The EPP takes firmer line on migration in policy pitch
ADVERTISEMENT
Migrant return hubs, a stronger role for Frontex and toughening the criteria for migrants to be joined by their families are among stances touted by a new position paper on migration adopted by the European People's Party (EPP) group this week, which would align the party with its more right-wing counterparts in the Parliament.
Under the title 'Harnessing Migration: A Firm, Fair, and Future-Oriented Approach" the 9-point action plan "to halt uncontrolled migration' seen by Euronews is meant to define the group's stance on issues such as returns, fighting migrant smuggling and protection of external borders as well as the Schengen area, EPP German MEP Lena Düpont told Euronews.
Among controversial measures it presents to reduce irregular migratory flows, it includes a pitch for the use of European funds to finance 'physical infrastructure' at the EU's external borders, breaking a long-standing taboo.
In January Commissioner for Home Affairs Magnus Brunner
left
the door open to the use of EU money to finance barriers during a debate in the European Parliament.
The document says that fresh financial resources from the EU budget are needed to meet all needs in the area of border protection, as the EU should 'shift the paradigm forward, from border security to border defence.'
The EPP is in favour of boosting the capacity of Frontex, converting it into a 'fully operational European border agency equipped with state-of-the-art, advanced surveillance technologies such as drones, AI, and biometric systems.'
Frontex agents should also be deployed in African countries such as Senegal and Mauritania to prevent illegal migrants leaving, a possibility currently under
discussion
. Under discussion in what context?
The paper touts partnerships with third countries as very important means of stemming irregular migration by encouraging them to prevent departures and implement effective means of readmitting nationals. Those who do not cooperate with the EU should not receive European funds or visas, the paper states.
Another controversial aspect concerns the Schengen Area. Several member states have temporarily reintroduced checks at their borders with other EU countries to deter so-called 'secondary movements' of migrants, an idea also floated by incoming German Chancellor Friedrich Merz.
While the suspension of Schengen is generally
criticized by the Commission
, the EPP paper 'recognises the right of member states to reintroduce temporary internal border controls as a last-resort measure, applied exceptionally.'
The largest group in the Parliament now also strongly endorses a 'temporary derogation from the right to asylum when migrants are instrumentalized as weapons against the EU', something already been
done
by prominent EPP member, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk.
The right to asylum is enshrined in EU law and in the 1951
Geneva Refugee Convention
, which was originally adopted to protect European refugees displaced by World War II.
'The EU must initiate a dialogue on adapting the Geneva Convention to the current world,' in order to address 'the legitimate concerns of member states regarding security and migration management,' according to the document.
Other ideas contained in the position paper include a crackdown on family reunification of refugees, which 'should require demonstrated integration and financial stability prior to its authorization', and the revision of the European Prosecutor's mandate to include investigations into migrant smuggling.
Finally, the EPP's position paper considers the Italy-Albania protocol adopted to process overseas asylum requests addressed to Italian authorities as 'a first but decisive innovative step to dissuade illegal migration' aligning on this with the views of the European Conservatives and Reformists and Patriots for Europe, the two main right-wing groups in the Parliament.
ADVERTISEMENT
MEP Düpont describes this document as part of a "push for a firm and fair asylum and migration policy that covers the most aspects possible", she told Euronews. "We will reach out and work with the other groups on the basis of that spirit".
