Denmark, Germany, Austria, Greece and the Netherlands Agree on Model for Migrant 'Return Hubs' Outside the EU

Five European Union governments took a real step Friday toward something that would have been unthinkable in Brussels a few years ago: paying other countries to hold migrants Europe doesn't want.

Interior and migration ministers from Denmark, Germany, Austria, Greece and the Netherlands met in Copenhagen and agreed on a common model for so-called "return hubs." These are facilities in non-EU countries meant to house migrants whose asylum claims have already been rejected and who can't be sent back to their home countries, according to the Associated Press.

Danish Immigration and Integration Minister Morten Bødskov called it "a fundamental transformation of the common European migration and asylum system." Dutch Asylum and Migration Minister Bart van den Brink went further: "This is something new, and it's groundbreaking."

What Was Actually Agreed

Don't confuse Friday's announcement with a finished deal. What the five countries signed is a guiding-principles document, not a contract with any specific country, according to Euronews.

The five governments, dubbed the "Group of Five," are negotiating with governments mainly in Africa, according to the AP. Euronews reported that Uganda and Rwanda are seen as the likely candidates "according to several press reports," though none of the five ministers confirmed a country by name.

Bødskov told reporters he expects "a common understanding with a partner country outside of the European Union" around New Year's, with a goal of transferring the first migrants in 2027, according to Al Jazeera. The group is set to meet again in Munich at the end of September to keep negotiating.

Austrian Interior Minister Gerhard Karner summed up the goal bluntly: "Our common goal is pushing illegal migration towards zero."

The Legal Groundwork Already Happened

The European Parliament voted in June to let member states set up return centers outside the EU on their own or in small coalitions, according to Euronews and the AP. That change is what made Friday's announcement legally possible. Bødskov himself acknowledged the concept of return hubs was "mocked" and considered incompatible with EU and international law only a few years ago.

Who's Pushing Back, and Why

Human rights groups argue Europe can't guarantee migrants' rights will be respected once they're outside EU borders and EU courts, according to the AP. The Council of Europe, a non-EU human rights body, said in July that return hubs pose "considerable human rights risks," according to Al Jazeera.

Danish Refugee Council Secretary-General Charlotte Slente argued the EU would do better implementing the existing EU Pact on Migration and Asylum, with tighter border screening, faster returns, and better digital tracking, rather than building offshore hubs. "Return hubs focus on a small number of returns; they will not stop people from taking even more dangerous routes," Slente said, according to Al Jazeera.

That's a serious, specific objection. A hub that processes a limited number of people does little to change the underlying calculus for someone deciding whether to cross the Mediterranean in a rubber boat. Whether it holds up depends on how large these hubs actually end up being—a detail nobody has published yet, because no country has agreed to host one.

Bødskov pushed back directly on the detention framing. "We are not talking about camps, we are talking about opportunities, for a new chance for irregular migrants who cannot return to their own country today and who have no legal grounds to be in our countries," he said, according to the AP. He said the International Organization for Migration and the UN refugee agency (UNHCR) would monitor the facilities.

Neither organization confirms this. UNHCR told the AP it "has not been approached with details of such a proposal" and "cannot comment on the specific arrangements being discussed." IOM told the AP no decision has been made on its role, that "discussions remain exploratory," and that it has provided only "technical advice to some EU Member States on safeguards and operational considerations," according to Fortune's reporting of the AP account.

So the monitoring promise is, for now, a stated intention from Copenhagen, not a commitment from the two agencies that would actually do the monitoring.

Rwanda's Side of It

Rwanda has already signaled openness. Government spokesperson Yolande Makolo told Royal FM Kigali in early August that it was "natural" for Rwanda to negotiate with European and other governments about hosting asylum seekers who have no legal right to remain elsewhere, according to the AP. She pointed to an existing emergency transit mechanism in Gashora, set up in 2018 for people evacuated from Libya who stayed there pending resettlement to third countries.

Rwanda has this functioning precedent to point to. It gives the Group of Five something concrete to reference when critics say the plan is untested.

What's Still Unknown

No host country has been named. No contract has been signed. The five nations say they're fully financing the hubs and may sweeten the deal with commercial partnerships or other incentives for host governments, according to Euronews. The guiding-principles document says the arrangement will be "equal and mutually beneficial partnerships."

The next checkpoint is the Munich meeting at the end of September, where the five ministers are set to keep negotiating with candidate host countries. Whether UNHCR and IOM actually sign on to monitor whatever gets built remains an open question the agencies themselves have not answered.