The “Right to Asylum” vs. “Hard Returns”

A potential rift has opened within Europe between the European Commission and the European Court of Human Rights. The latter has issued a ruling that permits the “hard return” of illegal migrants, which runs contrary to the policies of the EC.

Many thanks to FouseSquawk for translating this article from the Spanish daily El Pais:

Brussels supports the ruling in favor of “hot returns”

The European Commissioner of the Interior defends the right to ask for asylum, but considers that this right “cannot be offered at each meter of the border”

Neither stupor nor surprise, rather support. The European Commission considers the sentence of the European Court of Human Rights in favor of Spain in the case of the immediate return of sub-Saharan immigrants who jumped the fence at Melilla in 2014 to be logical and compatible with current community legislation.

Ylva Johansson (Sweden, 56), European Commissioner of the Interior and in charge of negotiating the future European policy of asylum and immigration, assures in statements to El Pais that “the right of asking for asylum must always be granted”. However, she considers that that right “cannot be offered at every meter of the border,” and that the member states should have the power to indicate the points where the request should be made.

The unexpected turn of the Strasbourg Court, which in a prior ruling had rejected the “hot return”, and the alignment of the commission denote the progressive hardening of the EU migration policy. The organization was shaken in 2015 by a migration crisis that shook the foundations of the Union, cracked the Schengen Zone [internal border controls continue among several EU members] and was at the point of bringing down a leader as powerful as the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel. In 2015 more than 1.2 million people requested asylum in the EU, double that of the previous year. Germany registered 5,400 petitions for each million inhabitants, Austria, 9,900, and Hungary, 17,700. The flow was closed after an agreement between the EU and Turkey to retain the exodus from the Syrian war in exchange for €6,000,000,000.

Johansson has among the specific tasks of her mandate to mend the wounds left by that crisis and recoup the confidence among countries at odds, with Merkel’s Germany and Orbán’s Hungary as symbols of the respective sides. After a commission presided over by Jean-Claude Juncker, clearly aligned with the open principle defended by Merkel, the current president, Ursula von der Leyen, has built bridges to Hungary and Poland in search of a consensus that still seems difficult.

The tactic, for now, is to offer Budapest and Warsaw the promise of reinforced exterior borders and the commitment that illegal immigrants will be returned to their countries of origin as expeditiously as possible. This Thursday’s ruling seems to open the way for some hot returns, which till now had been interpreted as being contrary to community rights.

“No, I am not in shock over the ruling,” indicates Johansson during a meeting in her office at the seat of the European Commission, where she has occupied the position of commissioner since last December 1. Johansson asks for time to study the verdict and draw all the conclusions. However, without a detailed analysis by her department, the former Swedish Minister of Health sees the interpretations of some judges and analysts as being disproportionate, which points to a clash between the ruling and the right of asylum.

Johansson stresses again and again that “it is important to highlight that the right of asylum should always be conceded.” But she immediately adds that “the member states cannot facilitate this possibility in all sites.” The commissioner recalls that “some member states have a very long border, and the possibility of requesting asylum cannot be offered at every meter of that border.”

The commissioner defends the right of the states to designate “the point at the border where one has to go to request asylum,” although she specifies that that situation should be managed while “respecting fundamental rights”. Johansson believes, for example, that one should not tell the potential refugee to go 2,000 kilometers to present the request [for asylum].

8 thoughts on “The “Right to Asylum” vs. “Hard Returns”

  1. How is it even possible to find consensus with an EU supra-national organization that at best is only interested in flooding Europe with almost as many third-world savages as the last bunch of self-hating kleptocrats whom they replaced?

    A “promise” to better enforce external EU borders is meaningless if there is no serious attempt to deport the invaders already within Europe, end policies of family reunification, and curb the laws and goodies that make Europe attractive to invaders in the first place. I realize the political leaders of the V4 have political realities within which they have to work, since to some extent they are all still fairly dependent upon membership in the EU. However, until there is a recognition that they will never allow invaders to be imposed upon their countries by the EU mandarins, and deportations of invaders are well into the thousands every week, there can be no serious basis for discussion or dialogue with such people.

      • Wishful thinking, this is nothing more than smoke and mirrors, delaying actions and propaganda to appease the masses who are starting to awake and they don’t like what they see. They now see that their very lives are in danger now and are scared when the situation hits critical mass and all heck brakes lose.

          • Yes, but their words encourage thinking that is not conducive to the maintenance of the status quo. Acorn to oak kind of thing. What’s that that they say – don’t let perfect spoil good.

  2. One would think that the labor unions would be incensed at letting in all these potential competitors, but I guess so many of the immigrants are simply receiving cash and subsidies—and not working—that this threat is not effective.

    So the left does this immigration dance simply to get votes. They don’t have any pride in their liberal ideas.

    It’s almost like “our leftish ideas are so feeble and unsound that we will dig up the dead in order to win.”

    • The leadership of the labor unions long ago realized they enjoyed having a seat at the table where the spoils stolen from the wage slaves are divvied up. They will gladly throw those they represent under the bus in order to keep that access. If it means looking the other way while Europe is flooded with savages then so be it. Most of them are not interested in working anyways, and what downward wage pressure there is can be dealt with by striking. Not like the labor leaders will be hit in their wallets by such actions anyways.

  3. Islam is not a religion. It is a dangerous political ideology. Freedom yes. Islam no. We are now occupied by a deadly poisonous enemy fifth column with one goal in mind. That is to undermine and subjugate. Stop servicing this occupation at every level before far worse when a major war breaks out.

Comments are closed.