
EU wants UN backing for Rwanda-style migrant ‘return hubs'
European interior ministers will hear presentations from the UN on the conditions for its refugee agency to take part in, and approve, deportation or 'place of safety' centres in countries such as Tunisia, Mauritania, Jordan, Egypt or Uganda.
The European Commission president, Ursula von der Leyen, last year called for an exploration of return hubs in a letter to the EU's national leaders, citing a deal between Italy and Albania as a possible model.
Kaare Dybvad, the Danish immigration minister, who is chairing the talks in Copenhagen, stressed that the plans were urgently needed to 'get control of migration flow back into the democratic sphere', as European elections show increasing gains for nationalist and populist parties.
'The European asylum system is broken and we need innovative solutions,' he said before the talks. 'We are under pressure. We need to return people faster, we need to make innovative solutions and agreements outside of the EU.'
Up to 80 per cent of failed asylum seekers — half of those who apply — who were ordered to leave countries across Europe have not done so, including dangerous criminals and terror suspects who have gone on to carry out attacks.
While the EU is moving towards plans similar to the British Rwanda model — of setting up centres outside Europe to deter asylum seekers — governments want to ensure that plans are legally watertight, especially after judicial challenges to the Italian scheme in Albania.
Crucially, under these plans, migrants housed in the 'return hubs' would already have been refused asylum — unlike those covered in Britain's Rwanda plan or Italy's Albanian asylum centres.
'It is part of the legislative work that we have to do now and to make sure it is possible,' said Dybvad. 'Return hubs are about returning people who are already rejected as asylum seekers. Reception centres as in Albania … as in Rwanda, that is about processing asylum claims. We need to make our own European model for these solutions.'
On top of deportations, the EU is additionally looking at 'places of safety' centres for temporary reception and screening of refugees. UN involvement is seen as vital to making these proposals legally watertight and preventing judges from striking down plans.
A 2023 ruling in the British Supreme Court against the Rwanda scheme followed a warning from the UN's refugee agency, the UNHCR, that it potentially breached the international conventions that set rules for asylum.
A diplomat said: 'It is about showing that this is not a taboo with the UN and that we can work with them to make it more legally viable.'
The UNHCR has not ruled out supporting the EU deportation centres but has asked for many legal safeguards that would water down and restrict the powers that national governments would have to detain and deport failed asylum seekers.
Under a new EU return directive, tabled in March, deportations will be carried out either to the migrant's country of origin, or a country they transited through as well as a new option of a 'return hub' — an idea that was previously ruled out as illegal.
The UN is opposed to EU proposals that failed asylum seekers or foreign criminals will no longer be able to have their deportations suspended while their appeal is heard, a loophole that often allows people to disappear upon their release.
Bruno Retailleau, the French interior minister, warned that the status quo was not an option. He said: 'Today our states are totally disarmed, especially for forced removals. Throughout Europe, whether governments are conservative or social democrat, all the peoples have the same demand: control of mass immigration that has completely escaped us.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Guardian
22 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Men freed from El Salvador mega-prison endured ‘state-sanctioned torture', lawyers say
Venezuelans that the Trump administration expelled to El Salvador's most notorious megaprison endured 'state-sanctioned torture', lawyers for some of the men have said, as more stories emerge about the horrors they faced during capacity. When José Manuel Ramos Bastidas – one of 252 Venezuelan men that the US sent to El Salvador's most notorious mega-prison – finally made it back home to El Tocuyo on Tuesday, the first thing he did was stretch his arms around his family. His wife, son and mother were wearing the bright blue shirts they had printed with a photo of him, posed in a yellow and black moto jacket and camo-print jeans. It was the first time they had hugged him since he left Venezuela last year. And it was the first time they could be sure – truly sure – that he was alive and well since he disappeared into the Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo (Cecot) in March. 'We have been waiting for this moment for months, and I feel like I can finally breathe,' said Roynerliz Rodríguez, Ramos Bastidas's partner. 