It proposed a more limited agreement to allow the transfer of unaccompanied children from asylum seekers to family members in the UK/EU. But campaigners say the proposals are insufficient and that it seems unlikely to reach an agreement before the end of the transition period. Any individual asylum application made on EU territory must be reviewed – each EU country must be able to determine whether and when it is responsible for processing an asylum application. The aim of the Dublin Regulation is to ensure rapid access to asylum procedures and the consideration of a substantive application by a single clearly defined Member State. www.migrationpolicy.org/research/not-adding-fading-promise-europes-dublin-system thinking about how to allocate responsibilities is to think about how to make it fairer, but also in a way that takes into account the preferences of the asylum seekers themselves. A distribution system that ignores the preferences of asylum seekers is not only ethically reprehensible, but also terribly ineffective. On the one hand, many claimants avoid seeking asylum in the first country of arrival and, if they do, they repeat it in another country. In other words, despite Dublin, they decide. On the other hand, the transfer system between Member States does not work either. Of course, the recent proposal to allocate 120,000 applicants contains as a criterion the “integration potential” of applicants. However, it is not the same when you consider issues such as language skills, family relationships and cultural and social ties that are not taken into account by getting involved in the decision. Dublin does not seek to distribute the responsibility of refugees equitably between the different Member States, but to create the State which is responsible for the rapid processing of each application, on the basis of certain criteria already defined. One of the main objectives is to prevent a person seeking asylum in the country of his choice (“asylum shopping”) from being present in Europe, without any country taking responsibility for the examination of his claim (“orbiting”).
If Dublin does not work, it is not just a question of poor implementation. As we have seen, the most fundamental principles fail. Therefore, the alternative is not a new update of the regulations (Dublin II and Dublin III), but a change of mentality in the development of a genuine common asylum policy. It is a fall back on an issue as fundamental as the division of responsibilities. Currently, the first country of arrival test means that responsibility falls disproportionately to the border countries. On the one hand, this promotes a more restrictive immigration policy by penalizing countries with a more open visa policy or by reducing control of their borders with greater responsibility. On the other hand, it encourages border countries to avoid this unequal distribution by not registering asylum seekers who enter across their borders.