The far-right and asylum outcomes: Assessing the impact of far-right politics on asylum decisions in Europe
| Author | Meredith Winn |
| DOI | 10.1177/1465116520977005 |
| Published date | 01 March 2021 |
| Date | 01 March 2021 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
The far-right and asylum
outcomes: Assessing the
impact of far-right
politics on asylum
decisions in Europe
Meredith Winn
Center for European Studies and Comparative Politics,
Sciences Po, Paris, France; Department of Political Science,
University of North Texas, Denton, USA
Abstract
Despite decades of efforts to harmonize asylum procedures, large unexplained differ-
ences in asylum outcomes persist across European Union member states.
Unfortunately, relatively little empirical literature has examined the causes of disparities
in asylum recognition rates. In this paper, I suggest that domestic politics impact how
asylum claims are adjudicated. I analyze origin-specific asylum recognition rates in 27
European Union member states from 2000-2018. The findings show that right-wing
parties in government are associated with lower asylum recognition rates. This effect is
strongest for far-right parties. When far-right parties gain legislative seats and cabinet
positions, there is a substantive reduction in recognized asylum claims.
Keywords
Asylum, far-right parties, migration politics, political parties
Introduction
In 2015, Germany admitted over one million asylum-seekers as part of its “open-
door” policy led by Chancellor Angela Merkel. The large influx of migrants was
Corresponding author:
Meredith Winn, Center for European Studies and Comparative Politics, Sciences Po, 28 rue des Saint-P
eres,
Paris 75007, France.
Email: meredith.winn@sciencespo.fr
European Union Politics
2021, Vol. 22(1) 70–93
!The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1465116520977005
journals.sagepub.com/home/eup
controversial, raising public concern about Germany’s ability to absorb new-
comers. At the same time, opposition was growing within the government.
Growing support for the far-right Alternative for Deutschland (AfD) was widely
attributed to public reaction against migration (e.g. Chase, 2018; Fisher and
Katrin, 2018). By 2018, Merkel’s government seemed to be in real danger from
the AfD; the Interior Minister was in open-rebellion against the open-door policy
as the far-right continued to gain ground among his conservative base. Ultimately,
the government announced plans to tighten the German border and increase
deportations of rejected asylum-seekers.
This illustrates the inherently political nature of asylum decisions in Europe.
Despite over two decades of attempts to create a common set of policies and
practices, large national differences in asylum outcomes persist within the
European Union (Bovens et al., 2011; Toshkov and de Haan, 2013; Trauner,
2016; Vink and Meijerink, 2003). Yet, little scholarly attention has addressed
how domestic political contexts shape asylum decisions. This question has impor-
tant humanitarian and academic implications. From a normative perspective, there
should be an active interest in assuring that asylum processes are fair and acces-
sible for anyone who may need them, regardless of the country in which a claim is
lodged. The consequences of deporting someone with a legitimate claim of asylum
are dire. However, there is also the academic question of how domestic politics
impact the application of international laws and treaties. Asylum is defined under
United Nations (UN) statute and the European Union (EU) has created additional
procedures for the adjudication of asylum claims. The fact that inequalities in
asylum recognition rates continue across EU member states is indicative of the
importance of considering how domestic conditions shape compliance with inter-
national standards.
Literature review
Any discussion of asylum policy must acknowledge the definition of asylum found
in the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol.
These treaties establish asylum as a right, stipulating that individuals should not be
penalized for entering a country irregularly in order to seek asylum. However,
there is no explicit language concerning how states should assess asylum claims.
Moreover, there exists no independent agency to systemically monitor domestic
asylum policies and no international enforcement mechanisms. The UN or other
international organizations (IOs) may engage in naming and shaming in the case of
particularly egregious or well-known violations, but asylum policy remains within
the purview of the state. By recognizing an asylum claim, a state is acknowledging
that an individual has a legitimate fear of persecution in her home country and
grants her special protections under the law. While asylum-seekers fall under the
umbrella term of forced migration, the distinction between asylum-seekers and
refugees is important. Refugees have already been granted protected status
by the UN or the government of the country in which they reside whereas
Winn 71
To continue reading
Request your trial