[fblike]
Extempers are aware of the United States’ illegal immigration problems, but another illegal immigration phenomenon has recently caught the attention of the international media: the travel of migrants from North Africa to Europe. While the migration of peoples from Africa and the Middle East to Europe is not a new phenomenon, growing border controls by nations within the European Union (EU) over the last decade has caused migrants to brave the waters of the Mediterranean Sea. Seeking refuge from political or religious persecution or a better economic future, migrants pay smugglers to take them to Southern European countries, which have argued that the EU is not doing enough to help them offset the cost of dealing with the problem. 2015 has already been a deadly year for migrants crossing the Mediterranean as 1,800 people have died making the journey compared with just 180 deaths in the first four months of 2014. On April 19, 900 migrants were thought to have been killed when their overcrowded vessel sank, prompting the EU to hold an emergency meeting in Luxembourg and triple the funding for border operations. Dealing with immigration is a sensitive issue in European countries, where far-right parties have linked excessive immigration with economic problems and claim that the different cultural backgrounds of migrants will erode the foundations of European society. Therefore, the problem is a test of the EU’s tolerance of helping the world’s less fortunate and its ability to work out an effective immigration system for its member states.
This topic brief will explain the causes of the recent migrant wave, discuss why deaths on the Mediterranean have risen this year, and then provide some possible solutions European governments can pursue to end the migrant crisis.
Readers are also encouraged to use the links below and in the related R&D to bolster their files about this topic.
The Causes of Mediterranean Migration
Most of the migrants traveling to Europe come from Africa and the Middle East. The Los Angeles Times writes on April 21 that between January and March most of the migrants heading to Europe have come from Gambia (1,413), Senegal (1,187), Somalia (1,107), Syria (1,056), Mali (991), Eritrea (906), and Nigeria (873). To get to Europe, migrants usually trek to a coastal town, where they pay for temporary lodging and then pay traffickers to take them across the Mediterranean. Like previous generations of migrants, many seek greater economic opportunity or seek to escape repressive regimes. They have heard stories of Europe’s economic growth – especially the riches that can be found in Northern European countries such as Great Britain, France, and Germany – and wish to land in a Southern European country such as Spain, Italy, or Greece so that they can begin their journey to more prosperous parts of the continent.
There are several factors that are “pushing” migrants out of their home nations and into Europe. One of the most prominent is political and religious persecution. The rise of the Islamic State in the Middle East last year has forced Christians in the region, as well as Shi’ites in parts of Lebanon and Iraq to flee. Others are fleeing due to the group’s general brutality and the warfare that it has engendered with the Syrian and Iraqi governments. For these people, Europe constitutes a more peaceful place that is more desirable than their home countries and it is also preferable to staying a refugee camp around Syria’s borders. The Lebanese government is struggling to provide for the refugees it is housing in light of Syria’s civil war, so many migrants have made the choice to go to Europe instead. The Guardian explains on April 22 that the profile of a migrant is changing, thereby giving evidence for how the reasons for migration have moved beyond purely economic factors. Doctors Without Borders notes that before 2014 migrants were typically young men, but now people of all ages are making the journey, which include young children and the elderly. Like the United States, the EU is also witnessing more children coming without a parent.
Another factor sending migrants to Europe is economics. Although the GDP of many African nations, including Nigeria, is rising, poverty is still endemic on the continent. As our topic brief about the Nigerian presidential election pointed out, most of Nigeria’s 170 million people live on less than $2 a day. The situation is no better in the Middle East where investment is irregular due to regional unrest. Vox notes on April 21 that migrants will only stop coming to Europe when the EU no longer offers a better life than that which is offered in a migrant’s host nation. It explains that if a Yemeni or Nigerian moved to the United States or Europe to do work that they do in their home country that they would make fifteen times as much money. This allows a worker to send remittances back to their host nation, which can keep an extended family afloat through rough economic circumstances.
