• The European Commission proposes a fresh regulation to improve the strategy of deportation of illegal immigrants in the European Union.
• The task includes the introduction of the European Return Order, the strengthening of sanctions for non-cooperation with the immigration office and the creation of deportation centres outside the EU.
• Despite the fresh solutions, the key problems – the mass influx of immigrants, the low efficiency of deportation and the overload of the asylum strategy – stay unresolved.
• Will the proposed changes prove to be a viable migration control tool, or just another effort that fails due to government that prevents fast action?
Attempt to solve the migration crisis
The European Commission presented Draft fresh regulation The European Parliament and the Council governing the elimination of illegal immigrants residing in EU associate States. The task provides, inter alia, for easier designation of deportation decisions between associate States and stricter rules for cooperation between foreigners and immigration offices. Although the paper contains method and organisational solutions, it does not address the root causes of the migration crisis, specified as the abuse of the asylum strategy or the deficiency of infrastructure for the effective detention of immigrants. As a result, the proposed changes may not be adequate in relation to the scale of the problem.
The task is yet another effort to address a decade-long immigration crisis in which millions of African and Asian immigrants have already arrived in Europe. Last year, the European Parliament and the EU Council adopted a alleged asylum and migration pact to improve asylum and deportation procedures and to strengthen cooperation between associate States on immigration policy management (Ordo Iuris Institute prepared analysis). The solutions provided for in the Pact have not yet entered into force (this is due in 2026) and the EU is already looking for fresh ones. Will this time be able to overcome the ongoing crisis?
Refugees and economical Immigrants
First of all, any of the visitors are authentic refugees fleeing wars and persecution, who undoubtedly deserve global protection. At the same time, however, many immigrants come to Europe purely for economical reasons, and yet, alternatively of applying for an employment or student visa, they apply for asylum to benefit from simplified procedures for those whose lives are at risk. In the light of global law and the European Union, the state can decide rather freely which economical migrants it accepts and which it cannot accept, while the same state cannot refuse to accept a refugee. It is so no wonder that many immigrants like to introduce themselves as refugees, due to the fact that this importantly increases their chances of being admitted by the country.
Only in 2015 any 1.3 million immigrants arrived in Europe, almost all of whom applied for asylum (i.e. granting exile status). Despite 10 years since the crisis, the situation is inactive tense and the asylum systems of European countries are overloaded with requests. The number of asylum applications across the EU is estimated at hundreds of thousands and is increasing steadily: around 415 000 were submitted in 2020, 536 000 in 2021, 873 000 in 2022 and more than 1 million in 2023. In 2024 a somewhat smaller but inactive stunning number of asylum applications was submitted: around 912 000.
Problem of irregular migrants
Initially, a large number of immigrants were mainly a problem for Mediterranean countries (such as Italy, Greece or Spain), but after Russia's invasion of Ukraine the problem besides began to affect the countries of Central and east Europe, in peculiar Poland and another Baltic states. This migration pact was intended to equip the states with instruments to mitigate the effects of the crisis: the elimination of the asylum strategy by faster examination of applications, the deepening of border guards' cooperation, and a controversial solidarity mechanism, providing for forced relocations of immigrants from countries with peculiarly large numbers of requests.
Recently, however, economical immigrants have become a peculiarly pressing problem, who do not make asylum applications at all, but simply effort to force the border of an EU associate State illegally. It is estimated that there are at least 1.3 million illegal immigrants in the EU, including most in Germany, Spain, Italy and Hungary. This, however, is only a fraction of the real number, due to the fact that it ignores people who managed to undetect the border and live in a given country without paying attention to the immigration office. This figure is increasing steadily, as evidenced by the continuous attempts to push the EU's external borders in Spain, Italy, the Balkans and east Europe. For example, between January and April 2025 there were over 5900 attempts to illegally cross the Polish-Belarusian border.
Addressing this problem is mainly the work of countries that defender the EU's external borders specified as Poland. The European Union, on the another hand, focuses on this group of illegal immigrants who have already entered its territory and have been spotted by immigration services. specified persons, in order to avoid fast expulsion, mostly apply for asylum, claiming that in their country of origin their lives, wellness or freedom are in danger. As a result, asylum systems become even more overloaded, detention centres for overcrowded foreigners, and the efficiency of return procedures (including deportations) is low. Only 20% of those formally obliged to leave the country do so.
Why so low deportation efficiency? The majority of immigrants are waiting for an asylum decision at large, and erstwhile it turns out to be negative, it simply disappears from the sight of the immigration office, changing its place of residence, sometimes moving to another locality and sometimes even to another EU country. In the second case, there is another problem: in the current legal state, an immigrant considered to be an illegal visitor in 1 EU country cannot be automatically considered to be illegal in another EU country. This individual so repeatedly lodges asylum applications in different associate States, each of which recognizes them again and independently. So even if 1 country refuses to grant asylum to an immigrant and decides to deport, before it is carried out, he can go to another country and reapply for asylum.
