What makes a country safe? Europe's asylum debate intensifies

Europe has wrestled with how to handle asylum seekers since the 2015 migration crisis, which saw over a million arrivals. 

Despite a drop in arrivals in recent years, a series of high-profile crimes linked to migrants in Germany since January 2025 has injected fresh urgency into Europe's asylum debate. 

At the core of the discussion is a fraught question: What qualifies as a "safe country" for rejected asylum seekers to be deported to? 

While the issue is not new, shifting political priorities and recent legal challenges have placed it under unprecedented scrutiny.

Shifting definition of safety

Traditionally, a "safe country of origin" is one where citizens are unlikely to face persecution, allowing European governments to expedite deportations. 

However, Italy's recent decision to expand its list of safe countries to 19 - including Bangladesh and Egypt - has exposed the political sensitivities surrounding these classifications. 

At the end of February, an Italian court ruled that neither Bangladesh nor Egypt should automatically be considered safe, citing risks to minority groups. The case has since been referred to the European Court of Justice, raising broader questions about EU asylum policy.

Italy is not alone in confronting this issue. In Germany, the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) has capitalized on growing concerns over crime and migration, calling for an expanded list of safe countries to speed up deportations. 

At a recent parliamentary hearing, government representative Ralf Kanitz argued a country should only be considered safe if it guarantees protection for all segments of its population. 

Meanwhile, opposition figures warned that drawn-out legal battles over safety classifications risk undermining confidence in the asylum system.

Similar debates are unfolding elsewhere in Europe. 

In France, Interior Minister Jean-Marc Durand stated on 15 February that "we must rigorously reassess our criteria for safe countries to ensure they reflect not only general conditions but also the risks faced by vulnerable communities." 

Meanwhile, in the Netherlands, Migration Minister Ingrid van der Meer recently stressed that "it is essential that our asylum system is built on detailed assessments rather than broad generalizations."

Meloni's flagship 'Albania model'

Amid this discord, member states have increasingly turned to external solutions - outsourcing asylum processing or strengthening deportation agreements with third countries. 

Perhaps nowhere is this debate more pronounced than in Italy, where the government has taken an aggressive approach with the "Albania model." 

Under this scheme, asylum seekers intercepted in the Mediterranean are transferred to detention centers in Albania, where their claims are processed within 28 days. 

Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has framed this initiative as a signature policy to deter unauthorized migration and expedite returns. However, legal challenges continue to mount with the European Court of Justice expected to weigh in on the legality of the scheme in the coming months. 

For Meloni, however, the Albania model remains a prestige project she is unlikely to abandon despite mounting legal and political headwinds. 

Challenges of a unified approach

The ongoing European asylum debate reveals a landscape of experimentation and frustration, as policymakers seek a balance between upholding humanitarian commitments and responding to domestic demands for control over migration. 

The EU has long sought a cohesive asylum system, but defining a shared list of safe countries remains a daunting challenge. 

A roundtable discussion in Brussels in February exposed deep divisions among member states. 

While representatives from 17 EU countries pushed for a "paradigm shift" to facilitate deportations, others warned that broadening safety classifications could lead to protracted legal disputes, ultimately delaying removals.

Unresolved debate

As Europe navigates these legal and political complexities, the broader asylum debate is far from settled. 

The question of what makes a country truly "safe" is no longer a mere legal designation - it reflects a deeper struggle to balance national security concerns with international obligations. 

Whether the EU can reach a consensus remains uncertain, but with political pressures mounting and policies diverging, the issue is unlikely to fade anytime soon.