Schuster, Liza. "A Comparative Analysis of the Asylum Policy of Seven European Governments". Journal of Refugee Studies, Vol.13, No.1 (2000): 118-132.

Schuster, Liza. "A Comparative Analysis of the Asylum Policy of Seven European Governments". Journal of Refugee Studies, Vol.13, No.1 (2000): 118-132.

• This paper is written to examine the changes in asylum policy across seven major EU countries, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, UK, Netherlands, and Sweden, following a shift in government from center-right parties to center-left parties (118).
• All of these European countries have traditionally been countries of net emmigration, sending thousands of migrants to the Americans and the Antipodes. As emmigration decreased and immigration increased, these states became net immigration countries. The change occured during the 1950s in Northern and Western Europe, while it only occured in Italy and Greece during the 1980s (119).
• Immigration to the UK, France, and the Netherlands has been primarily shaped by the legacies of colonialism, with the majority of immigrants to these states coming from former colonial possessions. In France and the UK these migration patterns stretch back centuries (119).
• Of these states, France, UK, Germany, and Sweden have international reputations as being friendly towards asylum seekers, either for historical reasons or because of policies actively adopted in the aftermath of WWII. These reputations belie increased punitiveness since the late 1970s, however (119-120).
• Immigration to Western Europe severely curtailed after the 1973 oil crisis, leading to the development of more stringent policies. Only those fleeing from Communist states were exempt. For the most part, however, actual reactions to refugee flows have been ad hoc based on specific conditions and circumstances until the 1990s (120).
• Beginning in the 1990s, there has been a growing trend in European asylum policy towards restricting access to state territory, limiting welfare provisions to discourage migration, and granting temporary refuge rather than full rights of asylum (120).
• In response to increased numbers of refugees during specific crises, mainly resulting from the Yugoslav Wars, has been to restrict visa access, created special centers outside the general population for processing, and to relocate enndangered populations within its home countries. All of these measures restricts access of refugees to the territory in which they wish to claim asylum (121-122).
• There was also been a trend of 'externalizing' borders, especially after the implementation of Schengen, at which point national borders no longer constitute the places of migration, which are moved to the most external borders. This has resulted in internal states investing in border security in other countries (122).
• A number of European governments have argued that generous welfare benefits have acted as incentive to fake asylum-seekers, meaning that cutting these benefits should decrease the number of fake asylum-seekers. Benefits have either been withdrawn or severely limited (123).
• Empiricle evidence would show that decreasing welfare benefits does not actually have an effect on the number of refugees going to a country, which instead varies based on conflicts and ease of entry. The effect on fake asylum-seekers is not known (123).
• During the Kosovo crisis, as well as the earlier collapse of political order in Macedonia and Albania, EU states attempted to limit the actual settlement of refugees on their territory. Measures for internal stabilization were preferred, and EU countries began adopting a policy of granting temporary asylum with the understanding that refugees would return to their home countries after the situation had been stabilized (124).
• This practice of temporary asylum was pioneered by Germany and Italy during the early 1990s in response to the Yugoslav Wars, and was only adopted by other European states during the Kosovo War (124).
• The implications of temporary protection are mixed. Some states, like Italy and the Netherlands, use it as an emergency protective measure leading to actual asylum later, whereas Germany, Sweden, and the UK use it as an alternative to actual asylum status used to avoid committments under the 1951 Refugee Convention (124-125).
• The shift in these states from a center-right to a center-left government has not resulted in many policy changes in general, and almost no difference in refugee and asylum policy. Center-left groups in Germany and Sweden have presided over more restrictive measures, while the center-left Greek government continues to provide no support to asylum-seekers (125-126).
• There is also little substantial difference in the behaviors of center-left governments in majority or coalition goverments. While the Greek, British, and Swedish center-left parties have a majority government they have not demonstrated any more relaxation of refugee or asylum policy than center-left parties in coalition governments (126).
• Migration issues have always been a major topic for the far-right, and its constant calls for the cessation of immigration have an influence on national policy disproportionate with its marginal share of the vote (128).
• The influence of the far-right on migration policy has had severe negative effects for migrants, who have become increasingly exposed to violence and abuse during the 1990s. This violence is not correlated with an increase in the number of immigrants, but instead with the adoption of far-right rhetoric by mainstream political parties (128).
• The EU has played a role in determining that some 'harmonization' of asylum policies is necessary, but thus far member states have been unable to agree what cooperation should actually be adopted. The Dublin Convention has been important as a platform for peripheral states to press for financial redress, and for internal states to insulate themselves from migration by demanding that refugees remain in the first state they arrive in (129).
• The EU has played a large role in influencing the national legislation adopted in these countries on asylum and refugees. Most EU member states consult with the organization before drafting laws, and many states look towards other European states for best practices regarding asylum policy (129).
• "It is becoming increasingly difficult for people to reach EU states and to request asylum [...] Having entered, they are separated from the host population in bed and breakfast accomodation, hostels and areas where accomodation is cheap [...] Asylum seekers are being deprived of autonomy and dignity, allowed to buy food only using vouchers and only in designated shops (all states except Greece where they are given nothing)" (130).