How Europe got tough on migration
When Nicola Procaccini was elected to the European Parliament six years ago, colleagues seemed to avoid stepping into elevators with him at the towering glass Parliament building in Brussels, he said. He belonged to a tiny, fringe party on the right of Italian politics whose hard-line stances on immigration were scorned.
'My hand would hang midair because they don't shake hands with fascists,' Procaccini said in an interview, derisively characterising how he thought his opponents saw him. Meanwhile, migrant rights activists were invited into the Parliament chamber and cheered.
Now those tables have turned, he said. 'Those who told us our approach was racist, xenophobic, are slowly starting to say, 'Well, maybe they're a bit right,'' Procaccini said, noting that mainstream politicians are now embracing more of his party's policies on migration.
Procaccini's party, Brothers of Italy, is now very popular in Italy. Its leader, Giorgia Meloni, is the country's prime minister. And Procaccini is a chair of the European Conservatives and Reformists group, a big force in the European Parliament.
Across the political spectrum in Europe, leaders, right and left, are pushing a tougher line on migrants lacking permanent legal status. The shift has not set off the same turmoil that President Donald Trump's immigration crackdown has stirred in the United States, but it is already being seen as entrenched and profound.
In nations across the European Union, centrists are joining staunch conservatives to roll back protections in an effort to make it easier to deport migrants lacking permanent legal status. Denmark's 'zero' refugee policy has become a model other leaders want to replicate. European Union officials are working on new rules that would help to send asylum-seekers to third countries. The bloc struck a recent deal to deploy agents in Bosnia and Herzegovina, which is not an EU member, to better police borders.
Some of those ideas have previously met with criticism from European Union officials.
The shift has steadily built with the voter backlash that helped fuel nationalist, far-right and populist parties after Europe took in more than 1 million Syrians, Iraqis, Afghans and others seeking asylum a decade ago.
Migration picked up again, though less drastically, just after the peak of the coronavirus pandemic. But since then, the number of migrants arriving has fallen. They declined about 20 per cent in the first five months of 2025, after a sharp decline last year, according to preliminary data collected by Frontex, the European Union's border agency. At the same time, expulsions have slowly increased.
But migration along some routes remains significant. Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the bloc's executive arm, emphasised in a recent letter to political leaders that arrivals from Libya into Greece are surging, and said that Europe must 'insist on strengthening border management.' Hofmann said that because anti-immigrant sentiments are often a proxy for wider frustration with a perceived lack of opportunities, high costs of living and a loss of social status, a drop in migrant arrivals alone was unlikely to blunt the issue's potency.
Not long ago, when the British government proposed sending asylum-seekers to Rwanda, the Council of Europe's commissioner for human rights said the plan was another representation 'of an ongoing trend towards externalisation of asylum and migration policy in Europe,' which he said was 'a matter of concern for the global system of protection of the rights of refugees.' Now, the policy of offshoring asylum requests has become a signature of Meloni, who has tried to hold asylum-seekers in Albania while their cases are processed.
Though Italian judges have blocked her effort for now, von der Leyen called it 'an example of out-of-the-box thinking.' Now the European Union is seeking to redirect applicants to third countries while it works to streamline the deportation process for asylum-seekers whose applications have been rejected.
The depth of the change was on full display last month when Mette Frederiksen, the Social Democratic, left-leaning Danish prime minister, stood alongside the staunchly conservative Meloni in Rome to support tougher migration rules.
Frederiksen, whose country has relatively few asylum requests, has for several years overseen one of Europe's most restrictive policies. Others are now seeking to adopt a similar approach.
Chancellor Friedrich Merz of Germany, the centre-right leader of Europe's largest economy, this month called Denmark a 'role model' on migration policy.
Germany has now instituted checks on its land borders, a step that opponents, including some of its neighbours, have criticised as undermining the commitment of EU members to free movement within the bloc.
Some worry that the shift in tone around migration could harm newcomers who remain in Europe. In recent Polish presidential elections, the nationalist candidate won by running in part on a 'Poland first, Poles" platform. The shift in tone is striking even to those who have long been proponents of tougher measures.
