The Refugee Wave in Europe: Between Humanity and Security Logic

Ilustrasi peta Eropa. Foto: syeddilaver/Shutterstock

The issue of refugee flows has become a structural challenge for the European Union. In Europe, migration flows saw a significant decline throughout 2025; reports indicate a decrease in irregular arrivals of approximately 26% and a drop in asylum applications of about 21%. However, the European Union has continued to take action by tightening border controls through the Pact on Migration and Asylum, which was agreed upon in April 2024 and will be fully implemented in June 2026. Here, the EU is not relaxing its policies but rather emphasizing a security-focused approach. Europe faces a dilemma but is beginning to systematically prioritize stability and control over the humanitarian commitments that have long been the foundation of its identity.

We can clearly see this shift in the strengthening of technology-based border systems, specifically the implementation of the Entry/Exit System (EES) starting in October 2025. The EES is an automated IT system that replaces physical passport stamps with biometric registration for non-EU citizens, with the aim of enhancing security and monitoring the duration of visits. This marks the transformation of borders into spaces of increasingly intense surveillance. Migration is no longer viewed solely as a humanitarian phenomenon, as it has been assessed as a potential threat that requires strict management. This Eropean Union’s action aligns with the logic of securitization, framing an issue as a threat to justify the implementation of extraordinary policies in its management.

This contrast becomes even more noticeable when looking at the actual conditions on the ground. The decline in migration numbers by 2025 should serve as a basis for more proportionate and protection-oriented policies. Instead, the policies are moving toward tighter controls, accelerated procedures, and increasingly limited protection. This is the case even as a new crisis looms in the Middle East, a situation the European Asylum Agency predicts will trigger a massive refugee influx. This indicates that the policy is no longer fully responsive to empirical realities but is instead guided by a logic of risk prevention.

These security measures are also evident in an increasingly aggressive externalization strategy. In particular, the plan to establish “Return Hubs”, repatriation centers that function as detention facilities located outside the European Union’s borders. Return Hubs are designed to house individuals whose asylum claims have been rejected or who are deemed ineligible to reside in the EU for any reason. While this plan aims to address certain migration challenges in Europe, it is deeply concerning as it risks failing to ensure the protection of human rights, and these centers could potentially operate outside the scope of EU law. This plan represents a new form of security practice that sacrifices human dignity outside European jurisdiction. This continues the pattern of externalization previously demonstrated in the European Union-Libya agreement, which has been repeatedly and harshly criticized; according to OHCR, this results in systematic human rights violations, such as arbitrary detention, torture, and forced return (refoulement) of migrants and refugees.

Furthermore, the European Union is forging increasingly close ties with countries in North Africa. In practice, this cooperation aims to stop migrants before they reach Europe, thereby effectively shifting the point of control beyond its borders. As a result, many refugees are trapped in vulnerable situations in transit countries, without adequate guarantees of protection. The most concerning issue is how the EU will handle the potential crisis ahead. In the context of escalating global conflicts, this approach does not address the root causes of the problem but merely shifts the burden to other regions with more limited capacity. An excessive focus on closing borders without establishing safe routes will only lead to a humanitarian crisis down the line.

On the other hand, the European Union’s dilemma is also evident in its inconsistent practice of internal solidarity. The response to refugees from Ukraine demonstrates that when there is political will, protection mechanisms can be implemented quickly and on a large scale. As of January 2026, approximately 4.38 million non-EU citizens who fled Ukraine have received temporary protection in the European Union. However, this treatment does not always apply to refugees from other regions, who instead face stricter procedures and more limited access to protection.

This differential treatment shows that solidarity in the European Union’s migration policy remains selective. Some member states, such as Poland, have even rejected mandatory relocation mechanisms on the grounds that they have already borne the burden of refugees, thereby reinforcing fragmentation within the European asylum system. Under these circumstances, solidarity no longer functions as a universal principle, but rather as a political instrument dependent on the domestic interests of each country. As is the case for refugees from Syria, Afghanistan, or Sub-Saharan Africa, who face expedited border procedures, the risk of detention, and a high likelihood of deportation.

From an international relations perspective, these dynamics reflect the tension between normative identity and strategic interests. The European Union has long been known as an actor that prioritizes human rights values, as reflected in international legal frameworks such as the 1951 Refugee Convention. However, developments in migration policy indicate that this commitment is becoming increasingly difficult to uphold in the face of security and domestic political pressures. Consequently, a gap has emerged between the values promoted and the practices implemented.

In the end, the direction of the European Union’s policy on managing refugee flows shows that the dilemma between humanity and security is not merely a technical issue, but rather the result of political choices that are increasingly leaning toward a logic of control. This shift may provide short-term stability, but it risks eroding the moral foundation that has long been the source of the European Union’s global legitimacy. This EU migration policy systematically prioritizes a narrow conception of security over universal humanitarian commitments. Without a serious effort to rebalance security and humanitarian responsibility, the European Union not only risks its credibility on the international stage but also perpetuates a system that structurally prolongs the vulnerability of refugees.