Anadolu Ajansı © 2026
"Send them back! Send them back!"
The chants echoed through the European Parliament chamber on Wednesday as lawmakers approved some of the EU's toughest migration measures in years, prompting applause from right-wing and far-right lawmakers and cries of "shame on you" from the left.
The scenes underscored how dramatically Europe's migration debate has shifted. Once considered politically controversial, plans to send rejected asylum seekers to deportation centers outside the bloc are now moving closer to becoming reality after European lawmakers backed the EU's new Return Regulation with 418 votes in favor and 218 against.
At the center of the reform are so-called return hubs, facilities in third countries where rejected asylum seekers could be transferred while awaiting deportation — a policy supporters say is necessary to restore control over migration but critics warn could undermine fundamental rights.
European Commissioner for Internal Affairs and Migration Magnus Brunner called the vote “an important step towards bringing our European house in order.”
The European Commission first unveiled the proposal in 2025 as part of a broader effort to address what EU officials described as shortcomings in the bloc's return system.
Wednesday's vote came less than a week after the EU's Pact on Migration and Asylum entered into force, introducing a common migration framework and paving the way for measures such as return hubs.
At its simplest, the proposal would allow EU countries to send rejected asylum seekers to facilities located outside the bloc while authorities prepare their deportation.
Under current rules, migrants are generally returned either to their country of origin or to countries with which they have a connection.
The new regulation would remove that requirement for return hubs. Migrants could potentially be transferred to third countries where they have never lived and with which they have no personal links.
The facilities could serve either as transit centers before deportation or as locations where migrants remain while authorities seek cooperation from their countries of origin.
At least on paper, the hubs would operate only in countries that respect human rights and international law. Unaccompanied minors would not be transferred, although families could be.
The proposal is intended to address what European governments describe as a “chronic weakness” in the bloc's migration system.
According to Eurostat figures, only around 29% of people ordered to leave the bloc are ultimately returned.
The proposal's growing appeal reflects a broader rightward shift in European migration politics.
While irregular arrivals have fallen in recent years, migration remains one of the most potent issues in European politics, helping anti-immigration parties gain ground and pushing mainstream parties toward tougher positions.
A YouGov survey conducted across seven European countries in late 2025 found majorities in Germany, France, Britain and Italy supported significantly reducing immigration, while between 45% and 53% favored either halting new immigration altogether or deporting large numbers of recent arrivals.
According to a recent Gallup poll, the UK was the country most likely in the world to identify immigration as its biggest national issue, with 21% of respondents naming it as their primary concern. Among European countries, the figure stood at 13% in the Netherlands, 12% in Portugal and Malta, 11% in Ireland and 8% in Germany.
Charlie Weimers, a Swedish lawmaker from the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) group who participated in negotiations on the legislation, said public frustration with migration policies has been building for years.
"Citizens have had enough of 'last night in Sweden', 'last weekend in Paris', and far too many similar incidents across Europe," Weimers told Anadolu.
"For those illegal migrants who refuse to go home and think they can just wait out detention, we need an alternative solution: return hubs.”
Critics, however, argue that the timing reflects politics as much as policy.
"The shift in the EU's positioning towards offshoring return procedures is clearly linked to the rise of the far right across Europe and the mainstreaming of its narratives and policies," Silvia Carta, advocacy officer at the Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants (PICUM), told Anadolu.
"The 2024 EU elections also led to a right-wing and far-right majority in the European Parliament, which allowed sufficient political backing for these policies to be adopted quickly and without sufficient consideration for their potential human rights impact,” she added.
While political agreement has been reached, many of the practical questions remain unanswered.
The biggest is where the facilities will actually be located.
Several governments, including Germany, Austria, Denmark, Greece and the Netherlands, have publicly supported external return arrangements and have begun exploring possible partnerships with third countries.
"Our goal is to conclude the first agreements for the creation of these structures in 2026, so that they are operational from 2027," Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis said this week.
German Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt has similarly said Berlin hopes to reach agreements with third countries by the end of the year.
Still, finding countries willing to host Europe's deportation centers may prove easier said than done.
Media reports have linked countries including Rwanda, Tunisia, Mauritania, Egypt, Uganda, Kenya, Uzbekistan, Ethiopia and Montenegro to discussions about potential return-hub arrangements, although none has been officially confirmed.
"Member states have already started preliminary talks,” Weimers said. “The most logical partner countries will naturally be found in the regions from which the majority of illegal migrants originate.”
Carta questioned how such agreements might be secured and how the EU would ensure that partner countries meet international protection standards.
"It is unclear what could be used to leverage cooperation, but we can expect that member states will try to use trade, development funding or visas as bargaining chips to pressure third countries into these deportation agreements,” she said.
Previous attempts at offshore migration arrangements suggest implementation may prove difficult.
Italy's migrant processing facilities in Albania are widely viewed as a prototype for the broader European approach but have faced repeated legal and operational challenges.
Britain's Rwanda plan offers another cautionary example. After years of political disputes, court battles and hundreds of millions of dollars in spending, the scheme was ultimately abandoned before becoming fully operational.
Human rights groups argue that the practical and legal challenges may prove even more significant than the political ones.
"It is highly unlikely that these schemes could work without massive use of detention and surveillance," Carta said.
She warned that families with children could be transferred outside the EU while the regulation provides limited clarity on how rights protections would be enforced.
"The regulation does not say how cases of rights violations should be dealt with," she said. "These provisions do not make specific reference to fundamental rights, which raises many questions about oversight and management of rights violations."
Rights groups also point to provisions extending detention periods, strengthening entry bans and broadening authorities' powers to locate irregular migrants.
"The externalization provisions will certainly be the object of litigation," Carta said, warning that migrants could face arbitrary detention, violations of family life and breaches of the principle of non-refoulement.
She also argued that people transferred outside the EU may find it far harder to access lawyers and challenge decisions through European courts.
news_share_descriptionsubscription_contact
