The New York Times - European Parliament and Migration: Two sides with a very blurry middle

The European Parliament paints a picture of concerns surrounding border security, somewhat removed from the intended topic of renewing the Dublin pact but nonetheless concerning the age-old topic of refugees and migrations.

The European Union has long been under pressure from migrants and refugees particularly in the countries bordering conflict zones and the European Parliament has come to the stage to debate on amendments to the existing refugee policy in place. The Dublin pact, already reviewed thrice to this day, is an agreement on which member states are responsible for processing the asylum claims of the asylum seekers crossing the European borders. Not unlike the debate about refugees and migration in the United States, Europe's parliamentarians are also divided on which direction to take any supplementary amendments in.

A constant back and forth is taking place in the parliament where, while party lines cannot be simply divided as left or right, it does seem to be clear that the two main lines are thought to be incompatible and voices on either side speaking but not being heard. Not to fear however, it seems clear that even though the two main lines may not be able to agree and accusations may have flown back and forth, there is a very blurry middle still undecided along which line they wish to align themselves, seeking compromise.

Talking to a brick wall?

While it is too simplistic to divide the European Parliament in simple lines such as left or right but nonetheless these are the parallel schools of thought creating the partition in the room. The European left parties keep addressing the need for humanitarian assistance and protection for refugees and migrants, while the right parties keep pointing out that relocation and the movement of migrants over the European continent is not a sustainable solution neither now nor in the future and that protecting the sovereignty of the European nations and citizens is the direction to go.

The blurry middle

"We want to prevent a bureaucratic monster", the European People's Party is one of the political groups finding themselves in this blurry middle between the lines. They have one primary goal and that is to reduce overall bureaucracy in the asylum process, either by reducing the number of applicants or streamlining the process and making it easier for people to seek asylum. The proof is in the pudding here where these middle parties have their own goals and it's yet to be clear which line will allow them to best achieve their goals. Similarly Renew Europe is trying to find a compromise, also in agreement with all that existing readmission agreements need to be re-evaluated and re-implemented.

The Renew Europe party in between sessions

The role of FRONTEX, the European Border Patrol

Overburdening border countries is clearly not a solution, that appears to be one of the few things that the European parliament is in agreement about, but what to do about it is naturally the burning question.

The representative of the ECR interviewed likened the existing border patrol to firefighters, and that they were seeking to transform them closer to policing style in a more protective manner, upholding the law and protecting the border. Their goal when introducing amendments into the Dublin pact is to focus on redefining the role of FRONTEX and that border patrol should be aimed to protect and serve the citizens of the European Union it protects

The question is naturally that if the ECR is so concerned about protecting people, namely EU citizens, what makes these refugees and migrants undeserving of their protection as well?

Reported by Tracy van der Biezen