Nous sommes tous des immigrés, il n'y a que le lieu de naissance qui change.
We are all immigrants. It's just our birthplaces that change. [anonymous, from evene.fr]
A l'immigration subie, je préfère l'immigration choisie.
I prefer chosen migration to imposed migration. [Nicolas Sarkozy, in an interview with Le Figaro, January 2005]
A main source of frustration when exploring policy-making at the EU level is the feeling that the main stakeholders are often left out of the debate. Decisions are elite-driven, policy analysis takes into account the substance of directives and regulations, but only briefly glosses by the consequences on the people they affect.
This thought was spurred by exploring the EU's migration and asylum policies. "The temptation to externalise the difficulties encountered with unwanted immigrants is obvious, and may lead to a profound change in the meaning and exercise of liberal commitments towards foreigners in Europe... There are also limits to how long liberal democracies can turn a blind eye on the severe human rights violations that have occurred in the context of returns in countries such as Morocco or Libya," wrote Sandra Lavenex, a prolific expert on the matter. (She is a professor at Lucerne University in Switzerland.
I followed a course she taught at the College of Europe.) One of the characteristics of the EU's approach towards migration is indeed to "externalise" its approach - i.e. to shift the burden of dealing with illegal migrants to the states from where they emerge. It is something of a unilateral approach, and its limits have been pointed to. Lavenex continues: "A problem with the conclusion of readmission agreements [by which the country of origin 'retakes' an illegal migrant] is that as these are solely in the interest of the [EU] ... there is little that can be offered in return ... Indeed, the difficulties in motivating countries such as Russia, Ukraine or Morocco to sign such agreements show very well the limits of an unbalanced, EU-centred approach. To respond to this challenge, the Commission has first created a new budget line to support ‘Cooperation with third countries in the area of migration’.
In 2004, this was replaced by a multi-annual financial framework for the years 2004–2008 with a total amount of e250 million (the so-called Aeneas Programme). Apart from the general goal to support third countries’ efforts to improve the management of migratory flows, the Regulation stresses in particular stimulation of third countries’ readiness to conclude readmission agreements, and assistance in coping with the consequences of such agreements.It is said that a doctor cannot feel compassion for a patient's pain. Yet how can we remain so sterile with regards to such a human condition problem that is migration? What right does a certain group of people have to decide whether this man, that woman or this child will have the right to build a better life or not?There is a huge gap between policy-makers and the people affected by the policies they create. Of course, the media can play a role by bridging that gap but often its attempts leave the persons in question (eg. migrants locked up in detention centers) with little dignity and agency. Media can denounce the lack of humanity of such centers, show horrendous pictures and stir a bit of emotion in its viewers. If those viewers happen to be active citizens, they may put pressure on their governments to change their practices.
But can this be done at the EU-level? Dealing with migration issues in the realms of insulation of European policy-making shields politicians from the direct responsibility on the fates of thousands of human lives restrictive migration policies imply, leaving citizens with little room to contribute to the debate on the matter.Of course, major inflows of immigrants do cause strain on EU member states. It is a costly phenomenon, and politicians, after all, experience pressure from their voters to restrict massive inflows, pushing them to adopt inhuman policies.But at the end of the day, someone has to take responsibility for a matter that will only grow in importance. Putting migrants in detention centers is not a long-term, sustainable solution for dealing with migration and its consequences.
No comments:
Post a Comment