Connect with us

News

Albanian MPs approve deal to build migrant centres for Italy

Published

on

Albanian MPs approve deal to build migrant centres for Italy

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

Albania has ratified a migration deal with Italy that allows Rome to hold asylum-seekers in the non-EU country — the last big hurdle for a controversial scheme apparently inspired by the UK’s immigration agreement with Rwanda. 

The parliamentary vote on Thursday came less than a month after Albania’s constitutional court ruled that the deal, first unveiled in November, did not contravene Albanian laws despite opposition calls for more consultation and concerns over human rights.

The deal sets a new precedent for people seeking protection within the EU to be held outside the bloc while their claims are assessed. Italy’s parliament has already ratified the plan.

Advertisement

The deal reached last year by Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and her Albanian counterpart Edi Rama allows Italy to build two migrant holding centres in Albania, an EU candidate country and one of Europe’s poorest nations.

Italy aims to process 36,000 people a year through the centres, which will be able to house a total of 3,000 people.

“Albania is choosing to act like an EU member state and agreeing to share a burden that Europe should face united as a whole,” said Rama in a post on social media site X after the vote. “No country can solve such a challenge alone.”

The scheme is fundamentally different to the UK’s stalled Rwanda plan, analysts said, as the two centres will remain under Rome’s full jurisdiction and those deemed eligible for asylum will be allowed to go to Italy.

“The main goal is deterrence. They want to convince people that the Italian asylum system is not that welcoming any more,” said Luca Barana, a research fellow on migration policy at Rome’s Institute of International Affairs.

Advertisement

“But I don’t think it will be that effective. Deterrence doesn’t work, especially in the long term,” he added, warning that the Albanian centres could face legal challenges from asylum seekers.

The cost of building and operating the detention centres — to be borne entirely by Italian taxpayers — is estimated at €53mn this year, rising to €600mn over the deal’s initial five-year timeframe, according to the Italian government.

“It’s a huge waste of money,” said Lia Quartapelle, an Italian lawmaker with the opposition Democratic party. “It’s just a huge electoral ad.”

Several international bodies criticised the deal, with the Council of Europe saying it “raises several human rights concerns and adds to a worrying European trend towards the externalisation of asylum responsibilities”.

The council cited several concerns over fairness of asylum procedures, identification of vulnerable people, the possibility of automatic detention without adequate judicial review, inadequate detention conditions and a lack of access to legal aid.

Advertisement

Amnesty International said the agreement would “create an unlawful and harmful system” that would “increase people’s suffering”.  

Meloni won elections in 2022 promising tough measures to curb drastically the number of migrants arriving in Italy from across the Mediterranean, and her government imposed tough restrictions on charities carrying out humanitarian rescues of those at risk of drowning.

More than 155,750 irregular migrants arrived in Italy last year, a rise of 50 per cent over the previous year, and the highest level since the peak of the European migration crisis in 2016, interior ministry data shows.

The prime minister also came under fire from her coalition partner Matteo Salvini, leader of the far-right League, who demanded tougher action to stop the inflows. 

In recent months, the pace of irregular arrivals has slowed sharply, with 4,368 people arriving so far in 2024, down from 12,903 over the same period last year.   

Advertisement

But after the Tirana vote a coalition of humanitarian groups working to protect migrants at sea said Rome’s restrictions on Mediterranean Sea rescues — including the impounding of nine humanitarian rescue boats on 16 occasions, for a total of 300 days — had contributed to an increase in deaths last year.

According to the International Organization for Migration, 2,500 migrants drowned or went missing in the Central Mediterranean in 2023, up from 1,417 the previous year.

“This deliberate obstruction of the life-saving activities of NGOs takes place in an environment in which search and rescue capacity at sea is already grossly inadequate . . . and has disastrous consequences,” said a statement signed by groups including Médecins Sans Frontières.

Gazment Bardhi, an Albanian MP from the opposition rightwing Democratic party who led the unsuccessful appeal to the constitutional court, said: “We [have to be] very careful not to have a second Lampedusa in Albania,” referring to the Italian island that was overwhelmed by the arrival of thousands of migrants in a single week last year.

He added that he was “quite sure” some migrants would raise the issue at the European Court of Human Rights.

Advertisement

News

Supreme Court blocks redrawing of New York congressional map, dealing a win for GOP

Published

on

Supreme Court blocks redrawing of New York congressional map, dealing a win for GOP

The Supreme Court

Win McNamee/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Win McNamee/Getty Images

The Supreme Court on Monday intervened in New York’s redistricting process, blocking a lower court decision that would likely have flipped a Republican congressional district into a Democratic district.    
  
At issue is the midterm redrawing of New York’s 11th congressional district, including Staten Island and a small part of Brooklyn. The district is currently held by a Republican, but on Jan. 21, a state Supreme Court judge ruled that the current district dilutes the power of Black and Latino voters in violation of the state constitution.  
  
GOP Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, who represents the district, and the Republican co-chair of the state Board of Elections promptly appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the justices to block the redrawing as an unconstitutional “racial gerrymander.” New York’s congressional election cycle was set to officially begin Feb. 24, the opening day for candidates to seek placement on the ballot.  
  
