European Union:Immigration and Asylum - Research Paper Example

The European Union Introduction The European Union is a monumental achievement as it unites 27 different countries with vastly different political, economic and cultural backgrounds. Within its borders, citizens of the member-countries can travel visa-free to any European country as one of the cherished goals of the union is complete freedom of movement for all European citizens. However, this freedom is increasingly under strain as countries have struggled against the tide of illegal immigration from poorer member-countries as well as from countries outside of the European Union. Immigration policies are under review as these countries tried to stem illegal immigration from the standpoint of why people do migrate: employment and political or religious persecution. Besides security issues, another challenge is the cultural assimilation of new immigrants. Although there are efforts to implement a coordinated response to the big problem of this increased illegal migration, the asylum policies of individual countries are greatly influenced by their prevailing circumstances in terms of politics, economics and culture. Not all countries are equally well equipped or completely willing to absorb these illegal immigrants who sometimes abuse the system of asylum. A financial downturn like the Great Global Recession highlighted the limits of countries' capacities to absorb immigrants no matter what their stance is on helping fellow humans for humanitarian reasons. It is the purpose of this paper to discuss how likely the individual country's culture helped to shape policies of immigration and corresponding nuanced response to the granting of asylum to legitimate seekers. In other words, culture plays a big part in whether immigrants and asylum seekers can find a welcoming mat for them. Discussion For purposes of this paper, the immigration and asylum policies of three major European nations will be discussed in order to show the contrast among them. Although the nations belong nominally to the European Union, they each pursued different asylum policies as their individual responses to the tide of illegal immigration. These responses are partly shaped by their prevailing circumstances in terms of politics, economics and cultures. In short, the European Union likes to project an image of unity but its members do not always see eye to eye on many issues of vital importance. Examples where dissension and disagreements abound are in foreign policy (with regards to wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and the war against terror and even in their responses to the unfolding turmoil in the Middle Eastern countries today), existing relationships with the United States in terms of economic policies (farm subsidies, trade blocs, the currency exchanges, policy towards China, etc.) and treaties concerning nuclear proliferation. An example of the fragmented European Union was their lack of a viable response during the Balkan Wars and the sad genocide committed in Bosnia (once part of Yugoslavia) prior to its eventual breakup. The three countries that merit special mention in this paper are Great Britain, Germany and France. Historically, these three countries had absorbed a large number of immigrants from other distressed nations in pursuance of humanitarian considerations and also at the behest of the United States of America. There had been successive waves of immigrants being accepted into Europe as a concession to this American request, an example of which was the Vietnamese boat people who fled their country when it was unified under communist rule. The United Nations also played a big part in asking these countries to accept people who fled due to persecution. The European Union came into being back in 1957 in the Treaty of Rome. It was initially known as the European Community and consisted of just six countries (Roskin, 2011, p. 83). Its purpose was to unite the whole continent of Europe in an effort to avert future wars. The original idea of a united Europe go back a long way in history but it was pursued by two Frenchmen who envisioned a united Europe that will stop wars among its neighbors (ibid. p. 160). The ideas were to use a loose confederation or grouping of European countries and supplant them with powerful supra-national government that will be able to contain the usual causes of wars – trade frictions and country nationalism that fractured the continent since centuries ago. These two French men who thought up the idea of a single Europe were Jean Monnet and Robert Schuman. Their idea was to use economics to pull Europe closer together (ibid. p. 244) by encouraging trade and free movement of people, goods, capital and labor from one member country to another to promote understanding and avoid disputes that lead to wars in the past (especially during World War II). The two had planned to add political institutions later on when the union takes hold. The dream of a united Europe can be traced back to the Roman Empire when it held a large chunk of Europe under its military and administrative control, then to Charlemagne who unified much of Europe during his reign but then splintered among his descendants. The dream of a single Europe was saved for much of the last few centuries by the Papacy of Rome under its banner of Christianity (ibid. p. 241). Napoleon also aspired to unite the whole of Europe and so did Hitler, both with disastrous results for them and the continent. The continued growth and the gradual acceptance of the European Union lead to the grudging and cautious transfer of aspects of national sovereignty to the seat of the European Union Commission in Brussels (ibid. p. 245). Immigration Policy – the European Union had worked towards adopting a single