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Local France
11 hours ago
- Local France
How securing rights through citizenship has become 'increasingly fragile'
The first Global State of Citizenship report, by the Global Citizenship Observatory (GLOBALCIT) at the European University Institute (EUI) in Florence, analyses citizenship laws in 191 countries in 2024. Researchers found that "with the growing number of armed conflicts and incidence of terrorism worldwide, many countries have introduced provisions for withdrawing the citizenship of a person on the basis of national security grounds.' Over a third of countries, including many European ones, 'can now strip a person of their citizenship when their actions are seen as disloyal or threatening to state security,' the report says, and the trend has been expanding. The practice is linked to an 'increasing securitisation of citizenship' since the terrorist attacks of September 11th 2001 in the USA. Between 2000 and 2020, 18 European countries put in place measures to deprive persons of citizenship because of national security or to counter terrorism. Before 2001, these measures were 'virtually absent', the report says. Recently, the Swedish government commissioned an inquiry on the revocation of citizenship from individuals threatening national security . Germany's coalition parties discussed this option for 'supporters of terrorism, antisemites, and extremists'. Hungary also amended the constitution to allow the temporary suspension of citizenship because of national security. Middle East and North Africa are other regions where these policies have expanded, the report says. Advertisement Ways to strip citizenship The report identifies four ways in which citizens can be stripped of their status on security grounds. Nearly 80 per cent of countries have rules covering at least one of these situations. In 132 countries around the world, and two thirds of European states, citizenship can be removed for disloyalty or for acts that threaten national security, such treason, espionage, trying to overthrow a government or terrorism. Such rules exist in Belgium, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Turkey and the UK. In 89 countries, however, this rule concerns only to people who naturalised, not those who acquired citizenship by birth. Another reason that can lead to the stripping of citizenship is having committee serious criminal offences, which typically involves having been sentenced to imprisonment for a certain period. These rules exist in 79 countries but only a few in Europe. In 70 countries, citizenship can be removed for serving in a foreign army and in 18 this measure concerns only people who acquired citizenship by naturalisation. In Europe, 40 per cent of countries – including France, Germany, Greece, the Netherlands, Estonia, Turkey, Belarus and Bosnia Herzegovina – can remove citizenship under certain conditions for having served in another army. Latvia, one of the countries that can revoke citizenship for such reasons, changed the law in 2022 to allow its citizens to work with the Ukrainian military forces. Citizenship can also be removed for providing non-military services to another state, such as being elected in a public office, working for certain agencies or just in the civil service. Such rules exist in 75 countries around the world and some in Europe too, including France, Greece and Turkey. Advertisement People naturalised more at risk Luuk van der Baaren, co-author of the report, said at the presentation of the study that 'these developments indeed raise an important question as to what extent is citizenship still a secure legal status'. The data also shows that 'a large share of the citizenship stripping provisions are discriminatory in nature, as they only apply to specific groups, particularly citizens by naturalisation'. This is to prevent that a person remains stateless, but it means that 'citizens by birth have a secure legal status, while those who acquired citizenship later in life do not,' he added. Losing citizenship may not only affect the personal security and life opportunities, but also that of dependants, the report says, as in 40 per cent of countries citizenship deprivation can extend to children. Other ways of losing citizenship There are other ways, intentional or not, to lose citizenship, according to the report. The most common, is to have withdrawn because it was acquired in a fraudulent way. Such rules exist in 157 countries. 156 states have also rules on how to voluntarily renounce citizenship, usually with provisions to ensure that a person does not end up stateless. In 56 countries, people can lose their citizenship if they acquire another nationality, and in 55 this may occur by simply residing abroad. Under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 'everyone has the right to a nationality', but four million people in the world are stateless 'because their citizenship remains denied or unrecognised,' the report continues. On the other hand, 35 countries do not allow people to renounce citizenship, or make this impossible in practice. Advertisement Unequal rights The report also looks at ways to acquire citizenship and finds 'highly unequal pathways'. The most common naturalisation requirement knowledge. Less common are economic self-sufficiency, civic or cultural integration, language or citizenship tests, and renunciation of other citizenships. On residency requirements, Americas and Western Europe have the more inclusive measures. Citizenship in European countries is also regulated via the European Convention on Nationality, under which the residence requirement cannot exceed 10 years. In 15 countries the wait is longer than 10 years: Equatorial Guinea (40 years), United Arab Emirates (30), Bahrain (25), Qatar (25), Bhutan (20), Brunei (20), Eritrea (20), Oman (20), Chad (15), Gambia (15), Nigeria (15), Rwanda (15), Sierra Leone (15), St. Kitts and Nevis (14), and India (11).
