Author: Ilona Bērziņa
The enormous influx of refugees and migrations is one of the biggest challenges the European Union (EU) has had to deal with in recent years. Although the new Pact on Migration and Asylum is intended to resolve this situation, topics related to migration will likely remain in the European Parliament’s sights for a long time.
Data from the Council of Europe indicates that in 2023 there were 274 404 irregular arrivals in the EU. The European Union Agency for Asylum (EUAA) reports that by October 2023 there were 937 000 asylum seekers registered in the EU – 22% more when compared to the same period of 2022. In Latvia, according to information from the Office of Citizenship and Migration Affairs (PMLP) the number of asylum seekers had tripled to 1 624.
BNN asked two ideological opponents when it comes to this issue – National Alliance and Progressives candidates for European Parliament elections – Rihards Kols and Elīna Pinto about their opinion about the EU asylum and migration reform.
We’ve argued too much and we’ve done too little in Europe so far
Elīna Pinto, Progressives
Asylum, migration and border management is a joint issue for all of Europe and should be tackled with all sides participating. The policy needs to be effective, secure and should respect human rights. In practice this requires sharing responsibility among European countries.
EU rules still state that responsibility for migrants and asylum seekers should be taken by the European country in which those people had first arrived. This is unavoidable for European border countries, and we are frequently one such country, even if the intended destination is elsewhere. We have to assess asylum requests if people submit those. This is the responsibility of our institutions before Latvian residents and Europe in general, because our authorities assess security risks. We also have the opportunity to invite EU experts and secure financial support from the EU for these purposes.
Several years ago Latvia was watching from a distance how migrants arrive and die at sea in southern parts of Europe. Latvia’s government strongly objected to European “quotas” for admission of asylum seekers. As expected, EU border countries now have to deal with neighbouring authoritarian regimes using migrants as a weapon. We are the front line when it comes to admitting Ukrainian civilians. This once again affirms that a unified and solidarity-based European approach is in our own best interest.
In situations when our neighbouring countries have to deal with a large number of people, we need other European countries to accept a portion of those people as well. Other countries “buying their way out” would be an acceptable option if the money is diverted to cover our own costs: pay our asylum services and training for workers, as well as create a better environment for people’s integration into local communities. This solidarity mechanism also offers freedom of choice to the Latvian government to decide how to act in relation to migrations that arrive elsewhere in Europe.
In the new EU regulations it is planned to extend the time we have to take on this responsibility (from 6 months to 2 years) and shorten the time a person can apply for reunification with a family already living elsewhere in Europe. This presents new responsibilities for Latvia’s representatives in the EU.
Latvia’s representatives also have to work to secure appropriate financing to create a safe and beneficial environment for local communities for people we provide the right to stay here.
Refugees can also serve as a valuable contribution to our society – skilled Ukrainian medics are already helping our residents. Teachers in Latvia help teach our children. Our NGOs are now better able to respond to crises. We can also provide people with asylum to save them from horrors and violence – no one wants to be in a situation when the war forces them to leave their home country. Russia’s aggression against Ukraine has made us acutely aware of it again.
So far in Europe, we have argued too much and acted too little to create a common approach to migration and asylum. This is also on the agenda of the European Parliament at the moment. It’s important for our representatives to be in all European political groups – this is the only way for us to make sure Latvia’s needs and interests re reflected in European decisions. This is why I’m currently working with partners in European Green Party, and election will give me a strong mandate to continue European Parliament’s internal processes.
National Alliance is against any quotas
Rihards Kols, National Alliance
The National Alliance opposes any kind of quotas, because it would be wrong at the very core. Many were happy when a compromise and a number of solidarity measures were included in the Pact on Migration Asylum. Yes, there is a number of other positive things, such as the agreement on cooperation with migrants’ countries of origin, return policy, border control and application processing. In regards to the solidarity mechanism, it may seem at first the offer is reasonable – if a member state faces migrant pressure, it asks other member states to assist. Solidarity can take the form of the resettlement of persons (migrants) (a certain number each year) or the making of financial contributions for each person who is not resettled. If not, then we stick to the core of the real mechanism: if a member state does not take part in the reception of migrants, it makes financial contributions. Estimates available so far suggest that it could be 20 thousand euros per migrant; the “quota” for Latvia is 99 people per year. An annual minimum contribution to the “common pot of solidarity” is also required.