Most of the migrants that head for Europe cross the Mediterranean from Libya, which has seen the effectiveness of its coastal operations decline since the overthrow of Colonel Moammar Gaddafi in 2011. The Christian Science Monitor writes on April 21 that EU governments, especially Italy, had close ties with Gaddafi over handing migration as he worked out a deal with Italy in 2009 that saw both nations coordinate naval patrols to thwart migrants and Italy agreed to hand back migrants that it captured without investigating whether any of them were fleeing political persecution. In return for this cooperation, Italy paid Libya 5 billion euros a year. The following year, Italy made another agreement with Libya for 50 million euros to build internment camps and watchtowers to detain and deter migrants. While this reduced migration from Libya to Italy by 75%, the deal was criticized by human rights advocates, who argued that Libyan security forces abused migrants and that the funding solidified the economic basis of Gaddafi’s anti-democratic regime. The Los Angeles Times article previously cited explains that the European Court of Human Rights voided these deals in 2012 because they had the potential to turn down legitimate asylum seekers. Of course, by this time Gaddafi was out of power and Libya is now the scene of a fight between various tribal militias. Western governments want a national unity government to be established there, but have provided very little reconstruction assistance to the country, which some have dubbed a “Somalia on the Mediterranean.” The Islamic State has followers in Libya, some of whom have captured and killed Christian migrants from Ethiopia over the last year. The atmosphere of lawlessness has aided smugglers, some of whom are working with militias. The Financial Times estimates on April 21 that smugglers are now making $170 million from the trade, with some of that money likely fueling the bloodshed in Libya as it pays for weapons and other military equipment. For migrants, they also have to deal with these militias which, as The Economist explains on April 19, have a history of robbing, raping, and beating them. The Economist adds that 500,000 to 1,000,000 people wish to leave Libya to escape the country’s instability, which could greatly accelerate the use of dangerous Mediterranean crossing routes this year. Therefore, unrest in Libya has been a significant factor contributing to Europe’s present migration woes.
A final factor contributing to the use of the Mediterranean as a center for migration is enlarged border controls by EU governments in recent years. Foreign Policy explains on April 21 that the land border between Bulgaria and Turkey used to be a popular crossing point for migrants. Extempers should remember that under the EU’s Schengen Agreement that there is free travel across EU nations (much as there is free travel across the borders of U.S. states) and EU countries have tried to find better ways to solidify the borders of peripheral states such as Spain, Italy, Greece, and Bulgaria so that migrants do not have ease of access to the continent. This is one of the reasons that there was opposition to letting poorer Eastern European countries into the EU in the early 2000s as there were fears that citizens of those nations would migrate to richer EU countries (and some evidence does suggest that Northern European countries did see an influx of Eastern Europeans after those nations were let into the EU). Similar fears have kept Turkey out of the EU, as right-wing politicians warn that poor Turkish Muslims would “invade” other European countries and hurt native workers and culture. As part of its plan to harden its borders, the EU provided funds to Bulgaria several years ago to construct a large border fence. Greece also did the same along its borders with Turkey, with The Guardian noting on April 22 that it erected a 10.5 kilometer fence to thwart illegal immigration. As a result, migrants have taken to the sea as their only feasible route to get to Europe. Doing so, though, places them at the mercy of smugglers who do not use stable vessels and forces them to brave the treacherous waters of the Mediterranean to get to Italy, Greece, or Spain.
The Rising Death Toll on the Mediterranean
As more migrants have gone to the sea, smugglers have profited in African and Middle Eastern coastal communities. In fact, The Guardian writes on April 21 that smuggling has provided an economic boost to communities that service migrants, which also include towns in Sudan and Mali that are part of migrants journey to the coast. Locals can make money sheltering and feeding migrants, as well as repairing the boats used by smugglers to carry migrants to an EU nation. The Financial Times on April 21 points out that smugglers charge $800 to $2,000 for a voyage across the Mediterranean, the price of which depends on sea conditions, the type of vessel migrants are transported in, the port they are leaving from, and their “travel class” on the vessel. Experts note that the price is higher than that for the entire journey as the price of journeying across the Mediterranean is only the final leg and does not encompass other travel to get to the coast.
