EU Declares Seven Nations Safe to Speed Up Deportations

In a significant recalibration of the European Union’s asylum policy framework, the European Commission has officially published a revised list of seven countries designated as “safe,” signaling a strategic tightening of its migration management approach. The countries newly classified as safe include Kosovo, Bangladesh, Colombia, Egypt, India, Morocco, and Tunisia. This development represents a direct response to the mounting backlog of asylum claims across the Union, as well as intensifying political and electoral pressures in numerous member states, particularly those where right-wing and anti-immigration parties are gaining traction. The implication of this designation is that asylum applications submitted by individuals originating from these countries will now be subject to an accelerated evaluation procedure, on the presumption that applicants are unlikely to face persecution or inhumane treatment upon return to their country of origin.

The announcement, delivered by the EU’s Commissioner for Migration, Magnus Brunner, was framed as a pragmatic administrative necessity rather than an ideological move. According to Brunner, “many member states are facing a significant backlog of asylum applications,” necessitating procedural reforms that enable faster decision-making and reduce systemic congestion. In practical terms, the listing of these seven countries enables EU immigration authorities to deprioritize or swiftly reject claims deemed inadmissible under the revised risk calculus, thereby optimizing resources and focusing adjudication efforts on cases with a higher probability of fulfilling the criteria set forth by the 1951 Refugee Convention and its subsequent legal instruments in European law.

The reactivation and expansion of the “safe countries” list marks a return to policy considerations that were first tabled in 2015, during the peak of the migration crisis triggered by the Syrian civil war and other regional conflicts. At the time, however, the initiative collapsed amid intense political disputes, notably over the inclusion of Turkey—a country that remains absent from the present list, suggesting continued ambivalence or strategic reticence regarding Ankara’s human rights record and its complex bilateral relationship with the EU.

The current context for this policy shift is markedly different, shaped by a surge in irregular border crossings and a discernible hardening of political rhetoric around migration in several key member states. Countries such as Sweden, Italy, Denmark, and the Netherlands have emerged as vocal proponents of expedited returns and stricter border enforcement, pressing the European Commission since October to deliver legislative mechanisms capable of deterring unlawful entry and facilitating removals. These countries, particularly under conservative or right-leaning governments, have framed the irregular influx not merely as a humanitarian or administrative challenge but as a threat to domestic social cohesion, public security, and the integrity of national welfare systems.

The Italian government, in particular, has claimed a diplomatic victory with the formal adoption of the new safe country list. Italian Interior Minister Matteo Piantedosi characterized the policy shift as “a success for the Italian government,” emphasizing that Rome has been consistently active at both the bilateral and multilateral levels in pushing for a revision of the asylum regulation architecture. Italy’s stance reflects its geographical position as a frontline state for maritime arrivals, many of which originate from or transit through North African and South Asian territories now included on the list.

This policy recalibration thus cannot be understood in isolation from broader political dynamics within the Union. It represents both a technical modification of asylum processing procedures and a symbolic affirmation of the EU’s intent to assert greater control over its borders in an era of growing populist sentiment and electoral volatility. The migration question—once framed predominantly in terms of humanitarian obligation and European solidarity—has increasingly become a litmus test for the legitimacy of the Union’s governance structures and their responsiveness to domestic constituencies skeptical of open-border policies.