President: Giampaolo Pioli   |   Editor in Chief: Stefano Vaccara

  • Login
VNY La Voce di New York

The First Italian English Digital Daily Newspaper in the US

  • English Edition
  • Letters
  • New York
  • U.N.
  • News
  • People
  • Arts
  • Lifestyles
  • Food & Wine
  • Travel
  • Italian Edition
No Result
View All Result
VNY
  • English Edition
  • Letters
  • New York
  • U.N.
  • News
  • People
  • Arts
  • Lifestyles
  • Food & Wine
  • Travel
  • Italian Edition
No Result
View All Result
VNY La Voce di New York
No Result
View All Result
in Mediterranean
October 1, 2018
in Mediterranean
June 8, 2018
0

The Reform of Dublin III: the cul-de-sac of the European Migration Policy

The reform proposal of the Dublin III Rule was discussed last 5th of June by the Home Affairs Ministers of Europea Union Members

Sergio SalvatorebySergio Salvatore
Time: 5 mins read

Last 5th of June, Home Affairs Ministers of European Union Members discussed the reform proposal of the Dublin III Rule that frames the EU migration policy. The Rule defines the distribution of responsibilities among EU states regarding asylum seekers. In a nutshell, the fundamental tenet underlying it is that refugees do not have the right to choose the country to which to apply for asylum – they are compelled to ask for asylum in the State where they enter Europe. Once obtained, refugee status is limited to that State. For instance, if a person arrives in Italy, then it is Italy that has the duty to check if she/he is entitled to refugee status and to provide it; such status is valid only for Italy and not in other European countries, so the refugee cannot move to Germany, Sweden and so forth.

This approach has raised many criticisms from humanitarian groups and movements as well as from the United Nations – it negates the refugees’ right to mobility, constraining migrants to be somehow prisoners of the country first welcoming them. As someone said – the Dublin III Rule leaves EU migration policy to geography; and this means that most of the migration flux is borne by the states (Italy and Greece mainly) that due to their position, represent the gateway to Europe.

Several countries – and in particular those more exposed to the migration fluxes – have been asking that the Dublin III Rule approach be changed, calling for the setting of refugee quotas each country should receive regardless of the country of access. Quotas were in fact decided as a special measure to address the most difficult moments of the refugee crisis in the past years; yet this decision failed to become a compulsory framework of EU migration policy accepted by all EU members.

What was discussed last 5th of June was a proposal that tries a compromise between the Dublin III Rule and the request to introduce compulsory quotas that is insistently demanded by Italy, Greece, Spain and other countries. The proposal introduces the principle of quotas, but with two “moderators” that reduce their impact: a) quotas are activated only if and when the number of refugees arriving at a EU state goes beyond a certain threshold (120% of the quota) and becomes compulsory only after a further, higher threshold (140%); b) the quote is compulsory, yet any EU State may escape from it and pay a sum of money for each refugee that it refuses to accept.

No agreement was reached on the proposal. Many States converged in raising a wall against it, though for opposite reasons – Eastern countries (e.g. Hungary) opposed it because they are against the idea of quotas, whereas Italy and other countries because they disagree with the fact that according to the proposal the quotas would not be compulsory. The image of Europe perceived by public opinion is quite sad and worrying – selfish nationalist interests, tactics and short-term views appear to dominate the field.

On the other hand, what is even more worrying is the logic of the proposal and more in general the approach that seems to be shared by most of the actors involved in the discussion. Two main issues are worth highlighting.

First, a bean-counting view of migration as if it were concerned with mechanisms and objects, rather than with people with rights, needs and desires. As it is designed, the strategy based on quotas implies that people are things that have to be displaced due to global functional parameters and motives, leaving no room to their preferences and projects as to the country where they hope to live. As the Re.Cri.Re. project has shown, before being an ethical argument, the policy’s blindness to the subjectivity has to be criticized in terms of efficacy – as various observers have pointed out, and as common sense should suggest, it lacks any chance of success to imagine a system of distribution of thousands and thousands of people that works in contrast with – or even simply regardless of – their will, as if the problem were to move people, rather than encourage them to invest in the new place.

Second, the idea underpinning the monetarization of the quotas On the one hand, in so doing a further step ahead is made in the direction of viewing human beings as fungible, namely as objects that lack individuality and can therefore be exchanged and substituted, then transformed into financial value. On the other hand, monetarization involves a radical shift from the view of the EU as a space of solidarity to the vision of it as a market-like exchange among selfish actors.

What has to be recognized is that the EU is not only engaged in the search for an efficacious and fair solution of migration policy. More deeply, what is at stake in the refugee issue – as well as in all the hot issues the EU is called upon to address (e.g. fiscal rules, environment, energy, safety, production, trade) – is the capacity of defending and enacting the vision of the Europe as a community of destinies.

Any action, any proposal, any political decision are not only instruments that have to be evaluated in terms of their local efficacy. Rather, any instance of government also has to be mainly recognized as an act of meaning:  the enactment of an underpinning vision of the present and the future of Europe that works slowly but incessantly to shape European institutions and societies.

