Professor Maciej Duszczyk from the Migration investigation Centre in a conversation with Jakub Majmurek in the pages Political criticisms says that the outgoing government of the United Right has led to chaos in the issue of migration policy, and the debate around the contemporary challenges of migration, especially since we can no longer pretend that it does not concern us, has polarized Polish society.
The breach was the migration of Ukrainians (and to a lesser degree Ukrainians) to Poland due to Russian aggression. I agree with Duszczyk that the deficiency of mention of migrations (which warmed up emotions so much during the election campaign) in the coalition agreement shows how much politicians and politicians prove helpless in the face of this topic.
I besides have no doubt, like Duszczyk, that immediate decriminalisation of humanitarian aid carried on the Polish-Belarusian border is necessary, and the implementation by Poland of smart integration programmes for visitors. Unfortunately, with all my respect for prof. Duszczyk, I cannot agree with the remaining majority of his bets.
Pushbacks: legal, illegal or a small legal?
Professor Duszczyk gives the thesis that “there is no way that border guards can just walk distant from pushbacks overnight.” This argues that it is essential to introduce additional safeguards first so that Belarus does not usage this against Poland. In fact, reading the interview with the prof. does not indicate whether he thinks pushbacks can and must be completely eliminated, due to the fact that in another part of his speech he speaks not about leaving them, but about their "serious limitation".
Such a case leaves the door to further violations of human rights. For a reason, the position of the European Court of Human Rights is clear: collective expulsions of foreigners (the alleged pushbacks) are illegal. Period.
The deficiency of access to asylum procedures at European borders and the individual examination of each case is simply a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights. Period.
Even the judgments in the N.D. and N.T. v. Spain so eagerly cited did not legalize pushbacks. In fact, this judgement introduced an exception which is disturbing from the point of view of the protection of human rights, namely that, in the case of a forceful effort by a large group of state-guilt migrants for violations of the Convention, it is excluded to any extent. But this judgement was made in very circumstantial circumstances and assuming that the return of foreigners from Spain to Morocco was not in themselves a danger. Further judgments of the Court, which have already been passed, proceed the line of case law, according to which pushbacks are not legal in any situation.
Also judgments of Polish courts They leave no uncertainty that for years the illegal actions of state authorities have been taking place on the Polish-Belarusian border. And not since August 2021, the symbolic beginning of the humanitarian crisis, which is considered to be events in advanced Usnars, but definitely earlier.
For years, besides at authoritative border crossing points, border guards arbitrarily refuses foreigners the right to apply for global protection. This is something that should worry each of us; we are talking about systematic, unlawful actions of public services, which do not pass the test of the Polish judiciary and lead to the uncovering of violations of human rights, among others, by European Court of Human Rights and UN Human Rights Committee.
It is impossible to decently implement judgments of national and global courts another than by initiating appropriate procedures for each individual crossing the border – at or outside the border crossing point. In accordance with the letter of the law, this means not "restricting" pushbacks, but eliminating them completely. And yes, it can be done overnight. There is no request even to change the law, just change the orders given to officers serving in the border. Period.
"Smart Dam", or what?
Professor Duszczyk argues that "an intelligent barrier is 1 that prevents effective crossing of the border, but does not interfere very powerfully in the environment and reduces the hazard of accidents". Therefore, the prof. is not a supporter of giving up the dam in general, but only of improving it. However, looking at what is happening not only on the Polish-Belarusian border, but besides at another borders, I have no uncertainty that we should request from politicians and politicians a much higher standard.
In Duszczyk's statement, I was short of mention to the barbed wire placed along the first barrier, which was just lying on the border with Belarus. The kind of wire used, or concertin, has 1 basic task – to hurt anyone who tries to cross it.
We know from many studies that all kinds of barriers at borders, designed to halt migration, change only its nature, course and cost. They increase injuries to migrants. They make you choose dangerous migration paths. They are pushing greedy paws of smugglers promising to scope Europe safely. Dams will not be needed if we yet open legal entry paths and let asylum applications to be lawfully lodged at border crossing points.
