Commentary to Dr. Abdelkrim Belguendouz

Dr Belguendouz’s paper is important for highlighting a number of problems that have arisen in the external relations of the European Union (EU) as they pertain to questions of asylum and immigration. Although they received considerable attention at the time, it is right to emphasize the deaths and human rights violations of sub-Saharan Africans in the Spanish enclaves in Morocco at the end of 2005. These occurred in the context of greater efforts by the European Union to externalize immigration controls in North Africa and other transit areas. In turn, this policy of externalization has clearly lacked a coherent direction and longer term perspective.

At the same time, these arguments need to be placed in a wider policy context.

First, most EU countries today have wider migration concerns than irregular migration alone. Many are liberalizing their immigration policies to attract more foreign workers, particularly through temporary migration programmes. Most have entered what has been described as the global ‘competition for talent’ and are seeking ways to attract and retain foreign students and highly-skilled migrants. And in the larger EU economies in particular, very significant attention is being paid to the challenges of integration. Combating irregular migration is one element of a coherent national migration policy.

Second, most EU governments would argue that control is a critical element in a fairer asylum system. It is indisputable that the majority of asylum seekers in the EU today do not fall within the legal definition of a refugee. There is a sound argument that the asylum system can only function properly if resources and proper attention can be focused on those who qualify for them. Although they do at times fail, and certainly have unintended consequences, border controls are one way to try to streamline the asylum system, and externalized controls are one element of a broader set of control policies.

Third, there are multiple reasons why the EU is collaborating with North African and other transit countries over immigration. Most immigration and readmission agreements contain a strong element of external financing and capacity-building, with the intention of developing in these countries more robust immigration procedures and policies. Just as legitimate as viewing them as part of a migration agenda would be to view them as part of a longer term development agenda.

The gap between the analysis in Dr Belguendouz’s paper and that contained here highlights a serious problem that is often overlooked. That is the lack of objective debate. All too often opinions on migration policy are polarized between the control agendas of certain politicians and sections of the media, and the human rights perspectives of many advocates and NGOs. A lack of accurate data, a shortage of research, poor media coverage and at times irresponsible political leadership have distorted the debate. There is no doubt that the immigration policies of the EU need to be improved, but this is unlikely to take place in the absence of accurate and informed debate.