Europe’s migration policy is entering a new and controversial phase as Germany, Austria, Denmark, Greece and the Netherlands move closer to establishing a migrant return hub in Uganda.
The five countries are working together on a system that could transfer people who have no legal right to remain in Europe to a facility outside the European Union while arrangements are made for their eventual return to their countries of origin.
The initiative reflects a broader European shift toward making irregular migration more difficult and returns more effective.
The five countries are expected to discuss the initiative at a ministerial meeting in Copenhagen this week. Uganda has emerged as the leading candidate, with reports suggesting that the facility could become operational in 2027.
Register for the next Tekedia Mini-MBA.
Register for Tekedia AI in Business Masterclass.
Join Tekedia Capital Syndicate and co-invest in great global startups.
Rwanda is also reportedly being considered as an alternative. The concept of return hubs gained a stronger legal foundation in 2026. In June, EU institutions reached agreement on a new return framework that allows member states to establish facilities in third countries for people who have received return decisions.
Such hubs could function either as temporary transfer centres or as locations from which migrants are eventually returned to their countries of origin.
For European governments, the attraction is straightforward. Returning people whose asylum claims have been rejected has historically been difficult.
The European Commission said the EU’s effective return rate reached only 28% in 2025, illustrating the gap between issuing removal decisions and actually carrying them out. The new framework is intended to close that gap through faster procedures, stronger cooperation between member states and more effective arrangements with third world countries.
The policy is part of a wider transformation in European migration management. The EU’s Pact on Migration and Asylum began applying in June, introducing faster screening and asylum procedures, stronger border-management mechanisms and new arrangements for handling migration pressure.
European governments are increasingly combining border controls, agreements with countries outside the bloc and accelerated returns in an effort to discourage irregular arrivals. Supporters argue that this approach could strengthen the credibility of Europe’s asylum system.
If migrants who have exhausted legal avenues know that a final rejection is likely to lead to removal, governments believe fewer people may attempt irregular journeys in the first place. The European Commission explicitly describes effective returns as important both for migration management and for discouraging illegal arrivals.
Critics worry that transferring migrants thousands of kilometres away could make access to legal assistance and judicial remedies more difficult. There are also concerns about whether third world-country facilities can guarantee adequate living conditions and protection from human-rights violations.
Research from the European Parliament has warned that return hubs could face significant legal and practical complications and potentially involve high costs while affecting relatively small numbers of migrants.
European law attempts to address some of these concerns. Agreements with third world countries must respect international human-rights standards and the principle of non-refoulement, which prohibits sending people to places where they face serious risks of persecution or other grave harm.
Unaccompanied minors are excluded from such arrangements. The Uganda proposal represents more than a new deportation mechanism. It signals Europe’s determination to shift migration policy from crisis response toward deterrence and enforcement.
Whether return hubs become an effective instrument or an expensive source of legal and political controversy will depend on implementation. Europe may be reducing irregular migration, but the next challenge is proving that stricter control can coexist with the continent’s obligations to human rights and asylum protection.