#offshore asylum processing

[azspot]

The Trump administration has already agreed to pay El Salvador $6 million to keep detained migrants at CECOT for a minimum of one year. This arrangement should sicken—and frighten—any American who cares about the rule of law and due process. The right of the accused to a fair hearing and speedy trial is a bedrock principle of American democracy, one that Trump himself has often taken advantage of but is now openly flouting. Among the other innocent men Trump has already consigned to CECOT without legal recourse are Arturo Suárez Trejo, a thirty-three-year-old musician, and Andry José Hernández Romero, a gay makeup artist, hairdresser, and asylum-seeker whose only crime was a tattoo indicating not gang membership but participation in Catholic religious processions.

Trump’s Offshore Gulag

[beardedmrbean]

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has said the EU could "draw lessons" from a contested Italian policy of processing migrants offshore in Albania, as leaders of the 27 member states hold an EU summit focusing on migration.

Ahead of the Brussels summit, she wrote to EU leaders to say the EU's executive would present a new proposal for legislation to increase deportations of migrants..

Italy has begun sending some migrants to a processing centre in Albania earlier this week.

Sixteen men were transferred to the Albanian port of Shengjin on Wednesday, but hours after their arrival it emerged that two were minors and two more were medically vulnerable and would therefore be returned to Italy.

Other EU countries have begun considering ways to process migrants in third countries.

On Wednesday, the Dutch government said it was weighing up a plan to send rejected asylum seekers to Uganda.

By framing this week's summit around the issue of migration,von der Leyen - who is starting a second five-year term as European Commission chief - appears to be responding to pressure on migration from across Europe.

In her letter to member states, von der Leyen said the return rate of irregular migrants from EU countries is currently only about 20% - meaning the vast majority of people who are ordered to leave an EU member state do not.

Member states should all recognise the decisions taken by other EU countries to ensure that "migrants who have a return decision against them in one country cannot exploit cracks in the system to avoid return elsewhere", von der Leyen wrote.

Under the Italy-Albania scheme, some of the migrants rescued in the Mediterranean will be sent to Albania where their asylum claims will be examined.

The two processing centres, which cost about €650m (£547m), were due to open last spring but were plagued by long delays, have been paid for by the Italian government and will be operated under Italian law.

They will house migrants while Italy examines their asylum requests. Pregnant women, children and vulnerable people will be excluded from the plan.

Political opponents of right-wing Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni as well as several NGOs have criticised Italy's deal with Albania.

Riccardo Magi, an MP with the left-wing +Europa party, said the Albania scheme was "cruel, useless and expensive", while NGO Doctors Without Borders said it was "likely to result in further harm and violation of human rights".

Civil rights activists gathered near the Italian-built centre in Shengjin carrying a large banner reading: "The European dream ends here."

However, addressing MPs on Tuesday, Meloni argued that the plan was "a new, courageous, unprecedented path" which "perfectly reflected the European spirit".

The implementation and the results of the Albania agreement will be watched closely by many EU member states, several of whom have attempted to respond to a surge in support for far-right parties by hardening their rhetoric and their approach to migration.

In the last few weeks alone, Germany reintroduced land border checks, the French government said it would look into tightening immigration legislation and Poland announced a plan to temporarily suspend the right to asylum for people crossing the border.

Polish PM Donald Tusk said the controversial move was meant to stop Belarus from "destabilising" Poland by allowing large numbers of migrants into the country.

In France and Germany, it was grisly murders which prompted calls for tougher action on immigration. A Syrian failed asylum seeker stabbed three people to death in Solingen, while a young student was murdered by a Moroccan national near Paris. In both cases, the killings were carried out by men who had been given expulsion orders that had not been enforced.

Last month, 15 member states signed a proposal by Austria and the Netherlands to improve the "efficiency" of the deportations system.

[mariacallous]

The so-called small boats crisis has consumed British politics this year. As asylum seekers cross the English Channel on rubber dinghies to reach British shores, U.K. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has made cracking down on the crossings one of the Conservative government’s top five priorities. A lectern at 10 Downing Street even features the slogan “Stop the Boats.”

It’s not just the Conservatives who want to reduce the number of crossings. After sidestepping the issue for more than two years, Labour Party leader Keir Starmer in September outlined a plan to address the small boats. A Labour government, he said, would get tough on the people smuggling in asylum seekers and treat them on par with terrorists; it would also seek a deal with the European Union to share intelligence on smugglers.

There is a good chance Starmer will have the opportunity to implement these policies. The latest polls indicate that 46 percent of the U.K. population intends to vote Labour at the next election, compared with just 25 percent for the Conservatives. Most commentators seem to agree that the United Kingdom’s next general elections—which are slated to be held no later than January 2025—are Labour’s to lose. But the plans Labour has laid out are a missed opportunity to get to the heart of the issue. Refugees and migrants will continue to make the dangerous journey. A lasting solution to the small boats crisis will require Labour to provide safe, legal pathways to the United Kingdom.

In the first half of 2023, 11,500 asylum seekers crossed the English Channel. Globally, this number is relatively small—77,000 people navigated the Gulf of Aden to seek safety in war-torn Yemen in same period. But it’s a large number for the United Kingdom, which saw only nine asylum seekers enter on a small boat from July 2014 to June 2016. This has provided the Conservatives, desperate to distract from the failures of their 13 years in power, with what they describe as an “existential” threat only they can solve.

The Conservative government’s strategy has relied on trying to deter asylum seekers from even attempting the journey—namely, by eroding the right to seek asylum.

The 2022 Nationality and Borders Act created a system that divides refugees into two groups: those who enter Britain through “safe and legal routes,” and those who enter through “irregular” routes. The act deems the latter illegal and allows the government to remove people who take that route for offshore processing. Refugees who cross over irregularly also have no recourse to public funds or family reunification. Leading British faith leaders have criticized the bill for having “no basis in evidence or morality,” and the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) said that it constitutes a violation of international law.

The Illegal Migration Act, adopted in July, went one step further. It enables the government to immediately remove people who arrive in the United Kingdom irregularly, effectively preventing them from claiming asylum.

The government’s approach is not just inhumane. It has also backfired. By restricting safe and legal routes for asylum seekers, the Conservatives have created a booming business for smugglers. Asylum seekers have compelling reasons to cross the English Channel—ones that, for many, outweigh the risk of drowning in the strong currents of the world’s busiest shipping lane. These range from the desire to reunite with family members to police brutality in mainland Europe to a connection with the United Kingdom due to work with the British military in countries such as Iraq or Afghanistan. As research suggests, deterrence efforts—whether they consist of criminalizing asylum seekers, making material conditions upon entry miserable, or other tactics—are not effective in preventing arrivals and only lead to more fatalities.

