However, due to increased humanitarian issues within Türkiye, deriving from the consolidation of power by Türkiye’s President, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, E.U. academics and members from the E.U.’s judicial sector have called the deal “shameful” and criticize the executive branch of the E.U. for making such an ill-advised deal. Some argue that the haste and naivety within the creation of this deal has caused a massive humanitarian crisis within Türkiye, as well as forced refugees to remain in Greece under brutal living conditions. Germany has been the leader in migrant acceptance and continues to pursue an immigration policy that encourages Europe to accept more migrants.
Despite Germany, Europe’s largest economy, having an open border policy, this is not synonymous with all European Union member states, as Viktor Orbán and Hungary have been staunchly against accepting refugees, no matter where their origin is from. From the years 2012 to 2023, Hungary ranked last out of all European Union member states in terms of first-time asylum applicants and total positive decisions. With a positive decision ratio of 1.44%, Hungary accepts significantly fewer asylum-seekers than its fellow E.U. members, 22 of whom have rates of over 20%, with Estonia (94.55%) and Germany (54.40%) coming in as the two highest acceptance rates. The other countries that fall below the 20% mark are Slovenia (3.68%), Croatia (4.74%), Poland (16.34%), and Romania (17.47%).
While these numbers reflect the overall attitudes towards migration into the European Union, the member states that enact the policies differ based on the variety of areas from which migrants are fleeing toward Europe for assistance. This is especially true when applied to individuals migrating from Africa across the Mediterranean Sea. For instance, the European Union has made numerous efforts to open dialogues on immigration, establish relationships with African countries, and prevent various international criminal organizations from profiting from immigration. However, Giorgia Meloni, Prime Minister of Italy, has a very hard-line stance against illegal immigration.
Italy’s situation with Africa is vastly different than that of Germany, as they are immensely closer to the migration routes and have been dealing with the issue much longer. Meloni has been open to creating migration channels and economic relationships with various North African countries, such as Tunisia, but there remains a large undertone from Meloni and her party to “blockade” irregular and illegal migrants. If this far-right policy were to become enforced, the differences between Italian and German immigration policy would be immense and would likely be represented in the E.U.’s institutions.
The reasoning and rationale used for anti-immigration policy align directly with the increased far-right politics in the European Union, and the increased concentration of power allows these regimes to act swiftly with little opposition. There are three major “threats” that scholars and government officials use to justify anti-immigration sentiment: economic, cultural, and security. This is evident in Hungary and Poland, which we know are rather hesitant to allow non-E.U. citizens to migrate. These regimes use the fear of losing their culture to foreign nationals to justify disallowing migrants, especially when the migrants derive from the Middle East and Muslim countries.
In addition to fear of losing a nation’s culture, the security threats that legislators use highlight “potential terrorists,” with the underlying sentiment of Islamophobia. Additionally, if there are violent crimes that surface on social media or gain national attention, there is an immediate uptick in anti-migrant discussions throughout society and in government forums. While immigrants typically improve the economy of a certain country, some regimes use the cost of immigrants as a rationale for turning away migrants. This was seen in Austria from the Freedom Party of Austria, who claimed that additional migrants would cause too much economic strain.
Additionally, as seen in the United States and E.U. member states, employment competition is a large societal influence on attitudes toward immigrants. If there is a lack of national employment, governments can use migrants as an excuse, claiming that individuals are undercutting the natural citizens of the country. Immigration throughout the E.U. is very polarized, as each of the negative viewpoints is counteracted with a positive idea. For cultural threats, the opposite spin is increased cultural diversity. For security threats, the positive for immigration is giving individuals a path away from persecution and violence in their home country. For economic threat perceptions, the positive impacts of immigration include fulfilling the workforce and increasing the number of laborers, potentially in industries that the national population cannot meet, such as agriculture.
In response to the perceived erosion of European identity, a new form of symbolic boundary-making has emerged—what some call “cultural Christianity.” This is not a religious revival, but a political invocation of Christian heritage as a marker of belonging. Leaders like Viktor Orbán in Hungary and parties across Central Europe have framed Christianity as the civilizational core of Europe, using it to justify exclusionary policies on migration, gender, and education. While church attendance continues to decline across the continent, with the Christian share of Europe’s population dropping from 76% in 2010 to 67% in 2020, the language of Christian values has gained political traction. It functions less as a faith and more as a filter—distinguishing “native” Europeans from outsiders, particularly Muslims. This symbolic Christianity has become a cultural defense mechanism, invoked not to unify, but to draw lines.
One Europe, Many Fault Lines
Throughout the history of Europe, there have been significant geographical and regional divides across Europe. As the continent has evolved into a more unified state in the post-WWII era, some of these rivalries and differences remain politically significant. They remain influential dividing factors when it comes to unified E.U. positions in a plethora of areas. The differences between former Eastern Bloc countries and Western countries during the days of the Cold War remain largely impactful on the processes and ideologies of the European Union. Additionally, the economic disparity between Northern and Southern member states causes the E.U. to remain in a state of perpetuity and fear that the economic system they were founded on could crumble in an instant.
Looking at the East and West relationships within the E.U., it is without a doubt that the lasting impacts of the Soviet Union, merged with the current status of Russia, heavily influence E.U. operations in the modern day. While a majority of E.U. member states have a hard-line stance of supporting Ukraine in the Russian war of aggression, it is worth mentioning that not all member states feel the same way. The most notable pro-Russian member state is Hungary, as their Prime Minister, Viktor Orbán, has been adamant about allowing Russia to remain as the E.U.’s major gas and oil provider and disapproves of the sanctions the Commission has placed on Russia.