All around the world there have been stark examples of how countries which once welcomed the flow of people are now turning towards views more closely associated with the far-right. This trend is especially clear in Europe. Once the dream of immigrants, some European countries seem to be trying to make themselves as uninviting and unappealing as possible. They are becoming increasingly nationalist, promoting stronger borders and welcoming fewer refugees willingly.
The EU is mostly made up of middle-income and high-income countries with high levels of development. Twenty-two of its member states are in the Schengen Area allowing for free movement across a large part of the continent. The EU is a bloc paints an idyllic picture of stability and opportunities. Such appealing factors are almost impossible to play down or remove from the minds of those who are unhappy with their current lives and considering an international move.
In the Netherlands’ 2023 General Election the ‘Party for Freedom’ won the majority of seats in the legislature, with 37 out of 150. At the time of writing this, the party is negotiating, as best as it can, to try and form a coalition government. The election of such a far-right, anti-immigration, and anti-Islam party has shown a significant advance in the Netherlands’ move towards the amplification of the anti-immigration rhetoric which is becoming all too familiar throughout Europe. Geert Wilders, it’s leader, has been rallying support for his plans on a so-called ‘Nexit’. He proposed that the country should take back control over its own borders by leaving the EU, although he has temporarily suspended this pledge in the hopes of being able to attract other parties to his coalition. This thought process highlights the dangers of the precedent set by UK with Brexit. Such instances have the potential to eat away at the stability of the EU, especially at times when relations between member nations grow strained, and leaving has become a viable, tested, and available option for breaking free. There is a risk that some countries will take the leap, if pushed too far. Currently, one argument being presented in support of leaving the EU is the idea of taking back control over borders and limiting free movement, in particular the movement of asylum seekers and refugees.
Of course, leaving the EU is not a decision that any politician should or would (hopefully) make without significant public support; the consequences would simply be too great and too damaging both for individuals and for the countries as a whole. There is a strong possibility that this is the reason why the EU chose to begin renegotiating its immigration policy in 2016, just when the threat of Brexit became a true cause for concern. Recently, the EU has sought to strengthen its immigration policies, perhaps in a bid to keep those leaders calling for their countries to ‘take back’ control of borders, and the far-right in countries such as Hungary, Italy, and Greece, at bay.
The EU’s new immigration policies include an updated agreement as to how EU member states will have to handle sudden influxes of refugees. This aims to allow the bloc to be prepared for extreme situations, including ones that may mimic the large-scale immigration faced by the EU 2015 where around 1 million refugees entered the bloc, nearly 80% fleeing from Afghanistan, Syria, and Iraq. Back in 2016, the Asylum Procedure Regulation Proposal (APR) included setting further standards for respecting the rights of asylum seekers, in addition to speeding up administrative processes. The proposal also hoped to introduce mandatory border procedures which all nations would have had to adhere to. This would have included making it clear that anyone arriving at EU borders illegally and then making application to cross once apprehended, would have been disqualified from entering the territory of EU member states for the duration of their applications processing. This would have given states neighbouring the EU greater responsibility in checking the flows of immigration. The benefits of this would have included preventing countries from willingly acting as channels for immigration and would have incentivised neighbouring countries to do more to combat human trafficking and smuggling into the EU. While the APR proposal has not been passed, its suggestions were mostly adopted as part of the 2020 New Pact on Immigration and Asylum. As to whether this is suitable for appeasing the anti-immigration views of far-right politicians in an effort to tempt them away from proposing or even considering the same drastic action that the UK took, we will have to wait and see what their electorate thinks. If stronger immigration regulation is what is required to ensure the happiness of EU member states, then it is likely that the EU will become increasingly willing to compromise on the bloc’s openness if this in turn can promise them the retention of political stability within the bloc.
