Across the political spectrum, leaders are pushing a harder line on people lacking permanent legal status
Its leader, Giorgia Meloni, is the country's prime minister. And Procaccini is a chair of the European Conservatives and Reformists group, a big force in the European Parliament.
Across the political spectrum in Europe, leaders, right and left, are pushing a tougher line on migrants lacking permanent legal status.
The shift has not set off the same turmoil that President Donald Trump's immigration crackdown has stirred in the United States, but it is already being seen as entrenched and profound.
In nations across the European Union, centrists are joining staunch conservatives to roll back protections in an effort to make it easier to deport migrants lacking permanent legal status.
Denmark's 'zero' refugee policy has become a model other leaders want to replicate.
EU officials are working on new rules that would help to send asylum-seekers to third countries.
The bloc struck a recent deal to deploy agents in Bosnia and Herzegovina, which is not an EU member, to better police borders.
Some of those ideas have previously met with criticism from EU officials.
'There is now this really broad consensus among almost all political camps,' said Martin Hofmann, an adviser at the International Centre for Migration Policy Development. 'We will be tougher, we will be stricter.'
The shift has steadily built with the voter backlash that helped fuel nationalist, far-right and populist parties after Europe took in more than a million Syrians, Iraqis, Afghans, and others seeking asylum a decade ago.
Migration picked up again, though less drastically, just after the peak of the coronavirus pandemic. Since then, the number of migrants arriving has fallen.
They declined about 20% in the first five months of 2025, after a sharp decline last year, according to preliminary data collected by Frontex, the EU's border agency. At the same time, expulsions have slowly increased.
Migration along some routes remains significant. Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the bloc's executive arm, emphasised in a recent letter to political leaders that arrivals from Libya into Greece are surging, and said that Europe must 'insist on strengthening border management'.
Hofmann said that because anti-immigrant sentiments are often a proxy for wider frustration with a perceived lack of opportunities, high costs of living and a loss of social status, a drop in migrant arrivals alone was unlikely to blunt the issue's potency.
In his view, policies that seem to be working to stem immigration are likely to retain their appeal and continue to gain momentum. That includes offshoring asylum requests, which the European Commission is exploring.
Not long ago, when the British Government proposed sending asylum-seekers to Rwanda, the Council of Europe's commissioner for human rights said the plan was another representation 'of an ongoing trend towards externalisation of asylum and migration policy in Europe', which he said was 'a matter of concern for the global system of protection of the rights of refugees'.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. Photo / Getty Images
Now, the policy of offshoring asylum requests has become a signature of Meloni, who has tried to hold asylum-seekers in Albania while their cases are processed.
Though Italian judges have blocked her effort for now, von der Leyen called it 'an example of out-of-the-box thinking'.
Now the EU is seeking to redirect applicants to third countries while it works to streamline the deportation process for asylum-seekers whose applications have been rejected.
The depth of the change was on full display last month when Mette Frederiksen, the Social Democratic, left-leaning Danish prime minister, stood alongside the staunchly conservative Meloni in Rome to support tougher migration rules.
Frederiksen, whose country has relatively few asylum requests, has for several years overseen one of Europe's most restrictive policies. Others are now seeking to adopt a similar approach.
Chancellor Friedrich Merz of Germany, the centre-right leader of Europe's largest economy, this month called Denmark a 'role model' on migration policy.
Meloni and Frederiksen presented an open letter in which they argued that the European Convention on Human Rights — the 75-year-old cornerstone for the protection of human rights in Europe — 'posed too many limitations on the states' ability to decide whom to expel from their territories'.
It was also signed by leaders from Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland.
Meloni said at a news conference that the fact that the signatories belonged to different 'political families' showed 'how the topic is of great interest across different sensitivities'.
The underpinnings of the convention have already eroded with the shift on migration.
Deals with countries like Libya and Tunisia have helped slow the influx of migrants, said Camille Le Coz, the director of Migration Policy Institute Europe.
But they have done so 'at a huge human rights cost,' she said, such as when, in 2023, the Tunisian authorities dumped African migrants in a desert.
Germany has now instituted checks on its land borders, a step that opponents, including some of its neighbours, have criticised as undermining the commitment of EU members to free movement within the bloc.
European countries have taken in Ukrainian people since the Russian invasion, and waves of refugees from previous wars in Syria and Iraq. Photo / Tyler Hicks, the New York Times
The Polish Government suspended asylum rights as migrants have massed at the border with Belarus, which is outside the European Union.
Poland argued that Russian and Belarusian officials were deliberately encouraging migration in a bid to destabilise Europe.
Some worry that the shift in tone around migration could harm newcomers who remain in Europe.
In recent Polish presidential elections, the nationalist candidate won by running in part on a 'Poland first, Poles first' tagline.
