Return hubs, detention for up to two years, ICE-style raids. The “deportation regulation” to be voted on by the EU Parliament

Brussels – With just a few days to go before the final piece of the EU’s new crackdown on irregular migration—the most controversial one—is given the green light, there is a row in the European Parliament. On Monday, 9 March, the Civil Liberties Committee (LIBE) will adopt its position on the return regulation proposed a year ago by the European Commission. Member states have agreed to return centres outside the EU, detention for over two years for security reasons, ICE-style raids and racial profiling. In the European Parliament, negotiations within the pro-European majority have broken down, paving the way once again for the line dictated by the right.

With the list of safe countries of origin and the extension of the concept of safe third countries already approved definitively, the “deportation regulation” completes the circle of the new, extremely strict asylum system set up in Brussels. The rapporteur for the European Parliament, Dutch liberal Malik Azmani, yesterday (5 March) appealed to political groups to support his compromise proposal. A compromise that not only maintains the return hubs but also removes certain guarantees regarding the respect of fundamental rights by third countries hosting such centres. The last meeting with the “shadow rapporteurs”, the negotiators for the other political groups, scheduled for 4 March, was cancelled at the last minute. Azmani asked that “detention or return centres not be considered out of context,” because “they are only elements of a much broader system,” in which “an independent monitoring system, legal assistance, and fundamental rights guarantees have been incorporated”.

However, as it stands, the Socialists (S&D), Greens and The Left, as well as some of the Liberals themselves, are unwilling to support the text. The negotiator for the Greens, Mélissa Camara, spoke of “chaotic discussions that excluded some political groups”, while a spokesperson for The Left denounced a “deeply undemocratic process that has been a farce from the outset.” Several NGOs that have closely followed the dossier have reported “very strong political pressure to get to the vote” and a “sense of urgency to reach an agreement at all costs”, despite big differences in the pro-European platform.

On Monday, without a last-minute agreement among the Popular Party, Socialists, and Liberals, the situation could turn out to be decidedly chaotic, given that 2,409 amendments have been tabled to the European Commission’s proposed text. But the European People’s Party already has a plan B: turn to the established “Giorgia majority”. Once the meeting between the negotiators of the groups to iron out Azmani’s compromise was cancelled, the EPP put forward an alternative text, drafted with the support of the Conservatives and Reformists (ECR), Patriots for Europe (PfE) and Europe of Sovereign Nations (ESN).

“Both texts are truly harmful,” said Silvia Carta, advocacy officer at PICUM, a European network of organisations working on the rights of undocumented migrants. However, the text presented by French MEP François-Xavier Bellamy is much closer to the position adopted by Member States, which further tightens the European Commission’s proposal.

For example, it provides several reasons why migrants subject to a return order could be detained for up to 24 months. The definition of security risks “is very broad,” noted Olivia Sundberg Diez of Amnesty International. Currently, detention can only be justified by the risk of absconding or by the obstruction of preparations for return or removal, and can last for six months, with a possible 12-month extension. For Mélissa Camara, the text drafted by the Popular Party “is inspired by deeply racist and populist ideologies that will endanger people’s lives and violate their dignity.” The Green negotiator highlights the most dangerous passages: “A possible obligation to leave a Member State immediately (currently, at least seven days are allowed, ed.), lifetime entry bans and indefinite detention without serious legal grounds, repatriation centres even for families with minors, administrative detention of minors, severe penalties for so-called non-cooperation, and the weakening of procedural rights.”

In reality, the two texts “are not so far apart,” the NGOs admitted. “There has been no serious effort to introduce strong safeguards on repatriation centres,” not even in the one put forward by the liberals. There is a risk that in the trilogues (the final negotiations between the EU institutions) “any guarantees could be lost,” and this risk inevitably increases if the European Parliament proceeds on the basis of the version drafted by the “Giorgia majority”.

In particular, PICUM and Amnesty International insist on one point, which is present in the Member States’ position and also reflected in some amendments to the Parliament’s position submitted not only by the far right but also by the Popular Party and the Liberals. Article 23(a), proposed by the Council of the EU, would allow widespread investigative measures and house searches. One hundred NGOs, in a statement issued on 11 February, denounced the risk of an ICE-style system, the US federal anti-immigration agency, with raids by law enforcement agencies in public spaces and private homes to search for undocumented migrants, technological surveillance, mass collection of personal data, reporting obligations for European citizens, profiling and discrimination against communities that are victims of racism.

The Green group has announced that it will vote “against both compromises, because they are both inhumane.” The Left has announced that it will “present a minority report and challenge the mandate.” If this happens, the text adopted by the LIBE Committee will have to be put to a vote by the entire plenary. This is likely to take place on Thursday, 12 March. The EPP-drafted text is supported by a solid majority. The compromise proposed by the Liberals appears very fragile, as does the “pro-European platform” meant to support it.