The EU Struck a Deal for Detention Centers and Desert Dumps: A Crisis for African Migrants
In 2024, the European Union (EU) signed bilateral agreements and memorandums with several Muslim-majority nations, including Tunisia, Morocco, and Libya, that contained financial agreements to curb migrant flow through border control and closure or violent action towards migrants if necessary. These agreements come as a result of a well-documented rise in anti-immigrant sentiment across Europe as thousands of migrants from the Middle East and North Africa have fled conflict and persecution in their homelands to establish a better life on the other side of the Mediterranean. Migrants, particularly those from Libya and Syria, are fleeing the violence of the ongoing war and factional power struggle, where they are vulnerable to extortion, violence, and other abuses by the government and armed groups. One individual interviewed had fled military service in Syria under al-Assad’s regime due to conflict with his oath as a medical professional–he, along with 125 other refugees, fled Syria to Europe for freedom from violent conflict since 2009, 4.48 million Syrian refugees have sought asylum in Europe.
With the increasing immigrant population, especially from Muslim countries, many white Europeans fear that low fertility rates among “European natives” will create a self-effacing Europe devoid of Western identity. Xenophobic political sentiment has begun to influence the EU and its agreements with North African countries, regions that groups such as Liberian migrants must traverse before attempting to cross the Mediterranean. These agreements have already dropped irregular border crossings by an overall 38%—the lowest level since 2021 (due to COVID-19)—though the West African route saw an 18% increase, the highest since data collection began in 2009. This means that while efforts have been made to close off points of crossing, immigrants are finding alternative routes and bypassing blocked routes.
In response to the increased migration across the Mediterranean, Tunisia and Italy have developed a coordinating strategy that integrates migration control with national identity and economic policies. Tunisia stated that the reason for their aggressive migration crackdown and policy development is a defense against migrants who threaten to transform the state into an “African” country rather than an “Arab-Muslim” one. EU nations such as Italy have pitched migration policy as a facet of plans to boost the economies of African countries directly involved with migrant flow into the EU. Last year, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen both presented plans with economic benefits in tandem with stricter migration policy. Leyen’s partnership package plan held over 1.08 billion dollars in assistance, with approximately 164.5 million dollars targeted towards border management.
This is not the first time agreements have been used to curb migration into the EU. In 2017, an EU summit in Malta saw the promise of greater funding for migrant containment and the closing of the Liberian and Tunisian Central Mediterranean migrant routes. This is the same route that experienced a 59% drop in crossings in 2024, according to Frontex. The EU’s concerted response differs greatly from those in 2015, alongside the growth of xenophobia and the election of far-right politicians. There is a fear that Europe is losing its Western identity, particularly from invading Arab populations who, from their perspective, terrorize the white European population. Germany had committed 6.6 billion dollars to support 800,000 migrants entering the country and take in 500,000 migrants a year, with Chancellor Angela Merkel publicly stating that the EU cannot fail on the matter of supporting refugees if they wished to remain “the Europe [they] wished for.”
These recent agreements have increased the expulsion of migrants in North Africa who sought to cross the Mediterranean, some even using brutal tactics, including documented human rights violations and imprisonment. As a result, migrants face threats of torture, sexual violence, starvation, serious injury, and death. Doctors Without Borders (MSF) has now been denied access and obstructed from providing treatment to those individuals inside two of Libya’s major detention facilities after more than seven years of access, from 2016 to 2023. At one detention center, Abu Salim, women reported to MSF workers that they were told they could be released in exchange for sexual favors, and that they experienced sexual abuse at the hands of armed guards and men brought from outside the facility. Prisoners described being routinely denied life-saving medical treatment. In response to the exposed abuse, MSF has called for a stop to detention practices and the release of all those held, and for refugees to be provided with safe and legal pathways out of Libya.
Other countries, such as Tunisia, have begun a process known as “desert dumping,” abandoning migrants into the no-man’s land along their border in the Sahara Desert, providing them with no food or water and adequate medical care. Funded with more than 400 million euros by the EU Trust Fund under the pretense of migrant management, these operations use the funds to operate vehicles and commute out to remote regions of the Sahara to abandon migrants, according to a year-long investigation from Lighthouse Reports. Many who are left in the desert face threats of kidnapping, extortion, torture, violence, and death; others are sold and held for ransom. Vehicles used to round up migrants during raids and transport them to desert regions have been matched to vehicles donated to Tunisia by Italy and Germany. Some people, like African-American citizen Timothy Hucks, have been wrongfully arrested and subsequently abandoned in the desert following a police interrogation.
Of the 613 men arrested and sent back to Niger in December 2024, a majority reported mistreatment by authorities during their time in detention centers and while being transported. Few, including a 25-year-old from Guinea, are detained despite holding UNHCR refugee status papers. Those detained also include pregnant women and children; one group interviewed reported suffering hallucinations and heel infections. Many were dehydrated, injured, and abused by organized crime and trafficking rings that operate in the dumping zones. One group reportedly had been photographed by Spanish officers before knowingly being abandoned in an al-Qaeda-linked active war zone in the Malian desert.
