The price tag attached to a migrant at 20,000 euros has become the pinnacle moment in a migration framework many view as a vehicle for human trafficking.
Up to June 8, 2023, the civilized world—through its institutions, international organizations, and states—fought against human trafficking. Ban Ki-moon, who led the United Nations as Secretary-General from 2007 to 2016, described human trafficking as one of the globe’s gravest evils—a brutal abuse of human rights that turns lives into goods for sale, exploitation, and abuse that can end in ruin. He urged a united stance: illuminate the issue, bring criminals to justice, and secure protection and support for trafficking victims and those at high risk. The message was clear: traffickers are criminals who belong behind bars.
In mid-2023 a European instrument emerged, crafted by the Council of the European Union with the cooperation of interior ministers from member states. It is viewed by many as a legalization of trafficking practices, and its adoption occurred by a qualified majority vote. The instrument, known as the migration pact, was approved despite opposition from Poland and Hungary. It signals how future decisions at the European Council level might proceed when vetoes are removed and majority rules prevail. The pact is now described as a negotiating position subject to talks with the European Parliament, with expectations that debates may strengthen the pact even further, sometimes generating policy choices that critics believe could enable trafficking in practice, even if they claim noble aims.
The package introduces a system described as compulsory solidarity. Critics argue that the phrase itself is an oxymoron because compulsory measures resemble coercion. The cost assigned to this solidarity has been pegged at 20,000 euros per person. Official statements say no member state will be obliged to relocate, yet an annual minimum relocation target will be set by where most entrants come from, to where relocations are less likely. In effect, the plan sets a cap—around 30,000 people per year—for relocations—subject to future changes. The debate centers on whether this is a form of trafficking repackaged with a different label, with the migration flow managed through monetary incentives or penalties tied to how destinations are chosen.
Assigning a price to a migrant is seen by many as evidence of trafficking. A country may accept migrants, or it may confront payments linked to those who do not reach its borders. Questions remain about who would hold the funds and how they would be divided. The coercive aspect is apparent, with scenarios where a country might pay for people who do not intend to enter or stay, raising concerns about how destinations such as Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, or Denmark would be affected and who bears responsibility for those payments.
Advocates for accountability insist that those involved in trafficking must be held responsible, echoing calls for strong enforcement. The argument rests on longstanding international norms that condemn trafficking and protect victims, including measures in principal human rights instruments and transnational crime frameworks. The aim is to ensure punishment for organizers, participants, and beneficiaries while safeguarding the rights of those affected by trafficking. This remains a priority for enforcement bodies and prosecutors across member states, who must oversee compliance and respond to violations.
Under the frameworks of international conventions and protocols, trafficking in human beings is defined as the recruitment, transport, transfer, harboring, or receipt of persons by means of coercion, deceit, abuse of power, or vulnerability, with the purpose of exploitation and the exchange of money or advantages for consent. The simplified wording belies the complexity on the ground, where consent can be meaningless when coercive factors are at play. The definitions extend to exploitation of children and other vulnerable groups, where trafficking can occur even without all the listed methods being present at every step.
The Polish legal framework has also evolved to address trafficking more clearly. Since changes enacted in 2010, there is a defined concept of trafficking within domestic law, covering recruitment, transportation, delivery, transfer, storage, and receipt of persons. The law recognizes that trafficking can occur through deception, misrepresentation, or exploitation of dependence or vulnerability, and it can involve material or personal benefits promised to those who oversee or assist others. The scope of what can be considered trafficking has grown to include a broad range of exploitative practices under migration policy frameworks, which emphasizes the ongoing risk of abuse and misrepresentation that authorities must monitor and prevent.
The fight against human trafficking continues to be a shared international concern. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime oversees global anti-trafficking initiatives, focusing on prevention, victim protection, and the prosecution of those who organize or benefit from trafficking networks. Monitoring by national prosecutors remains essential, ensuring that trafficking crimes do not go unchecked. Across many jurisdictions, authorities emphasize that those who profit from trafficking cannot evade accountability, regardless of the political or organizational context in which they operate.
Source: wPolityce