EU migration plan faces far-right pressure amid US policy influence and challenges

By Abul Quashem Joarder

Europe is once again at a crossroads on migration policy, grappling with the twin pressures of demographic change and political extremism. The latest United States National Security Strategy, published last week, adds an additional layer of complexity, portraying European nations as standing on the brink of “civilizational erasure” and warning that, within decades, certain National Security member states’ populations may become majority non-European. While the US strategy does not dictate EU policy, its narrative resonates dangerously with the rhetoric of far-right parties across the continent, further amplifying political anxieties and influencing policy discussions.

For over a decade, the European far right has relied on the portrayal of mass migration as an existential threat to the continent, often framing it as a risk greater than traditional geopolitical challenges, such as Russia. This discourse combines race, Christianity, nationalism, and a narrative of racial dominance, effectively dividing communities and countries at a time when Europe faces a pressing demographic reality: population aging. Without newcomers to fill low-paid but essential roles, particularly in the care sector, the continent risks creating severe economic and social gaps, especially in systems designed to care for its growing elderly population.

The alignment of US strategic messaging with some of these narratives is likely to embolden far-right politicians. The strategy implicitly validates fears of “cultural replacement” and mass migration, sentiments that are gaining traction in Europe, where citizens increasingly blame migrants for rising costs, integration challenges, and perceived failures in governance. Within this context, asylum and migration issues have become highly politicized, providing a platform for populist leaders to capture attention and mobilize support, regardless of the factual accuracy of their claims or the feasibility of their proposed solutions.

The political pressure is tangible. Across Europe, governments are scrambling to present tougher stances on migration to appease electorates increasingly sympathetic to far-right arguments. On Monday, EU countries reached a preliminary agreement on a draft proposal to establish “return hubs” for asylum seekers outside the bloc. This plan mirrors initiatives from other nations, such as Italy’s pilot scheme in Albania and the now-abandoned UK plan in Rwanda. While these initiatives are intended to manage asylum applications more efficiently, they raise significant legal, ethical, and operational concerns.

Implementing EU-wide return hubs is far from straightforward. Regulating centers outside the bloc, ensuring the safety of migrants, and adhering to international and EU legal standards presents a daunting challenge. The plan also proposes imposing stricter penalties on applicants who fail to leave voluntarily, raising concerns about potential prison sentences, deportations, and coercive enforcement measures. Critics argue that the scheme risks replicating a “dehumanizing” approach akin to US practices, prioritizing control and deterrence over humane treatment and integration.

Despite these challenges, the European Commission has pushed forward with proposals that could significantly reshape EU migration policy. The proposals include adopting a common EU list of “safe countries of origin” and establishing an EU-wide policy for migrant returns. These measures, however, face criticism from more than 200 human rights and migrant organizations, who warn that the plan could entrench discrimination and exacerbate suffering for asylum seekers. The European Parliament’s endorsement will ultimately determine whether these proposals become binding law.

The EU also continues to debate the financial and logistical mechanisms of its migration policy. Member states agreed on a “solidarity pool” for 2026, designed to share responsibility for asylum seekers. Under this framework, countries can choose to assist Mediterranean states with either the relocation of 21,000 asylum seekers or financial contributions totaling €420 million ($488 million). While this initiative represents a modest attempt at burden-sharing, critics argue that it falls far short of the needs of frontline states like Greece and Italy, which continue to receive the bulk of arrivals.

Under the proposed rules, EU countries could reject an asylum application if the applicant could have sought protection in a country deemed safe by the bloc. This includes EU accession candidates as well as selected non-EU states such as Bangladesh, Colombia, Egypt, India, Morocco, and Tunisia. The plan also stipulates stricter enforcement for those who fail to comply with return orders, potentially including detention or imprisonment.

Legal experts warn that these measures could face extensive challenges in European courts. The designation of “safe countries” is inherently subjective, and political instability or conflict could rapidly alter such classifications.

Additionally, the policy risks creating a patchwork of national interpretations and enforcement approaches, complicating its implementation and potentially undermining the EU’s commitment to human rights.

Beyond legal and operational concerns, the plan reflects deep political anxieties. Center-right and far-right lawmakers are eager to demonstrate action, but solidarity among member states is weak.

Few nations are willing to accept additional asylum seekers, even under the limited quota system proposed by the solidarity pool. This reluctance highlights the broader tension between political signaling and practical policy effectiveness within the EU.

Meanwhile, the broader context for these policies has shifted. Irregular entries into EU territories have decreased by 20 percent in 2025 compared to the previous year. Despite this decline, political pressure remains high, as policymakers feel compelled to respond to public fears, far-right rhetoric, and media narratives framing migration as an existential crisis.

The EU’s policy ambitions are further complicated by the recent adoption of new migration laws, set to take effect in June 2026, creating overlapping frameworks that could generate confusion and implementation challenges.

Critics argue that EU migration reforms are motivated less by necessity than by politics. By adopting a common list of safe countries, establishing return hubs, and imposing stricter enforcement, the EU risks importing the punitive and often controversial US approach to immigration enforcement.

The political calculus is clear: policymakers hope to appease electorates and deter the far-right surge, but the human cost and practical feasibility of these policies remain deeply uncertain.

In conclusion, the EU’s migration strategy faces a formidable array of challenges. Legal ambiguity, operational difficulties, and political resistance all threaten the success of ambitious reforms.

Meanwhile, far-right narratives and the influence of US strategic messaging exacerbate political pressure, creating an environment where fear and ideology risk overshadowing evidence-based policy.

Without meaningful solidarity among member states, and without addressing the structural needs of Europe’s aging populations, these reforms may remain largely aspirational.

As the EU navigates these pressures, the ultimate test will be whether it can balance human rights, practical governance, and political expediency-or whether the specter of US-style migration enforcement becomes a blueprint for European policy.