policy regarding immigration for a long time. Freedom of movement is one of the basic human rights. European countries guarantee this basic right but it applies to their own citizens only. There are previously two methods or approaches used to solve the problem of immigration: the pro-active involvement of all community institutions (community approach) like the government agencies involved in the eventual assimilation and integration of the new immigrants such as the schools, social welfare departments, police, legal system, private sector and religious sector. The second approach is through direct consultations with the EU member-states (Guild, 1996, p. 3). A third approach was recently formulated which entails cooperation among all European Union member states in having an integrated way of dealing with the main reasons why people migrate in the first place is being tried at the moment, mainly due to employment and political reasons. This is where the problem gets tricky because other countries had balked at the idea of a single unified response to the problem of immigration, especially illegal immigration. Each of the European countries want to deal with the problem in the way it sees as the best fit to it, taking into consideration its own unique circumstances. The slowdown in their respective economies had greatly contributed to this individualistic attitude pertaining to immigration and asylum that is in contrast to the stated aims of the European Union which is adoption of a single policy. The first asylum policies of most European countries recognized the international legal dilemma of a denial of state protection (which is a basic political principle) and later recognized as perfect and legitimate the personal and religious reasons for flight (Kneebone & Rawlings-Sanaei, 2007, p. 4). Present asylum policies failed to anticipate the other major reason for migration – economic. United Kingdom – this country had once been reluctant to join the EU because it had considered itself as separate from the European continent (Roskin, 2011, p. 85). Belatedly it joined the European Union but wanted things on its own terms, preferring to retain its most cherished symbol of sovereignty – the pound sterling currency over that of the euro. Further, it considers itself an Atlantic country rather than a European one by looking to its former colonies as parts of the larger English-speaking sphere of the world. Great Britain can be considered as the most lenient of the European nations with regards to immigration policies by virtue of its vast previous colonial empire. Peoples coming from all over India, Africa, the Middle East, Asia and other regions were historically very much welcome to its shores. It had a tolerant attitude because London was largely a cosmopolitan global city in which different ideas and cultures met and mixed. It practices Western liberalism coupled with a good dose of humanitarianism but the economic slowdown has put limits on its asylum policies. In particular, Britain has been badly hit by the current economic global recession and scrambled to find financial resources and has to suffer deep budget cuts for some public services. One of the effects of the recession is to re-focus public and political discourse on current immigration and asylum policies. About three million had settled in the United Kingdom since 1997 and more are coming, putting the UK as Europe’s second most densely-populated country (the Netherlands is the densest). Economic realities caused legislators to call for amendments to its asylum policies and how immigration had affected its public schools system. Some 70% of 300 primary schools have English as a second language (MigrationWatch UK, 2010, p. 1) and many think this contributed to the decline of quality in their education (Roskin, 2011, p. 83). Germany – the Federal Republic of Germany adopted many amendments to its asylum policy in view of changed circumstances. Historically, it never considered itself as immigrant country like the United States of America and so has an almost homogenous population. Their immigration policy is geared towards accepting those with German ancestry such as people from the former Soviet Union or its allied states such as Poland or Romania. Although its asylum and immigration policies are based on its constitution, it nevertheless adopted a strong cultural bias that ultimately favors the legitimate interests of German society. It had recently denied asylum to people coming from “safe” third countries because of some perceived abuses where illegals prefer the country due to its generous welfare benefits. It had accepted migrant laborers due to a labor shortage and not because of an inherent desire to comply with its 1951 Geneva Convention responsibilities to balance humanitarianism with its historical responsibilities for its past sins against humanity. The EU’s renewed calls for adopting a harmonized immigration policy among all member states has put pressure on Germany to have more immigrants but it exercised its prerogative of whether to grant asylum or not based on its own selection criteria. It will not accept immigrants who will claim poverty, natural disasters or general hardship for refugee status. Germany has seven million foreign nationals with about 20% of them coming from a poor member-state of the EU (Adler & Gielen, 2003, p. 165). German attitudes towards immigration are shaped largely by its own self-image as a host country. However, there has been a recent backlash against immigrants due to abuses committed. Germany has a significant number of Turkish immigrants and this had led to a serious diplomatic row with Germany over calls for assimilation and the issue of language (Dempsey, 2011, p. 1). France – this country started the European Union