A decade ago, when Australia barred migrants trying to enter the country by sea from resettlement and sent asylum-seekers to Papua New Guinea, rights groups said the policy provoked human rights violations. The European Union was also critical, said Alexander Downer, an Australian former foreign minister.
'They used to give me lectures all the time about how naughty we were,' Downer said. 'Von der Leyen has embraced it now.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Observer
12 hours ago
- Observer
EU unveils long-delayed 2040 climate target, with wiggle room
BRUSSELS: The EU on Wednesday unveiled its long-delayed target for cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 2040, but with contested new flexibilities built in to win over the most sceptical member states. After months of tough negotiations, Brussels announced it would stick to the headline objective announced last year of cutting emissions by 90 per cent by 2040, compared to 1990 levels. The proposal comes as much of Europe roasts in an early summer heatwave, which scientists say are becoming more intense, frequent and widespread due to human-induced climate change. The 2040 target — which needs sign off from the European Union's member states and parliament — is a key milestone towards the bloc's goal of becoming carbon neutral by 2050. Brussels says the EU has already cut climate-warming emissions by 37 per cent relative to 1990 but its green agenda faces pushback with a rightward shift and rising climate scepticism in many European countries. EU climate chief Wopke Hoekstra acknowledged the "sensitive" debate, saying Brussels was keeping an "ambitious" goal while being "pragmatic and flexible on how to achieve it". To sway resistant capitals, the European Commission proposes that from 2036, the bloc's 27 countries can count carbon credits purchased to finance projects outside Europe, for up to three per cent of their emission cuts. Climate campaigners are broadly opposed to the measure. Backed by scientific studies and the commission's own science advisers, they say factoring in international credits -- for things like tree-planting or renewable-energy projects -- risks undermining the EU's own efforts to shift away from fossil fuels. "While this is a step in the right direction, by sneaking in international offsets and leaning heavily on supposed future carbon removals, the European Commission has built loopholes into the heart of the proposal," WWF EU said. "Three per cent is not insignificant," echoed Neil Makaroff, an expert at the climate-focused Strategic Perspectives think tank. "These are potentially considerable sums that will be spent abroad instead of financing the transition" in Europe. "But there's a political compromise to be found," said Makaroff — stressing the importance of "delivering" on the headline target. To reach the 2040 and 2050 objectives, Europe's industry and citizens will have to undertake major transformations including increased uptake of electric cars, the gradual phasing out of fossil fuels and making buildings more energy-efficient. "Today we show that we stand firmly by our commitment to decarbonise Europe's economy by 2050," EU chief Ursula von der Leyen said. EU environment ministers will discuss the objective at a meeting in mid-July, ahead of a vote expected on September 18. EU lawmakers also need to greenlight the target, which requires the support from the biggest group in parliament, the centre-right EPP. To win others over, Brussels also proposes to make it more financially attractive for companies that capture and store CO2. The commission's hope is that the 2040 objective will be approved before the UN climate conference (COP30) in November in the northern Brazilian city of Belem. — AFP
Observer
12 hours ago
- Observer
How Europe got tough on migration
By Emma Bubola When Nicola Procaccini was elected to the European Parliament six years ago, colleagues seemed to avoid stepping into elevators with him at the towering glass Parliament building in Brussels, he said. He belonged to a tiny, fringe party on the right of Italian politics whose hard-line stances on immigration were scorned. 'My hand would hang midair because they don't shake hands with fascists,' Procaccini said in an interview, derisively characterising how he thought his opponents saw him. Meanwhile, migrant rights activists were invited into the Parliament chamber and cheered. Now those tables have turned, he said. 