CIVICUS discusses the Dutch government’s new migration plan with Femke de Vries, coordinator for European Union (EU) policy and advocacy at the Dutch Council for Refugees, a human rights organisation that supports asylum seekers in the Netherlands.

Anti-migrant policies are on the rise as far-right parties gain influence across Europe. In the Netherlands, the conservative government is considering a plan proposed by the far-right Freedom Party, a member of the ruling coalition, to send rejected asylum seekers to Uganda in exchange for financial aid. Details remain unclear, and the Dutch prime minister has admitted that the plan may not be feasible, with critics also making clear it is unethical given Uganda’s anti-LGBTQI+ laws and dismal human rights record. Uganda’s response has also been mixed, stressing that it already hosts 1.6 million refugees and opposes deportation.

What’s the new migration plan?

The government has proposed setting up a ‘return hub’ in Uganda for rejected asylum seekers who cannot return to their home countries for security or logistical reasons, such as lack of proper documentation. While the Dutch Minister of Foreign Trade has reportedly initiated discussions with Uganda, the Ugandan government has publicly denied any formal negotiations or agreements on the matter. This discrepancy highlights the speculative nature of the proposal, which remains vague and appears to be a political test rather than a viable policy backed by legal or logistical planning.

The initiative reflects a wider European trend of outsourcing asylum responsibilities. But unlike the UK’s and Denmark’s controversial Rwanda deals, the Dutch plan is to make Uganda a temporary hub for rejected asylum seekers, rather than a place where their claims are processed. At a time when the system is under severe pressure, this proposal aims to ease the strain on the Dutch asylum system and reduce domestic political pressure.

However, like the British and Danish plans, it faces significant legal and ethical challenges. European law requires a ‘connection criterion’, meaning that a person can only be transferred to another country that they have a demonstrable connection to, such as a previous stay. Uganda does not meet this criterion for most asylum seekers in the Netherlands, so the proposal is likely to violate international and European asylum laws.

In response, the Dutch government has pushed for changes to European law to weaken the connection criterion. If successful, this move would change the EU’s approach to migration by undermining core humanitarian principles, and would also set a dangerous precedent for wealthier nations to outsource asylum responsibilities to less resourced countries.

How does Uganda’s human rights record affect the credibility of the plan?

Uganda’s human rights record has significantly undermined its credibility as a partner. Human rights defenders have raised serious concerns about Uganda’s capacity to receive rejected asylum seekers from Europe and the potential dangers these people could face. Uganda’s harsh anti-LGBTQI+ laws, political repression and poor detention conditions raise concerns that asylum seekers could face abuse, mistreatment and discrimination if transferred there.

The Dutch government has tried to use Uganda’s regional efforts to host refugees from the Democratic Republic of the Congo and South Sudan as evidence of its suitability for this partnership. But this oversimplifies the reality, because hosting refugees from neighbouring countries within a common regional framework is fundamentally different from hosting rejected asylum seekers from Europe. On top of this, Uganda would not be a suitable partner for most of Europe’s rejected asylum seekers, who typically have no ties to the country.

Instead of outsourcing migration management to countries with questionable human rights records, the Dutch government should improve integration programmes for asylum seekers, ensuring fair processing of rejected claims and addressing the root causes of migration. Building partnerships with countries of origin to facilitate safe, voluntary returns is a more sustainable and ethical alternative to overburdening Uganda’s already strained system.

Why are European governments tightening immigration policies at a time when migrant flows are declining?

Public perceptions of migration remain heavily influenced by past crises, such as the wave of refugees from Syria in 2015 and the more recent  arrival of many Ukrainian refugees. These events have shaped sensitivities about migration, which far-right parties have exploited to amplify anti-migrant narratives.

In the Netherlands, far-right political groups have blamed asylum seekers for wider societal problems such as housing shortages and pressure on public services. This rhetoric persists despite the fact that asylum seekers make up only 10 per cent of migrants, with most being economic migrants, international students or workers.

Across Europe, the rise of nationalist parties has fostered a political climate in which these restrictive migration policies are gaining traction, even in countries with relatively low numbers of new arrivals.