow the completion of their procedures in the hotspots.

In such voluntary co-operation—which led to the introduction of the Schengen system—European states would declare themselves ready to take in recognised refugees and to pass them on to municipalities, within their jurisdiction, which have declared themselves ready too and on which refugees have decided.

Refugees would have an obligation to stay in the municipalities they have chosen, as long as they receive financial support. Municipalities would at the same time be well advised to develop means to bind refugees voluntarily to their places—for example via education, housing (the chance of home ownership), work, healthcare, and social contacts and relationships (sports and culture).

Safety net

Since participating member states would have formally assumed the obligation to take in a fixed number of refugees from the ‘hotspots’ or the states in which they are located, the ‘distribution key’ which they would have set in advance among themselves would have to be retained as a safety net. The less this safety net came to be relied upon, however, the greater would be the social consensus on reception.

The Integration Fund should be financed by all the countries of the European Union. States which did not want to take in refugees would contribute via financial support for the European asylum and refugee policy—however without the chance that their municipalities’ projects could in turn be financed from the fund. As this strategy could at the same time support municipalities in their recovery, the fund should also be financed from the planned EU recovery fund.

Gesine Schwan
Gesine Schwan

Gesine Schwan is chair of the Basic Values Commission of the SPD. The party nominated her twice as a candidate for the federal presidential elections in Germany.

Harvard University Press Advertisement

Social Europe Ad - Promoting European social policies

We need your help.

Support Social Europe for less than €5 per month and help keep our content freely accessible to everyone. Your support empowers independent publishing and drives the conversations that matter. Thank you very much!

Social Europe Membership

Click here to become a member

Most Recent Articles

u4219834676 bcba 6b2b3e733ce2 1 The End of an Era: What’s Next After Globalisation?Apostolos Thomadakis
u4219834674a bf1a 0f45ab446295 0 Germany’s Subcontracting Ban in the Meat IndustryŞerife Erol, Anneliese Kärcher, Thorsten Schulten and Manfred Walser
u4219834dafae1dc3 2 EU’s New Fiscal Rules: Balancing Budgets with Green and Digital AmbitionsPhilipp Heimberger
u42198346d1f0048 1 The Dangerous Metaphor of Unemployment “Scarring”Tom Boland and Ray Griffin
u4219834675 4ff1 998a 404323c89144 1 Why Progressive Governments Keep Failing — And How to Finally Win Back VotersMariana Mazzucato

Most Popular Articles

u4219834647f 0894ae7ca865 3 Europe’s Businesses Face a Quiet Takeover as US Investors CapitaliseTej Gonza and Timothée Duverger
u4219834674930082ba55 0 Portugal’s Political Earthquake: Centrist Grip Crumbles, Right AscendsEmanuel Ferreira
u421983467e58be8 81f2 4326 80f2 d452cfe9031e 1 “The Universities Are the Enemy”: Why Europe Must Act NowBartosz Rydliński
u42198346761805ea24 2 Trump’s ‘Golden Era’ Fades as European Allies Face Harsh New RealityFerenc Németh and Peter Kreko
startupsgovernment e1744799195663 Governments Are Not StartupsMariana Mazzucato
u421986cbef 2549 4e0c b6c4 b5bb01362b52 0 American SuicideJoschka Fischer
u42198346769d6584 1580 41fe 8c7d 3b9398aa5ec5 1 Why Trump Keeps Winning: The Truth No One AdmitsBo Rothstein
u421983467 a350a084 b098 4970 9834 739dc11b73a5 1 America Is About to Become the Next BrexitJ Bradford DeLong
u4219834676ba1b3a2 b4e1 4c79 960b 6770c60533fa 1 The End of the ‘West’ and Europe’s FutureGuillaume Duval
u421983462e c2ec 4dd2 90a4 b9cfb6856465 1 The Transatlantic Alliance Is Dying—What Comes Next for Europe?Frank Hoffer

Eurofound advertisement

Ageing workforce
The evolution of working conditions in Europe

This episode of Eurofound Talks examines the evolving landscape of European working conditions, situated at the nexus of profound technological transformation.

Mary McCaughey speaks with Barbara Gerstenberger, Eurofound's Head of Unit for Working Life, who leverages insights from the 35-year history of the European Working Conditions Survey (EWCS).

Listen to the episode for free. Also make sure to subscribe to Eurofound Talks so you don’t miss an episode!

LISTEN NOW

Foundation for European Progressive Studies Advertisement

Spring Issues

The Summer issue of The Progressive Post is out!


It is time to take action and to forge a path towards a Socialist renewal.


European Socialists struggle to balance their responsibilities with the need to take bold positions and actions in the face of many major crises, while far-right political parties are increasingly gaining ground. Against this background, we offer European progressive forces food for thought on projecting themselves into the future.


Among this issue’s highlights, we discuss the transformative power of European Social Democracy, examine the far right’s efforts to redesign education systems to serve its own political agenda and highlight the growing threat of anti-gender movements to LGBTIQ+ rights – among other pressing topics.

READ THE MAGAZINE

Hans Böckler Stiftung Advertisement

WSI Report

WSI Minimum Wage Report 2025

The trend towards significant nominal minimum wage increases is continuing this year. In view of falling inflation rates, this translates into a sizeable increase in purchasing power for minimum wage earners in most European countries. The background to this is the implementation of the European Minimum Wage Directive, which has led to a reorientation of minimum wage policy in many countries and is thus boosting the dynamics of minimum wages. Most EU countries are now following the reference values for adequate minimum wages enshrined in the directive, which are 60% of the median wage or 50 % of the average wage. However, for Germany, a structural increase is still necessary to make progress towards an adequate minimum wage.

DOWNLOAD HERE

S&D Group in the European Parliament advertisement

Cohesion Policy

S&D Position Paper on Cohesion Policy post-2027: a resilient future for European territorial equity

Cohesion Policy aims to promote harmonious development and reduce economic, social and territorial disparities between the regions of the Union, and the backwardness of the least favoured regions with a particular focus on rural areas, areas affected by industrial transition and regions suffering from severe and permanent natural or demographic handicaps, such as outermost regions, regions with very low population density, islands, cross-border and mountain regions.

READ THE FULL POSITION PAPER HERE

ETUI advertisement

HESA Magazine Cover

With a comprehensive set of relevant indicators, presented in 85 graphs and tables, the 2025 Benchmarking Working Europe report examines how EU policies can reconcile economic, social and environmental goals to ensure long-term competitiveness. Considered a key reference, this publication is an invaluable resource for supporting European social dialogue.

DOWNLOAD HERE

Social Europe

Our Mission

Team

Article Submission

Advertisements

Membership

Social Europe Archives

Themes Archive

Politics Archive

Economy Archive

Society Archive

Ecology Archive

Miscellaneous

RSS Feed

Legal Disclosure

Privacy Policy

Copyright

Social Europe ISSN 2628-7641

BlueskyXWhatsApp