European Xenophobia

Migrant smugglers have produced another hideous record number of victims in their detestable trade this week, in Austria and Hungary and in the Mediterranean off the Libyan coast. Smuggling refugees for money and then knowingly setting them up to die reveals a degree of inhumanity rarely seen. These smugglers are not just Africans or Middle Easterners. They are apparently also Europeans - as in the case of the truckload of dead bodies found in Austria this week. Other ugly anti-immigrant incidents and racist political tendencies have reappeared in Europe with the recent resurgent wave of refugees from Syria and other Mid-East war zones. I myself have long been sceptical of an open-arms policy for non-European immigration, given the proven lack of capacity for housing and decent living conditions in the countries most eager to receive non-European migrants - such as Sweden. But refugees from active war zones must be taken care of.

Here is where European Union countries fail, by their unwillingness to coordinate their policies and acting like a union, instead of like a flock of scared rabbits. Xenophobia - hatred and fear of strangers - is what it is about.

How widespread is this phenomenon? While reliable information is hard to come by for such a fleeting notion as xenophobia, one possibility to learn more is to have a look at asylum decisions made by the EU member governments. Are they equally strict, the way it is supposed to be according to EU policy? Or do some countries have much higher rejection rates than others? In that case one would suspect a bias in asylum seekers' disfavor.

The Eurostat figures on asylum seekers in 2014 published earlier this year make it possible to check and compare the rates of rejection of asylum applications in different EU countries. These rates are not published by Eurostat, but have instead been computed by this writer on the basis of the Eurostat figures for the number of applications and the number of rejections in each country.

One should note that these statistics are only from one year and so cannot tell whether the rate shown is a happenstance or part of a longer trend for the country in question. Comparing rejection rates for different countries also assumes that similar groups of migrants show up at all borders of the union. This may not necessarily be so. We know for instance that Germany for several years has had a considerable number of applicants from the former Yugoslavia, countries which do not give grounds for asylum now that they are at peace. Such applicants have not shown up in similar numbers elsewhere, and their applications naturally have (had) to be rejected.

But have a look at the figures. They span from 100% rejections down to 6.

                      Non-EU Asylum Rejection Rates 2014*

                     Pct rejected Total decisions Total accepted

Liechtenstein           100%                     10              0

Hungary                     91%                 5445          510

Croatia                      89%                   235            25

Luxembourg              86%                   885          120

Greece                       85%                13305        1970

France                       78%               68500       14815

Iceland                       75%                   120           120

Portugal                     74%                   155             40

Latvia                         74%                     95             25

Poland                       73%                 2700           720

Austria**                   70%               16610         4920

Czech Rep                  63%                 1000            375

Estonia                       63%                     55             20

Ireland                        62%                 1060          400

UK                             61%                25870       10050

Belgium                      60%                20335         8045

Lithuania                    59%                    185             70

Germany                    58%                97275        40560

Spain                           56%                 3620          1585

Romania                     53%                 1585            740

Slovenia                     53%                     95              45

Finland                        46%                 2340          1270

Italy                             42%               35180        20580

Slovakia                      39%                    280          170

Norway                       36%                  7640          4905

Netherlands                 33%                18790        12550

Denmark                      32%                  8055        5480

Switzerland                  29%                21800        15410

Malta                            27%                  1735        1260

Cyprus                         24%                  1305            995

Sweden                         23%                39905        30650

Bulgaria                          6%                  7435          7000

EU total**                   55%               357425      160070

*Computed from Eurostat, First Instance Decisions on (Non-EU) asylum Applications 2014.

** Austrian figures are from 2013. Hence, Austria is excluded from EU total.

First of all, note that the EU average is 55% rejections, a high figure if we can assume most of the arrivals are there for a legitimate reason. Next, to find Liechtenstein at the top with 100% rejections could be mainly a reflection of its tiny size. Then, on the other hand, among the highest ten we find a clear predominance of East-Central European countries. More significantly, France, Luxembourg and Iceland figure among the high scorers. Surprising, perhaps, but also disconcerting in the case of France, which is currently trying, along with Germany, to take a leading role in this field and set an example for others.

In contrast, one notes Italy with as low a rejection rate as 42%, amazing given their position as a first-line recipient country. Now, we know there are hidden aspects to these figures. Italy quietly encourages migrants to move north without registering in Italy, which gives these migrants a degree of choice and alternatives to the overflowing conditions of Italy. When some of them arrive in France, they are first held up at the border with Italy, and next, once they are on the French side most of them make a beeline for Calais, instead of stopping elsewhere in France, hoping to make it across to Britain somehow. That they are just passing through seems to suit the French fine.

The largest numbers find their way to Germany, where the generosity is great, while social pressures are also great. The old East of Germany reacts much like their reluctant eastern neighbors: "We just made it into prosperity, and now they come to take it away from us again!" Hungary is a notable case, clearly reflected in their high rejection rate. The Baltic states still have large numbers of Russian non-citizens living within their borders as relics of the Soviet past; they also are reluctant to open their doors any more, but their populations are so small it hardly affects the larger picture whatever they do.

The Swedish case, at the low end of the scale, is impressive. On a per capita basis Sweden tops all others in the EU and the EEA. The sheer number of asylum seekers accepted in 2014 by Sweden (30 thousand) is more than the total number combined accepted by France (14 000) and Britain (10 000). Only Germany took in a higher number.

Ultimately there is no way to decide with absolute certainty from these figures what is the state of xenophobia in Europe. But it does offer a glimpse. What one might more precisely call this attitude is a reluctance to share with those less-well off, and especially to share too close to home. "Take my foreign aid, but don't come here and mess up my doorstep." - Indeed, with the latest wave of refugees from the Syria of Assad and his Russian supporters, we may have reached the end of long-distance development aid - money from the wealthy north-west going to the poor south. As a BBC analyst recently expressed it, perhaps we shall have to restart the development process at home in the future. Why should we expect people to live under the brutal and corrupt regimes of the Middle East and Africa when they do not even get access to the foreign aid their rulers so gracefully cash in on their behalf? They are ultimately coming north. Perhaps we must accept that as the cost of having lived with such great global economic disparities for so long.

Nevertheless, the unsustainability case still stands. There is a limit to the capacity of Western welfare states to take in ever increasing numbers of refugees, as also the Danish historian Bo Lidegaard recently argued. How can we continue to also give 5 relatives permission to come after for family reunions for each asylum application granted? The standard levels of benefits must necessarily go down, protected job markets must open up, old privileges in the recipient countries must go, and emergency housing must be organized on an industrial scale.

This is also why the EU must share the burdens of the refugee situation in a better way, or face serious decline, perhaps collapse. The Schengen area is already in question. Under such tumultuous conditions on the old European borders as those we have seen this August, a serious shift in policy must come about. The challenge is on a par with the EU's task of taking in the former Soviet-controlled countries from 2004, nothing less.