If there is an issue that has hit the global news more than climate change in the recent past is the overwhelming migration patterns in Europe. The immigrants in 2015 have doubled in the European Union countries leading to strain in the National resources. Lawson asylum acceptance by the European Union countries are becoming impractical to apply because of the rising number of immigrants. The article by Sobczyk & Pop (2015) on the wall street journal, the immigrants are growing at an alarming pace making it difficult for the European Unions to adapt. The European Union is planning to settle 120,000 asylum seekers by moving them to front-line countries such as Greece, where they enter other European Union countries through, and redistribute them to other European countries to ease the pressure on the few front-line countries. This is a drop in the ocean bearing in mind that there are more than half a million refugees across Europe and they are moving at a very fast pace making it difficult to resettle them.
The Western Europe officials are for the redistribution of the 120,000 refugees across Europe as a temporary solution as they look for a more permanent solution of redistributing the whole refugee population. This decision has not gone done well with other countries like Lithuania who claim that 120,000 is a small number compared to the millions of refugees present and the more to come (Sobczyk & Pop, 2015). Other countries have tried restrictive methods to curb the immigration issues, e.g. Hungary erected a fence on its borders to keep out the immigrants from entering the country. One of the countries that has most been affected by this migration is Germany where many asylum-seekers feel is a safe haven. It has been difficult to force immigrants to h=go to a destination they do not like, for instance, an effort in trying to lift off the burden from Germany by moving some of the refugees to Belgian and France has not been fruitful because most of these immigrants return after redistribution. The Chancellor of the biggest economy in Europe, Angela Merkel, proposes stern actions to be taken against the immigrants as they should not be given the opportunity to decide where they should settle.
Another article by Banulescu-Bogdan & Fratzke (2015) looks at the issue of European migration issue but in a more detailed way. This article looks at four different aspects to the question of European Union immigration situation, they include; the commonly used routes by the immigrants, the reason for migration, why the migration is more prevalent now more than ever, and why the issue is difficult to tackle. In terms of the routes, there are three commonly used routes; the central Mediterranean route, which is through Malta and Italy which is commonly used by Sub-Saharan Nations. The second route, which is the most common now in the Eastern Mediterranean route which is through Greece and the Aegean Sea, this is used as a short route to the rest of Europe by Syrians. The last route is the Balkans which is through Hungary. The Syrians are accounting more than 50% of the new arrivals this year due to the persistent civil war that has affected the country since 2011 (BBC News, 2015).
The 1951 Geneva Convention is becoming more and more difficult to apply because it is difficult to distinguish between a refugee and a non-refugee; it is also difficult to determine who is qualified to receive the various protections under the Convention. There are three distinct categories that the arrivals are slotted; there are individuals who are qualified protection due to the situation in their home countries, there are individuals who do not qualify for protection but are at risks due to various reasons, and there are those who flee their home countries for economic reasons. Therefore, these different motivations are an added challenge to the various asylum authorities.
Banulescu-Bogdan & Fratzke (2015) have attributed the sharp increase of immigrants in the European Union to pull and push factors. Immigration has been there in Europe it is only recently that it has increased to unprecedented and unsustainable levels. One of the push factors is there has been an increase in instability and ongoing violence in many countries such as Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Eritrea, etc. Another push factor is the limitation of access by host countries to asylum seekers; counties of first asylum have been with challenges due to immigrants overburdens. Many of the countries that are hosting immigrants are becoming more frustrated and shouting out the refugees who are forced to move in search of safe-havens. The countries utilities and amenities have to be shared between the native and the aliens; this has resulted in limited opportunities such as schooling and job. The change in Geopolitical landscapes in countries like Libya and Egypt has increased the rates in immigration; these countries have been dogged by civil unrest and ousting of their presidents.
The issue of immigration has been difficult to tackle due to faults in immigration systems and policies that have been adapted. Firstly, there has been limited concern on long-term solutions to the immigration issue. The policies that have been adopted are mainly concerned on the care and maintenance of the refugees rather than finding permanent solutions to their fate. In efforts on resettlement, UNHCR has not been proactive in settling the matter because they resettle only a fraction of the millions of individuals who are either internally or externally displaced. Secondly, the international community has not been responsive in terms of helping countries that are hosting most of these refugees. Immigration being a global challenge, some countries such as Lebanon has been left to deal with the issue single-handedly. Countries such as Lebanon are known to host most of the Syrian refugees, and therefore, they need help in terms of finance and also redistribution abodes where they can share the burden with other countries. Thirdly many European countries have adapted territorial based national asylum system because the refugee convention states that refugees should be located outside their country of origin. Countries have closed their borders, making it difficult for the refugees to access the asylum authorities in different countries.
The arguments in the two articles are similar with minor difference in scope rather than content. The article by Banulescu-Bogdan & Fratzke (2015) looks at more details of the migration situation in Europe while the article by Sobczyk & Pop (2015) looks at how the refugee situation is growing faster than the countries could adopt. Both of the articles are talking about the difficulties the host countries are facing in terms of straining in the national resources due to increase in refugees. Both the articles agree on the fact that redistribution of refugees is a short term solution to the immigration.
