Executive Summary

This paper critically examines the New EU Pact on Migration and Asylum, arguing that it perpetuates longstanding colonial and racial logics rather than representing a novel approach to migration governance. Through the lens of racial and colonial aphasia, the analysis reveals how the Pact’s components, particularly the Crisis Regulation and the International Partnerships Pillar, invoke historical colonial practices of exclusion and control. By rehistoricizing these contemporary policies, the paper elucidates the continuity of racialized subjectivities within EU border security, emphasizing the need for a more nuanced understanding of migration governance that acknowledges its colonial underpinnings.

Context & Background

The European Union’s (EU) approach to migration has been characterized by a complex interplay of legal, social, and political dimensions, often framed within a narrative of crisis and urgency. The New EU Pact on Migration and Asylum, introduced by the European Commission in 2024, is presented as a comprehensive reform aimed at addressing the challenges of migration and asylum in Europe. However, this narrative obscures the historical continuities that underpin EU border management practices. The article posits that mainstream migration scholarship has largely overlooked the racial and colonial dimensions of these practices, leading to a phenomenon termed ‘racial aphasia.’ This term describes a structured dissociation from the colonial past that continues to shape contemporary migration governance, particularly in the context of the EU’s externalization of border control to the Global South.

The historical framing of migration control within the EU has often been limited to post-World War II developments, neglecting the colonial legacies that inform current policies. The article argues that the Pact’s components, specifically the Crisis Regulation and the International Partnerships Pillar, are not innovative responses to contemporary challenges but rather reconfigurations of colonial practices that have long governed migration. By situating these policies within a broader colonial context, the analysis reveals how the EU continues to construct and exclude racialized subjectivities, perpetuating systems of inequality and control that are deeply rooted in colonial histories.

Deep Analysis

The first dimension of the analysis engages with critical scholarship on migration and colonialism, highlighting how colonial expropriation, slavery, and hierarchies of deservingness have shaped contemporary migration governance. The article critiques the dominant narratives that frame migration control as a recent phenomenon, arguing instead that these practices are embedded in a longer history of racialization and coloniality. This perspective aligns with the work of scholars who emphasize the need to understand migration governance as a product of historical trajectories rather than isolated events. By doing so, the article challenges the notion that the EU’s migration policies are a departure from past practices, instead situating them within a continuum of colonial governance that has historically defined who is deemed worthy of mobility and protection.

The second dimension examines the racialized criminalization of migration intensified by the Pact. The article argues that the Pact’s self-proclaimed innovations, such as its crisis framework and externalization agenda, replicate colonial patterns of control and exclusion. The Crisis Regulation, for instance, invokes emergency law to justify derogations from international legal obligations, echoing colonial practices that prioritized state security over human rights. This reactivation of colonial logics serves to reinforce the racialized criminalization of migrants, framing them as threats to national security rather than individuals deserving of protection. The analysis underscores the importance of recognizing these patterns as part of a broader colonial matrix that continues to inform EU migration governance.

The third dimension of the analysis rehistoricizes the Crisis Regulation and International Partnerships Pillar, demonstrating how both components reproduce colonial techniques of emergency and delegated border control. The externalization of border management to the Global South not only reflects a continuation of colonial practices but also reinforces the asymmetries inherent in international partnerships. By situating these policies within the coloniality of power, the article reveals how the EU’s governance of mobility is shaped by historical inequalities that persist in contemporary institutional practices. This methodological contribution emphasizes the need for a historically grounded analysis of migration governance that acknowledges the ongoing impacts of colonial encounters and their power dynamics.

Recommendations

• Integrate a decolonial framework into EU migration policy development to address historical injustices.
• Enhance accountability mechanisms for EU border practices to ensure compliance with international human rights standards.
• Foster inclusive dialogues with migrant communities to inform policy-making processes and address their specific needs.
• Promote interdisciplinary research that examines the intersections of race, coloniality, and migration governance.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the New EU Pact on Migration and Asylum represents a continuation of colonial and racial logics rather than a departure from them. By employing a rehistoricization approach, this analysis highlights the importance of acknowledging the colonial underpinnings of contemporary migration governance. The persistence of racial aphasia in mainstream migration scholarship and policy discourse obscures the historical depth of these practices, necessitating a critical reevaluation of how the EU constructs and manages migration. Addressing these issues requires a commitment to decolonial frameworks and a recognition of the ongoing impacts of coloniality on migration governance.