A week of border concerns

I'm on a train to Strasbourg for this week's plenary session of the European Parliament, for what promises to be a week largely focused on borders and travel. The fact that my train via Luxembourg has been plagued with delays seems appropriate given the travel/border legislation which is coming up this week.

On Wednesday MEPs will vote on two legislative packages seeking to change the EU rules on asylum seekers and Schengen area of passport-free travel. Both of these pieces of legislation were put forward in the early days of the Arab Spring, when a sudden influx of refugees from North Africa cast doubt on the EU's existing rules.

Border states like Italy, Greece and Malta said the existing rules, in which member states can return asylum-seekers to the EU country they first entered, complained that the existing system was unfair. 

Among other things, the new rules will put in place a monitoring system for any sudden influx of migrants and allow a suspension of the rules.

Commission laments 'rising xenophobia' as Schengen unravels

The June summit of EU leaders has wrapped up here in Brussels – the blockades are being removed from the streets and the whirl of helicopters overheard is slowly starting to dissipate. As expected, the council voted to establish a "safeguard mechanism" in the Schengen passport-free travel zone that would allow member states to reintroduce internal EU border controls in exceptional circumstances.

The final text adopted today says the border checks should only be reintroduced "as a very last resort" in a "truly critical situation where a member state is no longer able to comply with its obligations under the Schengen rules as concerns the prevention of illegal immigration of third country nationals."

Such a mechanism was demanded by Italy and France earlier this year when the two got into a row over illegal immigration happening as a result of the Arab spring. France accused Italy of deliberately sending Tunisian migrants to France and issuing them bogus identity cards because they wanted to get them out of Italy as soon as possible. France said it should be allowed to set up border controls with neighboring countries who are failing in their duties to protect the EU external border. But existing rules forbid member states from imposing border controls at internal EU borders. Italian PM Silvio Berlusconi wholeheartedly agreed, as if to say "Yes, we're completely incompetent. Please allow France to set up protections against us."

'Sanctuary' and 'asylum' across the pond

This story in today's Daily Mirror amused me because it reminded me of the ridiculous nature of semantics and word associations. Here in the UK the term "asylum seekers" has become practically an epithet, almost a catch-all for meaning 'illegal immigration'. Much of middle England has taken to using the term as shorthand for people who abuse the system to get residency in Britain, take advantage of social services and steal jobs from hard-working Brits.

Technically, an asylum seeker is someone who shows up at the UK border seeking asylum under existing laws because they are in danger in their home country due to war or other violence. That asylum is either granted, immediately turned down, or they are kept in holding facilities in the UK awaiting a decision.

Because the term has taken on such a negative meaning, a report out today is arguing that the term should be changed to ‘sanctuary cities.’ The report showed that only 28 percent of Brits say the word asylum has a positive connotation for them, whereas 81 percent said ‘sanctuary’ sounded positive.