On July 2, 2023, a Georgian-language Facebook user published a post, claiming that in case of joining the European Union, Georgia would have to receive millions of migrants. According to the author of the post, the economy of Georgia is not ready to receive “countless number of migrants,” which will pose a threat to the country. The post creates the impression that EU integration entails the demand for Georgia to receive millions of migrants.
The claim that joining the European Union makes Georgia responsible for receiving migrants is manipulative, while the information about the obligation to receive millions of migrants is false. At present, participation in asylum-seeker relocation programs is voluntary, and the EU does not oblige any of its member states to accept migrants.
Does the EU force its member states to accept migrants?
There is a common asylum seeker system in the EU, based on the Dublin Regulation, which defines who is responsible for examining an asylum seeker’s application. According to the agreement, the first European country where refugees arrive must consider their application for asylum and ensure that they enjoy the corresponding rights.
With the increase in the flow of migrants in the wake of the Syrian conflict, this approach based on individual responsibility has created particular difficulties and created the need for a coordinated resettlement of migrants. In 2015, the European Union approved a temporary relocation scheme that required EU member states to accept asylum seekers from Italy and Greece for a period of 2 years. The pre-agreed quota was the highest in the case of Germany and did not exceed 27,536 migrants. When setting the quotas, the European Commission was guided by four criteria:
- Population (40%)
- Gross domestic product (40%)
- The ratio of the number of asylum seekers’ applications received in 2010-2014 to the number of migrants received per one million inhabitants (10%)
- Unemployment rate (10%)
Many states did not agree with the number proposed by the European Commission and determined the number of migrants they could accept. Finally, by June 2017, only five countries, and by the end of the program, only eight countries, had managed to meet 50% of their quota, and among them, Malta was the only country that was able to successfully meet its obligations.
Source: International Center for Migration Policy Development, June 2017 data
The temporary relocation scheme proved particularly unacceptable to several states. Due to the refusal to participate in the process, on June 15, 2017, the European Commission was forced to start legal procedures against the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland. Despite the fact that other member states could not successfully fulfill the pre-imposed obligation to move, in the case of the Czech Republic, Poland, and Hungary, the problem was the partial refusal of participation. As for the number of quotas, the quota determined by the European Commission in the case of the Czech Republic was 2,691, in the case of Hungary 1,294, and in the case of Poland 6,182 migrants. At the end of the two-year program, Poland and Hungary received none, and the Czech Republic only 12 asylum seekers.
The Court of Justice of the European Union issued a decision on the lawsuit of the European Commission on April 2, 2020, and found that all three countries violated the EU legislation by not fulfilling their obligations. The court found the argument of Poland and Hungary that the acceptance of migrants would pose a threat to public order insufficient, and in response to the Czech argument on the ineffectiveness of the mechanism, the court said that the mechanism could be improved in the process of working on the state scheme and implementing it. As for the legal responsibility, all three states were ordered to reimburse the European Commission for the financial expenses incurred in the case.
After the end of the first rapid response program of the European Union in 2017, which once again confirmed the lack of a common position on this issue among the member states, all programs for the relocation of asylum seekers implemented with the involvement of the European Commission are of a voluntary nature, and the European Union does not oblige any of its member states to accept migrants. Participation in programs of relocation from the Central Mediterranean and Greece and in the Voluntary Solidarity Mechanism operating from 2022 depends on the state’s desire, and participation in none of the programs is mandatory for EU members.
The new model of asylum and migration management
Developing a common European strategy to deal with the migrant crisis is a critically important issue for the EU. On June 8, 2023, twenty-one EU member states reached an agreement on a modernized approach to the regulation of asylum procedures and migration management. If the negotiation procedures in the European Commission and the European Parliament are successfully passed, the new asylum and migration management regulation (AMMR) will replace the currently valid Dublin Regulation.
The main goal of the alternative approach is to create a fair migration system, which, using the mechanism of solidarity, will promote the distribution of responsibility among the member states. The new model defines the mechanism of movement of asylum seekers from their original host country to other EU member states based on several important principles:
- In total, 30,000 migrants will move from the host country to other countries every year across the EU.
- No state shall be obliged to accept migrants against its will.
- Instead, the system allows Member States to choose the form of solidarity that is acceptable to them – a financial contribution of up to €20,000 per move and other alternative forms of assistance (eg deployment of personnel, assistance with the necessary technical equipment or capacity-building measures).
- If the annual number of relocations is less than 60% of the number predetermined by the Council or the minimum limit (30,000) approved by the regulation, the new model imposes secondary solidarity responsibility on the states. Under this mechanism, the resettlement state will be responsible for processing asylum applications itself instead of the host country of asylum seekers.
The article has been written in the framework of Facebook’s fact-checking program. You can read more about the restrictions that Facebook may impose based on this article via this link. You can find information about appealing or editing our assessment via this link.
Read detailed instructions for editing the article.
Read detailed appeal instructions.
