fr.euronews.com
EU Asylum Applications Decrease 11% in 2024 Despite Record Highs from Venezuela and Ukraine
Asylum applications in the EU, Norway, and Switzerland decreased by 11% in 2024 to 1,014,420, remaining above one million for the second consecutive year; applications from Venezuela reached a record high, while Ukrainian applications increased by 90%, prompting the EU to create controversial "return centers" outside its territory.
- What is the overall impact of the 11% decrease in asylum applications in the EU in 2024, considering the ongoing pressure on member states and the EU's response?
- The number of asylum applications in the EU, Norway, and Switzerland decreased by 11% in 2024 to 1,014,420, down from 1,143,437 in 2023. However, this remains above one million for the second consecutive year. Nearly half of these applications were from nationals with historically low success rates, prompting EU member states to push for faster expulsions of rejected applicants.
- How do the divergent trends in asylum applications from different nationalities, such as the increases from Venezuela and Ukraine versus decreases from Syria, reflect broader geopolitical and migration patterns?
- The decrease in asylum applications is coupled with a controversial EU proposal to create "return centers" outside EU territory for rejected applicants. This is in response to member states' concerns about applicants seeking better living conditions rather than fleeing persecution. The EU is also implementing agreements with countries like Tunisia, Egypt, and Lebanon to strengthen border controls.
- What are the potential long-term consequences of the EU's proposed "return centers" and agreements with third countries to curb irregular migration, considering their limited impact on the overall number of asylum applications?
- While the overall number of asylum applications decreased, applications from Venezuelans reached a record high (73,187), and Ukrainian applications increased by 90% (to 27,000). This highlights the challenges of managing migration flows and the limitations of external border controls, suggesting that many asylum seekers still enter through legal channels. The impending expiration of the temporary protection directive for Ukrainians in March 2026 may further increase asylum applications.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The framing emphasizes the concerns of EU member states regarding the number of asylum applications and the perceived burden on their resources. The headline (if any) and introduction likely focus on the decrease in numbers as a positive development while downplaying the humanitarian aspects of the situation. The sequencing prioritizes the EU's policy responses over the individual stories or broader human rights context. For example, the discussion of the EU's plans to create "return centers" comes before an in-depth exploration of the reasons why asylum seekers come to Europe. This framing may lead readers to see the situation primarily through the lens of EU concerns rather than a multifaceted humanitarian crisis.
Language Bias
While the article attempts to present the information neutrally, the repeated use of words and phrases such as "burden," "influx," "pressure," and "accelerate expulsion" reveals a slightly negative and alarmist tone towards asylum seekers. The use of "return centers" instead of "detention centers" is a clear example of using euphemistic language. To maintain neutrality, words such as "manage" could be replaced with "address," and instead of focusing on the speed of expulsion, the focus could be on procedural fairness.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the decrease in asylum applications and the EU's response, potentially omitting discussions on the reasons behind the decrease or the experiences of asylum seekers themselves. While the article mentions successful asylum claims by some groups, it doesn't explore the challenges faced by those rejected or the long-term implications of the EU's policies. The article also doesn't mention the perspectives of humanitarian organizations or refugee support groups, limiting a complete understanding of the situation. The constraints of space might explain some of the omissions, but a more balanced perspective would strengthen the article.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy by framing the issue solely as a matter of managing the influx of asylum seekers versus the needs of the EU member states. It doesn't adequately address the humanitarian aspects of the situation or the complex reasons why people seek asylum. The focus on reducing numbers and speeding up deportations overshadows a deeper discussion of the ethical and legal implications of EU policies.
Gender Bias
The article does not contain overt gender bias. However, a more in-depth analysis would be needed to assess whether gender is adequately represented within the statistics or whether gender-specific challenges are addressed. The lack of data on gender-specific experiences limits a full evaluation in this area.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights the challenges faced by the EU in managing asylum applications, including concerns about the high number of applications from individuals with low chances of approval, leading to calls for stricter legislation and the creation of controversial "return centers." This reflects a strain on the justice system and institutions responsible for processing asylum claims and managing migration flows. The Hungarian government's defiance of EU asylum laws further exemplifies the challenges in upholding the rule of law and international standards related to refugee protection.