movement but it has always prided on its French culture like its cuisine, libertarian traditions (liberty, equality and fraternity) as well as its music scene, the arts, literature and cinema. It is intensely proud of its cultural products and does not want any foreign influences to dilute its cultural refinements. An example would be the unwanted influence of Hollywood movies in its own cinema industry. This country has likewise a different attitude towards some immigrants and considers them in general as un-assimilable. Its rationale is that cultural differences are just too vast for ethnic groups to be successfully joined or integrated into French society. However, an unstated reason is that France has a history of racism and does not want uncontrolled immigration to “pollute” its refined culture. Unfortunately for France, the recent moves to adopt an integrated policy towards asylum in the European Union has put its own immigration policies into focus in public debates and had even ignited a word war with some of its fellow states, in particular Germany. France has a very unique position of having a large number of people who seek group asylum. These include the Gypsies, Kurds, Bosnians and Croats (Muus, 1997, p. 118). Moreover, its recent moves to expel a large number of Romas (gypsies) and repatriate them to Romania brought the threat of sanctions by the European Commission as being against humanitarian laws. France claims these refugee camps are the sources of prostitution and rampant crimes while Germany said it is the equivalent of ethnic cleansing. At issue, more than cultural attitudes toward immigration and assimilation, is the future of the European Union. Member countries always wanted to exercise their prerogatives when it comes to the issue of foreigners within their borders but that were supposed to have been supplanted with authority coming from the European Commission with regards to deportations and expulsion of their unwanted immigrants from other member states (Dempsey & Castle, 2010, p. 1). Conclusion The issue of balancing humanitarianism with lenient immigration policies is a constant struggle between protecting the legitimate interests of a native society and that of new entrants. The current economic recession only added a layer of complexity because resources are scarce. It can be rightly said that charity begins at home; all discussions about immigration and asylum are to be viewed within the context of which needs are to be prioritized. Although Germany, France and the United Kingdom are all signatories to various international treaties, harsh realities can set in and force them to reexamine their existing policies that threaten to unravel the unity of the EU. There are abuses committed by many false migrants such as those ostensibly seeking asylum. However, besides ethical reasons for granting or denying asylum to seekers, the debates are made more complicated with the issue of terrorism. Many countries now put brakes on their acceptance of new migrants for fear of letting in unwanted criminals and more so, terrorists. The need to control their borders is greater than ever but many European countries are constrained on what they can do due to the impositions of the European Commission. Many countries are now getting xenophobic without realizing it but immigration is a moral right (Oberman, 2010, p. 2). The European Union must adhere to its own policies of enhancing the free movement of people if it is to realize the dream of a unified Europe. Immigration is only bound to increase but some experts doubt if the EU can survive its present troubles and achieve its aim of meeting its destiny (or history) which is still very much alive in Europe. Globalization will surely increase migrations and supposed to lead to more people empowerment (Reed-Danahay & Brettell, 2008, p. 181). The EU must find the right balance when exercising its authority on immigration. References Adler, L. L. & Gielen, U. P. (2003). Migration: Immigration and Emigration in an International Perspective. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group. Dempsey, J. (2011, February 28). German Politicians Assail Turkish Leader over Cultural Remarks. The New York Times. Retrieved from: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/01/world/europe/01iht-germany01.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=Merkel,%20culture,%20assimilation&st=cse Dempsey, J. & Castle, S. (2010, September 17). France and Germany Spar Over Policies on Roma. The New York Times. Retrieved from: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/18/world/europe/18germany.html?scp=3&sq=France,%20Roma&st=cse Guild, E. (1996) The Developing Immigration and Asylum Policies of the European Union: Adopted Conventions, Resolutions, Recommendations, Decisions and Conclusions. The Hague, Netherlands: Kluwer Law International. Kneebone, S. & Rawlings-Sanaei, F. (2007). New Regionalism and Asylum Seekers: Challenges Ahead. Oxford, UK: Berghahn Books. Migration Watch UK (2010, September). What is the Problem? Retrieved from: http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/what-is-the-problem Muus, P. (1997). Exclusion and Inclusion of Refugees in Contemporary Europe. Utrecht, The Netherlands: European Research Centre on Migration and Ethnic Relations. Oberman, K. (2010, October 22). Immigration as a Human Right. Centre on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law (CDDRL). Retrieved from: http://cddrl.stanford.edu/events/6243 Roskin, M. G. (2011). Countries and Concepts: Politics, Geography and Culture. New York, USA: Pearson-Longman Publishing. Reed-Danahay, D. & Brettell, C. (2008). Citizenship, Political Engagement and Belonging: Immigrants in Europe and the United States. New Jersey, USA: Rutgers University Press. Read More