The recent spate of abominable attacks on Romanian communities in Belfast, Northern Ireland, has offered an extreme example of the differing views towards immigration across the European Union.

We are fortunate that the majority of European citizens are not as bigoted or as closed-minded as the thugs who have forced those besieged residents to return to their homeland, but the results of the recent Euro elections proved just how divisive the issue of immigration is in Europe.

Worldwide requests for political asylum rose 12% between 2007 and 2008. The bulk of these requests have been handled by five countries; America, Britain, Canada, France and Italy. The largest percentage of asylum seekers have been Iraqis fleeing the insurgents, and Somalians escaping the wrath of Islamic extremists.

Britain, which Northern Ireland is a part of, has consistently received the most applications for asylum of Europe’s ‘big three’ – the other two being France and Germany. Following the precedents of its neighbours, the British government has imposed an increasing number of restrictions on people claiming asylum. The results of such rule enforcements is that only 26,000 applications were made in 2008, compared to three times that figure just five years earlier. This has seen it fall behind France, who had 10,000 more asylum applications last year.

However, despite the fall in figures, there is a huge backlog of asylum cases that are awaiting review. While these asylum seekers prepare for their fate, they are accommodated in inadequate detention facilities that house both refugees and criminals facing deportation. The sheer number of cases has left the government with the need to build more detention centres. There would be very few who would argue against the British policy that offenders should be deported to their country of origin. Any person that seeks refuge in a foreign country, and enjoys the benefits of peace and democracy, should respect the laws of their new residence. Those who commit crimes against the state or its citizens have no right to reside there any longer.

Britain, in some respects, has led by example in accepting the worthiest of immigrants – those who have been displaced due to war. Due to its own erroneous foreign policies in recent times, Britain is now indebted to an increasing number of Iraqi, Zimbabwean, Afghan, and Palestinian citizens. It is a shame that the increasing number of small-minded, anti-humanitarians do not understand that rising immigration is a secondary consequence of colonial imperialism.

Despite this obvious culpability, since 2005, refugee status in Britain is only granted on a temporary basis; after five years people taking refuge in Britain will have their cases assessed, and may be deported if their verdict is not favourable.

This must be shattering news for potential asylum seekers who are currently suffering unimaginably the world over. The victims of the current cycle of wars, famines and government repressions – that have engulfed countries such as Somalia, Sudan, Burma, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, and most recently Iran – will not be as ‘lucky’ as their predecessors. Britain’s image as a place of refuge is set to change under harsher and more competitive economic times.

If the traditionally charitable EU member is facing up to being more miserly, what of the Union’s poorer members? For many states, a large and embittered underclass has existed for many years. This has bred misguided nationalism amongst the masses, leading to an acute dislike and mistrust of foreign settlers.

Greece is one such example – historically famous for being a hospitable country – now, after recent bouts of civil unrest, and with the prospect of a fresh influx of immigrants into the country from new areas such as Pakistan and Iraq, a hotbed of nationalism. In the spring of this year, a squat housing large numbers of Middle Eastern immigrants was stormed by fascist protestors. The response of the, increasingly militant, police force was underwhelming. It required a left-wing counter-protest to halt the siege.

Thomas Hemmerberger, representing the European Council of Human Rights, has claimed that Greece has failed asylum seekers. The transparency of his statement is thrown into question though, when one considers figures that suggest that 146,000 immigrants arrived on Greek shores last year. Such numbers cannot be accommodated by a spiralling economy. The response of the government has been less than ideal though; temporary asylum permits are no longer issued to immigrants and 88,000 people were ordered to leave Greece last year after being found without the necessary documents. This hard line approach is causing the tension that was in evidence in May: immigrants feel intimidated and threatened, while residents feel aggrieved and unsympathetic.

In Italy the right-wing government does not attest to welcoming immigrants. Part of Silvio Berlusconi’s manifesto was the promise to cut the number of people from foreign climes settling in Italy, after statistics in 2008 showed that immigration had doubled since the previous year. Almost 70% of new arrivals have their application for asylum rejected. Many of these people are not returned to their homeland, facing the alternative of living in Italy with no state acknowledgement. Unsurprisingly, a disproportionate amount of crime is attributed to immigrants by theItalian authorities.

Italy’s approach to immigration has received widespread condemnation. The UN has expressed ‘grave concern’ at Italian policies, and Mr. Hemmerberger has also expressed his dismay at their treatment of migrants. A further concern is that Mr. Berlusconi’s policies are being universally championed amongst the Italian elites, with the Socialist parties offering their support. For Bill Frelick of Human Rights Watch, the Italians are in breach of an international refugee law to which they are signatories: “The Geneva Convention commits signatories not to send a refugee to ‘territories where his life or freedom would be threatened.” In support of this flagrant disregard for international law, and echoing the ideology of his predecessor Mr. Mussolini, Mr. Berlusconi has recently claimed that the very notion of a multi-ethnic Italy should be discouraged. These developments suggest worrying times for immigrants in Italy.

These are three examples of European Union members with very different attitudes towards immigration. What must be considered a point of concern though, is that each of the three countries are being forced to pursue increasingly similar policies towards asylum seekers. As economic, social, and political unrest around the world grows, the fate of its victims will hang in the balance unless a unilateral European is approached, and one that members are prepared to adhere to.