Migration and Asylum Policies in the EU: A

Comparative Analysis

Submitted By-
RAGHAV THAREJA
Group - A, PRN - 20010224122, Batch - 2020-25

Of Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA

Symbiosis International (Deemed University), PUNE

In
March, 2024

Under the guidance of

Mr. Arun Wighmal
( Course In charge )
Principles and Foundations of EU Law
Migration and Asylum Policies in the EU: A
Comparative Analysis
INTRODUCTION

The European Union stands at the forefront of global efforts to manage the migrant crisis in Europe
with a humanitarian and safe approach to migration and asylum policies [1]. Spearheaded by the Eu-
ropean Council, the strategic direction set forth aims at establishing a cohesive system that offers
protection to those in need while maintaining the integrity of EU borders [1]. This approach is further
delineated by the Council of the EU, which not only outlines the European strategy but also engages
in crucial negotiations with non-EU nations to manage migration flows effectively [1]. Integral to this
endeavor is the adoption of legislation and the definition of specific programs aimed at addressing
the complex challenges of migration and asylum within the European framework[1].

The onset of the Integrated Political Crisis Response (IPCR) arrangements in October 2015 marked
a significant milestone in the EU's responsive measures to increasing migratory pressures, showcas-
ing the EU's commitment to coordinated and comprehensive policy solutions [1]. With a focus on uni-
form treatment for asylum seekers across all member states, the EU has embarked on a mission to
harmonize its approach to legal migration, asylum processing, and the return of migrants entering
without authorization[1]. As Europe continues to grapple with the challenges presented by key mi-
gratory routes, the commitment to a unified, effective, and humane migration policy remains imper-
ative[1].

The Evolution of EU Migration and Asylum Policies

This section delves into the pivotal moments and legislative frameworks that have shaped the EU's
stance on migration and asylum.

1. Historical Milestones and Legislative Frameworks

◦ Schengen Agreement and Treaty of Amsterdam: Marking the EU's increasing
role in migration law, these agreements laid the groundwork for a unified approach
towards migration and asylum, reflecting on the connection between immigration,
terrorism, international crime, and border control[2].
◦ Shift from Emigration to Immigration: The transition experienced by different
countries at varying times and rates, influenced by historical backgrounds such as
Germany's constitutional asylum provision, which acted as a constraint on policy
changes[3].
◦ Turning Points: The oil crisis of 1973 marked a reduced migration phase, necessi-
tating the development of comprehensive immigration and asylum policies. The
1990s saw a spike in asylum seekers, leading to policies aimed at restricting access
to territory and welfare benefits, converging around practices like temporary protec-
tion over permanent asylum[3].
2. The Common European Asylum System (CEAS)
◦ Foundation and Reforms: Proposed in 1999 and reformed in 2008, the CEAS
aimed to manage legal migration flows, process asylum requests, and return illegal
migrants efficiently[4].
◦ Key Components:
▪ Dublin Regulation: Determines which member state is responsible for han-
dling an asylum application[4].
 ▪ Eurodac Regulation: Establishes a database for fingerprint comparison[4].
▪ Reception Conditions Directive: Ensures equal standards of reception con-
ditions throughout the EU[4].
▪ Asylum Procedures Directive: Establishes a common international protec-
tion procedure[4].
▪ Qualification Directive: Defines who qualifies for different statuses[4].
▪ Temporary Protection Directive: Provides immediate and temporary pro-
tection in the event of a mass influx of displaced persons[4].
3. Supranational Approaches and Future Frameworks
◦ Towards a More Supranational Approach: Post-Lisbon Treaty, the EU has been
working on a Union Resettlement Framework Regulation and a Crisis and Force Ma-
jeure Regulation, aiming for a more integrated approach to migration policy [4][5].
◦ Agencies and Funds: The European Union Agency for Asylum promotes greater
convergence of member states' asylum and reception practices, while the European
Border and Coast Guard Agency provides a reserve of European border guards and
technical equipment. The Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund supports the effi-
cient management of migration flows and the implementation of a common approach
to asylum and immigration[4].
◦ Policy Evolution: The EU's migration policy has evolved from state-level control to
a more supranational approach, navigating through the 'liberal paradox' and towards
the development of a common migration and asylum policy, despite states' reluc-
tance to limit their regulatory capacity[5].
This overview underscores the EU's journey towards harmonizing its migration and asylum poli-
cies, reflecting a balance between humanitarian concerns and border control, while also highlighting
the challenges and complexities inherent in managing international migration flows.

