Immigration, Illiberalism, and Inequality: How the EU’s Far-Right Forces Endanger Democracy
A street sign reads “Every Human Has Rights.” Far-right parties in the European Union, in collusion with the moderate right, have passed migration policies that violate human rights and threaten democracy.
Photo credit: Markus Spiske
A significant increase in the representation of far-right parties in the European parliament in the last European elections has changed the supranational institution’s geometry. Across the European Union’s 27 sovereigns, the presence of the far-right almost unanimously increased; in countries such as France, the National Rally (NR) won the elections with 31.5 percent of the vote, while in Germany, Alternative for Germany (AfD) arrived in second place with 16 percent of the vote. Additionally, in other countries such as Austria, the Netherlands, Italy, Hungary and Poland, the far-right either won the elections or came second.
The far-right in the European parliament, previously concentrated in the Identity and Democracy party, is now divided between Patriots for Europe and Europe of Sovereign Nations. Additionally, other far-right populist and national-conservative parties’ representatives, who share anti-immigration stances, also hold seats in the European Conservatives and Reformists Group. For example, Italy’s Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s Brothers of Italy party, the Polish Law and Justice Party, or Marion Maréchal Le Pen’s Identity-Liberties party– a former member of the National Rally and the far-right party Reconquête.
While the results did not give the far-right a majority, they created more opportunities for collusion with the more “moderate” right, which can ensure that significant concerns related to social or environmental matters become deadlocked. Furthermore, this phenomenon suggests deeper challenges in societies, and major complex risks that the world will be facing in the next decades. As identified in the yearly World Economic Forum’s Global Risks Report for 2025, major concerns such as misinformation and disinformation, climate change, societal polarization, inequality, and migration can be put aside by far-right parties, who consider those challenges trivial concerns. Meanwhile, these parties prioritize limiting migration, which they see as a major threat. As a consequence, the EU’s fundamental values are under threat.
European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen, who was just re-elected, has shown a negative attitude towards migration that seems to translate into a stronger anti-immigration discourse. During the European Council meeting on October 17, the discussion on migration witnessed the most stringent ideas and proposals. This meeting was marked by important resolutions that seem to be in contradiction with EU’s fundamental values, which encompass respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, rule of law, respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities, and the right to asylum. The Council concluded on boosting cooperation with third countries of origin and transit to tackle human trafficking, smuggling, and unsafe departures.
The EU wants to externalize its migration efforts as much as possible. While these initiatives might look good in theory, their efficacy and respect for human rights are questionable. The EU’s latest partnerships with external countries such as Tunisia or Libya showcased grave migrant rights violations. Local authorities funded and equipped by the EU displaced migrants in the Sahara without providing essential resources such as food and water. Additionally, their rights were violated through acts of torture, sexual violence, and even homicide. Thus, collaborating with regimes known for their human rights violations no longer seems to be a problem for the EU.
The Council also urged the need to ramp up efforts on tightening control at the EU's border, despite a decreasing number of irregular border crossings by land and sea since 2021, falling by 38% in 2024. Moreover, while the number of refugees, asylum-seekers, and displaced people keeps increasing, most of the migration flows occur internally. Migrants remain in low- and middle-income countries, which already struggle with domestic, political, economic, and social insecurity themselves. Hence, the alarmist discourse adopted by far-right populist parties seems to alert an urgency and “loss of culture” that is more ideological than factual. This results in the perception of a minority channelled by some political leaders to support their political narratives.
The announced resolutions during the Council meeting align with an increasing normalization of restrictive migration stands. This includes the reintroduction of checks in Germany’s border (contradicting Schengen principle) and the Netherlands’ formal demand to opt-out of asylum rules. Also, migration stances in other countries have featured harsh anti-immigration rhetoric, so far pioneered by Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s anti-immigration attitude. This “Orbanization” of EU’s migration policy is accompanied with other externalization efforts.
For example, Meloni made a pact with Albania to speed up “returns from the EU,” to which the member nations were also committed during the Council meeting, which was recognized as unlawful by the EU’s Court of Justice. The agreement was rejected by the Italian courts on the grounds that the migrants' countries of origin were deemed insufficiently safe, hence, deporting them from the center posed an important risk. Consequently, Meloni accused the Italian judges ruling on the case of obstructing the executive for political reasons and acting against the general will of the voters. Meloni’s Foreign Minister, Antonio Tajani, also mentioned in an interview to Il Giornale that “power belongs to the people, who entrust it to the elected representatives, so it is the people who decide. It is not a few ‘appointed by the Lord’ to decide.”
Similar arguments were made by other leaders such as Orban or the Minister of the Interior, Bruno Retailleu, who stated in Le Journal du Dimanche that “the rule of law is not intangible or sacred,” challenging one of the fundamental values of the EU. This disregard is not only alarming, but also dangerous, because the limits imposed on elected officials by constitutional and European laws protect European states from illiberal drifts and practices contrary to citizens’ fundamental rights.
Far-right politicians, such as Italy’s Giorgia Meloni, put asylum seekers in deportation hubs despite their ineffectiveness, and despite the likelihood of rights violations occurring in these locations.
Photo credit: Sigmund
Despite millions of euros poured in building Meloni’s deportation hubs, the limited number of asylum seekers she has successfully deported raises questions about whether these “hubs” are viable solutions. Instead of such expenditures, should these funds not be redirected toward addressing more urgent challenges or proven irregular migration curbing strategies, such as enhancing legal pathways? For example, one tested solution is expanding and scaling up legal labor migration pathways, such as the Global Skills Partnerships, where the country of destination finances human capital training for targeted skills needed in the country’s labour market prior to arrival.
While other stringent measures have been adopted, such as Poland’s temporary suspension of asylum rights for migrants coming from Belarus, it is hard to implement effective measures when migration is weaponized by Belarus and its neighbor, Russia, to destabilize Europe and fuel populist, xenophobic, and anti-immigration discourses. Nevertheless, this shift within the EU impulsed by some nation states can have terrible consequences for societal diversity. For example, in France, French citizens of Senegalese origin have decided to return to Africa because of the radicalization of the discourse towards both legal and illegal immigration. This has been accompanied by a rise in discriminatory behaviors and a one-third increase in racist crimes. This situation will worsen with the past German, where the AfD arrived second with 20.8% of the votes, and the later French elections where the NR might win or collude with conservative right parties, and keep achieving ideological victories regarding anti-immigration policies, threatening EU’s most fundamental rights.