Magdalena Czarzynska-Jachim, the Mayor of Sopot, Poland, a town on the Baltic seashore, said Sopot had long welcomed Ukrainian workers and, more recently, families who had fled the war in Ukraine. Ukraine is not an EU member.
She agrees that borders must be protected, but she also worries that recent messaging risks going too far, broadly characterising immigrants as criminals. 'Legal migrants are our neighbours,' she said. 'They are not bandits.'
The shift in tone is striking even to those who have long been proponents of tougher measures.
A decade ago, when Australia barred migrants trying to enter the country by sea from resettlement and sent asylum-seekers to Papua New Guinea, rights groups said the policy provoked human rights violations.
The European Union was also critical, said Alexander Downer, an Australian former foreign minister.
'They used to give me lectures all the time about how naughty we were,' Downer said. 'Von der Leyen has embraced it now.'
This article originally appeared in The New York Times.
Written by: Emma Bubola and Jeanna Smialek
©2025 THE NEW YORK TIMES
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
an hour ago
- Scoop
Higher Tariffs, Higher Cost Of Living For Kiwis
Confirmation today that New Zealand exports to the US will be subject to a 15 percent tariff is a slap in the face for our exporters and could mean higher prices here at home. 'This is a major fail for the Government and for our relationship with the US. Christopher Luxon has failed to secure a low tariff rate for our exports, while others around the world such as the EU and UK have managed to make deals. Unbelievably, the tariff has actually gone up from 10 to 15 percent on his watch,' Labour trade spokesperson Damien O'Connor said. 'Under Luxon, the cost of living is already increasing, making life harder. He promised his business background would help fix things, but it's getting worse. Under this government, this economic uncertainty will only cause more instability and further stifle our economic growth. 'Businesses will have to decide whether to pass the costs on to American customers, or weather those themselves. They may have to explore new markets. None of these options are good for business confidence here at home. 'This is our second-largest market and exporters such as the meat sector will be grappling with the implications of this. This is an additional barrier to competitive access to a hugely valuable market. 'The ripple effects of tariffs imposed by the US on our trading partners will also hit us. 'Christopher Luxon needs to work harder for New Zealand's interests overseas and remind the US that we have low tariffs on their goods and services being imported here,' Damien O'Connor said.
NZ Herald
a day ago
- NZ Herald
Countries are making promises to Trump, while leaving the difficult to achieve detail for later
'This is new, and generally that's because in trade agreements you want things that are clear and enforceable,' said David Goldwyn, a former US diplomat and Energy Department official. 'These energy commitments are neither clear nor necessarily enforceable. They're more aspirational, political encouragements.' The European Union, for example, committed to purchase US$750 billion in US energy products — including crude oil, natural gas and other petroleum derivatives — over three years. On an annual basis, that would amount to more than three times the amount the bloc bought last year from the US. The EU has been buying more American gas since Russia, previously a big supplier, attacked Ukraine in 2022, and there is appetite to buy more. But purchasing US$250b a year would require the bloc to use the US as essentially its only supplier. 'They would have to not buy from anybody else, and that would just be an enormous amount of dependency on one country, whether it's us or anybody else,' said Jason Feer, an analyst at the energy and ship brokerage Poten and Partners. 'And the whole premise of modern energy systems, energy supply, is you always want some diversity.' Conversely, US$250b is around 80% of the total amount that the US exported to the entire world in 2025, according to a ClearView Energy Partners analysis of federal data. Plants are coming online that will double the country's natural gas export capacity by 2030, and stocks in export companies like Cheniere and Venture Global climbed after the deal was announced. In the near term, sending significantly more to the EU may mean sending less to customers elsewhere in the world. Even if these quantities made economic sense, the EU cannot compel private companies in its member countries to buy so much. And the US Government doesn't have the power to tell its oil and gas companies where to sell. The challenge of holding a government to a purchase commitment made in a trade deal became apparent in Trump's first term. He persuaded China, an economy tightly steered by the Government, to agree to buy certain amounts of energy and agricultural goods. Most of those targets were not met, and there were no consequences. Typical trade pacts have protocols that allow either side to enforce pledges like commitments to buy energy; they usually even lay out remedies for violations. None of those exist in Trump's agreements. When asked how the US would react if the EU didn't meet its energy purchase target after three years, a White House official said that the response would be higher tariffs. It is not yet clear what the trade agreement with the US will mean for the EU's ability to meet its climate targets. A 2021 law requires member nations to reduce net greenhouse gas emissions 55% below 1990 levels by 2030. In the short term, more gas could help with that by supplanting coal. Purchasing too much gas could end up squeezing out clean power sources such as wind and solar. Before the trade deal, the continent's overall gas demand was expected to decline in the coming years. 'It is possible that it would displace some deployment of renewables,' said Joseph Majkut, director of the energy security and climate change programme at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies. 