The European Union’s push to set up migrant return hubs in non-EU countries could create new long-term risks, including weaponized migration and stranded populations vulnerable to exploitation, some experts warn.
Approved by the European Parliament in late March and now in its final negotiation stages, the regulation is part of the EU’s broader migration overhaul.
It would allow member states to send rejected asylum seekers to detention centers in countries outside the bloc with which the EU has agreements, reinforcing a shift toward outsourcing migration management.
However, while “return hubs” is a fairly new addition to EU vernacular, “tools that allowed for the externalization of migration management have a much longer history,” Alberto Tagliapietra, a senior program coordinator at the Mediterranean Policy Program at the German Marshall Fund, told The Parliament in an email.
While relying on non-EU countries may bring short-term benefits, experts warn of long-term consequences. Some of those who spoke to The Parliament said policies focused on external handling of migrants could open the door to third-party countries’ weaponization of migration for political gains, while raising fresh questions over fundamental protections and rights.
Risks of outsourcing migrant management
The EU has already experienced partner countries leveraging their sway over migrants. In February 2020, Turkey opened its borders, allowing thousands of migrants to head toward Greece as Turkish President Recep Erdoğan sought to renegotiate a previous migration deal with the EU.
In May 2021, nearly 8,000 migrants entered the Spanish enclave of Ceuta from Morocco in just two days. Rabat relaxed border controls in response to Spain’s hospitalization of a Western Saharan separatist leader from a movement banned in areas under Moroccan control.
Later that year, Belarus encouraged migrants to cross into Poland, Latvia and Lithuania, seeking to pressure the EU into lifting sanctions imposed after the Belarusian government’s crackdown on protesters and demonstrators following the 2020 presidential elections.
According to Başak Yavçan, head of research at the Brussels-based Migration Policy Group think tank, it's risky to lean too heavily on third countries to manage migration: “This is not the primary objective of these countries,” she said. “They will do it for as long as the benefits they get from the EU exceed the cost of keeping these migrants."
The risks of relying on partner countries might also extend into wider security concerns.
According to Tagliapietra, while return hubs are unlikely to increase the risk of terrorism the EU, they could fuel instability elsewhere. "The security threats deriving from these policies are in fact more relevant for origin and transit countries," he wrote, adding that the EU's migration agenda — and the consequences for failing to meet it — could deepen political divisions and fuel public discontent.
Similarly, senior research fellow Joana de Deus Pereira of the Royal United Services Institute wrote in an email to The Parliament that migration is not the main driver of terrorism. However, "if you place people, whether deported migrants or local populations, in situations marked by insecurity, marginalization and lack of future prospects," she said, "you are increasing the likelihood that some individuals may be drawn into or exploited by radicalized groups."
Meanwhile, Yavçan argued the EU's current focus on returns and externalization diverts attention from integration, “which is actually a much more sustainable long-term policy response.”
Strengthening integration could also reduce the risk of radicalization within Europe itself. A recent study by the International Centre for Counter-Terrorism found that out of 55 perpetrators involved in 43 terrorist attacks in Europe between 2014 and 2024, only five had been in the EU for less than a year; the rest were either born in Europe or had lived there for at least five years.
Tagliapietra adds that long-term gains could also come from supporting job markets in origin countries, tackling corruption — a key driver of migration, according to a study by the MIGNEX Horizon project — and strengthening reintegration processes for returnees to avoid repeated migration.
Legal safeguards under pressure
Still, tighter borders and more stringent migration management have found broad support in Brussels.
"After years of deadlock, Europe will finally have the tools to enforce its own migration rules," said MEP François-Xavier Bellamy (EPP, FR), the group negotiator for the return regulation, in a press release after the March vote.
Likewise, MEP Tomas Tobé (EPP, SE) group vice chair and the Parliament’s chief negotiator on the Migration Pact, also defended the necessity for a tough line on returns: "Without enforcing return decisions, there is no credible migration policy,” he said.
Yet critics warn that externalization nonetheless carries significant legal risks.
The regulation weakens fundamental rights, wrote Iskra Kirova, advocacy director for Europe and Central Asia at Human Rights Watch, in an email to The Parliament. Instead of voluntary departures and individualized assessment, the new system, she said, is one “centered on coercion, detention and externalization of responsibilities to third countries."
Other parts of the EU’s new asylum and migration framework have also courted skepticism.
Ambiguities around the “safe third country” concept and the definition of “safe country of origin” could lead to violations of migrants’ rights, experts say. As Kirova said in a February interview, the new approach “erodes the right to territorial asylum in Europe.”
While the right to asylum is enshrined in international law, critics say the new regulations leave room for applications to be rejected without proper case-by-case assessment. "We don't know how it would actually be implemented in practice," Kirova said.
Safe third countries may also not be equally safe for everyone. According to Yavçan, not assessing claims individually could be dangerous for certain migrants, as treatment may vary based on gender, religion or sexual orientation.
One of the countries on the ‘safe countries of origin’ list, Tunisia, inked a migration deal with the EU in 2023 covering border management, search and rescue and anti-smuggling measures. The agreement has been criticized by NGOs, lawmakers and the EU Ombudsman, with reports linking EU funding to abuses against migrants.
"The EU needs to approach partnerships with third countries in a more careful and realistic way," said Pereira, stressing that any cooperation must be tied to real, verifiable standards.
Sign up to The Parliament's weekly newsletter
Every Friday our editorial team goes behind the headlines to offer insight and analysis on the key stories driving the EU agenda. Subscribe for free here.