The Reforms of the New Pact for Asylum and Migration.

On 10 April 2024, after years of negotiations, the New Pact for Migration and Asylum was finally approved by the European Parliament. Presented as a ‘new start’ in European migration policy, this pact will enter into force in 2026. The New Pact has two main goals: 1) improving solidarity between EU member states and 2) providing a more humane policy for migrants. These ambitions were already stressed when the European Commission (EC) introduced the policy in 2020, but the question remains whether the New Pact can deliver on these promises. Is there really more solidarity between member states? And, perhaps more importantly, will this pact actually deliver a more humane asylum policy?

Pressure on border countries and sham solidarity

Presenting the New Pact in 2020, former EC vice-president Frans Timmermans stressed the need for solidarity and a fair sharing of responsibility within the European Union (EU) when a member state is ‘overwhelmed’ by asylum applications. The New Pact was created specifically to break the deadlock created by the Dublin regulation. Under the Dublin regulation, the first EU member state where an asylum seeker arrives is responsible for the asylum application. This system has led to disproportionate pressure on countries at the border of the EU such as Greece, Italy and Spain. They receive a large share of European asylum applications due to their location on the Mediterranean Sea, where refugees cross by boat.

Despite repeated claims by the EC that the Dublin system would be reformed, it remains largely intact in this New Pact. Countries where asylum seekers arrive first are still responsible for their asylum claims. These countries even remain responsible for the application for a longer period. At the same time, the New Pact also introduces a solidarity mechanism, which seeks to counter this unfair responsibility. The mechanism consists of two main elements: solidarity is both obligatory and flexible. Solidarity is not a political favour but a legal obligation. With this New Pact, all Member States will be obliged to contribute to European asylum reception. However, how the Member States show their solidarity can be highly flexible. They can choose between taking in refugees or providing financial and operational support to other countries handling more asylum claims. For example, member states can pay €20,000 for each refugee they do not take in.

While this system seems balanced on paper, some argue it only allows rich member states to ‘buy off’ their responsibility. The buy-off system implies that providing protection is reduced solely to a financial transaction rather than a collective commitment to safeguard humanitarian values. As a result, some countries continue to receive a disproportionately larger number of asylum seekers than others. This undermines collective responsibility within the EU and places a disproportionate burden on specific member states. 

Furthermore, the contribution of €20,000 per unadmitted asylum seeker is insufficient to cover the real costs of reception and integration.  Depending on the infrastructure and social services needed, the cost per asylum seeker could reach €50,000 per year. This difference means that, despite financial support, border countries will still be disproportionately burdened financially. Critics see this as sham solidarity While financial compensation is a step forward from the old Dublin regulation, where border states received no compensation from the EU at all, the principle of shared responsibility remains weak.

Secure borders or ensure humanity?

Apart from improving solidarity, there is also the question of whether the New Pact actually pursues a more humane policy towards migrants. One of the pact’s key reforms is to streamline and strengthen asylum procedures at the EU’s external borders. The pact proposes a screening system aimed at registering and detaining migrants who cross EU borders without papers. These so-called irregular migrants could be detained for up to five days for an individual assessment of their identity, health and safety.

Supporters of the New Pact argue that speeding up border procedures would prevent migrants from spending long periods of time in uncertainty. Shortening these procedures could clarify asylum seekers’ status and allow them to start their future sooner. Long asylum processes contribute to inhumanity within the European asylum procedure, and this system aims precisely at efficiency. However, human rights organisations such as Amnesty International argue that this emphasis on efficiency raises serious questions about the due diligence of applications.      

One of the main concerns is that the new border procedures are mainly designed to limit the number of asylum seekers entering the EU. For example, member states can use accelerated border procedures for people from countries where asylum applications are often rejected. If less than 20% of asylum applications from a particular country are approved, that country is automatically considered ‘safe’. This means that asylum seekers from those countries are rejected more quickly. However, this 20% criterion seems arbitrarily set and does not take into account the variations in asylum policies between EU member states. For example, an Afghan asylum seeker has only a 16% chance of receiving protection in Switzerland, which, although not an EU member state, participates in the EU  asylum system, while the same person has a 100% chance of receiving protection in Portugal. 

Moreover, if an asylum seeker is denied protection or his application is rejected at the border, he may be immediately subjected to procedures aimed at return. This can take up to 12 weeks. During this time, migrants are held in detention centres in which their freedom is partially or fully restricted. Human rights organisations warn that this detention can not only cause serious psychological damage but is often pointless. Returning to the country of origin is difficult in many cases, as countries of origin often do not want to cooperate and/or do not take back their citizens at all. This leads to migrants sometimes being stuck for long periods without prospects. Another concern is the weakening of legal protection for asylum seekers in the New Pact. Access to legal aid and the ability to appeal a rejection are weakened compared to the current system. 

Finally, this New Pact pays more attention to the fight against human trafficking. This involves working with countries outside the EU, so-called ‘third countries’ to reduce migration from Africa and the Middle East. This is presented as a humanitarian effort to save lives and protect migrants from dangerous crossings. However, the focus on border security and outsourcing migration management to third countries raises ethical questions. The EU made deals with countries such as Turkey, Tunisia and Libya to stop migrants before they reach Europe. For example, the EU transferred €127 million to Tunisia as part of the migration deal. In return, Tunisia would better guard its borders and crack down on human trafficking in exchange for financial support. However, many of these countries do not have the will or capacity to receive migrants in a humane manner. 

Although the EC indicated it would take a more humane approach, the focus seems to be more on strengthening border controls and limiting the influx of migrants to Europe. This may not be entirely unexpected. Over the past two years, the EC has taken a different tone on migration policy. Whereas former Eurocommissioner Ylva Johansson repeatedly stressed that walls and border fences would never be funded with EU money, today, the EC president Ursula von der Leyen, proclaims that the EU will go all out to strengthen its external borders. The policies the New Pact pretends fit perfectly into that discourse.

Constructive solutions for fairer policies

All in all, the New Pact on Migration and Asylum has the potential to reform European migration policy but may fall short of realising its promises. The solidarity mechanism arguably allows rich countries to buy off their responsibilities, leading to an uneven playing field within the EU. Moreover, the focus on border security and return policy seems to undermine the humane aspect of the pact. The New Pact does offer some improvements over previous rules, such as financial compensations for border countries. However, if the EU is serious about providing a more humane and fair migration policy, the New Pact should go beyond the financial aspect. A fairer distribution system could mean requiring all member states to take in a set number of asylum seekers, based on their economic situation and a clearly defined notion of reception capacity. It is important to recognise that determining this capacity is often politically coloured and highly dependent on countries’ willingness to receive asylum seekers. It is therefore crucial to establish objective and transparent criteria. In addition, the EU should actively work on safe, legal migration options to protect migrants from smuggling routes. The EU should also reconsider making deals with some third countries, especially when these countries do not respect migrants’ human rights. These reforms could actually lead to a more inclusive and humane asylum policy.

Olga holds a BA in International Relations from Utrecht University, an MSC in Public Administration from Erasmus University Rotterdam and an MSC in Migration Studies from Universitat Pompeu Fabra in Barcelona. In addition, she has two years of work experience within asylum reception in the Netherlands.

Image: Shutterstock