
EU Declares 7 Countries ‘Safe' For Asylum Seekers To Be Deported To
The European Union has named seven countries it considers safe enough to deport rejected asylum seekers back to. It comes amid a charged political atmosphere over irregular migration in the bloc, as multiple countries push to speed up deportations, or 'returns.'
The European Commission, the executive arm of the EU, announced its plans to establish 'an EU list of safe countries of origin' which will include Kosovo, Bangladesh, Colombia, Egypt, India, Morocco and Tunisia. The practical effect of this list is that people from those countries will likely have their asylum applications rejected, and are likely to see the process expedited, with a view to deporting people back as soon as possible.
Speeding up asylum processes and deportations has been on the agenda of many countries and policymakers around the EU for a long time. Certain EU member states have pursued this unilaterally. Greece and Italy most notable have established their own lists of 'safe countries' in an attempt to deport people back to their countries of origin, or in the case of Italy, send them to Albania for processing (and likely subsequent deportation.)
Both countries - who have long been on the 'frontline' of irregular migration, receiving the overwhelming majority of people in recent decades - have seen their attempts to use safe country lists stymied by their own courts and rulings from the European Court of Justice. They along with other countries have long called for a harmonized deportation regime in the EU, and in anticipation of an overhauled system due to come into effect in 2026, the Commission has acquiesced to these demands by publishing the new safe countries list. This will, in theory, make it easier for countries to speed up asylum processes and send people back.
'Making asylum procedures faster and more efficient is a core objective of the Pact on Migration and Asylum agreed last year,' said the Commission's Henna Virkkunen. 'We want to advance the implementation of key provisions, equipping Member States with additional tools to streamline asylum processing.'
The 'safety' of the seven countries on the list is, despite the Commission's designation as such, highly debatable. Among the seven, for instance, are Bangladesh and Egypt, from where hundreds of thousands have fled in recent years amid political repression, gender-based and anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination and organized crime violence. Tunisia features as well, despite becoming infamous in recent years for violent and widespread political repression, as well as rampant violence against Black African migrants in particular.
The selection and assessment criteria for inclusion on this list is unclear, though the Commission says their choices are based on analysis from EU bodies such as the EU Agency for Asylum as well as individual member states and the UN's refugee agency. The list in theory can be revised, with other countries added to it or the current ones removed, depending on these somewhat opaque evaluations.
There likely will be legal complications emerging from this safe country list, if it is implemented by individual member states for the purpose of deporting people. The EU's own humanitarian and legal frameworks, as well as international ones, typically prohibit what is known as refoulement, or sending people back to places where they likely will face danger. That said, the Commission's tacit endorsement of deportations by establishing this list may give more weight to countries trying to send people back where they came from, regardless of the consequence.

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


Forbes
an hour ago
- Forbes
New York Fails To Adopt Climate Reporting Requirement In 2025 Session
The New York state Assembly Chamber is seen on the opening day of the 2023 legislative session at ... More the state Capitol Wednesday, Jan. 4, 2023, in Albany, N.Y. (AP Photo/Hans Pennink) When California adopted climate reporting requirements in 2023, it opened the door to a potential wave of state level regulations relating to sustainability and climate change that could build on federal requirements. With Trump winning the 2024 elections and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ending the climate-related risk rule, activists shifted focus to Democrat controlled states. In early 2025, the New York State Senate introduced legislation that mimicked California's requirement. However, when the legislative session closed on June 12, those proposals had failed to make it out of committee, closing the door on mandatory sustainability reporting until 2026. Climate reporting, sustainability reporting, and environmental, social, and governance reporting experienced a surge of interest starting in 2019. These reporting requirements are designed to work in tandem with regular financial reports to provide information to investors on other activities of the company not directly related to finances. Climate reporting, or climate-related risk reporting, is the main driver of new reporting requirements. It stems from the Paris Agreement and the goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 'net zero' by 2050. During the 2019 United Nations Conference of Parties in Glasgow, the International Financial Reporting Standards Foundation announced the creation of the International Sustainability Standards Board to create global reporting standards. In March 2022, the SEC announced they would begin the rulemaking process to create a