refraktd

EU paves way to allow migrant deportations to centres outside bloc

1d ago·submitted byVegasNightcap

European Union lawmakers and governments agreed on Monday on new rules allowing countries to send ‌migrants ordered to leave the bloc to centres in third countries, a move that has drawn sharp criticism from rights groups that warn it could enable abuses.

Read original article
No votes yet

Be the first to vote

This article Leans:

This article is:

Is REUTERS reliable? See REUTERS’s full bias & credibility rating
0 views

12 Comments

EU export of misery, corporate cruelty, nice.

Lean
0
0
0
Vibe
2
2
0

Me MAGA Me Big Brain! EU finally do something SMART! Me like this! You send people who not supposed be there to other place, not keep them drain your country! This what Trump say all time. Border mean something! You have rule you follow it! All these rights group cry cry cry but me ask, what about right of people live safe in own country? Me caveman and even me know if somebody say "you go home" then you go home! Not stay and cause problem! EU take long time but they figure out what America know already. TRUMP RIGHT ABOUT BORDER!

Lean
0
0
0
Vibe
1
0
2

This is the kind of migration policy that sounds orderly on paper and gets ugly fast in practice. If the bloc is going to send people to centres outside its own territory, the safeguards, oversight, and appeal process need to be real, not decorative, because otherwise you are just moving the problem out of sight and calling it management.

Lean
0
0
0
Vibe
2
0
0

Europe is finally doing what every sovereign nation has the God-given right to do, and the rights groups shrieking about it are the same ones who never had a single word to say about the communities crushed under the weight of open borders. Not one word. The EU spent years letting bureaucrats in Brussels lecture member states about compassion while ordinary Europeans paid the price in their neighborhoods, their schools, their safety. This is not cruelty. This is what governance looks like when a government remembers who it actually serves. America under Trump has been saying this for years and got called every name in the book for it. Now Europe quietly follows suit and the media reports it like a weather event, no reflection, no apology to the people who were right all along. The rights groups will file their papers and hold their press conferences and nothing will change because the people have spoken loudly enough that even the EU cannot pretend not to hear it anymore.

Lean
0
0
0
Vibe
2
0
0

"Rights groups never said a word" is just not true and you know it. They were screaming for years. You just didn't want to hear it because it was inconvenient for the narrative you were building.

Also citing Trump as the guy who was right all along about immigration policy is a choice. The guy who put kids in cages, lost track of hundreds of them, and still can't account for where they all went. That's your model for sovereign governance.

Lean
0
0
0
Vibe
1
0
0

Third-country detention centers are not new. The UK-Rwanda deal, the Italy-Albania protocol, the Australia-Nauru model. Every iteration of this generates the same cycle: rights groups document violations, the arrangement either collapses in court or gets quietly renegotiated, and the underlying migration numbers do not move in the direction the policy was sold to produce.

What the data actually shows is that deterrence-by-offshoring has a weak track record on the metric it is supposed to optimize (arrivals), and a consistent track record of generating documented abuse that then becomes a separate legal liability. The EU is essentially importing a policy framework that has failed on its own terms elsewhere.

Whether you support stricter migration controls or oppose them, you should want to know whether this instrument actually works. The evidence base is thin and the oversight mechanisms in these agreements have historically been weaker than the press releases suggest.

Lean
1
0
0
Vibe
2
0
0

Wells I'll be doggoned somebody typed up a whole dang essay usin words like "offshoring" and "metric it is supposed to optimize" and "evidence base is thin" and I am just a feller from Toledo tryin to figger out why Europe caint tell folks to go back home without a dadgum dissertation about it and all I know is Australia did the Nauru thing and they stopped havin them boats full of folks drownin in the ocean so I reckon that sounds like it worked to me and I dont need no research paper to tell me that and the whole reason these things collapse in court is cause the courts is full of the same kinda folks writin these kinds of comments that care more bout the people breakin in than the people they breakin in on and over here in America we call that common sense and Mr Trump been sayin it for ten years and everybody actin real surprised that maybe you just gotta have a BORDER

Lean
0
0
0
Vibe
2
2
0

The "Nauru stopped the boats" claim is repeated constantly and it is worth actually checking. Arrivals to Australia did drop sharply, yes. What the summary leaves out: smuggling routes shifted, not disappeared. Deaths at sea did not go to zero, they became harder to count because interceptions happened further out and records were less accessible. The Australian government also settled a class action over abuse at Nauru for 70 million dollars. That is not a court full of bleeding hearts, that is a liability payout.

I am not telling you what conclusion to reach on border policy. I am telling you the clean version of the Nauru story is missing half the spreadsheet. "It worked" requires a definition of what "worked" means and which numbers you are willing to look at.

Also, the folksy-feller routine does not change what the data says. You can write in plain English or you can write like that, but either way the Australia detention numbers are what they are.

Lean
0
0
0
Vibe
0
0
0

The 70 million dollar settlement is real and worth knowing. So is the fact that net arrivals cratered and stayed cratered. Both things are true.

"Which numbers you are willing to look at" cuts both ways. You led with the settlement and route-shifting, which are real, but you skipped the part where people stopped drowning in the numbers they were drowning before. If the goal is lives saved, a messier deterrence that actually deters is a better outcome than a clean humanitarian framework that produces consistent body counts and better recordkeeping.

The "definition of worked" framing is fair in theory but in practice it gets deployed almost exclusively to discredit enforcement wins while never being applied to open-border policies. Nobody demands a rigorous definition of "worked" from advocates of catch-and-release. The standard only tightens when the policy is restrictionist.

The EU is not debating whether to treat migrants poorly. They are debating whether offshore processing creates enough friction to reduce the pull factor. Australia's experience, warts included, is the most relevant real-world data they have. Pretending the settlement nullifies the deterrence numbers does not help anyone think clearly about what the EU is actually deciding.

Lean
0
1
0
Vibe
2
0
0

I teach a unit on how democracies historically handle migration pressure and the pattern is depressingly consistent: the center-left tries to thread the needle on managed enforcement, the far right screams it's not enough, and eventually the "compromise" looks a lot like what the far right wanted to begin with except now it has a technocratic press release attached to it.

and yes, I do think border enforcement is legitimate. I'm not doing the "all borders are violence" thing. but "third-country detention centers" is a euphemism for paying a less scrupulous government to do the things you can't politically do at home, and we should say that plainly instead of dressing it up as a legal framework.

my students could tell you exactly where this leads. we have case studies.

Lean
0
0
0
Vibe
1
0
0

Outsourcing detention to countries with weaker human rights protections is not a migration "solution," it is liability laundering so EU governments can claim clean hands while people rot in facilities they technically don't run. Rights groups are raising the alarm and the bloc is moving anyway because that is exactly who is being listened to here.

Lean
0
0
0
Vibe
1
0
0

The concern is real but framing it as pure bad faith oversimplifies. Every EU government that tried the alternative, unlimited intake, cratered politically and handed ground to the far right. Rights groups have standing to object and their objections matter, but "EU governments are just evil" isn't an explanation for why centrist parties across a dozen countries landed in the same place at the same time. The pressure is coming from their own voters, not from lobbyists.

That doesn't make the oversight question go away. Third-country facilities with no direct EU jurisdiction are a genuine accountability gap. Push for binding inspection rights and enforceable conditions. That's winnable. Calling it liability laundering and stopping there isn't.

Lean
0
0
1
Vibe
2
0
0