The barbed barbed wire and barbed wire besides form a kind of lawlessness zone, where rules are different from those of the remainder of the country and where there is impunity. shoot a man in the back either leave a man with a broken leg No aid under the border fence. Wall and peculiar region policies must be abandoned erstwhile and for all.
Controversial Frontex
Professor Duszczyk urges Poland to ask for support from EU agencies specified as Frontex, Europol and the European Asylum Agency. He talks about it as if he doesn't realize that he's been there. Greek and Italian experience from cooperation with these agencies through the creation of alleged hotspots at the EU's external borders show a full scope of infringements. Prolonged procedures, widespread usage of detection, deficiency of effective recognition mechanisms and as a result, the creation of places specified as bad fame Camp in Moria.
Frontex has been criticised for the violations of human rights at the external borders of the EU for years. In 2022, investigators of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) documented Frontex's engagement in illegal activities of the Greek Coast Guard, which routinely abandons drifters in the Aegean Sea on crumpled boats or inflated rafts, preventing them from accessing asylum procedures. The investigation showed that alternatively of preventing these illegal activities, Frontex covered them up while lying to the European Parliament and concealing the fact that the agency financed any pushback operations from European taxpayers' money. The disclosure of these serious violations led to the resignation of the manager of the agency last year, Fabrice Leggeri.
What I deficiency most, however, is the mention of another European institution which should actually be active in the border crisis: the European Commission. EU guardian of treaties. Treaties that are openly broken on the Polish-Belarusian border. However, the European Commission has the competence to launch a alleged infringement procedure against a associate State which does not comply with its Community obligations. This procedure, as we know, was initiated for example, due to the crisis of the regulation of law in Poland. And so should it be initiated, Model Hungarian, in connection with the systemic violation of EU law on the Polish-Belarusian border.
Fighting smuggling or the smugglers?
Professor Duszczyk besides has the thought to "cut off migrants from smugglers". It sounds very reasonable, but I would anticipate a individual dealing with technological migration to reflect more profoundly on the phenomenon of smuggling itself.
After all, it is forced on migrant people how to travel and cross borders that creates a subsoil for the phenomenon of smuggling that brings profit to criminal groups around the world. Border regimes in their current form are conducive to the expansion of smuggling networks, and the more restrictive border policy is, the greater crime. A bad example can be utilized USA–Mexico border, where, with the introduction of restrictive policies by the Trump administration, organised criminal activity in border cities has grown.
So in the professor's thesis, I see a major mistake: migrants cannot be cut off from smugglers. What can be done is to cut off smugglers from sources of profit, and thus open paths of legal migration. Period.
Outsourcing of migration control
Professor Duszczyk's argument is besides worrying, which argues that "There are ideas in Europe that in countries where migration routes start, EU centres will be established where willing people can apply for global protection [...]. Poland does not participate in these discussions and we should be curious in them."
Does this mean that the prof. is in favour of supporting the creation of places like detention centres in Libya, where, with the financial support of the European Union, does torture, rape, slavery and organ trafficking of those attempting to cross the border from Libya to Italy occur?
The discussion of "outsourcing" asylum procedures has indeed been going on for years, but even the ultimate Court in the UK has late ruledthat the controversial thought of returning refugees and refugees during asylum procedures to Rwanda (and thus the flagship task of Prime Minister Rishi Sunak) is unacceptable.
Migration experts and experts inform that the progressive externalisation of migration control leads to serious violations of the rights of migrants, imposes work for accepting refugees into little prosperous countries and does not discourage the usage of unregulated entry routes. So I would not want Poland to advance specified solutions and lobby for them in the EU.
Closed or open?
Another of the harmful proposals put forward by Duszczyk is that concerning the expansion of safety centres, "where applicants for global protection in Poland would wait for a decision". This is simply a duplication of a stigmatizing communicative that has long been associated with migration, which involves punishing people for moving. A squad of specified and akin practices gained a name in literature crymigration, that is, blurring the borders between immigration law and criminal law. The thought of protected centres, or places of imprisonment of migrants, is 1 of the strongest expressions of this concept.
Protected centres have been criticized for years by non-governmental human rights organisations. besides global institutions Poland Abuse of this restrictive measure, at the same time calling for the complete abolition of household and children's or mentally ill.