Proposed solutions to the problem
The draft regulation prepared by the European Commission introduces insignificant improvements to the efficiency of the alleged return procedure. EU law distinguishes between 2 types of "return": voluntary departure at the request of an immigration office and forced deportation. Most of the alleged return decisions are voluntary departure commitments, which are converted into deportation decisions only if the work to leave the country is not fulfilled within the specified time limit. What changes the proposed project?
It exacerbates sanctions for a foreigner's violation (as a ‘third-country national’) of his work to cooperate with the immigration office erstwhile examining his asylum application, as well as in a possible procedure for his return to his country of origin. Third-country nationals are to cooperate with the immigration authority at all stages of the procedure. Third-country nationals should stay available and supply the essential information to prepare their return. In the event of non-compliance with the work to cooperate, the draft regulation requires sanctions to be imposed on the foreigner, e.g. simplification of benefits and social benefits granted to him, seizure of travel papers or extension of the entry ban. The competent authorities should inform the third-country national of the various stages of the return procedure, its responsibilities and the consequences of failure to fulfil those obligations.
The task besides introduces a mechanics for the designation and enforcement of return decisions issued by another associate State (the alleged European Return Order). erstwhile issuing a return decision, the associate State will gotta "record" it in the ICT information strategy operating within the Schengen area or through bilateral exchange of information with another associate State. The European Return Order is intended to assist in the designation and enforcement of return decisions issued by another associate State where a third-country national moves illegally to another associate State.
The proposal besides allows the creation of alleged return centres in non-EU countries. return hubs) for immigrants to whom a final decision on deportation has been issued. These are to be centres located in 3rd countries, acting on the basis of bilateral agreements or with the EU as a whole, where specified migrants will be forced to be placed until they are confirmed that they can return to their country of origin. An agreement or agreement may only be concluded with a 3rd country in which global human rights standards and rules are respected. specified an agreement or arrangement will gotta specify the terms of the transfer, as well as the conditions relating to the period of residence of a third-country national in the country concerned, which may be of a short- or long-term nature. specified an agreement or agreement shall be accompanied by a monitoring mechanics ensuring that implementation is assessed and any changing circumstances in a 3rd country taken into account.
The task besides clarifies the rules on the detention of immigrants – those awaiting a decision on an asylum application, as well as those awaiting a return decision. Persons subject to detention should be placed in peculiar detention centres or peculiar wards of another centres. Where a associate State is incapable to supply accommodation in specified a facility, the task shall let for meals of accommodation places in a prison where third-country nationals are kept separately from prisoners;
The proposed paper besides prolongs the maximum period of detention (must place immigrants in the centre) from 18 to 24 months and clarifies the reasons for the hazard of escape as a basis for the detention of the immigrant. The escape of an immigrant before the decision requiring return is final is 1 of the main reasons for the utmost inefficiency of return procedures.
Deficiencies of the Commission proposal
On the another hand, the European Commission's proposal does not solve the main problems.
Firstly, EU associate States will proceed to be formally obliged to let anyone who makes even an oral request for asylum, including immigrants caught in the act of illegal border crossing. Consequently, illegal immigrants will proceed to be treated as immigrants seeking legal residence by making an appropriate application at the border point or at the consulate. EU law prohibits the automatic rejection of asylum applications and requires that each of them be dealt with in substance and requires that the immigrant be allowed to stay in the territory of the country in the course of examination, which in most cases ends with the escape of a individual who does not wait for his or her manifestly unfounded request to be examined, but tries to vanish from the immigration radar as shortly as possible.
Secondly, in part, this problem could be solved by mass detection against all those caught red-handedly crossing the border. The point is that the states do not have adequate detention facilities. The anticipation of placing them in prisons does not change much, due to the fact that they are usually overcrowded too. And even if you have quite a few seats, there is inactive a lot that depends on the explanation of the grounds for the hazard of escape that courts will take. If this explanation is restrictive, immigration services will still, in practice, gotta let anyone who applies for asylum to enter the territory and to let him to be free to wait for his consideration. As the current practice shows – most do not wait.
Thirdly, although the Commission sees the problem of mediocre efficiency of expulsion decisions, the proposed solution in the form of return centres in 3rd countries will not importantly improve it. In the light of the draft regulation, an immigrant will be able to enter specified a centre only after the course of appeal has been exhausted, which means that he will have plenty of time to hide before a decision requiring his return is final.
Step in the right direction, but it's not enough
The proposal for a fresh directive is so a step in the right direction, but the proposed solutions do not address the main problems: mass uncontrolled migration, which must increase due to the EU law's regulation of allowing all immigrant into the territory of the country solely on the basis of the asylum application itself, before it is examined, as well as the overcrowding of detention centres and the low efficiency of return decisions.
Patrick Ignaszczak – Analyst of the Ordo Iuris global Law Center
== sync, corrected by elderman ==
