Social Europe

politics, economy and employment & labour

  • Themes
    • Strategic autonomy
    • War in Ukraine
    • European digital sphere
    • Recovery and resilience
  • Publications
    • Books
    • Dossiers
    • Occasional Papers
    • Research Essays
    • Brexit Paper Series
  • Podcast
  • Videos
  • Newsletter

Apprehend, detain, deport—towards a securitised EU?

Felix Bender 21st February 2022

Pushbacks at Europe’s borders have not been compliant with the Refugee Convention. Nor would internal ones.

securitised,securitisation,borders,refugees,pushbacks
Does Europe really want to be a Europe of fences? (Ajdin Kamber / shutterstock.com)

Pushbacks have become the ‘new normal’ on the European Union’s external borders. What they entail, in the absence of legal due process, has become readily apparent.

Refugees are being apprehended and detained in containers or camps surrounded with barbed wire. They are being beaten, robbed, insulted, humiliated and debased, marked like cattle and forced blindly through razor-wire fences to countries where the right to claim asylum is effectively denied.

Where individuals can be so apprehended, detained and deported without due process, the right to asylum—indeed any legal protection—dies. In light of what we have observed at the EU’s external borders, would one really want pushbacks to be legally endorsed within the EU?

New rules

The recent proposal from the European Commission for amendments to the Schengen Border Code suggests that the commission does. The proposal would not only allow member states to implement temporary border controls during public-health emergencies, such as the pandemic, but would also introduce two new sets of rules with regard to people on the move.


Our job is keeping you informed!


Subscribe to our free newsletter and stay up to date with the latest Social Europe content. We will never send you spam and you can unsubscribe anytime.

Sign up here

The first concern new surveillance and response mechanisms, to battle what the commission interprets as an ‘instrumentalisation of migrants’ aimed at ‘destabilising’ the EU or its member states. Such language flared up in the aftermath of the Belarussian regime’s attempt to funnel individuals in transit into the EU at the Polish border last year. But it fell short of explaining exactly how a few thousand of them could summon the power to destabilise the union—or even what that might mean exactly.

While the commission remains vague as to the mechanisms which would be employed to stop such instrumentalisation, this discursive sleight of hand steers the public away from thinking about refugees as individual human beings with rights under the Refugee Convention—including the right to non-refoulement and to make an individually adjudicated asylum claim—towards viewing them as non-European ‘others’ comprising collective security threats.

‘Shifting borders’

The ‘securitisation’ of migration is thus in full swing and it does not stop there. The second set of rule changes would address internal EU borders. They seek to legalise pushbacks of irregular migrants from one member state to another, largely without offering the opportunity to claim asylum or even to challenge detention and deportation.

According to the proposed changes, the police would be allowed to apprehend irregular migrants anywhere ‘in the vicinity of borders’—not just at the borders themselves. Such ‘shifting borders’, as they have been called, would allow states to implement a regime of search and control well within their territory—at bus and train stations and within certain cities. Individuals so apprehended could be detained without legal safeguards for up to 24 hours, before being pushed back to the member state they had left.

Though pushbacks at the EU’s internal borders are nothing new, this proposal would legalise and legitimise them. What we already witness at the external borders of the union would be replicated within.

This would not only threaten the rights of new arrivals but would introduce more controls and surveillance for EU citizens. This is the inevitable consequence of attempting to monitor everyone who crosses a border, to categorise whether they belong to a wanted or unwanted group and to pursue associated enforcement measures.

The alternative to universalised surveillance in border-neighbouring zones would be targeted intervention by the authorities—which could only mean racial profiling. The suggestions by the commission would then support discriminatory search-and-apprehend strategies in transport installations and cities across Europe—a frightening alternative which would fly in the face of anti-discrimination regimes and foment generalised suspicion towards non-white people.

Negative signal

Yet the gloomy outlook for protection of the rights of people on the move would be only one consequence of legalising internal pushbacks, were the commission proposal to be endorsed—it has yet to come before the European Parliament. The other is the negative signal it would send: European-wide responsibility-sharing on asylum would remain an ever-receding horizon, amid the further securitisation of the EU’s external borders.


We need your support


Social Europe is an independent publisher and we believe in freely available content. For this model to be sustainable, however, we depend on the solidarity of our readers. Become a Social Europe member for less than 5 Euro per month and help us produce more articles, podcasts and videos. Thank you very much for your support!

Become a Social Europe Member

The legalisation of intra-EU pushbacks would displace responsibility for hosting refugees—even moreso—from the centre to the member states at the external borders, where asylum-seekers have already been largely corralled by the Dublin convention (requiring that they normally make a claim in the state of arrival). Rather than signalling inter-state solidarity on the part of the union’s wealthy core, in the humane offering of asylum to individuals meeting the convention criteria, the message to the peripheral states would be: you are on your own.

This would undoubtedly not lead to a greater readiness to admit refugees. Rather it would bring higher walls, more fences and further attempts to ward off new arrivals—at whatever price.

Felix Bender
Felix Bender

Felix Bender is a postdoctoral fellow at KU Leuven, focusing on migration and asylum. He  worked at the Max Planck Institute for the Study of Religious and Ethnic Diversity and at Central European University. He held visiting positions at the Refugee Studies Centre, University of Oxford, the University of Amsterdam and the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Washington DC.

You are here: Home / Politics / Apprehend, detain, deport—towards a securitised EU?

