Opinion written by Erasmus University Rotterdam and FAiR researchers Laura Cleton and Arjen Leerkes and Mark Klaassen, Leiden University. Originally published in in Dutch National Newspaper ‘De Volkskrant’ on 21 October 2024 (in Dutch).
Original title of article: Opinie: Oegandese terugkeerhub is niets anders dan dure symboolpolitiek. (behind paywall).
Below translated by ChatGPT:
Opinion: Ugandan Return Hub is Nothing More Than Expensive Symbolic Politics
Dutch experts believe that the plan for a return hub is undesirable. It is more likely to undermine the effectiveness of the return policy for rejected asylum seekers than to enhance it.
An effective return policy has been a priority of the Dutch government for decades. Last week, it was revealed that the Schoof Cabinet is now investigating whether rejected asylum seekers can be deported to a return hub in Uganda, from where further returns to surrounding countries would take place. This intention fits within a trend of outsourcing the responsibility for asylum seekers.
Previously, dubious deals were struck with Tunisia, Rwanda, and Albania. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen also urged EU member states last week to explore whether such hubs could be established, referring to the collaboration between Italy and Albania. However, the Italian court decided last Friday that the twelve transferred asylum seekers had to return to Italy.
Based on our research on the return of rejected asylum seekers, we can only interpret this Dutch trial balloon as symbolic politics built on quicksand, and moreover, as undesirable. There are three main reasons for this.
First of all, legal rules set strict limits to the plan. Article 3 of the EU Return Directive, which regulates the return of rejected asylum seekers, stipulates that forced return is only possible to the country of origin, a transit country, or a country where the returnee has family ties or a residence permit. Return to Uganda without such ties or transit is only allowed with voluntary return, and not through deportation, as the Cabinet seems to envision.
For voluntary return, such a hub offers little added value, as most countries usually cooperate with voluntary return. People can also already voluntarily return to another country if that country consents. These legal rules also have a moral basis: do we truly believe that we can deport people to a country with which they have no ties whatsoever?
About the Authors
Laura Cleton is a postdoctoral researcher at Erasmus University Rotterdam. Mark Klaassen is an assistant professor of Migration Law at Leiden University and a member of the Migration Advisory Council. Arjen Leerkes is a professorial fellow at Maastricht University / UNU-MERIT and an associate professor of Sociology at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
This is a submitted opinion piece and does not necessarily reflect the stance of de Volkskrant. Read more about our opinion piece policy here.
No Inhumane Treatment
Additionally, forced deportation must never lead to inhumane treatment. Even when deporting asylum seekers who have been found ineligible for protection in the Netherlands, this minimum threshold prohibits deportation if someone ends up in Uganda in such miserable conditions that it constitutes inhumane treatment. This follows from multiple human rights treaties, including the European Convention on Human Rights, and EU law.
Should the return hub materialize, individual circumstances in Uganda would need to be assessed case by case. And it is precisely here that Uganda experts are concerned. The country has strict anti-LGBTQ legislation, has long suppressed political opposition, and lacks freedom of expression. Previous European deals with Tunisia and Libya have already led to egregious human rights violations, including slave labor and extortion in Libya, illegal pushbacks in the Mediterranean, and the abandonment of asylum seekers in the Tunisian desert. Europe turns a blind eye to these consequences: everything seems permissible as long as rejected asylum seekers leave or, better yet, never reach Europe.
Secondly, cynicism about European return policies will increase in countries of origin. Return hubs appear to primarily serve as dumping grounds for (rejected) asylum seekers, thereby shifting the responsibility for sustainable solutions outside Europe. This shows that Europe apparently does not take its own ideas about human rights and the rule of law—concepts it often promotes to the Global South—very seriously.
Cynicism
We know that forced return is a sensitive issue in countries of origin, among both governments and citizens, as well as among the diaspora of these countries in Europe. International research, led by Erasmus University, shows, however, that supported return, with serious attention to reintegration of returnees and the interests of countries of origin, garners more support. Proposals that disregard the interests of returnees and the Ugandan population, let alone ones made without prior consultation between the Dutch and Ugandan governments, as revealed last Friday, fuel cynicism about Europe’s migration policy.
In the long term, this will undermine the legitimacy of return policies in the eyes of countries of origin. Political scientists know that deep pockets alone do not create effective policies: support is also crucial for policy effectiveness.
Thirdly, there are the financial costs. The EU invests billions in migration deals: for example, the deal with Tunisia cost nearly 1 billion euros. The question is what this yields. Although irregular migration from Tunisia to the EU has indeed decreased, there has been a doubling of such migration to the Canary Islands. Human rights violations, but no solution for irregular migration. The UK’s financial watchdog recently calculated that the now-canceled deal between the United Kingdom and Rwanda, which was to manage the reception of ‘English’ asylum seekers, would have cost 600 million British pounds for the first 300 asylum seekers. Although figures for this plan are not yet available, even a fraction of that would be an exorbitant price.
Investing in Voluntary Return
How should we deal with rejected asylum seekers? Research shows that it pays off to invest in voluntary return, making balanced agreements with countries of origin that include sustainable reintegration and legal migration, and seriously considering alternative residency options when return cannot ultimately be enforced.
For multiple reasons, the idea of a Ugandan return hub is expensive symbolic politics. Legal and moral boundaries are crossed, even after amendments to the EU Return Directive. Moreover, it is likely to undermine, rather than enhance, the effectiveness of return policies.