After a heated debate on Wednesday in the European Parliament in Strasbourg, MEPs voted by 418 to 218 in favour of legislation that tightens up the rules on failed asylum seekers and streamlines the deportation process.

The legislation contains provisions to force third-country nationals with a return decision to cooperate with the authorities and leave EU territory; the possibility of detention to prevent absconding; the removal to non-EU territory, including “return hubs”; and stricter rules for those who pose a security risk.

Removing irregular migrants with no right to remain has been a long-standing problem for EU countries. In 2025, the return rate was only 28 per cent, according to the European Commission, and this was still the highest return rate of the previous 10 years.

“With the Migration Pact [which came into effect in June] we secured the front door; today we secured the back door. The final piece of the European migration system is now in place,” Malik Azmani, a Dutch MEP rapporteur on the Returns regulation, told a press conference.

Today’s legislation, together with EU Pact on Migration and Asylum, is a response by European institutions and member states to growing concerns about the pace of migration to the bloc among EU citizens, who consistently rank it among their top priorities and support a common European policy on migration and asylum.

Though the rate of irregular migrants crossing Europe’s borders has been falling since 2021 – data from Frontex, the European Border and Coast Guard Agency, show that such arrivals fell by 26 per cent in 2025 to almost 178,000, less than half that in 2023 – asylum claims in 2023 and 2024 still reached over a million each year.

The legislation was also in part a response by the European Commission to the rightward shift of the EU’s parliament following the last European elections in 2014. This divide was reflected in the response to the vote, which was cheered by MEPs of the right-leaning party groupings like Patriots For Europe and the European Conservatives and Reformists Group, but greeted with shouts of “shame on you” by MEPs from left-leaning parties.

“This regulation tells everybody that it is us and not the smugglers deciding who can stay in the European Union and who must leave,” said Magnus Brunner, the EU’s commissioner for migration.

The idea of setting up deportation centres outside the bloc, once a fringe idea, is a central piece of today’s legislation and such “return hubs’ are being actively looked at by countries such as Denmark, Austria, Greece and Germany.

“Our goal is to conclude the first agreements for the creation of these structures in 2026, so that they are operational from 2027,” Kyriakos Mitsotakis, the Greek prime minister said on Sunday.

Can you remember the first time you heard about “tradwives”? I can’t, and yet I have the vague feeling that at some point a handful of years ago, all at once, the term became inescapable. On phone screens across the United States, beautiful women with glossy hair seemed to materialize en masse, flipping sizzling patties of meat and rocking impossibly calm babies. Conservative commentators embraced them as evidence that women want to stay home. Critics called them agents of a regressive right-wing agenda.

Now, in 2026, Americans seem just as captivated. This spring, Caro Claire Burke released her debut novel, Yesteryear, which follows a modern-day tradwife influencer who wakes up in 1855 and has to face what “traditional” life really looks like. It became a near-immediate best seller; Amazon MGM Studios snatched up the film rights, with Anne Hathaway set to star and produce. In April, Hulu began airing the series The Testaments, a sequel to The Handmaid’s Tale that depicts teen girls trained to be docile homemakers. Instead of math or English, they’re taught to embroider, to cook—and to regard a provider husband as the ultimate goal.

The truth, though, is that the tradwife—as symbol, TikTok genre, source of fascination, and wedge in America’s culture war—doesn’t easily map onto a real-life category of person. The women who post about their impeccable meals and beloved husbands might be better understood as businesswomen; some are making huge sums from this work, supporting their families. And other stay-at-home mothers—well, they’re not all in it for the love of domesticity. Many are just exhausted, low-income moms who can’t afford child care. “The real path to becoming a tradwife,” Jessica Calarco, a sociologist at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, told me, “is typically through economic precarity.”

The housewife of popular imagination has never been much more than a fantasy. Even the 1950s homemaker—an iconic vision of domestic bliss, standing in the kitchen in heels and a frilly apron—represented only a small slice of mid-century women, Caitlyn Collins, a Washington University in St. Louis sociology professor, told me. White women with high-earning husbands were generally the ones who could afford to stay home, while many other women—especially women of color, whose husbands made far less on average—had to work low-wage jobs to help pay the bills.

Since then, the situation has flipped: Child care has grown so expensive that many low-income women who want to work can’t afford to get a job. Of course, plenty of struggling moms are still employed outside the home; many of them rely on family members, neighbors, or older kids to watch young children for free, as some women of previous generations did. But not everyone has that option. A great number of parents, especially ones without college degrees, are struggling to bear the cost of professional child care. In low-income families, if only one parent works, they tend to be eligible for much-needed state benefits. But if both work, they might fall into what Calarco calls the “missing middle” of America’s social safety net: Their combined salaries bump up their income just enough that they no longer qualify for aid. And then they need to pay for child care—which, without assistance, they simply can’t manage.

When one parent in a straight couple needs to stay home, that role typically falls to the mother—even when both partners say they want an egalitarian division of labor, Calarco told me. Male-dominated fields tend to be higher-paid, she said, so a lot of women feel that giving up their job simply makes most sense; then, in many cases, their husband finds that any hope for a raise lies in working longer hours. The women are left with an even heavier burden of unpaid labor—and a shrinking likelihood of getting back into the workforce. Once those women are financially dependent, she added, some of them grow afraid to ask their husband for more help: “They have no bargaining power.”

This is the precarity-to-tradwife pipeline. Families with stay-at-home moms are three times more likely than dual-income families to fall below the supplemental poverty line, according to one report from the think tank Century Foundation. For her book Holding It All Together: How Women Became America’s Safety Net, Calarco surveyed about 2,000 parents across the U.S.—and found that among families with stay-at-home moms, roughly 75 percent had a household income under $50,000 a year. Roughly half of those families were receiving food stamps and Medicaid, and more than two-thirds reported difficulty paying bills. And although some of these moms really did want to stay home with their kids, most of those she interviewed said they’d love to get a job if they could.

There's some people in the comments saying "fandoms have always been like this" and others saying "No, it's worse than it was." And both are to some extent right. Fans (or at least a small percentage of fans, and the larger a fanbase gets the larger a group this will describe) have always been Like That; but they did not always have the level of access to creators and actors that they have now.

The notion that a performer needs to be constantly available to public scrutiny, that their personal information should by default be available to any rando with google, is pretty new. It used to be that actors would only be expected to engage with the public on limited, specific, and controlled occasions, usually with security provided. Now they're being asked to rawdog exposure to the mob 24/7 on their own.

(Also, production companies have always always always been exploitative cowards, just to get that straight; reading the biographies of literally any actress from golden Hollywood years makes that clear. It's just, again, more public now.)

Human Perry art by my personal favorite PnF fan artist @chio-chan2artbox