It all starts with a slip-up. We call it getting stuck in the carpet’s flowers. We were somewhere in the French capital when, after numerous economic meetings, the Quebec Prime Minister, giving in to insistent demands, dropped the fateful word: “obligatory”. Thus the Prime Minister would consider moving manu militari thousands of asylum seekers already settled on Quebec soil. The proposal was not only outrageous, but also impractical.
However, this does not mean that he was wrong to want to take inspiration from European countries in this area. Long before Quebec, they were the ones who had to face the migratory overwhelm that the West is experiencing today. Likewise, they were the first to be confronted with what must be described as a massive misuse of the right to asylum. Certainly, the number of conflicts has increased in recent years in the world, but let us remember that, among the twenty countries with the strongest economic growth, eleven are now African.
It is an open secret that the right to asylum has become one of the main entry points for economic immigration. In Europe, around 60% of applicants are rejected. They often come from safe countries that are neither at war nor considered repressive. Contrary to the most widespread prejudice, they are not necessarily the poorest, but often come from “the emerging middle class”, as shown by Stephen Smith, who teaches at the Faculty of African Studies at Duke University.
This is what Emmanuel Macron recognized in 2019 when he affirmed that the right to asylum “is being diverted from its purpose”. Comments which echoed those made in 1989 by Prime Minister Michel Rocard, according to whom France could “not accommodate all the misery in the world”, even if it had to remain “a land of political asylum”.
It is therefore not surprising that European countries have deployed means to protect themselves from this scourge which particularly penalizes States which devote a large part of their resources to the health, education and well-being of their population.
As François Legault said, Quebec and Canada have a lot to learn from these countries. Among them, we naturally think of Denmark, known for its social protection system, where we managed to reduce arrivals by 85%. But we still had to give ourselves the means. To do this, the Danes have restricted the possibilities of family reunification for people enjoying only temporary protection status and strengthened the conditions and periods of residence giving access to nationality, for example by imposing rigorous knowledge of the language. For a certain number of years, the refugee’s status is considered temporary in Denmark, with the aim of returning to his country if conditions improve. It is therefore re-evaluated every two years.
Faced with an explosion in crime, big brother Sweden has also restricted family reunification and facilitated the expulsion of migrants in the event of criminal activity. In 2015, Sweden was the European country that received the most migrants per capita. Like Norway, Denmark and even France, it now offers return aid which could reach 30,000 euros (CA$45,100) in 2026. In one year, the number of asylum seekers has fallen by 27 %. “These efforts towards sustainable immigration are necessary to strengthen integration and reduce social exclusion,” said Maria Malmer Stenergard, then Swedish Minister of Migration. For the first time in 50 years, Sweden boasts a negative migration balance.
As François Legault mentioned, in European countries, allowances intended for refugees are often conditional on acceptance of a place of residence. Thus, in France, a candidate who refuses accommodation in a reception center for asylum seekers will see their aid canceled. This is possible to the extent that the study of the request does not exceed three or four months, as is the case in France and Germany. But it is difficult to see how we could do the same in a country like Canada, where this delay can reach… three years! This leaves plenty of time for the migrant to make connections, find accommodation and even a job. It is this delay that is truly “inhumane”, to use the words of Federal Minister Marc Miller, and not the fact of telling an arriving migrant where he should settle.
Germany, for example, systematically distributes asylum seekers across its territory. An applicant arriving in Munich will spend one or two days in a first reception center. It will then be redirected to another state according to a distribution mechanism dating from 1949, called the “Königstein key”. The City of Stuttgart even distributes them in its different districts. Germany has also just followed in the footsteps of other European countries by eliminating aid to an asylum seeker who first passed through another European country.
Contrary to what those who only see the influence of the “extreme right” say, these measures were adopted by democratic governments and have passed the tests of the courts, often with broad popular support. François Legault is absolutely right to want to draw inspiration from these proven measures. All this is not primarily a matter of “rights”, but of will and, obviously, of sovereignty.