Solidarity and Fairness Overhauling European Refugee and Asylum Policy

[pr02]

As the Pirate Party, we are committed to a comprehensive overhaul of European refugee and asylum policy. We believe that Europe should be a beacon of hope and compassion for those seeking protection, rather than a fortress of exclusion.

We recognize our duty to provide refuge to those fleeing political persecution, war, civil strife, discrimination based on gender or sexual identity, climate and environmental disasters, ethnic or religious affiliation, poverty, and hunger. To fulfill this obligation, we advocate for an expansion of asylum grounds and reject any hierarchization of reasons for flight. We also oppose the blanket categorization of countries as “safe countries of origin”, as we believe that asylum seekers have the right to an individual assessment of their situation.

In addition, we firmly believe that Europe’s refugee and asylum policy must be based on respect for human rights and comply with the provisions of the Geneva Refugee Convention and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. We call on all member states to receive refugees and asylum seekers according to their capacities, and to implement a European refugee and asylum policy based on solidarity that does not leave individual member states alone with the financial, logistical, and administrative effort.

Rather than building walls and fences, we must take measures to ensure the safe crossing of borders by fleeing people, especially on the seas before Europe, to give them the opportunity to apply for asylum. We demand the creation of a European-funded maritime rescue of Shipwrecked Persons. We condemn the criminalization of private organizations that provide assistance to those seeking protection.

We reject the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (formerly known as FRONTEX), as its illegal practices are a clear expression of the EU’s inhumane policy of exclusion.
We also reject the third-country rule and its specification in the "
Dublin II" regulation, as they push centrally located states away from their responsibility towards those seeking protection. We believe that every person should have the right to choose their place of residence freely and to apply for asylum in the country of their choice. We also oppose the detention of asylum seekers and fast-track procedures at land borders and airports.

When it comes to underage refugees, we call on all member states of the European Union to comply with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. We firmly believe that the deportation of unaccompanied minor refugees is not acceptable.

Finally, we believe that Europe has a responsibility to support refugees and asylum seekers, and to provide them with the opportunity to rebuild their lives. We will work tirelessly to ensure that our immigration policies are compassionate, fair, and effective, and that they are based on the principles of human rights and social justice.

[MarketaG]

I have to say I very strongly disagree with “rejecting” FRONTEX.

Frontex is doing many mistakes, but our approach should be to reform, make better control mechanisms etc., not to just plainly say we don’t want it at all. The EU has many, many problems, too, but we don’t want to disban it.

If we take the current text, could you indicate what points are you missing, ideally? I am thinking that the children’s protection migh be added.

Migration

Pirates want to pay special attention to the stabilization of conflict outbreaks and fragile states, as their instability is a source of problems for the entire international community. Conflict resolution has to be based on respect for International Law.

Policies dealing with migration and asylum have to respect the human dignity of migrants and asylum seekers. Pirates demand a common European immigration policy that:

• enables ways of legal migration to the european labour market,
• values language skills and other given skills of the applicants positively in the process,
• recognizes given certificates and professional qualifications in a simplified way,
• enables member states to adjust their requirements according to their situation and needs.

Asylum

Pirates demand a common European Asylum Policy that implements the following:

• ensures freedom of establishment in Europe for those whose application was approved;
• promotes the possibility of family reunification first for those whose application was approved;
• possibilities for applications on asylum should be introduced even outside of Europe and if accepted help ought to be offered.

[slothsama]

I and a few other members in the Swedish pirate party have discussed this proposal and we see several issues with it.

First off, we strongly object to “we advocate for an expansion of asylum grounds and reject any hierarchization of reasons for flight”, as the “hierarchization” of reasons for flight is fundamental to the right to asylum. The situation for people who’ve fallen victim to targeted persecution and oppression is not at all comparable to the situation for other displaced persons. We should of course provide possibilities for people to flee war, natural disasters, poverty, and hunger, but these are not legitimate grounds for asylum. The ability to seek asylum in a state in which you do not have citizenship is intended for people whose own government has turned against them. As unfortunate as it is, the reality is that all countries have a limited capacity to shelter the citizens of other states, and prioritising who to help is therefore necessary. That said, it’s important that prioritising is done purely on the basis of the severity of the threat they’re fleeing and the chance of survival if the European Union doesn’t intervene.

