EU’s new migration plan: ‘Return hubs’ in 3rd countries spark debate

In efforts to curb irregular migration, the EU is preparing to legalize “return hubs” in third countries.

It is a move criticized for potentially leading to human rights violations.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen presented her “return strategy” to the European Parliament on March 11, listing it among her priorities for the first 100 days of her second term, which began Dec. 1.

Von der Leyen first disclosed the contents of the strategy last summer in a letter to member states shortly after securing a second five-year term following European Parliament elections.

Citing the 2023 return agreement between Italy and Albania as an example, von der Leyen signaled that innovative ideas, such as facilities established in third countries, would be implemented.

The approach mirrors the U.K.’s 2022 plan to send asylum seekers who entered the country illegally to Rwanda.

Von der Leyen’s proposal, which resembles the “Rwanda plan,” has been criticized by some EU leaders and international human rights organizations for risking violations of asylum rights, arbitrary detention and restrictions on personal freedoms, but it has also garnered broad support.

A legislative proposal presented to the European Parliament on Wednesday underscored that all such initiatives would be given a legal framework.

The draft law notes that only 20% of rejected asylum seekers in the EU can be sent back and aims to speed up and make the processes more effective.

The EU seeks to remove the issue from the jurisdiction of individual member states and bring it under EU-wide regulations, shortening bureaucratic procedures and ensuring that a deportation order issued by one country is valid across all member states.

Plan to deport rejected asylum seekers to 3rd countries

The most critical element of the package is the legal basis for sending migrants to centers established in third countries, an idea supported by right-wing leaders, including Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni.

If von der Leyen’s proposal becomes law, rejected asylum seekers could be sent not only to their home or transit countries but also to any third country with which the EU has an agreement.

Hanne Bierens, director of the Migration Policy Institute Europe, one of the organizations contributing to the Commission’s legislative proposal, told Anadolu that the political will behind the draft is to send voters a message of a tougher and more effective approach to returns.

“You see that the political stance that wants to be tougher on migration really has been able to weigh in on the proposals,” Bierens said.

Noting that her institute contributed to the draft regarding communication between member states and reintegration support for returnees, Bierens added: “The political messaging is an important one, but the question remains whether that results in a more effective return.”

“So ultimately, if the aim is to be able to send people back, we know from the past years that the more effective approach is to build more sustainable, long-standing partnerships with third countries so that it facilitates readmission. It’s very important to invest in reintegration programs so that people who need to be returned can have a dignified return, can gain support, and can also build up a new future.”

The Migration Policy Institute director emphasized that return centers are the most striking aspect uniting member states around the draft law, stating: “We saw that the definition has been reviewed. In the past, it could only be that a person is returned to their country of origin or transit, but with the preference for the country of origin now, it can be a safe third country.”

“It can be a country that they have the right to enter, or it could be a country that an EU country has an agreement or arrangement with. And if we look at what the proposal does, it’s very vague as to what are some of the safeguards, or what are some of the underpinning principles that such an agreement should respect. It needs to outline how you will transfer the person to that country. It needs to outline the conditions of entry. It needs to outline if there’s going to be an independent mechanism or to monitor what’s happening there. That’s really a big question mark.”

Bierens also pointed out that the draft also has problematic points for the EU.

“As we’ve seen with other models like (in the) U.K., Rwanda, or Italy, Albania, where European countries have sought to externalize their migration management, is that (it is) extremely expensive. For example, in the Italy-Albania deal, calculations of the costs, or the costs that would have to be attributed, could go up to €1 billion.”

“And that’s (just an) example of the budget that’s now laid aside or earmarked for the Belgium reception agency for 35,000 places every year. So, it’s an extremely expensive measure. I often refer to it as the kind of Rolex policy instrument that still just tells you the time but is extremely expensive and has very little effectiveness.”

She stated that the draft also paves the way for forced returns, but research indicates voluntary returns should be encouraged.

No longer send back, it is just send

Flor Didden, a migration expert at a nongovernment organization (NGO) 11.11.11, noted that the inclusion of return centers in the strategy had been debated for months.

Didden emphasized that countries of origin are often unwilling to cooperate on readmissions, meaning migrants would be held in return centers in third countries until their home countries agree to take them back.

“They will be kept in detention centers in third countries, so out of control of the European Union, and then we have no guarantees whatsoever that their rights will be respected. What will happen to them if the country doesn’t accept them, do they stay in detention? So, there are a lot of questions to be asked there, and so we say that they will offer no solution whatsoever to the challenges that the EU is facing,” Didden said.

He argued the draft abandons the idea of “connection criteria,” which involves sending migrants back to their countries of origin and providing favorable conditions for them to build a new life.

“People must have resided in a country or have some meaningful links with the third country. Now, actually, you can send back rejected asylum seekers to whatever country that will accept them.”

“And so, this is also highly problematic, I think, to send people or to not send them back, because they might have never been in the country; (this is sending) them to countries in which they have no link whatsoever. And I think also that you cannot talk about sustainable returns when you send people there.”

“It’s much less likely that it’s a durable return that they will want to stay in this country. So, this is something that we think should be deleted from the proposal and also the return apps. We ask the Belgian government and Belgian members of the European Parliament to really get these ideas out of the proposal.”

Referring to agreements like the Italy-Albania deal, which the draft law builds upon, Didden said: “Our analysis is that these kinds of experimental, innovative solutions have largely failed, (even though) there have been some. Some people have been sent through these centers, but almost all of them were immediately released because of decisions of Italian courts that they could not be helping detention there.”

“So, (it) all part of this whole externalization trend that we’ve been seeing for years. Whereas it should be within the EU itself, to make durable and efficient systems for asylum, but also for return, not looking at third countries where you lose all control (and) invest a lot of money in it. These types of agreements are super expensive. And also, in terms of diplomacy, a lot of diplomatic assets and energy are put into where we visit. All this money and energy should really be put (to) solutions that do work.”

He pointed out that the proposals in the draft reflect the political climate currently dominating the EU.

“We have seen that there are 13 member states that addressed the European Commission in a letter last year where they really called upon the commission to set up innovative solutions. And so, a lot of these member states have right-wing parties in government that want to show (they are) very tough on migration,” he said.

“But then, in practice, we know that these ideas do not work. So, it’s mainly to look tough, but there’s very little real content inside them,” he added.