In recent years, Europe has found itself at a crossroads on the issue of migration, grappling with both external pressures from increased migrant flows and internal challenges as anti-immigration parties gain momentum across the continent.
The political landscape of Europe, once defined by Angela Merkel’s inclusive policies, has evolved toward a more hardline stance that parallels the approach of former U.S. President Donald Trump. While European leaders often distance themselves from the racist and xenophobic rhetoric that Trump employs, their migration policies have begun to converge, creating an ideological alignment that has both critics and proponents.
The European Union (EU) has been contending with migration challenges since the 2015 refugee crisis, when over a million migrants, many fleeing conflict in Syria, arrived on the continent. The shock of that influx continues to reverberate across Europe, fueling the rise of populist, anti-immigration parties. Leaders like Geert Wilders, the head of the Dutch Freedom Party, capitalize on these sentiments, offering harsh rhetoric aimed at immigrants, particularly Muslims.
“Migration has been at the forefront for Europe’s politicians since 2015,” noted Wilders at a Brussels meeting of far-right leaders. His words are indicative of a broader shift across the EU, with many leaders now embracing policies designed to restrict the entry of migrants.
In response, EU countries have instituted a variety of border control measures aimed at deterring both legal and illegal migration. Italy, France, Austria, Germany, and Poland are just a few of the countries that have implemented restrictions to curb the flow of refugees and migrants.
For example, Poland recently halted the processing of asylum requests from migrants entering from Belarus, citing security concerns. Similarly, Germany reinstated border controls after a Syrian man stabbed eleven people, killing three, in a tragic incident that amplified calls for tighter immigration controls. These policies reflect a growing consensus in Europe that migration needs to be managed more strictly, mirroring Trump’s immigration platform, albeit with more measured language.
Although Europe’s migration policies appear more restrained in rhetoric, their goals closely align with the hardline strategies Trump championed during his presidency. Trump’s “Migrant Protection Program,” better known as the “Remain in Mexico” policy, forced non-Mexican migrants to remain in Mexico while their immigration cases were processed. Similarly, EU leaders have floated the idea of establishing “return hubs” or “processing centers” in non-EU countries, essentially detaining migrants while their applications are processed. These initiatives reflect the EU’s desire to distance itself from the humanitarian aspect of migration and focus more on deterrence.
Ursula von der Leyen, the European Commission president, has voiced support for such return hubs, and Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has moved forward with plans to process migrants bound for Italy in Albania, much like Australia’s practice of sending asylum seekers to Papua New Guinea.
“The vague terminology around ‘return hubs’ and ‘processing centers’ mirrors Trump’s ‘Migrant Protection Program,’” said Alberto-Horst Neidhardt, head of European migration and diversity at the European Policy Centre. In both cases, the goal is to make the entry process more difficult, thereby discouraging migrants from attempting to reach Europe or the U.S. in the first place.
At a meeting in Brussels, EU leaders also discussed speedier deportations, which echo Trump’s plans for mass deportations in the U.S. Trump has vowed to deport 15 to 20 million undocumented immigrants if re-elected, a figure that would eclipse the deportation efforts of any previous administration.
While the language used by European leaders is more tempered, often referring to “returns” rather than deportations, the intent remains the same: reducing the number of new arrivals and swiftly sending those who fail to qualify for asylum back to their countries of origin.
No European leader embodies the convergence of Trump-like policies and rhetoric more than Hungary’s Viktor Orbán. Orbán, an outspoken nationalist, has been a vocal proponent of stricter immigration controls and has employed inflammatory language reminiscent of Trump’s own style. Orbán has accused migrants of threatening Europe’s cultural identity and even pledged to bus migrants to Brussels as a form of protest against the EU’s handling of the crisis, a move that echoes Florida Governor Ron DeSantis’ controversial decision to send migrants to Martha’s Vineyard.
“I have been chest-deep in the bloodbath of the migration debate for quite some time,” Orbán declared at a press conference, emphasizing his commitment to a strong-arm approach to migration, just as Trump did during his tenure in the White House.
Despite Orbán’s more overtly aggressive stance, other European leaders, like France’s Marine Le Pen, have also flirted with hardline rhetoric. While they may not resort to the same extreme language as Orbán or Trump, their policy recommendations increasingly align with their right-wing counterparts.
For many European leaders, migration remains a delicate topic. Unlike Trump, who freely uses terms like “illegal immigration” and proudly touts his deportation plans, EU officials are careful to use more neutral or legalistic language. The term “deportation,” for example, is rarely used in Europe, given its historical connotations with the Nazi-era deportations during World War II. Instead, European leaders prefer to speak of “returns” or “repatriation,” a semantic difference that masks the underlying reality: both Europe and the U.S. are striving to remove undocumented migrants from their borders.
This careful framing allows European leaders to avoid some of the controversies that have plagued Trump’s immigration policy. However, it also opens the door to accusations that the EU is adopting inhumane measures under the guise of legality. Judith Sunderland, associate Europe and Central Asia director at Human Rights Watch, argues that this shift in tone is an attempt to make harsh policies more palatable.
“There is an intent to make it sound like it’s legal, like it is in line with international law,” Sunderland said, adding that the aim is ultimately the same: restricting migration and minimizing the number of new arrivals.
Not all European countries have fully embraced this approach without complications. Italy, under the leadership of Giorgia Meloni, has implemented processing centers in Albania, but the results have been less than ideal. A recent incident saw four of the 16 migrants sent to Albania returned to Italy, as they were either children or classified as vulnerable. The situation has prompted criticism from opposition groups and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), who argue that such offshore detention centers fail to protect the rights of asylum seekers.
Sunderland believes these policies have dangerous implications, not just for Europe but for global migration standards. “It will have very real consequences on people around the world,” she warned. As more countries look to Europe as a model for migration policy, Sunderland fears that human rights will be deprioritized in favor of more restrictive, security-focused measures.
Many European leaders are watching the upcoming U.S. elections closely. A Trump victory, analysts suggest, could embolden Europe’s hardline leaders, giving them the political capital to push for even more stringent migration controls. According to Neidhardt, “Many member states that have pushed for a restrictive approach to migration will be watching the American elections very closely.”
Should Trump return to the White House, the convergence between U.S. and EU migration policies could deepen, with both continents moving further away from humanitarian ideals and toward more insular, fortress-like strategies.
Beyond the immediate impacts on migration, some experts warn that the hardening stance on immigration could have broader implications for Europe’s political landscape. As Neidhardt points out, “Migration has really become a Trojan horse for conservative forces to then push an agenda that goes beyond migration.” By focusing on immigration as a security issue, right-wing populists can advance other aspects of their agenda, including restrictions on civil liberties and attacks on multiculturalism.
Europe’s leaders can maintain their delicate balancing act — cracking down on migration while upholding the values of human rights and international law — or whether they will follow Trump’s example, sacrificing those ideals in pursuit of a more restrictive, insular vision of their nations.
As Europe and the U.S. continue to grapple with migration, the policies emerging on both sides of the Atlantic reveal a growing alignment, albeit with distinct stylistic differences. While Trump’s approach is marked by blunt, often inflammatory rhetoric, Europe’s leaders adopt a more subdued tone. But when it comes to policy, the two are closer than they seem, both striving to limit migration and enhance border security. Whether this convergence will continue in the face of future challenges remains to be seen, but one thing is clear: migration will remain a central and contentious issue in global politics for years to come.