The Los Angeles Times explains that would-be migrants are using smartphones today to review the services of certain smugglers, but despite this knowledge the journey is still fraught with risks. Smugglers use vessels such as inflatable rafts, dinghys, and fishing boats that are not always prepared to handle the treacherous, rough waters of the Mediterranean. It is not uncommon for smugglers to lock passengers below deck, especially those with darker skin as The Guardian explains in its article from April 22 that smugglers think a rescue is more likely if Europeans think “white” passengers are on board. However, this tactic in case of a capsized or shipwrecked vessel can result in catastrophe as those below deck have no chance of escape. In the recent disaster two weeks ago, which killed 900 people, most of the deaths are believed to have been caused by the captain deciding to lock passengers in their compartment. Vessels are usually overcrowded as well, with the BBC reporting on April 22 that some smugglers take money from migrants even if they are unwilling to board an unsafe vessel. This leaves migrants with little choice but to put out to sea. Smugglers have been known to take money and then not take passengers who have paid on board, thereby leaving them at the mercy of Libyan militias and gangs. The overcrowding of the vessels makes the chances of a capsize or wreck more likely. In fact, the sinking of a fishing boat carrying hundreds of migrants from Libya two weeks ago was caused by passengers shifting en masse to one side of the vessel when a cargo ship came to intercept them.
The Italian government and other Southern European states have borne much of the cost of handling the migrant surge. As has been previously recounted in this brief, Italian authorities worked with the late Gaddafi government to limit migrant journeys. After that deal was voided by Gaddafi’s overthrow and EU officials, the Italian government launched a search-and-rescue operation in October 2013 called Mare Nostrum (“Our Sea”). The Italian government launched the operation after the Lampedusa tragedy that same month, where 350 migrants died after their vessel capsized. The goal of Mare Nostrum was to find migrant vessels, rescue those in distress, imprison smugglers, and take migrants to a safe destination on Italian shores where they could be processed for asylum. This operation, according to The Wall Street Journal on April 21, cost Italian taxpayers 9.1 million euros per month, but Reuters explains on April 22 that it saved 100,000 migrants last year. The Guardian previously cited from April 21 explains that Mare Nostrum used 900 personnel, two planes, three drones, and nine helicopters to carry out its work, but the program was summarily ended by Italy on October 31, 2014 due to Italian complaints that the EU was not helping to offset the operation’s cost. The New York Times writes on April 22 that Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi has called on the EU to take more collective action to handle the migrant problem, arguing that it is a continent-wide issue and not something that should be left solely to governments on the European periphery.
It should be noted that when Italy ended the Mare Nostrum operation that the EU replaced it with an operation called Triton, which was overseen by the EU border agency Frontex. This received $3.2 million in monthly funding, but critics noted that it was not as effective as the Italian operation for several reasons. First, as The Guardian from April 21 reveals, Triton only operated thirty miles off of the Italian cost versus the 27,000 square miles that Mare Nostrum covered. This means that Triton could not locate as many vessels in distress until they came very close to Italy’s shores. Second, Triton did not have as many resources at its disposal when compared to its Italian counterpart. The EU operation only had sixty-five personnel on monthly duty and only had two airplanes and one helicopter to patrol the Mediterranean. This made it harder to locate migrants and provide the necessary assistance. Finally, The Huffington Post writes on April 24 that Triton was not necessarily tasked with search and rescue duty, as it was more concerned with deterring migrants from entering Italian waters. Therefore, the EU’s mission became less about saving lives and more about retaining the sanctity of the continent’s borders.
The disasters of recent weeks seemed to confirm the fears of human rights advocates that the EU’s policy would not deter migrants from trying to make the journey to Europe and would simply cause more deaths. The outrage provoked by the death toll prompted EU officials to convene an emergency meeting in Luxembourg last Thursday and according to The Huffington Post they agreed to double emergency aid to Italy, Greece, and Malta – aid that totals $54 million per year – to assist in their efforts to handle migrants via the construction of reception centers, the providing of medical assistance, and the hiring of additional staff. The EU also tripled the funding given for border operations on the Mediterranean to the tune of $9.7 million and it pledged to send ships further into the Mediterranean. The Triton operation will receive a tripling of its budget and its resources will be doubled. However, the United Nations criticized the EU’s decision not to enhance Triton’s mandate to search and rescue, which they warn will continue to place migrants at risk. With the EU unwilling to engage in widespread search and rescue, The Toronto Star explains on April 20 that Doctors Without Borders is partnering with crowd-funded non-governmental organization (NGO) Migrant Offshore Aid Station (MOAS) to launch a vessel called Phoenix that will have two drones to locate, monitor, and provide some assistance to migrant ships.
