The UK government is considering a controversial new scheme aimed at tackling the rising number of illegal Channel crossings by sending failed asylum seekers to overseas migrant hubs in the western Balkans. The plans, primarily in the preliminary discussion stages, propose establishing ‘return hubs’ in countries like Albania, Serbia, Bosnia, and North Macedonia, where individuals who have had their asylum claims rejected would be housed. This idea comes amid growing concern over the significant increase in small boat arrivals, with over 5,000 migrants reaching British shores already in 2025— the earliest this grim milestone has been reported since records began in 2018.
Keir Starmer’s Labour government, stepping into the fray of immigration policy, is reportedly eager to explore these international solutions. According to government sources that spoke to The Times, the government is looking for effective responses to the ongoing immigration crisis, stating, “this is clearly a shared challenge right across the world and we’ve always said this international problem needs an international solution.” Meanwhile, the government has indicated that any partners in this initiative would be compensated for each individual they house under the program.
However, these plans have drawn sharp criticism from refugee charities, who argue that such tactics are not feasible and merely sound tough without offering real solutions. Enver Solomon, chief executive of the Refugee Council, firmly stated, “Returning people who don’t have a right to be in the UK is an important part of a functioning asylum system but headline-grabbing gimmicks and knee-jerk proposals that are about sounding tough will not work. There needs to be a serious approach that is based on credible solutions.” His sentiment reflects a broader skepticism regarding the effectiveness of the proposed hubs in genuinely aiding those seeking asylum.
The scheme marks a significant pivot from the Conservative government’s previous attempt to manage immigration through a controversial Rwanda scheme aimed at deporting all illegal arrivals before their cases were heard. This previous strategy faced widespread condemnation and was deemed unlawful by the Supreme Court in 2023. In contrast, the current Labour proposal would only apply to asylum seekers whose claims have already been rejected, a difference that officials argue would ensure a more judicious handling of the cases.
In practical terms, the recent uptick in illegal boat crossings has become a pressing concern for both local authorities and government officials. Reports indicate that on a single day in March 2025, as many as 341 migrants crossed the Channel in just six boats— a statistic that reflects a 28% increase in such crossings since the election. Chris Philp, the Shadow Home Secretary from the Conservative Party, criticized the Labour move as an admission of failure, asserting that their attempt to “smash the gangs” in charge of smuggling operations has been unsuccessful.
He stated bluntly, “This is Labour admitting they made a catastrophic mistake in canceling the Rwanda scheme before it even started. The fact they are now looking at offshore processing shows they were wrong to cancel Rwanda before it even started and shows their attempts to ‘smash the gangs’ have failed.” This critique illustrates the political volatility surrounding immigration topics, which seems to become a central battleground between the two major parties.
Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey welcomed the cessation of the Rwanda scheme but still emphasized the urgency of addressing the slow processing times of asylum claims. He expressed concerns about the high volume of arrivals and how delays create additional costs for taxpayers. Speaking during a recent conference, he said, “I’m actually glad that the government scrapped the Rwanda scheme because it wasn’t working as a deterrent. If they’ve got a better scheme that will work, we’ll look at that.”
Critics emphasize that the potential ‘return hubs’ may not only face legal challenges but also practical limitations, pointing to failed attempts by Italy to establish similar facilities in Albania, which were blocked by courts. As discussions progress, government officials remain reserved about revealing too much in advance. “They don’t want to preempt any discussions which haven’t even officially begun yet,” a source noted, indicating a cautious approach to negotiations with potential countries involved.
Overall, while the UK government pushes forward with discussions regarding offshore asylum processing, public opinion remains divided. Many advocate for solutions that consider the humanitarian needs of asylum seekers, while others emphasize stricter enforcement of borders. The complexity of the asylum situation requires a multifaceted solution that accounts for both legal and humanitarian perspectives. As events unfold, the interactions between local and international stakeholders will undoubtedly shape the future of the UK’s immigration policies.