As in this year’s prior mid-decade redistricting fights — in Texas and California — the Trump administration backed the Republicans.   
 
Voters and the State of New York contended it’s too soon for the Supreme Court to wade into this dispute. New York’s highest state court has not issued a final judgment, so the voters asserted that if the Supreme Court grants relief now “future stay applicants will see little purpose in waiting for state court rulings before coming to this Court” and “be rewarded for such gamesmanship.” The state argues this is an issue for “New York courts, not federal courts” to resolve, and there is sufficient time for the dispute to be resolved on the merits. 
  
The court majority explained the decision to intervene in 101 words, which the three dissenting liberal justices  summarized as “Rules for thee, but not for me.” 
 
The unsigned majority order does not explain the Court’s rationale. It says only how long the stay will last, until the case moves through the New York State appeals courts. If, however, the losing party petitions and the court agrees to hear the challenge, the stay extends until the final opinion is announced. 
 
Dissenting from the decision were Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Writing for the three, Sotomayor  said that  if nonfinal decisions of a state trial court can be brought to highest court, “then every decision from any court is now fair game.” More immediately, she noted, “By granting these applications, the Court thrusts itself into the middle of every election-law dispute around the country, even as many States redraw their congressional maps ahead of the 2026 election.” 

Monday’s Supreme Court action deviates from the court’s hands-off pattern in these mid-term redistricting fights this year. In two previous cases — from Texas and California — the court refused to intervene, allowing newly drawn maps to stay in effect.  
  
Requests for Supreme Court intervention on redistricting issues has been a recurring theme this term, a trend that is likely to grow.  Earlier last month  the high court allowed California to use a voter-approved, Democratic-friendly map.  California’s redistricting came in response to a GOP-friendly redistricting plan in Texas that the Supreme Court also permitted to move forward. These redistricting efforts are expected to offset one another.     
   
But the high court itself has yet to rule on a challenge to Louisiana’s voting map, which was drawn by the state legislature after the decennial census in order to create a second majority-Black district.  Since the drawing of that second majority-black district, the state has backed away from that map, hoping to return to a plan that provides for only one majority-minority district.    
     
The Supreme Court’s consideration of the Louisiana case has stretched across two terms. The justices failed to resolve the case last term and chose to order a second round of arguments this term adding a new question: Does the state’s intentional creation of a second majority-minority district violate the constitution’s Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments’ guarantee of the right to vote and the authority of Congress to enforce that mandate?    
Following the addition of the new question, the state of Louisiana flipped positions to oppose the map it had just drawn and defended in court. Whether the Supreme Court follows suit remains to be seen. But the tone of the October argument suggested that the court’s conservative supermajority is likely to continue undercutting the 1965 Voting Rights Act.   

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Map: Earthquake Shakes Central California

Published

on

Map: Earthquake Shakes Central California

Note: Map shows the area with a shake intensity of 3 or greater, which U.S.G.S. defines as “weak,” though the earthquake may be felt outside the areas shown.  All times on the map are Pacific time. The New York Times

A minor earthquake with a preliminary magnitude of 3.5 struck in Central California on Monday, according to the United States Geological Survey.

The temblor happened at 7:17 a.m. Pacific time about 6 miles northwest of Pinnacles, Calif., data from the agency shows.

As seismologists review available data, they may revise the earthquake’s reported magnitude. Additional information collected about the earthquake may also prompt U.S.G.S. scientists to update the shake-severity map.

Source: United States Geological Survey | Notes: Shaking categories are based on the Modified Mercalli Intensity scale. When aftershock data is available, the corresponding maps and charts include earthquakes within 100 miles and seven days of the initial quake. All times above are Pacific time. Shake data is as of Monday, March 2 at 10:20 a.m. Eastern. Aftershocks data is as of Monday, March 2 at 11:18 a.m. Eastern.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

US says Kuwait accidentally shot down 3 American jets

Published

on

US says Kuwait accidentally shot down 3 American jets

The U.S. and Israel have been conducting strikes against targets in Iran since Saturday morning, with the aim of toppling Tehran’s clerical regime. Iran has fired back, with retaliatory assaults featuring missiles and drones targeting several Gulf countries and American bases in the Middle East.

“All six aircrew ejected safely, have been safely recovered, and are in stable condition. Kuwait has acknowledged this incident, and we are grateful for the efforts of the Kuwaiti defense forces and their support in this ongoing operation,” Central Command said.

“The cause of the incident is under investigation. Additional information will be released as it becomes available,” it added.

In a separate statement later Monday, Central Command said that American forces had been killed during combat since the strikes began.

“As of 7:30 am ET, March 2, four U.S. service members have been killed in action. The fourth service member, who was seriously wounded during Iran’s initial attacks, eventually succumbed to their injuries,” it said.

Advertisement

Major combat operations continue and our response effort is ongoing. The identities of the fallen are being withheld until 24 hours after next of kin notification,” Central Command added.

This story has been updated.

Continue Reading

Trending