Select a language
”They're not very objective.” That's what I'm sometimes told when discussing the articles on migration that I select for publication. It's true: read a few of them and you'll probably get a good idea of my position on the subject. In the interests of transparency, I'd like to use this press review to explain as best I can why I make the choices I do – and what the articles in question reveal about the state of debate on migration.
A dangerous precedent
A generalised assault on human rights is underway in Europe, and nowhere is it more evident than in Poland. On 12 October, Prime Minister Donald Tusk (PO, centre-right) announced his country's intention to temporarily suspend the right of asylum in an effort to “fight illegal immigration” at the eastern border with Belarus. It was an ostensibly surprising decision given the Polish PM's profile as a supposedly moderate centrist.
“Tusk's decision is symptomatic of the behaviour of centrist parties these days: there is no end to this drive to tighten restrictions on asylum, even if the numbers [of arrivals] fall significantly [...] or are already very low, as is the case in Poland”, writes Christian Jakob, in Die Tageszeitung. And it's not just Poland, he says. “We can't pin our hopes on the European Commission, which should be preventing this kind of blatant violation of European standards. On migration and asylum, the Commission has tolerated – with just a handful of exceptions – everything that member states can come up with to keep refugees at bay.”
In a lengthy piece for Krytyka Polityczna, Paulina Siegień offers an explanation for the Polish government's U-turn. “I have no doubt what lies behind Donald Tusk's bellicose obsession with migration. It’s the political desperation of a man at the head of an ineffectual government, incapable not only of introducing major reforms, but also lacking even the most timid vision for Poland's future development.”
This is why, in her view, the Tusk government is still talking about “taking back control” a full year after the election it won. It is using the generic issues of security and migration as a crutch.
Siegień observes that the vast majority of applications for international protection registered in Poland in 2024 were made by Ukrainians and Belarusians. She highlights the collateral damage of the Polish measures: “How does [the government] think that suspending the right to asylum will change the situation on the Polish-Belarusian border, or the migration situation in Poland in general, given that the majority of migrants who come to our country do so legally [...] on student or work visas?”
She doubts the stated aim of curbing attempts at destabilisation from Minsk: “How will suspending asylum force Lukashenko to close the migration route [...] when the policy of repression at the border has so far brought Poland no closer to this objective?”
Christian Jakob's piece is a useful reminder that some of the toughest migration policies have come from respectable “centrist” parties. That is a fact that should make us look again at the red lines we draw in politics. Paulina Siegień's article contributes something else: a detailed national perspective on issues that are little known outside Poland. Not least of these is the link between migration and the growing political clout of Poland's armed forces.
The importance of complexity
We should all be concerned about the declining respect for human rights in today’s world. In Europe, one component of the story has received far too little attention: the technical and legal aspects of EU policy in this area. A good example is the recent accord between Italy and Albania.
That agreement, which provides for asylum-seekers arriving in Italy to be held in Albanian detention centres until their applications are processed by the Italian authorities, suffered a setback on 18 October. The court in Rome invalidated the transfer of the first individuals to Albania on the 16th. The former migrants had to be brought back to Italy in a hurry, angering the Meloni government and forcing it to attempt an emergency patch-up of the text.
The episode prompted some much-needed discussion about the legal feasibility of this kind of policy. In an analysis for the Italian magazine Internazionale, Annalisa Camilli details the (many) problems raised by the agreement. Quoting the legal expert Vassallo Paleologo, she points out that “repatriations [of migrants] from Albania to the countries of origin, carried out with the support of the Albanian police and involving arbitrary detentions, might amount to a form of collective rejection [of asylum applications]”, which is prohibited by the European Convention on Human Rights. The agreement might also contravene the prohibition on refoulement, as laid down in the Geneva Convention and maritime law. In addition to infringing international texts, the policy's legality within Italy is in question, particularly with regard to the constitution. The decision by the Roman court looks like proof of this.
In an article for the magazine Gli Asini, Giovanni Vale describes the perplexity of Albanian jurists. “Some analysts say that, with this agreement, the government is abusing the principle of extraterritoriality, which is usually applied only in circumscribed contexts such as diplomatic representations ‘inhabited’ by state officials.” As Vale points out, the accord provides for the lodging of thousands of people in detention centres – with all the security risks that this entails.
“Moreover, a court ruling that both Italian and Albanian jurisdictions will apply in the centres has left many legal experts puzzled”, notes the journalist. “Italy and Albania have different legislation in terms of civil, criminal, labour and family law. Which will prevail in the event of a conflict?”
These two articles, in my view, capture a crucial (and all too often neglected) component of the critique of such migration agreements: the fundamental importance of existing law. The law is not simply a tool used to defend human rights. It also defines and limits a state's behaviour both inside and outside its borders.
When it comes to migration policy, to neglect this complexity – for example, by addressing only one aspect of the controversy – is an intellectual dead end. In describing at length the liabilities of the Meloni-Rama agreement and the attitude of Albania's institutions, Giovanni Vale's analysis thus serves an important purpose – one that is largely neglected in the traditional media.
To ignore the complexity of migration, to dismiss the importance of basic laws and to indulge alarmist rhetoric is to take part in a debate that is dehumanising, mean-spirited and downright boring. Faced with the rise of the far right and the trivialisation of its ideas by mainstream parties, we would do well to reject gross simplifications and to open our minds to new perspectives.
In partnership with Display Europe, cofunded by the European Union. Views and opinions expressed are however those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the Directorate‑General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology. Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them.
A conversation with investigative reporters Stefano Valentino and Giorgio Michalopoulos, who have dissected the dark underbelly of green finance for Voxeurop and won several awards for their work.
Go to the event >
Join the discussion
Become a member to translate comments and participate