Migrations of labor force and refugees to Europe is not a new process, as is usually perceived by a set of rich countries that have regulated living conditions with valuable social programs for their population, with Western Europe presenting the main recipient of all of the types of migration [1]. Additionally, substantial migrant communities have already been formed among the countries such as Germany, Sweden, United Kingdom (UK), and France [2]. The differences visible in regard to the advantageous living conditions within countries of the EU in comparison with those in North and sub-Saharan Africa have caused compelling and perpetual migratory pressure towards Europe [3]. The leaders of EU member states had to manage this problem during the migrant/refugee crisis and presently share a collective responsibility to overcome the challenges imposed by the problem. In this paper, a comparative analysis of the EU and the Western Balkan migration route response to the crisis is conducted with the intent to determine the current socio-economic (risk of poverty, labor market mobility, anti-discrimination) position of the general migrant population in their host countries. The International Organization for Migration, in its Displacement Tracking Matrix Western Balkan Overview, defines the WB route as follows: two EU member countries (Croatia and Slovenia) and five (5) non-EU countries (Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, North Macedonia and Serbia) [4]. According to the data from the IOM Report 2015, this route was the third most important route for the influx of migrants to the Western European countries [5]. Along the WB migration route, the Republic of Serbia represented one of the main “springboards” for entering the progressive countries of the EU. The Republic of Serbia, like other countries in the Balkans amid the migrant crisis, was primarily a country of transit [6]. Since the countries of the WB region were not the final destination for most migrants, an emphasis in this paper is made on the four EU destination countries. In the past decade, several humanitarian crises have affected the EU, such as the 2014 Migrant crisis, the Global pandemic, and the Ukraine war. The global pandemic has impacted all facets of society, and the effects of the crisis are yet to be determined. The Ukraine war brought, among other things, new waves of migrants to the EU, which in turn sparked a second migrant crisis. All three crises are still ongoing, and it is difficult to say which one is receiving more attention. However, for a certain phenomenon to be the subject of a research, a certain time distance is required. Given that the migrant crisis reached its peak in 2015 (when the highest influx of migrants was recorded on the territory of the EU) [7], the author believes there is a sufficient timeframe that can provide an overview of the current position of migrants in society and thus define the direction in which their integration into society is moving. On the other hand, for the contextual understanding of the research subject, it is necessary to describe other pressing challenges faced by the EU.
Energy poverty is perhaps one of the biggest challenges the EU is facing, especially since 2021, as there has been an increase in the number of households with no access to basic energy services [8]. Although (energy) poverty could be associated with undeveloped and developing countries, it has become an assumed reality in all countries worldwide. There is a noticeably growing trend of energy poverty in EU countries, and according to Eurostat data, about 8% of the European population were deprived of normal heating in 2020 due to high energy prices [9]. Furthermore, the environment is being negatively impacted by the current practices of using energy at unsustainable rates, and the EU has adopted the European Green Deal (EGD) to combat the shortage of nonrenewable energy supplies, particularly fossil fuels [10]. The EGD primary goal is to transform climate and environmental challenges into trade, development, and international cooperation opportunities while making the EU’s economy sustainable [11]. It is crucial to emphasize how ambitious and how complex the EGD is for the EU member states. This initiative proposes that all 27 nations within the EU meet bold goals, cutting the greenhouse gas emission by 50–55% by 2030 (which equates to a 40% reduction of emission levels in 1990) [12]. Moreover, the undertaking advocates that, by 2050, the entire EU reaches a no emit of climate-heating gases into the atmosphere at all [13].
It is not uncommon for researchers to describe the United Nations (UN) 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development of 2015, which aims to eradicate poverty in all forms, as one of the postulates of EU Green Deal Agenda [14]. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) address different aspects of poverty, but for the purposes of this paper, it is important to mention Goal 7 (SDG 7)—Access to affordable, reliable, sustainable, and modern energy for all [15]. There are both direct and indirect interconnections between the SDG 7 and other SDGs because energy plays an assisting role in social and economic development [16]. Although recent research studies show that the benefits of these interconnections outweigh the negative effects, changes in energy systems will be necessary to meet migration-related goals [17]. For instance, there is an interconnection between energy systems and the SDG related to labor rights and working conditions of migrants [18], and under “Discussion and recommendations” section, the author will elaborate in more detail the interconnection between the SDG and migration.
The EU Green Deal document climaxes that the transition to green and sustainable economies relies on developing new knowledge and skills [19]. This process creates a lot of room for new jobs to emerge. Still, it also makes it necessary to think about how to acquire the skills, knowledge, and competencies the society will require more systematically in the future. This paper focuses on understanding how this transition impacts the migrant population and examines how institutions and policy-makers have dealt with this problem. There is a proliferation of papers that elaborate on the Deal’s benefits. Still, researchers have not focused as much on the (un)just transition of the general migrant population to the green industry [20]. The current labor market in the EU will need to be transformed for the Deal to be successful [21]. Although the Deal has been eagerly awaited, the interconnection between migration, migrants and/or displaced persons was mentioned only once, pointing to the conclusion that the Green Deal was made mainly for EU citizens as primary stakeholders and beneficiaries [22]. It appears that there is a gap between the Deal and one of its likely consequences: exclusion for (low-skilled) migrants.
As part of the EGD, the European Commission has also disclosed the Just Transition Mechanism. This tool guarantees workers in carbon-intensive sectors and communities that depend on those sectors the benefit from the transition to cleaner and more sustainable economies [23]. The Just Transition Mechanism highlights the importance of engaging affected groups and (non-)governmental organizations and providing financial support [24]. For example, in 2020 the Polish coal region provided the initiative to ensure that those affected by the transition are socially included, as well as repurposing post-industrial and post-mining regions with new environmental purposes [25]. The EGD envisages specific protection for particularly vulnerable groups, which are expected to be in a more difficult position during the transition. Still, even at this point, the EGD does not mention migrants [26].
