As Europe stands at a crossroads, with impending reform to its asylum system – the "Safe Third Countries" deal – that is supposed to take place in 2026, the present article delves to the critical discourse surrounding hospitality practices and the values that Europe wants to show or demonstrate, urging a critique of policies and practices that shape the experience of persons seeking refuge within European borders. This contribution wants to set an alarm bell for the future that Europe has decided to follow. Indeed, in 2026, a new reform to the asylum system is to take place.

The reform aims to simplify procedures at the Union’s borders, which may result in the detention of more asylum seekers at the external borders of Europe and, consequently, the exclusion of these individuals from entering the territory of the European Union. Furthermore, the reform expands the use of the "Safe Third Countries" rules. The "Safe Third Countries" concept is open to question, as it allows for the transfer of asylum seekers to countries deemed safe, which may not always be the case (Council of European Union 2024). One illustrative example is the Italian government's proposal to establish a detention and relocation centre in Albania for migrants intercepted in Mediterranean waters. Such a centre would effectively prevent migrants from entering EU territory.

Italy's proposal: detention and relocation in Albania

The Italian government is funding the establishment of a center in Albania, situated in the northern port of Shengjin. The center will be managed exclusively by the Italian government and is expected to remain operational for a period of five years, with the possibility of an extension contingent upon its efficacy in reducing the number of migrants arriving on Italian shores and in curbing the practice of clandestine crossings of the Mediterranean Sea. The Italian government's initiative to transfer the responsibility of asylum bureaucratic procedures to another country, which is not part of the EU, may be replicated by other EU states that perceive the Italian "example" as a means of garnering votes from segments of society that perceive migrants as a threat to their economic, social, religious, and welfare conditions.

When migrants are framed as a threat, a discourse akin to that of war emerges. The threat is then treated as a security issue and met with defensive procedures, including securitization, border surveillance, practices of refoulement, and externalization of hospitality. What insights, if any, can be gained about the concept of hospitality from this externalization of asylum bureaucratic procedures?

Hospitality redefined: theoretical perspectives

In general terms, hospitality can be described as a two-party social interaction between the host and guest, in which both parties contribute to the enactment of (in)hospitableness. It is comprised of three fundamental elements: an action, an attitude, and a principle. In light of Ben Jelloun's (1999) perspective, hospitality should be understood as a moral and ethical stance against forms of racism. The practice of welcoming, or the action of hospitality, can be seen as a counter to exclusionary practices. The act of opening oneself to others, or attitude, reflects a willingness to embrace the stranger despite any prejudices that may exist. Such an attitude is coupled with the principle of disinterestedness, which transcends economic transactions or self-service motives.

This principle advocates for a genuine acceptance. Accordingly, the three cornerstones of hospitality as outlined by Ben Jelloun are as follows: an action (a welcome), an attitude (the opening of oneself to the face of another), the opening of one's door and the offering of the space of one's house to a stranger, and a principle (disinterestedness) (Ben Jelloun, 1999: 1-2).

Reluctant hospitality: Europe's inhospitable approach

The decision to welcome someone implies the existence of a threshold, boundary, and, in the case of migrants reaching Europe, of a geopolitical border. These sets of limits can be crossed or upheld. The type of boundary to be crossed—bridge or wall—determines the host's willingness to be hospitable and the attitude toward the "strangers." The Italian government's decision to construct a refugee center outside its territory and outside the borders of the EU is indicative of a lack of willingness to provide hospitality to migrants. Furthermore, this decision demonstrates a lack of respect for the fundamental principles of hospitality, as previously discussed. By externalizing these responsibilities, Europe is effectively closing itself off from the rest of the world. There is a clear absence of welcoming gestures, and the principle of disinterestedness is not even considered, as migrants are prevented from entering the EU space.

This reluctance of European countries to accept migrants can be defined as reluctant hospitality, which is characterized by the unwillingness of host communities to welcome migrants due to fear and prejudice. This portrayal of migrants as unwelcome or as threats to social stability contributes to the overall reluctance of European countries to welcome "strangers." Once migrants have been intercepted in the Mediterranean, they are not brought into European soil; rather, they are brought into the refugee center in Albania. This relocation of responsibilities (despite the assertion that the center is still under Italian regulations) exemplifies the inhospitable approach that Europe is taking towards those who are referred to as "others." Furthermore, the relocation of individuals into refugee centers exemplifies a method of social control, a tool utilized to regulate and control those perceived as "other" or as strangers.

In the context of refugee centers, migrants seeking asylum are effectively confined to a specific point in time and a particular location. As a condition of their stay, asylum seekers are required to remain within the confines of the designated area and to await the outcome of their case. This sort of reluctant hospitality is therefore highly associated with immobility, as it frequently restricts the freedom of movement of migrants in refugee centers and lacks access to ways of asking for asylum. Such reluctant hospitality can be seen as a meticulous and strategic immobilization and confinement of migrants within the host country, whether Italy or Albania, which serves to reinforce the image of Europe as a fortified entity—Fortress Europe.

