EU eyes offshoring asylum-seekers, but avoids UK-style Rwanda plan

In this photo taken on February 4, 2022, migrants bury less fortunate colleagues in the north cemetery of Calais, northern France. (AFP)
Short Url
Updated 09 April 2024
Follow

EU eyes offshoring asylum-seekers, but avoids UK-style Rwanda plan

BRUSSELS, Belgium: The European Union is open to the idea of sending asylum-seekers to outside countries, even if it is not willing to go quite as far as following Britain and its plans to fly irregular migrants to Rwanda.
The concept of using third countries to host asylum-seekers who have reached Europe is seen in a deal Italy has recently struck with non-EU nation Albania.
It is also foreshadowed in reform of EU migration and asylum laws that the European Parliament puts to a vote on Wednesday, and which contains a provision for sending asylum-seekers to a “safe” third country.
However, the EU law would require a “link” to be shown between the asylum-seeker and the country they are sent to.
Britain’s plan, in contrast, involves having Rwanda become the permanent host nation of all asylum-seekers who had “irregularly” reached UK soil, regardless of whether they had any connection with the central African nation.
That idea has already run afoul of the European Court of Human Rights.
Such a move would not be possible in the European Union because it is “neither in accordance with the current legislative framework nor in accordance with the reforms that will be put to vote,” said Alberto?Horst Neidhardt, a migration analyst at the European Policy Center think tank.
Even so, a couple of EU countries — Austria and Denmark — have expressed interest in following Britain’s path.
And a rise in asylum application in Europe, along with an expected surge for the far-right in EU elections in June, have helped push the European Parliament’s biggest grouping, the conservative European People’s Party (EPP), in that direction.
The EPP — to which European Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen belongs — has made a similar proposal in its election manifesto.
Jens Spahn, a member of Germany’s Christian Democratic Union party that is part of the EPP, argued that fewer irregular migrants would try to reach the European Union “if it’s obvious that within 48 hours they would be sent to a safe country outside the EU,” evoking Rwanda, Georgia and Moldova as possibilities.

Italy’s far-right government of Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has made a deal with Albania moving toward an offshoring of migrants.
Rome’s accord signed with Tirana in November outlines migrant transfers to detention centers in Albania that would be financed and run by Italy, which would keep responsibility for evaluating asylum claims and applying Italian law to them.
Von der Leyen has hailed that model “as an example of out-of-the box thinking.”
For Jean-Louis De Brouwer, a former mandarin of European Commission asylum and immigration policies who is now director of the European affairs program at the Egmont Institute think tank, said the Italy-Albania plan idea could spread.
It’s the type of bilateral deal that EU countries could also strike with Balkan countries that hope to join the bloc, “for instance between North Macedonia and Germany,” he said.
“It has a certain political logic to it,” he said.
“Candidate countries to join would this way give a clear indication they are ready to take part in a form of European solidarity in the handling of asylum and international protection,” he said.
Even so, given the large number of asylum-seekers, such arrangements would be “a drop in the ocean,” he said.

As for migrant charities and non-governmental organizations, they strongly criticize the migrant and asylum pact to overhaul the EU’s current rules, and slam the idea of EU states sending migrants to so-called “safe” countries.
It would be “a further step in the EU and member states pushing their responsibilities onto non-EU countries, despite the bloc only hosting a fraction of the world’s displaced,” said Stephanie Pope, from the charity Oxfam.
The proposed law to that effect “lowers the protection standards required” in those outside countries, she said.
For Damien Careme, a leftwing French lawmaker in the European Parliament, the proposed change would allow the EU to send sub-Saharan migrants who had lived in Tunisia back to that country, despite “a huge rise in racism” there.
“It’s crazy,” he said, adding that the commission and member countries had an “obsession” about “offshoring migration,” evinced by deals Brussels had reached or was looking to strike with countries neighboring the EU.
EU officials signing those accords, with Tunisia, Egypt and Turkiye, have held them up as useful tools to help stem irregular migration toward Europe’s shores.
 


The shootings in Minneapolis are upending the politics of immigration in Congress

Updated 5 sec ago
Follow

The shootings in Minneapolis are upending the politics of immigration in Congress

