European Union officials have set in motion a scheme that could see thousands of irregular migrants transferred to detention centres in Rwanda, Uganda and other non‑EU states, a move critics say skirts the EU's own human‑rights obligations.

On 4 September, ministers from Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Austria and Greece gathered in Copenhagen to launch "technical discussions" with potential partner countries. The aim, according to the ministers, is to sign agreements before the end of the year and begin deportations as early as 2028.

The plan is part of the Return Regulation, adopted by the European Parliament in June. The legislation seeks to raise the proportion of people who actually leave after a return order, only 28 % complied in 2025, by speeding up expulsions and creating a legal basis for "return hubs" outside the Union.

How the new system works

Under the Regulation, a non‑EU national who is found to be staying without a valid permit can be issued a return decision. If the person cannot be sent back to the EU country where they first entered, because that would breach the principle of non‑refoulement, the authorities may instead arrange transfer to a third‑country hub that has signed a bilateral deal with the EU.

The hubs are intended to be managed by the host state, with the EU providing financial support and, in theory, oversight by the International Organisation for Migration (IOM) and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). In practice, both bodies have said they have not been consulted on the details of the proposals.

Once a migrant arrives at a hub, the EU's legal responsibility ends. The host country is free to decide how long the person stays, what conditions apply and whether any further deportation will follow. The Regulation does not set a maximum duration for detention in the hubs, nor does it require the host state to guarantee access to asylum procedures.

A fictional case illustrates the risks

To understand the practical implications, UnionPress has compiled a composite story based on four real testimonies. The fictional migrant, called "Cali", arrived in Greece in 2026, moved to Germany and was later identified by police through the EU's Interoperability Framework, a database that merged national migration records into a single searchable system in late 2026.

German authorities issued a return decision on the grounds of an illegal stay. Because sending Cali back to Greece would breach non‑refoulement, the EU's own 2025 assessment listed Greece among countries where asylum seekers face inhumane conditions, the German government began preparing a transfer to a third‑country hub.

Cali was placed in a detention centre while officials negotiated the destination. The Regulation allows up to 30 months of pre‑deportation detention, an increase from the previous 18‑month limit, and expands the grounds on which people can be held. After months of uncertainty, Cali was assigned to a hub in Rwanda.

Upon arrival, the EU's involvement formally ended. The hub's legal status, the length of Cali's stay and the conditions he would face remain opaque. The International Rescue Committee's EU advocacy director, Marta Welander, warns that such "black‑hole" arrangements make it virtually impossible to monitor human‑rights compliance.

Human‑rights groups sound the alarm

Human‑rights organisations argue that the Return Regulation's language on respecting international standards is vague and that the lack of clear criteria for selecting destination countries opens the door to violations. Both the IOM and UNHCR have publicly denied any operational role in the proposed hubs, contradicting statements from Denmark's migration minister Morten Bødskov, who claimed the bodies would supervise the centres.

Welander points out that the IOM has previously assisted the United States in returning migrants to countries where they faced serious risks, raising doubts about its willingness to act as a neutral watchdog. "Even if the IOM were present, that does not guarantee that the rights of people transferred to these hubs will be upheld," she said.

Refugees International's director Yael Schacher draws a parallel with the Trump administration's deals with Rwanda and other nations, noting that Europe is now adopting a "transactional" model that treats refugee protection as a temporary convenience rather than a binding legal commitment.

Legal challenges loom

Legal experts warn that the Regulation's reliance on the non‑refoulement guarantee, a cornerstone of the 1951 Refugee Convention, may not survive scrutiny in the European Court of Justice. The Regulation's allowance for transfers to countries with documented human‑rights concerns, such as Rwanda and Uganda, could be contested on the grounds that the EU is indirectly facilitating refoulement.

In 2025, the EU's own asylum agency listed several member states, including Greece, as unsafe for returnees. The new framework does not resolve the underlying problem of inadequate reception conditions within the Union; it merely shifts the burden to third‑party states.

Moreover, the increased detention period raises the risk of arbitrary detention. The European Court of Human Rights has repeatedly ruled that prolonged detention without a genuine prospect of removal violates Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Critics argue that the Regulation's 30‑month ceiling could be used to detain migrants indefinitely under the pretext of "pre‑return" procedures.

Economic incentives for third‑country partners

The EU's financial package for return hubs includes infrastructure investment, staff training and a per‑person subsidy. For cash‑strapped governments in the Global South, such deals are attractive. Rwanda, for example, has already received €200 million in EU funding for a pilot centre, while Uganda is negotiating a similar arrangement.

However, the financial incentives raise concerns about the commodification of human beings. Critics argue that the EU is effectively paying third‑country governments to host vulnerable people, a practice that could undermine the principle of solidarity that underpins the European migration framework.

Impact on migrants and households

For migrants like Cali, the system creates a prolonged period of legal limbo, during which they are often detained in overcrowded facilities with limited access to legal counsel, medical care and mental‑health support. The International Rescue Committee's recent visit to an Italian‑run detention centre in Albania, a model similar to the proposed hubs, documented "consistent reports of self‑harm and suicide attempts, severe psychological distress and a lack of sustained psychiatric support".

Families of migrants in the EU also feel the strain. The prospect of a loved one being sent to an opaque hub abroad fuels anxiety and can deter cooperation with authorities, potentially increasing the number of undocumented stays and undermining public safety.

Political motivations and public debate

The Return Regulation was championed by right‑wing MEPs who framed the issue as a matter of "border security". During the parliamentary vote, chants of "send them back!" echoed through the chamber, mirroring the tone of populist rallies in other parts of the world.

Supporters argue that the low compliance rate with existing return orders, 28 % in 2025, demonstrates a need for stronger tools. They claim that the hubs will relieve pressure on overburdened reception systems in Greece, Italy and Spain, allowing those countries to focus resources on integration of legally resident migrants.

Opponents, including trade unions and civil‑society groups, counter that the policy shifts costs onto the most vulnerable and risks breaching international law. They point out that the EU's own budget for asylum and integration has been stagnant, while spending on border enforcement has risen sharply.

What lies ahead

The next step for the five‑country coalition is a meeting in Munich scheduled for the end of September, where technical details of the hub agreements will be hammered out. Observers expect that the EU will seek to finalise contracts with Rwanda and Uganda within weeks, despite the lack of clear oversight mechanisms.

In the meantime, legal challenges are likely to be filed in national courts and before the European Court of Justice. Human‑rights NGOs have already prepared amicus briefs arguing that the Regulation violates the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

For migrants already caught in the system, the outlook remains uncertain. Without transparent reporting on the number of people transferred, the conditions they face and the duration of their stays, the EU risks creating a new class of "stateless" individuals who fall outside the protection of any jurisdiction.

As the EU pushes ahead with its deportation coalition, the balance between managing migration flows and upholding the rights of those seeking protection hangs in the balance. The coming weeks will reveal whether the Return Regulation becomes a functional tool for orderly returns or a source of legal battles and humanitarian criticism.