The European Commission introduced its proposed revision of the 2008 Return Directive on 11 March 2025. The 42-page draft document offers a common, obligatory return framework for the 27 member states as a solution for the extremely low percentage of return of rejected asylum seekers.
The most innovative part of the proposal is the concept of the so-called ‘return hubs’. These centres could be established in third countries based on agreements with member states. Previously, deportation could happen only to the country of origin or a country a migrant crossed on their way to their destination. According to the new proposal, member states could have return hub agreements with any third country considered safe for return, which significantly expands the options for returns.
The issue is of special importance as only 20% of those who get return decisions actually leave the territory of the European Union, which has been the Achilles heel of the European asylum system. Thanks to the low return numbers, millions of illegal migrants (numbering somewhere between 2.8 and 3.5 million) live in the member states, placing a huge burden on the social welfare systems. This untenable situation—further fuelled by previous judicial blocks on deportations—prompted some member states to officially establish a special status for rejected asylum seekers. For instance, Germany created the category of Duldung (Exceptional Leave to Remain). The explanation of the concept is rather paradoxical, stating that “[I]f you do not have a right to reside in Germany and are obliged to leave the country, there may still be reasons why you should be issued with a Duldung.” Which in practice means that the German authorities refuse to enforce their own country’s legally binding rulings.
Of course, creating new categories is much simpler than enforcing deportation decisions, but it will not solve the fundamental problems of the system—nor will it help deter other people from coming illegally to Germany. By the end of 2022, 248,000 people were staying in Germany under Duldung. In the meantime, Berlin deported just 16,430 rejected asylum seekers in 2023. The message was clear: if you make it to Europe, you will likely stay.
Change seems to be coming now that governments are confronted with the massive burden on public welfare systems (Germany alone spent 26.6 billion EUR on refugees in 2023), the existence of parallel societies, and the recent terrorist attacks in Germany and Austria (some of which were committed by rejected asylum seekers).However, there is no change without deterrence— and there is no deterrence without deportation. Illegal migrants who are ready to pay thousands of euros to reach the greener pastures of the EU will keep doing so if they know that they can stay even after their asylum claims were rejected. But they will likely think twice before paying such high sums to human smugglers (especially if they are not fleeing war or persecution but are simply seeking a better life) if there is a high chance of being deported back to their home country—or a third country. As research from the Leibniz Institute for Economic Research (RWI) found, “offshoring the asylum process significantly and substantially lowers irregular migration intentions across nearly all types of subjects.”
It is no accident therefore that member states made significant efforts to externalize their asylum policy. Yet, no “innovative solutions” have produced any meaningful results until now. The failure can be attributed mainly to the very limited legal framework the new EU Pact on Migration and Asylum provides for them. The only new element that seems to work is the agreements with gatekeeper countries like Egypt, Morocco, or Turkey, to reduce the number of people who reach the external borders of the EU. But if somebody has already reached the territory of a member state and applied for asylum, there is almost zero chance to keep them out, although the Italy-Albania Protocol may in fact start working again after the green light received from the Commission.
The European Commission’s new proposal is far from perfect. European countries have to make serious concessions to the third countries ready to host return hubs—even if the centres will be completely run by the member state that signed the agreement. In the meantime, it is not clear whether it is a real solution or just the prolongation of the problem: although the time limit for detention is proposed to be extended to 24 months, if both the country of origin and the third country refuse to accept the migrant permanently, the member state has to readmit them. Yet, the idea that somebody can be sent to, say, Mongolia or Rwanda after their asylum claim was rejected can have a serious effect of deterrence.
So, the new proposal—which still has to go through a lengthy legal process—has some promising features. Yet, even if it passes through the legislation process (and many progressive MEPs and NGOs have already attacked it as inhumane and cruel), it will not solve other burning issues like border protection, the possible externalization of asylum processes, and limited legal options for the detention of asylum seekers. Therefore, the big question is whether the proposal is just the end of the beginning, allowing most politicians to consider the migration crisis of Europe solved, or if it is the beginning of the end: the first important step towards closing the door on illegal immigrants crossing the Globe for better economic and social opportunities.
