In the midst of the rise of far-right discourse and the normalization by traditional conservatives of the discourse defended by the ultras, particularly anti-immigration, the European Union opened the way this Monday in Brussels for the controversial creation of expulsion centers outside the community territory.
In a new turn towards a tougher migration policy, the Ministers of the Interior of the Member States also agreed – with the opposition of a few countries, such as Spain – to substantially reduce the annual quota for solidarity relocation of asylum seekers, as well as the compensatory economic contributions of countries which prefer to pay instead of accepting the number of migrants that corresponds to them. In the middle of a demographic winter, with the decline in the birth rate and the population in most partners but in a maneuver which aims to counter (which is part of its ideology) the vote for the extreme right, the EU has approved a set of measures which give more power to Member States to expel asylum seekers who have not received residence authorization and to create expulsion and reception centers for migrants outside the EU, in line with the contested model of Italy in Albania.
“We are faced with an incontestable change in immigration policy which contravenes everything that a Europe of values defends,” laments a diplomatic source about the measures that the Interior Ministers approved on Monday. “The immigration challenge must be mastered, but not by combining far-right arguments. Voters will always prefer the original to the copy,” he continues.
In a marathon session – the speed with which all the proposals were approved is another example of the general toughening on immigration – EU internal policy makers agreed to the revision of the return regulation, which includes the possibility for member states to sign agreements with countries outside the EU to send migrants whose asylum applications have been rejected to centers there. At the same time, they also approved the Commission’s legislative proposal to reform the concept of “safe third country”, which will also facilitate the expulsion of rejected asylum seekers in Europe to a country other than their country of origin.
These measures create the legal basis which will allow in future Member States which wish to negotiate with third countries such as Uganda or Albania the creation of detention centers for migrants in places beyond European borders and with which the deportees do not necessarily maintain relations.
Denmark, which is about to end its current EU Council presidency and has been a key driver of the most restrictive migration measures, particularly return centers, welcomed the moves as a way to “end incentives” for migrants to “embark on dangerous journeys to the EU”, Immigration Minister Rasmus Stoklund said.
The defenders of these innovative solutions, euphemistically, claim to have confirmed with international institutions that the fundamental rights of the immigrants concerned will be guaranteed in these centers. But in Spain, one of the countries that has most openly opposed these policies, Interior Minister Fernando Grande-Marlaska warned that return centers continue to generate “serious legal doubts” and “questions” about whether the rights of the immigrants concerned are effectively protected.
The Twenty-Seven also managed, with a comfortable majority, to give their approval to another proposal aimed at creating a European list of “safe countries of origin”, as demanded by the government of ultra-Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, who promoted a controversial detention center for migrants in Albania. This in turn will make it possible to accelerate, but also to refuse more quickly, asylum requests from applicants from countries considered “safe”: Bangladesh, Colombia, Egypt, India, Morocco, Tunisia and Kosovo.
Even if these measures must still be negotiated with the European Parliament before they can come into force, given the significant weight of the most extreme forces within the hemicycle, there is little doubt that the toughening of immigration will be enshrined by these new regulations.
“We are putting our European house in order when it comes to migration,” said Interior and Migration Commissioner Magnus Brunner, celebrating the votes. The Austrian conservative is a defender of the “turning point” the EU has taken on immigration that is toughening its policy while there are still more than six months left for the Pact on Migration and Asylum to come into full force, which took more than a decade to conclude. A situation deplored by Grande-Marlaska, for whom this approach “breaks” the integrity of a migration pact when it has not even been able to demonstrate its value.
On the same day that Europe confirmed its intention to further close its borders, it also reduced its internal migratory solidarity. Interior officials have decided to lower the Commission’s proposal regarding the so-called “solidarity package” with the countries subject to the greatest migratory pressure for 2026: the text adopted this Monday reduces the number of migrants to be relocated from 30,000 to 21,000 and the amount of financial aid from 600 to 420 million euros.
As the Council justified in a statement, the reduction in aid that should benefit countries like Spain, Cyprus, Greece and Italy next year is due to the fact that the first year of the migration management cycle will begin to be implemented on June 12 – the date on which the Migration Pact comes into force -, so it is considered that less funds and quotas will be required than when the cycle is 12 months.
The solidarity mechanism with the countries with the highest migratory pressure – which the Commission lists in a list that it will re-examine each year – provides for various options for compensation from the rest of the States: they can agree to relocate part of the designated applicants on their territory – up to 21,000 in 2026, as now agreed – or pay financial “compensation”. Also propose “alternative solidarity” measures by mutual agreement with the country seeking to alleviate its migratory pressure, which can be both financial and material or personal, among others.
Grande-Marlaska regretted the reduction in quotas in a vote in which Spain abstained. “The solidarity contingent cannot become a haggling of numbers,” he warned, recalling that “without responsibility there will be no solidarity and, without solidarity, there will be no responsibility either”.
About The Author
