Mixed messages from officials over UK plan to process migrants in Albania

A migrant child is carried by Border Force staff into Dover harbour after crossing the channel in Dover, Britain, November 18, 2021. (Reuters)
Short Url
Updated 18 November 2021
Follow

Mixed messages from officials over UK plan to process migrants in Albania

  • London has struggled to find solution to growing number of arrivals from France via English Channel
  • So far this year number of people reaching Britain has almost tripled on 2020

LONDON: Officials from London and Tirana have given mixed messages on the prospect of Britain establishing a migrant processing center in Albania, after reports emerged Thursday that a deal was close.

British officials are hoping to seal a deal that would see migrants arriving in the UK via the English Channel flown to Albania for offshore processing — though reports that the two countries are close to a deal have been denied by Albania's ambassador to the UK.

Under the proposed plan, people arriving on British shores in small boats would be sent to Albania within seven days of their arrival, The Times has reported.

It is thought that the prospect of a long wait in an Albanian facility will deter people from trying to make the crossing, stemming the flow of migrants and refugees attempting the perilous journey.

One minister told The Times that the chances of reaching an agreement with Albania were “looking good,” while another told The Times: “Offshore processing is our best hope now, as nothing else is working.”

British Home Office sources were more cautious over the propsect of reaching a deal with Albania, describing the discussions as being in the “early days.” 

But while British officials appeared to believe a deal was close, Albanians have outright rejected that talks were even taking place.

Albania's UK ambassador, Qirjako Qirko, rejected the report by The Times, telling The Independent that it was false.

He said: “I can firmly confirm that there are no bilateral talks between the Albanian and British government’s officials regarding processing centres for illegal immigrants crossing the English Channel.”

Qirko's comments were echoed on Twitter by Albanian Foreign Minister Olta Xhacka, who wrote Thursday that the report was “the same old fake news.”

The proposal is a reaction to the growing number of refugees and migrants that have this year made it to the UK, with record numbers arriving weekly.

On Nov. 11, a record 1,185 people reached Britain in small boats, followed by 1,000 on Tuesday.

The crossings have proved to be a bone of contention between London and Paris, the former of which has accused the latter of not doing enough to prevent the crossings, despite paying France more than £50 million ($67 million) earlier in the year to stop the attempts.

But even if the deal goes ahead, the plan faces significant obstacles.

With an estimated cost of £100,000 per person, sending someone abroad to process their claim comes in at around double what it would cost to keep a prisoner locked up for a year in Britain.

But there are also legal hurdles. It is against international law to detain people against their will, and ministers have not revealed how they plan to work around the problem.

If the plan is implemented, the UK would follow Australia — which holds people offshore in small Pacific countries — and Denmark, which is planning a similar processing operation in Rwanda.

Australia’s policy has come at a cost. At least 10 people have taken their own lives while in detention centers, and another two have been murdered. Some people have been held for up to seven years before a decision on their case was made.

More than 24,000 people have arrived in Britain via the English Channel so far this year — almost triple the 8,420 that arrived in 2020. In the past three weeks alone, at least 10 people have died trying to make the crossing.


Proposals on immigration enforcement flood into state legislatures, heightened by Minnesota action

Updated 16 January 2026
Follow

Proposals on immigration enforcement flood into state legislatures, heightened by Minnesota action

  • Oregon Democrats plan to introduce a bill to allow residents to sue federal officers for violating their Fourth Amendment rights against unlawful search and seizure

NASHVILLE, Tennessee: As Democrats across the country propose state law changes to restrict federal immigration officers after the shooting death of a protester in Minneapolis, Tennessee Republicans introduced a package of bills Thursday backed by the White House that would enlist the full force of the state to support President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown.
Momentum in Democratic-led states for the measures, some of them proposed for years, is growing as legislatures return to work following the killing of Renee Good by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer. But Republicans are pushing back, blaming protesters for impeding the enforcement of immigration laws.

Democratic bills seek to limit ICE

Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul wants New York to allow people to sue federal officers alleging violations of their constitutional rights. Another measure aims to keep immigration officers lacking judicial warrants out of schools, hospitals and houses of worship.
Oregon Democrats plan to introduce a bill to allow residents to sue federal officers for violating their Fourth Amendment rights against unlawful search and seizure.
New Jersey’s Democrat-led Legislature passed three bills Monday that immigrant rights groups have long pushed for, including a measure prohibiting state law enforcement officers from cooperating with federal immigration enforcement. Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy has until his last day in office Tuesday to sign or veto them.
California lawmakers are proposing to ban local and state law enforcement from taking second jobs with the Department of Homeland Security and make it a violation of state law when ICE officers make “indiscriminate” arrests around court appearances. Other measures are pending.
“Where you have government actions with no accountability, that is not true democracy,” Democratic state Sen. Scott Wiener of San Francisco said at a news conference.
Democrats also push bills in red states
Democrats in Georgia introduced four Senate bills designed to limit immigration enforcement — a package unlikely to become law because Georgia’s conservative upper chamber is led by Lt. Gov. Burt Jones, a close Trump ally. Democrats said it is still important to take a stand.
“Donald Trump has unleashed brutal aggression on our families and our communities across our country,” said state Sen. Sheikh Rahman, an immigrant from Bangladesh whose district in suburban Atlanta’s Gwinnett County is home to many immigrants.
Democrats in New Hampshire have proposed numerous measures seeking to limit federal immigration enforcement, but the state’s Republican majorities passed a new law taking effect this month that bans “sanctuary cities.”
Tennessee GOP works with White House on a response
The bills Tennessee Republicans are introducing appear to require government agencies to check the legal status of all residents before they can obtain public benefits; secure licenses for teaching, nursing and other professions; and get driver’s licenses or register their cars.
They also would include verifying K-12 students’ legal status, which appears to conflict with a US Supreme Court precedent. And they propose criminalizing illegal entry as a misdemeanor, a measure similar to several other states’ requirements, some of which are blocked in court.
“We’re going to do what we can to make sure that if you’re here illegally, we will have the data, we’ll have the transparency, and we’re not spending taxpayer dollars on you unless you’re in jail,” House Speaker Cameron Sexton said at a news conference Thursday.
Trump administration sues to stop laws
The Trump administration has opposed any effort to blunt ICE, including suing local governments whose “sanctuary” policies limit police interactions with federal officers.
States have broad power to regulate within their borders unless the US Constitution bars it, but many of these laws raise novel issues that courts will have to sort out, said Harrison Stark, senior counsel with the State Democracy Research Initiative at the University of Wisconsin Law School.
“There’s not a super clear, concrete legal answer to a lot of these questions,” he said. “It’s almost guaranteed there will be federal litigation over a lot of these policies.”
That is already happening.
California in September was the first to ban most law enforcement officers, including federal immigration officers, from covering their faces on duty. The Justice Department said its officers won’t comply and sued California, arguing that the laws threaten the safety of officers who are facing “unprecedented” harassment, doxing and violence.
The Justice Department also sued Illinois last month, challenging a law that bars federal civil arrests near courthouses, protects medical records and regulates how universities and day care centers manage information about immigration status. The Justice Department claims the law is unconstitutional and threatens federal officers’ safety.
Targeted states push back
Minnesota and Illinois, joined by their largest cities, sued the Trump administration this week. Minneapolis and Minnesota accuse the Republican administration of violating free speech rights by punishing a progressive state that favors Democrats and welcomes immigrants. Illinois and Chicago claim “Operation Midway Blitz” made residents afraid to leave their homes.
Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin accused Minnesota officials of ignoring public safety and called the Illinois lawsuit “baseless.”