Implementing the EU Migrant Relocation Scheme: A Comparative Study of Ireland and Spain

Abstract

This paper explores why, despite being similar empirical cases, Ireland’s government relocated her fair share of asylum seekers as determined under the EU Migrant Relocation Scheme, but not Spain’s government. To that end, I hypothesize that governments were more likely to relocate their fair share of asylum seekers if doing so was consistent with these three government objectives: nation building, capital accumulation and social control. This hypothesis is validated by the cases, Ireland and Spain. As this paper empirically demonstrates, Ireland’s government was motivated to relocate their fair share of asylum seekers because, in Ireland’s context, they had the assurance doing so would clarify her national identity, contribute to capital accumulation, and be unlikely to undermine social control. By contrast, Spain’s government was less motivated to relocate their fair share of asylum seekers because, given Spain’s context, they had concerns doing so could weaken her national identity, undermine social control, and be unlikely to contribute to capital accumulation. One major implication of this paper is that it further validates our understanding that asylum seekers are admissible insofar as they serve certain ends and when their associated “costs” are reduced.