The EU isn’t alone in attempting to make it harder to seek asylum. Similar to the EU’s “safe third country” policy, the Biden administration implemented the “lawful pathways” rule in May 2023 – which was blocked and later reinstated. Biden’s executive order paralleled President Donald Trump’s earlier transit and entry bans, arguing that asylum seekers must apply in the first safe country they transit. Courts blocked Trump and initially blocked Biden because U.S. law guarantees anyone the right to apply for asylum regardless of their previous immigration status or how they entered the U.S. The rule is currently on pause awaiting settlement.

The EU reforms also parallel recent proposals from Biden to shut down the border during migration surges. The pact creates a new procedure to suspend normal asylum rules if a country on the external EU border is “instrumentalizing migration” –in other words, if a country is intentionally sending migrants or refugees with the goal of destabilizing the EU.

This provision speaks to the fear that non-EU member Belarus was “weaponizing migration” in 2021 by encouraging Syrians and Iraqis to cross the border into Poland, an EU state.

There is growing academic literature on “migration diplomacy” and “refugee blackmail” that documents how states leverage migration flows as a tool in their foreign policy.

However, the EU pact’s approach suspends the rights of asylum seekers rather than addressing the larger geopolitical threats.

The most controversial directive resurrects quotas but with a “flexible solidarity mechanism.” This mechanism would be triggered if large numbers of asylum seekers enter an EU state, overwhelming their reception system. In those circumstances, other EU states could choose to either take in asylum seekers from front-line states or fund deportations. States would be required to relocate at least 30,000 people per year, but could choose to pay 20,000 euros (US$21,000) for each person.

Critics argue that this commodifies refugees – literally putting a price tag on individual lives – while undermining solidarity.

The need for EU migration reform was made clear by the 2015 crisis faced by front-line European countries.

But rather than address the real problems of low state capacity, processing times, human rights protections, or conditions in detention centers, I believe the pact will reinforce the concept of “Fortress Europe” by investing in deterrence and deportation, not human rights.

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and analysis to help you make sense of our complex world.

Read more:
EU enlargement: What does the future hold?

What are the EU’s new migration rules, and why did they take so long to pass?

Nicholas R. Micinski does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.