France 24
12 hours ago
- France 24
Trump business for security deal 'effectively rewards Rwanda for invading, occupying, looting Congo'
17:41 28/06/2025 Rwanda, DR Congo sign peace deal in Washington Africa 27/06/2025 DR Congo and Rwanda to sing a US-brokered deal Africa 27/06/2025 DRC, Rwanda to sign US-mediated peace deal and end conflict Africa 26/06/2025 Several killed in nationwide anti-government rallies in Kenya Africa 25/06/2025 Sixteen deaths recorded in Kenya protests, most killed by police, Amnesty Kenya says Africa 21/06/2025 Rwanda arrests opposition leader Victoire Ingabire Africa 21/06/2025 African cinemateque caravan makes a stop in Cameroon Africa 16/06/2025 Shortages, soaring prices: Burundi grapples with deepening economic crisis Africa 16/06/2025 Police break up Nigeria protest after deadly attack Africa
Euronews
12 hours ago
- Euronews
Commissioner and MEPs in Budapest to challenge Orban's Pride ban
Around 70 MEPs from the liberal, green and left wing of the European Parliament joined the Belgian equality commissioner in Budapest on Saturday afternoon, as thousands of protestors marched through the Hungarian capital, waving rainbow and EU flags. The MEPs were primarily from the liberal Renew Europe, Socialists & Democrats, the Left and Greens groups, joined by one Irish European People's Party (EPP) MEP, Maria Walsh. Tens of thousands joined the march, with organisers claiming as many as 200,000 were on the streets. 'Long before I got into politics, and long before I leave, I'll be showing up for Pride. For me and for my values, Pride is incredibly important. I only wish more were here, but I joined together with over 70 other MEPs from across political parties,' Walsh told Euronews. 'It's not about one party versus the other party. It's about one human being showing up for another,' she added, when quizzed on the fact that there was no EPP delegation with her. 'I would have preferred that more EPP people would have joined the event. I think it's disappointing because this is an important mobilisation,' the President of Renew Europe, Valérie Hayer, told Euronews. 'We have noted, since the start of this term, that the EPP is wavering between the democratic forces and the extreme right. It's a pity that the EPP doesn't understand who their adversaries are," said French socialist MEP Emma Rafowicz. A notable EPP absence was Hungarian opposition leader and MEP Peter Magyar. His centre-right party Tisza party is currently leading the governing Fidesz party in opinion polls for the 2026 parliamentary election. Magyar was not in Budapest, avoiding taking a stance of the issue of the thorny issue of the Pride march, which a recent survey indicated divides opinion in the country, with 47% of Hungarians opposed to it taking place. However, earlier in the day he called for a peaceful protest. 'I ask everyone not to fall for any provocation. If anyone gets hurt today in Budapest, if anyone comes to harm, Viktor Orbán alone will be responsible,' Magyar posted to his social platforms. European Commissioner for equality Hadja Lahbib held meetings with local civil society organisations on Friday. However, she did not show up at the march, telling Euronews that she instead would be attending meetings in the city. Risking fines and jail time In March, the Hungarian parliament approved a bill that in effect banned the gay pride march. As the legislation states, this event could violate Hungary's so-called child protection law, adopted earlier in the country, prohibiting any portrayal of same sex relationships for minors. The European Commission views this as a violation of its community law and has referred the case to the European Court of Justice. Conservative and far-right MEPs in the European Parliament defended Orbán's move to ban Pride events, saying the EU should not interfere in Hungary's internal affairs. However, the mayor of Budapest, Gergely Karácsony from the Green party, allowed the parade to go ahead by re-labeling it as a 'Day of Freedom' celebration, officially organized by the city council. This legal loophole allowed the thousands of people to march through the streets of Budapest in sweltering heat, protesting not just the ban Pride ban, but Viktor Orban's government generally. Alongside pride flags and the loud music, there were banners displaying the prime minister. 'I am not a big fan of Pride events, but this extends beyond Pride. This is about freedom too, because Hungary, a European Union country, banning Pride, is simply not on," one attendee told Euronews of his motivations for attending. Security was tight, with security cameras installed on lamp posts in the city centre and hundreds of police officers deployed at key spots of the parade, keeping watch over protesters and ensuring there were no clashes. Attendees were warned by the Hungarian Ministry of Justice that parade organisers risked up to a year in prison, and that those marching could be fined €500. The police have been encouraged by the government to use facial recognition technology to identify the attendees, although Karácsony insists that nobody will face punishment for their participation in the march. Anti-LGBT protesters also assembled in Budapest The nationalist 64 Counties Youth Movement held a legally sanctioned event on the same square in Budapest where Pride participants later gathered. Meanwhile, the Our Homeland Movement, a small far-right parliamentary party, organised a police-approved counter-march along the same route as the municipal Pride event. However, during the day the far-right protest was blocked by a strong police presence to avoid conflict. No major incidents were reported by the evening, although Euronews witnessed a confrontation between a small group of the 64 Counties Youth Movement – holding a banner comparing LGBT people to paedophiles and the Pride March. 'We are here because we want to warn the people of Hungary about the LGBT paedophilia, it is a really danger for our children,' one anti-LGBT protester told Euronews. Another anti-Pride protester tried to stop the march by standing in front of the truck leading the parade. He was jeered by the crowd and removed by the police.