The government’s policies are also expensive. The United Kingdom spends around $10 million per day housing asylum seekers in hotels. But instead of addressing the country’s social housing shortage or its backlog of unprocessed asylum claims, the government has turned to short-term measures in an attempt to cut costs. This year, the U.K. tried to house asylum seekers on the Bibby Stockholm, a barge moored off the coast of Dorset county. Thirty-nine asylum seekers spent five days on the barge before being evacuated after Legionella—a bacteria that can cause a serious form of pneumonia—was found in the boat’s water system. Two months later, 21 people returned to the barge.

The most notorious scheme has been the Rwanda plan. Modeled on Australia’s controversial offshore processing facility in Nauru, the U.K. government proposed in 2022 to send asylum seekers to the East African nation while their claims were processed, at the staggering cost of around $210,000 per person. Before chronic underspending on social housing all but decimated Britain’s housing stock and forced the government to place asylum seekers in hotels, local councils budgeted just around $10,700 to cover the costs of an asylum seeker’s first year of resettlement.

Amid a cost-of-living crisis at home, the United Kingdom has already paid Rwanda around $176 million but has not removed a single asylum seeker to the country—and likely never will. The program’s first flight, chartered for June 2022 for an estimated cost of $629,000, was stopped after the European Court of Human Rights intervened. On Nov. 15, the U.K. Supreme Court ruled that Rwanda was not a safe country for asylum seekers, effectively preventing the U.K. government from going through with the plan unless the protections for asylum seekers in the scheme are entirely reworked.

Though Labour’s stance on asylum seekers is more humane, it misses the opportunity to address the root cause of irregular migration. In addition to Starmer’s plan, a number of Labour advisors and left-leaning commentators have suggested that the United Kingdom should sign an agreement with the EU akin to the bloc’s Dublin Regulation, which places the primary responsibility for processing an asylum seeker’s claim on the first safe country of entry. They argue that the regulation, which Britain elected to leave after Brexit, will deter asylum seekers, since it will allow the United Kingdom to deport them to any “safe country” they passed through en route.

These analysts point to the fact that small boat crossings have increased since the United Kingdom pulled out of the Dublin Regulation. But they neglect to mention that smugglers’ routes have changed as well. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, asylum seekers often crossed over from northern France via the Eurotunnel on freight trains or trucks. This route has become almost impossible as security has tightened in Calais, the city at the French end of the tunnel. Furthermore, while nearly all small boat arrivals are registered after they reach British shores, those who enter on trucks and trains disembark at different stages and are thus much harder to detect.

In any case, the Dublin Regulation has been a resounding failure. As an aid worker, I’ve worked with individuals from Afghanistan, Syria, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo who spend years undocumented, waiting to claim asylum after the fingerprints registered in their first country of entry have been expunged. A Dublin-style agreement would only prevent individuals seeking safety from starting a new life and contributing to British society.

Starmer still has time to reconsider Labour’s plans. Though Labour is wary of immigration policies that could be seen as lenient ahead of the election, it should not assume that it needs to play to voters’ most xenophobic tendencies. Polling consistently shows strong support for safe and legal routes for those fleeing war or persecution. Public approval remains strong even for programs that have resettled large numbers of asylum seekers, including the recent visa schemes that allowed 154,600 Ukrainians and 144,500 Hong Kongers to enter the country.

If Labour wins the next election, Starmer should adopt three policies to reinforce safe and legal pathways to the United Kingdom and address why asylum seekers are forced to reach the country.

First, the United Kingdom must commit to resettling more refugees, including via the UNHCR’s resettlement scheme. The Conservative government resettled 25,000 refugees through this program from 2015 to 2020 before abandoning it.

Labour should also fix the Conservatives’ failing Afghan resettlement schemes: the Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme (ACRS) and the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (ARAP). Since they were launched in 2021, the programs have been too slow-moving to meet the United Kingdom’s moral obligation toward Afghans. Only 7,000 Afghans have been resettled out of the government’s target of 20,000, leaving thousands languishing in hiding from the Taliban.

Both ARAP and ACRS are poorly designed. Only 36 government staff handle ARAP, compared with 540 on the Homes for Ukraine visa scheme. Afghans must have already left Afghanistan to be eligible for ACRS, unlike Homes for Ukraine, which provides a pathway for entry for those still in Ukraine. Afghans applying under ACRS also are not guaranteed right to family reunion. These design flaws lead Afghans into the hands of smugglers: Afghans were the largest nationality taking small boats in the last quarter of 2022 (33 percent of arrivals) and the first quarter of 2023 (24 percent). By comparison, there are no reports of Ukrainians and Hongkongers arriving on small boats.

Labour’s second action should be to redress the United Kingdom’s restrictive family reunion policy. Under the current policy, spouses applying to join their partners with refugee status in Britain must have been living together for at least two years, and children with parents with refugee status must be under 18 and unmarried. Other family members cannot apply unless they can prove “exceptional circumstances,” such as meeting all the criteria of being unable to lead an independent life, having no other relatives to turn to for financial or emotional support, and being likely to become destitute if they live alone.

These policies are often futile against the intense pain of separation. By the British charity Care4Calais’s estimate, 50 percent of those who continue from a first safe country to the United Kingdom have family there. For those who meet the narrow official criteria, backlogs have resulted in thousands of family members resorting to irregular migration. Expanding the criteria for family reunion to all partners who can demonstrate a “genuine and subsisting” relationship, all children, and other dependents such as older parents would address a significant number of irregular crossings.

Finally, Labour should provide alternative routes for groups who are unlikely to have asylum applications approved—for instance, Albanian men, who had an 11 percent success rate in 2022, and Indian nationals, whose success rate was just 6 percent in 2021. Many of these individuals have pressing reasons for leaving home, but many of those reasons are economic, and so they are not eligible for pathways intended for those fleeing war or persecution.

To dissuade these demographics from resorting to smuggling, Starmer’s third policy intervention should tie smart immigration policy to chronic domestic labor shortages. Labor shortages have driven up inflation, which is currently higher in the United Kingdom than in any other G-7 nation. The most acute shortages are in the agricultural, construction, hospitality, and social care sectors. As these shortages threaten domestic supply, business leaders across all sectors have begged the government to address them. The government could meet demand by expanding its seasonal worker visa into a multi-year visa in sectors facing labor shortages, which Starmer could frame as a policy targeted at rejuvenating the country’s post-pandemic economy. This would ensure political buy-in and support Labour’s promises of delivering on economic growth.

