Populist politicians will never 'control' immigration. Here are the humane alternatives | Filippo Grandi
In Europe’s febrile immigration debate, one word crops up again and again: control.
Building walls, sending boats back, offloading refugees and migrants on to other countries – in a year of multiple elections, populists assure voters that controlling everything from borders and immigration numbers to job markets and national security will make their lives better.
Few political tactics succeed like fear. But I can also tell you such claims of control are illusory. In my job, I repeatedly see how so many policies touted as the “solution” to immigration flout the law and basic human rights. They also fail to address the reasons why people move: conflict, violence, persecution, poverty, the climate crisis – the major challenges of our time.
Unsurprisingly, people expect their leaders to handle the challenges that immigration poses. But we need to do so in a fair, legal, effective way, which both relieves pressure on asylum systems and can win public confidence. What might this look like?
First, having just recently returned from Ukraine and Sudan, where I met refugees enduring terrible conditions as they bear the brunt of war, I can assure you that the most urgent and obvious strategy is brokering peace. Conflict, violence and persecution have displaced 120 million people globally, a number that has risen for 12 straight years. Without peace, many people can’t go home and that figure can’t come down.
Faster, fairer asylum systems and slashing backlogs are another must, and can be done by increasing the efficiency and capacity of claims procedures, speeding up decisions, and improving cooperation and responsibility-sharing between European states. This would allow governments to deal humanely and legally with refugees and migrants. Those not needing asylum and who do not have the right to remain could be returned safely and with dignity. Improving these systems would go a long way to quelling xenophobic sentiment and combating the general sense that national borders are in chaos.
The UNHCR is also developing new proposals that would see asylum claims processed regionally as well as inside the EU. Under these proposals, the most complex and credible asylum cases would be heard in EU countries, while the most tenuous would be processed regionally in safe third countries. From there, people could be more easily returned to their home countries when appropriate, while those recognised as refugees would be readmitted into Europe. All claims would still be fairly and properly considered.
The extra capacity would allow member states to channel new arrivals to the right places from the outset. Crucially, the right to seek territorial asylum would be preserved.
Such an approach would need to be part of a bigger strategy to address the realities of vulnerable people on the move. That could include a constellation of “one-stop shops” for refugees and migrants to access everything from basic humanitarian support to information on seeking asylum in those locations in order to help locate missing relatives. These centres could also advise on legal ways to reach European states, or assist stranded migrants to return home safely if they wished. Similar “safe mobility offices” have been trialled in the Americas, offering a lifeline for people on the move.
For this idea to work, states will need to offer more opportunities for refugees directly from regions: resettlement places, work visas, scholarships, family reunification, private sponsorship and so on. Just as importantly, legal migration opportunities would need to be expanded on a much greater scale. Labour mobility – legal ways to match the huge demand for workers with migrants in search of jobs – benefits everyone. With more such options, fewer people would see claiming asylum as their only chance of entering Europe.
Whenever you hear the term “Europe’s refugee crisis”, remember that almost 70% of refugees live in countries next to their own. They never wanted to flee their home, let alone risk kidnapping, extortion and abuse at the hands of criminal traffickers. Between 2021 and 2023, 7,600 people died or went missing in the Mediterranean, while an estimated 950 people died crossing the Sahara (the true number is probably far higher).
Millions of refugees live in developing or the least developed countries, which need vastly increased support to adequately help them. Without it, people will keep moving despite the mortal dangers that lie in wait. But here’s one “innovative strategy” we can discard: dispatching asylum seekers to other countries for processing, with no prospect of having their claims properly heard, such as the UK’s rightly abandoned Rwanda project. Such schemes violate international law, come at an exorbitant cost and are bound to be ineffective.
An obsession with border controls will not deter the truly desperate. So let’s offer alternatives to these journeys – ways for people to live with hope and agency. Not only is it the humane thing to do, given the tragedies that strike every day in the desert and at sea, but it also makes good socioeconomic sense for Europe and beyond.
If it’s control you want, that’s how to get it.
Filippo Grandi is the UN high commissioner for refugees