On 17 June, 2026, the E.U. formally
adopted a federal law, the Return Regulation, that allows states to set up “return
hubs” outside of the E.U. for the returning of migrants back to their
respective countries. On 29 June, 2026, elected representative in the Greens/EFA
party in the E.U.’s parliament “were prevented from carrying out a full
inspection of the Italian-run migrant detention centre in Gjadër, northwest
Albania—a facility at the center of one of [the E.U.’s] most debated offshore
migration experiments.”[1]
Even though Albanian police patrolled the perimeter of the facility, that it was
Italian-run means that state employees, rather than the foreign police, who
were thwarting federal lawmakers in their inspection of the facility even
though a federal law rendered the facility legal under federal law. Such
obstructionist behavior does not bode well for the E.U.’s federal system,
wherein both the federal and state legislative bodies are legitimate.
Rep. Tineke Strik, of the Greens/EFA
party, said at the time of the visit, “Today’s visit was very disappointing and
disgraceful. The staff really created a lot of obstacles for us.”[2]
By “staff,” she likely was referring to the Italians running the facility
rather than to the Albanian police outside, for police are never referred to as
staff. Also, Albania’s Interior Ministry had “previously stated that the
Gjadër centre operates as Italian territory, with Albanian police responsible
solely for perimeter security.”[3]
So managers from the E.U. state of Italy were the problem from the perspective
of the federal delegation. Rep. Strik went on to explain, “We didn’t get
any data, they didn’t answer any questions, and we were not allowed to really
go into the cells and see what the situation is like.”[4]
That a check on the Italian staff by federal officials was needed is evident
from Rep. Strik’s finding: “For the people we did manage to speak to here, it’s
clear they have problems asking for asylum, and many of them don’t see any way
out of a failed system.”[5]
Had the elected representatives in the Parliament known on 17 June that the
system was “failed,” the proposed legislation likely would have been defeated.
After the visit on 29 June, it is likely that a significant number of the representatives
who had voted yes were suffering “buyer’s remorse.” So, the visit and
inspection served a legitimate and thus valid purpose, and the obstruction that
the lawmakers encountered from the Italian staff was inappropriate.
That the visit was stymied by state
employees is significant from the standpoint of the E.U.’s federal system as a
whole, for one of the chief benefits of federalism is that the federal level
can act as a check on abuses of power at the state level, and vice versa.
Checks can and should work in both directions for liberty to be protected from
tyranny, which can occur at both levels in a federal system, and for the
legitimacy of both levels. In fact, that the states rather than E.U. citizens
are represented in the European Council (and U.S. states are represented in the
U.S. Senate, which is founded on principles of international rather than
national law) gives the state level a direct check on federal encroachments on
the prerogatives of the several states. That E.U. law (excluding directives,
which reply on implementation by the state governments) can have direct effect anywhere
on E.U. territory, including inside the Italian detention centre in Albania, acts
as a check on the power of states, for they are only semi-sovereign in
the E.U. Even qualified-majority voting in the European Council and the Council
of Ministers can be viewed as a check on a willful governor (e.g., Viktor Orbán)
of a state, whereas the principle of unanimity blocks such a check and thus
should be eliminated from the E.U.’s basic legal framework.
To be sure, perhaps the E.U.’s
Commission would have been more appropriate than legislators in the Parliament in
inspecting the Italian facility, for the Commission is the Union’s executive
branch, which sees that federal laws, directives, and regulations are
implemented whether by federal agencies or state governments. In contrast,
lawmakers—legislators—are forward oriented in terms of creating new law.
Had a delegation from the Commission have gone and been stymied, the Commission
could have recommended to the bicameral Parliament and European Council that
the Return Law be amended in some way that would better protect the human
rights of the migrants and require state employees to allow inspections with
full disclosure of information to federal officials visiting such facilities “off-shore.”
Furthermore, it would be rather unwise for candidate states such as Albania, hosting
such facilities to block E.U. officials from entering the facilities run by
E.U. states. Fortunately, Albania kept clear of such obstructionism, and the
blame can be put squarely on the E.U. state of Italy.
Interestingly, just hours
before writing this essay, I showed my book on the E.U. and U.S. federal systems,
entitled Essays
on Two Federal Empires, whose cover-picture depicts the star-studded
flags of the E.U. and U.S. (the stars on both represent states), to a
young college student newly arrived in California from Italy. She visibly bristled
as if in abject denial when she looked intensely at the picture on the cover. I
wonder whether the staff at the Italian facility in Albania presumed that
E.U. lawmakers had no right to inspect an Italian facility even though
Italy was at the time a semi-sovereign state in the E.U.’s federal
system. It was obvious to me that the young woman would barely speak to me
after seeing my book’s cover, so obdurate was her state of ideological denial
that she may even have presumed that the arrogance was mine. Political
socialization, which bears on equivalences, evidently starts early.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.