'But the reality is that the EU has very firm climate commitments enshrined in law.' The parties could, potentially, hit US$750b with tricky accounting. The EU members could purchase tankers full of oil or gas but not use it all and instead resell it to other buyers around the world. They could also make long-term purchase commitments that look like very large numbers when they're announced, but in practice are realised over, say, 20 years. 'To do that involves using something we respectfully call political maths,' said Kevin Book, managing director of ClearView Energy Partners. 'Some of the best tools of diplomacy involve ambiguity.' So far, the EU's energy purchase commitment is as specific as Trump's trade deals have got. The framework for Japan, for example, is much more vague. That leaves even more room for interpretation. A White House fact sheet on the Japan deal trumpets a 'major expansion' of US energy exports, and says the US$550b in US investment that Japan pledged would be partly focused on 'energy infrastructure and production'. That is probably a reference to the proposed US$44b infrastructure project that would bring gas from the North Slope of Alaska to an export terminal. From there, it could be shipped to Asia. Right now, however, there are cheaper sources available on America's gulf coast that are connected to gas fields with many years of supply left. It's also not clear how much value there is in signing multidecade purchase agreements when Japan has also committed to reducing its consumption of fossil fuels. The same logic applies for South Korea. It began to buy natural gas from the US in 2017, when the country was trying to phase out nuclear energy. Signing long-term agreements didn't work out as well as hoped: An explosion at a gas terminal in Texas in 2022 interrupted supply, leaving less gas available to buy and raising prices sharply. That's why Michelle Kim, an energy specialist at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, argues that buying gas as needed, rather than committing to a multiyear deal with US exporters, would give South Korea more flexibility as it managed declining demand for gas. 'It's not a good and wise decision to make another long-term contract,' Kim said. If the US presses ahead to drastically increase its exports, there could also be ramifications for America's own energy market. As long as enough infrastructure exists to move it around, fuel generally flows to the highest bidder. With more gas going overseas and powering data centres for artificial intelligence, domestic prices are likely to rise, said Aneesh Prabhu, a managing director at S&P Global Ratings. That impact could worsen in the coming years, since Trump and congressional Republicans cut subsidies for wind and solar deployment passed during the Biden Administration. 'Because of the loss of tax credits, or at least a significant erosion of it, you could have a slowdown in renewables, which means there would be more draw on gas,' Prabhu said. This article originally appeared in The New York Times. Written by: Lydia DePillis and Rebecca F. Elliott Photograph by: Tierney L. Cross ©2025 THE NEW YORK TIMES
NZ Herald
3 days ago
- NZ Herald
Balancing economic interests and security concerns, European officials said they got the best deal possible
European officials and analysts said the tentative agreement does not even end the uncertainty because so many details must still be worked out. To the harshest critics, including some in France who spoke of a 'capitulation' and 'humiliation', the agreement is proof of a deeply unbalanced alliance, and the latest example of European appeasement of Trump. At Nato, allies similarly strained to pledge a huge increase in military spending demanded by Trump. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, who announced the deal with Trump while sitting next to him at one of his golf resorts in Scotland, touted 'a huge deal' clearly playing to Trump's love of largeness. But at her news conference soon afterwards, von der Leyen appeared far more sober, calling the 15% tariffs she had accepted on European automobiles to be 'the best we could get'. The EU, and in particular Germany, its auto-making powerhouse had hoped to eliminate the 25% US car tariffs entirely. 'We should not forget where we came from,' von der Leyen said. 'Fifteen per cent is certainly a challenge for some, but we should not forget it keeps us the access to the American markets.' Trump indeed had threatened far worse, including a 30% across the board tariff that upended months of painstaking negotiations. Under the new deal, the US will now impose a 15% duty on most imports from the EU. The blanket rate foisted on the EU mirrors a US deal announced this month with Japan, another Group of Seven ally, but it is higher than the 10% that Britain secured earlier this year and that EU officials had grudgingly accepted in recent talks. Since World War II, trade agreements have largely sought to reduce the cost of buying and selling goods across borders. A 2017 deal the EU struck with Canada eliminated tariffs on most goods traded between them. An agreement signed with Vietnam in 2019 aims to phase out nearly all customs duties. Trump's accord with the EU goes in the opposite direction, raising tariffs, with some exceptions. Economists say the tariffs will increase costs for importers, who must pay the duties, and put upward pressure on inflation. Consumers and businesses will likely bear some of the extra costs, experts say. Reaction in EU countries In France, where President Emmanuel Macron had urged the EU to take a harder line, the deal drew sharp backlash. While Macron was quiet on today, Prime Minister Francois Bayrou said it was 'a dark day when an alliance of free people, brought together to assert their values and defend their interests, resigns itself to submission'. Von der Leyen's European Commission, the EU's executive body which negotiates trade policy for its 27 member nations, had faced calls from Germany and Italy, two countries that do outsize business with the US, for an accord that would limit damage to their export-dependent companies. But even capitals that had urged a conciliatory approach were not exactly celebrating today. 