Arrivals on small boats will only continue. For those who take this route, the right to seek asylum must be protected, in line with international law. But the next British government needs to focus on reducing the number of people forced to take the crossing. That will be the only way to address the moral panic that Britain has lost control of its borders—and avoid humanitarian catastrophe on its shores.

[tartlette1968]

"Stop the boats"

On some shelf in some house in Australia there's a silver bespoke trophy of sorts. It's a stylised boat on a wave, and the letters on the base reads, "I stopped these". The trophy of sorts belongs to former Prime Minister of Australia, Scott Morrison.

"Stop the boats"

In the mid 2000s a boat full of refugees came up against the rocky coastline of Christmas Island and was smashed to pieces, killing all on board.

The then opposition party laid the blame for the deaths squarely at the foot of the government's immigration policy. From that day on every Australian Federal Government pursued an immigration policy of "offshore processing". Building detention centres on Christmas Island itself, Manus Island, and Nauru. Any refugee or asylum seeker that arrived by boat would be transported to be held in these detention centres.

"Stop the boats."

Since then every election campaign in Australia has, at some point, made reference to the threat of encouraging the people smugglers.

At the next election after the fatal shipwreck, the opposition was swept into government with the slogan, "We will stop the boats".

"Stop the boats" became the mantra on election posters, junk mail and election ads. And it won the election. Scott Morrison became the Immigration Minister. He had the "I stopped these" trophy made for himself at that time.

Despite changing leaders, the party that ran with "Stop the boats" stayed in government for 9 years, and, eventually, Scott Morrison would, himself, become the Prime Minister.

It's not just border control, it

thats the thing thats missing from america-centric discussion of fascism: this shit is global. every country in “the west” is seeing the same rise of fascism in real time, all of it focused on murdering migrants. like giorgia meloni is campaigning to deport people to “migrant camps” in albania. last year the greek coast guard outright drowned a boat of 500 asylum seekers. and as that last post said im not dismissing the suffering of people within the US, i’m just saying its so supremely frustrating that every conversation is about the minutiae of american domestic policy and not the horrifying ultranationalist global trend scapegoating arabs and africans.

[andreasgypsysoul2020]

They Pay. You Benefit. They Get Nothing. The Cruel Lie Behind the MAGA War on Social Security and Immigrants.

By Tony Pentimalli

In the age of viral lies and rage-fueled politics, no myth has been more cynically deployed than the notion that undocumented immigrants are draining America’s Social Security system. MAGA politicians and right-wing pundits scream about “illegals” getting benefits they didn’t earn, while facts rot under the weight of their soundbites. But here’s the cold, hard truth: millions of undocumented immigrants pay into the Social Security system—and get absolutely nothing in return.

Let that sink in. For decades, immigrants—many without legal status—have done backbreaking work in America’s fields, factories, restaurants, and construction sites. They’ve had taxes withheld from their paychecks. They’ve filed tax returns using Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers (ITINs) or Social Security numbers acquired while they had temporary or legal work status. They pay into the system because it’s required, because it’s the law—and because it’s the American thing to do.

And yet, when it comes time to collect, they are shut out. They don’t qualify for benefits unless they can adjust their status and meet a strict 10-year work requirement under a valid SSN tied to lawful presence. Most never do. So their contributions—totaling billions every year—quietly bolster a system that often vilifies their existence.

The numbers are staggering. According to the Social Security Administration’s own Chief Actuary, undocumented immigrants contributed an estimated $12 billion to the Social Security Trust Fund in a single year (2010), and continue to contribute billions annually. In 2016, researchers at New American Economy estimated that undocumented immigrants paid $13 billion into Social Security and only received about $1 billion in services—almost entirely in indirect forms, like emergency medical care.

Ask yourself: how is that a handout?

Meanwhile, MAGA voices in Congress and online continue to push the falsehood that immigrants are issued Social Security numbers as a fast track to free government benefits. They peddle grotesque exaggerations, like the recent “mind-blowing” chart promoted by Elon Musk and others claiming over 2 million SSNs were issued to non-citizens in 2024 under President Biden’s watch. What they conveniently leave out is that the vast majority of these SSNs were legally assigned to immigrants with work authorization, including green card holders, asylum seekers, and refugees—people who followed legal processes, paid fees, and were granted the right to work here.

This isn’t a “scandal.” It’s basic governance.

And while these workers sweat in obscurity, their taxes propping up a system they’re locked out of, the real freeloaders—the oligarchs and corporate barons—laugh from their towers. They hoard billions, dodge taxes with offshore accounts, exploit every legal loophole their lobbyists paid for, and bankroll the very politicians screaming about immigrants stealing benefits.

Let’s be clear: the billionaire class robs this country blind—and MAGA is their PR firm. Undocumented immigrants aren’t bankrupting Social Security. They’re keeping it alive. But MAGA needs someone to blame, and it's easier to punch down than risk biting the hand that funds your campaign.

The right loves to demonize the IRS—until it comes to immigrants. In 1996, the IRS created the ITIN program to ensure that even people without an SSN could pay taxes. It had nothing to do with benefits and everything to do with fiscal responsibility. America wanted the money, and immigrants paid it. Quietly. Without protest. Without reward.

But MAGA doesn’t do nuance. It feeds on fear. It thrives on rage. And it wins elections by convincing struggling Americans that brown hands in the fields are reaching into their pockets. Never mind that the real thieves are sitting behind mahogany desks, toasting tax cuts while the Social Security trust fund is filled with the labor of people who will never benefit from it.

Here’s what MAGA won’t tell you: if every undocumented worker stopped contributing to Social Security tomorrow, the system would be in far worse shape than it already is. These workers are net contributors. They are subsidizing the retirements of millions of native-born Americans—many of whom are cheering on the very demagogues trying to deport them.

If that sounds like hypocrisy, it’s because it is.

We need to call this what it is: a moral disgrace. A nation that takes the labor, sweat, and tax dollars of its immigrant workers, then turns around and blames them for its own economic failings, is a nation that has lost its soul. It’s not immigration that threatens Social Security. It’s ignorance weaponized by cruelty—and funded by greed.

