Introduction
Over the past few years, migration policy in the European Union (EU) has undergone a major shift, driven by the growing influence of right-wing parties. What began as fringe rhetoric has moved into the political mainstream, reshaping how migration policies are created and perceived. Security, deterrence, and exclusion have replaced solidarity and the protection of human rights as guiding principles. Moreover, even centre-leaning parties are aiming to align themselves with hardline right-wing positions in an effort to retain public support.
This transformation has tangible consequences. Human rights principles are being dismantled, cooperation with authoritarian regimes is becoming normalised, and the burden of processing migrants’ claims is being outsourced to actors with little regard for rights or accountability. While Europe fortifies its borders, it moves further away from the commitments that once defined its moral and legal stance on asylum and refugee protection.
Migration as a Manufactured Threat
The rise of the right-wing political agenda has affected all the spheres of European policy, and especially the migration policy. Parties like Fratelli d’Italia in Italy, Alternative for Germany in Germany, and Fidesz in Hungary have gained a lot of power and citizen support by putting forth a populist rhetoric. Among their popular claims are the goals of “restoring control” of national borders and “clearing” the country of migrants.
Even when not in power, right-wing parties have managed to influence the policies of governing parties. Tarik Abou-Chadi, an associate professor of European politics at the University of Oxford, calls this situation a “vicious cycle” (Henley, 2025). Seeing the rise in interest among the electorate, politicians have felt they have no choice but to adapt and adopt stricter migration policies to remain relevant to voters. Abou-Chadi also argues that such a strategy not only promotes far-right beliefs, but is also not effective in making centre-leaning parties more popular. What ends up happening is that public opinion shifts so far to the right that the (still moderate) policies of centre-leaning parties do not address those new concerns of the electorate.
The way that right-wing politicians exert their influence is by playing on people’s emotions. They use words like “invasion”, “replacement”, and “border defence” to instate the sense of danger that comes from migrants. They manufacture the discourse in which migrants are “others” who are opposed to the citizens, and their presence in the country only burdens the national social system. It seems that in this worldview, migrants do not contribute to the economy, do not integrate into society and generally do not produce any value.
The concept of “value” in general is closely tied to the anti-migrant discourse propagated by right-wing politicians. They talk of “good” legal migrants, usually educated expats, who come to the country in the “right way”, either to work in high-paying sectors or to open large businesses. The idea is that migrants should bring some value to locals as a sort of payment for the opportunity of living in the country. The racial aspect also plays an important role in dividing migrants into desirable and non-desirable, where all members of non-European ethnicities are treated worse. Researchers state that translating populist anti-migrant narratives is an effective way for the right-wing parties to influence citizens’ views on migration, leading to more negative attitudes towards migrants (Wirz et al., 2018).
Impact on Policy Priorities
As a result, right-leaning governments now prioritise stopping migration, accelerating deportations, and shifting responsibilities to other countries, rather than supporting integration or protecting human rights. A key part of this shift is making asylum procedures much stricter, which makes it harder for people to get protection. Many EU countries have introduced fast-track deportations and shortened the time migrants have to appeal, limiting their chances of a fair process.
An instrumental element of this strategy has been the outsourcing of migrants to third countries through bilateral agreements. This approach is exemplified by regulations aimed at discouraging asylum applications from non-EU countries by establishing so-called “return hubs” (The New Union Post, 2025). For instance, Italy has reached a deal with Albania, under which Albania will handle asylum claims for migrants intercepted at sea while trying to reach Italian shores. Similarly, Denmark has signed an agreement with Kosovo, allowing the transfer of 300 prisoners from Denmark to serve their sentences in Kosovo (The New Union Post, 2025).
Moreover, the European Commission has proposed to amend the “safe third country” concept under the Pact on Migration and Asylum (The European Commission, 2025). The amendment would make it possible for the EU countries to deport asylum seekers to countries that are deemed safe – among those are Bangladesh, Cambodia, Egypt, India, Kosovo, Morocco and Tunisia. Human rights activists question the safety of those countries as some of them are notorious for the negative treatment of LGBTQIA+ people and detainments for political views, among other concerning trends (Euronews, 2025).
Technological Enforcement and Civil Liberties Concerns
Since migration policy began being framed as a security threat, surveillance and the use of modern technology such as artificial intelligence (AI) have started being heavily discussed. Surveillance is now a core instrument of migration control. Right-wing policymakers and technocrats alike champion these measures, framing them as “modernisation” and “efficiency”. However, the deployment of such technologies often lacks transparency, oversight, and respect for fundamental rights.
The latest European policy proposals call for the widespread use of biometric surveillance, AI-driven risk assessments, and drones to monitor and deter migration flows. The 2025 position paper from the European People’s Party explicitly recommends expanding surveillance at the EU’s external borders and even supports the reintroduction of internal border checks within the EU in times of crisis (EPP Group in the European Parliament, 2025).
The legal protections offered by the EU at the moment are not very promising. For example, the praised EU AI Act, which was framed as legislation that aims to regulate potentially harmful AI technologies, conveniently fails to enforce any additional checks on software that is being created for national security purposes (Article 19, 2024). That means that behind closed doors, any kind of unethical AI-driven tools can be created to optimise detention and deportation efforts.
The effects of this development, once again, will not be limited to the migrant population of Europe. Less AI safety and more usage of residents’ data to train those Large Language Models (LLM) is harming all people in the long run. Possible negative consequences include the compromise of confidential data, a rise in the number of racial profiling cases, excessive governmental interference in private life and many more.
