The European Commission president, Ursula von der Leyen, may be shifting her sight from Rwanda to Albania. Communicated via a letter to EU member nations, she hinted on the possibility of establishing external return hubs for the repatriation of unsuccessful asylum seekers. The concept finds its inspiration in Italy’s approach towards dealing with such cases, sending asylum seekers to Albania to decide their fate. As one of the main pathways for European migrants over the years, Italy recently set an example by dispatching 16 asylum seekers to Albania from Lampedusa.
The vessel carrying the asylum seekers, which had left an Italian naval ship at Lampedusa bound for Shen Gjin, a port in Albania, on October 14, had on board, ten persons from Bangladesh and six from Egypt. All seekers were initially rescued by Italian naval ships close to the Libyan coast. This journey is set to reach its destination today.
Stipulations for this arrangement allow Italy to delegate the processing of asylum seekers to Albania, with certain conditions in place. These seekers need to be adult males originating from countries considered safe, and they must not fall into the category of ‘vulnerable.’ Those who do not fulfill these requirements, such as women or the ill, will undergo the asylum procedure within Italy.
While the asylum centres for this processing are situated within Albania, their operation is overseen by the Italian government. The idea is to limit the ability of adult males, who have a lesser probability of obtaining asylum, from residing within the EU if their application is unsuccessful. This approach derives from the fact that only about 20 per cent of asylum seekers in the EU who are rejected actually end up being deported, according to statistics from Eurostat.
Many of these unsuccessful asylum seekers manage to stay, leading an uncertain life. Some even try their luck by moving to another nation hoping for a successful asylum claim, such as Lawangeen Abdulrahimzai, who was denied asylum in Norway but was not deported back to Afghanistan.
The overwhelming number of asylum seekers, coupled with the protracted legal procedures as per human rights law, has put European nations under immense pressure. Taking a case in point, in Ursula von der Leyen’s home country, Germany, activation of an asylum claim still takes an average of 18.7 months instead of the targeted 3 months, due to case backlogs originating from 2015-16.
The increases in asylum seekers are noticeable. Numbers have swelled significantly since 2013, from 613,000 to a staggering 3.1 million. Coinciding with this increase, the capacity of German deportation facilities has dwindled, with the current capacity being just 790 beds. The vast majority of unsuccessful asylum seekers find that they are not sent back.
Solving some of these complexities could be achieved by moving the asylum seeker processing outside the EU. This strategy is not entirely new. The EU adopted a migrant return directive in 2008, which unfortunately, has proven to be insufficient for the present circumstances.
In order to modernize and expedite the process of returning unsuccessful asylum seekers, several countries within the Schengen area, headed by Austria and the Netherlands, have approached the EU Commission informally, via a ‘non-paper’. Their suggestion was for the return directive to be updated.
The EU has not been as efficient in tackling this matter. However, Ursula von der Leyen’s letter signifies that the strong and united stance taken by other nations could cause a ripple effect. Still, the eventual solution may fail to fully meet the expectations of European voters.
The scales of human rights law are slanted in favor of asylum seekers. Despite recurring assurances by European leaders to adopt stricter measures, these have yet to result in reduced numbers. The European Court of Justice consistently presents obstacles to these efforts. It concluded recently that Afghan women could be sent back based on their gender and nationality alone, negating any need to demonstrate a direct personal threat.
While adopting a model similar to Italy’s strategy involving Albania could be a progressive step, it doesn’t go as far as the interrupted British plan. This former plan intended for all asylum seekers who entered illegally to be sent to Rwanda.
The increasing demand for offshore asylum processing across Europe calls for a reassessment of whether discontinuing the Rwanda plan was judicious. The absence of such plan has left us bereft of a preventive measure and divergent from our neighbours. The increasing illegal entries, coupled with the necessity to maintain hotel accommodations for asylum seekers, have contributed to the pressure.
In light of these developments, a reconsideration of the existing asylum procedures may be warranted. Moving towards a more ‘European’ approach to asylum issues that involves processing asylum seekers outside of the EU could potentially mitigate the existing challenges.