So the next time a politician like Marjorie Taylor Greene or Donald Trump Jr. opens their mouth to rage about “illegals stealing our benefits,” remember this: they are lying to you. And the people they’re lying about? They’re not asking for your benefits. They’re just doing the work—and paying for yours.

If we want a Social Security system built on fairness, not fear, we must stop scapegoating immigrants and start taxing the billionaires who bought this lie. Speak up. Vote smart. And never let a grifter in a flag pin tell you who the real Americans are.

*Tony Pentimalli is a political analyst and commentator fighting for democracy, economic justice, and social equity. Follow him for sharp analysis and hard-hitting critiques.*

[smritimattu]

Protection Visa (Subclass 866): Your Guide to Seeking Asylum in Australia

Australia is known for its strong commitment to human rights and refugee protection. For individuals facing persecution, violence, or serious threats in their home country, the Protection Visa (Subclass 866) offers a legal pathway to safety and permanent residency in Australia.

This visa is designed for individuals already in Australia who meet the United Nations refugee criteria or have substantial humanitarian grounds for protection. If you need expert guidance on your visa application, New Roots Migration can help navigate the process.

What is the Protection Visa (Subclass 866)?

The Protection Visa (Subclass 866) is a permanent visa for individuals who have arrived in Australia legally and seek asylum due to fear of persecution, serious harm, or human rights violations in their home country.

Key Benefits of the Protection Visa

Permanent Residency – Allows you to live in Australia indefinitely.

Work and Study Rights – You can work and study like an Australian citizen.

Access to Medicare – Receive healthcare benefits under Australia's public system.

Social Security Support – Eligible for Centrelink assistance and settlement services.

Pathway to Citizenship – You can apply for Australian citizenship after meeting residency requirements.

Who is Eligible for the Protection Visa?

To qualify for this visa, you must meet one of two protection grounds:

1. Refugee Protection (Based on the UN Refugee Convention)

You may be eligible if you face persecution in your home country due to:

Race

Religion

Political opinion

Nationality

Membership in a particular social group (e.g., LGBTQ+ individuals, human rights activists, ethnic minorities, etc.)

2. Complementary Protection (Human Rights Violations)

Even if you do not meet the UN refugee definition, you may qualify if you are at risk of:

Torture

Execution or the death penalty

Cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment

Serious violence or conflict

If you believe you meet these criteria, you can apply for protection under this visa.

Application Process for the Protection Visa

Step 1: Arrive in Australia Legally

You must already be in Australia on a valid visa before applying. Offshore applications are not accepted.

Step 2: Submit Your Application

Apply online through the Department of Home Affairs website.

Submit a detailed statement explaining your situation and why you fear returning to your home country.

Provide supporting documents such as police reports, medical records, news articles, or witness statements.

Step 3: Attend an Interview

The Department of Home Affairs may invite you for an interview to verify your claims. You may be asked about:

Your background and personal history.

Why you are seeking protection.

Any evidence supporting your case.

Step 4: Wait for a Decision

Processing times vary, but the government will assess your case and notify you of their decision.

Why Are Protection Visas Refused?

1. Lack of Evidence

If you cannot provide strong proof of persecution or serious harm, your application may be rejected.

2. Criminal History or Security Concerns

Applicants with a criminal record or potential national security risks may be denied.

3. Fraudulent Information

Providing false or misleading information can result in visa refusal and a ban from applying for future visas.

4. Safe Return Availability

If conditions in your home country improve and the government believes you can return safely, your visa may be refused.

To avoid rejection, ensure your application is accurate, honest, and well-documented. New Roots Migration can assist in preparing a strong application.

What Happens if Your Protection Visa is Refused?

If your visa is denied, you have the option to:

Request a Review – Apply for a review through the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT).

Seek Legal Assistance – A migration lawyer can help strengthen your case.

Explore Other Visa Options – Depending on your situation, you may qualify for another visa type.

It is crucial to act quickly after a visa refusal, as appeal deadlines are strict.

Can Protection Visa Holders Apply for Family Reunion?

Yes! If you are granted a Protection Visa, you can apply to bring your immediate family members to Australia under the Global Special Humanitarian Program (Subclass 202).

Your family members may be eligible if they:

Are your spouse, de facto partner, or dependent children.

Face similar risks of persecution or harm in their home country.

Reuniting with family is a significant benefit of this visa, allowing loved ones to live together in safety.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. Can I travel after getting the Protection Visa?

Yes, but you must not return to your home country, as this may suggest that you are no longer at risk.

2. Can I apply if I entered Australia illegally?

No, only individuals who arrived legally can apply for a Protection Visa.

3. What is the processing time for the Protection Visa?

Processing can take anywhere from 6 months to several years, depending on the complexity of your case.

4. Can I work in Australia while waiting for a decision?

Yes, you can apply for a bridging visa with work rights while your application is under review.

5. Can my Protection Visa be canceled?

Yes, if you provide false information, commit serious crimes, or voluntarily return to your home country, your visa can be canceled.

Final Thoughts

The Protection Visa (Subclass 866) offers a lifeline for individuals seeking safety in Australia. It provides a path to permanent residency, allowing applicants to rebuild their lives in a secure and welcoming environment.

However, the application process can be complex and requires strong supporting evidence. For professional guidance, New Roots Migration can help you through every step, increasing your chances of a successful application.

If you or someone you know needs protection and legal advice, don’t hesitate to seek expert assistance today.

[thoughtlessarse]

Australia violated the rights of asylum seekers arbitrarily detained on the island of Nauru, a UN watchdog has ruled in a warning to other countries intent on outsourcing asylum processing. The UN human rights committee published decisions in two cases involving 25 refugees and asylum seekers who endured years of arbitrary detention in the island nation. “A state party cannot escape its human rights responsibility when outsourcing asylum processing to another state,” committee member, Mahjoub El Haiba said. Under a hardline policy introduced more than a decade ago, Australia has sent thousands of people trying to reach the country by boat to detention centres on Papua New Guinea’s (PNG) Manus Island and the tiny Pacific nation of Nauru, which lies further to the north-west. Victims in both cases filed complaints to the UN committee of 18 independent experts, charging that Australia had violated their rights under an international covenant, in particular regarding arbitrary detention. Australia rejected the allegations, insisting that abuses that occurred in Nauru did not fall within its jurisdiction. But the UN committee highlighted that Australia had arranged to establish Nauru’s regional processing centre and contributed to its operation and management. El Haiba said Australia did have jurisdiction because it “had significant control and influence over the regional processing facility in Nauru”. Several European countries have been examining the possibility of similar arrangements to outsource their migration policies. The UK’s Rwanda scheme was ultimately abandoned after courts ruled it unlawful and a change of government, and Italy’s plan to detain asylum seekers in centres in Albania hit problems last year when a court raised doubts about its compliance with European Union law. Thursday’s decisions “send a clear message to all states: Where there is power or effective control, there is responsibility”, El Haiba said. “The outsourcing of operations does not absolve states of accountability. Offshore detention facilities are not human rights-free zones.”

continue reading

The same committee should have something to say about the EU outsourcing its border controls to North African countries where migrants are enslaved, sexually assaulted or expelled into the desert, as Libya has done with the mass deportation of 600 Nigerians.

