Poland, historically an emigration country, has during recent decades undergone a shift towards increased immigration, with migrants now comprising approximately 7% of the population. Despite this demographic change, Poland remains largely unfriendly to migrants, particularly asylum seekers and non-white migrants. Asylum policy has only become more stringent since 2021, when a new migration route was opened, leading through Belarus to the Baltic Countries and Poland. As a result, the Polish authorities have begun to use pushbacks on a large scale, refusing to accept applications for international protection and have started to build physical barriers at the border. Over the following years, these barriers have only been expanded and reinforced. Recent developments, such as the 2024 migration strategy followed by the “legalization” of pushbacks with the suspension of the right to asylum, have further contributed to a hostile legal and societal environment towards migration, disregarding Poland’s obligations under EU and international law.
Adopted by the Polish government on 14 October 2024, the migration strategy is a wasted chance to develop a comprehensive and forward looking approach to migration and integration, that Poland has so far been lacking. Instead, the strategy titled “Regain Control. Secure Security: A comprehensive and responsible migration strategy for Poland for 2025-2030” is heavily security-oriented and focuses on the need to control external borders, framing asylum seekers themselves as a threat to the security of Poland. The strategy also signals Poland’s intent to introduce a new model of granting international protection by suspending the right to seek asylum, aiming at the same time to reshape EU asylum policy in this respect. The document does not produce facts and lacks analysis to support its claims, and has been adopted without societal consultation, or expert input.
Following the strategy, in February 2025, the Polish Parliament has passed the Act on Amending the Act on Granting Protection to Foreigners, that has entered into force on 26 March 2025. The law has “legalised” the ongoing practices of pushbacks – practices of summarily forcing back people crossing or attempting to cross the international border without an individual assessment of their human rights protection needs. The new law allows for the temporary suspension of the right to seek asylum during situations defined as instrumentalization of migration. The law was immediately enacted and covers the border with Belarus. Under the suspension, Border Guards, without any oversight, can refuse asylum applications in affected border sections, with certain exceptions towards vulnerable groups. This law has been widely criticized by legal experts, civil society, the Ombudsman and the UNHCR for breaching constitutional and international legal obligations, such as the right to seek asylum, the prohibition of non-refoulement and the right to fair trial. This includes Article 18 of the EU Charter on Fundamental Rights, which guarantees the right to seek asylum without exception.
Interestingly, both Poland’s migration strategy and the parliamentary debates over the new law included references to Finland and its recently adopted legislation, the Act on Temporary Measures to Combat Instrumentalised Entry, that also allows for the suspension of the right to seek asylum. These statements and references to Finland from government officials and MPs often lack evidence or context, ignoring different situations at their respective borders, including the scale of migration, as well as the legal implications and the actual implementation status of Finland’s law. Particularly during the parliamentary debates in Poland, the Finnish law has been characterised as not in violation of international law as well as already operational. It is important to remember that the first argument has been challenged by eighteen Finnish legal experts consulted by the Constitutional Law Committee, who found the law to be in conflict with the Finland’s Constitution, human rights obligations and EU law. The second argument is also false, as Finland’s law, although passed and recently renewed, has not yet been implemented. Finally, Finnish law also provides asylum seekers with greater protection than the Polish Act. This allows to suspect that Finland’s law has been used instrumentally as an already existing precedent to justify the problematic legislative change.
These developments continue to build a hostile environment towards migrants and in consequence, push Poland further away from the EU and international law. More worringly, Poland’s criticim towards and wish to reshape the EU law on asylum, supports similar tendencies in other EU countries, such as in Finland and recently Greece, and further undermines the position of human rights in the EU as a whole.
Witold Klaus
Professor
Head of the Department of Criminology and of the Migration Law Research Centre
Institute of Law Studies
Polish Academy of Sciences
Poland
Magdalena Kmak
Professor of International Law with Specialization in Migration and Minority Research
Åbo Akademi University
Finland
