It is fair to say that across Europe, we are seeing various issues arising from the loose ends of multiculturalism. On one hand, multiculturalism has, over the past decades, facilitated peaceful coexistence among diverse communities on many levels. On the other, this tacit understanding of the relationship between majority and minority communities has eroded over time and now proves ineffective in the face of Europe’s growing identity-focused sentiments.
Faced with problems stemming from these loose ends, such as the murder of Theo van Gogh in the Netherlands or the attacks on Charlie Hebdo in France, Europe entered a feverish period of securitization and identity politics. Rather than evaluating what had worked and what had gone wrong to correct past mistakes, there was a complete reversal of the idea of a diverse and inclusive Europe.
Adding to this were the effects of the 2008 subprime crisis and the subsequent sovereign debt crisis in Europe, which exacerbated disparities between the rich and poor.
As a result, populist and far-right forces quickly sought to scapegoat ethnic, religious, and linguistic minorities. This became a distraction from real issues, aiming to capitalize on voter dissatisfaction without offering real solutions to the problems they faced.
One example is the AfD (Alternative für Deutschland), which began as a party critical of the Euro and the European Central Bank’s (ECB) bailout policies but quickly transformed into a far-right party. Its focus shifted to targeting not only immigrants but also those born and raised in Germany with roots in other countries, such as Turkey or Bosnia.
As in the early 20th century, an economic and financial crisis (combined with a securitization fever) has led Europe to an exacerbation of identity and nationalist sentiments—and, in today’s case, the creation of Fortress Europe.
Today, Europe spends vast resources trying to prevent people fleeing war and other clear violations of human rights from entering the continent, whether through external borders with countries like Turkey or the Mediterranean.
Europe pays Turkey and Libya—countries far from exemplifying respect for human dignity—to detain migrants and block their entry into European territory. All of this is done to avoid accepting them into the continent.
This effort extends to limiting the rescue operations of NGOs operating in the Mediterranean. Legal barriers erected by countries like Italy and France effectively prevent many people from being rescued, condemning them to drown in the Mediterranean.
Denmark, a country once associated with a multicultural and progressive view of immigration, is now one of the European Union nations imposing the greatest barriers to legal immigration and asylum seekers. It has gone so far as to attempt to deport a young Syrian woman who, due to the civil war in her home country, grew up and came to call Denmark home. The reason? Denmark considers Damascus (the capital of Syria, a country still embroiled in civil war under the brutal dictatorship of Bashar al-Assad) a safe zone.
This same Denmark has shown a much more dignified and humane approach to Ukrainian refugees. This raises the question: what is the difference between one case and the other?
Outside the European Union, in the United Kingdom, immigration discourse revolves heavily around the slogan "Stop the boats," reminiscent of political debates about migration in Australia.
Another reminder of Australia’s migration policies is the outsourcing of asylum processing to countries like Rwanda, or, in Italy’s case, Albania.
In Australia, this practice resulted in disastrous outcomes, with numerous human rights violations reported in facilities located in Nauru. There is no reason to believe the situations in Rwanda or Albania would fare better, and such practices contradict everything Europe claims to stand for.
Rather than sweeping the problem under the rug and ignoring it, Europe must rise to today’s challenges by keeping its doors open to those seeking a better life here and correcting the mistakes of the past.
Beyond the fact that Europe is aging and in great need of immigration to sustain its economy and social welfare systems, there is an even greater consideration: by denying these people the right to enter Europe, we betray European values and disrespect the dignity of human life.
Migration has posed challenges in the past that we have not always addressed perfectly. However, this does not mean we should abandon being a bloc open to the world and to the people who come from it.
This requires rethinking Europe’s migration integration model and adapting it to current realities.
We must implement a kind of contract between the host state and the migrant, in which both establish a set of mutual rights and responsibilities.
In this contract, the state must ensure that migrants are given the means to fulfill the responsibilities set out, and nothing in this contract should contradict the Declaration of Human Rights.
Migrants must be required to make every effort to adapt to European culture and its values, such as openness, pluralism, democracy, and secularism. This contract must be unwavering on human rights issues, such as women’s rights and LGBTQ+ rights.
Under this paradigm, it is fair that someone who refuses, despite being given the means, to learn the language of the country they have moved to, may face consequences, including leaving the host country. Similarly, fundamentalists—whether Christian, Islamic, or otherwise—who seek to continue practices violating fundamental rights considered normal in their countries of origin should face repatriation.
Another essential axis in rethinking European migration policy is establishing a more equitable sharing of the effort. It is unfair that countries like Italy or Greece have to manage a migratory flow that is destined not for Italy or Greece but for the entire European Union.
The European Union must impose minimum migrant reception quotas on its 27 member states, taking into account each state’s economic and financial capacity to accept migrants and implement the necessary instruments for their efficient integration into society.
For states with less economic and financial capacity, funds must be provided to implement the policies necessary for genuine integration.
Only through this firm social contract between host states and migrants and solutions that distribute the effort across all EU member states can we address the identity fever currently plaguing Europe.
During Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, we demonstrated our ability to respond to a humanitarian crisis on our continent. We must respond equally to people fleeing situations of equal gravity from different geographies. Failure to do so means succumbing to hypocrisy, xenophobia, and racism.
Comments
Post a Comment