Italy sends another group of 26 rejected migrants to Albania
The Italian navy ship Spica left the Italian port of Brindisi on Tuesday and docked in the Albanian port of Shengjin, about 65 kilometers (40 miles) northeast of the capital, Tirana, with 26 migrants, government sources in Rome said.
The transfer was also confirmed by sources at the port. From there, migrants are usually transferred to a second detention center in Gjader, 20 kilometers (12 miles) farther inland.
The Italian government has not released the migrants' nationalities or other details.
Both facilities in Albania, which are run by Italian authorities, were originally built to process asylum requests of people intercepted in the Mediterranean Sea seeking a better life in Europe by Italy. But after opening in October, Italian courts have stopped authorities from using them and small groups of migrants sent there have returned to Italy.
In March, Italy's far-right government led by Premier Giorgia Meloni approved a decree that expanded the use of the Albanian fast-track asylum processing centers to include the detention of rejected asylum-seekers with deportation orders.
It is not clear how long the migrants may be held in Albania. In Italy they can be detained for up to 18 months pending deportation. No information on the fate of the first group of 40 rejected migrants transferred in April is available. Local media have issued unconfirmed reports that 16 of them have been turned back to Italy.
The Albanian centers, which opened in October, welcomed three groups totaling 73 migrants in October, November and January. They spent only a few hours in Albania and were returned to Italy after Italian magistrates refused to validate their detention in the non-EU country.
The November 2023 agreement between Italy and Albania — worth nearly 800 million euros over five years — allows up to 3,000 migrants intercepted by the Italian coast guard in international waters each month to be sheltered in Albania and vetted for possible asylum in Italy or repatriation.
Italy has agreed to welcome those migrants who are granted asylum, while those whose applications are rejected face deportation directly from Albania.
——
Associated Press writer Maria Grazia Murru contributed from Rome.
___
Follow AP's global migration coverage at: https://apnews.com/hub/migration
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
an hour ago
- CNN
Judge pauses expedited deportations of migrants granted humanitarian parole
A federal judge on Friday paused the Trump administration's efforts to fast-track the deportation of migrants who legally entered the United States through humanitarian parole programs, marking a win for immigrant rights groups who argued the policy was illegal and dangerous. The ruling temporarily blocks the government from deporting individuals who were granted parole at ports of entry and were later detained — often without warning and in some cases after appearing at immigration courts — despite having valid documents, jobs or other pending forms of relief. 'In a world of bad options, they played by the rules,' wrote Judge Jia Cobb, an appointee of former President Joe Biden. 'Now, the Government has not only closed off those pathways for new arrivals but changed the game for parolees already here.' 'This case's underlying question … asks whether parolees who escaped oppression will have the chance to plead their case within a system of rules,' Cobb wrote. 'Or, alternatively, will they be summarily removed from a country that … may look to them more and more like the countries from which they tried to escape?' In her opinion, Cobb ruled that the policy likely violates the expedited removal statute and is 'arbitrary and capricious' under administrative law. The pause will remain in effect while the lawsuit proceeds. The formal order pauses enforcement of three Trump-era directives: a Homeland Security memo from January, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement directive from February and the March termination of parole programs for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans. Cobb's ruling applies specifically to people who were previously granted parole at ports of entry. This case marks one of the first major court challenges to immigration policy under President Donald Trump's second term and is widely seen as a bellwether for how federal courts will interpret executive power following the Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. CASA, which narrowed the scope of nationwide injunctions. At the heart of the lawsuit is the administration's decision to apply 'expedited removal' — a fast-track deportation process normally used for recent border crossers — to migrants who entered legally and were complying with government instructions. Under new guidance issued this spring, ICE agents began detaining parolees outside courtrooms and at checkpoints, often without giving them access to attorneys. Advocates warned the policy could put more than 2 million people at risk of summary deportation, including many who came to the US fleeing persecution and were pursuing legal pathways to stay. The challengers — led by Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA), CASA, and UndocuBlack — argued that DHS is violating the Immigration and Nationality Act by treating legally paroled migrants as if they had entered unlawfully. Their suit also raises due process concerns, saying the new policy endangers vulnerable communities without giving them a chance to be heard. Hillary Li, an attorney representing the challengers, said the groups 'are deeply committed to protecting our communities from the harms of expedited removal,' adding they are 'grateful the court recognized that this practice is unlawful.' The case is part of a broader legal fight over how far the executive branch can go in dismantling Biden-era immigration and parole policies.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Jess Glynne Criticizes White House for Using Viral Jet2 Holiday Sound in Deportation Meme: 'Makes Me Sick'
Jess Glynne, the British singer behind the 'Hold My Hand' song used in the viral Jet2 holiday meme sound, is responding to the White House's use of the audio to poke fun at ongoing mass deportations in the U.S. On Tuesday, the White House's official X account shared a video that seemingly showcases immigrants being deported from the United States. The popular Jet2 holiday meme is typically used to parody something unfortunate happening, and it was used on the White House's video with a caption that mirrored that of the voiceover from the meme. More from The Hollywood Reporter Former Vice President Kamala Harris Says She Will Not Run for California Governor in 2026 Samantha Bee Laments 'Late Show' Cancellation: "It's Awful" Avex Music Group and S10 Report Early 2025 Chart Successes 'When ICE books you a one-way Jet2 holiday to deportation, the White House wrote on X. 'Nothing beats it!' The 'Rather Be' singer reacted to the social post on Wednesday, disapproving of the administration's use of her song that she says was intended to spread positivity. 'This honestly makes me sick,' she wrote on her Instagram Story. 'My music is about love, unity and spreading positivity — never about division or hate.' Glynne is far from the first artist to publicly condemn the Trump administration for using their music. In March, rock band Semisonic similarly criticized the White House and Border Patrol's joint post of a man in handcuffs, accompanied by their song 'Closing Time.' The video was captioned, 'You don't have to go home but you can't stay here.' 'We did not authorize or condone the White House's use of our song in any way. And no, they didn't ask,' Semisonic said in a statement to the Associated Press. 'The song is about joy and possibilities and hope, and they have missed the point entirely.' During Donald Trump's 2024 presidential campaign, many musical acts disputed the Republican ticket's use of their music, including Jack White, Sinéad O'Connor, Celine Dion, Foo Fighters, ABBA and Beyoncé. Best of The Hollywood Reporter From 'Party in the U.S.A.' to 'Born in the U.S.A.': 20 of America's Most Patriotic (and Un-Patriotic) Musical Offerings Most Anticipated Concert Tours of 2025: Beyoncé, Billie Eilish, Kendrick Lamar & SZA, Sabrina Carpenter and More Hollywood's Most Notable Deaths of 2025
CNN
an hour ago
- CNN
Judge pauses expedited deportations of migrants granted humanitarian parole
A federal judge on Friday paused the Trump administration's efforts to fast-track the deportation of migrants who legally entered the United States through humanitarian parole programs, marking a win for immigrant rights groups who argued the policy was illegal and dangerous. The ruling temporarily blocks the government from deporting individuals who were granted parole at ports of entry and were later detained — often without warning and in some cases after appearing at immigration courts — despite having valid documents, jobs or other pending forms of relief. 'In a world of bad options, they played by the rules,' wrote Judge Jia Cobb, an appointee of former President Joe Biden. 'Now, the Government has not only closed off those pathways for new arrivals but changed the game for parolees already here.' 'This case's underlying question … asks whether parolees who escaped oppression will have the chance to plead their case within a system of rules,' Cobb wrote. 'Or, alternatively, will they be summarily removed from a country that … may look to them more and more like the countries from which they tried to escape?' In her opinion, Cobb ruled that the policy likely violates the expedited removal statute and is 'arbitrary and capricious' under administrative law. The pause will remain in effect while the lawsuit proceeds. The formal order pauses enforcement of three Trump-era directives: a Homeland Security memo from January, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement directive from February and the March termination of parole programs for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans. Cobb's ruling applies specifically to people who were previously granted parole at ports of entry. This case marks one of the first major court challenges to immigration policy under President Donald Trump's second term and is widely seen as a bellwether for how federal courts will interpret executive power following the Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. CASA, which narrowed the scope of nationwide injunctions. At the heart of the lawsuit is the administration's decision to apply 'expedited removal' — a fast-track deportation process normally used for recent border crossers — to migrants who entered legally and were complying with government instructions. Under new guidance issued this spring, ICE agents began detaining parolees outside courtrooms and at checkpoints, often without giving them access to attorneys. Advocates warned the policy could put more than 2 million people at risk of summary deportation, including many who came to the US fleeing persecution and were pursuing legal pathways to stay. The challengers — led by Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA), CASA, and UndocuBlack — argued that DHS is violating the Immigration and Nationality Act by treating legally paroled migrants as if they had entered unlawfully. Their suit also raises due process concerns, saying the new policy endangers vulnerable communities without giving them a chance to be heard. Hillary Li, an attorney representing the challengers, said the groups 'are deeply committed to protecting our communities from the harms of expedited removal,' adding they are 'grateful the court recognized that this practice is unlawful.' The case is part of a broader legal fight over how far the executive branch can go in dismantling Biden-era immigration and parole policies.
