The European Parliament’s recent decision to approve the European list of safe countries of origin and to clarify the concept of “safe third country” marks a turning point in the Union’s migration policy. The CDS voted in favor of this legislative change because it understands that the right to asylum only survives if it is legally rigorous, technically effective and politically sustainable.
For years, Europe has lived with a system that is excessively slow, unequal between Member States and vulnerable to procedural abuses. The result was doubly negative: on the one hand, thousands of people with legitimate requests remained in legal limbo for years; on the other, manifestly unfounded requests consumed scarce administrative resources, delaying decisions and weakening public trust.
Politically, the reform responds to evidence: without clear and uniformly applied rules, the system loses legitimacy. The absence of common criteria fueled perceptions of lack of control, opened space for the growth of forces that contest the right to asylum itself and weakened the European consensus around international protection. Defending legal limits is not giving in to populism, it is preventing it from thriving.
These changes do not make Europe any less human. They make you more responsible. By accelerating decisions in unfounded cases, they free up resources to analyze requests from those facing real risk with greater rigor and speed.
Can a system that takes years to decide be considered truly humane? Can Europe protect those fleeing persecution if it does not clearly distinguish between those in need of asylum and those seeking better economic opportunities?
Interestingly, those who most proclaim the defense of asylum were often those who refused any common binding criteria, as if the absence of rules were synonymous with compassion. This vision – generous in speech, but indifferent to practical consequences – contributed to a disordered system that lost legitimacy among citizens.
When citizens realize that institutions are unable to manage migratory flows with predictability and justice, distrust grows and democratic consensus weakens. It was not rigor that weakened the European consensus, it was the absence of it. When politics gives up decision-making, others occupy that space.
The right to asylum exists to protect those fleeing individualized persecution, armed conflict or serious violence. It was not designed to replace a migration policy. Europe will continue to need legal immigration, regulated and targeted to its demographic and economic needs, but through its own and transparent channels.
By voting in favor of this reform, the CDS in the European Parliament took a clear position: if we want to preserve asylum as a pillar of European values, we must ensure that it is applied seriously and effectively. Only in this way will we truly protect those in need and the credibility of the European Union itself”
MEP for the CDS, member of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee
Leave a Reply