Key Takeaways
• Starmer proposes ‘return hubs’ in Eastern Europe and Balkans for failed asylum seekers.
• Only individuals with all appeals denied face relocation, not those with pending claims.
• No final agreements signed; Albania has refused participation amid ongoing negotiations.
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer’s recent announcement about sending failed asylum seekers abroad marks a new chapter in the United Kingdom 🇬🇧’s approach to immigration. The policy, focused on “return hubs,” aims to address public worries about growing numbers of people entering and staying in the country after their asylum claims are denied. While bold and designed to signal a stronger stand on illegal entry, this policy brings many questions about legality, cost, and actual effectiveness.
Let’s break down what’s happening, why it matters, and what lies ahead for people affected by these changes.
What Is the Starmer Return Hubs Plan?
The UK 🇬🇧 government, under Prime Minister Starmer, wants to build new “return hubs” in other countries for failed asylum seekers. These are people who have gone through the whole UK 🇬🇧 asylum process, had their applications turned down, and lost any appeals they tried to make.
What are return hubs?
Return hubs would be centers or spaces in certain countries where these failed asylum seekers would stay while plans are made to send them back to their home countries. The UK 🇬🇧 government is still talking to other governments about where these hubs might be.
- The hubs would not hold people waiting for first asylum decisions.
- Only those who have no legal right to remain in the UK 🇬🇧 would be moved there.
- They would stay in these locations temporarily while officials sort out paperwork, travel, and safe returns to their original countries.
According to reports, countries being considered include several in Eastern Europe and the Western Balkans, such as Serbia 🇷🇸, Bosnia 🇧🇦, North Macedonia 🇲🇰, Montenegro 🇲🇪, and Bulgaria 🇧🇬. Albania 🇦🇱 has already said it will not allow such centers in its territory, mainly due to its own immigration deal with Italy 🇮🇹.
Why Is This Happening Now?
The UK 🇬🇧 has faced heavy criticism from people and politicians worried about the number of migrants crossing the Channel. Many enter illegally or overstay after their claims are rejected.
Pressure is coming from the right, especially from Nigel Farage’s Reform party, which calls for strict action against illegal migration. At the same time, many within Starmer’s Labour Party want a clear difference between their approach and older Conservative policies, like the much-criticized Rwanda plan.
Starmer has called the return hubs plan “no silver bullet” but says it’s an “important innovation” — a new way to try and solve the old problem of people who remain in the country after they are told they can’t stay.
VisaVerge.com’s investigation reveals that this policy tries to find a middle path: show toughness on illegal entry, but avoid the broad, blanket schemes that ran into legal trouble before.
Return Hubs vs. The Old Rwanda Scheme
Understanding why Starmer’s return hubs idea is different (and how it’s similar) to the Rwanda scheme is important:
- Who would be sent?
- Rwanda scheme: Sent almost anyone who arrived seeking asylum, even before their claims were checked.
- Starmer’s hubs: Only targets people already failed by the asylum system, with no more appeals.
- Where would they be sent?
- Rwanda scheme: Sent people to Rwanda 🇷🇼, in Africa.
- Starmer’s plan: Mainly aims for third countries in Eastern Europe and the Western Balkans.
- Rights and Status
- Rwanda: People might still be real refugees who later win their claims; they’d be facing the risk of being sent away just for arriving.
- Starmer’s policy: Focuses only on those found to have no right to protection.
- Main Criticisms
- Rwanda: Many saw it as unfair and possibly illegal to send people who might need real protection; also, it was extremely costly.
- Hubs: Still faces concerns about human rights but is narrower in scope.
Both approaches are controversial in their own ways, but Starmer’s plan is not as sweeping as its predecessor.
Political, Legal, and Social Hurdles
Turning an idea like return hubs into real policy faces a lot of challenges.
Political Pressures
Starmer’s Labour Party wants to show that it’s serious about border control. Many voters, especially after the rise of the Reform party led by Nigel Farage, expect a tough response to illegal entry. But Labour also needs to avoid upsetting its own supporters, many of whom thought the Rwanda plan was too harsh.
This proposal is seen as a way to win back those worried about migration without returning to the full-scale, blanket removals of the past.
Legal Challenges
Major legal questions surround the process:
- Under international law, no one should be sent to a place where they could face harm, torture, or cruel treatment. Some countries on the list, such as Bulgaria 🇧🇬, have faced criticism for poor living conditions and reports of mistreatment.
- Human rights groups warn against sending even failed asylum seekers to locations where basic living standards or fair treatment can’t be guaranteed.
- Host countries must also agree to take on the responsibility—which is not simple. Many countries may need changes to their legal systems before they can run such hubs.
Italy 🇮🇹, for example, struggled to house migrants returned from other EU countries because their courts demanded stronger legal protections for anyone held in centers.
The United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR) has said return hubs could be possible, but only if all human rights rules are closely followed.
Costs and Partnerships
Running overseas centers for failed asylum seekers is expensive. Critics question if the money might not be better used inside the UK 🇬🇧, or to help speed up the legal process for checking asylum claims. There are also doubts about finding enough partner countries willing to cooperate.
Albania 🇦🇱 very publicly rejected the idea. It has already agreed to take migrants for Italy 🇮🇹 and does not want to take on more for the UK 🇬🇧. This refusal shows how hard it can be to reach reliable agreements with other countries.
Practical Issues
Even if agreements are made, organizing safe, fair, and timely returns for failed asylum seekers is a major job. Arranging travel, making sure documents are in order, and keeping people’s rights protected all add complexity.
Plus, until the agreements are made public, it is unclear how long someone might stay in a return hub, what rights they’d have, and who would pay the costs.
