The re-elected President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, has outlined her political guidelines for the 2024-2029 legislature, with one of the most contentious areas being her stance on migration. These guidelines link migration with security threats at the EU’s external borders and intimate that combating irregular migration and migrant smuggling will allow for the opening of regular routes. However, these positions warrant a critical examination to uncover the potential flaws and negative implications.

A flawed premise

The narrative that migration constitutes a security threat is a reductionist perspective that fails to address the complex nature of migration. Framing migrants predominantly as threats risks fostering xenophobia and fear among the populace. Migration is often driven by individuals seeking refuge from war, persecution, and dire economic circumstances. Treating these individuals as security risks ignores their humanity and the legitimate reasons for their migration.

Moreover, empirical evidence does not support the notion that migrants are a primary source of security threats. Research consistently shows that migrants are no more likely to commit crimes than native-born citizens. The real security threats often stem from internal factors such as political extremism and economic instability. Therefore, a policy focused on addressing these root causes within the country, rather than scapegoating migrants, would be more effective in enhancing national security.

A misguided narrative

Equating irregular migration with misconduct to be fought misrepresents the complexities of migration patterns. Many migrants resort to irregular means not out of choice but necessity. Legal pathways are often limited, and the bureaucratic hurdles insurmountable, leaving individuals with no option but to seek irregular routes. This characterisation of irregular migration fails to acknowledge the systemic barriers and the dire situations that force people into such circumstances.

Fighting irregular migration through punitive measures also tends to be counterproductive. Policies that emphasise border control and criminalisation often lead to more dangerous conditions for migrants without addressing the underlying issues. A more humane and practical approach would involve creating more accessible legal channels for migration and improving conditions in the migrants’ home countries through international cooperation and development aid.

The myth of opening regular routes

he assertion that fighting irregular migration and smuggling will open regular routes is overly simplistic and does not reflect the complexities of migration governance. While combating human trafficking and smuggling is necessary, focusing exclusively on these issues without expanding regular migration channels can lead to an increase in irregular migration.

Opening regular routes involves streamlining visa processes, providing humanitarian visas, and creating work programmes that meet the labour demands of host countries while offering safe and legal pathways for migrants.

Additionally, international cooperation is crucial. Migration is a global issue that requires coordinated efforts from multiple nations. Addressing the root causes of migration, such as conflict, poverty, and climate change, in a collaborative manner will be more effective than unilateral actions focused solely on security and enforcement.

Rethinking the EU’s migration policy

Ursula Von Der Leyen’s political guidelines raise significant concerns. They risk exacerbating xenophobia, failing to address root causes, and neglecting the need for more comprehensive legal migration channels. For a more humane and effective migration policy, it is essential to adopt a nuanced approach that balances security with compassion and addresses both the symptoms and root causes of migration.

Photo: DesignIt/Zoonar/picture alliance