Many have besides fallen in fresh years decisions The European Court of Human Rights, which finds Poland guilty of violating the right of migrants to freedom and security, household and private life. National courts judge to make amends to the wrongfully deprived persons in the course of their global protection procedure.
Plus, we've got very fresh. report National Tortur Prevention Mechanism, documenting cases of overcrowding in these places, mediocre sanitation, deficiency of access to appropriate medical or psychiatric assistance, oppressive nature of the facilities, etc. global standards for years heading towards limiting the function of protected centres to an absolute minimum. Individuals in administrative procedures should in rule receive the right to stay in 1 of the open reception centres. Period.
Financial considerations besides support moving distant from closed centres. Maintaining them is much more costly than maintaining open-type centres. There is another crucial argument – placing people in closed centres does not in any way advance their integration into the Polish society, which Duszczyk powerfully advocates in another part of his statement.
Deportations
Data Eurostat In 2022, the designation of applications for protection at the level of the European Union as a whole, i.e. the participation of all affirmative decisions in the overall number of decisions, amounted to 49%. Meanwhile, based on the incorrect thesis that a tiny percent of migrants were eligible for protection in the EU, it is Duszczyk's view that deportations are crucial. According to the professor, "we should immediately process requests for protection at Polish borders and in almost 100 percent of accidents we should deport [these persons] to the country of origin". According to many commentators, this would send a clear signal to those reasoning about travelling to the EU that "the way leading through Poland is closed".
However, even the UN institutions have no doubt: deportations are not an effective migration management policy. According to Felipe González Morales, UN peculiar Rapporteur on the Rights of Migrants, "if return programmes do not go hand in hand with robust reintegration programmes, and the causes of irregular migration will persist, migrants, including those who have already returned, will proceed to hazard their lives by taking dangerous journeys."
In 1 of reports González Morales states that states besides frequently opt for deportations, alternatively of prioritising alternatives based more on human rights, specified as regularisation of residence in the country of residence. Forced repatriations do not mention to another equally crucial origin of irregular migration: the EU labour market, which is eager to employment irregular migrants, with minimum (if any) penalties for employers who break the law.
New Pact
Finally, according to prof. Duszczyk, it is crucial that the fresh migration pact discussed at the EU level should take into account the Polish specificity, due to the fact that "the specificity of our region has not been noticed in the EU migration pact discussed so far". According to the professor, this particularity is the usage of migrants and migrants by the Belarusian government as part of the hybrid war.
However, this particularity (in the sense that the prof. understands) has not only been noticed, but has been reflected in the proposed provisions. Already in December 2021 in Council proposals on temporary emergency measures for Latvia, Lithuania and Poland, the EU has responded to the situation on the Belarusian-EU border. The legislative package was then included in the alleged Instrumentalisation Regulation. In line with this proposal, in the context of the instrumental usage of migration by a 3rd country, associate States would be given the chance to deviate from certain obligations to those seeking protection. Although the proposals were assessed by researchers and researchers as harmful, the Polish government expressed negative position on these provisions, considering them to be... insufficiently restrictive. Poland would like to suspend the right to asylum in selected situations.
Contrary to what Mr Duszczyk claims, the problem is not the deficiency of designation of Polish specificity in the EU, but alternatively the damaging position presented to date by the Polish government. Poland will not be taken seriously into account in any discussions, preaching as populist slogans as the suspension of the right to asylum. I agree with prof. Duszczyk that Poland's voice is needed in the EU forum. But it must be a smart voice.
What's missing?
What I lacked from the professor, who is an authority in the field of migration, is the mention to a fundamental problem that has a bearing on contemporary challenges at European borders: the deficiency of legal migration paths.
I besides lacked a ranking of a populist policy that equates state safety with a restrictive border policy. References to economical imbalances between the global South and the global North and political crises driven by the Western world. To see the impact of European countries themselves on the worsening of the situation in the countries of origin of refugees, for example due to the negative effects of climate change.
People will proceed to migrate and deportations will not be effective unless the economic, political and climatic causes of migration are eliminated. Period.
**
Marta Górczyńska – a human rights lawyer. Coordinator of the Migration Department at the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights. PhD student at the University of Warsaw.