WASHINGTON: The shooting deaths of two American citizens during the Trump administration’s deportation operations in Minneapolis have upended the politics of immigration in Congress, plunging the country toward another government shutdown.
Democrats have awakened to what they see as a moral moment for the country, refusing funds for the Department of Homeland Security’s military-style immigration enforcement operations unless there are new restraints. Two former presidents, Barack Obama and Bill Clinton, have broken from retirement to speak out.
At the same time, Republicans who have championed President Donald Trump’s tough approach to immigration are signaling second thoughts. A growing number of Republicans want a full investigation into the shooting death of Alex Pretti and congressional hearings about US Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations.
“Americans are horrified & don’t want their tax dollars funding this brutality,” Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., wrote on social media. “Not another dime to this lawless operation.”
The result is a rapidly changing political environment as the nation considers the reach of the Trump administration’s well-funded immigration enforcement machinery and Congress spirals toward a partial federal shutdown if no resolution is reached by midnight Friday.
“The tragic death of Alex Pretti has refocused attention on the Homeland Security bill, and I recognize and share the concerns,” said Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, the GOP chair of the Appropriations Committee, in brief remarks Monday.
Still, she urged colleagues to stick to the funding deal and avoid a “detrimental shutdown.”
Searching for a way out of a crisis
As Congress seeks to defuse a crisis, the next steps are uncertain.
The White House has indicated its own shifting strategy, sending Trump’s border czar Tom Homan to Minneapolis to take over for hard-charging Border Patrol Commander Gregory Bovino, which many Republicans see as a potential turning point to calm operations.
“This is a positive development — one that I hope leads to turning down the temperature and restoring order in Minnesota,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune posted about Homan.
Behind the scenes, the White House is reaching out to congressional leaders, and even individual Democratic senators, in search of a way out of another government shutdown.
At stake is a six-bill government funding package, not just for Homeland Security but for Defense, Health and other departments, making up more than 70 percent of federal operations.
Even though Homeland Security has billions from Trump’s big tax break bill, Democrats are coalescing around changes to ICE operations. “We can still have some legitimate restriction on how these people are conducting themselves,” said Sen. Ruben Gallego, D-Arizona
But it appears doubtful the Trump administration would readily agree to Democrats’ demands to rein in immigration operations. Proposals for unmasking federal agents or limiting their reach into schools, hospitals or churches would be difficult to quickly approve in Congress.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said that while conversations are underway, Trump wants to see the bipartisan spending package approved to avoid the possibility of a government shutdown.
“We absolutely do not want to see that funding lapse,” Leavitt said.
Politics reflect changing attitudes on Trump’s immigration agenda
The political climate is a turnaround from just a year ago, when Congress easily passed the Laken Riley Act, the first bill Trump signed into law in his second term.
At the time, dozens of Democrats joined the GOP majority in passing the bill named after a Georgia nursing student who was killed by a Venezuelan man who had entered the country illegally.
Many Democrats had worried about the Biden administration’s record of having allowed untold immigrants into the country. The party was increasingly seen as soft on crime following the “defund the police” protests and the aftermath of the death of George Floyd at the the hands of law enforcement.
But the Trump administrations tactics changed all that.
Just 38 percent of US adults approve of how Trump is handling immigration, down from 49 percent in March, according to an AP-NORC poll conducted in January, shortly after the death of Renee Good, who was shot and killed by a ICE officer in Minnesota.
Last week, almost all House Democrats voted against the Homeland Security bill, as the package was sent the Senate.
Then there was the shooting death of Pretti over the weekend in Minneapolis.
Rep. Tom Suozzi of New York, who was among the seven Democrats who had voted to approve the Homeland Security funds, reversed course Monday in a Facebook post.
“I hear the anger from my constituents, and I take responsibility for that,” Suozzi wrote.
He said he “failed to view the DHS funding vote as a referendum on the illegal and immoral conduct of ICE in Minneapolis.”
Voting ahead as shutdown risk grows
Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer said Monday the responsibility for averting another shutdown falls to Republicans, who have majority control, to break apart the six-bill package, removing the homeland funds while allowing the others to go forward.
“We can pass them right away,” Schumer said.
But the White House panned that approach and House Speaker Mike Johnson, who has blamed Democrats for last year’s shutdown, the longest in history, has been mum. The GOP speaker would need to recall lawmakers to Washington to vote.
Republicans believe they will be able to portray Democrats as radical if the government shuts down over Homeland Security funds, and certain centrist Democrats have warned the party against strong anti-ICE language.
A memo from centrist Democratic group Third Way had earlier warned lawmakers against proposals to “abolish” ICE as “emotionally satisfying, politically lethal.” In a new memo Monday it proposed “Overhauling ICE” with top-to-bottom changes, including removing Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem from her job.
GOP faces a divide on deportations
But Republicans also risk being sideways with public opinion over Trump’s immigration and deportation agenda.
Republicans prefer to keep the focus on Trump’s ability to secure the US-Mexico border, with illegal crossings at all-time lows, instead of the military-style deportation agenda. They are particularly sensitive to concerns from gun owners’ groups that Pretti, who was apparently licensed to carry a firearm, is being criticized for having a gun with him before he was killed.
GOP Sen. Rand Paul, the chairman of the Homeland Security and Government Oversight Committee, demanded that acting ICE director Todd Lyons appear for a hearing — joining a similar demand from House Republicans over the weekend.
At the same time, many GOP lawmakers continue to embrace the Trump administration’s deportation strategy.
“I want to be very clear,” said Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., in a post. “I will not support any efforts to strip DHS of its funding.”
And pressure from their own right flank was bearing down on Republicans.
The Heritage Foundation chastised those Republicans who were “jubilant” at the prospect of slowing down ICE operations. “Deport every illegal alien,” it said in a post. “Nothing less.”