The EU's Framework for Migration and Asylum Policies

The European Union's approach to migration and asylum policies is structured around a comprehen-
sive framework designed to manage legal migration flows, process asylum requests, and address the
challenges of illegal migration. This framework, known as the Common European Asylum System
(CEAS), is underpinned by a set of legislative instruments and regulations, each serving a specific
function within the broader system:

• Legislative Instruments and Regulations:

◦ Asylum Procedures Directive: Establishes the common procedures for granting and
withdrawing international protection [6].
◦ Reception Conditions Directive: Ensures that asylum seekers have access to ade-
quate living conditions while their applications are being processed [6].
◦ Qualification Directive: Defines the grounds for granting international protection to
asylum seekers [6].
◦ Dublin Regulation: Determines the EU member state responsible for examining an
asylum application [6].
◦ EURODAC Regulation: Facilitates the comparison of asylum seekers' fingerprints
across the EU [6].
◦ European Union Agency for Asylum: Supports member states in their efforts to
implement the CEAS effectively [6].
In addition to these foundational elements, the EU has introduced regulations to address specific
scenarios and enhance the system's responsiveness to emergent challenges:

• Targeted Regulations:
 ◦ Screening Regulation: Sets out the initial procedures for non-EU nationals arriving
irregularly, ensuring swift identification and registration [7].
◦ Asylum Procedures Regulation (APR): Details the process following an asylum
application, aiming for efficiency and fairness [7].
◦ Asylum and Migration Management Regulation (RAMM): Focuses on solidarity
measures among member states, promoting a balanced distribution of responsibilities
[7]
.
◦ Crisis and Force Majeure Regulation: Outlines the EU's approach to exceptional
situations at its external borders, providing a framework for crisis management [7].
These instruments and regulations are part of a broader effort to harmonize asylum and migration
policies across the EU, reflecting a commitment to a fair, efficient, and humane approach to migra-
tion. The EU's migration and asylum policy landscape is also shaped by strategic partnerships with
third countries, agreements aimed at controlling irregular migration, and the allocation of significant
funds for migration and border management. Despite these efforts, the system faces challenges re-
lated to implementation consistency, the burden on border countries, and the need for solidarity in
sharing responsibilities among member states [8].

This framework is continuously evolving, with recent reforms and proposals aimed at addressing
the shortcomings revealed by the migrant crisis in Europe and ensuring the system's resilience in the
face of future challenges. The New Pact on Migration and Asylum represents a significant step in
this direction, introducing a set of key proposals designed to create a more equitable and sustainable
process for managing migration and asylum within the EU [9].

Comparative Analysis of Policy Implications

The comparative analysis of policy implications within the EU reveals a complex interplay of hu-
manitarian, security, and economic considerations that vary significantly across member states
(MS). This section explores these dynamics, focusing on the divergent approaches and attitudes to-
wards migration and asylum policies.

• Balancing Act in Policy Implications:

◦ The EU's migration and asylum policies strive to maintain a delicate balance be-
tween humanitarian concerns and security/economic considerations [8].
◦ The challenge lies in aligning these policies with the diverse strategic cultures and
approaches to the migration-security nexus among MS [2].
◦ Securitization of migration tends to prioritize nation-state security over human secu-
rity, reflecting a shift in focus [2].
• Divergent Approaches Among Member States:
◦ The European Union Global Strategy (EUGS) acknowledges the migration crisis as a
significant challenge but faces hurdles in achieving consensus among MS due to
varying strategic cultures [2].
◦ Cooperation on migration issues exhibits a non-standardized nature, often manifest-
ing through bilateral, multilateral, or intergovernmental arrangements, rather than be-
ing uniformly controlled by the EU [2].
◦ Member states often impose their domestic protection standards on EU asylum poli-
cies, affecting the legislative outputs at the EU level [2].
• Public Attitudes and Economic Factors:
◦ A study analyzing public preferences for asylum policies across 20 European coun-
tries found that lower unemployment rates correlate with more negative opinions on
asylum policy [10].
 ◦ Human values and threat perceptions significantly influence attitudes towards asy-
lum policies, indicating a complex relationship between economic conditions and
public sentiment [10].
This analysis underscores the intricate dynamics at play in the EU's approach to migration and asy-
lum policies. While the EU aims for a cohesive strategy, the diversity of member states' cultures,
economic conditions, and public attitudes presents ongoing challenges.

Case Study: Germany vs. Italy

In a comparative analysis of Germany and Italy's approaches to migration and asylum policies, sev-
eral key distinctions emerge, reflecting the broader dynamics and challenges faced by the European
Union in managing the migrant crisis in Europe.

