Latest news with #GenevaRefugeeConvention
Euronews
a day ago
- Politics
- Euronews
German lawmakers vote to curb family reunification programme
German lawmakers on Friday voted to suspend family reunification rights for migrants who fall short of full asylum status, part of Chancellor Friedrich Merz's push to crack down on immigration. The lower house of Parliament voted 444 to 135 in favour of suspending family reunions for migrants with subsidiary protection, a status granted to people allowed to stay because it's too dangerous to return home, even though they are not officially recognised as refugees. As of the end of March, more than 388,000 people in Germany, primarily Syrians, held subsidiary protection status. The new legislation suspends rules introduced in 2018 that allowed up to 1,000 close relatives per month to join migrants with this status. Until now, German authorities made case-by-case decisions based on humanitarian grounds, rather than granting an automatic right to family reunification. The law does not affect individuals who have been granted asylum or recognised as refugees under the Geneva Refugee Convention. Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt told lawmakers the change would reduce the number of people able to come to Germany by around 12,000 per year and would "break a business model" for human traffickers. Dobrindt defended the measure, arguing that the country's "capacity for integration simply has a limit." "Many people know they won't receive full refugee recognition," Dobrindt said, "but they still head for Germany because it's known that, even without asylum status, you can bring your family later. That creates a strong pull factor, and today, we are eliminating that pull factor." The Social Democrats (SPD) — a member party of Merz's governing coalition — expressed concerns about the legislation but ultimately agreed to it as part of a political compromise. Germany's Minister for Migration, Refugees and Integration, Natalie Pawlik, acknowledged the discomfort within her party, saying, "Integration works better when families are together." She added, however, that the SPD would support the measure, noting it does not apply to so-called hardship cases and is limited to two years. The bill approved on Friday marks the first migration legislation passed since Merz took office. His government has pledged tougher immigration policies amid mounting public pressure.
Express Tribune
16-06-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
Privilege, justice and kindness
Later this week, on Friday June 20th, many institutions and organisations around the world that work on refugee related issues will commemorate the World Refugee Day. The idea of the World Refugee Day started in 2001 to mark the 50th anniversary of the 1951 Geneva Refugee Convention. This year we find ourselves in the midst of several challenges. On one end is seemingly endless conflict in many parts of the world. On the other, there is a greater concern about the future of institutions that focus on the issues facing refugees and migrants - including structures within the UN system. UN High Commission for Refugees is facing serious cuts, and some recent reports indicate that the entire office dedicated to health and migrants within the World Health Organization may disappear altogether. Facing these headwinds, arguments by individuals and institutions are being put forward about why we should care about those who are forcibly displaced due to conflict, persecution, xenophobia and climate change. A common argument is that refugees are good for the economy. That they contribute to job creation, they work hard, and they do work in sectors that other 'locals' may not be interested in. These arguments are often backed up by economic data. I have never been a fan of this line of thinking. I worry that this argument reduces our humanity. If we only look at who is good for the economy, should a refugee who is an elderly person, or a child, or has some disability be crossed off our lists? Is our empathy tied exclusively to who is 'productive' and 'good for us'? I was traveling in South Africa last week and have been thinking about the issue of privilege and justice. At a museum in Durban, I was reminded, again, about the injustice and horrors of apartheid. Alongside countless Blacks, Indians and coloured persons of South Africa who stood up against the evil system, there were also white citizens from all sectors of society who were privileged, not subjected to the racist laws, and in principle could have benefitted from the segregationist system. There were church goers, among the Dutch Reform Church in South Africa, who found the position of their church to be morally indefensible and stood up for justice and human dignity. These people, alongside their black, coloured and south Asian community members, paid a very heavy price for their moral compass. Their struggle, and their rejection of the privileged system that was ensuring their economic success, was not in vain. In a divided world of exclusion and injustice for many who suffer, but stable, enabling and fertile for those of us who are privileged, the museum reminded me once again to ask ourselves - what does justice and human dignity demand of us? Are we brave enough to stand up for a fairer world? Does our privilege deny others their basic humanity? Perhaps there is a different way to think about forced displacement. Whether or not one has technically been a refugee or not (since the term has a specific legal connotation), we all have benefitted from the kindness of others in difficult times; others who owed us nothing, or did not ask if we would be good for their financial future. Many of us have had family members or loved ones who had to leave a home, a town or a country overnight. Think of the partition, 1971 or many other events of the past. These loved ones were helped not just by family, but by strangers - who did not have to help them, but they did anyway. Those who helped gave up something - their time, their money, part of their home or something else. But their sacrifice, small as it may have been, was not in vain. It saved an individual or a family from harm. History reminds us that no one knows when one may have to flee their home and leave in the middle of the night. And should that happen to us, how would we want to be treated? What kind of a world would we want to live in? Maybe we should ask ourselves, what is stopping us from creating that world?
