Is Europe adopting Washington ICE approach?

The European Union (EU) has taken a major step toward tightening its migration and asylum policies with the approval of a new Return Regulation designed to increase deportations and strengthen the enforcement of return orders against undocumented migrants.

European officials argue that the measures are necessary to restore credibility to the bloc’s migration system and address the low rate of deportations of individuals who have no legal right to remain in the EU. Critics, however, contend that the new framework marks a dramatic departure from Europe’s traditional commitment to human rights and due process, drawing uncomfortable comparisons with the immigration enforcement practices of the United States (U.S.), particularly those associated with the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency under President Donald Trump.

A new era of deportation enforcement

At the heart of the new regulation is a determination to improve the EU’s ability to remove migrants whose asylum applications have been rejected or who no longer possess legal residency rights. European authorities have long expressed frustration over the low percentage of return decisions that are actually enforced. Despite thousands of deportation orders being issued annually, only a fraction result in individuals being returned to their countries of origin.

To address this gap, the regulation imposes stricter obligations on migrants subject to return orders. Those required to leave an EU member state must cooperate with authorities throughout the process. Failure to do so could result in sanctions, including the reduction or withdrawal of certain welfare benefits, confiscation of travel documents, and in some cases detention.

Supporters of the legislation argue that a functioning migration system depends on the enforcement of final decisions. They maintain that asylum procedures lose credibility if individuals who have exhausted all legal remedies can remain indefinitely within the EU.

Expanded powers for authorities

One of the most controversial aspects of the new law is the expansion of enforcement powers granted to national authorities. The regulation allows officials to search residences and other relevant premises to ensure compliance with deportation orders.

Human rights organizations and migrant advocacy groups have criticized this provision, arguing that it opens the door to immigration raids similar to those carried out by ICE in the U.S. Critics fear that such measures could lead to increased surveillance of migrant communities and create an atmosphere of fear among undocumented individuals and their families.

The legislation also significantly expands detention powers. Migrants considered uncooperative, likely to abscond, or posing security risks may be detained for up to 24 months, with a possible 6-month extension. In some security-related cases, detention measures and entry bans could be even more severe.

For opponents, these provisions represent a shift away from administrative migration management toward a more punitive enforcement model.

The controversial return hubs

Perhaps the most groundbreaking element of the regulation is the authorization of so-called “return hubs” outside the EU. These facilities would allow member states to transfer rejected asylum seekers and undocumented migrants to third countries while awaiting eventual deportation.

The concept has gained support among several governments, including Germany, Austria, the Netherlands, Denmark, Greece, and Italy. Italy’s existing migrant facilities in Albania are widely viewed as a precursor to the broader European model.

Advocates of return hubs argue that they provide a practical solution when deportations cannot be immediately carried out because migrants’ countries of origin refuse repatriation or lack diplomatic arrangements with EU states. By relocating individuals to designated facilities outside Europe, governments believe they can reduce pressure on domestic asylum systems and strengthen migration control.

However, critics warn that these centers risk becoming legal and humanitarian gray zones. Concerns have been raised about oversight, accountability, living conditions, and the possibility that individuals could remain in such facilities for prolonged or indefinite periods without clear prospects for return.

Human rights concerns

Civil society organizations, refugee advocacy groups, and legal experts have voiced strong opposition to the legislation. They argue that the measures could weaken procedural safeguards and increase the risk of human rights violations.

Particular concern surrounds the detention of families with children. Although unaccompanied minors are excluded from transfer to return hubs, families may still be detained or relocated under certain circumstances. Human rights advocates question whether such policies are compatible with the EU’s commitments to protecting children’s welfare and preserving family unity.

Another contentious issue involves the possibility of deporting migrants to countries with which they have no prior connection. Critics argue that transferring individuals to unfamiliar third countries could expose them to insecurity, inadequate legal protections, or conditions that fail to meet international standards.

Organizations working with migrants have warned that the cumulative effect of longer detention periods, broader enforcement powers, and offshore processing arrangements could create a system that prioritizes deterrence over protection.

Political shifts driving reform

The adoption of the Return Regulation reflects significant political changes across Europe. Since the migration crisis of 2015 and former German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s “open door” policy, public concerns about border control and asylum management have fueled the rise of conservative and far-right political movements in many EU member states.

The 2024 European Parliament elections further strengthened parties advocating stricter migration policies. As a result, mainstream center-right groups increasingly aligned with right-wing parties to advance tougher measures on returns and border enforcement.

Supporters of the regulation argue that governments must respond to public concerns and demonstrate that migration systems can be effectively managed. They insist that the law targets only individuals who have no legal right to remain in Europe and does not affect legal migrants, workers, students, or recognized refugees.

Nevertheless, opponents see the legislation as evidence of a broader hardening of European migration policy and a growing willingness to adopt measures once considered politically unacceptable.

As the regulation moves toward full implementation, the challenge for European policymakers will be to reconcile demands for stronger migration control with the values of human dignity, legal protection, and human rights that have long been central to the European project.