Albania Case: Why Without Integration Assessment There Can Be No Effective Deportation Policy

The so-called “Albania Case” offers a useful lens for a U.S. audience to understand a structural problem that is not limited to Europe, but is increasingly relevant across Western legal systems: you cannot build an effective deportation policy if you do not first establish a clear legal criterion to distinguish who should remain and who should be removed.

In recent months, the European Union has introduced new amendments on the concept of “safe countries of origin” (February 2026), aiming to accelerate asylum procedures and facilitate returns. On paper, this looks familiar to American observers: it resembles efforts to streamline removals through categorical assumptions about country conditions. However, in practice, the system continues to face a fundamental legal constraint—individualized assessment.

European courts, and particularly the Court of Justice of the European Union, have consistently reinforced a principle that is well known also in U.S. immigration law: you cannot rely on automatic or generalized assumptions when fundamental rights are at stake. Every individual case requires a concrete evaluation. This is precisely where the Albania model begins to break down.

Italy attempted to externalize part of its migration management by establishing processing centers in Albania. These centers were designed to accelerate procedures and, implicitly, to create a deterrent effect. But deterrence, as a policy objective, does not translate into a sufficient legal justification. Courts do not evaluate whether a system is politically effective; they evaluate whether it is legally sound.

As a result, the Albanian centers are increasingly underutilized. The issue is not logistical inefficiency—it is legal fragility. If each case must be assessed individually, then a system built on fast-track processing and presumptions cannot sustain itself under judicial scrutiny. This produces delays, suspensions, and ultimately a paralysis of the deportation mechanism.

For a U.S. audience, the parallel is clear. In the United States, removal proceedings already hinge on individualized determinations—whether based on asylum eligibility, withholding of removal, or protection under the Convention Against Torture. Any attempt to bypass that individualized framework would immediately face constitutional and judicial challenges. Europe is now encountering the same structural limit.

The real issue, therefore, is not how to make deportations faster, but how to make them legally sustainable. This is where the paradigm of “Integration or Reimmigration” becomes relevant.

Instead of focusing exclusively on enforcement at the final stage, this approach introduces a prior, structured assessment of integration. Integration is not treated as a vague social concept, but as a measurable legal criterion: employment, language proficiency, and compliance with legal norms. These elements allow authorities to determine, on an objective basis, whether an individual has developed sufficient ties to justify remaining in the country.

In practical terms, this changes everything. Facilities like those in Albania would no longer function as mere holding or processing centers. They would become sites for rapid integration assessment. Within a short timeframe, authorities could distinguish between individuals who have established meaningful connections—making removal potentially disproportionate—and those who have not, for whom removal can proceed more efficiently and with stronger legal grounding.

This model aligns with fundamental legal principles. It preserves individualized assessment, reduces reliance on presumptions, and strengthens the defensibility of removal decisions in court. At the same time, it enhances the effectiveness of enforcement by focusing resources on cases where removal is legally sustainable.

The key takeaway is straightforward. Deportation policy cannot function in a legal vacuum. Deterrence alone is not a legal standard; it is a political goal. Without a clear, structured, and individualized criterion—such as integration—any system of removals will inevitably face judicial resistance and operational failure.

The Albania Case demonstrates this with clarity. It is not simply a failed experiment in externalization. It is evidence that without a prior assessment of integration, no deportation policy—whether in Europe or elsewhere—can truly work.

Avv. Fabio Loscerbo
Lobbyist – EU Transparency Register n. 280782895721-36
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0004-7030-0428

• DDL Sicurezza 1869, protezione complementare e integrazione: il nuovo paradigma italiano
• Se le seconde generazioni aggrediscono gli insegnanti
• Milton Friedman aveva previsto il dilemma dell’Europa
• El nuevo modelo italiano de inmigración: integración, protección complementaria y derecho de permanencia
• Protezione complementare e integrazione: perché “Integrazione o ReImmigrazione” non è remigrazione