Euronews
20-05-2025
- Politics
- Euronews
Brussels seeks easier exits of asylum seekers from the EU
EU countries will be able to dismiss asylum applications without consideration and transfer asylum seekers far away under a change to the concept of "safe third countries" proposed by the European Commission on Tuesday. Under the proposal, non-EU nationals requesting asylum could more easily be transferred to a country considered 'safe', where they would be expected to apply for international protection, in a way quite similar to the UK's Rwanda deportation policy that was ruled unlawful by the Supreme Court. Member states' authorities may already transfer asylum applicants to a 'third safe country', if this country accepts them and if some provisions are respected. According to EU rules, a safe third country is a non-EU country where a person seeking international protection is treated according to 'international standards'. Safeguards include the protection of asylum seekers from persecution and serious harm, the respect of the principle of non-refoulement, the possibility to receive effective protection under the Geneva Refugee Convention and the possibility to have access to a functioning asylum system, with education and work permit granted in addition to residence rights. A good example of the application of the 'third safe country' under current legislation is the 2016 EU-Türkiye statement: an agreement allowing EU countries (in particular Greece) to transfer asylum seekers to Turkish territory. Until now however some form of connection between the applicant and the third country was required, such as a previous stay or the presence of some family members there, for the transfer to be lawful. The Commission is now proposing to change that by granting 'more flexibility' to member states when determining how they define a 'third safe country'. A connection between the applicant and the safe third country will no longer be mandatory, and instead member states will be allowed to designate as safe countries through which the asylum applicant transited en route to Europe. They will also be able to designate as safe those countries with whom they may strike an agreement. They will then need to notify the Commission of such an agreement though no central list of 'third safe countries' is foreseen at EU level. In practice, this means that an asylum seeker could end up virtually anywhere, and far from their country of origin or any country with which they are familiar. The Commission also proposes that appeals brought by asylum seekers against decisions based on the safe third country concept will no longer have the effect of suspending any transfer. Instead applicants whose appeals are successful may return to the member state from which they have been transferred to make an application. The legislation is a 'targeted amendment' of the Asylum Procedure Regulation that was approved during the last mandate, as a part of the major reform of EU migration policy, the Pact on Migration and Asylum. 'Third countries that are safe must also play their part,' said an EU official during a technical briefing on the matter. At the moment, only five of the 27 EU member states have developed a list of safe third countries, most of which are within Europe. But the easing of the rules could increase the numbers, especially if third countries strike up a deal to accept transfer agreements. The proposal now moves to the co-legislators — the European Parliament and the Council, representing the member states — who will each adopt respective positions on the planned changes. Subsequently, together with the European Commission, the three institutions will work to agree on a common text, which will eventually enter into force. The European People's Party, the largest group in the European Parliament, said that the proposal 'sends the right message' and 'is a crucial step towards creating an efficient, manageable, and fair asylum system', according to a press release by German MEP Lena Düpont, spokesperson for the group on migration issues. More opposition is expected from the left wing of the European Parliament. Socialist and democrats, Greens/EFA and The Left group are traditionally against stricter rules on migration. NGOs are also very sceptical of the proposal. 