'Those who told us our approach was racist, xenophobic, are slowly starting to say, 'Well, maybe they're a bit right,'' Procaccini said, noting that mainstream politicians are now embracing more of his party's policies on migration. Procaccini's party, Brothers of Italy, is now very popular in Italy. Its leader, Giorgia Meloni, is the country's prime minister. And Procaccini is a chair of the European Conservatives and Reformists group, a big force in the European Parliament. Across the political spectrum in Europe, leaders, right and left, are pushing a tougher line on migrants lacking permanent legal status. The shift has not set off the same turmoil that President Donald Trump's immigration crackdown has stirred in the United States, but it is already being seen as entrenched and profound. In nations across the European Union, centrists are joining staunch conservatives to roll back protections in an effort to make it easier to deport migrants lacking permanent legal status. Denmark's 'zero' refugee policy has become a model other leaders want to replicate. European Union officials are working on new rules that would help to send asylum-seekers to third countries. The bloc struck a recent deal to deploy agents in Bosnia and Herzegovina, which is not an EU member, to better police borders. Some of those ideas have previously met with criticism from European Union officials. The shift has steadily built with the voter backlash that helped fuel nationalist, far-right and populist parties after Europe took in more than 1 million Syrians, Iraqis, Afghans and others seeking asylum a decade ago. Migration picked up again, though less drastically, just after the peak of the coronavirus pandemic. But since then, the number of migrants arriving has fallen. They declined about 20 per cent in the first five months of 2025, after a sharp decline last year, according to preliminary data collected by Frontex, the European Union's border agency. At the same time, expulsions have slowly increased. But migration along some routes remains significant. Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the bloc's executive arm, emphasised in a recent letter to political leaders that arrivals from Libya into Greece are surging, and said that Europe must 'insist on strengthening border management.' Hofmann said that because anti-immigrant sentiments are often a proxy for wider frustration with a perceived lack of opportunities, high costs of living and a loss of social status, a drop in migrant arrivals alone was unlikely to blunt the issue's potency. Not long ago, when the British government proposed sending asylum-seekers to Rwanda, the Council of Europe's commissioner for human rights said the plan was another representation 'of an ongoing trend towards externalisation of asylum and migration policy in Europe,' which he said was 'a matter of concern for the global system of protection of the rights of refugees.' Now, the policy of offshoring asylum requests has become a signature of Meloni, who has tried to hold asylum-seekers in Albania while their cases are processed. Though Italian judges have blocked her effort for now, von der Leyen called it 'an example of out-of-the-box thinking.' Now the European Union is seeking to redirect applicants to third countries while it works to streamline the deportation process for asylum-seekers whose applications have been rejected. The depth of the change was on full display last month when Mette Frederiksen, the Social Democratic, left-leaning Danish prime minister, stood alongside the staunchly conservative Meloni in Rome to support tougher migration rules. Frederiksen, whose country has relatively few asylum requests, has for several years overseen one of Europe's most restrictive policies. Others are now seeking to adopt a similar approach. Chancellor Friedrich Merz of Germany, the centre-right leader of Europe's largest economy, this month called Denmark a 'role model' on migration policy. Germany has now instituted checks on its land borders, a step that opponents, including some of its neighbours, have criticised as undermining the commitment of EU members to free movement within the bloc. Some worry that the shift in tone around migration could harm newcomers who remain in Europe. In recent Polish presidential elections, the nationalist candidate won by running in part on a 'Poland first, Poles" platform. The shift in tone is striking even to those who have long been proponents of tougher measures. A decade ago, when Australia barred migrants trying to enter the country by sea from resettlement and sent asylum-seekers to Papua New Guinea, rights groups said the policy provoked human rights violations. The European Union was also critical, said Alexander Downer, an Australian former foreign minister. 'They used to give me lectures all the time about how naughty we were,' Downer said. 'Von der Leyen has embraced it now.'
