Can Europe find an answer to migration?
The interior ministers of six EU member states met at the summit of the Zugspitze mountain in Germany on Friday, hoping to reach an agreement on tightening Europe's asylum and migration policy. The proposed measures include more deportations and the transfer of asylum procedures to third countries. Against this backdrop and in light of the recent far-right riots in Spain, commentators debate whether Europe's migration policy is on the right track.
Out of touch with reality
The migration summit brought no results worth mentioning, the Frankfurter Rundschau sighs:
“Some decisions may be sensible, such as eliminating duplicate procedures in the EU. Other plans, however, are completely out of touch with reality. For example, once again there's talk of having people remain in third countries while their asylum applications are processed within the EU. However, such third-country models are questionable from a human rights perspective and extremely expensive to boot. They're doomed to failure. Dobrindt also repeated the claim that people smugglers can be combated with stricter rules, even though it's clear that just the opposite will happen. If borders are closed to people who want to apply for asylum, the only way they'll be able to reach their destination is with the help of smugglers.”
The farce continues
Europe is still a long way from finding adequate solutions to the migration issue, says Novinky.cz:
“On the very day of the ministerial summit, Germany sent 81 convicted Afghan criminals back to Afghanistan. That's 81 out of 11,000 who, according to the authorities, should have left Germany long ago. A look at Eurostat statistics is both revealing and necessary. According to these figures, in 2024 two and a half thousand people applied for asylum in European countries per day. Every day. So what can be said about the interior ministers' little trip to the Zugspitze? That it was just another episode in the ongoing farce in which they pretend to be taking action.”
Not the time for denial
El Mundo warns against polarisation and taboos in the migration debate:
“It goes without saying that statements that stigmatise a section of the population must be condemned in the strongest possible terms. They are unacceptable. But at the same time, it is highly irresponsible to deny the existence of any problems of integration and coexistence that may arise and to accuse anyone who tries to launch a debate of being racist. Managing migration flows in the quest to achieve legal and orderly immigration will require realism and political will. Otherwise, it is populism that will be on the advance.”
Repeating the same old mistake
El Periódico de Catalunya complains that politicians in Europe don't seem to be able to learn from their mistakes and do more to mitigate the consequences of immigration:
“More or less the same thing is happening in all European societies. ... Immigrants upset the habits of the places they go to if their arrival has not been foreseen or prepared for. And since this is never the case, conflicts arise that are usually poorly managed. ... Torre Pacheco has 41,684 inhabitants, 11,927 of whom are non-EU nationals. Such sociological changes need to be managed intelligently. Otherwise this creates a breeding ground for misunderstandings, rejection and hatred.”
The left in a dilemma over migration
Krytyka Polityczna reflects on what a left-wing migration policy might look like:
“Should the left's priority be to fight for universal rights, even if they conflict with the values held by minorities? Or should the left focus on defending these minorities against stigmatisation, racism and exploitation? The European left has diverging answers to this question, and the Polish left will also have to develop its own position. ... Is it possible to find a middle ground for left-wing migration policy between the Danish model [curbing migration while boosting integration] and the 'democratic and social migration society' of the [German] party Die Linke? Unfortunately, there is no universal left-wing recipe for the problems of migration. Each country must find its own answers, depending on the conditions there.”