FRANCOIS MITTERRAND, A FORMER PRESIDENT OF FRANCE, once said that all countries have a threshold of tolerance (seuil de tolerance) when it comes to the number of foreigners in their midst.(1) Europe as a whole has long surpassed its limit. In each of the countries of the European Union (EU) there is simply no desire to welcome more foreigners as permanent residents, regardless of the reason for their arrival. Chancellor Gerhard Schroder's announcement that Germany needs to import thousands of information technology workers reads like a man-bites-dog story, not because it isn't true but because a government leader said it.(2) Schroder's centre-left coalition government has since passed immigration legislation; however, the opposition Christian Democrats, led by Edmund Stoiber, have vowed to repeal the law if they are elected in the September 2002 Bundestag elections.(3)The growth of this exclusionary attitude has much to do with a common perception that too many migrants are seeking new homes in Europe. The vast majority are 'asylum seekers,' and, in spite of strenuous efforts to block their arrival, more than 3.7 million refugee applications were made in EU countries during the 1990s. In 2000 the number was 390,104 and in 2001 it was 384,530.(4)Asylum seekers may be driven from their own country ('pushed') by any number of miseries. They are drawn ('pulled') to Europe by its security, prosperity, and democracy. The vast majority who arrive will be disappointed by their reception. Although the humanitarian impulse of European nations is strong - strong enough to compel governments to make domestic and international commitments to address human suffering and rights abuse - it cannot be sustained in the face of the sheer numbers seeking refuge.At the heart of the current European asylum situation are two contradictions. First, the wealthy countries of Western Europe all signed the 1951 Geneva Convention on the Status of Refugees (Geneva convention) and the 1967 protocol. In doing so, they committed themselves to several principles, the most important of which is not to return (refoulement) a refugee to a place of persecution (article 33 of the convention). If the asylum seeker meets the conditions or qualifications of a 'convention refugee,' he or she normally gains most of the benefits of citizenship. In effect, the refuge becomes an immigrant. Although European countries generally do not want immigrants, they are unwilling to disavow Geneva convention obligations. Thus, a back door to legal residency is open to 'spontaneous arrivals' from the numerous areas of the world in turmoil, some with easy access to Europe. The policy predicament for rights conscious European governments is to defend the principles of the Geneva convention at the same time as they avoid the burden of its full and fair implementation.(5)A second contradiction is that although Europeans do not want immigrants they may need them. They certainly need a plentiful supply of cheap labour because of an aging population and falling birth rates and an extensive social safety net that renders the indigenous population less willing to take low-paying jobs.(6) Nonetheless, according to a Mori poll in Britain, two-thirds of the respondents believe there are too many migrants in the country; another poll in Reader's Digest discovered that large numbers 'resent' asylum seekers.(7) A German poll reached similar conclusions: two-thirds favoured even stronger immigration controls.(8) These sentiments, which other European countries share, often contribute to the development of and support for extremist parties. Parties such as the Austrian Freedom Party, the Swiss Radical Party, the Italian Northern League, and the French National Front, all of which take a hard line on migration issues, have enjoyed significant electoral success and have even participated in government coalitions. There is thus little political support at present for the development of explicit immigration programmes. …