[mariacallous]

In 2023, Italy signed a controversial $710 million deal to send asylum-seekers from countries that it deems “safe” to offshore reception centers in Albania, which is not in the European Union, where it would then process their asylum requests.

But the scheme to curb migrant arrivals quickly turned into a political and financial disaster—one that highlights how, despite European ambitions to tackle migration through offshore centers, these plans currently face too many obstacles to be feasible.

Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s government presented the scheme, which entails intercepting male migrants at sea and transporting them directly to Albanian facilities, as a potential blueprint for the EU to process migrants outside of its borders. In October 2024, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen praised the Italy-Albania deal, saying that EU leaders had a lot to learn from it and encouraging them to consider offshore “return hubs” as valid options for managing asylum applications.

But later that month, after Italy transported a group of migrants from Bangladesh and Egypt to Albania, an Italian court ruled that all of them must be sent to Italy. The judges cited an earlier EU Court of Justice ruling, which found that a country of origin can only be designated “safe” if the entire country is safe for all minority groups. Meloni’s government has appealed the ruling and recently vowed to follow through on its plans. To date, Italy has not successfully processed a single asylum claim at the offshore centers.

The Italy-Albania deal was criticized by the opposition and much of the Italian electorate. According to a recent poll, 55 percent of voters do not support the program. One reason is financial: The first transport of asylum-seekers by sea to Albania on an Italian ship cost around $262,000—around $16,400 per migrant—and the scheme could cost more than $1 billion over five years.

There were also serious political, legal, and human rights concerns from the start. “There’s no way Meloni and her allies didn’t know since the beginning that there was a risk the deal might not work,” said Salvatore Fachile, a lawyer at the Italian Association for Juridical Studies on Immigration.

“It was already evident when we visited these centers that they were not respecting basic human rights, because these de facto offshore detention facilities for foreigners do not belong to a European democratic nation,” said Riccardo Magi, head of the Italian opposition party More Europe and who was part of a delegation of left-wing opposition leaders that went to the Albanian port city of Shengjin last summer.

“The ECJ ruling was just one of many legal issues,” Fachile said. “[Meloni] really tried to stretch her powers.” Indeed, shortly after Italy’s agreement with Albania was signed, several analysts and humanitarian organizations raised concerns that it was inhumane and did not accord with international law.

Amnesty International was among the first human rights organizations to condemn the scheme. “We had already criticized the protocol before its enforcement because it involves a forced detention for people who haven’t committed a crime,” said Elisa de Pieri, a researcher at Amnesty. “And having their asylum application examined for several weeks while they are deprived of basic freedoms goes against international laws.”

Lawmakers from Meloni’s Brothers of Italy party insist that, if anything, their scheme is more humane than past ones, such as the United Kingdom’s failed plan to deport asylum-seekers to Rwanda. “In our plan, Italy would be directly responsible for the men’s fate, and the Albanian centers would work under Italian legislation, abiding to standard human rights norms. It is surely an improvable plan, but it assures a correct application of international norms,” Emanuele Loperfido, a Brothers of Italy parliamentarian, said.

“The high numbers of arrivals are a Europe-wide problem, and we are proposing a fair alternative to traffickers taking advantage of this business,” Loperfido said, adding that the plan “finally gives us a new instrument to manage migration as a systemic, organized matter rather than an emergency.”

De Pieri, however, believes “the far-right is using the migratory ‘crisis’ for campaigning goals, without actually respecting its obligations towards people on the move.” She pointed out that arrivals decreased by 60 percent in 2024 compared with the previous year. “Our request is that politicians in power focus on reinforcing a system already in place and create legal pathways for asylum rather than finding escapes to not have people reach EU soil,” she added.

The idea of offshore asylum facilities is not new. Australia and Israel have used detention centers in third countries over the past decade. And in recent years, several European governments have considered or attempted similar measures as they have sought to retain support by making good on campaign promises to curtail migration, including Denmark, Germany, and the United Kindom.

Fachile believes that it is unlikely that EU asylum outsourcing will work, as it violates too many international laws. It may even weaken support for Meloni’s government, especially at a time when it also faces pushback amid budget cuts in the education, health, and social security sectors.

So far, the Italy-Albania deal has exacerbated the already tense relations between Meloni’s administration, which campaigned heavily on migration management, and the judiciary, which the right accuses of being “politicized.” Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini has threatened the judges on TV, saying, “They made a mistake, and they will have to pay for it.” Even Elon Musk, a longtime friend of Meloni’s, joined the debate, posting on X, “These judges must go.”

Last December, Meloni urged the ECJ to dismiss objections to the deal ahead of the new year. In the meantime, all Italian police forces have left the Albanian facilities, and the centers are temporarily being used to host hundreds of stray dogs. This development has reignited the debate on the scheme’s cost, with opponents criticizing Meloni for having created “the world’s most expensive kennel.”

Italy’s fractured political left stands to gain from the controversy. In recent years, the left has struggled to form a coalition that can oppose the ruling Brothers of Italy. But “this episode has contributed to making our opposition stronger, because we all agree that it is a bad idea,” said Matteo Orfini, a lawmaker and former head of Italy’s center-left Democratic Party.

Still, the newly united opposition knows that there is a long fight ahead. The EU debate around treating migration as an offshore problem will not be settled anytime soon. And now that Donald Trump has been reelected as U.S. president—and has given Musk a role in his administration—the U.S. approach to migration may further embolden anti-migrant politicians across the Atlantic.