Most Popular Posts

meritocracy The myth of meritocracy and the populist threatLisa Pelling
consultants,consultancies,McKinsey Consultants and the crisis of capitalismMariana Mazzucato and Rosie Collington
France,pension reform What’s driving the social crisis in FranceGuillaume Duval
earthquake,Turkey,Erdogan Turkey-Syria earthquake: scandal of being unpreparedDavid Rothery
European civil war,iron curtain,NATO,Ukraine,Gorbachev The new European civil warGuido Montani

Most Recent Posts

gas,IPCC Will this be the last European Gas Conference?Pascoe Sabido
water Confronting the global water crisisMariana Mazzucato, Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, Johan Rockström and 1 more
Hungary,social media,women Hungary’s ‘propaganda machine’ attacks womenLucy Martirosyan
carbon removal,carbon farming,nature Environmental stewardship yes, ‘carbon farming’ noWijnand Stoefs
IRA,industrial policy,inflation reduction act The IRA and European industrial policyPaul Sweeney

Other Social Europe Publications

front cover scaled Towards a social-democratic century?
Cover e1655225066994 National recovery and resilience plans
Untitled design The transatlantic relationship
Women Corona e1631700896969 500 Women and the coronavirus crisis
sere12 1 RE No. 12: Why No Economic Democracy in Sweden?

ILO advertisement

Global Wage Report 2022-23: The impact of inflation and COVID-19 on wages and purchasing power

The International Labour Organization's Global Wage Report is a key reference on wages and wage inequality for the academic community and policy-makers around the world.

This eighth edition of the report, The Impact of inflation and COVID-19 on wages and purchasing power, examines the evolution of real wages, giving a unique picture of wage trends globally and by region. The report includes evidence on how wages have evolved through the COVID-19 crisis as well as how the current inflationary context is biting into real wage growth in most regions of the world. The report shows that for the first time in the 21st century real wage growth has fallen to negative values while, at the same time, the gap between real productivity growth and real wage growth continues to widen.

The report analysis the evolution of the real total wage bill from 2019 to 2022 to show how its different components—employment, nominal wages and inflation—have changed during the COVID-19 crisis and, more recently, during the cost-of-living crisis. The decomposition of the total wage bill, and its evolution, is shown for all wage employees and distinguishes between women and men. The report also looks at changes in wage inequality and the gender pay gap to reveal how COVID-19 may have contributed to increasing income inequality in different regions of the world. Together, the empirical evidence in the report becomes the backbone of a policy discussion that could play a key role in a human-centred recovery from the different ongoing crises.


DOWNLOAD HERE

ETUI advertisement

The four transitions and the missing one

Europe is at a crossroads, painfully navigating four transitions (green, digital, economic and geopolitical) at once but missing the transformative and ambitious social transition it needs. In other words, if the EU is to withstand the storm, we do not have the luxury of abstaining from reflecting on its social foundations, of which intermittent democratic discontent is only one expression. It is against this background that the ETUI/ETUC publishes its annual flagship publication Benchmarking Working Europe 2023, with the support of more than 70 graphs and a special contribution from two guest editors, Professors Kalypso Nikolaidïs and Albena Azmanova.


DOWNLOAD HERE

Eurofound advertisement

#AskTheExpert webinar—Key ingredients for the future of work: job quality and gender equality

Eurofound’s head of information and communication, Mary McCaughey, its senior research manager, Agnès Parent-Thirion, and research manager, Jorge Cabrita, explore the findings from the recently published European Working Conditions Telephone Survey (EWCTS) in an #AskTheExpert webinar. This survey of more than 70,000 workers in 36 European countries provides a wide-ranging picture of job quality across countries, occupations, sectors and age groups and by gender in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic. It confirms persistent gender segregation in sectors, occupations and workplaces, indicating that we are a long way from the goals of equal opportunities for women and men at work and equal access to key decision-making positions in the workplace.


WATCH HERE

Foundation for European Progressive Studies Advertisement

Let’s end involuntary unemployment!

What is the best way to fight unemployment? We want to know your opinion, to understand better the potential of an EU-wide permanent programme for direct and guaranteed public-service employment.

In collaboration with Our Global Moment, Fondazione Pietro Nenni and other progressive organisations across Europe, we launched an EU-wide survey on the perception of unemployment and publicly funded jobs, exploring ways to bring innovation in public sector-led job creation.


TAKE THE SURVEY HERE

Hans Böckler Stiftung Advertisement

The macroeconomic effects of re-applying the EU fiscal rules

Against the background of the European Commission's reform plans for the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP), this policy brief uses the macroeconometric multi-country model NiGEM to simulate the macroeconomic implications of the most relevant reform options from 2024 onwards. Next to a return to the existing and unreformed rules, the most prominent options include an expenditure rule linked to a debt anchor.

Our results for the euro area and its four biggest economies—France, Italy, Germany and Spain—indicate that returning to the rules of the SGP would lead to severe cuts in public spending, particularly if the SGP rules were interpreted as in the past. A more flexible interpretation would only somewhat ease the fiscal-adjustment burden. An expenditure rule along the lines of the European Fiscal Board would, however, not necessarily alleviate that burden in and of itself.

Our simulations show great care must be taken to specify the expenditure rule, such that fiscal consolidation is achieved in a growth-friendly way. Raising the debt ceiling to 90 per cent of gross domestic product and applying less demanding fiscal adjustments, as proposed by the IMK, would go a long way.


DOWNLOAD HERE

About Social Europe

Our Mission

Article Submission

Membership

Advertisements

Legal Disclosure

Privacy Policy

Copyright

Social Europe ISSN 2628-7641

Social Europe Archives

Search Social Europe

Themes Archive

Politics Archive

Economy Archive

Society Archive

Ecology Archive

Follow us

RSS Feed

Follow us on Facebook

Follow us on Twitter

Follow us on LinkedIn

Follow us on YouTube