climate-related risk rule requiring publicly traded companies to report GHG emissions and climate risks. In the European Union, the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directed was adopted in September 2022, mandating the creation of European Sustainability Reporting Standards. The IFRS Sustainability Reporting Standards were released by the ISSB in June 2023, with a focus on GHG emissions and climate action. The next month, the European Union adopted the ESRS, incorporating the IFRS standards for environmental issues, while adding human rights and governance issues for a broader ESG reporting requirement under the CSRD. After years of delays, in March 2024, the SEC adopted a climate-related risk rule, but it was promptly met with legal challenges and implementation was postponed. Following the election of President Trump to a second term, the SEC began taking steps to rollback the reporting requirement. With the certain death of sustainability reporting at a federal level, advocates shifted focus to states to get them to follow California's lead. Given its international reputation as the business hub of the U.S., New York was a major focus for this changes. As the second largest Democrat controlled state, behind California, it was more likely that they would follow California's lead. New York's proposal were introduced in the Senate in the form of Senate Bill 3456, titled the Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act, and Senate Bill 3697, titled the Climate-Related Financial Risk Reporting Bill. The proposals mimicked the California legislation, requiring GHG emission reporting for Scope 1 and Scope 2 starting in 2027, for FY 2026, and Scope 3 starting in 2028, for FY 2027. For most state legislatures, they are considered part time. As a result, they only meet for limited periods annually, or in some cases biennially, to conduct business in a 'legislative session.' The New York legislature meets for approximately 60 days every year. The 2025 legislative session started on January 8 and concluded on June 12. Within the respective chamber, bills must work through a committee process that requires approval from committees that are deemed to have an interest in the legislation. Once approved by the committees, the bills are sent to the floor for a vote by all members, then sent to the other chamber for their approval. New York's climate reporting bills were originally sent to the Senate's Environmental Conservation Committee and passed unanimously. That is as far as they got. Both bills were then sent to the Finance Committee, where they never called for a vote. The bills have, for all intents and purposes, died in committee. This is even more surprising when you consider the make up of the Senate. The New York State Senate is composed of 63 members. Currently, 41 are Democrats and 22 are Republicans. The Democrats have a super majority of the Senate, giving them near full autonomy to pass what legislation they deem fit. That climate reporting bills failed to make it out of committee is significant. It should be noted that the New York legislature never officially ends session. Unlike Florida that typically only meets for 60 days, then holds a ceremony signalling the official end of the legislative session, New York does not officially gavel the session closed. Instead, they go into recess. It is a procedural technicality that allows them to re-adjourn without the intervention of the Governor. However, they only meet outside the typical legislative session in exceptional circumstances. What isn't passed by June 12 will not pass. As climate activists are facing major setbacks on sustainability reporting requirements internationally, including a current debate to reduce the reporting requirements in the European Union's CSRD, the failure of New York to consider the proposal is a signal of a broader, bipartisan pushback. A similar failure in Democrat controlled Colorado further highlights the issue. It was assumed that what was lost at the federal level would be gained at the state level, that appears to be a fallacy. The question is shifting from what states will join California, to whether California will continue to stand alone.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Irish government rejects motion to stop sale of Israeli bonds
The Irish government on Wednesday defeated a cross-party motion that called on it to stop the Central Bank of Ireland from facilitating the sale of Israeli bonds. The motion, presented by the Social Democrats and supported by Sinn Féin, Labour, and People Before Profit, was intended to block what many refer to as 'Israeli war bonds'. The instruments provide economic support to Israel while it conducts military operations in Gaza, and Ireland's Central Bank currently approves the sale of these bonds in EU markets. Bonds issued by non-EU countries must be approved by the financial regulator in one member state before they can be sold within the single market. The bill failed with 85 votes against and 71 in favour, upholding the government's position. Several TDs, Irish members of parliament, argued that Ireland should not be involved in financial instruments that fund destruction in Gaza. The Central Bank estimated that Israel has raised between €100mn and €130mn from their sale. Taoiseach Micheál Martin nonetheless rejected claims that the Irish government is complicit in genocide by allowing the facilitation of the bond sales. Despite publicly acknowledging the severity of Israel's attacks in Gaza, he maintained that Ireland must