Observer
2 days ago
- Observer
Defence hike: Europe is making a big mistake
Leaving Brussels by train, the Audi factory is one of the first things you see. Made up of gray, rectangular buildings, the site was long one of Belgium's biggest car producers. Slick and productive, it was a fitting symbol for the capital of Europe. Early this year, however, it succumbed to the industrial crisis overtaking the continent and was unceremoniously shut down. Spots of graffiti are already visible on its once pristine walls. In recent months, the story of the Audi factory has become the story of Europe. Both are down on their luck, in danger of being swept away by the century's new geoeconomic tide. In Brussels, the response to the predicament has been equally in tune with the times — as part of a wider military revamp, ministers claim, the former car factory should be turned into a weapons producer. Such a relaunch, proponents say, would aid Europe's strategic autonomy and create 3,000 new jobs. Across Europe, policymakers are converging on the same strategy, hoping to kill two birds with one stone. On the one hand, increased military spending would make Europe safe from Russia and independent from America, at last securing its superpower status. On the other hand, it would revive Europe's ailing industrial sector, under pressure from Chinese competitors and rising energy costs. Pumping money into the military, so the argument goes, is the way to fight the twin crises of geopolitical vulnerability and economic malaise. These hopes are likely to prove delusive. Europe's militarisation push, suffering problems of both scale and efficiency, is unlikely to work on its own terms. But it carries a bigger danger than failure. By focusing on defence at the expense of all else, it risks taking the European Union not forward but backward. Rather than a major advance, breakneck rearmament could well amount to a historic mistake. Europe's new approach is usually given an older name: military Keynesianism. Originally, the concept referred to the tendency of mid-century governments to counteract economic downturns through increases in military spending — a combination supposedly first pioneered by the Nazis in the 1930s, then globalised by the Americans in the 1940s. More recently, the term has been applied to President Vladimir Putin's war economy in Russia. Yet it is far from clear whether Europe's current efforts warrant such a description. For one, the continent is simply undergoing a return to military spending levels before 1989. At its peak in the 1960s, for instance, German military expenditure reached just under 5 per cent of gross domestic product; Chancellor Friedrich Merz's target, announced last week, is 3.5 per cent. Such a restoration hardly qualifies as a great leap forward — certainly not matching the concept of the 'Zeitenwende", or 'turning point", that has been used to describe the change in approach. The public benefits of the strategy — the Keynesianism part — remain equally unclear. Though Germany has slightly eased its debt rules, European policymakers remain reluctant to run up budget deficits. More money for the military will strain already tight budgets, taking away from social programmes, infrastructural development and public utilities. Instead of military Keynesianism, a better comparison for Europe's defence bonanza is the Reaganism of the 1980s, in which increased military spending and social retrenchment went hand in hand. There are more problems with the remilitarisation push. For one, many former industrial sectors will acquire a vested interest in war-making abroad — hardly as reliable a source of profit as consumers buying cars. And more money for the military doesn't necessarily mean better results, either. As the economist Adam Tooze notes, Europeans collectively lavish ample sums on their 'zombie armies' and receive strikingly little in return, both in terms of manpower and material. No European company, for example, ranks in the top 10 defence companies by turnover. Then there is the quintessentially European problem with coordination. With tanks and hardware already expensive, the costs of continental rearmament will be multiplied by the union's decentralised decision-making, in which nations separately vie for contracts. Glimpses of such inefficiency are visible in the stalling efforts at shell production for the war in Ukraine. On top of this muddle, the first payouts of Europe's splurge are likely to go to American producers while European factories get up and running. In a telling irony, the initial beneficiaries of the potlatch will be not European but American. These logistical constraints should be weighed alongside the cultural limits to remilitarisation in Europe. In response to calls for renewed mobilisation, for example, one German podcaster spoke for many: 'I'd rather be alive than dead.' Even so, European policymakers are determined to sell rearmament as a condition for the continent's entry into the 21st century. Last week's Nato summit, at which almost all members pledged to raise military spending in the next decade to 5 per cent of GDP produced a pageant of such views. The number of wars around the world, with a fresh one recently threatened in Iran, supposedly underlines the need for Europe to be a fighting continent once more. This strategy, officials claim, combines military independence with commercial revival. Neither of these outcomes is likely. On its current course, Europe is headed for neither military Keynesianism with a social dividend nor a defence strategy suitable for an aspiring superpower. Rather, it risks getting the worst of both worlds: a meager economic recovery without long-term prospects for growth, and sumptuous payouts to a defence sector that would not allow Europe to match its peers. A quick journey to Brussels, where the Audi factory still stands empty, should suffice to convince visitors of this truth.
