EU Legalizes “Return Centers” Under Criticism in the Fight Against Irregular Migration
EU Legalizes “Return Centers” Under Criticism in the Fight Against Irregular Migration
The European Union (EU) is preparing to legalize "return centers" to be established in third countries, which have been criticized for potentially leading to human rights violations in the fight against irregular migration.
On December 1, 2024, Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, presented the return strategy, which was listed as one of her first 100-day actions, to the European Parliament (EP) General Assembly on March 11.
Von der Leyen first revealed the content of the strategy shortly after securing her second five-year term following the European Parliament elections last summer, through a letter to the member countries.
Von der Leyen pointed to the return agreement signed between Italy and Albania in 2023 as an example and signaled the implementation of innovative ideas, such as the establishment of centers in third countries.
This approach brings to mind the plan proposed by the UK in 2022, which suggested sending individuals who entered the country illegally and applied for asylum to Rwanda.
Von der Leyen's proposal, which was criticized by some EU leaders and international human rights organizations for carrying risks such as violations of the right to asylum and related guarantees, arbitrary detention, and restrictions on personal freedoms, gained widespread support.
The legislative proposal presented in the European Parliament General Assembly yesterday revealed that all these examples would be given legal ground.
The proposal notes that only 20% of those whose asylum applications are rejected in the EU are returned, aiming to accelerate and make these processes more effective. The EU is preparing to move this issue from the jurisdiction of member states to EU-wide regulations, shortening bureaucratic procedures and making a country’s deportation decision valid in all member states to speed up returns.
Migrants Can Be Sent to Third Countries
The most critical element of the package is the idea, recently backed by right-wing leaders such as Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, to send migrants to centers to be established in third countries, providing a legal framework for this idea.
If von der Leyen's proposal becomes law, migrants whose asylum applications are rejected could be sent not only to the country of origin or transit but also to any third country agreed upon by the EU.
Hanne Bierens, Director of the Brussels-based Migration Policy Institute, one of the organizations contributing to the proposal, told an AA reporter that there is political will behind the draft that aims to send a message to voters about being tougher and more effective in returns.
Bierens said, "You can see how the political stance on wanting to be tougher on migration really affects the legislative proposals."
Bierens noted that they contributed to the draft on communication between member states and the reintegration support to be given to returned individuals. She further stated:
"Political messages are important, but the question remains whether this will result in more effective returns. If the goal is to send people back, we know from past years that the effective approach is to build more sustainable, long-term partnerships with third countries to facilitate readmission. It is crucial to invest in reintegration programs so that those who need to be returned can do so with dignity, receive support, and have the opportunity to build a future."
Bierens emphasized that the most striking element of the draft, which largely unites the member states, is the return centers, adding:
"We also see changes in definitions. When we say ‘return,’ it no longer only refers to the country of origin or transit. It could now be a safe third country, a country that the individual has the right to enter, or any country agreed upon by the EU. It is very unclear what the basic principles are for security measures or such an agreement. The details on how the person will be transferred to that country, the conditions for entry, and whether there will be an independent mechanism to monitor what happens there need to be outlined. These are really big questions."
Bierens, highlighting the problematic aspects of the draft for the EU, stated, "As we saw in the example of the UK-Rwanda or Italy-Albania agreements, return centers that European countries want to use to externalize their migration management are extremely costly operations. For example, in the Italy-Albania agreement, costs could rise up to 1 billion euros. This is the current budget allocated for Belgium's acceptance agency for 35,000 places annually. I usually refer to this as a kind of 'Rolex' policy tool that just shows you the time but is extremely expensive."
Bierens also pointed out that the draft opens the door for compulsory returns, adding that studies suggest voluntary returns should be encouraged.
“It’s No Longer ‘Return,’ It’s Just ‘Sending’”
Flor Didden, an official from the Brussels-based human rights organization "11.11.11," recalled that there has been a debate for months about whether return centers would be part of the strategy. Didden drew attention to the fact that countries of origin are usually reluctant to cooperate on readmission, and stated that migrants would be held in return centers to be established in third countries until they receive acceptance from their own countries.
Didden said, "They will be outside of EU control. We won’t have any guarantees that their rights will be respected. What will happen if their countries do not accept them? Will they remain in detention? There are many questions to ask. We are saying that this draft will not provide any solutions to the challenges the EU faces."
Didden argued that the idea of "connection criteria" in the draft, which aimed to provide favorable conditions for migrants to rebuild their lives by being returned to countries they have ties to, has been set aside. She continued:
"People should have lived in the country they are being returned to or have meaningful connections. Now, however, you can send rejected asylum seekers to any country willing to accept them. This is no longer 'return,' it’s just ‘sending.’ I believe you cannot talk about sustainable returns when you send people this way. Therefore, we think this should be removed from the proposal as well as from the return practices. We are asking the Belgian government and Belgian members of the European Parliament to truly remove these ideas from the proposal."
Referring to examples like the Italy-Albania agreement on which the legislative proposal is based, Didden said, "Our analysis shows that these experimental, innovative solutions have largely failed. Some people were sent to these centers, but nearly all were released because Italian courts ruled that they could not be detained there."
“The EU Must Solve the Issue of Returns Internally”
Didden emphasized that the EU should solve the issue of returns by building resilient and effective systems internally, rather than relying on external solutions that we have seen for years. "Third-country solutions are very costly. These types of agreements are very expensive. They also require a lot of diplomatic energy," she said, pointing out that these resources should be invested in more effective strategies.
Didden concluded by drawing attention to the fact that the proposals in the draft reflect the current political atmosphere in the EU, stating, "Last year, 15 countries wrote a letter to the European Commission, asking for innovative solutions. Most of these members have right-wing parties that want to take a tough stance on migration. We know that these ideas do not work in practice. They are mainly made to look tough, but there is very little real content in them."