EU Leaders Discuss New Migration Policy: The Concept of ‘Return Hubs’

The European Union’s Migration Policy: Exploring New Horizons

The European Union is at a crossroads regarding its migration policy, with leaders advocating for a strategy that may involve outsourcing certain aspects of this complex issue. This was the central theme during the recent gathering of the 27 EU leaders in Brussels, where they reached a consensus to investigate “new ways” to tackle irregular migration. The language used was intentionally ambiguous, allowing for flexibility in future negotiations. However, one concept that captured significant attention was the idea of “return hubs.”

“It’s not trivial, but this is a topic that is being discussed,” noted European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, confirming that the concept of “hubs” is officially under consideration. The proposal aims to manage asylum seekers whose applications have been denied, meaning they no longer have the right to remain within the EU. While nationals from countries such as Syria, Eritrea, Ukraine, Mali, and Afghanistan have a high likelihood of receiving protection, individuals from nations like Pakistan, Bangladesh, Senegal, Nigeria, and Venezuela often face rejection rates below 20% and are typically denied asylum.

Currently, a denied asylum seeker remains in the member state until deportation is executed. However, the new initiative proposes that some or even all of these rejected migrants may be transferred to facilities situated outside EU borders while they await their final removal from the bloc. Although this project appears straightforward, it is fraught with numerous legal, economic, and operational challenges that could hinder its success.

Key Questions for the EU to Address

  • Where will the hubs be located?
    To actualize this untested plan, the EU will need to identify a non-EU country willing to host the return hub within its borders. Past outsourcing efforts suggest a tendency to favor low-income nations. The UK and Denmark previously explored controversial agreements with Rwanda, which ultimately did not materialize. Italy has established a long-term protocol with Albania to develop and manage two processing centers in the Balkan nation. Recently, the Netherlands proposed sending asylum seekers to Uganda after they have exhausted all legal avenues. These arrangements are largely bilateral, leaving uncertainty about which nation would be amenable to hosting a hub at the EU level, particularly one that would accept asylum seekers rejected from any of the 27 member states. Albania has already indicated that its agreement is “exclusive” to Italy. Eva Singer, the director of the asylum department at the Danish Refugee Council, commented, “EU countries are speaking as if they can dictate terms outside of the EU, but we are dealing with independent nations that have their interests.” She added, “I doubt these countries would take on the responsibility that Europe wishes to offload. If this were to happen, I also foresee a heavy-handed approach to forcibly deport rejected asylum seekers.”
  • How much will the hubs cost?
    It is reasonable to assume that the EU will bear the entire financial responsibility for the construction and management of the proposed return hubs, thereby relieving the host country of any financial obligations. The costs associated with this operation are difficult to estimate. The two centers that Italy has established in Albania are projected to cost around €670 million over the next five years, with a goal of processing up to 36,000 asylum applications each year. However, applying Italy’s example on an EU-wide scale is misleading because the Italian hubs primarily aim to expedite the processing of applications and determine who qualifies for international protection. They are not intended to serve as long-term accommodations for rejected asylum seekers, a function that would require additional time and resources.
  • How long will migrants be kept in the hubs?
    Transferring individuals to a “return hub” effectively constitutes detention, as they will not be permitted to leave until their deportation is finalized. Under existing EU legislation, member states can detain rejected asylum seekers if there is a risk of them absconding or if they obstruct the deportation process. The Return Directive stipulates a maximum detention period of one year, along with provisions for judicial oversight throughout the process. The European Commission has committed to proposing a revision of this directive, as previous attempts stalled in Parliament, which could allow for extended detention periods. However, the longer migrants remain in external facilities, the greater the likelihood of human rights violations, warns Olivia Sundberg Diez, a migration expert at Amnesty International, highlighting the risk of creating a “legal limbo” for migrants. “When we discuss ‘return hubs,’ we often refer to sending asylum seekers from the EU to countries where they have no ties, where they have never set foot, and where they may linger in detention indefinitely,” Sundberg Diez stated.
  • What will happen if deportation fails?
    This question is intrinsically linked to the previous one and serves as the primary motivation behind the discussions on “return hubs.” The EU has faced persistent challenges in executing successful deportations due to a complex array of factors, including varying national legislation, administrative hurdles (as return orders are often not recognized between member states), law enforcement issues (where authorities lose track of migrants), and diplomatic obstacles (countries of origin refusing to accept their nationals back). As a result, the EU has achieved a deportation success rate of only 20% to 30%, meaning the vast majority of the 100,000 return orders issued quarterly fail to result in actual deportations. This ongoing failure has frustrated leaders and sparked calls for “innovative solutions.” However, merely establishing “return hubs” does not guarantee that deportations will become more efficient; it simply means that rejected asylum seekers will be kept outside the EU, away from public scrutiny. It is entirely feasible that migrants could be sent to these hubs and remain trapped there indefinitely if their home countries refuse to accept them or if conditions do not permit safe, dignified deportations. Consequently, in tandem with the hubs, the Commission has pledged to revise the concept of “safe third countries” and employ additional tools (such as visa policies, trade agreements, and development aid) to persuade other nations to cooperate.
  • Will the hubs be legal?
    The legality of outsourcing migration has been a contentious issue. The UK-Rwanda plan faced scrutiny at the British Supreme Court before its eventual cancellation. Most recently, the inaugural transfer of migrants under the Italy-Albania protocol was halted by judges in Rome, who ruled that Bangladesh and Egypt could not be deemed “safe” enough. To implement the “return hubs” concept, Brussels will need to fortify its proposal to withstand scrutiny from the European Court of Justice. A 2018 document from the Commission indicated that “externally located return centers” could be illegal, as EU law prohibits the forced transfer of migrants to countries they have neither originated from nor traversed. Even if the bloc were to amend its regulations, it would still risk contravening the principle of non-refoulement, which forbids deporting migrants to nations where they may face persecution, torture, or any other form of mistreatment. “The legality of this scenario is questionable in terms of EU values,” the document concluded. Moreover, Brussels may encounter another obstacle: international law. The EU treaties explicitly connect to the 1951 Refugee Convention, which states that “refugees should not be penalized” solely for seeking asylum, and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) imposes strict limitations on detention to ensure humane treatment. “A concept such as return hubs risks undermining fundamental human rights standards, including due process and access to asylum procedures,” asserts Florian Trauner, dean of the Brussels School of Governance. He notes that the EU could negotiate a “non-binding political commitment” with the host country to evade the ECJ’s oversight, but “the success of this approach will largely depend on how the concept is executed.”

More From Author

The Knicks Take Over Charlotte: A Preseason Encounter

ASML Faces Stock Plunge After Early Earnings Release and Revised Sales Outlook

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *