The Albania Case: Execution, Not Deterrence

The Albania Case: Execution, Not Deterrence Welcome to a new episode of the podcast Integration or ReImmigration.I am Attorney Fabio Loscerbo. Few recent initiatives in European migration policy have generated as much controversy as the Albania model. Public debate has largely framed it in terms of deterrence, symbolism, or political provocation. This framing misses the essential point. The Albania case is not about deterrence. It is about execution. At its core, the Albania model represents an attempt to restore the State’s capacity to execute immigration decisions that already exist in law. It does not create new grounds for removal. It does not redefine who is entitled to protection. It addresses a different and more fundamental problem: the chronic inability to carry out procedures once they have been legally concluded. For years, European systems have accumulated final decisions that remain unenforced. Asylum denials, non-renewals, and return orders pile up without execution. The legal process reaches a formal conclusion, but reality does not follow. This gap between decision and implementation is where governability collapses. The Albania model intervenes precisely at this point. By relocating certain procedural phases outside the national territory, it seeks to secure the physical and administrative conditions necessary for execution. The objective is not to scare future migrants, but to ensure that existing rules are actually applied. This distinction matters. Deterrence operates on expectations and fear. Execution operates on legality. A system based on deterrence is inherently unstable, because it depends on messaging rather than structure. A system based on execution is predictable, because it depends on institutions. Critics often argue that externalization undermines rights. This concern deserves serious consideration, but it cannot be addressed through slogans. The relevant legal question is not where a procedure takes place, but whether legal guarantees are preserved. Jurisdiction, access to legal remedies, procedural safeguards, and oversight are what determine legality, not geography alone. When procedures are conducted within a clear legal framework, external facilities can function as extensions of the legal order rather than as zones of exception. The Albania model tests this possibility. Its legitimacy depends on transparency, judicial control, and respect for non-refoulement. These are legal criteria, not political preferences. What makes the Albania case significant is that it challenges a deeply rooted assumption: that execution is either impossible or morally unacceptable. By investing in infrastructure and cooperation, the model asserts that execution is a normal component of migration governance. It reframes return as a logistical and administrative issue, not as an ideological battle. This reframing has broader implications. If execution is treated as unmanageable, integration loses credibility. Obligations become symbolic. Protection expands without limit. By contrast, when execution is feasible, the entire system regains balance. Integration becomes meaningful, and protection remains sustainable. The Albania model also exposes the cost of inaction. Without execution, States resort to temporary measures, emergency regularizations, or informal tolerance. These responses are often presented as humane, but they produce long-term instability and inequality. Execution, when lawful, is more honest than indefinite limbo. It is important to emphasize that the Albania case does not eliminate judicial scrutiny. On the contrary, it depends on it. Courts remain essential to ensure that each individual case is assessed and that return occurs only where lawful. Execution without legality would be force. Execution with legality is governance. For the paradigm Integration or ReImmigration, the Albania model is instructive. It shows that the central question is not whether return should exist, but whether the State is willing to build the capacity to make it lawful and ordinary. It demonstrates that without execution, law becomes performative. In the next episode, we will move from a specific case to a general reflection. We will examine State capacity itself: why institutions matter, why control structures are indispensable, and why immigration governance ultimately depends on the strength of the administrative State. Thank you for listening.Questo episodio include contenuti generati dall’IA.