Damaging migration policies from the EU and partnering African nations have resulted in the forceful return of migrants, refugees, and asylum seekers to Libya and neighboring regions, where they face horrific and abusive conditions in detention centers and abandonment in the Sahara Desert. When groups are finally able to reach nearby cities, often the same from which they were rounded up, many risk being detained and dumped again, creating a cycle of violence and abuse. Using violent and abusive detainment as a solution to reduce migration will not reduce the influx of migrants and refugees into Europe, but rather force those desperate enough to create newer and potentially more dangerous routes to the EU and their assumed freedom from violent conflict. Scholars have long since connected this crisis to the colonial historical legacy left by many nations that participate in the prevention of African and Muslim migration into the EU. If the European Union is desperate to contain and prevent migrants at the cost of billion-dollar economic deals, it would be a greater use of funds to build instead grassroots support for democracy and peace-building efforts in regions of conflict.
Trump’s Day One Executive Orders on Immigration
Trump signs a series of executive orders. Avery Lotz, Axios
Within hours of taking office, President Donald Trump has signed 26 executive orders into existence, the largest number to be signed on a president’s Inauguration Day ever. Not only have these orders rescinded 78 previously implemented orders by the Biden administration, but they also have far-ranging effects, impacting an assortment of areas including foreign policy, social programs, immigration, the environment and energy, and criminal justice.
Of these executive orders, eight are focused on immigration rights, refugee laws, and the situation along the US-Mexico border. Chief among these was his move to declare the crisis at the border a national emergency, allowing Trump to swiftly and easily redirect funds and deploy military troops into the area. To give this additional support, he also passed a second order “clarifying the military’s role” in national security, referring specifically and repeatedly to the borders and the military’s role in guarding against an invasion. In doing so, he grants the Secretary of Defense the power to mobilize thousands of troops to send to the border.
In addition to executive orders focused on the southern border, Trump also passed an order regarding “protection from foreign terrorists,” introducing new criteria for screening across agencies for those trying to enter the country. Some of these new criteria include being screened to the “maximum degree,” requiring immense background information and identification requirements that many immigrants can’t provide.
Of the other five orders, three speak specifically on guarding against invasions, with one stating that Homeland Security Task Forces will be deployed in all states, and another saying entry immigration into the US has been halted until further notice. The third suspends the United States Refugee Admission Program (USRAP), eliminating the pathway for refugees to enter the country. Finally, a fourth ends birthright citizenship, meaning that even though someone might be born in the United States, that does not automatically make them a US citizen.
Along with all these executive orders, Trump also promised numerous times throughout his campaign to begin a “mass deportation” campaign targeting 1.4 million illegal immigrants in the U.S.. Local police and departments across the country have pushed back on these orders, saying they will not engage in harsh deportation raids. Yet when comparing the number of ICE arrests made over the past couple of months (283 in September 2024 versus 500 within Trump’s first three days in office), it appears that Trump’s plan is already in full swing.
Worries remain high across the country surrounding these immigration orders, especially within families with children in school after Trump overturned the 2011 policy banning immigration arrests at schools. In cities such as Chicago, previously busy areas have significantly dropped in foot traffic, and general sentiment throughout the streets has shifted remarkably. Despite Trump’s short time in office, the effects of his actions have reverberated throughout the country, and his administration has made one thing clear: this is only the beginning.
United Kingdom: Why are the Conservatives pinning their electoral chances on the controversial ‘Rwanda Plan?’
Written by Luke Wagner; Edited by Chloe Baldauf
UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has pinned much of his conservative party’s electoral success on the passage of the controversial ‘Rwanda Safety Bill.’ After narrowly avoiding a far-right conservative rebellion in the House of Commons, the bill is next headed for a vote in the House of Lords where its fate is anything but certain.
Sunak’s government has championed the Rwanda Plan as the solution to tamping down the country’s high immigration. In 2022, the UK and Rwanda struck a deal to respond to a dramatic increase in refugees arriving in Britain from across the English Channel via small boats arranged by human trafficking gangs.
The East African nation agreed to accept Britain’s illegal migrants and provide them “safe” asylum in exchange for £240 million with £50 million more to come. However, many in the UK were not convinced. In November 2023, the Supreme Court ruled that this agreement was unlawful because there was not sufficient protection against Rwanda’s government deporting migrants back to their countries of origin – which would breach international humanitarian law.
Despite this legal setback, Rishi Sunak’s government vowed to move forward with the proposal while bringing it in accordance with UK and international law. These changes are what had many far-right MPs prepared to revolt against the policy they deemed not forceful enough. However, for the sake of party unity, those far-right members in the House of Commons backed down from their threats and voted for the bill.
The bill now sits with the unelected House of Lords. Their traditional role is to amend legislation passed by the elected House of Commons, however, since the Conservatives do not constitute a clear majority in the House of Lords, opposition members have suggested that they have the responsibility to block this legislation. Lord Alex Carlile, a leading British barrister and independent member of the House of Lords, signaled his intention to oppose the bill that he called a “step towards totalitarianism.”
Although it could feasibly be blocked, the tailwinds may be in favor of stricter immigration policy. Earlier this month, polling revealed 64% of Brits believed that immigration rates are “too high” – the highest rate since YouGov began surveying this question in 2019.
If Sunak is unable to offer up a viable solution to high immigration, his prime ministership may be at risk. Another YouGov poll released this week has been causing anxiety amongst Tories who were predicted to lose their majority in the upcoming election to the Labour Party with the heaviest loss in parliamentary seats since 1997. However, if the Labour Party is held responsible for the rejection of the bill in the House of Lords, their electoral chances could suffer alongside Sunak’s.
All the while, Rwanda’s President Paul Kagame said to reporters Thursday that his government is prepared to receive the migrants whenever or if they come.