Frontiers and fortresses

The general outlines of the three measures aimed at reinforcing the controls on European frontiers were presented on 13 February 2008: first, the realization of a database for the entry and exit of non-EU visitors; second, the creation of a frontier surveillance system called Eurosur to identify those who enter the Union illegally (for instance, aboard the ill-fated boats from North Africa that cost the lives of so many people); and third, the use of European funds for better coordination within the current European agency for the control of the external frontiers (Frontex). This database is the “most ambitious” idea: it will permit surveillance of all emigrants from third countries who enter the European Union. Those who need an entrance visa for the Schengen zone will have to furnish their own biometric data together with their visa application, and the database will automatically inform the authorities if the deadline of their visa has expired.The need to prevent the trafficking of human beings and the operation of paedophile networks and other forms of organized crime, such as drug trafficking, was also recalled: who could fail to agree? It may further be noted that we are speaking of enormous numbers, because some eight million immigrants are thought to be in an irregular position; the majority of them entered the European Union legally, but then stayed on there after the expiry of their visa. In this category of illegal immigrants, approximately half a million are arrested throughout the EU each year. So the scale of the political challenge that this phenomenon represents is awesome.But in proposing this type of system (linked with the concept of “surveillance”) to dissuade immigrants, it is a matter of extreme importance that the EU should also demonstrate its commitment to respecting the rights of immigrants, in particular those of refugees and asylum seekers. The need to crack down on a small minority of hardened criminals seems to have established the tone of measures that will have a punitive impact on millions of people. One NGO has emphasized this contrast as follows: “Now that the frontiers of Europe are more secure and better protected, the victims of persecution throughout the world will have ever greater difficulty in finding a refuge in which they can feel safe”. These proposals also fail to recognize that the number of refugees and immigrants in irregular situations is far higher in countries such as Iran (for those coming from Afghanistan) or Chad (for those coming from Sudan), which are infinitely less able to respond to their needs than can the European Union. We should also recall that some three million refugees from Palestine and Iraq are living in Jordan, a country with six million inhabitants.Lastly, the EU should recognize that restrictive immigration policies themselves contribute to illegal emigration, since they deprive immigrants of any hope of entry through the official channels. It is true that in 2007 the European Union proposed a system of “blue cards” to facilitate the entry into Europe of highly qualified immigrants. But this system is manifestly inadequate to respond to the real economic needs of the Union in the context of the ageing of the population and its low birth rate. The countries of the southern hemisphere, on the other hand, are deeply concerned by any such proposal, since it could lead to the loss of qualified personnel of vital importance for their own growth and development. Forced emigration (whether as a consequence of violence, or as a cause of poverty) is generally a desperate measure and not a choice of life. If more elaborate European policies are aimed at excluding immigrants from the developing countries, with the exception of those for whom there is greater need in their own countries, affirmations of solidarity are unlikely to be convincing.