Voices and Concerns About the Plan
Human rights groups have quickly raised their concerns about the proposal:
- They worry that return hubs might expose people to unsafe or undignified conditions—especially if the host country has a poor record on treatment of migrants.
- Some point out that moving people far from the UK 🇬🇧 may make it harder for lawyers, inspectors, or family to check on their well-being.
- There is also fear that such arrangements could become long-term holding centers instead of short stops before removal, raising further legal questions.
Some politicians in the Labour Party support the idea, arguing that it’s a needed step to keep border promises and stop criminal smuggling groups. Others are cautious, wanting more details on costs, deals with partner countries, and protections for people sent to these hubs.
The main Conservative opposition calls Starmer’s plan a copy of their own approach—without solving the real issues they struggled with. They argue that unless deals are watertight and humane, the plan will face the same legal roadblocks.
Meanwhile, host countries in the Balkans weigh the risks and benefits. Some local leaders are open to talks, seeing possible financial or diplomatic rewards, but public opinion in their own countries may shift if too many people are sent.
What Happens Next?
As of May 2025, no contracts or final deals have been signed with potential host countries. Talks are ongoing, with much of the focus on the Western Balkans. Key details remain unknown:
- Which exact countries will agree to set up return hubs?
- How many people could be sent there each year?
- How long would failed asylum seekers have to stay in these places?
- Who would run the centers and oversee basic rights and safety?
Without answers, many groups—supporters and critics alike—are left waiting to see what real-world policy might look like.
For people still in the asylum process in the UK 🇬🇧, these plans do not yet apply. Only those who have gone through all appeals and have no more rights to stay would face being sent to a hub.
Comparing to Other Countries’ Approaches
The UK 🇬🇧 is not alone in looking for tough answers to irregular migration. Several EU countries have tried striking deals with nations outside Europe to hold or remove failed asylum seekers. Italy 🇮🇹 sends some of its rejected cases to Albania 🇦🇱, for example, but has faced many legal challenges and delays.
So far, most of these schemes are small and experimental rather than national policy. They also tend to be expensive, controversial, and are often partly symbolic—meant more to scare off would-be migrants than as a full solution to the actual problem.
Immediate Impact on Stakeholders
For failed asylum seekers:
The main impact is uncertainty. For those without legal status, life may mean waiting for removal without any clear idea where they could be sent, or how fair their treatment will be.
For partner countries:
Agreeing to host a UK 🇬🇧 return hub could bring new money and build closer relationships with the UK 🇬🇧, but also risk local unrest or international criticism.
For the UK 🇬🇧 government:
Success could deliver a political win at home, showing that Starmer’s Labour Party can balance border control with the need for fairer and more workable migration policies.
For advocacy groups and lawyers:
They are likely to keep pushing for detailed rules to protect people’s rights at every step, from transfer to removal.
Legal and International Framework
Starmer’s plan must be checked against UK 🇬🇧 and worldwide laws that guard against unfair treatment or forced removal to unsafe countries. This includes:
- The European Convention on Human Rights
- The Refugee Convention
- UK 🇬🇧 domestic laws on detention, removal, and appeals
- Requirements for democracy and fair treatment in host countries
Any slip-up could see the whole plan blocked by UK 🇬🇧 or international courts, as happened more than once with the Rwanda policy.
Where Can You Learn More?
If you want to check official rules and live updates about the UK 🇬🇧’s asylum system, visit the UK Government’s official immigration pages. This site gives up-to-date details on rules and changes as policy develops.
Conclusion: A Policy in Progress
Starmer’s return hubs plan for failed asylum seekers is bold but not yet fully built. Its main selling point is a stronger stance against illegal stayers, without the broad brush of past Conservative schemes like Rwanda. With practical, legal, and political questions still open, its real-life effect is far from certain.
Whether this will quiet public concerns, win back support for Labour, and satisfy human rights requirements depends on what happens next—in quiet talks between the UK 🇬🇧 and possible partner countries, and in public debate at home. Everyone with a stake in UK 🇬🇧 migration—failed asylum seekers, government officials, lawyers, and local communities—will be watching closely.
As reported by VisaVerge.com, it’s clear that while the plan signals a new direction, it will be judged not just by the headlines but by the details, costs, and care for people at the center of the process.
Learn Today
Return hubs → Facilities in other countries where failed UK asylum seekers are held temporarily while awaiting deportation to their countries of origin.
Asylum seeker → A person seeking protection in a foreign country due to fear of persecution, whose refugee status has not yet been determined.
Rwanda scheme → Controversial UK plan to send all asylum seekers to Rwanda regardless of case outcome, halted due to legal challenges.
Western Balkans → A region in Southeast Europe including countries such as Serbia, Bosnia, North Macedonia, Montenegro, and Albania, considered for return hubs.
European Convention on Human Rights → A treaty ensuring basic rights across Europe, which influences UK asylum, detention, and deportation policies.
This Article in a Nutshell
Prime Minister Starmer’s “return hubs” proposal signals a new immigration approach in the UK. Unlike Rwanda’s scheme, it targets only failed asylum seekers. Critics raise costs, human rights, and legal issues. No deals are finalized, and Albania has declined hosting. Its impact will depend on future agreements and implementation details.
— By VisaVerge.com
Read more:
• Asylum claims to UK rise dramatically, driven by small boat crossings
• Leicester City hosts far more asylum seekers than East Midlands average
• Coolock Factory Plan for Asylum Seekers Axed Suddenly
• Clearsprings and partners to return profits from asylum seekers’ hotels
• CGRS Immigration Judge Dashboard offers new view into asylum decisions
