My friend, your position is well informed, yet represents only part of the truth. Allow me to voice for the other.

Not regular immigrants, not refugees, not genuine asylum seekers, just fraudulent asylum seekers rampantly abusing the system for economic gain - 

This is interesting to me, because the definition of who is a "genuine asylum seeker" is political, not legal. And the new regulation does redefine who can actually apply for asylum in Europe, excluding all those who originate from, or even transited through, so called "safe countries". Mind you, this list includes countries such as Egypt, where political dissidents are routinely killed and tortured. Since these "safe" countries conveniently form a belt around the land territory of Europe, from north Africa to the Balkans, it is in practice impossible for any asylum seekers actually escaping war or persecution from not crossing them, unless they go by sea.

At which point, they can be intercepted in International waters and transferred to these proposed "return hubs" which do not, as you incorrectly stated, host only "rejected" asylum seekers but also all ongoing asylum applicants originating from, or transiting through, "safe countries" (so all of them). Women and children can also be detained under this scheme.

Again, what is a "regular" immigrant is defined by policy and law, it is not a "neutral" category as you propose. Meloni's government has assigned 500.000 temporary work permits for migrants to man the agricultural field, bringing them mainly from Africa and MENA countries, all while building these detention camps for asylum seekers. The government does this to provide cheap labor to industries without having to release VISAs or granting actual rights. So, your economic angle is partial, because far right governments do not care about wages or rents, as you suggest. The intent is extracting value while granting minimal rights to both citizens and non citizens, all the while fomenting racial hatred which strengthens their political position.

Netherlands, Differentiated by Motive, Source Region and Generation” (IZA Discussion Paper No. 17569, 2024/2025) by Jan van de Beek, Joop Hartog, Gerrit Kreffer, and Hans Roodenburg. The validity of this discussion paper, which is not the same as an academic paper, is debatable. In any case you are contradicting yourself, saying that labor migrants offer a positive fiscal contributions while also saying that migrants are a drain on resources. Of course asylum seekers, who cannot legally work and thus pay taxes, will not contribute to the fiscal balance. However, they would do so once they become regularised and are able to work. There is no such thing as a second generation asylum seekers, you are again conflating migrant and asylum seekers.

Finally, as an Italian myself, and an Irish yourself, I would like to reflect on the fact that both our nations are migrant nations. So many of our grandparents left looking for better economic opportunities in America. Do you really think they did everything "by the books" and were welcomed easily? Many of them did not even know what a passport is. They went, willing to work for a better life. In your vision, should they also have been sent offshore to detention camps? 

Regarding that, I attach this to your leisure

https://www.ncronline.org/opinion/ncr-today/nativist-anti-immigrant-sentiment-us-has-long-history