Europe and Migration Policies. Moritz (CCME): “We need a different narrative”

Rome (NEV) July 23, 2024 – [versione in italiano qui]

The exclusive interview with Torsten Moritz, General Secretary at CCME (Churches Commission for Migrants in Europe) for the NEV agency.

How does the CCME interpret the migration programmes of the current political formation in the European Parliament?

The EP elections have  among different national tendencies, overall confirmed two things: some shift to right-wing extremist parties among the notion that “the centre held strong” .

The shift to right wing extremist once again was noticeable but not as dramatic as it had been feared. It is still too early to say how much this will have direct impact. The first weeks, in which several right wing extremist groups have been formed in the EP, showed once again that the different national parties of this spectrum often have little in common except being against certain political actors (e.g. the EU) and groups of people (e.g. refugees/migrants). At the same time, several of the newly elected right wing extremists come with a claim of not being politically motivated hate-preachers, but real experts on migration issues – most notably Fabrice Leggerie, former director of the EU border and coast guard agency FRONTEX. It is clear that for  these groups being against immigration is their very identity. At the same time, it makes it very unlikely that they will directly impact EU policy.

A more worrying trend is probably the discourse in the political centre. The negotiations on the EU migration pact had already been influenced by the argument “if we are not tough on migration, the extreme right will profit at the elections”. Groups like the EPP, the biggest group in the EP from the centre-right, have in their election manifesto argued for the externalisation of asylum responsibility. Officially the Social Democrats and liberals oppose this, but they need to be encouraged…

Some of the narrative after the EP election now articulates that “the centre held strong because we have been tough on migration”.  I think we need to offer a different narrative – people didn’t vote for parties of the centre to get political proposals of the extreme right.

What changes or continuities do you foresee in the EU’s approach to migration following the recent elections?

First of all the biggest decisions on EU legalisation on asylum have been taken with the EU migration  pact in the last term of the EP. Officially it is now member states and the European commission who work on implementation. We are trying to see where damage control is still possible in the implementation – as the pact in itself contain a number of very problematic provisions.

However, two important re-elected MEPs, Lena Düpont and Tineke Strick, have in a CCME online vent before the election indicated that they will as European parliament watch over a full and correct implementation. In this sense I hope that the EP will be an ally in upholding rights of refugees and migrants and for example continue to denounce pushbacks.

I also hope that MEPs will continue to resist moves toward externalising asylum responsibility. The EU concluded many deals with third country for migration control. The legal status of the agreements is questionable  and the EP wasn’t asked….here the EP could freeze the budget allocations. In a year we will probably see the debate if asylum seekers can sent back to countries considered safe third countries – even if they have no link with that country. Many EU member states want this.  In a time where the UK has abandoned similar plans it will be important that the EP remains steadfast in opposing in it. However, as mentioned , I am in this area quite concerned…

In your opinion, are the values promoted by far-right parties compatible with the so-called Christian values?

At least on migration: clearly no. Even more when such parties create a notion of a “Christian Europe” in order to justify keeping non Christians out. Both old and new testament are pretty clear on the centrality of equality and hospitality in the treatment of the stranger. So I think that its good that churches articulate that far right positions are not compatible with Christianity. At the same time I think that churches have a unique responsibility for listening to the reasons which motivate some of the voters of these parties. I say voters, not the officials of such parties. I think a lot of the anger has to do with a general trend of des-integration of society of less and less solidarity, also among those who did not migrate .  FCEI has in the “Manifesto per l’accoglienza” articulated “We reject the false contrast between the reception of immigrants and the needs of Italians”… Along these lines, I see solidarity with refugee and migrants as a part of a bigger idea of a society in solidarity with its weaker members.

How does the CCME address the rise of far-right rhetoric in Europe, especially concerning migrants and refugees?

I think for us it is important to underline the humanity, individuality and dignity of every human being in debates, where others of only talk about numbers or talk about “waves” of people. This is obviously in addition to the legal and political arguments, which are also important. Telling the stories and remembering the lives and the names is at the heart of activities like the day to commemorate those who have died at the border. I also think it is essential that in and through CCME Christians with migration background find the space to articulate their views.

I know that this is mirrored by activities of members on the ground. I think that it is very difficult to beat the haters on social media…the formats privilege a rhetoric of hate and conflict , not examples of living together in peace. But in the personal encounter, I think we have a real opportunity to counter that rhetoric by other experiences.  Ideally churches can build bridges here and facilitate meaningful encounter.

After last June’s General Assembly, what are the priorities of CCME’s work?

Due to limited resources, we had to take some tough decisions.  The work program until 2027 focusses on  1. follow up to the EU migration pact, 2. support for resettlement and complementary pathways as well as 3. developing the vision of an alternative asylum system which protects people more than borders; These would be accompanied by improved communication.

Migration remains one of the major issues in Europe today, yet agencies dealing with the problem, such as CCME, are having trouble in raising funding. How is this possible?

I wish I knew… we are of course aware that churches ‘finances are under strain in most countries and many of our members are trying to support CCME as much as they can. However, I think some others have unrealistic expectations how much CCME can achieve with the resources it has, especially as other civil society actors are investing serious money. Others think that CCME can be financed by the EU´s money – quite unrealistic that the EU will finance its critics. At the end of the day it might be that some find the work of CCME very important but if it comes to allocating money, find other things or organisations more important? Which would be a pity.