Governments should require guaranteed admission and safety before deporting migrants to unconnected third countries

What's this about?

People disagree about whether governments should send migrants to new countries without a personal link. The key question is whether those countries will truly accept and protect them.

What supporters say

• Clear promises of entry, legal papers, safety, and help lower the risk of people being left alone or sent into danger.
• Governments may break safety rules if they send people to places where they may face harm, jail, or torture.
• Sending people to unknown countries can create gaps in blame, making it hard to know who must protect them.

What critics say

• Global rules do not always demand a personal link between migrants and the country that receives them.
• Careful deals between countries can share the duty to hear asylum claims and protect people.

How to read this

The number of points on each side does not show which side is right; strong proof matters more than a long list.

The bottom line

The best proof supports guaranteed entry and safety before sending migrants to unconnected countries. Still, global rules may allow some transfers without a personal link, so every case needs a careful safety check.

Governments should not deport migrants to unfamiliar third countries unless those countries have guaranteed admission and protection, according to the strongest reading of the evidence. But that does not necessarily mean every transfer without a personal connection is unlawful.

The case for

International law sets a firm safety floor. The Refugee Convention bars sending people to places where their life or freedom would be threatened, while the Convention against Torture prohibits removal when there are substantial grounds to believe someone faces torture. These rules do not require a personal connection to the receiving country, but they do require governments to assess the likely consequences of the transfer. 1

Courts have held sending countries responsible for foreseeable dangers in destination states. In *Hirsi Jamaa*, Italy was held responsible for returning migrants toward Libya, even though the transfer did not take place through ordinary territorial arrangements. In *M.S.S.*, Belgium was held responsible for sending an asylum seeker to Greece despite known weaknesses in its reception and asylum systems.

The strongest argument for the claim is that admission, legal status and protection must be real—not just promised. UNHCR guidance calls for the receiving country’s prior consent, access to an asylum procedure, lawful status, monitoring, family unity and protection against onward removal. Together, these safeguards reduce the risk that migrants will be abandoned or sent on to persecution. 2

The UK’s Rwanda case shows why formal assurances may not be enough. The Supreme Court found Rwanda unsafe at the time because institutional weaknesses created a serious risk that claims would be mishandled and people could be returned to persecution. Written commitments could not overcome evidence about how the system worked in practice.

Transfers to countries with no established connection can also create accountability gaps. Migrants may lose access to lawyers, interpreters, family procedures and effective remedies. UNHCR guidance stresses individual examination because removal to an unfamiliar country can make it harder to gather evidence and pursue a fair claim. 3

The case against

The main objection is that the claim could be read too broadly. International law generally makes safety, admission, fair procedures and protection from refoulement the decisive requirements—not a personal or institutional relationship with the receiving country. The Refugee Convention and Convention against Torture do not themselves require such a connection. 4

European safe-third-country rules allow some transfers without a conventional personal tie, provided the receiving country can admit the person and offer effective protection. The Dublin system likewise assigns responsibility among cooperating states even when an asylum seeker has limited personal links to the country handling the claim.

Structured agreements can also divide responsibility for reception and asylum processing. They may support readmission cooperation and reduce incentives for irregular movement, as long as they include due process and human-rights safeguards. The Global Compact on Migration supports cooperation on return while requiring individual assessment, due process, human rights and protection against refoulement. 5

That argument is limited, however. It is not a defense of unrestricted transfers. The legality of any agreement still depends on actual reception conditions, fair procedures and protection against onward removal. Courts and European rules require an individualized, evidence-based assessment of whether those conditions genuinely exist.

The bottom line

The evidence strongly favors requiring credible, enforceable guarantees of admission and safety before a transfer. Those guarantees should cover lawful status, access to a fair asylum procedure, protection against onward refoulement, independent monitoring, family safeguards, an individual risk assessment and a remedy if commitments fail.

But the evidence is broadly even on whether a prior personal connection is independently necessary. An unconnected transfer lacking effective safeguards is highly vulnerable to legal challenge; a cooperative transfer with demonstrated capacity and reviewable protections may be lawful.

Confidence is moderate. Legal authorities and institutional guidance consistently support careful assessment of foreseeable risks and effective protection. The main uncertainty is whether a government’s guarantee will actually work for a particular person in a particular country. There is no broad comparative dataset showing how often such promises deliver lasting admission, fair decisions, protection from onward removal or effective remedies.