This is Why the European Migration Pact Solves Nothing 

‘Greece is a beautiful country, but for me it's where I lost everything.’ Yara* fled to Europe with her parents, little brother and sisters when she was just thirteen years old. Their boat capsized and Yara was the only one in her family to survive – a nightmare that haunted her life until she was sixteen and finally able to travel to Stockholm to live with her mother's aunt. ‘In Sweden, I felt alive again for the first time. I could start over.’ There she went to school with her cousins and learned to ski and swim. But the harsh European asylum system put an end to this happy time: Yara was sent back to Greece in 2020. 

Overcrowded Refugee Camp Moria  

That same year, Europe was rocked by the devastating fire at the notoriously overcrowded Moria refugee camp in Greece. Femke de Vries, EU policy and advocacy officer at the Dutch Council for Refugees, remembers the incident well. 'European Commissioner Ylva Johansson announced a new, more humane system when she said with a heartfelt cry, “No more Morias!” We thought that border countries like Greece and Italy would be relieved, with a fairer distribution of refugees across the EU. But the tone has hardened in recent years, and what we have now is the opposite.'  

The European Migration Pact was approved at the end of 2023 after years of negotiations between the European Commission, member states, and the European Parliament. The new plan to fairly distribute asylum seekers among countries after their arrival failed. The Dublin rule, which requires asylum seekers to apply in the first country of arrival, remained intact. 'It's been clear for a long time that the border countries cannot cope with this rule,' explains De Vries. 'This has led to massive illegal and violent pushbacks on land and sea – the quick arrest and deportation of refugees or preventing them from reaching a border. The United Nations and the Council of Europe have been critical of this.'  

The border procedure included in the EU's migration pact is aimed primarily at “low-chance” asylum seekers. According to the pact, this includes people from “safe countries” – a broadly defined term. In this context, De Vries says: 'Morocco is considered a safe country, even though LGBTQ+ people face serious problems there. Tunisia is also on the list of safe countries, although there is persecution of opposition members.' In addition, you can be sent back to a safe third country, which is a country you are not from but are passing through.  

The pact also states that a third country is considered safe if the EU has an agreement with it. De Vries adds: 'But the existence of an EU agreement says little about the real protection of refugees in that country. The country doesn't even have to have signed the Refugee Convention to be considered safe. That worries us.' 

Asylum seekers from safe countries or those travelling without proper documents are also subject to the border procedure. De Vries points out: 'Many asylum seekers do not have valid documents – some never had them, others have lost them or had them confiscated. This is the case for many Syrian and Afghan refugees, for example, who are also at risk of detention.’ 

Tineke Strik, a professor of migration law at Radboud University Nijmegen and a member of the European Parliament for the Green Left party, shares these concerns and questions whether people are given a fair chance at the border. ‘Many arrive traumatised, and detention is very stressful. How can they find the peace and support they need to tell their stories properly? And if they are rejected, they only have five days to appeal. During that appeal, they can be deported.’ She adds that the option of an emergency procedure does not reassure her: 'How would you do it? There are far too few lawyers, and in places like Greece, many aid organisations are barred from entering camps and detention centres to help.’

Suspension of rules in crisis situations

To make matters worse, the pact also allows countries to suspend certain protection rules in vaguely defined “crisis situations”. For example, if a country uses refugees to put pressure on an EU state (think of Belarus deliberately sending refugees to the Polish border), the EU state can detain all arrivals. The situation is absurd: refugees are being punished for a country's misbehaviour.   

However, Strik sees a small positive aspect in the pact: 'It is the beginning of mandatory solidarity between countries. Non-border states have to take in a limited number of asylum seekers from border states. They can buy out this obligation for 20,000 euros per refugee, but if they don't take enough, they can't send any back.' Less appealing is the fact that the buy-out money can be used for better reception, but just as easily for tighter border security.  

Despite the unfavourable terms of the pact, it's important to look ahead. 'Countries have two years to adapt their policies to the pact,' says De Vries. 'In the Netherlands, we'll be asking a lot of questions. We'll make sure that no children end up in border detention at Schiphol, and we'll make sure that the Netherlands takes in refugees.'  

Support for European Partner Organisations

The Strategic Litigation Committee of the Dutch Council for Refugees is also on alert. This committee is made up of asylum lawyers and academics. Chairperson Sadhia Rafi says: 'We will support partner organisations in border countries if they need to challenge the accelerated border procedure in court: Is it fair and diligent? We will also focus on the broad interpretation of the concept of the safe third country.  

So, as Strik puts it, we will keep going and resist 'turning a blind eye and passing the buck'. Or as Yara, who was sent back to Greece, said: 'How can people be so hard-hearted? A little humanity can mean everything to a refugee.'