HARD LINE ON MIGRANTS: THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT APPROVES THE NEW REGULATION ON RETURNS

Translated by Benedetta Calice

On June 17 in Strasbourg, the European Parliament approved the new return law with 418 votes in favor, 218 against, and with unusual speed.

Crucial to the vote was the shift to the right within the European People’s Party (EPP), which aligned with right-wing and far-right forces (the ECR Conservatives, the Patriots and the Sovereignists) and was also backed by a portion of the Renew liberals.

The reform proved to be a source of deep divisions from the very beginning. The debate on returns highlights an ever-widening rift within the EU, with the issue of immigration now representing an ideological divide in the political discourse.

According to European Commission data, currently only about 28% of migrants ordered to leave the EU are returned to their countries of origin. The new rules proposed by the von der Leyen Commission in 2025 aim to improve this percentage and replace the old directive dating back to 2008, which has since been deemed ineffective.

The reform was launched in response to political pressure to curb immigration, which has fuelled the electoral rise of the far right across the continent. At the same time, however, migrant arrivals have declined. For example, in May 2026 asylum applications in Germany fell to the lowest level ever recorded for that same month since 2012, excluding the pandemic year of 2020.

The Return Regulation introduces several new provisions and aims to make the procedures for expelling migrants present irregularly in Europe faster and more coordinated.

The new rules include several other measures affecting migrants. The regulation will make it easier for member states to use detention, particularly in cases involving security risks, when identity checks are necessary or when there is a risk of fleeing. The maximum permitted duration of detention has been extended to 24 months, with a possible six-months extension in specific cases. Entry bans will be applied more systematically and, for those ordered to leave the territory, social assistance may be reduced or suspended, and travel documents may be confiscated.

Although unaccompanied minors are generally not expelled, families with children may be subject to detention under the new rules.

Among the changes is the introduction of the European Return Order, which provides that a removal decision adopted by one member state may be recognized and enforced directly in other EU countries as well. This means, for example, that an asylum application rejected in Germany will have legal effect throughout the European Union, without each country having to initiate a new procedure.

Furthermore, under the new rules authorities would also be authorized to search third-country nationals, their homes or other “relevant premises” and to seize personal belongings as part of measures aimed at ensuring the return of irregular migrants.

One of the most controversial aspects concerns the possibility for member states to enter into agreements with third countries to establish “return hubs.” This follows the controversial model already adopted by Italy with the construction of one such center in Albania.

These return hubs are facilities located in non-EU countries to which individuals whose asylum claims have been rejected can be transferred when it is not possible to return them to their country of origin. This can occur if the country of origin refuses to readmit them, if the member State seeking to expel them does not maintain diplomatic relations with the country of origin or if their identity cannot be verified.

Migrants do not necessarily need to have any ties whatsoever to the country where the return center is located. The only requirement is that there be an agreement between an EU member state and that third country. These centers may serve as temporary transit points prior to removal or as long-term places of residence for individuals subject to a return order.

The legal situation is not entirely clear. According to a legal opinion issued by the European Court of Justice last April, offshore centers such as the Italian one in Albania may not violate European Union law but only if certain conditions are met. People housed in these centers must be assisted by a lawyer and, if necessary, by an interpreter; they must be able to contact their family members and appeal to the competent authorities.

The new regulation would legalize return centers, explicitly allowing member states to establish them through agreements with third countries. However, such agreements must ensure compliance with international human rights standards, although Amnesty International and other organizations have stated that return centers in third countries could leave people without adequate protection.

Major human rights organizations have strongly opposed the agreement. Marta Welander of the International Rescue Committee warned that the agreement will grant governments much broader powers regarding the detention and deportation of people. She stated that the agreement appears set to normalize raids against immigrants, expand the use of detention in prison-like facilities outside EU territory, and increase the risk that people will be deported to third countries where they could face persecution, torture or worse.

Caritas stated that the EU is outsourcing its responsibilities, while the Church and other humanitarian organizations speak of the criminalization of migration.

Alessandro Zan, of the center-left S&D group, called the reform “a dark chapter for Europe.”

“It paves the way for forced deportations, increasingly invasive Trump-era ICE-style controls, and the normalization of detention even for people who have committed no crime,” Zan said referring to the repressive practices adopted by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in the United States under President Donald Trump.

In response to the criticism, the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) reassured that “return centers will not be a rights-free zone” and that member states and/or Frontex remain responsible for rights violations occurring in the centers for the entire duration of the individuals’ stay, not just during transfers. This includes violations related to detention conditions, access to healthcare, the treatment of vulnerable persons and living conditions.

However, it is unclear whether such protections can be guaranteed in countries that are not candidates for EU membership—such as Rwanda, Libya, or Ethiopia—and that have weaker institutional ties to the EU. Enforceability remains uncertain where access to EU courts is severely limited, creating the risk that fundamental rights protections exist only on paper and cannot be effectively enforced.

But the regulation’s effectiveness remains unclear. Supporters believe it could significantly increase deportation rates and deter irregular migration. However, some EU diplomats question whether it will actually impact a significant number of people. One diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity, stated that nothing is clear regarding how it will actually work.

Critics question its effectiveness, pointing to the obstacles encountered by similar projects, and compare them to legal black holes that could leave migrants in a limbo not subject to any control.

For the law to take effect, formal approval is now required from member states, which have already provisionally approved it. Most of the new measures will take effect immediately upon such approval, while certain technical provisions will take effect after 12 months.

Mondo Internazionale APS - Riproduzione Riservata ® 2026.