Migration in Europe is no longer merely a matter of border security or asylum policy. It has evolved into a complex equation involving political stability, public opinion, economic considerations, and international law. The recent initiative by Germany, Austria, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Greece to establish so-called “Return Hubs” outside the European Union (EU) reflects this changing reality.

If implemented, asylum seekers whose applications have been definitively rejected and who cannot be immediately repatriated to their countries of origin could be temporarily transferred to facilities in Africa or other third countries. The primary objective is to make the return process faster, more efficient, and politically acceptable.

At first glance, the proposal may appear to be an administrative measure designed to improve the effectiveness of migration management. A closer examination, however, reveals that it represents a fundamental shift in European migration policy one whose implications extend well beyond Europe and could significantly affect countries of origin such as Bangladesh.

The arguments advanced by European governments are not without merit. Currently, fewer than one-third of individuals issued return orders are ultimately repatriated. Many remain in Europe due to legal challenges, diplomatic hurdles, or administrative obstacles, placing additional strain on national asylum systems and fueling the rise of anti-immigration politics.

It is against this backdrop that the European Commission has proposed a new Return Regulation. Yet an important question remains: *Can administrative efficiency ever be allowed to supersede fundamental human rights?*

This is where the controversy begins

International refugee law, the European Convention on Human Rights, and the principle of non-refoulement all rest on a fundamental premise: no individual should be transferred to a place where their life, liberty, or basic rights may be at risk. Establishing return hubs in third countries raises legitimate concerns that rejected asylum seekers may lose meaningful access to legal assistance, judicial review, and international protection.

Australia’s experience with offshore processing has already demonstrated that such policies can result in prolonged uncertainty, severe psychological distress, and significant humanitarian consequences.

For Bangladesh, the issue is particularly significant.

According to the European Union Agency for Asylum (EUAA), Bangladesh ranked as the fourth-largest country of origin for asylum applicants in the EU in 2025. Nearly 37,000 Bangladeshis submitted asylum applications, yet the first-instance recognition rate stood at only 3 percent. This means that the overwhelming majority of applicants ultimately face the prospect of rejection.

At the same time, it is important to recognize that the proposed Return Hub policy has not yet become law. It must still pass through the European Parliament’s legislative process, and significant differences remain among EU member states. Moreover, no formal agreements have yet been concluded with any prospective host country. It would therefore be premature to present the proposal as an established policy.

The Government of Bangladesh has likewise confirmed that it has not received any official communication regarding the initiative. Rather than generating unnecessary anxiety, the situation calls for careful observation and informed analysis.

Nevertheless, another reality cannot be ignored

Many Bangladeshis continue to travel to Europe through both regular and irregular channels and subsequently apply for political asylum. Yet the statistics clearly indicate that the overwhelming majority of these applications fail to meet the legal criteria for international protection. This not only leaves applicants facing prolonged uncertainty but also risks undermining Bangladesh’s international reputation and its prospects for expanding legal labour migration.

In light of these developments, Bangladesh should focus on three strategic priorities.

First, it must expand legal labour migration opportunities while investing in skills development to increase the competitiveness of its workforce.

Second, stronger public awareness campaigns are needed to discourage irregular migration and the misuse of asylum procedures.

Third, Bangladesh should maintain regular diplomatic engagement with the European Union to build a balanced framework for migration cooperation, return arrangements, and reintegration.

Europe, too, must recognize that migration is not merely a security issue. It is also a consequence of global inequality, armed conflict, climate change, and uneven economic development. Tougher return policies alone cannot address these deeper structural causes.

Return Hubs may improve administrative efficiency, but if they weaken the protection of fundamental human rights, they risk undermining the democratic values that Europe has long sought to uphold.

There is no doubt that migration systems require order and credibility. However, that order must never come at the expense of human dignity, international law, or the principles of justice. Striking the right balance between effective migration management and the protection of fundamental rights should remain the highest priority not only for Europe but for all democratic societies.

(Shahidul Alam Swapan, Private Banking Financial Crime Specialist based in Switzerland, Columnist and Poet)