Dreaming of Europe: Work refugees and the migration crisis

On 28 May 2024, SEESOX, and the European Studies Centre (ESC) hosted Randall Hansen, Canada Research Chair in the Department of Political Science and, Director of the Global Migration Lab at the University of Toronto’s Munk School, to discuss his upcoming book Dreaming of Europe: Refugees and the Old Continent. Joining the panel to discuss Professor Hansen’s recent work was Catherine Briddick, Andrew W Mellon Associate Professor of International Human Rights and Refugee Law, and a Fellow of St Antony's College. Othon Anastasakis, ESC Director, chaired the seminar.

Through this research project, Hansen sought to understand the migration crisis from the perspective of the refugees themselves. He had undertaken ethnographic research in multiple sites in Europe and Africa, and started his presentation by illustrating the issue at hand through three vignettes. Each of them told the painful story of the arduous and precarious journeys of refugees from Mali, Cameroon, and Nigeria respectively.

He then framed the narrative of the migration crisis and his latest research on the rise of far-right politics in Europe. He argued that because most people in Europe believe the European Union is bad for migration, it is important to ‘get it right’ – that is, it is important to dispel the migration myths and strive to clearly understand the migration problem and implement effective policies to address it.

Hansen first underscored that Europe and the rich countries of the Global North are not hosting the bulk of the world refugee population; 75 percent of the refugees are in the Global South. The EU, according to him, is doing a bit more than the other rich countries, but not much more. This lack of burden-sharing is particularly important since Hansen considered that the West – and Russia – bear the greatest responsibility for the wars that have forced people to become refugees.After outlining the context, Hansen discussed the migration situation in Europe and EU migration policy. He argued that most migration flows within Europe are due to movements of Europeans within the European space itself. For example, 70 percent of migrants in Germany are Europeans. The recognition rate for asylum seekers in EU countries varies greatly based on the country origin. But despite the variations and the rather low number of refugees and asylum seekers who come to EU countries (1.1 million asylum applications during 2023), Hansen argued that the focus has been on the 157,641 migrants (during 2023) who have arrived by boat. He further posited that if we compare the official policies and public reaction to these migrants to those from Ukraine – although the two groups are not perfectly comparable – racism and the lack of political leadership to influence public opinion are important influencing factors.

To be able to get out of this crisis, Hansen argued that we need to accept it. According to him, immigration in Europe has been essential to maintain the quality of life of Europeans through cheap labour particularly as wages have stagnated since the 1973 OPEC crisis. To address the migration crisis, Hansen proposed a series of policy measures to tackle supply and demand. Specifically, he proposed to increase work permits and temporary migration in agriculture, regularise informal migrants and improve conditions for low-skilled work, stop launching wars and invest in education and work with West African partners to expand economic opportunities, and explore resettlement schemes that can be modelled on the Canadian experience. Hansen concluded by positing that we need a fundamental transformation of the narrative at the EU level, because otherwise none of the measures outlined above will not work.

Commenting on the key points of Hansen’s arguments, Briddick agreed with the general framing of the research and with what was at stake both politically and in terms of European fundamental rights and values, but she saw the political and legal responses of European governments as fundamental challenges to the rule of law. She argued that the UK Government’s decision to draft a bill legislating that Rwanda was a safe country, after the UK Supreme Court ruled it did not considered it as such, is a fundamental departure from previous legislative practice in the UK and undercuts the rule of law. She further noted that the UK recognition rate of asylum claims is 75 percent, which further puts into dubious grounds the UK Government’s Rwanda scheme.

Briddick further argued that argued that the Frontex – the EU Border and Coast Guard Agency – operates in a legal lacunae. Because Frontex works closely with border authorities of Member States, it is unclear where institutional accountability lies when Frontex agents engage in violations human rights. She further argued that Frontex actions are not subjected to legal processes because there are not sufficient mechanisms to hold officials accountable.

Briddick agreed with Hansen that the migration crisis is constructed and politically instrumentalised, and, according to her, the EU directive on temporary protection for Ukrainian refugees is a case in point. However, she challenged Hansen’s approach that advocated for welcoming more refugees because they are good for the economy. She further noted that although Hansen’s epistemological approach had been to understand the migration crisis from the perspective of refugees, the presentation of his policy prescriptions did not clearly indicate whether the opinions and perceptions of refugees had been taken into account.

Following Hansen’s presentation and Briddick’s comments, the discussion during the question and answers session focused on the Rwanda scheme, UK and EU asylum policy, legal categorisation of migrants and its implication on policy, and the impact of climate change on migration.

By Alban Dafa (ESC Research Assistant)