Solving the Migrant Crisis
Solving the migrant crisis will prove difficult due to the Mediterranean’s geopolitical situation, as well as the tolerance of European governments to handle hundreds of thousands of new migrants from Africa and the Middle East. The rise of far-right parties in recent years, which have benefitted from the region’s economic malaise, makes conversations about increasing immigration dangerous for mainstream politicians. In fact, one of the reasons the EU has found a common strategy to handle migration difficult is that Northern European countries such as Great Britain have resisted the idea of providing sufficient resources for search and rescue operations, arguing that doing so will simply give more incentive for migrants to leave for Europe because they know there is a greater likelihood that they will be rescued and then be delivered to the continent. Golden Dawn, a neo-Nazi party, has profited from Greece’s unrest and has linked angst against foreigners and foreign economic forces into a relatively successful, albeit violent, political program. The New York Times writes in a separate article on April 22 that small towns in Germany, Italy, and Greece are struggling to cope with waves of new migrants as reception centers are overcrowded and housing is in short supply. The integration of immigrants into Europe has also been difficult because migrants have found it tough to get jobs due to language and other cultural barriers. Critics of the European welfare state model also allege that the region gives too many benefits to immigrants, thereby encouraging them to not seek work and live apart from society. Thus, the internal political dynamics of various EU countries inhibit joint action to solve the migrant crisis.
Nevertheless, if the EU finds a way to overcome domestic political limitations there are some actions that it can take to combat migration or lessen the burden that it places on Southern European countries. Many of these proposals can be found in The Guardian article previously cited from April 21, which I highly encourage extempers to cut for their files since it will help them tackle “What” and “How” questions relating to the migrant crisis. One proposal is for the EU to make it easier for migrants to acquire legal employment. Proponents of this scheme allege that the EU could adopt a “blue card” system (so named because the primary color on the EU flag is blue) modeled like a U.S. “green card” that allows a migrant to acquire legal, temporary employment status. This would prevent migrants from being abused by employers, thwart illegal employment of migrants who fail to achieve asylum after arriving in Europe, and provide some order across the EU for dealing with migrant workers. However, a problem with this system, as The Guardian explains, is that it strips sovereignty from EU governments concerning refugee policy. If the EU proceeded with a “blue card” system it would probably have to set up a quota system for distributing migrants across the continent, with wealthier countries taking on a greater share of migrants. This means that Northern European nations would see larger migrant numbers than Southern European nations. For some governments, namely those in Germany and Great Britain, this is a non-starter, but proceeding with a “blue card” plan would reduce the costs associated with migrants that are currently borne by Southern European countries.
Experts agree that the EU needs to reconsider its asylum policies as well since thousands of migrants apply each year for asylum but only a minority are given legal status, leaving the rest in limbo. Under currently EU law – the so-called “Dublin regulation” – asylum seekers must file a petition in the first EU country they enter, which for many is Italy, Spain, or Greece. This creates a significant backlog for processing applications, some of which can take more than eighteen months. Some argue that it would be best for the EU to set up stations along migrant routes where asylum seekers could file their applications and receive feedback before moving to Europe. The idea of this is that migrants would know if they could legally reside in the EU and could be dissuaded from making a difficult journey if they knew that they could not acquire legal residency. In 2003, British Prime Minister Tony Blair argued for this type of system, but the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the UN’s human rights agency, has some reservations about such a system because it may not provide enough protections for those seeking to escape persecution. There are also questions of where migrants would stay while their applications were processed, how such stations would be funded, and how the EU would ensure an equal hearing of all claims.
Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott has argued that the best way for the EU to handle migrants is to the follow steps that he has implemented in Australia, which has been referred to as a “stop the boats” strategy. The UK Telegraph writes on April 22 that this strategy has seen Australia use its navy to tow migrant boats back into international waters, place migrants in detention centers on remote islands, and even provide migrants in distress with better lifeboats to make it back to their original port of departure. Abbott’s tactics have been criticized by the UN and surrounding nations in the Pacific as inhumane and a contravention of the 1951 UN Refugee Convention. However, Abbott’s strategy has worked to reduce the numbers of migrants traveling to Australia. Still, The UK Telegraph notes that there are questions about whether such an aggressive strategy would work or be in the EU’s best interest. First, Australia is an island and is not surrounded by other nearby nations, thereby making it easier to tow boats back and force them to return home. If the EU tried a similar scheme off the coast of Italy, migrants could try to head for Greece or Spain, so the EU might be playing a game of “whack a mole” as it tries to thwart all migrant traffic. Second, EU policies on human rights would likely annul a policy that forcibly detained migrants in camps, especially the detention of child migrants, which as this brief has already explained are rising as a share of the migrant population. If EU officials found Italy’s bilateral agreement with Libya distasteful and unlawful, they would probably view a harsh policy such as Abbott’s in the same light. And third, Australia has the power to at least discuss the migrant question with surrounding states such as Papua New Guinea and Indonesia. For the EU, though, it does not have a working relationship with the Libyan government nor one with the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad. As a result, it may find it difficult to implement or establish the cooperation necessary to enact this strategy.
One of the more controversial ideas is to allow a legitimate route into Europe that is safer than the Mediterranean. Human rights groups argue that forcing migrants to cross the Mediterranean, especially with smugglers, is a recipe for disaster. Alternatives might include stations on the coast where aspiring migrants could be processed or where work visas could be sold for entry into Europe. They may also include the use of churches or immigrant communities to sponsor the travel of migrants. Canada has done this for years and Australia began piloting a program like this in 2013. However, The UK Telegraph writes on April 22 that this strategy is fraught with peril because it would just encourage more people to migrate. It might be true that people are seeking out a new living in Europe to better their opportunities and livelihoods, but Europe is not a place of infinite resources and arguably more migrants are seeking the dream of prosperity than can be allocated for Europeans and migrants alike. Having a policy that would welcome potentially millions of new migrants into the EU could produce significant political and social dislocation, thereby playing into the hands of anti-immigrant forces and thereby putting the entire European project at risk if those parties, which are Eurocentric and nationalistic, gained enough votes to govern their respective nations. Although Vox writes that completely free borders around the world might raise global GDP by 50% to 150%, such a radical idea in untenable, although moderate alternatives to smuggling such as sponsorship programs for migrants have potential.
The solution that achieves the most consensus among left-wing and right-wing politicians in Europe is to take more action against smugglers and weaken their operations. The Wall Street Journal article previously cited from April 21 notes that Italy has arrested 1,000 smugglers since last year. The idea behind heavily penalizing smugglers – who Renzi has likened to being the “slave traders of the twenty-first century” – is that it will reduce those willing to take migrants across the Mediterranean and thereby solve Europe’s migrant crisis and reduce deaths simultaneously. Aside from levying significant penalties on smugglers, there have been discussions of ensuring that the EU destroys smuggling boats once rescue operations have taken place, thereby depriving smugglers of a viable ship that can be salvaged and used for the same purpose again. The Guardian also recommends that the EU investigate an embargo on boat engines into the country as those are already in short supply. A combination of these factors might put smugglers out of business, thereby forcing those seeking to come to Europe to pursue legitimate routes, although it would be in the EU’s interest to make sure that those legitimate routes were accessible and efficient.
As the Mediterranean becomes the world’s most lethal migration route, European policymakers must find adequate solutions that address bureaucratic inefficiencies that cause migrants to seek risky paths into the continent and they must also seek to stabilize other countries that migrants are coming from. A more stable North Africa and Middle East would reduce the numbers of migrants trying to enter the EU, but in the short-term the EU must commit itself to more robust patrols of the Mediterranean and ways to thwart smugglers because that is arguably the best way it can live up to its humanitarian principles while also trying to reduce the problem at its source.