'These last months have been a living nightmare, not knowing anything about José Manuel and only imagining what he must be suffering. I am happy he is free from Cecot, but I also know that we will never be free of the shadow of this experience. There must be justice for all those who suffered this torture.' The Venezuelan deportees were repatriated last week following a deal between the US and Venezuelan governments. Nicolás Maduro, the Venezuelan president, negotiated a prisoner swap that released 10 American citizens in his custody and dozens of Venezuelan political prisoners in exchange for the release of his citizens from Cecot. This week, after undergoing medical and background checks, they are finally reuniting with their families. Their testimonies of what they experienced inside Cecot are providing the first, most detailed pictures of the conditions inside Cecot, a mega-prison that human rights groups say is designed to disappear people. Ramos Bastidas and other US deportees were told that they were condemned to spend 30 to 90 years in Cecot unless the US president ordered otherwise, he told his lawyers. They were shot with rubber bullets on repeated occasions – including on Friday, during their last day of detention. In interviews with the media and in testimony provided to their lawyers, other detainees described lengthy beatings and humiliation by guards. After some detainees tried to break the locks on their cell, prisoners were beaten for six consecutive days, the Atlantic reports. Male guards reportedly brought in female colleagues, who beat the naked prisoners and recorded videos. Edicson David Quintero Chacón, a US deportee, said that he was placed in isolation for stretches of time, during which he thought he would die, his lawyer told the Guardian. Quintero Chacón, who has scars from daily beatings, also said that he and other inmates were only provided soap and an opportunity to bathe on days when visitors were touring the prison – forcing them to choose between hygiene and public humiliation. Food was limited, and the drinking water was dirty, Quintero Chacón and other detainees have said. Lights were on all night, so detainees could never fully rest. 'And the guards would also come in at night and beat them at night,' said his lawyer Stephanie M Alvarez-Jones, the south-east regional attorney at the National Immigration Project. In a filing asking for a dismissal of her months-long petition on behalf of her clients' release, Alvarez-Jones wrote: 'He will likely carry the psychological impact of this torture his whole life. The courts must never look away when those who wield the power of the US government, at the highest levels, engage in such state-sanctioned violence.' Ramos Bastidas has never been convicted of any crimes in the US (or in any country). In fact, he had never really set foot in the US as a free man. In El Tocuyo, in the Venezuelan state of Lara, and had been working since he was a teenager to support his family. Last year, he decided to leave his country – which has yet to recover from an economic collapse – to seek better income, so he could pay for medical care for his infant with severe asthma. In March 2024, he arrived at the US-Mexico border and presented himself at a port of entry. He made an appointment using the now-defunct CBP One phone application to apply for asylum – but immigration officials and a judge determined that he did not qualify. But Customs and Border Protection agents had flagged Ramos Bastidas as a possible member of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, based on an unsubstantiated report from Panamanian officials and his tattoos. So they transferred him to a detention facility, where he was to remain until he could be deported. Despite agreeing to return to Venezuela, he remained for months in detention. 'I think what is particularly enraging for José is that he had accepted his deportation,' said Alvarez-Jones. 'He was asking for his deportation for a long time, and he just wanted to go back home.' In December, Venezuela wasn't accepting deportees – so Ramos Bastidas asked if he could be released and make his own way home. A month later, Donald Trump was sworn in as president. Everything changed. Ramos Bastidas began to see other Venezuelans were being sent to the military base in Guantánamo Bay in Cuba – and he feared the same would happen to him. On 14 March, he shared with his family that maybe he would be able to come back to Venezuela after all, after officials began prepping him for deportation. The next day, he was flown to Cecot. 'They could have deported him to Venezuela,' Alvarez-Jones. 'Instead, the US government made a determination to send him to be tortured in Cecot.'


Reuters
22 minutes ago
- Reuters
Pope Leo discusses war in Ukraine with Russian Orthodox Church official
VATICAN CITY, July 26 (Reuters) - Pope Leo discussed the war in Ukraine on Saturday with Metropolitan Anthony, a senior cleric in the Russian Orthodox Church, in a possible effort to ease ties between the churches strained by Russia's invasion. Leo saw Anthony, chairman of the department of external church relations, and five other high-profile clerics during an audience in the morning, the Vatican said. "During the conversation, numerous issues were raised concerning the state of Orthodox-Catholic dialogue, as well as the ongoing conflicts in the world, including in Ukraine and the Middle East," the Russian Orthodox Church said in a statement. Since assuming the papacy in May, Leo has repeatedly appealed for peace in global conflicts and this month told visiting Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy that the Vatican was willing to host Russia-Ukraine peace talks. Russian officials, however, have said they do not view the Vatican as a serious venue for talks because it is surrounded by NATO member Italy which has supported Ukraine. The head of Russia's Orthodox Church, Patriarch Kirill, has been an enthusiastic backer of the invasion of Ukraine. The Russian church statement said that Kirill's congratulations were conveyed to Leo for his election as pope. "Pope Leo XIV expressed his gratitude to his holiness patriarch Kirill for his good wishes and noted the importance of developing relations with the Russian Orthodox Church," it added.


