Over the past several years, the issue of migrants and asylum seekers has become one of the most complex and sensitive topics in the domestic politics of the European Union. What recently took place in the European Parliament was not merely the approval of a new law on migrant returns; it signaled a profound shift in European political thinking toward migration as a whole. At its core, this shift raises an important question: Is Europe, in its pursuit of securing its borders, moving away from the values that have long defined it as a defender of human rights?
The adoption of the law by 418 votes in favor and 218 against clearly demonstrates the emergence of a powerful new trend within the EU’s political institutions. This trend argues that previous migration policies have failed and that authorities need stronger and more effective tools to control borders and manage migration flows.
Several factors lie behind this decision.
First, the failure to implement deportation orders. Statistics from the European Commission indicate that only around 20 percent of deportation decisions are actually enforced. In other words, out of every ten individuals ordered to leave, only two are ultimately returned. Many EU member states have viewed this situation as evidence that existing legal mechanisms have not been effective, making it a key driver behind the drafting of the new legislation.
Second, the rise of right-wing and nationalist forces. Following recent elections, right-wing and nationalist parties have gained significant influence in many European countries, including Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium, France, Germany, and Sweden. These parties have made migration a central theme of their political campaigns, calling for stricter controls and faster deportations. Consequently, other political parties, seeking to avoid losing electoral support, have increasingly moved closer to these positions. As a result, any policy aimed at restricting migration or tightening measures against asylum seekers is now more likely to receive broad political backing.
Third, concerns over social cohesion and internal security. Some European governments believe that migration flows are insufficiently controlled, particularly because there are no internal border checkpoints between EU member states. They argue that this situation may pose challenges to domestic security.
Major demographic changes have also occurred as a result of conflicts involving the United States and extremist groups such as al-Qaeda and ISIS, as well as the wars in Ukraine, Russia, Iran, and Israel. These developments have increased pressure on labor markets, public services, and healthcare systems. More importantly, many Europeans believe that the demographic composition of their societies is changing, leading to a noticeable decline in public confidence toward migrants.
Although there is no definitive evidence establishing a direct link between migrants and criminal activity, numerous cases have involved extremists and criminals who registered themselves as ordinary individuals and lived among asylum seekers in refugee camps. This has contributed to growing public fears across Europe and has fueled the continuous introduction of new laws and regulations.
Fourth, the challenge of sharing responsibility among EU member states. For years, countries such as Greece, Italy, Spain, Hungary, and other border states have argued that they bear the greatest burden associated with migration. Recent efforts to strengthen return policies and establish processing centers outside the EU are seen as attempts to restore confidence among Europeans and create a more unified European approach toward migrants and asylum seekers.
This raises another important question: Is returning asylum seekers truly a solution, or will it create new problems for Europe?
The most controversial aspect of the new legislation is the creation of return centers outside the borders of the European Union. Supporters argue that these facilities will accelerate deportation procedures and prevent individuals facing removal orders from disappearing within the system. Critics, however, are equally vocal. Human rights organizations warn that such centers could become sites of prolonged detention—effectively a new form of imprisonment—without sufficient legal oversight or guarantees for the protection of fundamental rights.
United Nations Warning
Volker Türk, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, responded to the legislation with serious concern. He emphasized that European governments cannot transfer their human rights responsibilities to third countries.
The principle of non-refoulement remains one of the cornerstones of international refugee law. It prohibits the return of any individual to a place where their life, freedom, or safety would be at risk. For this reason, the United Nations insists on individual assessments and the completion of all legal procedures before any deportation order is carried out.
Europe has demonstrated that it is not as humanitarian as it often claims to be, and many see a profound contradiction in the adoption of this decision against asylum seekers. This law is not merely a technical legislative measure; it is a political decision and a collective project among European states—a significant test of Europe’s identity. For years, Europe has presented itself as a fortress of human rights, democracy, and the rule of law. Yet it is also under pressure to respond to the concerns of its own citizens, and many expect growing opposition from civil society organizations and the public.
The central question remains: Can a balance be achieved between protecting borders and safeguarding human dignity?
If this law succeeds in accelerating procedures without violating the rights of asylum seekers, it may ultimately be viewed as a political success.
Mass deportations and the removal of asylum seekers carry both legal and moral responsibilities. Given the large number of migrants already living in Europe, this decision could have negative consequences in the future. Public demonstrations are expected, and there is concern that some protests could escalate into violence.
Since the law’s adoption, intense debate has emerged over who should be allowed to remain in Europe and who should be expelled. My concern, and the concern of many others, is what political and humanitarian developments will follow. The continent once regarded as a refuge and sanctuary for asylum seekers has now revealed another reality: lawmakers at the highest levels of the European Parliament applauding and celebrating the passage of a measure aimed at their removal.
Written by Harmn Ahmad