Throughout his campaign, Trump pledged to deport millions of undocumented immigrants, and his “victory speech left little doubt about his intentions, doubling down on promises of a comprehensive immigration overhaul,” said Nenad Stekic, a research fellow at the Institute of International Politics and Economics. Like Meloni’s Albania project, there are serious questions about whether Trump will be able to follow through. But Stekic predicts that the president-elect’s rhetoric could have far-reaching consequences and inspire EU leaders to adopt similar plans, especially if Middle East turmoil leads to a spike in migrant arrivals.

“In the EU, centrist parties may feel pressured to adopt more conservative immigration stances to avoid losing ground, making consensus on reform more challenging as leaders balance humanitarian obligations against political pressures,” Stekic added.

Yet members of Italy’s left say they are ready to oppose far-right, anti-migrant policies, which took hold in the country as early as 2018, sooner than much of the rest of Europe. They hope they will be able to convince voters by the next election—set to take place by December 2027—that the right’s promises to curb migration are just a distraction from real issues facing Italians, including threats to human rights, such as press freedom and rights to protest, and high rates of poverty.

“We were the first to deal with the far right, and we hope to be the first to get rid of it, so the [United States] can see their future,” Orsini said.

[alaturkanews]

‘Tragedy’ and ‘deep torture’: Asylum seekers warn EU against rolling out offshore centres

When Behrouz Boochani was detained at the Australian-run regional processing centre on Manus Island from 2013 until 2017, writing was a means for him to grapple with the everyday ruthlessness germinating in the humid Papua New Guinea heat around him.   Some of these scenes — published in poems, articles and award-winning books such as No Friend But the Mountains — detail the endless carousel of…

[immigration05]

Flyworld Migration & Legal Services

Welcome to Flyworld Migration: Your Trusted Immigration Agency

At Flyworld Migration, we specialise in providing comprehensive immigration solutions tailored to meet your unique needs. Whether you are planning to move to Australia for work, study, or to reunite with family, our team of experienced professionals is here to guide you through every step of the process.

Our Services

As a leading migration agency and immigration agency, we offer a wide range of visa services, including:

Tourist Visa: Explore Australia with ease.

Visitor Visa: Short-term visits for family or leisure.

Partner Visa: Reunite with your spouse or de facto partner.

Student Visa: Pursue your education in Australia.

Parent Visa: Bring your parents to live with you in Australia.

Work Visa: Employment opportunities in Australia.

Skilled Visa: For skilled workers looking to migrate.

Resident Return Visa: Maintain your permanent resident status.

Spouse Visa: Live with your spouse in Australia.

Business Visa: For entrepreneurs and investors.

Graduate Visa: Stay in Australia after graduation.

Protection Visa: For individuals seeking asylum.

Education Visa: Study in Australia.

eVisitor Visa: Simplified visitor visa for certain countries.

Family Visa: Reunite with your family members.

Humanitarian Visa: For refugees and displaced persons.

Refugee Visa: Onshore and offshore options.

Sponsored Work Visa: Employer-sponsored work opportunities.

Employee Sponsorship Visa: For businesses hiring overseas employees.

Temporary Work Visa: Short-term employment.

Transit Visa: For short stops in Australia.

Family Visit Visa: Visit your family in Australia.

Entrepreneur Visa: Start a business in Australia.

International Student Visa: Study as an international student.

Contributory Parent Visa: Fast-track parent visas.

Temporary Graduate Visa: For recent graduates.

Business Visitor Visa: For short-term business activities.

Asylum Visa: Protection for those in need.

Refugee Visa Onshore: For refugees already in Australia.

Short Term Work Visa: Temporary work assignments.

Sponsored Parent Visa: Bring your parents to Australia.

Temporary Protection Visa: Short-term protection.

De Facto Spouse Visa: For de facto partners.

Seasonal Work Visa: For seasonal employment.

Temporary Activity Visa: For specific short-term activities.

Business Migration Visa: For business owners.

Short Stay Work Visa: Short-term work opportunities.

Employee Sponsored Work Visa: Employer-sponsored positions.

Former Resident Visa: For former residents of Australia.

Intra Company Transfer Visa: For company transfers.

Business Innovation and Investment Visa: For business innovation.

Business Talent Visa: For talented business professionals.

Employer Visa: Employer-sponsored migration.

Non Contributory Parent Visa: Standard parent visa.

Regional Business Visa: For business in regional areas.

Skilled Employer Sponsored Visa: Employer-sponsored skilled workers.

Special Humanitarian Visa: For those in special circumstances.

Investor Retirement Visa: For retirees.

Investor Visa: For investors.

New Zealand Citizen Family Relationship Visa: For family of NZ citizens.

Permanent Visa: Permanent residency options.

PR Visa: Permanent Resident visa.

Permanent Residency Visa: Live permanently in Australia.

Citizenship Visa: Pathway to Australian citizenship.

Permanent Skilled Migration Visa: For skilled workers.

Our Expertise

Flyworld Migration stands out for its team of best immigration lawyers, migration consultants, and registered migration agents. Our immigration lawyers and migration lawyers provide expert migration advice and migration solutions tailored to your needs. Our services include:

Visa Extension: Assistance with extending your stay.

Immigration and Citizenship: Guidance through the citizenship process.

PR Points Calculator: Calculate your eligibility for permanent residency.

How Many Points Required for PR: Understand the points system.

Citizenship Eligibility Calculator: Check your eligibility for citizenship.

Migration Specialists: Experts in all areas of migration.

Why Choose Us?

Experienced Professionals: Our team includes the best migration lawyer and immigration advisors.

Comprehensive Services: From work permits to citizenship, we cover it all.

Personalised Support: Tailored advice and assistance for every client.

Countries We Serve

Flyworld Migration helps individuals migrate to Australia from various countries, including:

India

Dubai

UK (United Kingdom)

GCC (Gulf Cooperation Council)

Bahrain

Kuwait

Oman

Qatar

Saudi Arabia

UAE

Let Flyworld Migration be your trusted partner in your journey to Australia. Contact us today for expert advice and personalised migration solutions.

[thestoriesofimmigration]

PNG to Investigate Corruption Claims in Australia-Funded Refugee Program

Allegations of widespread corruption and mismanagement within the Australia-funded refugee support program in Papua New Guinea will be formally investigated by the Port Moresby government.

After allegations from a whistleblower inside PNG’s immigration authority that millions of dollars had potentially been misused, PNG’s deputy prime minister, also the minister for immigration, John Rosso, has ordered an audit into where the money has gone.

“The serious allegations by the whistleblower, separate complaints raised by other parties, the local and international media coverage on it, and the undertaking by the Australian government to investigate the program, requires our government to carry out our own audit into the arrangement,” Rosso said.

