Euroviews. The Italy-Albania migration deal is costly, cruel and counterproductive

In the Italian city of Trieste, up to 400 people shelter each day in a crumbling, abandoned building next to the train station. 

This is not out of choice. With an average wait of 70 days before asylum seekers can access formal reception facilities, they have nowhere else to go. 

And while the International Rescue Committee (IRC) and other NGOs work tirelessly to provide food, water, information and legal advice, it’s simply not enough to match the soaring level of needs.

It’s clear that EU member states like Italy need to urgently invest in their reception systems, ensuring these are part of a safe, orderly and humane approach to migration. 

Everyone should have a secure place to sleep and access to their basic needs — particularly people with vulnerabilities such as women and children.

However, in the glaring absence of a sustainable EU asylum system rooted in solidarity and relocation, which would ease the pressure on Europe’s southernmost states, many are taking a different path. 

A number of European governments have instead been exploring deals with non-EU countries intending to stop asylum seekers from setting foot on their soil in the first place.

The most recent of these is Italy’s new agreement with Albania. This would see the majority of people rescued at sea in Italian waters sent directly to Albania, where they would be held in detention centres while their asylum claims are considered.

This is not the first time a member state has looked into the possibility of outsourcing responsibility for asylum and migration management in this way, but there are fundamental reasons why these past proposals have not gone ahead: they are costly, cruel, counterproductive, and legally dubious.

One key concern is that EU states are