The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Keir Starmer will fight Corbyn's new party by copying Emmanuel Macron
It is easy to mock the new party launched in a struggle between its joint figureheads, but that is no reason to pass up the chance. It takes a special skill for one figurehead (Zarah Sultana) to announce the founding of a new party only for the other figurehead (Jeremy Corbyn) to deny, a day later, that it had happened (' discussions are ongoing '). Then, when Corbyn, three weeks later, announced that it was indeed ' time for a new kind of political party ', which appeared to be called Your Party because that was the name of the website, Sultana snapped on social media: ' It's not called Your Party!' It turned out that Your Party was a placeholder name and the real name will be decided democratically at the inaugural conference, details TBC. Mockery is always useful, because it reminds us how incapable the Corbynite tendency usually is at organising anything more complicated than a split. But it cannot be the whole story, because we know two other things. One is that there is a big pool of potential support for soft Corbynism, if it can suppress the doctrinaire Marxism, the disdain for Britain and the accusation of antisemitism (denied by Corbyn, of course) that is never far from the surface. The other is that Corbyn's allies showed that they could, briefly, run a competent general election campaign when they came close to unseating Theresa May in 2017. So the Not-Your-Party could be a force to be reckoned with. According to some opinion polls, it would take most support away from the Green Party, but it would also siphon votes away from Labour. It is all very well Peter Kyle, the science secretary, describing his former leader as ' not a serious politician ', but Labour has to take the threat from the new party seriously. It is doing so. Keir Starmer has been criticised – not least by Sultana – for copying Farage and thereby pushing Labour voters who are repelled by Reform in her direction. But I think this is to get Starmer's strategy the wrong way round. He knows that part of Labour's electoral coalition is repelled by Farage, but he wants to use that force of magnetic repulsion to try to keep hold of those voters, not to drive them away. This is what might be called the 'Emmanuel Macron' strategy. Macron twice fought off a threat from Jean-Luc Mélenchon, the French equivalent of Corbyn-Sultana, by becoming the leading candidate against Marine Le Pen, the anti-immigration candidate of the party formerly known as the Front National. In 2017, and again in 2022, Macron came top in a divided field (winning just 24 per cent and 28 per cent of the vote) in the first round, forcing voters to choose between him, a centrist with roots in the Socialist Party, and Le Pen, regarded with horror by polite French opinion. Each time, he won the run-off vote comfortably. By running against Le Pen, Macron was able to unite a coalition stretching from Mélenchon through Macron's former socialists to the remnants of the establishment conservatives. Starmer wants to fight the next general election as, in effect, a presidential run-off contest between him and Farage. He knows that the threat of Farage as prime minister is his most powerful weapon. Presenting the election as a contest between Starmer and Farage is the best way of squeezing not just the Corbyn-Sultana vote, but the Green Party vote and even that of the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives. The one point on which apologists for the Corbyn-Sultana party become evasive is when they are asked if they would be helping to let Farage in. That is the irresistible logic of the first-past-the-post voting system, but they have to try to deny it to keep their dream alive. Most longstanding Corbynites understand this very well. That is why Corbyn was so reluctant to launch the new party, which some of his acolytes were keen to do the moment he won his Islington North constituency as an independent last year. He knows that the only reason he nearly succeeded in 2017 was that his supporters had taken over the Labour Party. An outfit outside the party, on the other hand, will quickly discover that support for Gaza and anti-capitalism, however wide, is not deep. If Farage's popularity holds up, the next election will be decided in seats that are contested between Labour and Reform; in those seats, a vote for the new party will be a vote for Farage. It will be time, as Macron said in France, for all good people to rally to the cause of defeating anti-immigrant authoritarianism. That is a message that could work for Starmer here with voters otherwise tempted to vote Tory, Lib Dem, Green – and with voters attracted to whatever the Corbyn-Sultana party ends up being called.