'The agreement successfully averted a trade conflict that would have hit the export-oriented German economy hard,' German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said. Still, members of the European Parliament from Germany blasted the deal even as it reduced Trump's tariff on cars, one of Germany's central demands. 'My first assessment: not satisfactory; this is a lopsided deal,' said Bernd Lange, who chairs the European Parliament's committee on international trade. 'Concessions have clearly been made that are difficult to accept. Deal with significant imbalance. Furthermore, lot of questions still open.' Workers at a Volkswagen factory in Zwickau, Germany. Photo / Ingmar Nolting, the New York Times Dutch Prime Minister Dick Schoof acknowledged that 'no tariffs would have been better' but called the deal 'vital for an open economy like ours'. Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever said: 'One thing is clear: This is a moment of relief but not of celebration'. Influence of security The talks laid bare the EU's queasiness at using its economic muscle, one of its few areas of leverage against Washington, at a time when allies have had to calibrate repeatedly to keep Trump on board as Russia wages war in Ukraine. Ultimately, after months of mixed signals and threats from Trump, EU leaders said they accepted a deal to give their industries a reprieve from the months of uncertainty that threatened to cripple business. Officials suggested they had relented out of concern that Trump was prepared to raise tariffs to a level that would effectively halt trade between Europe and the US. 'Let's pause for a moment and consider the alternative: A trade war may seem appealing to some but it comes with serious consequences,' said the EU trade commissioner, Maros Sefcovic, who shuttled to Washington in recent months for difficult talks with Trump officials. 'Our businesses have sent us a unanimous message: avoid escalation and work towards a solution that brings immediate tariff relief,' Sefcovic told reporters today. He said he and his team had travelled to Washington 10 times for a deal and said that the EU's calculations reached beyond trade. 'It's about security, it's about Ukraine, it's about current geopolitical volatility,' Sefcovic said. He said he couldn't go into detail on what was discussed in the room with Trump yesterday, 'but I can assure it was not just about the trade'. Details of the deal Now, nearly 70% of European goods will face the blanket tariff, a big increase in charges, according to a senior EU official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to speak frankly about the details of the deal, which is still under negotiation. The EU had sought carve-outs from the US tariff regime for key sectors including wine and spirits and aircraft parts. The announced agreement eliminates tariffs on airplane parts but a decision on wine and spirits was postponed. EU officials said talks will continue in the coming weeks. The two sides appeared to diverge on other details. The White House indicated that a 50% tariff on steel would remain in place, while EU officials said there would be further negotiations on lowering steel tariffs. Many officials and experts said that it was crucial to sort out the details. 'We need to understand what is included,' said Brando Benifei, an Italian member of the European Parliament and head of its delegation for relations with the US. Benifei and others questioned whether US probes into the national security aspect of trade relations might result in extra tariffs down the line, such as on EU pharmaceutical products. At first glance, Benifei said the deal 'seems very asymmetric'. 'The result is due in my view to the push by some governments to have a deal at any cost, which has weakened our stance,' he added. 'Because the US knew some governments wanted a deal whatever the cost.' Others noted that Trump's threats managed to shift the view on what constituted relief. Just a few weeks ago, EU and US negotiators neared an agreement that involved a blanket tariff of 10%, before a Truth Social post by Trump derailed them. Today, some investors saw benefits for Europe's key auto industry, for instance, which would see US car tariffs reduced to 15% from 25%. The tariffs, however, were at 2.5% before Trump's global trade blitz, and some industry groups noted their dismay. 'The US tariff rate of 15%, which also applies to automotive products, will cost German automotive companies billions annually and burdens them,' Hildegard Mueller, president of Germany's main auto industry group, the VDA, told Agence France-Presse. On some issues, the Europeans stood their ground. Trump officials had pressed the EU for concessions on tech industry regulations and on food standards, which the bloc insisted were non-negotiable. As part of the deal, Trump said Europe had committed to buying more US energy and weapons and boosting investment in the US. But those provisions are mostly aspirational promises without guarantees. European nations were already poised to buy more US weapons under an arrangement with Trump to continue arming Ukraine, and the bloc was already seeking alternative energy sources, including liquefied natural gas from the US, as part of its push to phase out Russian energy imports. More energy purchases and European investments would come from member states and companies which Brussels does not control. Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, seen as a close Trump ally in the EU, heralded the deal, while saying details still need to be worked out. 'I obviously welcome the fact that an agreement has been reached,' Meloni told reporters. Still, she added, 'we need to verify the possible exemptions, particularly for certain agricultural products. So there are a number of elements that are missing.'
