Federal Interior Minister Nancy Faeser is closely monitoring Italy’s plans to establish refugee camps in Albania and process asylum applications outside Italy. Similarly, the UK is reviewing its asylum procedures in Rwanda. Faeser told “Stern” magazine that she is keen to see the outcomes of Italy’s efforts in Albania, considering Italy’s model to be intriguing and she is discussing the topic with her Italian counterpart.
A report from the federal states is expected in two months, providing results on the feasibility of conducting asylum procedures outside the EU. The states are examining the legality of asylum procedures in third countries. However, even if legally permissible, finding a third country willing to accept refugees remains a significant challenge. The third country must ensure the safety of the refugees, the return of rejected applicants to their home countries, and the respect of human rights.
Faeser believes that implementing asylum procedures on a large scale in a small country like Rwanda is difficult, noting that the UK is facing significant challenges in carrying out asylum procedures in Rwanda. She emphasizes that the current priority is protecting the EU’s external borders and swiftly implementing procedures according to the new EU asylum law reforms.
Italy is currently working on establishing refugee camps in Albania to process asylum applications there, transporting asylum seekers by ship to the camps in Albania. Both the Italian and Albanian parliaments have approved an agreement to allow this despite criticisms. The camps are intended for migrants intercepted by Italy in international waters only. Meanwhile, the UK is working on deporting refugees to camps in Rwanda to process asylum applications without allowing them to return to the UK.
According to “Spiegel,” Faeser received a letter from four federal states containing harsh criticism of the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF) due to issues with deporting rejected asylum seekers. Significant delays in deportation processes have caused widespread dissatisfaction with BAMF in all federal states.
Among the main criticisms in the March 2024 letter from the four states was BAMF’s purchase of alternative documents for rejected asylum seekers without passports. The letter criticized the federal government for failing to meet binding standards and for BAMF’s non-compliance with agreements signed with the federal states regarding deportation procedures.