It may not be far from the truth to think that the main problem of the EU is the unawareness – or however the lack of interest – of the middle-term symbolic impact that policies and politics have on how people and institutions feel and think about Europe. The discussion about migration and refugee is a clear example of such blindness. Needless to say, technical solutions as well as political compromise are required and have to be searched for; yet in hard times of cultural and institutional turmoil, attention has to be paid to the fact that any initiative on such a major issue contributes to sculpture the words we use in thinking of the present and the future of the European project. A new approach to policy, conscious of this, is sorely needed.

Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
Sergio Salvatore

Sergio Salvatore

Presidente dell’European Institute of Cultural Analysis for Policy (EICAP), Professore di psicologia, si interessa della relazione tra emozioni, pensiero e dinamiche politiche e sociali. Negli ultimi anni si è dedicato all’analisi delle profonde trasformazioni delle società europee e del loro impatto sulle decisioni politiche. Ripensare l’Europa intende contribuire alla discussione sul presente e il futuro dell’Europa, focalizzandosi sulle molteplici sfide istituzionali, culturali e sociali che il Vecchio Continente è chiamato ad affrontare (email: sergio.salvatore65@icloud.com)

DELLO STESSO AUTORE

I cittadini europei vogliono difendere, e cambiare, l’Europa

European Citizens Want to Protect and Change Europe

bySergio Salvatore
I cittadini europei vogliono difendere, e cambiare, l’Europa

I cittadini europei vogliono difendere, e cambiare, l’Europa

bySergio Salvatore

A PROPOSITO DI...

Tags: Dublin III RuleEuropeimmigrantsMigrantsMigration
Previous Post

Qualche parola sulla Russia e sulla sua “Tradizione Sovietica”

Next Post

La riforma del regolamento di Dublino: il cul-de-sac della politica migratoria europea

Discussion about this post

DELLO STESSO AUTORE

Le sfide di oggi: per vincerle, serve una comprensione più profonda di ciò che accade

Why We Need a Deeper Understanding of Today’s Challenges

bySergio Salvatore
Le sfide di oggi: per vincerle, serve una comprensione più profonda di ciò che accade

Le sfide di oggi: per vincerle, serve una comprensione più profonda di ciò che accade

bySergio Salvatore

Latest News

Maggio-Luglio 1992, la guerra Mafia-Stato con un solo vincitore: Matteo 

Maggio-Luglio 1992, la guerra Mafia-Stato con un solo vincitore: Matteo 

byStefano Vaccara
On Italian American Identity Without Catholicism

On Italian American Identity Without Catholicism

byDonna Chirico

New York

Dopo de Blasio il diluvio o il rinascimento? Il futuro di New York e la corsa a sindaco

Bill de Blasio indomito: adesso punta al Congresso

byMassimo Jaus
Usa: 16enne uccisa e due feriti da pallottole vaganti a Ny

Staten Island, paziente ubriaco spara a infermiere sull’ambulanza

byLa Voce di New York

Italiany

Design Day: il made in Italy mette al primo posto la sostenibilità

Design Day: il made in Italy mette al primo posto la sostenibilità

byEmma Pistarino
Su Madison Avenue rivive “La Dolce Vita”  con la festa del Made in Italy

Madison Avenue Relives “La Dolce Vita” with a Party for ‘Made in Italy’

byValeria Robecco
Next Post
The Reform of Dublin III: the cul-de-sac of the European Migration Policy

La riforma del regolamento di Dublino: il cul-de-sac della politica migratoria europea

La Voce di New York

President: Giampaolo Pioli   |   Editor in Chief: Stefano Vaccara

  • New York
    • Eventi
  • Onu
  • News
    • Primo Piano
    • Politica
    • Voto Estero
    • Economia
    • First Amendment
  • People
    • EXPAT
  • Arts
    • Arte e Design
    • Spettacolo
    • Musica
    • Libri
    • Lingua Italiana
  • Lifestyles
    • Fashion
    • Scienza e Salute
    • Sport
    • Religioni
  • Food & Wine
  • Travel
    • Italia
  • Mediterraneo
  • English
  • Search/Archive
  • About us
    • Editorial Staff
    • President
    • Administration
    • Advertising

VNY Media La Voce di New York © 2016 - 2022
Main Office: 230 Park Avenue, 21floor, New York, NY 10169 | Editorial Office/Redazione: UN Secretariat Building, International Press Corps S-301, New York, NY 10017

No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • New York
  • Onu
  • News
    • Primo Piano
    • Politica
    • Economia
    • First Amendment
  • Arts
    • Arte e Design
    • Spettacolo
    • Musica
    • Libri
  • Lingua Italiana
  • Lifestyles
    • Fashion
    • Scienza e Salute
    • Sport
    • Religioni
  • Food & Wine
    • Cucina Italiana
  • Travel
    • Italia
  • English

© 2016/2022 VNY Media La Voce di New York

Welcome Back!

Login to your account below

Forgotten Password?

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Log In