Europe’s Migration Crisis: Why the EU’s Migration Pact Fails to Address the Real Issues

An Inside Look at the European Union’s Approach to Mass Migration and Its Consequences

In 2015, at the height of the Syrian Civil War, then-German Chancellor Angela Merkel opened Europe’s doors to migrants, declaring “Wir schaffen das” (“We can handle this”). This decision triggered the greatest migration crisis Europe has ever seen and disrupted the EU’s legal framework for asylum claims. By inviting migrants into Europe’s welfare systems, we witnessed over a million arrivals in that year alone. Human traffickers profited, violence erupted, and tragic images like that of Alan Kurdi’s lifeless body on a Turkish beach flooded the global media.

Eight years later, despite efforts to deny the consequences of this policy, little has changed. Millions continue to try to reach the West, and in the European Union, a left-wing and centrist majority seeks to address the problem with a Migration Pact. This proposal aims to distribute migrants across member states rather than addressing the root causes or stopping uncontrolled immigration.

Criticism from Within the European Parliament

We went to the European Parliament to understand why Europe is taking this approach. Many argue that the Migration Pact doesn’t solve anything; it merely handles the migrants who have already arrived. It’s essentially burden-sharing, where countries are expected to take in migrants or pay €20,000 per person if they refuse. This approach is unacceptable to several member states.

The Dublin Regulation, a key part of the Common European Asylum System, stipulated that migrants were to be processed in the first EU country they arrived in. Angela Merkel’s announcement effectively dismantled this system, placing disproportionate strain on countries like Italy, Greece, and other Mediterranean nations. In response, the EU attempted to redistribute 160,000 migrants among all member states. However, the countries of the Visegrád Group—Poland, Hungary, Czechia, and Slovakia—refused, and only a fraction of the migrants were redistributed as many EU states didn’t fulfill their promises.

Why Redistribution Has Failed

The system is bound to fail because even countries that supported mandatory quotas didn’t take in the required number of people. Redistribution of migrants has already failed once, and it’s likely to fail again. Despite this, the EU revived its migrant quota plan, approving the Migration Pact on May 14th, 2024. This creates a new common asylum law with permanent and mandatory migrant quotas for EU states, set to come into force in 2026.

The main criticism of the pact is that it doesn’t address the underlying issues of uncontrolled immigration. Instead, it imposes financial penalties on countries that choose not to accept migrants, even if those individuals haven’t reached their borders. There’s no upper limit on how many quota migrants can be assigned to a country, effectively giving Brussels a tool to pressure member states economically if they refuse to comply.

Poland’s Unique Situation

Border countries like Bulgaria and Romania face significant challenges with illegal migration flows. For example, Bulgaria deals with migrants coming from Turkey, and while Romania doesn’t have as many issues, other countries like Italy and Spain face substantial problems. Poland, sharing borders with Russia and war-torn Ukraine, has opened its borders to more than five million Ukrainian refugees, with two million staying in the first year. Despite this massive humanitarian effort, Poland is criticized by the EU for not taking in enough migrants from other regions.

The real intentions behind the Migration Pact seem to be political. It was meant to diminish the influence of anti-immigration parties and groups that gained significant support in recent European elections. Countries advocating for controlled borders are repeatedly ignored by proponents of the pact. When Hungary announced in 2015 that it was building a border fence to stop migrants, there was outrage in Brussels. However, European voters are increasingly supporting parties that prioritize national sovereignty and border control.

Many European leaders are in denial about the problem. They avoid terms like “illegal immigration” and downplay the issues associated with uncontrolled migration. The reality is that people are entering Europe illegally, sometimes paying bribes, and authorities often don’t know who these individuals are. This situation allows smugglers to dictate who enters the European Union.

The Need for Political Will to Close Borders

Can the political will ever exist to close the borders when much of Europe’s political class denies the problem? Statements from leaders like Ursula von der Leyen suggest a vision where the northern and southern shores of the Mediterranean become one, potentially leading to the importation of not only cultures and religions but also challenges like poverty and security concerns.

Incidents in recent years have shown that some individuals entering Europe pose security risks. While the majority of migrants are not associated with criminal activities, there is a correlation between mass migration and increases in crime in some areas. Cities like Brussels, Malmö, and Paris have neighborhoods where residents feel unsafe, and similar issues are emerging in other parts of Western Europe.

Successful Integration Versus Uncontrolled Migration

Addressing this problem requires an admission from the European Commission that not all migrants integrate equally into European societies. Countries like Portugal have successfully integrated migrants from Ukraine, Moldova, and South America, who have become valuable members of society. However, opening the doors completely without selective criteria has led to increased insecurity and strained social systems.

Europe now faces a fundamental choice between controlling its borders or continuing with a system that redistributes migrants without addressing the root causes. For some in Brussels, the tensions created by uncontrolled migration advance an agenda of a more federalized EU without strong nation-states. Critics argue that this approach undermines the sovereignty of member nations and disregards the will of their citizens.

Solidarity should not be coerced. It must be something that member states engage in willingly. Every nation has the sovereign right to decide who enters and under what conditions. Borders exist for a reason, and enforcing them is essential for maintaining order and ensuring the security of citizens.

Positive Examples and the Way Forward

Meanwhile, countries like Poland provide a solid example of how an ordered approach to border control can benefit those most deserving of help. By effectively managing its borders, Poland has been able to integrate a significant number of Ukrainian refugees, offering them employment and education opportunities.

Globally, there’s a resurgence of conservatism as people vote for leaders who prioritize stability, order, and security. Newly elected leaders in countries like Italy and the Netherlands are signaling a shift in foreign and domestic policies regarding migration. The Migration Pact may soon become a relic of the past, and the political careers of those who supported it may face significant challenges.

Europe stands at a crossroads. The decisions made now will shape the continent’s future for generations to come. It’s imperative to address uncontrolled migration proactively, respecting the sovereignty of nations while upholding the values of security, order, and compassion for genuine refugees.

Dominik Andrzejczuk

Polish American Venture Capitalist