Asylum System and Migration Policies:

• Germany: Known for its effective asylum system, Germany has managed lower levels of ir-
regular immigration without the need for regularization processes. In 2004, the refugee pop-
ulation included a diverse mix of recognized refugees, asylum seekers, and quota refugees,
with Germany hosting the highest refugee population in Europe even after statistical depura-
tion [11]. The country was third in asylum applications in 2005, following Iran and Pakistan,
showcasing its significant role in providing refuge within the EU [11].
• Italy: In contrast, Italy's immigration regime has been perceived as more lax, with weaker
border controls and fewer guarantees for asylum seekers and refugees. Italy has enacted
three major immigration laws since 1990, with a notable regularization process in 2002 that
regularized 1.4 million foreigners - the largest in Europe. This approach highlights Italy's
different strategy in managing migration flows and integrating migrants into society [11].
Demographic and Social Welfare Impact:

• Germany: The German welfare system, with its robust network of social organizations dat-
ing back to the Second World War, plays a crucial role in the reception and integration of
migrants. Migrant self-organization in districts like Altenburger Land contributes to inclu-
sion in education and the labor market, despite facing demographic changes and economic
downturns [12].
• Italy: Spatial development policies in Italy aim at redeveloping shrinking areas to counter
emigration and depopulation effects. A significant portion of Italian municipalities involved
in the second reception of migrants and asylum seekers are located in disadvantaged rural
areas. The National Strategy for Inland Areas (SNAI), introduced in 2014, addresses the
challenges of areas distant from essential service centers, reflecting Italy's approach to man-
aging demographic challenges and integrating migrants [12].
Recent Trends:

• In recent years, a resurgence in immigration from Italy to Germany has been observed, par-
ticularly among young people moving to Berlin for various reasons, including but not lim-
ited to career opportunities. This trend underscores the dynamic nature of migration within
the EU and the ongoing interplay between economic opportunities, social integration, and
policy frameworks [13].
• As of January to November 2023, Germany received the most asylum applications
(334,000), indicating its continued prominence as a destination for migrants and asylum
seekers within the EU [14].
This comparative analysis illustrates the divergent strategies adopted by Germany and Italy in re-
sponse to migration and asylum challenges. Germany's structured approach to asylum processing
and integration contrasts with Italy's more fluid and regularization-focused strategy. Both countries,
however, face the common challenges of demographic change, social welfare stress, and the need
for effective integration programs, reflecting the broader complexities of migration management in
the European Union.

Conclusion
Throughout this comprehensive exploration of migration and asylum policies within the European
Union, we have traversed the nuanced and evolving landscape that underscores the EU's commit-
ment to harmonizing migration strategies while balancing humanitarian concerns with security and
economic considerations. By delving into historical milestones, legislative frameworks, and the col-
lective efforts for policy harmonization, this analysis has underscored the importance of a unified
approach amidst diverse member state strategies, the challenges in policy implementation, and the
dynamic nature of migration flows that continually shape the EU's policy responses.

Given the complexities and the divergent approaches across member states highlighted through
comparative analyses, it becomes evident that the pursuit of harmonized policies remains fraught
with challenges but is imperative for the creation of a more cohesive, fair, and effective migration
and asylum system. The ongoing endeavors, including the proposed New Pact on Migration and
Asylum, reflect a foundational step towards addressing these challenges, suggesting a future direc-
tion marked by enhanced cooperation and solidarity. As the EU navigates the intricacies of migra -
tion and asylum policies, the continuous evolution of these frameworks is essential in shaping a re-
sponse that is not only pragmatic but also reflective of the core values of the Union.

References
[1] - https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/eu-migration-policy/
[2] - https://comparativemigrationstudies.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40878-018-0093-3
[3] - https://is.cuni.cz/studium/predmety/index.php?do=download&did=146652&kod=JMM040
[4] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migration_and_asylum_policy_of_the_European_Union
[5] - https://www.openstarts.units.it/server/api/core/bitstreams/aa064d5e-fb67-43aa-a91e-
fb8874495cb2/content
[6] - https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/policies/migration-and-asylum/common-european-asylum-
system_en
[7] - https://www.rescue.org/eu/article/what-eu-pact-migration-and-asylum
[8] - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8934758/
[9] - https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/policies/migration-and-asylum/new-pact-migration-and-
asylum_en
[10] - https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsoc.2020.00035
[11] - https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01402380903064747
[12] - https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12134-023-01029-5
[13] - https://globalhistorydialogues.org/projects/experiences-of-migration-from-italy-to-berlin-
germany/.

[14] - https://euaa.europa.eu/latest-asylum-trends-asylum