In the International Labor Organization (ILO) publication entitled “Extending social protection to migrant workers, refugees and their families, a guide for policymakers and practitioners 2021”, an emphasis is made on the importance of providing unemployment compensation and other forms of governmental assistance (social protection) for migrants [27]. This document directly mentions the migrant population, stating that it is also necessary to extend social protection to this group of citizens in order to reduce poverty and inequality. The ILO established the Decent Work Agenda in 1999. The four pillars of the Decent Work Agenda are social protection, the possibility to find employment and adequate legal protection of workers [28]. The ILO adopted a resolution and a set of conclusions at its 102nd session (2013) regarding sustainable development, decent work, green jobs, and the development of regulatory documents for all of those mentioned above [29]. Despite the ILO’s support for a just transition, none of the recent publications address migrants in the green industry through the Decent Work Agenda. This demonstrates that the need for a more thorough and effective strategy for the migrant population is imperative. Due to the uneven nature of the transition, it is essential to address migrants as a significant component of economic prosperity, and to apply to them a specific, more thorough employment and social protection strategy. Academics have debated the causes of poor integration. The main reasons that have been highlighted are the educational and cultural milieu of migrants, failures in the integration system’s development, and citizens’ resistance to accepting migrants on various grounds [30]. In 2010, Angela Merkel (German Chancellor at the time) said the concept of people from different cultural backgrounds coexisting amicably “side by side” did not work and that the burden of assimilating into German society fell on (im)migrants, adding that the [multicultural] approach failed [31]. After reviewing publications concerning migrant integration, the author noted that there is no consensus among academics regarding what constitutes successful integration. In the author’s opinion, the traditional assimilation theory is consistent with the reality of migrants in the EU today. Warner and Srole were the first to put forth the traditional assimilation theory in 1945. They held that immigrants were expected to change almost entirely to assimilate with the dominant (mainstream) culture and society [32]. Numerous researchers criticized their approach, but Blanca Garcés-Mascareas and Rinus Penninx offer a brief critique of this theory in their publication “Integration Processes and Policies in Europe?”:
-
1.
The definition of “mainstream culture” suggests the existence of social circumstances that are homogeneous and interconnected.
-
2.
Discrimination and employment market inequality can delay or even prevent (im)migrants’ integration.
-
3.
The integration processes are diverse and can be influenced by factors such as government integration policies, the public attitude concerning (im)migrants, various environmental factors, etc. [33].
The first indicator implies that the migrant population have the same values and beliefs and share a homogenous societal culture, but the diversity of migrants coming from countries and regions of North and sub-Saharan Africa, reported in the migrant influx 2014–2020, proves otherwise [34]. The second indicator shows (see “Results” section) that migrants are at greater risk of social poverty or exclusion, and thus provide the argument that the employment market is at a disadvantage to general migrant population.
In addition to the critical analysis of the traditional assimilation theory, the author expands the third indicator: the securitization of migration negatively affects successful integration of migrants into society. According to securitization theorists, any topic can be positioned on a non-politicized, politicized, or securitized spectrum [35]. A non-politicized issue is one that is not in the public interest if there is no public discourse, whereas politicized issues are part of public policies and require state activities and resource allocation, and less frequently some other form of state action [36]. Securitized issues, on the other hand, are presented as existential threats that necessitate measures and actions beyond standard political procedures [36]. As a result, a problem, situation, or event (often already politicized) is securitized when its solution involves non-standard measures and procedures [36]. A turning point in the securitization of migration exemplifies the Report by the European Union to the Committee, established under paragraph 6 of Resolution 1373 and adopted by the Security Council at its 4385th meeting on 28 September 2001 [37]. This Report contributed to the alteration of the asylum systems in the EU, permitting its member states to deny the right to international protection and residence to all persons who are thought to be terrorists or pose a terrorist threat [38]. Correspondingly, it specifies that foreigners who do not meet certain conditions are obliged to leave the territory of the “Schengen States” [37].
During the crisis, there was no amalgamated humanitarian response [39]. According to the norms of the European law as well as the legal obligations imposed by the Public International Law, all EU member states must allow safe passage for migrants and provide them with protection [40]. In reality, this was not the case with several EU countries. Due to the lack of general policy and binding EU directions, and in order to maintain a controllable, orderly influx of migrants, many EU countries have taken “self-directed” sporadic measures in response to the migration crisis. Moreover, in June 2015, the Hungarian government decided to build a 175-km-long fence along the border with Serbia [41]. The justification which the Hungarian government offered in support of their decision was that this action was necessary in order to stop the irregular (illegal) entry of migrants [41]. Furthermore, the justification offered to the public extended to explain that by building the fence Hungary purportedly prevented the erection of a hypothetical barrier by Austria along the border with Hungary [42]. Consequently, on October 2015 at a conference in Brussels, the EU member states acknowledged Hungary’s right to build a barrier along the border with Croatia, and thus the idea of “railing” EU borders was intensified [42]. Subsequently, the EU declared that all refugees who did not originate from Syria, Iraq, or Afghanistan are considered to be economic migrants [43]. By doing so, the EU discriminated against migrants, violating basic human rights in asylum procedures, which resulted in the UNHCR criticism of this decision [43]. The migration crisis has triggered numerous alterations to the existing asylum regulations. Importantly and unsurprisingly, the crisis promulgated discussions and stirred clashes in all political spheres. As a result, numerous governments in Europe have proposed policies to limit immigrants’ eligibility for welfare benefits, while the claim that immigrants are “abusers” or “an unjustifiable burden” on social protection systems of host countries, has frequently become more prominent in political discussions [44].
