Austria proposes the construction of centers for expulsion outside Europe

Austria, the country in office in the rotating presidency of the European Union, proposes the creation of deportation centers for migrants furoi from the European territories. The proposal aims to aggregate the right-wing and increasingly intolerant governments towards the phenomenon of migration, overcoming the conflicts generated by the European provisions concerning the division of refugees and the first reception system, which concerns the countries of the south, which generates the so-called secondary emigration to countries that do not face the Mediterranean, causing strong disputes among European member countries. It is a solution clearly coming from the right that tries to solve the problem with its almost complete cancellation. In practice, deportation centers should be set up outside the European territory to send migrants without the requirements to stay in Europe. The excuse to justify such a solution is the fight against trafficking in human beings, however, net of the hypocrisy of the Austrian proposal, its feasibility appears to be problematic, both with regard to Community law, and to the availability of finding practical solutions with the collaboration of others. States. Certainly there is the way of funding to those nations that could declare themselves available to such a collaboration, in part the experience with Turkey has taught a lot, but the aspects to be evaluated seem multiple: from the actual willingness of foreign states to build these deportation centers, under the conditions of these fields, both hygienic and sanitary, to the treatment of migrants expelled at these sites until the next moment after this phase of expulsion, which should provide for repatriation to their places of origin: certainly a series of procedures complicated, difficult to ascertain and do not prevent expelled migrants from attempting a new entry into Europe. A solution that seems even more difficult than alternative management. For Austria, the only concern is to officially avoid the presence of migrants on European soil to avoid conflicts between member states. But this solution has as its contraindication and main obstacle the inability to stop the migratory flows of the desperate who have as motivation the war, the famines and the violence present in their countries. It does not seem possible to stop those who leave their country for these reasons and the most immediate consequence will again leave the coastal countries to manage immigration. The Italian interior minister, who seems to like the Austrian solution, would show little foresight in supporting this management methodology, which would once again leave Rome alone in the face of migration. At the basis of this solution, then, there is also the criterion of limits of capacity for integration of migrants in the states, based on the fact that not all migrants have the same capacity for integration in Western societies, for Austria the level of of social peace and adaptability to European values, based on the origin of migrants; this criterion appears to be in contrast with Community legislation which does not discriminate, on the basis of the migrant's identity, the possibility of remaining in the Union. These reasons seem to deny the justification of the fight against trafficking in human beings, because they highlight a will to close to other cultures, thought in a total manner, without even the filter of humanitarian motivations. As far as Europe is concerned, such a solution would further expose the danger of a forfeiture of the Schengen Treaty, with the consequence of the removal from the Union's founding reasons. The migration theme is once again a limit to the very idea of ​​Europe as it has been understood until now, threatening to overturn the European plant with dangerous consequences that go far beyond the migratory problems, often increasingly used as a means of imposing a new vision through which to discredit the European rules in force. But thinking about unworkable solutions, both from a practical and legal point of view, and without any hope of producing real results capable of effectively mitigating the migratory phenomenon, because they do not solve the causes but only the effects, is an indication of poor attitude to government and is the expression of a short-sighted and low-level political class, capable, and only partly, of looking not far in time and space.