The articles go further about how for before the boarder in European Union countries were open to each other, and now they are building barricades and fences. It is a weird incongruity of history that the nations that grumbled the most about the presence of fringe fences and dividers, and promised to cut them down everlastingly, is presently hectically developing them. Maybe it may appear to be odd to a fair eyewitness that rich Europe of almost 2 billion individuals can’t adapt to hundred thousand transients and refugees while much poorer Turkey has hosted more than a million displaced people from Syria and Pakistan. Iran have hosted a few hundred thousand from Afghanistan and Iraq. The distinction is that the immigrants coming from different regions other than Europe who come to Europe have regularly no relatives, companions or even the obscure plausibility of a vocation. They are left to battle for themselves, living on public or private philanthropy, and little, regularly illicit, trade. They are socially, religiously and phonetically more unique in relation to the normal European than are Syrian displaced people from the Turks. In this way, the displaced people remain absolutely un-integrated.
The articles describe how far the European Union is far from being successful in tackling the immigration issue with the current policies adapted. The migration pattern, regardless of the possibility that the Europeans figure out how to control it, reflects all the more profoundly situated and changeless components that are unrealistic to decrease at any point in the near future; these elements are political turmoil in the Middle East and, all the more essentially, the exceptionally colossal income gap between Europe and many of the counties in Africa and Middle East. With globalization, the information of these crevices and also the commonsense intends to reduce them by moving to a rich nation are more known and prevalent than any time in recent memory. These patterns are becoming difficult for Europe to manage when one takes a closer look to see and understand that the sub-Saharan African populace which is as of now just marginally more than that of all of Europe, will grow tremendously in the coming years, increasing the prospects of economic immigration to the continent.
From the look at things, the European Union has itself to blame for the current situation. European Union has in the previous past committed various political mistakes that have increased the immigration crisis and made precariousness on its outskirts. The missteps incorporate the careless oust of Ghaddafi, whose administration was supplanted by fighting tribes and Hobbesian turmoil prompting the nonappearance of any control over Libyan outskirts, both in the south and the north. At that point, the just as careless final offer to the past Ukrainian government in particular, German request that the condition for the consenting to of the trade agreement would be setting free Yulia Timoshenko from jail and she be treated in Germany; this has prompted the topple of the Yanukovych government, Russian mediation in Ukraine, and the civil war (Milanovic, 2015). The European Union in this way needs to take some time to consider whether it is presently changing itself, through a mix of haughtiness and inadequacy.
Not all are against the migration in Europe as these articles suggest. Supporters of the mass movement say that refugees are an appreciated help for Europe’s hailing work force. In Germany, for example, there is an appeal for individual refugees educated in mathematics, information technology, natural sciences and technology normally referred to as MINT laborers. Germany confronts a deficiency and ageing employees in MINT industries. There is demand for more laborers in different commercial enterprises in the future, an interest that it is trusted the huge numbers of almost a million immigrants that are expected to stream in Germany this year alone, could meet.
During this year, a research institute issued an announcement asking the German government to encourage refuge claims from talented specialists and for integration courses to empower those specialists to enter the German work force when possible. Though Europe is by all accounts gradually moving towards an answer, the crisis looks beyond any doubt to deteriorate before it improves.
As an inseparable unit with the work force, verbal confrontation is the topic of Europe’s demographic time bomb that will put weight on government assets over Europe. Ageing populaces are pressing economies as an expanding number of resigned specialists and elderly nationals look to the state and working individuals. Most of the biggest economies in Europe such as Germany, have one of the lowest birth rates in Europe. According to Eurostat, with the current birth rates, most of these European economic powerhouses are expected to have a decline in their working population which will be unfavorable in sustaining their economies. Therefore, it is important for these economies to accept some of these immigrants to counter-balance (Ellyatt, 2015).
The immigration crisis was a predictable one, and one that has been fermenting for quite a long time, if not decades. Throughout the most recent a quarter-century, has encountered comparative surges of approaching refugees, every one developing in size, and each coordinated with expanding measures to close borders and build more prominent bureaucratic hindrances to legitimate refugee status. By shutting out immigrants and making lawful movement exponentially harder, then again, pundits contend that the European Union has unintentionally offered life to a parallel smuggling economy and has required transients’ dependence on smugglers and their accursed systems, upgrading smugglers reach (Edelen, 2015).
In summary, the articles by Sobczyk & Pop (2015) and Banulescu-Bogdan & Fratzke (2015) more talk about the European Union immigration and fail to look at the positive aspects of it as other critics have looked at it. The two articles in most of their endeavors with the departing point only being the details in their content, the article by Banulescu-Bogdan & Fratzke (2015) is more detailed on the paths followed by the immigrants and the push and pull factors that make it difficult to deal with the situation. Long-term solutions and adaption of more efficient policies is the only solution to the immigration crisis. The immigration crisis should also be looked at in a positive light because they fill up the vacancies and professional gaps left in the ageing workforce in most of the European countries. Lastly, the European Union should tackle the issues of immigration head on by first dealing with the root causes of the immigration, such as wars and economic disparities.