Erosion of Human Rights Protections
What the right-wing shift in migration policy means for human rights is the erosion of inclusive policies and an increase in racial profiling, hate crimes, and restriction of migrant rights. All those effects, contrary to many people’s beliefs, do not strictly affect migrants. Strong anti-migrant policies pose harm to the countries’ economies as migrants often constitute large numbers of workers in key areas such as agriculture and transportation.
The crackdown on migration will create more problems in the long run than it may seem at first glance. Those policies severely undermine efforts at long-term integration. In many EU countries, policies that once supported refugee and migrant inclusion, such as language courses, employment programs, and community centres, are being dismantled or defunded. These shifts are not simply administrative changes, they send a message to migrants that they are unwelcome.
A stark example is the political backlash against integration programs in Poland, where the ruling Law and Justice party has misrepresented integration centres as a gateway for illegal migration (Notes from Poland, 2025). In reality, these centres aim to support people already granted legal residence by helping them find jobs, learn the language, and engage with local communities. Using those centres to promote one’s political agenda reduces their credibility and fosters a more negative perception of the services that they provide. By distorting the view of the purpose of migration centres, right-wing politicians harm the integration process and contribute to migrant marginalisation, which, in turn, leads to social instability, a rise in the number of crimes and other negative consequences.
The consequences of these policy choices go beyond individual harm. Anti-migrant rhetoric fuels a toxic social climate, contributing to rising levels of xenophobia, hate crimes, and social fragmentation. The best examples are the efforts to restrict family reunification, such as Germany’s recent suspension of reunification for individuals under subsidiary protection, a move that directly contradicts established human rights norms and undermines psychological well-being and community stability (Alkousaa, 2025).
According to the new regulation, asylum seekers will not be able to reunite with their families. The most immediate impact of this decision is that integration will become more difficult. Without the option of family reunification, individuals may face a range of challenges, from emotional to financial. It is harder to focus on learning the language or engaging with the local culture when there is uncertainty about ever seeing one’s family again. Moreover, in some cases, migrants who arrive with children become sole caregivers, which further limits their ability to participate in integration programs or attend language courses.
The economic argument against anti-migration policies is also crucial to discuss. Migrants form a significant portion of Europe’s workforce, especially in sectors such as agriculture, healthcare, and transportation. Restrictive policies not only cut off their access to labour but also foster conditions that allow exploitation to thrive. Delays in legal processing, barriers to employment, and reduced access to social services create conditions of dependency and marginalisation, which in turn generate resentment and fear within host communities. Mass deportations of migrants working in certain areas will negatively affect the production of goods, disrupting the country’s economy and the everyday life of European residents.
Conclusion
The current trajectory of European migration policy reflects the major shift in European politics in general. Control and “safety” are now prioritised over human rights and empathy. Under the growing influence of right-wing politics, the EU is creating a regime that systematically limits access to protection while outsourcing its legal and ethical responsibilities. Appeals are restricted, family reunification is blocked, and the very concept of asylum is being hollowed out through legal reinterpretation and administrative manoeuvring.
Bibliography
Article 19. (2024, April 4). EU: AI Act fails to set gold standard for human rights. <https://www.article19.org/resources/eu-ai-act-fails-to-set-gold-standard-for-human-rights/>. Accessed August 3, 2025.
Alkousaa, R. (2025, June 27). German lower house backs plan to halt refugee family reunification. Reuters. <https://www.reuters.com/world/german-lower-house-backs-plan-halt-refugee-family-reunification-2025-06-27/> . Accessed July 5, 2025.
EPP Group Position Paper on Harnessing Migration: Firm, Fair and Future-Oriented Approach. EPP Group in the European Parliament. <https://www.eppgroup.eu/newsroom/epp-group-position-paper-on-harnessing-migration-firm-fair-and-future-oriented-approach>. Accessed August 3, 2025.
Henley, J. (2025, February 1). ‘Vicious cycle’: how far-right parties across Europe are cannibalising the centre right. The Guardian. <https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/feb/01/vicious-cycle-far-right-parties-across-europe-are-inspiring-imitators>. Accessed August 3, 2025.
Notes from Poland. (2025, April 18). Polish province refuses to establish EU-funded migrant integration centres. <https://notesfrompoland.com/2025/04/18/polish-province-refuses-to-establish-eu-funded-migrant-integration-centres/#:~:text=Last October, the European Commission,, the government and NGOs”>. Accessed 2025, August 3.
The European Commission. (2025, May 20). The Commission proposes to facilitate the application of the safe third country concept. <https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_1224>. Accessed 2025, August 3.
The New Union Post. (2025, March 11). How Denmark-Kosovo and Italy-Albania deals set a precedent for EU ‘return hubs’. <https://newunionpost.eu/2025/03/11/return-hubs-migrants-eu-kosovo-albania/>. Accessed 2025, August 3.
Walker, L. (2025, May 27). What are the EU’s ‘safe country’ proposals for asylum seekers?. Euronews. <https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2025/05/27/what-are-the-eus-safe-country-proposals-for-asylum-seekers>. Accessed 2025, August 3.
Wirz, D.S., Wettstein, M.,Schulz, A., Müller, P., Schemer, C., Ernst, N., Esser, F. and Wirth, W. (2018, August 2). The Effects of Right-Wing Populist Communication on Emotions and Cognitions toward Immigrants. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161218788