oppose the military action within legal and diplomatic channels. As such, the government argued that it cannot legally direct the Central Bank due to its independence under Irish and EU law. When the same objection arose last month in response to a similar motion from Sinn Féin, party leader Mary Lou McDonald argued: 'We have over 20 pages of independent, robust legal opinion clearly stating that the bill is compliant with Irish law, European law and international law.' Related Entertainment world reacts to Greta Thunberg interception in Gaza-bound aid boat Does the public support the government of Israel in Western European countries? As per the EU's Prospectus Regulation, non-EU countries like Israel must meet disclosure and legal standards to issue bonds in the bloc. If those standards are met, the Central Bank doesn't have the authority to reject bond applications. 'The Central Bank cannot decide to impose sanctions for breaches or alleged breaches of international law. It is for international bodies such as the UN or the EU to determine how to respond to breaches or alleged breaches of international law,' said Central Bank Governor Gabriel Makhlouf. He added that the Genocide Convention applies to the Irish State, not regulatory bodies like the Central Bank. The reason why the Irish Central Bank is at the core of this issue — despite Ireland being one of the EU countries that has been the most vocally pro-Palestine — is Brexit. When the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union in 2016, Israel chose Ireland to be the home member state to approve its bonds. Prior to 2021, this responsibility fell to the UK. The current prospectus for Israeli bonds is set to expire in September, but Central Bank officials believe that Israeli authorities will likely initiate the renewal process several weeks beforehand. In the absence of new EU sanctions or changes to existing legislation, the Central Bank will remain legally bound to approve the bond prospectus, regardless of the political fallout. Meanwhile, protesters have been gathering for months outside the seat of the parliament, Leinster House, and the Central Bank, demanding that the government block Israeli bond sales.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Britons could be stopped from entering Gibraltar by Spanish police, Lammy admits
Spanish border guards will be able to stop Britons entering Gibraltar because of the new Brexit deal for the Rock, the Government has admitted. Fabian Picardo, Gibraltar's chief minister, furiously denied surrendering any sovereignty to Spain or the EU after The Telegraph reported details of the deal on Wednesday. But David Lammy, the Foreign Secretary, was forced to concede in the House of Commons on Thursday that Spanish guards working for the European Union would have control over who entered Gibraltar. Under questioning, Mr Lammy told MPs that a British person stopped by Spanish guards at Gibraltar airport would have a choice: they could either voluntarily go over to Spain for questioning, or be returned to the Gibraltarian authorities and return to the UK. 'It is clear from the Foreign Secretary's answer that Spanish border officials can prevent a UK citizen from entering one part of the UK from another part of the UK,' Richard Tice, the Reform UK deputy leader, said. 'This appears to be a significant sovereignty compromise,' he told The Telegraph. The deal ensures Gibraltar's border with Spain remains open after Brexit, and means the 15,000 people who cross it every day will not have to have their passports stamped. Border checks will be moved to Gibraltar's nearby airport after the Rock effectively becomes part of the EU's Schengen zone of passport-free movement. People flying into Gibraltar from the UK will face one check from Gibraltarian officials and another by the Spanish on behalf of the EU. Mr Lammy said: 'For those arriving by air into Gibraltar's airport, there will be a dual border control check, in a model similar to French police operating in London St Pancras station.' Dame Harriett Baldwin, a former Conservative minister, asked: 'Can a British citizen flying from the UK to Gibraltar now be stopped by a Spanish official as they land?' Mr Lammy replied: 'There will be a second line queue, as there is in St Pancras, and there will be Spanish border guards and police situated in that second line. 'And of course, if there was an alert, then at that point, not on their own, but at that point, there would be a hand-back facility with the Gibraltar police, so they are working alongside that Spanish team. 'And if there was an alert, then the individual would have a right to legal advice. They would either be able to return to their country of origin, let's say the UK, or they would be able to voluntarily go over to Spain to face the questions they are facing.' Mr Tice asked whether Spanish border officials 'have an effective veto on the entry of a British citizen from the United Kingdom landing on British sovereign territory in Gibraltar'. Mr Lammy said if Mr Tice flew to Gibraltar and there was an alert in the Schengen system, 'he would be handed back to the Gibraltarians, where he might feel more comfortable' before returning to the UK. 'No doubt the Spanish would seek to extradite him, and many in this House would be rather pleased,' he added. Mr Lammy said he had insisted on a 'sovereignty clause' in the treaty and added that immigration, policing and justice remained the responsibilities of Gibraltar's authorities. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.