He said he had written to PNG’s chief migration officer Stanis Hulahau, demanding a report on the secretive Australian-funded refugee support scheme – the details of which both Port Moresby and Canberra have consistently refused to reveal publicly.

“I directed that the report should cover the current management of the program,” Rosso said, “the bilateral funding involved, and the process involved in the management of the funds with a list of all the service providers.”

In an interview with the Guardian a week ago, Hulahau said the allegations of corruption were false and motivated by malice.

“What is being said is not true,” he said. “These allegations are false, and there has been no evidence provided.

“The moneys have not been corrupted or misused, the money has been used by the service providers who have provided those services. They were used legitimately. There is no element of corruption.”

Australia funded PNG’s humanitarian program through a contract signed in 2021 by the then Morrison government, which was kept secret at the time and the details of which the Albanese government still refuses to reveal.

The agreement was to provide accommodation, health and other support services for refugees exiled to PNG by Australia as part of the offshore detention regime formerly run on Manus Island, before that centre was ordered shut by the PNG supreme court.

Most of the 64 remaining refugees and asylum seekers – the final cohort from the Manus detention centre – have been held in PNG for a decade and are in poor physical and mental health.

Money for the support program came from Australia’s $303m irregular maritime arrival “offshore management” budget and was sent to PNG’s immigration and citizenship authority, which paid PNG private contractors to provide accommodation, groceries, medical care and transport to refugees and asylum seekers.

But with slower-than-expected resettlement – in part due to Covid travel restrictions – the Australian money has essentially run out and the services required to support the refugees and asylum seekers have been cut or drastically reduced.

Some refugees have been threatened with eviction from their accommodation. Several PNG businesses, including motels where refugees are housed, transport companies and security firms, are owed millions of dollars. One Port Moresby hospital is owed nearly $40m.

In a letter sent to Rosso, the whistleblower alleged widespread corruption within the program – particularly surrounding the hiring of cars.

He claimed private vehicles were “cross-hired” so as to disguise the beneficiaries of contracts, and relatives of senior officials were allowing their private vehicles to be hired through a front company, then claiming a personal benefit.

The whistleblower also alleged that contracts were improperly awarded, without an open tender process, and given to companies with no experience providing the services required.

And he said PNG police’s fraud and anti-corruption directorate had started investigations into six complaints made against the PNG immigration authority but that these had been discontinued under political pressure.

A source with knowledge of the program said while the political attention on the allegations was welcome, “I have serious concern that investigations into the whistleblower’s complaint will be suppressed.”

And he said the refugees remained stranded, facing an indefinite, uncertain future. “Time is running out for the remaining refugees – nobody knows what will happen.”

Hulahau has said PNG plans for the majority of refugees – about 40 – to be resettled in New Zealand, while 16, who are dangerously unwell and in need of high-level medical care – will be flown to Australian for treatment. About 10 of the refugees and asylum seekers have expressed a desire to stay in PNG – most of these because they have married PNG nationals and have families.

Source: The Guardian

[legalupanishad]

Laws Governing Immigrants in Australia: All You Need to Know

This article on 'Laws Governing Immigrants in Australia: All You Need to Know' was written by Shashanki Kaushik, an intern at Legal Upanishad.

Introduction

Australia's immigration system is built upon a complex web of laws and regulations designed to manage the entry and stay of immigrants in the country. This article explores the legal framework governing immigrants in Australia, encompassing key sections, acts, legislation, and landmark judgments. It provides an in-depth analysis of immigration laws in Australia, detailing their historical evolution, policy objectives, and implications for immigrants. The article also examines the various visa categories, criteria, and pathways available to individuals seeking to migrate to Australia. Additionally, it highlights significant court decisions that have shaped immigration law in the country.

Historical Evolution of laws governing Immigrants in Australia

Australia's immigration policies have evolved significantly over the years, reflecting changing societal and economic needs. The White Australia Policy, which persisted from the early 20th century until the mid-20th century, was characterized by discriminatory practices that favoured European immigrants and excluded non-European immigrants. However, in the post-World War II era, Australia embraced a more inclusive immigration policy, marked by the establishment of the Department of Immigration in 1945. The Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946 and the Immigration Act 1958 were key legislative milestones during this period.

Key Legislation Governing Immigration

Migration Act 1958 The cornerstone of Australia's immigration laws, the Migration Act 1958, outlines the legal framework for entry, stay, and removal of non-citizens. It provides the authority for visa categories, conditions, and criteria. Migration Regulations 1994 Working in conjunction with the Migration Act, the Migration Regulations 1994 specify detailed provisions related to visas, application processes, and compliance. Australian Citizenship Act 2007 This act defines the criteria and processes for acquiring Australian citizenship, including by descent, birth, or application.

Visa Categories and Pathways

Australia offers a wide array of visa categories catering to various purposes of travel and immigration. These include: Permanent Visas - Skilled Migration Visas - Family Reunion Visas - Employer-Sponsored Visas - Business Innovation and Investment Visas Temporary Visas - Student Visa - Tourist Visas - Temporary Work Visas - Partner Visas Humanitarian and Protection Visas - Refugee and Humanitarian Programme - Protection Visas Each visa category has specific eligibility criteria, conditions, and pathways, catering to the diverse needs of immigrants. Contact us and avail the best assignment help for students available online!

Landmark Judgments

M61 and M69 Cases (2001) These cases before the High Court of Australia established the principle that the Minister for Immigration must exercise discretion when considering visa applications, taking into account individual circumstances and international obligations. Plaintiff M68/2015 v. Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2016) This case clarified the limitations on offshore processing of asylum seekers and the government's obligations under international law. Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v. SZMDS (2010) In this case, the High Court upheld the principle that an applicant for a protection visa must be given a fair opportunity to present their claims.

Immigration Policies and Objectives

Australia's immigration policies are driven by a range of objectives, including: Economic Contribution: Attracting skilled migrants to address labour shortages. Encouraging investment through business visas. Family Reunion: Facilitating the reunion of families by allowing eligible relatives to join their Australian citizen or permanent resident family members. Humanitarian Commitments: Providing protection to refugees and those in need through the Refugee and Humanitarian Programme. National Security: Ensuring the security of Australia's borders by screening and assessing visa applicants.

