Italy’s New Immigration Policies: Offshore Asylum Processing and Stricter Work Permit Regulations

May 20, 2025
3 min read

Italy’s government, led by Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, has introduced groundbreaking immigration policies in 2025 aimed at curbing irregular migration and addressing labor shortages. These include a pioneering offshore asylum processing agreement with Albania and significant reforms to work permit systems under the Decreto Flussi 2025. While these measures align with the EU’s broader migration strategy, they have sparked debates over legality, human rights, and economic sustainability.

Italy-Albania Offshore Asylum Deal: A Controversial Experiment

Key Features of the Agreement

In November 2023, Italy signed a bilateral treaty with Albania to process asylum claims in offshore centers, marking the first EU initiative to externalize migration management. The agreement, which has been operational since 2024, enables Italy to transfer a maximum of 3,000 migrants each month to two facilities located in Albania:

Shëngjin Port: Initial screening and biometric data collection.
Gjadër Center: Full asylum processing and potential repatriation.

Under the deal, Italy retains legal jurisdiction, while Albania provides security. The first group of 16 migrants—primarily from Egypt and Bangladesh—arrived in May 2025, but legal challenges have already delayed proceedings.

Legal and Ethical Challenges

Safety of Third Countries: Italian courts blocked repatriations to Egypt and Bangladesh, citing risks to minorities like LGBTQ+ individuals. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) stressed that for a country to be considered a "safe third country," it must be safe for all categories of individuals.
Cost Concerns:The daily cost of processing each migrant in Albania is €297, which is nine times greater than the cost in Italy. Critics argue that this makes the approach financially unsustainable.
EU Scrutiny: While praised by EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen as “innovative,” the deal faces opposition from human rights groups. The ECJ’s pending ruling in 2025 could invalidate the scheme if Albania is deemed non-compliant with EU law.

Stricter Work Permit Systems: Decreto Flussi 2025

Quota Increases and Digital Reforms

Italy’s Decreto Flussi 2025 allocates 181,450 work permits for non-EU workers, focusing on sectors like agriculture, healthcare, and tourism. Key updates include:

Three-Year Planning: Multi-year quotas (2023–2025) for stability.
Digital Domicile Requirement: Employers must use certified email (PEC) for immigration communications.
Faster Labor Market Tests: Response time reduced from 15 to 8 days to expedite hiring.

Sector-Specific Allocation

Category	Quota	Key Sectors
Non-Seasonal Workers	70,720	Construction, healthcare, transport
Seasonal Workers	110,000	Agriculture, tourism
Self-Employed	730	Entrepreneurs, freelancers

Broader Implications for EU Migration Policy

Shift Toward Externalization

Italy’s Albania deal mirrors the EU’s growing interest in offshore processing. Countries like Austria and Denmark have expressed support, while the EU’s 2026 Migration and Asylum Pact aims to accelerate deportations10. However, systemic challenges are evident as only 19% of EU deportation orders are actually carried out.

Balancing Labor Needs and Border Controls

Despite strict policies, Italy faces acute labor shortages. The Decreto Flussi 2025 aims to fill 120,000 annual vacancies in sectors like construction and elderly care6. Yet, critics argue that bureaucratic hurdles—such as mandatory housing checks and biometric requirements—delay integration

Conclusion: Italy’s New Immigration Policies

Italy’s policies reflect a Europe-wide pivot toward stricter migration controls. While the Albania deal offers a blueprint for external processing, its legal and financial viability remains uncertain. Similarly, the Decreto Flussi 2025’s digital reforms may streamline labor migration but risk excluding low-income workers. As the EU watches closely, Italy’s experiment could redefine continental migration governance—or underscore the limits of deterrence-driven strategies.

READ MORE