The European Union (EU) has once again attempted to fix its broken asylum system. The New Pact on Migration and Asylum, introduced in 2020, is the latest attempt to impose order on what EU policymakers see as a chaotic and unmanageable influx of migrants. While the pact is marketed as a solution to promote solidarity among member states and streamline border procedures, its legal safeguards—or lack thereof—raise serious human rights concerns.
For decades, the EU has struggled to strike a balance between national security concerns and its obligation to protect asylum seekers. The infamous Dublin system, which placed the burden of processing asylum applications primarily on border states like Greece and Italy, was widely criticized. The 2015 migration crisis exposed its deep flaws. The EU’s response? A new set of rules that, rather than addressing past mistakes, doubles down on policies that risk eroding fundamental rights.
Screening at the Border: A New Bureaucratic Maze
One of the most concerning elements of the New Pact is the proposed Screening Regulation, which establishes a pre-entry screening process for all third-country nationals arriving at EU borders. This might sound like a logical way to manage migration, but the reality is far grimmer. The regulation effectively treats all arrivals as potential security threats, denying them official entry into EU territory until they pass through a bureaucratic maze of identity checks, security screenings, and eligibility assessments.
The proposal also risks undermining the legal distinction between refugees and economic migrants. Asylum seekers are entitled to special protection under international law, but by lumping all migrants into the same screening process, the EU is blurring the lines between those fleeing persecution and those seeking better economic opportunities. This not only contradicts the 1951 Refugee Convention but also disregards rulings from the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), which has consistently emphasized the need to treat asylum seekers as a vulnerable group requiring special protection.
Fast-Track to Rejection?
Another key concern is the accelerated nature of the screening process. The proposal sets a five-day limit for authorities to assess an individual’s eligibility for asylum or deportation. Five days. That’s all the time a vulnerable asylum seeker gets to argue their case, find legal representation, and provide evidence to prove their need for protection.
This is not just unfair—it’s dangerous. With such short timeframes, mistakes will inevitably happen, leading to wrongful rejections and the potential deportation of people to countries where they face persecution. The risk of refoulement—the illegal return of refugees to countries where they may face harm—is alarmingly high.
We’ve seen what happens when EU states prioritize border control over human rights. The ECtHR has condemned member states for unlawful pushbacks, particularly in cases like J.A. v. Italy, where migrants were subjected to degrading conditions and denied basic rights. The Screening Regulation, as currently designed, risks replicating these violations on a broader scale.
Detention by Another Name
Another alarming aspect of the new regulations is the implicit normalization of detention. The Screening Regulation mandates that asylum seekers remain at border facilities while their cases are processed. Since they are technically not considered to have entered EU territory, their rights to movement are severely restricted. In practical terms, this amounts to detention without due process.
Moreover, these so-called “border facilities” are notorious for poor conditions. We have seen time and again how overcrowded, unsanitary detention centers at EU borders have led to human rights abuses. The case of M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece, where the ECtHR condemned Greece for inhumane treatment of asylum seekers, should serve as a stark warning.
The Safe Country Mirage
One of the most controversial aspects of the New Pact is its reliance on the concept of “safe third countries.” Under this rule, asylum seekers can be denied protection if authorities determine that they could have applied for asylum in another country deemed ‘safe.’ On paper, this might sound like a fair policy. In practice, it’s a way to outsource responsibility and shift the burden onto non-EU states with questionable human rights records.
For instance, Turkey is listed as a safe country of origin in the proposed EU common list. This classification blatantly ignores the political repression and human rights violations that have escalated since the failed coup attempt in 2016. Designating Turkey as a safe country is not only misleading but also morally indefensible when journalists, activists, and academics continue to face imprisonment there.
The Illusion of Solidarity
The EU claims that the New Pact fosters solidarity among its member states. But solidarity, in this case, is a hollow promise. The so-called “flexible solidarity” mechanism allows member states to choose between relocating asylum seekers, funding deportations, or offering financial contributions. Essentially, richer countries like Germany and France can buy their way out of taking in refugees, while frontline states like Greece and Italy bear the brunt of arrivals. This is not genuine burden-sharing—it’s a political loophole that maintains the status quo.
A Missed Opportunity
Instead of reinforcing legal safeguards and ensuring a fair asylum process, the EU has chosen to frame migration as a crisis that must be ‘managed’ with tighter controls and deterrent measures. This approach ignores the fact that migration is not a temporary emergency but a long-term reality that requires humane, sustainable policies.
The New Pact could have been an opportunity to reinforce human rights protections, expand legal pathways for migration, and establish a genuinely fair asylum system. Instead, it risks institutionalizing a system where asylum seekers are detained, rushed through flawed procedures, and denied meaningful access to protection.
Conclusion
The EU has long prided itself on being a champion of human rights, yet its approach to migration tells a different story. The New Pact on Migration and Asylum may be politically expedient, but it comes at a great moral cost. If implemented without substantial reforms, it will turn Europe’s borders into zones of legal limbo, where fundamental rights are negotiable and human dignity is secondary to policy objectives.
The EU must rethink its priorities. Instead of treating migration as a problem to be solved through deterrence and control, it should invest in fair and humane policies that respect the rights of those seeking refuge. Otherwise, the New Pact will go down in history not as a step forward, but as yet another failure in Europe’s ongoing migration crisis.
Sources
J.A. v Italy (ECtHR)
M.S.S. v Belgium and Greece (ECtHR)
European Commission, Proposal for a Screening Regulation
UN 1951 Refugee Convention
Schengen Borders Code
European Asylum Support Office (EASO) reports
Court of Justice of the European Union rulings on asylum procedures