Removals are the cornerstone of credible immigration policy. Get that right, and voters will forgive a lot. When Rishi Sunak thrashed out a returns deal with Albania in 2023, the number of illegal migrants arriving from that country fell sharply. In fact, the government in Tirana was unusually cooperative when Sunak came knocking. For once, a UK prime minister had something concrete to show for all the tough talk — and, crucially, it worked.

Now, another embattled prime minister is trying his luck. With his poll numbers tanking to record lows, Keir Starmer decided that a diplomatic victory in Tirana might buy him some breathing space. This week he proposed that Albania host “return hubs” for attempted asylum seekers illegally entering Britain, only to be politely but firmly rebuffed by his counterpart Edi Rama. The Albanian leader is already finalising a similar deal with Italy: why would he want to duplicate it?

It’s notable that Labour’s pitch goes further than Sunak’s ever did. This isn’t just about booting out gang members and Albanian dinghy arrivals. Instead, Starmer wants a full-scale returns regime — covering all illegal migrants — complete with the aforementioned “return hubs”.

The Government’s pivot has justifiably triggered cries of hypocrisy, given that one of Starmer’s first acts in office was scrapping the Tories’ Rwanda plan. This would’ve sent illegal arrivals to the African country for processing and, in most cases, permanent resettlement. At the time, Starmer dismissed the policy as a gimmick — a taxpayer-funded farce. Now he’s repackaging the same logic under a new name.

As the PM now seeks alternative “third countries” to take Albania’s place in hosting the hubs, pressing questions remain. Will migrants be indefinitely detained? Will they be granted settled status? Or will they rot in limbo until a London lawyer finds a loophole? We don’t know — and that’s a problem.

The concept itself isn’t objectionable. If Labour is finally serious about stopping illegal immigration, then third-country deals are the logical next step. Reform UK leader Nigel Farage has said much the same, floating “safe” nations where Britain could send people it can’t deport directly. The logic is simple: if you can’t send them home, send them somewhere else. The aim isn’t perfection but deterrence. You break the smugglers’ model by breaking the promise of permanent settlement.

Despite Rama’s snub, Labour remains undeterred. Starmer is now courting other Balkan countries, plus a few long shots beyond Europe. Yet it’s hard to imagine a small European state eagerly importing culturally mismatched, military-aged men rejected by the UK. Cases such as Sweden will have provided a cautionary tale. And even if a deal is struck, don’t expect anything sweeping. More likely, it’ll be narrow in scope, riddled with caveats, and nowhere near the silver bullet Labour wants to sell.

This brings us to the real question: why, after months of sneering at Rwanda, is Labour suddenly pivoting to offshore deals of its own? The answer surely lies in the numbers. Over 12,000 people have crossed the English Channel already this year — a new record. “Smash the gangs” sounded great on paper, but it was always a fantasy. Smuggling networks are diffuse, agile, and global: they can’t be dismantled with Home Office statements. What is needed is military-grade intelligence, not to mention deep cooperation from countries such as Turkey, China, Bulgaria and France. Good luck with that.

Starmer is quickly learning that the world of illegal migration is not like the courtroom. The tools he used as Director of Public Prosecutions don’t work here. And with Reform UK rising in the polls, Labour strategists are starting to panic. They saw what happened to Sunak, and know they could be next.

They are therefore scrambling for a plan B. But having thrown Rwanda in the bin, they’ve left themselves with very few levers. And what they’re discovering — perhaps too late — is that serious immigration control requires more than slogans and press conferences. It demands will, clarity, and follow-through. That’s because, in the end, deterrence isn’t just a tactic. It’s the only thing that works.

---

Mike Jones is a political scientist, specialising in migration.

technopopulist

---