We have taken in a very large number of Ukrainian refugees, close to 50 000. The percentage is not that high in either Southern or Western Europe. We can and will deal with this, and the public has been very open to welcoming and including Ukrainian refugees. At the same time, we have our own capacity, these are objective limitations, so if the issue of migrant pressure in southern Europe comes up again with great vigour, our ability to engage in solidarity activities (especially if it is just the resettlement of persons) is limited, and if these objective limitations are not understood by colleagues in other member states, they should be explained at all possible levels.
The European Union has the Dublin Regulation in place – a heavy and not-so-successful system, which is meant to be replaced by the Pact on Migration and Asylum. Spears are broken over the fact that the pact is planned to include a series of measures that do not contribute to the goals set, or they have already proven to be unsuccessful in the recent past because they do not work in real life. These are so-called resettlement quotas. In 2015, 2016, when this topic was like a hot potato in the European Union, a migrant resettlement scheme was implemented in proportion to the population and other parameters, and Latvia undertook to resettle 700 persons whose asylum application had yet to be examined. Around 360 people from Italy and Greece came here, if I am not mistaken. We resettled and reviewed asylum rules in accordance with which people are provided with alternative refugee status. When we asked PMLP how many people who were granted asylum in Latvia were left in the country, the response was – two. Where did the rest of them go? Some left for Germany or Sweden – they spread all over the EU. This means that with our social benefits, we are not an attractive country for the migrants who end up in Southern Europe via different, mostly illegal routes and using the paid services of human traffickers. We all appreciate the free movement opportunities in the Schengen Area, but when it comes to migration of asylum seekers, the Schengen Area is a big challenge. Because when we see objective data, the question appears whether these people are actually seeking asylum or using the asylum system for purposes of economic migration.
Anyone who signs up for asylum in the EU general system is registered. Every application is reviewed individually. The fact that an application was received does not mean the person automatically qualifies and will receive protection intended for refugees and asylum seekers. The people who do not qualify for status have to leave the EU because they do not have the right to remain here.
The cost of returning a single migrant to his or her country of origin if they are not eligible to receive international protection is approximately 10 – 20 thousand euros.
It is likely the Pact on Migration and Asylum will be passed with majority votes in February. My commitment is to work towards a review of this pact, as well as the Dublin Regulation. More broadly, internationally, it must also finally be made clear that the 1951 Refugee Convention is not suited to the migration challenges of the 21st century, it is morally outdated and the current situation requires regulation in line with today’s reality. It makes no mention of economic migrants or climate refugees. In African regions there are countries in which land is non-arable, which many call as future problems. However, these problems start today. Global problems will require local solutions, but the offered Pact on Migration and Asylum does not solve our locally identified problems, which prepare us for global migration challenges.
In just a couple of months this “rat race”, attempting the secure an agreement on the pact before the European Parliament elections while stifling talks that I would set binding duties for member states and EU institutions have caused great concerns that various contentious elements could be included in the document at the 11th hour. This often happens if the approval of the pact is the main objective and its content is only “secondary”. The direction and support of the migration pact – any commitments – should be based on an assessment of the content, not on and around political promises, concerns that there will be “no votes”, because the priorities of the next legislature could be different or something similar. This is blatantly at odds with the foundations of parliamentarism and is a poor, amateur approach to policy-making, because priorities poorly put-together (“paper” before content).
Also read: BNN INTERVIEW | Krauze: banning Russian grain transit means breaching EU market principles
Follow us on Facebook and X!
BNN ASKS | Ideological opponents: what’s the opinion on EU’s asylum and migration reform?