In Slovakia, in September, Robert Fico of the Smer-SD party won 23.3% of votes making him the Prime Minister. He brings with him populist and leftist policies including a strong anti-immigration stance but has signed into a coalition agreement with the centre left Hlas party and the nationalist SNS party. A key feature of his manifesto was the promise of tackling the number of immigrants who cross through Slovakia each year on their way to Western Europe. Secondary immigration is also a concern for other countries. For example, Finland recently temporarily closed its last remaining border with Russia in early December of 2023 in response to Russia allegedly letting a stream of unchecked immigrants, without visas, through the Russian border region and helping in their approach to Finland’s borders. In some cases, Finnish authorities have claimed that the Russian’s have even been providing bicycles to those wishing to reach the EU, enabling them to cross the border without breaking the ‘no approach on foot’ rule. Most of those arriving at the border without visas aim to just simply cross through Finland, but the country does not want to become a simple road to other Western countries. The New Pact on Immigration and Asylum by the EU also considers these problems, aiming to reduce the incentive for the secondary migration of immigrants between member states, although the current proposed solution seems primarily focused on ensuring that the country of arrival holds complete responsibility over immigrants for a longer period of time. This would understandably be unappealing to countries on the borders of the bloc as it would assign a greater burden of responsibility on their institutions on the basis of geographical location.
In Hungary, under Viktor Orban, the far-right Fidesz party has been striving since 2010. With the feeling of mistrust between Hungary and the EU growing steadily and following multiple allegations of corrupt dealings by Hungarian politicians, the EU froze a significant portion of the funds intended for Hungary. The result of this is that their relationship now is a sour as ever. Therefore, it is hardly surprising that the EU is painted by the state media as one of the many enemies, while the country deepens its financial and diplomatic ties with Russia and China. As a result of steadily increasing propaganda, the Hungarian public's faith in the EU is dwindling. This is one of the main factors driving the country to opt for harder borders and less tolerance towards immigration at every election.
Yet, not all of the EU countries trying to cut back immigration levels are trying to reduce all forms of immigration. Golden visas, or ‘Investment Immigration Programmes’, as some countries have branded it, offer people an opportunity to buy themselves a citizenship provided that they have the funds needed to afford the expensive investment required – usually government bonds or property. However, the EU is now trying to fight back against golden visas within the bloc with the European Commission repeatedly calling them ‘undemocratic’. The schemes allow for governments to pick and choose new citizens or residents based on factors such as political alliances, as well as the size of their wallet. Arguably, such schemes are beginning to pave way for a collection of countries who are willing to offer safety, but only to those who can pay generously to experience life in the EU, rather than those who need it most. However, in recent years, many downsides to the schemes have come to light, leading to some countries turning against them. Ireland stopped its programme in February 2023, while Greece doubled the investment needed to reduce the availability of their visas. When Spain rolled out their golden visa scheme in 2013, the intention was to stimulate the economy, yet now the left of the political spectrum is claiming that these visas were responsible for the soaring house prices, which on average rose by 7% throughout 2022. Portugal claimed to be facing a similar problem in 2020, with rents rising by around 37% in Lisbon, making the majority of rental properties virtually unaffordable to over half of the workforce. On the other hand, golden visa schemes were estimated to have generated 35 billion euros in the 2016 to 2019 period, numbers which might not make it easy to convince some countries to discount their schemes for the unity of the EU.
In the coming years, the EU will find itself facing growing pressures to limit immigration to a minimum, that is, if the number of political parties with such promises in their manifestos continue to be elected to lead Parliaments throughout Europe. Appealing to the overall population who are united under the EU is essential but should not be allowed to overtake rational decisions such as allowing people in desperate circumstances, for example fleeing persecution, to seek refuge in the EU regardless of an individual’s financial status. Golden visas should continue to be phased out in order to prevent the development of increasing political corruption and the widening inequalities they cause within nations. Reforms to the EU’s immigration system are clearly needed, but while associating disproportionate location-based responsibility on certain nations could incentivise countries to reduce immigration, this could also cause political conflicts to flare concerning the potential inequality in treatment which nations could face within the bloc. Views of hatred, fearmongering by the media and the portrayal of negative immigrant stereotypes play a significant role in influencing voting behaviour when it comes to general elections. This means that the EU’s first move should be to try to remove the growing anti-immigration sentiment by targeting misinformation campaigns and tackling preconceived judgements through education and integration, if they wish to maintain the bloc’s unity without shutting the borders or losing any of their members.
Comentarios