In recent years a fresh wave has surfaced in populist circles across the continent: remigration.

The phrase refers to calls for mass removal of people without legal status, with some voices extending it to settled residents convicted of grave offenses.

After circulating mainly in fringe circles, the idea now features regularly in mainstream debates, as officials speak of entering an age of large-scale expulsions.

A key milestone came with the European Parliament's adoption of the Return Regulation on 17 June.

Through cooperation between centre-right and far-right blocs, plus last-minute backing from some liberal members, lawmakers endorsed one of the strictest migration texts in recent memory.

The measure, met with chants of return demands, permits member states to send irregular arrivals and rejected asylum seekers to holding facilities in non-EU nations.

It further expands powers for police agencies, prompting warnings of an American-style enforcement model taking hold in EU migration rules.

A costly plan with unclear gains

Apart from clear risks to basic rights noted by the UN rapporteur on migrant rights, remigration also collapses under economic scrutiny.

Consider Italy, which pioneered offshore processing via its 2024 deal with Albania.

The country currently counts roughly 339,000 people without papers amid a total population of 59 million. Interior ministry figures show each enforced return in 2025 averaged about 3,600 euros.

Added to that are the running expenses of the facilities themselves. Independent analyses place daily bed costs near 79 euros, with typical stays lasting around 40 days.

Using these inputs, remigration across Italy would total near 2.2 billion euros. Even these projections are cautious, since analysts flag that infrastructure outlays often run 30 to 40 percent above initial quotes.

Offshore sites bring no savings.

The Albanian centres cost Italy about 74 million euros, almost twice the planned 39 million. Each bed runs near 72,000 euros versus roughly 5,000 euros inside Italy. With every extra outlay included, five-year spending on the Albania project could hit 1 billion euros, far above the 670 million euros originally budgeted.

Results remain minimal. Recently converted for returns, the sites now sit vacant.

This snapshot already shows the symbolic nature of such steps.

The goal appears to be scoring political points instead of fixing a system under strain. A notable share of Italy's irregular residents stems from prolonged cuts to reception services.

Chronic shortfalls and slow paperwork leave many migrants in limbo. Even legal entry routes frequently end in irregular status.

Authorities issued around 450,000 work permits for 2023-2025 and plan 500,000 more for 2026-2028 to fill labour gaps. Each permit requires a matching residence agreement.

Yet latest records show that of 26,000 arrivals under the scheme in 2025, only 14,000 secured contracts. The other 11,000 slipped into irregularity through paperwork lags or employer misconduct.

Caught in the deterrence loop

Viewed through evidence, remigration looks barely feasible. Even supporters struggle to outline workable steps.

Still, its rhetorical pull shows leaders have largely dropped measured migration strategies.

The EU New Pact on Migration and Asylum, active since 12 June, illustrates the pattern. Its heavy tilt toward tougher rules threatens due process at borders without truly changing departure choices.

A Mixed Migration Centre poll of 4,000 travellers on Mediterranean routes found 64 percent would keep moving despite tighter policies.

The pact also advances external processing further. Return hubs lock in a long-running pattern and raise it higher, allowing detention in any third country via basic deals with minimal oversight.

This marks the newest step in a management style that assumes only informal, legally vague tools can succeed.

The EU now sits deep in the deterrence trap: an all-out focus on controls that may ease political pressure briefly but fail long-term and give radicals openings to chip away at the centre. By betting on ambiguous steps for quick gains, the bloc risks its core principles and leaves many people in greater peril without delivering real outcomes.