By Luisa Marchesini | Mentorship Paulo Lima
The EU’s new pact on migration and asylum looks like a step forward for migrants’ rights and their asylum claims. However, analysing closer reception systems, procedures and conventions, the outlook is one of fewer rights, fewer safeguards and, above all, less humanity.
Migration policies have recently become a priority issue in many electoral campaigns and governmental agendas, especially in the USA and in the EU. The refugee crisis has intensified these dynamics, with the rise in support for anti-immigration parties, linked not only to anti-immigrant sentiment, but also to the greater importance of the theme in political discourse. Indeed, studies show that the way in which politicians and media frame immigration has a strong influence on public perceptions.
However, the debate is often imprecise: the definitions of immigrant and refugee are often confused, and the scale of migratory flows is often exaggerated, ignoring a rigorous and data-based analysis.
Immigrant or refugee? Let’s make it clear
When we speak of immigrants, we refer to people that live outside of their country of residence for longer than one year. Their needs in terms of employment, housing, family and education require complex public interventions at the national, supranational, and local levels. Contrary to common belief, the majority of irregular immigrants do not cross borders illegally. The main causes of irregular status include: overstaying (visa’s expiration), the rejection of an asylum application, the loss of the residence permit, and illegal entry through false documents or evasion of border controls.
Refugees, on the other hand, represent a special category of immigrants, defined by forced mobility. The concept of a refugee is legally defined by the 1951 Geneva Convention, which states that “any person who, fearing persecutions for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, is outside his or her country” is a refugee.
The Geneva Convention and European Legislation
Art. 1 of the Geneva Convention states that international protection shall be granted to persons who are persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion. Art. 33 sets out the principle of non-refoulement, which prohibits any state from returning or expelling a refugee to the frontiers of territories where his or her life or freedom would be threatened on account of any of the characteristics listed in Article 1.
At the European level, the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) does not provide for a right to asylum or immigration. Rather, it recognises the power of states to control the entry and stay of foreigners within their territory. However, this power must be exercised in such a way as not to violate the other rights guaranteed by the Convention. Refoulement is not permitted if there’s the risk that person may be sentenced to death or be subjected to an already imposed death sentence, or if there is a risk of suffering serious harm (torture and deshumanizing treatment), whether inflicted by the State or by private individuals.
At the European level, there are also 3 directives and relative legislative decrees in Italy. The Qualification Directive defines international protection, subsidiary protection, the status and rights of applicants for and beneficiaries of protection, and many other aspects of the “qualification” of applicants and beneficiaries of international protection. The Asylum Procedures Directive provides the legal framework governing access to the asylum procedure, and the possibility for member states to designate certain third countries as “safe countries of origin” in accordance with what is indicated in the Geneva Convention. Finally, the Reception Conditions Directive regulates access to reception measures, the circumstances under which applicants may be detained, and the conditions governing such detention.
The new pact on migration and asylum
On 10 April 2024, the European Parliament approved the new Pact on migration and asylum, subsequently adopted by the Council of the EU on 14 May 2024. It is a comprehensive reform which aims at making the management of migration flows within the EU more effective and coordinated.
The new system seeks to strengthen controls at the external borders, introduce faster asylum procedures – especially for applications lodged at the border – and ensure a fairer distribution of responsibilities among member states through solidarity mechanisms. Moreover, cooperation with countries of origin and transit is strengthened in order to combat irregular migration and improve the management of returns.
On 10 February 2026, the European Parliament approved the creation of an EU list of safe countries of origin, and of a new regulation on the concept of a “safe third country”, with the goal of harmonising procedures among member states, and of streamlining decisions on asylum applications, while respecting the safeguards provided for under European law. There are three types of asylum procedures: the ordinary procedure, the accelerated procedure, and the border procedure. The difference lies in the type of examination carried out on the application. Under the ordinary procedure, the assessment takes longer, while under the accelerated or border procedure, the timeframe is shorter.
Migration and the Italian system
The issue of reception and protection for asylum seekers has been ignored by Italian governments for a long time. Despite the constitutional recognition of the right to asylum under Art. 10, coma 3 of the Italian constitution, Italy has never adopted a comprehensive legal framework to regulate access to that right.
In 1954, Italy adhered to the Geneva Convention, but with a geographic limitation, accepting only European refugees. In 1990, the Martelli Law introduced the right to asylum and removed the geographical limitation. However, it did not provide protection for those who migrated because of wars or persecutions without meeting the requirements established by the Convention. It was only in 2007 that Italy transposed the European directive, introducing subsidiary and humanitarian protection in addition to refugee status.
In 2001, the protocol for the realization of the National Asylum Program was signed, creating the first public reception system for asylum seekers and refugees, operating throughout the Italian territory. Finally, with the 2002 Bossi-Fini law, the System of protection for refugees and asylum applicants (SPRAR) was established. The SPRAR system, later renamed SIPROIM and eventually SAI, has become the ordinary system of reception.
In 2023, the Italian government also signed the Italy-Albania protocol, under which centers were established in Albania to carry out border procedures. This protocol has raised a number of concerns.
In fact, only certain categories of people may be transferred to these centres: foreign nationals rescued in international waters, migrants subject to expulsion, and, under specific legal provisions, only non-vulnerable adult men coming from safe countries of origin.
Migration: so, what changes?
Under the new EU pact on migration and asylum, accelerated and frontier procedures are going to be intensified. This reduces the ability of migrants to defend their rights, as they are already disadvantaged due to language barriers, limited knowledge of the law, and a lack of access to legal assistance.
Moreover, in the new EU list on safe origin countries are included Egypt, Bangladesh, Morocco, Tunisia… Countries where exist non-criminalised domestic violence cases, leniency for “honour crimes”, high numbers of death sentences, torture and forced confessions. Egypt itself, where 10 years ago was kidnapped, tortured and murdered our connational Giulio Regeni, who was in Cairo to carry out a period of academic research.
The new pact is closely linked to the Italy-Albania protocol, because both of them reinforce the border procedures and the rules on “safe countries”. If procedures are physically externalised to Albania, it could be more difficult for people to exercise their rights or lodge appeals in a simple and immediate way, in comparison with a procedure carried out directly in Italy. There is also the risk of abuse of this model, whereby it could become a means of “offloading” migration-related challenges onto third countries, thereby avoiding the direct assumption of humanitarian and legal responsibilities.
More propaganda on the theme of migration, and less humanity
With this pact, perhaps one of the saddest pages has been written in the history of a continent that, after the Second World War and millions of refugees, had promised “never again”. Faced with humanity, propaganda has been chosen instead. Faced with concrete and realistic solutions for integration, rejection is preferred. Faced with tragedies such as the deaths of migrants at sea, silence and populist slogans prevail.
What we must not forget is that, even in the face of the most complex emergencies, respect for human life must come first, if we are to remain truly humans.
Do you want to know more on the theme of migration and human rights?
Explore our full archive on this topic and discover our recommended articles: