1. Home
  2. Europe

How Europe can escape the migration deterrence trap

“A single-minded focus on ever harsher deterrence fails because border walls and fences do not stop people from moving for long.”

A stylised image of Friedrich Merz, chancellor candidate and leader of the Christian Democrats (CDU), makes a speech during the congress of the Christian Democratic Party (CDU) in Germany. Halil Sagirkaya/Anadolu
Friedrich Merz, leader of Germany's conservative Christian Democratic Party, was accused of breaking a fundamental taboo of Germany politics on 29 January by relying on support from the far-right to pass a hardline migration resolution.

Related stories

European leaders seem to have lost interest in any hint of taking a rational approach to migration policy. As a result, Europe is squandering the possibility of dealing with irregular migration in a safer, more orderly, and more humane way, and is instead simply aiming to increase border security, hold up refugees and asylum seekers in transit, and rapidly deport those not eligible for protection. 

Last summer saw a surge of far-right parties in elections to the European Parliament, France’s National Assembly, and German regional parliaments (and anti-immigration riots in the UK). Then, in November, Donald Trump was re-elected as US president, running on a virulently anti-migrant, asylum seeker, and refugee agenda, which he is now rapidly enacting. 

Europe’s centrist politicians have grown conspicuously quiet about creating legal pathways for refugees and asylum seekers to reach the continent, or implementing evidenced-based policies to manage migration in ways that could produce better results for both people on the move and the countries they are aiming to reach. 

Instead, in word and deed, they are following right-wing populists like Hungary’s Victor Orban and Italy’s Giorgia Meloni, and are falling into the migration deterrence trap: By doubling down on the idea that irregular migration is best controlled by the preventive, physical force of the state, they are raising public expectations that they will not be able meet.

Deterrence can achieve short-term successes, but if employed alone, it always fails in the longer term. This usually leads to calls for more and harsher measures – and new waves of support for the far-right, for whom they never go far enough. 

Propagating a false idea

A single-minded focus on ever harsher deterrence fails because border walls and fences do not stop people from moving for long, they simply divert them to other routes. Yes, last year there was a drop in irregular border crossings that coincided with the EU’s intensification of deterrence policies. But the factors that influence why and when people decide to move are complex, and one year-on-year comparison of numbers doesn’t ultimately tell us a lot.

Deterrence allows politicians of all stripes to propagate the false idea that the movement of people needs to and can be “fixed”. 

History has shown that, over time, drivers of migration are stronger than borders. People are pulled into the difficult decision to migrate by labour demand elsewhere, and are pushed by wars and persecution at home. Deterrence allows politicians of all stripes to propagate the false idea that the movement of people needs to and can be “fixed”. 

Meanwhile, as deterrence measures intensify, Europe increasingly erodes its ethical norms. The Mixed Migration Centre has, since 2019, documented the normalisation of ever more extreme measures near or at EU borders: detaining migrants in degrading condition; deporting them with no regard for their human rights; and violently pushing them back at borders or at sea.

Migration deterrence narratives also inflate the problem of irregular migration. It is true that 385,445 people (many of whom were seeking asylum) entered the EU irregularly in 2023, the most since 2017. But it is hard to see how such numbers can threaten a region with 450 million inhabitants – one that allowed 3,741,015 non-EU nationals to settle legally that same year. “The reality is that irregular entries account for a small fraction of migration in the EU,” as even the European Commission likes to point out.

Moreover, Europe’s economy is increasingly reliant on migrants as its population ages. Put into this context, Europe’s purported “migration crisis” begins to look very different. 

Italy in 2021 offered 42,000 permits for non-EU migrants to work in tourism and agriculture, while an estimated 230,000 undocumented migrants work in the latter sector alone. Currently, the European Labour Authority says there are 2,792,212 job vacancies across the EU, and the European Commission says the bloc needs one million migrants per year for its workforce. 

A more constructive approach

Rather than measuring the success of migration policy based on Europe’s ability to reduce the number of irregular border crossings, politicians should more constructively acknowledge the continent’s demand for foreign labor (legal or illegal) and the impossibility of stopping migration driven by conflict (and, increasingly, also climate change). 

They need to shift from deterring migration with all the tools of the state, to managing migration with more flexible instruments and by enlisting the help of organisations beyond traditional bureaucracies – civil society groups, cities, employers, and migrants and refugees themselves. 

One important step is to create more legal pathways for asylum seekers and migrants to reach the EU. The bloc has already set up a framework for doing this in the form of the Union Resettlement Framework (URF).

The URF was adopted last year as part of the New Pact on Migration and Asylum. Some 22 non-governmental organisations from all over Europe called it “a glimmer of hope” in a slew of other measures that would make it harder for vulnerable people to find protection in the EU.

Only focusing on restrictive measures that fail to work in the long-run and are never enough for Europe’s far-right will only further erode the political centre.

EU leaders could start by ramping up commitments to resettle refugees as part of the URF – member states pledged to admit 61,000 refugees and people in need of international protection in 2024 and 2025, only slightly more than before and a tiny fraction compared to the scale of needs globally.

One way of increasing resettlement numbers could be through community sponsorship. Another option is allowing refugees to seek employment in Europe like other migrants. The majority of the world’s refugees are in the countries that first gave them asylum where their right to work is often curtailed and they don’t have the opportunity to join programmes seeking skilled migration. Since 2015, many pilot programmes have sprung up across Europe to improve refugees’ access to European labor markets. These initiatives are ripe to be scaled up. 

One of the most interesting approaches to migration management is creating more options for people while they are on the move. In the US, the Biden administration in 2023 set up Safe Mobility Offices (SMO) in countries in Central and South America. Their aim is to provide access for refugees and vulnerable migrants to pathways like resettlement, work visas, family reunification, and sponsorship by relatives or friends already in the US for humanitarian admissions. 

While the SMOs track record has been mixed, 266,570 people did apply for help in the four SMOs established in Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, and Guatemala before they were shut down by Trump when he took office last month. 

These are just some approaches that deserve more consideration. But one thing is clear: Only focusing on restrictive measures that fail to work in the long-run and are never enough for Europe’s far-right will only further erode the political centre. It’s high time Europe’s moderate political forces learn this lesson and escape the deterrence trap by forcefully articulating an alternative. Otherwise, they’ll be stuck playing a losing game – both for themselves and for the migrants and asylum seekers who suffer the consequences of harsh policies. 

Note: The Robert Bosch Foundation is a donor to The New Humanitarian. This relationship did not influence editorial decisions regarding this article.

Share this article

Our ability to deliver compelling, field-based reporting on humanitarian crises rests on a few key principles: deep expertise, an unwavering commitment to amplifying affected voices, and a belief in the power of independent journalism to drive real change.

We need your help to sustain and expand our work. Your donation will support our unique approach to journalism, helping fund everything from field-based investigations to the innovative storytelling that ensures marginalised voices are heard.

Please consider joining our membership programme. Together, we can continue to make a meaningful impact on how the world responds to crises.

Become a member of The New Humanitarian

Support our journalism and become more involved in our community. Help us deliver informative, accessible, independent journalism that you can trust and provides accountability to the millions of people affected by crises worldwide.

Join