Brussels, May 20 (EFE) .- The European Commission on Tuesday raised changes in the concept of “safe country” to facilitate the returns of irregular migrants, so that, for example, it is no longer necessary that there is a “connection” between the person who has no right to remain in the European Union and the country to which it is returned.
According to the Commission, the proposal is “consistent” with the “more effective immigration management” established in the migration and asylum pact.
In addition, “it supports the general objectives” of that pact and in particular that of making the processing of asylum applications in the EU more efficient and “finding solutions to cooperate and share the load with third countries.”
With the modifications of Brussels, the connection between the applicant and the third safe country will no longer be “mandatory, according to a statement from the community executive.
However, the Member States “may choose” to apply the concept of the third country safe when there is a connection, if so established in their national legislation.
In addition, Brussels states that traffic through a third safe country before reaching the EU can also be considered a sufficient link to apply the concept of the third safe country.
Another option, when there is no connection or transit for a safe country, will be that there is “an agreement or agreement with a third safe country”, which “will guarantee that the request for effective protection in the third safe country is examined, so that applicants can receive protection if justified.”
That possibility, Brussels said, will not apply to unaccompanied minors.
On the other hand, the proposal requires that the Member States inform the Commission and the other Member States before holding agreements or agreements with third safe countries, which will allow Brussels to “supervise that these agreements or agreements meet the conditions established in the EU legislation.”
Brussels recalled that, according to community legislation, third countries can be considered safe when they meet a series of conditions, such as protection against return, the absence of real risk of serious damage and threats to life and freedom for reasons of race, religion, nationality, belonging to a social group or political opinion, as well as the possibility of requesting and receiving effective protection.
After today’s proposal, the two collegislators (that is, the council -países ue- and the European Parliament) must reach an agreement for their adoption and entry into force.
The European Commissioner of Migration, Magnus Brunner, said in a statement that the EU countries “have been subject to significant migratory pressure during the last decade” and pointed out that the revised concept of the third safe country “is another tool to help member states to process asylum requests more efficiently, fully respecting the fundamental values and rights of the EU.”
The Eurodiputation of adding Galán Estrella said about the proposal that “it is a lethal blow to the right of asylum” because “it intends to legalize deportations to third countries where refugees have never been and where there are no links or guarantees of protection.” EFE
mb/asa/alf
EU Asylum Changes: A “Lethal Blow” or Necessary Reform? A Conversation with migration Expert, Dr. Anya Sharma
Keywords: EU Migration Policy,Safe Country Concept,Asylum Reform,Irregular Migrants,European Commission,Right to Asylum,migration Pact
Time.news: Dr. Sharma, thank you for joining us today. The European Commission recently proposed meaningful changes to the definition of a “safe country” regarding the return of irregular migrants. Can you briefly explain the core of this proposal for our readers?
Dr. Anya Sharma: Thank you for having me. Essentially, the European Commission is proposing a revised approach that broadens the scope of the “safe country” concept. Previously, a demonstrable “connection” between the asylum seeker and the designated safe country was often required.Now, that direct link is no longer strictly mandatory at the EU level.
Time.news: The article mentions that member states “may choose” to require a connection if their national legislation dictates. What practical implications does this versatility create?
Dr. Anya Sharma: This creates a potentially uneven playing field across the EU. Some member states may maintain stricter criteria, continuing to require a substantive connection, while others may adopt the broader interpretation, potentially leading to a higher volume of returns. This fragmentation could led to asylum shopping, where applicants seek to lodge their claim in countries perceived to have a more lenient approach.
Time.news: The proposal includes scenarios where a “connection” is implied, such as transit through a safe country or an agreement between the EU member state and a third country. Do you see any specific challenges related to either of thes?
dr.Anya Sharma: Transit is a particularly thorny issue. Simply passing through a country, frequently enough involuntarily or due to circumstances beyond a personS control, should not automatically qualify that country as “safe” for that individual. It doesn’t guarantee that the asylum seeker will be treated fairly or have access to effective protection mechanisms.
Regarding agreements with third countries, transparency and accountability are paramount. These agreements must be rigorously scrutinized to ensure they genuinely guarantee effective protection for returned individuals, aligning with EU human rights standards. without that oversight, they risk becoming tools for circumventing asylum obligations.
Time.news: The european Commissioner for Migration, Magnus Brunner, argues this change is necessary to process asylum requests more efficiently. Is this a fair assessment?
Dr.Anya Sharma: While efficiency is a legitimate concern, it shouldn’t come at the expense of basic rights. Streamlining processes cannot justify compromising the right to asylum. The potential for misjudgments and wrongful returns increases with a more relaxed “safe country” definition.
Time.news: Conversely, Galán Estrella, a Member of the European Parliament, describes the proposal as a “lethal blow to the right of asylum.” Is that hyperbole, or is there a genuine cause for concern?
Dr. Anya Sharma: I believe it reflects a genuine concern held by many human rights advocates.The core principle of asylum is providing refuge to those fleeing persecution. Loosening the connection requirement between the asylum seeker and the designated “safe country” opens the door to potentially returning individuals to places where their safety and well-being cannot be guaranteed. It raises serious questions about due process and the protection of vulnerable individuals.
Time.news: the article highlights that the proposal will not apply to unaccompanied minors. Why is this distinction important?
Dr. Anya Sharma: Unaccompanied minors are among the most vulnerable asylum seekers. They lack the support of family and may have experienced significant trauma. Returning them to a third country, especially one where they have no connection, poses an unacceptable risk to their well-being and development. This exclusion, while welcome, also raises questions about the coherence of the overall proposal. If the “safe country” concept is deemed unsuitable for unaccompanied minors, why not extend that consideration to other vulnerable groups?
Time.news: What advice would you give to individuals currently navigating the EU asylum system considering these proposed changes?
Dr.Anya Sharma: My advice would be to seek legal advice from qualified immigration lawyers and human rights organizations as soon as possible. These changes are complex, and it’s crucial to understand how they might affect your individual case. Document everything related to your journey and any potential risks you face in your country of origin and any transit countries. remain informed about the ongoing debate surrounding these proposals and advocate for your rights through appropriate channels.
time.news: Dr. Sharma, thank you for sharing your insights and expertise with us today.It’s a complex issue, and your outlook is invaluable.
Dr. Anya Sharma: My pleasure. Thank you for the opportunity.
