Opaque migration law raises fears of forced relocations

Ordo Iuris

The topic of forced relocation of migrants, including illegal migrants, has returned to politics and the media in connection with the latest proposed regulation in this regard, presented at the EU Council meeting in the Justice and Home Affairs format. According to the recitals of the draft regulation on asylum and migration management, recommendations are to be made indicating specific annual solidarity measures, including relocation and financial contributions, among others, along with their numerical scale. The measures are to "ensure predictability for member states under migration pressure and contributing member states." The aforementioned measures are to be required at the Union level. In contrast, the alternative solidarity measures also mentioned in the draft regulation are to focus mainly on capacity building, services, trained personnel, facilities and technical equipment.

What is relocation?

According to the draft, "relocation" means the transfer of a third-country national or stateless person from the territory of a beneficiary member state to the territory of a contributing member state. Each year, the Commission is to adopt a recommendation on the solidarity pool and indicating the measures included in the EU's permanent toolbox necessary to face the migration situation in the coming year in a balanced and effective way that reflects the needs of member states under migration pressure. The recommendation indicates annual figures for relocations and the level of direct financial contributions at the Union level, which are at least:

(a) 30,000 - relocations;

(b) EUR 600 million - direct financial contributions.

How many migrants must Poland accept?

The level of EU-wide responsibility should be distributed to all member states, according to the draft. The Commission may specify a higher number of relocations or a higher level of direct financial contributions than those provided for above. It can also specify other forms of solidarity, depending on the needs arising from a country's specific migration challenges.

If relocation commitments amount to at least 50% of the value indicated in the recommendation, the beneficiary member state may, under certain conditions, ask the other countries to assume responsibility instead of it for processing applications for international protection (and thus potentially take in such persons if the application is granted).

Of particular concern is the provision in recital 12c of the preamble that "the Commission's recommendation to establish a solidarity pool should not be made public until the Council's implementing act establishing the solidarity pool has been adopted. Such a secrecy clause will streamline the decision-making process." This suggests that project proponents are already worried about potential public reaction and pressure from the public preventing the implementation of top-down decisions inspired by the Commission. Growing discontent across Europe and national tensions appear to have been ignored by Brussels policymakers, who are protecting themselves from the public's wrath with new regulations. If the outcome of the Council's work is made public in the first place, it would be the Council that would assume public anger and political responsibility for Commission-inspired decisions.

Migration policy a tool for social engineering

Already, drafters are concerned about potential public reaction and pressure from the public preventing the implementation of top-down decisions inspired by the Commission. For example, there is a call for the introduction of liability compensation, according to which, once relocation obligations reach certain thresholds, the responsibility for processing the application is transferred to the contributing member state. In certain circumstances, the implementation of this liability offset becomes mandatory, and its application is to be flexible. That is, while priority is to be given to the most vulnerable, relocation can also apply to illegal immigration.

This indicates that the Council, in last week's vote, agreed to delegate mainly to the Commission a great deal of power over migration. If the draft is adopted through direct and indirect tools, Brussels will be able to gradually build a pan-European society based on a policy of multiculturalism. Even in the near term, this could potentially lead to a threat to states with a homogeneous nationality structure. In addition, it is important to note the double standards in the financing of migration policy - the EU has allocated only 700 million zlotys (not euros!) for support in Poland for refugees from Ukraine. Perhaps it would be appropriate to rethink both the support mechanisms of the beneficiary countries, as well as other regulations related to the reception of migrants, especially taking into account socio-cultural conditions, which significantly affect the adaptability of the migrant population.

Przemysław Pietrzak - analyst at the Ordo Iuris Center for Research and Analysis