Regarding “we must take measures to ensure the safe crossing of borders by fleeing people, especially on the seas before Europe, to give them the opportunity to apply for asylum. We demand the creation of a European-funded maritime rescue of Shipwrecked Persons”:

This is not the goal we should be advocating for. By focusing on ensuring the safety of people fleeing across the mediterranean sea, we are legitimising a system in which people are required to make these dangerous trips in the first place. As soon as an asylum seeker begins to cross the sea, we’ve already failed to ensure their safety. We must therefore focus on ensuring that applications for asylum can be done from any location on the planet, so that refugees can be transported to the host country in humane and safe ways.

Regarding “We also reject the third-country rule and its specification in the ‘Dublin II’ regulation, as they push centrally located states away from their responsibility towards those seeking protection. We believe that every person should have the right to choose their place of residence freely and to apply for asylum in the country of their choice”:

The principle of asylum being sought in the first secure country is vital to combat the phenomena known as, for the lack of a better term, “asylum shopping”. This phenomena is detrimental to countries such as Sweden who have a (in our case false) reputation of being welcoming to asylum seekers, as this leads to the overwhelming of the system. We believe a much better system would be for a mutual processing of asylum applications, where each application is done not to a member state but to the EU itself. Those whose applications are accepted would then be distributed to member states based on an assessment of their needs, wishes and prospects for integration. This would be much more humane for the individual, as they wouldn’t risk falling victim to arbitrary requirements and attitudes of individual countries.

Other things that we want to point out are the wording of two things. Firstly, the statement that “We also oppose the detention of asylum seekers”. While there is nothing wrong with the intention itself – that asylum seekers should not be detained solely only on the basis of them seeking asylum –, this can easily be read as “asylum seekers should be immune to detention”. While common sense makes it clear that this is not what is intended, we should keep in mind that not everyone who reads this document will be capable of common sense. We should therefore consider rewording this.

Lastly, the way the proposal is worded is very politically charged and risks creating unnecessary polarisation. In particular I would advise not to use the word “social justice” as that carries a lot of connotations that won’t be in our favour.

[zbynek]

Dear all,

I have completed our section on migration. Please see the proposal with comments, including some question marks, in the shared document here: Asylum.docx

Based on our discussion during the meeting, I drafted more encompassing introduction followed by sections on immigration and asylum. I emphasized international cooperation regarding immigration and forced migration as a way forward.

The main concern of Swedish PP was that the proposal of German PP on asylum was politically charged and could create unwanted polarization. I softened the language, avoided the strong moral appeal but tried to keep its human ethos. I hope I didn’t miss anything important for PPGE.
I picked up some suggestions from PPSE’s response and added them as bullet points – but they are followed by question marks.

The Swedish PP also argued that there should be limits, whereas German PP is for expanding the eligibility for granting asylum. In my and many others’ view, the argument of "too many“ serves as a tool for legitimization for exclusion of those who do not belong to our civilizational circle – this showed us war in Syria and confirmed the war in Ukraine.

Even though naive, my suggestion here would be demanding a reform of asylum system based on public debate across the whole Europe, ideally followed by a referendum as a part of our effort to strengthen elements of direct democracy. I left this paragraph open with a question mark. The text will sound okay even without it. My opinion on this is that we need a thorough reform of approaching migration and asylum system that will reflect not only political interests but also values of contemporary Europeans.

I also included a paragraph on human smuggling and trafficking in the introduction. It touches upon the issue of Frontex, rescue on sea, criminalization of humanitarian aid as undermining the principle of Legal certainty, and the Rule of Law in the EU. I want to ask you for your opinion on this as it hasn’t been discussed. However, it’s based on solid academic grounds. Sources and more comments are in the document.

Cheers.

[MarketaG]

Dear Zbyněk, you are absolutely amazing! Thank you very much for your proposal. I think it is very well put and respecting our discussion and points of view from PPSE and PPDE. I actually do not have personally further comments, and as the Strasbourg Meeting is to begin tomorrow, I will, as a coordinator of this chapter, include it right away, for people on the spot to discuss it. Hope it will be fruitful and we can build on it later.

[slothsama]

I want to clarify that expansion of the reasons for granting residence permit for people in need and the maintaining of the definition of refugee are not mutually exclusive. Our objection to the removal of the assessment of reasons for flight is due to the fact that in the event of limited capacity, the people who are in the most danger must be prioritised. Furthermore, if we don’t look at the reasons for flight, another method of prioritisation will take it’s place. The problem you mentioned with Ukraine and Syria would definitely increase.