'This revision would only further weaken access to asylum in Europe, downgrade people's rights, and increase the risk of refoulement and of widespread arbitrary detention in third countries,' said Olivia Sundberg Diez, Amnesty International's EU advocate on migration and asylum. The Commission conducted no formal impact assessment for the proposal, though it consulted extensively across the member states, the Parliament, the UNHCR and civil society stakeholders, the results of which are presented in a Staff Working Document. European leaders have been quick to congratulate centrist Nicusor Dan on Sunday's dramatic victory in Romania's presidential election over his hard-right rival George Simion. Dan won 53.6% of the vote, ahead of Simion, who during the campaign portrayed his movement as championing nationalist values and conservative policies similar to those of US President Donald Trump. By contrast, Dan — the pro-EU and pro-NATO mayor of Bucharest — had vowed to keep the nation in the European mainstream and maintain support for neighbouring Ukraine. His win is a huge relief for the EU and Ukraine at a time of crucial challenges for Europe. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen offered support to build "an open and prosperous Romania in a strong Europe". EU Council President Antonio Costa said the result showed "a strong signal of Romanians' attachment to the European project". Jean-Michel De Waele, a political scientist at the ULB University in Brussels, told Euronews that only time will tell if this proves a setback for European nationalists, but stressed that leaders cannot ignore the anger of the anti-establishment voters. "There are many problems to be solved. And the citizens of the European Union in this part (of Europe) are not convinced by the EU," he said. "After all, 46% of Romanian citizens voted for Simion. So the EU can rejoice, but it must not forget and must not say: 'We understood the message, we will change the communication. Business as usual'." Parallel to Romania, Poland and Portugal went to the polls on what turned out to be the European elections' Super Sunday. In Poland, pro-European candidate Rafał Trzaskowski won the first round, ahead of conservative Karol Nawrocki. The pair will face each other in a runoff on 1 June. In Portugal, the ruling centre-right AD alliance won snap parliamentary elections yet fell short of a majority, while the far-right Chega made record gains. Meanwhile, the left-leaning PS lost 20 seats in parliament, resulting in the resignation of party leader Pedro Nuno Santo. The traditional left-wing parties were in free fall in all three elections. De Waele said that in Romania, the centre-left's lack of support for the pro-EU candidate was a major surprise. "There is an identity crisis in Europe and the left-wing parties don't have much to offer and don't question themselves much", De Waele explained. "The Romanian PSD is a member of the Party of European Socialists, which supports democracy, but that is completely insufficient. So I think it shows a lack of direction, a lack of leadership," he added. In the first round of the Polish presidential elections, two right-wing candidates faced each other without a leftist contender. According to De Waele, the struggles of the left-of-centre parties in Romania, Poland and Portugal revolve around losing touch with their traditional voters. "We see this clearly in Portugal. The areas where the Portuguese Communist Party or the left was strong are being eaten up by the far right," De Waele said. "So, they have lost contact with the public, they don't have much to offer in terms of discourse, as a dream, as a social project. And they are in very, very great difficulty." Lately, German and Hungarian social Democrats have struggled to win over voters against their right-wing or centre-right rivals. This is partly because of a leadership issue, according to De Waele. "I think we need strong leaders who actually dare to take action. You know, being on the left today is almost a bit shameful. It's as if there were no longer any pride, as if there were no longer a project, as if social democracy had lost its project." De Waele believes that the crisis of leadership is one cause of the turn many voters towards action-oriented leaders. "I think citizens are demanding concrete policies, and governments are taking strong positions. That's also why ... Trump is so successful. He's this kind of very virile, very strong populist leader." "Part of their victory comes from the fact that they say I'm going to do something for you. And I think that, unfortunately, the moderate left or the moderate right are paralysed and don't have any strong proposals," De Waele concluded.
Euronews
07-04-2025
- Politics
- Euronews
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".