This relocation of migrants to Albania may serve to illustrate the inherent difficulties associated with seeking asylum and the potential breach of the principle of non-refoulement. Furthermore, it underscores the externalization of borders beyond the confines of the EU, achieved through the establishment of agreements and partnerships with non-EU countries, exemplified by Albania. This is not the first instance of such agreements with non-EU countries. Other notable examples include the agreement between Greece and Turkey and the one between Italy and Libya, which primarily focus on the refoulement of migrants to these third countries upon interception at sea.

Such agreements seek to transfer the responsibility for the practice of hospitality. One might inquire whether hospitality can be externalized. The question thus arises as to whether this is even a possibility. If we accept that the threshold between the guest and host spaces must be crossed for hospitality to occur, then the externalization of refugee centers represents a failure to do so. In essence, we are discussing inhospitality procedures rather than asylum procedures.

By prioritizing the prevention of migrants entering the EU over the question of responsibility, Europe is turning its back on its counterpart, making it rejected, externalized, and invisible. It appears that Europe has largely failed to acknowledge the role of migrants as integral to the continent's own history. This is despite the fact that "refugees are not the product of crises external to Europe; they are a product of Europe itself – as both a project of global domination and a fragmented geopolitical assemblage" (Picozza 2021: 7). Has therefore Europe become a fortress of indifference? Has it become an exclusive club? As already mentioned, the externalization of refugee centers represents a strategy for circumventing legal obligations that EU states would otherwise be bound to uphold in the event of migrants reaching European soil.

In this manner, Europe effectively relinquishes its responsibilities to safeguard the rights and dignity of migrants, in accordance with the principles of universal rights that are regarded as fundamental tenets of both European democracies and the international system. In essence, the externalization of responsibility serves to displace the "burden" of welcoming migrants out of sight. Indeed, by relocating asylum seekers to third countries, Europe effectively distances itself from the ethical responsibility of welcoming and integrating migrants. This practice challenges the very essence of hospitality, which involves a direct and personal interaction between host and guest.

Eurothanasia: the consequences of closed borders

This form of reluctant hospitality towards migrants reflects a resistance to the presence of newcomers within EU territory. As a result, this restrictive practice entails the externalization of hospitality, restricted access to asylum procedures, and more rigorous border controls. This prompts the question of whether such reluctant hospitality is a consequence of a willingness to self-preservation. If this is the case, and if self-preservation is indeed a possibility, what is Europe self-preserving from? One might posit that it is a concern related to the possibility that a significant influx of newcomers, unfamiliar with the local culture, could potentially alter it. Is it then a concern about maintaining cultural identity and values? What are these values?

Reluctant hospitality reflects Europe's self-interest in ensuring the stability and security of its community. However, such defensive behavior is merely the response of an anxious continent that closes its borders to strangers. This counterproductive practice is ultimately undermining the basic importance of the ongoing relation between the inside and outside of a community or entity. The practice of reluctant hospitality and the externalization of border policies serve only to reveal the darker values and morals that exist within Europe. This ultimately leads to a situation that could be described as Eurothanasia.

Reimagining hospitality: embracing diversity and cohabitation

It is imperative that we begin to consider the implications of closed borders. The existence of impenetrable borders, which are in fact often permeable, serves only to reinforce the false perception of a homogeneous and unified community, both within and beyond the self. Furthermore, the erection of fortified borders gives rise to the misleading notion of safeguarding the "inside" from any potential contamination by a perceived external threat. History has demonstrated that the establishment of such barriers ultimately leads to the self-annihilation of the entity in question. Once more, the externalization of hospitality practices will result in the emergence of barbarism, where hospitality becomes a matter of determining who is worthy of being welcomed and who is not.

This highlights the socially destructive tendencies of the current era and will show how we will soon be shut permanently into a pathetic and punishing prospect. It is therefore imperative to emphasise the necessity of reopening the possibilities for cohabitation that do not rely on narratives of either inclusion or exclusion. Given that difference is an inherent and unavoidable aspect of human existence, it is crucial to foster an environment where diversity is embraced as a foundation for exchange rather than confrontation. This shift in perspective should serve as a catalyst for the development of alternative geopolitical imaginaries.

Notes

1 Ben Jelloun, Tahar (1999). French Hospitality: Racism and North African Immigrants.
2 New York: Columbia University Press.
3 Council of the European Union (2024, May 14). “The Council adopts the EU'pact on migration and asylum”, Consilium.
4 Picozza, Fiorenza (2021). The Coloniality of Asylum: Mobility, Autonomy and Solidarity in the Wake of Europa’s Refugee Crises. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.