The European Union's recent proposal to send “unwanted migrants” to countries such as [Uganda, Uzbekistan, and Albania] [https://www.thenationalnews.com/news/europe/2024/10/18/uganda-uzbekistan-albania-where-eu-could-send-unwanted-migrants/] raises significant ethical and practical concerns. This approach, which involves creating "return hubs" for migrants denied asylum in Europe, reflects a troubling trend toward [outsourcing the responsibility of handling migrants and asylum seekers][https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2024/05/16/15-eu-countries-call-for-the-outsourcing-of-migration-and-asylum-policy]. Not only does this strategy risk violating international human rights standards, but it also fails to address the root causes of migration and undermines the moral obligations of host countries.

The concept of relocating migrants to third countries is not unprecedented. The United Kingdom, for example, attempted a similar strategy with its plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda. Announced in 2022, the [£120 million deal] [https://time.com/6187390/uk-rwanda-asylum-seekers-deportation/] faced immediate backlash from human rights organizations and legal challenges. In 2023, the [UK Court of Appeal ruled the plan unlawful][https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/11/15/uk-supreme-court-finds-uk-rwanda-asylum-scheme-unlawful], citing concerns that asylum seekers could face persecution or inhumane treatment in Rwanda, thereby violating the UK's obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights.

States have a moral obligation to consider the legitimate interests of migrants, even if they do not meet the strict legal definition of refugees. Many migrants flee their home countries due to extreme poverty, political instability, or environmental disasters — factors that, while not always recognized under asylum law, represent serious threats to their well-being. Sending these individuals to distant countries may overlook their legitimate interests and reduce complex human lives to mere logistical problems. Implementing these "return hubs" presents numerous practical challenges. Questions abound about the legality of detaining migrants in third countries and the standards of care they would receive. International human rights law, including the [United Nations' International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights] [https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-civil-and-political-rights], prohibits arbitrary detention and mandates humane treatment for all individuals deprived of their liberty. Additionally, the [European Convention on Human Rights] [https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/guidance/human-rights-and-complaints-ombudsman-schemes/right-be-free-torture-or-cruel-inhuman-or#:~:text=Article%203%20of%20the%20Human,or%20extradition%20to%20another%20country] requires that any transfer of individuals must not expose them to the risk of torture or degrading treatment.

Legal hurdles also arise concerning the principle of non-refoulement from the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, a cornerstone of international refugee law, which prohibits countries from returning individuals to places where they face serious threats to their life or freedom. If the designated "return hubs" are in countries with questionable human rights records or inadequate asylum systems, the EU could be complicit in violating this principle. Despite the availability of more humane alternatives, the EU is under increasing political pressure to curb irregular migration — pressure that is driven by rising populist sentiments and concerns over security and resource allocation. The fear of negative impacts such as strains on public services, integration challenges, and perceived threats to cultural identity have led some EU member states to support stricter measures, even at the expense of human rights obligations. For instance, Uzbekistan, one of the potential locations for the “return hubs,” has been criticized by organizations like [Amnesty International] [https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/europe-and-central-asia/eastern-europe-and-central-asia/uzbekistan/report-uzbekistan/] for human rights abuses, including restrictions on freedom of expression and assembly. Moreover, countries like Uganda already face immense challenges in supporting large refugee populations from neighboring conflict zones. According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Uganda hosts over [1.7 million refugees] [https://www.unhcr.org/news/press-releases/news-comment-un-high-commissioner-refugees-calls-global-support-more-people], primarily from South Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo. This influx strains the country's resources, infrastructure, and social services. Adding more migrants from Europe could exacerbate these challenges, leading to overcrowded camps, insufficient access to healthcare and education, and heightened tensions between refugees and host communities.

Rather than outsourcing migrant management, European countries should focus on creating fair and humane immigration policies that respect international obligations. This includes improving asylum processing systems to reduce backlogs and ensure timely decisions, as well as investing in integration programs that help migrants contribute positively to their new communities. Germany's integration courses, which offer language training and cultural orientation, while still facing [difficulties of integration,] [https://www.rferl.org/a/germany-migrants-afghanistan-ukraine-bosnia-refugees-integration/32732326.html] reflect a far more appropriate if not humane way to approach new migrants.

Addressing the underlying causes of migration requires a nuanced approach beyond mere financial investment. While conflicts, economic disparities, and climate change remain key drivers, the European Union’s strategies, such as the EU Emergency Trust Fund for Africa, have faced [criticism] [https://www.europeandatajournalism.eu/cp_data_news/europe-is-spending-billions-to-fight-immigration-to-what-end/] for prioritizing border control over tackling these root issues. Although the EUTF was intended to promote stability and curb irregular migration from Africa, its implementation has often leaned towards restrictive migration management rather than fostering sustainable development solutions. The focus on reducing irregular migration flows has overshadowed efforts to address deeper problems like corruption, lack of public services, and governance challenges that push people to migrate. The European Union can implement strategies that focus on fostering economic development, political stability, and environmental sustainability in migrants' countries of origin. This could involve increasing development aid targeted at creating job opportunities, investing in education and healthcare systems, and supporting infrastructure projects that boost local economies. The EU can play a pivotal role in conflict resolution by supporting peacekeeping missions and promoting good governance practices to reduce political instability and violence. By addressing climate change through global initiatives and aiding vulnerable regions in climate adaptation efforts, the EU can also mitigate environmental factors that compel people to migrate.

Adopting a cosmopolitan perspective that recognizes the shared humanity and rights of all individuals could lead to more equitable solutions. Our obligations to others are not confined by national borders but should be rooted in shared human dignity. Even when immigration does not yield immediate economic benefits for host countries, there should still be a moral imperative to admit migrants based on principles of justice and compassion.

While the EU's proposal might seem like an innovative solution to a complex issue, it ultimately falls short of addressing the ethical responsibilities inherent in managing migration. A more compassionate and just approach is needed — one that upholds human dignity and acknowledges the interconnectedness of our global community. By embracing policies that respect human rights and consider the factors that compel people to migrate, European countries can fulfill their moral obligations and contribute to a more just and equitable world. Joshua Isaac is a Senior Opinion Editor. Email them at feedback@thegazelle.org.