A bold suggestion to address the European immigration issue

Lotte van Buuren, 26 March 2015

Malik Azmani, an MP of the ruling party in the Netherlands, the People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD), published a bold proposal last Sunday to shut all external European borders for non-EEA immigrants and to provide safe havens in their regions. All Dutch parties except Geert Wilders’ far-right Party for Freedom (PVV) condemned the proposal as being fundamentally unacceptable, unrealistic and legally impossible (the plan would presumably be in conflict with the 1951 Refugee Convention). Prime Minister Mark Rutte indicated on Tuesday that the cabinet will not take the policy proposal into consideration as long as a majority of parties oppose it. Despite the fact that the debate on the plan has not even taken place yet, the controversial proposal is generally regarded as a failed attempt by the VVD to profile itself in contrast to its coalition partner, the centre-left Labour Party (PvdA).

Even though the proposal seems doomed to fail, it is worth considering its hypothetical implications for the EU. The existence of the Schengen Area, which the UK is not part of, implies that Europe’s immigration policy can only be addressed at the European level. Given the untenable current situation – last year over 3,000 people died in an attempt to cross the Mediterranean – it is evident that something has to change. Italy and Spain keep warning other European countries about the disproportionate burden they bear due to irregular immigration and many other EU countries agree that the current approach has failed. It begs the question what should be done instead. Options include to establish EU asylum application offices in non-EU countries – a proposal that was readily rejected by UK Home Secretary Theresa May.

According to the VVD proposal, a regional refugee approach would be less expensive (financing safe and proper housing in countries nearby areas of conflict costs considerably less than doing the same in EU countries), safer (abolishing immigration from non-EEA countries reduces the risk of terrorism as it is hard to check the motives of immigrants) and more humane (closing external borders reduces incentives for people to pay human smugglers and risk their lives to come to Europe). It could be questioned, however, whether relatively stable Middle Eastern and North African countries would be willing to accept more pressure on their social, economic and cultural systems by taking in even more refugees – the vast majority of refugees is already received in these regions. In addition, stricter border controls and the abolition of rescue operations can be expected to lead to higher prices paid to smugglers and more deaths.

Still, the complicated and sensitive debate on European immigration policy deserves continued discussion even on drastic suggestions like this, if only to keep this important issue high on the agenda. The first steps to effectively address the many issues related to non-EEA immigration are to keep analysing what the problems entail and to stay open-minded about new policy perspectives.