Migration in Europe: Planning for tomorrow's crises

I don't like talking about migration "crises". In my view, the term is a way to hystericize the debate about population movements. This is a favourite tactic of the far right, serving to hinder any calm, in-depth discussion about a fundamentally important issue. After all, a civilisational crisis is no time for having a conversation.

That said, it is hard to deny that we are facing a watershed moment. Not so much because Western civilisation is facing a mortal peril from the South, as some claim, but rather because the proliferation of conflicts, the climate crisis, and the problem of rampant inequality call for new migration policies. As 2024 draws to a close, I suggest we look to the future. What can we expect from 2025 in terms of migration?

More conflict, more movement

59 armed conflicts in 34 countries: 2023 was one of the most violent years ever, according to a study by the Oslo Peace Research Institute. War in Ukraine, in Gaza, in Sudan: the more conflicts there are and the more they get bogged down, the greater the chances of new waves of migrants heading for Europe. And that's without counting global warming, which will continue to generate internal and external displacements.

In The Conversation, Barah Mikaïl discusses emigration from Lebanon. Although the article was written before a ceasefire had been signed between Israel and Hezbollah, its conclusions remain relevant. In Mikaïl's view, to welcome exiles from the Middle East looks like a much tougher proposition today than it did in 2015, not least because of the rise in anti-immigration rhetoric and parties.

"Whether the EU could take in all refugees from Lebanon and other Middle Eastern conflicts is therefore a complicated question", he concludes. "While, on paper, it would be economically feasible – and undoubtedly beneficial in the long term – such a move seems politically out of reach. Instead, the EU's approach to this crisis will be determined by its unity (or lack thereof) on a common policy."

Migrants, on the other hand, suffer in very concrete ways from the conflicts and shortcomings of the reception system. Público makes a damning observation: "Worryingly, since 2014, more than half of the deaths recorded in connection with migration have occurred in Europe.” The Spanish daily notes that 30,000 migrants have died or gone missing over the last decade in the Mediterranean. And the problem does not end there:

"In other regions, such as the Sahara desert, it is estimated that the number of victims could be even higher. The consequences for mental health are also alarming. Many migrants suffer from anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress. In Europe, more than 100,000 displaced persons are detained every year for administrative reasons. In Spain, 70% of migrants placed in detention centres develop serious mental health problems, and two out of ten attempt self-harm."

How to imagine tomorrow's migration?

As evidenced by Ursula von der Leyen's enthusiasm for expelling migrants – here reported by Eddy Wax for Politico – and the spread of repressive policies within EU countries, it is likely that the EU's migration policy will continue on its current trajectory. In an article reviewing the history of migration agreements between the bloc and its partners, the Italian outlet ll Post sums up Europe’s current mentality perfectly:

"From a certain point of view, these agreements can be said to have worked – that is, from the point of view of those who promoted them. Arrivals by sea from Turkey, Libya and Tunisia, for example, have not returned to their levels prior to the agreements of 2016, 2017 and 2023. The consequences, however, have been enormous and at the same time under-reported, not least because they occur most routinely in countries where the work of journalists and human-rights defenders is hampered by local governments."

And what if, for a change, we asked the views of those most affected? That's what the New Europeans Initiative of the Migration Policy Group think tank is proposing. The group asked 71 representatives of organisations run by people with a migrant background for their vision for European policy in this area. What were their priorities? They talked about integration, access to employment, the defence of international protection (asylum), and fighting human trafficking. It was a long way from the clichés of migrants being more interested in welfare benefits than in integrating into host societies.

Given that the far right is reaping electoral success by fuelling and benefiting from a migration crisis, real or perceived, how can the traditional parties hold their own? While the answer has often boiled down to copying the far right, that is not an inevitability. In a study conducted for the Foundation for European Progressive Studies (FEPS, a think tank associated with progressive political parties at European level) Stine Laurberg Myssen and Asbjørn Sonne Nørgaard outline some alternative strategies. The two researchers analysed voters' views on migration and social protection in Germany, Denmark and Sweden.

"The integration of immigrants is key”, they conclude. “This is not only a question of political communication and how immigrants are portrayed, but also a major policy challenge. Immigrants who have a job and speak the local language are not a problem to most voters, not even to large segments of [populist right-wing party] voters."

For social-democratic parties, it is essential to invest in social protection and in measures to reduce inequality so as to address the concerns of the middle and working classes. By the same token, say the two FEPS researchers, it is vital to integrate migrants through employment and language: "This is a big challenge, but voter anxiety over immigration – not least among [voters of right-wing populist parties] – is unlikely to wane any time soon unless the [social-democratic parties] succeed in this endeavour."

Perhaps 2025 will be the year when we start discussing the future shape of our migration policy. We have become so focused on an alleged imperative – "we need to control immigration at all costs" – that we have lost sight of the real-life economic, political and human consequences of our decisions. A crisis makes all things possible. Perhaps that's a good place to begin the discussion.