Compliance and Enforcement

Australia maintains a strict stance on immigration compliance. The Department of Home Affairs oversees various enforcement measures, including: Border Security: Screening and checks at entry points. Border Force operations to detect and prevent illegal entry. Visa Compliance: Monitoring visa holders to ensure compliance with visa conditions. Compliance and enforcement operations to address visa fraud and non-compliance. Detention and Removal: Detention of individuals who do not hold a valid visa. Removal of non-citizens who pose a threat to national security or fail to meet visa requirements.

Recent Developments

Australia's immigration landscape continues to evolve. Recent developments include: COVID-19 Pandemic: Temporary visa changes and travel restrictions in response to the pandemic. Managed isolation and quarantine measures for international arrivals. Citizenship Reforms: Proposals to revise citizenship requirements and eligibility criteria. Refugee Policies: Ongoing debates surround offshore processing and mandatory detention.

Conclusion

Australia's immigration laws have a rich history and a profound impact on individuals seeking to migrate to the country. The legal framework, comprising the Migration Act 1958 and associated regulations, lays the foundation for visa categories, eligibility criteria, and compliance measures. Landmark judgements have shaped the interpretation of immigration laws, emphasizing the importance of fairness and international obligations. As Australia continues to adapt its immigration policies to changing circumstances, it is essential for immigrants and aspiring residents to stay informed about the latest developments and requirements.

List of References

Migration Act 1958 Migration Regulations 1994 Australian Citizenship Act 2007 'Migration Law Guide', Federal Court of Australia, available at: https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/law-and-practice/guides/migration/introduction#:~:text=Australianimmigrationlawisregulated,AustralianCitizenshipAct2007. Anne O'Donoghue, 'A general introduction to immigration law and policy in Australia', Lexology, 24 May 2022, available at: https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=59903ef6-6d92-4eaf-9659-51d478c4eeeb Read the full article

[mariacallous]

At the end of a high-stakes summit in Brussels, EU leaders signalled a potentially transformative shift in how the bloc approaches migration policy.

The 27 leaders of the European Union gave on Thursday their most explicit endorsement yet of the contentious project of outsourcing migration policy, even if they offered scant details on how the idea would work in practice and how authorities would be able to respect human rights while transferring migrants outside the bloc's borders.

"New ways to prevent and counter irregular migration should be considered, in line with EU and international law," the leaders said in the conclusions of a one-day summit.

Albeit vague, the line effectively acts as the political go-ahead to experiment with established legal norms and come up with "innovative solutions," as some leaders like to call them, to decrease the number of asylum applications, which last year reached 1,129,000 last year, the highest number since 2016.

Ahead of the summit, Italy's Giorgia Meloni, the Netherlands' Dick Schoof and Denmark's Mette Frederiksen hosted a group of countries considered supportive of outsourcing to create a common front and set the tone of the hours-long negotiations.

The final text did not include one of the group's pet projects: the construction of "return hubs" in non-EU countries to host those whose applications for international protection have been rejected. Still, Ursula von der Leyen pointedly referred to the idea during a press conference, confirming the option is officially on the table.

"The return hubs have been discussed. There are open questions: For how long can people be there? What are you doing, for example, if a return is not possible?" the European Commission president said.

"It's not trivial but this is a topic that is being discussed."

Von der Leyen did not suggest any potential destination to build these "return hubs" and did not confirm if her upcoming legislative proposal to speed up deportations would include that key element. But the Commission chief seemed to embrace outsourcing as she proposed two additional possibilities to move asylum procedures away from the EU:

A scheme to offer migrants international protection in "safe third countries" rather than in the EU. (Von der Leyen promised to review the concept of "safe countries".)

Financial support for the UN Refugee Agency (UNCHR) and the International Organization for Migration (IOM) to allow these organisations to bring "stranded" migrants back to their countries of origin.

Spain's Pedro Sánchez and Belgium's Alexander De Croo struck a discordant note on Thursday by openly voicing criticism of "return hubs," saying they would cost too much money and fail to solve the root causes of irregular migration. "History has shown that these solutions don't bring much in the way of results," De Croo said.

The reduced size of the opposition, however, indicates the tide has definitely turned in favour of offshoring, despite repeated warnings by humanitarian organisations that it would undermine the asylum process and fuel violations of human rights.

European Council President Charles Michel said he could "see that positions and plans are more convergent, especially on the external aspect of migration, and that there is a desire to take increasingly operational action in the field of migration."

Weaponised migration

Hubs were not the only hot-button issue on Thursday's agenda.

Leaders also devoted their time to discussing the phenomenon of instrumentalised migration carried out by Belarus and Russia across the bloc's Eastern border, which Poland, Finland and the Baltic states have suffered firsthand.

Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk opened Thursday's debate by presenting his new strategy against instrumentalisation that includes a "temporary territorial suspension of the right to asylum."

The sweeping plan, which appears to contradict a core principle of international law that compels countries to accept and examine every asylum claim, was not met with reservations by fellow leaders, according to several diplomats.

In his remarks, Tusk said he was drawing inspiration from an emergency law that Finland introduced in July and that legal scholars argue effectively legalises pushback.

"I very much understand Poland, Donald Tusk's proposal (on) how to secure the border against instrumentalised migration from Russia and Belarus," Finnish Prime Minister Petteri Orpo told reporters on Thursday in a show of solidarity.

"We had the same phenomenon on our border one year ago and we did our national legislation but it's not a sustainable solution. We need European-level legislation against instrumentalised immigration."

The demand was firmly reflected in the conclusions that leaders signed, where they say "exceptional situations require appropriate measures" and that external borders must be protected "through all available means" and "in line with EU and international law."

But where the line between legal and illegal lies was left up for interpretation. The Commission has not yet concluded its internal analysis of the Finnish bill, making it impossible to assess how much Brussels is willing to tolerate at this delicate juncture.

"These are hybrid attacks by state actors, and therefore, Poland and other member states need to be able to protect our union from these hybrid attacks. (That) goes for Finland and the Baltic States," von der Leyen said.

"They have to be able to take measures that are temporary and appropriate. We are working on that with Poland right now."

Thursday's conclusions also call on the Commission to sign more wide-ranging EU-funded deals with neighbouring countries to prevent arrivals from happening in the first place. Von der Leyen hailed her Tunisia deal as a success, saying migrant flows through the Central Mediterranean have decreased 64% this year.

Notably, the leaders' text highlights "the importance of implementing adopted EU legislation and application of existing legislation," a rhetorical win for the Commission after Poland and Hungary vowed to ignore the migration reform completed in May.