Poland’s migration strategy, “Regaining Control. Ensure Security,” has sparked controversy for prioritizing national security over international obligations. It proposes temporarily suspending asylum applications in response to perceived threats from Belarus and Russia, which critics argue contradicts EU principles and international refugee law. As an EU member, Poland must comply with EU asylum legislation and the Geneva Convention. However, its response to recent migration challenges has included policies that violate these frameworks. This populist-driven approach undermines the EU’s human rights commitment and threatens the Union’s cohesion.
Poland’s Migration Strategy: A Legal and Political Shift
Poland’s migration policy has become increasingly restrictive, largely in response to domestic political pressures from right-wing and populist factions. These groups, spearheaded by the Law and Justice Party (PiS), have capitalized on public fears around immigration, framing it as a threat to Polish national identity, Christian values, and security.
The rise of populism in Poland has played a central role in shaping its migration strategy. The previous PiS government has framed its anti-immigration stance as a defense of Polish sovereignty against what it portrays as an overreaching EU bureaucracy. Anti-immigrant rhetoric, often tinged with Islamophobic and xenophobic undertones, has become a core element of PiS’s political messaging, resonating with large swaths of the Polish electorate.
The recent strategy emphasizes stricter immigration controls, targeted integration efforts, and a firm stance on national security. It includes measures to reduce the number of migrants, fortify borders, and address labor market gaps by allowing specific foreign workers to fill shortages. Additionally, the strategy proposes a temporary suspension of the right to asylum in response to perceived threats from neighboring countries.
In the 2015 migration crisis too, Poland refused to comply with the EU’s migrant relocation quotas, which aimed to distribute asylum seekers more evenly across member states. This defiance has drawn the ire of EU institutions, which argue that Poland’s stance undermines EU solidarity.
Violation of EU and International Law
Poland’s actions contravene several legal obligations under both EU and international law. The principle of non-refoulement, enshrined in the 1951 Refugee Convention and reinforced by the EU’s Common European Asylum System (CEAS), prohibits countries from returning asylum seekers to places where they face serious threats to their life or freedom. However, there is evidence that Poland has engaged in “pushbacks,” forcibly returning migrants at its borders without due process or an assessment of their asylum claims.
Furthermore, Poland’s refusal to participate in the EU’s relocation scheme breaches Article 80 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), which calls for the principle of solidarity and fair sharing of responsibility among member states. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled in 2020 that Poland, along with Hungary and the Czech Republic, had violated EU law by refusing to accept asylum seekers under the mandatory quota system. Despite this ruling, Poland’s government has remained defiant, continuing to implement policies that prioritize border security over asylum obligations.
Impact on the European Union
Poland’s migration policy has significant implications for the European Union, both in terms of its legal frameworks and political cohesion. One of the core principles of the European Union is solidarity among member states, particularly in response to collective challenges like migration. Poland’s recent strategy sets a precedent for other countries to ignore EU obligations. This undermines the EU’s ability to present a united front in addressing migration challenges, contributing to divisions within the bloc.
Poland’s disregard for EU rulings on migration signals a broader challenge to the rule of law within the Union. If member states can selectively comply with EU law based on political considerations, the legal foundation of the EU itself could be eroded.
Poland’s migration policy and its broader populist agenda raise serious questions about the future of European integration. As one of the largest member states in Central and Eastern Europe, Poland’s stand has emboldened other nationalist movements across the continent. The EU’s inability to enforce compliance with its migration policies reflects deeper governance challenges, particularly in areas where national sovereignty conflicts with EU-level decision-making. This fragmentation could lead to a weakening of the EU’s internal cohesion, with countries choosing to prioritize national interests over collective action on issues like migration, climate change, and security. As migration remains a politically charged issue across Europe, the Union’s failure to develop a unified response could further erode public confidence in its institutions and embolden anti-EU forces.
Conclusion
Poland’s recent migration strategy represents a significant challenge to the European Union’s legal and political order. Driven by domestic populist pressure, the recent immigration strategy violates EU and international law, particularly concerning asylum rights and non-refoulement. These actions have undermined the core principles of solidarity and the rule of law. The future of the EU’s migration policy and its broader integration project will depend on the Union’s ability to address these challenges, ensuring that member states comply with their legal obligations while finding ways to reconcile national interests with collective action. Failure to do so risks deepening divisions within the Union and weakening its capacity to respond to future crises.