EU asylum laws must change
Common asylum policy among the EU’s member states began with the Dublin Convention in 1990, followed by the Dublin Regulation in 2003. The main purpose of both is to determine the country responsible for examining applications from people seeking asylum in the European Union.
The so-called Dublin II Regulation was designed to guarantee asylum seekers access to the asylum procedure and to ensure that their application will be examined by at least one EU member state, without their being transferred from country-to-country in an endless loop as countries deny responsibility, as has happened in the past.
So why is this law not really a benefit to asylum seekers, and why does it need to be changed? There is more than one reason.
According to the Dublin Convention, an asylum seeker does not have a choice in which EU country will be responsible for examining their application, because it will automatically be the first member state they enter. So if someone wishes to claim asylum in Ireland, but arrives in the UK first, they will be returned to Britain without question.
Such ‘Dublin transfers’ are another reason why the law must be changed. It is not unusual for families to be separated by these forced transfers – and it can happen that those being transferred are not able to access the asylum procedure, putting them at risk of being returned to their home countries. By the letter of the law this is not supposed to happen: the non-refoulement principle forbids the rendering of a victim of persecution to their persecutor. But there is no guarantee of that in practice.
According to the UNHCR the current system fails in providing fair, efficient and effective protection to asylum seekers. Even the EU Commissioner for Human Rights, an independent and impartial institution within the Council of Europe, criticised the Dublin Regulation as undermining refugees’ and asylum seekers’ rights. It is not difficult to understand why. It seems that European legislation on asylum focuses more on how to prevent irregular migration rather than understanding why these people migrate and try to guarantee their rights.
Furthermore, everyone should remember that asylum seekers are not common immigrants: they suffered persecution in their home countries for reasons of race, religion, nationality or political opinion. The majority come from places such as Afghanistan or Eritrea where poverty and war are widespread; their background is totally different from that of the average economic migrant has. And that’s not to mention that many asylum seekers suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) or other forms of depression. What they really need is psychological assistance, followed by concrete help.
Bearing that in mind, it is not that difficult to understand why European legislation in this area should be more human-friendly and focus on people and their tragedies, instead of caring exclusively about numbers and bureaucracy.
Speaking of bureaucracy, it’s also clear that the Dublin II Regulation puts enormous pressure on the EU’s border states that are invariably the points of entry for asylum seekers, while internal states get to shrug off their fair share of the responsibility for providing support and protection to some of the world’s most vulnerable people.
All of this supports the argument that Europe’s asylum regulations need to be changed, or at the very least reviewed, in order to better respect the rights of asylum seekers.
Noemi Lavorato is an intern with Metro Éireann.
